Sahal this is for you!

[Final_Say]

salamz

 

subxannallah; i see you guys are at it again!

 

can i just say that;

 

you get to a point that you can share your knowledge, and it will benefit people, or that it may correct people; there is also the point where anything you sat will be looked at in a negative light, regardless of what it is;

i think on SOL the issue of salaifiyah has been exhausted, to the point where people who dislike them, hate them even more, and the followers are driven to argue and contently justify themselves over and over again, there are so many threads on this forum, about salifiay, so replies; so many contributions and so many useless posting;

 

Users of SOL seem to have reached a point where they block their ears, and blindly type or more accurately copy and past, on this internet; one can find so many things to cut and past, which may or may not be correct.

 

i think for the benefit of everyone and to stop our self from sinning we should just drop this issue, and each person should work on what they think is correct, this issue is one which can successfully be resolved in debating, but one which will lead to bashing of scholars.

 

in any case, the prophet has advised us NOT TO ARGUE BOUT religion, i think this is best for us!

 

maca salamah

[Rahima]

Rahima,

It all depends on who you ask. Look at the site islamq&a and you'll see how many fatwas they get from ibn Baz et al. This would explain why the aboveanswer was given.

Brother I don’t see how the fatwa you posted opposes the one I provided :confused: . The fatwa you provided does not deem it a sin to call yourself a Salafi-it is just a description, what is not allowed is when it is used as a way of unnecessary segregation.

 

As for this and that shaykh, like I said, all culama do not see eye to eye. Sh. Albani for example, probably the greatest scholar of our lifetime, deems it permissible for one to call him/herself Salafi but with the clause that once again it is not used for unnecessary segregation.

 

Either way, many have an obsession with this whole thing. Often it becomes apparent when they vomit “wahabism†:rolleyes: .

 

After that, the view becomes very obvious

[Viking]

Originally posted by Rahima:

Brother I don’t see how the fatwa you posted opposes the one I provided :confused: . The fatwa you provided does not deem it a sin to call yourself a Salafi-it is just a description, what is not allowed is when it is used as a way of unnecessary segregation.

Rahima,

It doesn't oppose it. It says...

 

If anyone wishes to live in harmony with the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah then he/she should follow the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah and NOT oppose them in any aspect. By making ones own research and opposing the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah, a new group will come into being resulting in an increase in sects.

 

The "new group" that the sheikh is talking about is the one referring itself as "Salafis". As you have seen, Salafai has posted even their rules which are coined by the monachy and the clerhy of Saudi Arabia.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Rahima:

As for this and that shaykh, like I said, all culama do not see eye to eye. Sh. Albani for example, probably the greatest scholar of our lifetime, deems it permissible for one to call him/herself Salafi but with the clause that once again it is not used for unnecessary segregation.

It goes without saying that the Scholars don't always agree, but your view on ssheikh Albani is also very subjective. The "Salafi" always say that ibn Baz and Albani are the greatest sheikhs of our era but those outside their sect usually don't agree, but they have high respect for them. But the "Salafi" attack other scholars with fatwas usually from the two sheikhs above.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Rahima:

Either way, many have an obsession with this whole thing. Often it becomes apparent when they vomit “wahabism†:rolleyes: .

After that, the view becomes very obvious

This might seem as a joke to you but it is not. It's not an "obsession", our Diin that is in jeopardy here.

 

Saying "Wahabism" isn't a "vomit" either. It is attributing the sect to the person who revived the thoughts of ibn Taymiyah and helped it spread. No one can deny the role AbdulWahab Najdi has had on the creation of this sect.

[xiinfaniin]

Wahabism is not a religious sect and Salafism is not different than Ahlu-Sunnah-Wal-Jamaacah.

[Viking]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Wahabism

is not a religious sect and

Salafism

is not different than

Ahlu-Sunnah-Wal-Jamaacah.

xiinfaniin,

Then why did Salafi post "Our Creed and Call" and where did he get the list from? Where you also taught these things by your macalin dugsi? Do you agree with rule no 13 in bold below?

 

We do not deem it correct to revolt against the Muslim rulers as long as they are Muslims, nor do we feel that revolutions bring about reconciliation. Rather, they corrupt the community.

 

Iran is evidence that a corrupt leader can be removed through a revolution despite him being a "Muslim" and that a revolution does bring about reconciliation.

[sahal]

[13]: We do not deem it correct to revolt against the Muslim rulers as long as they are Muslims, nor do we feel that revolutions bring about reconciliation. Rather, they corrupt the community. As for the rulers of Aden, then we feel that fighting them is obligatory, until they repent from heresy, Socialism and calling people to the worship of Lenin and Marx and other than these two from those who professed disbelief.

 

 

LA JIIFIYAANA BANAAN, LA JOOJIYAANA BANAAN

[xiinfaniin]

We do not deem it correct to revolt against the Muslim rulers as long as they are Muslims, nor do we feel that revolutions bring about reconciliation. Rather, they corrupt the community.

No I don't agree with this statement. It has many holes, brother.

[Paragon]

[13]: We do not deem it correct to revolt against the Muslim rulers as long as they are Muslims, nor do we feel that revolutions bring about reconciliation. Rather, they corrupt the community. As for the rulers of Aden, then we feel that fighting them is obligatory, until they repent from heresy, Socialism and calling people to the worship of Lenin and Marx and other than these two from those who professed disbelief.

Hmmm, the more I read or hear about this group, the more they come across as 'the vangaurd of thievery and tyrany. Time to put a stop to them.

[Rahima]

The "new group" that the sheikh is talking about is the one referring itself as "Salafis".

No! The new group is not the one just calling themselves “Salafisâ€, but rather those who call themselves “Salafis†(and others) but in reality are opposing Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah in any aspect (note the clause). Basically it is those who don’t have a true understanding of what Salafi means. The true Salafi knows that Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaaca is the way to go.

 

As you have seen, Salafai has posted even their rules which are coined by the monachy and the clerhy of Saudi Arabia.

2) In your question, if the word Salafi is referring to those who follow the Sahabah and Salf-e-Saaliheen, then in that case the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah i.e. the four Imams and their followers are all Salafis. They (Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah) maintain great respect for the Sahabah and Salaf-e-Saaliheen and follow their ways. If you are, however, referring to a specific sect, then kindly inform us as to what views they maintain and in which aspects do they differ with the four Imams.

As you can see from the fatwa you provided yourself, there is nothing wrong with the title “Salafi†as such. It used interchangeably with Ahlu Sunnah wal jamaaca, same same. Are there people who over exaggerate Salafiyah into an almost different religion, sure, but tell me where extremists don’t exist and to what ideology they do not proclaim to follow? It is not a problem exclusive to “Salafiyah†as such and to make such a claim is founded on very misinformed ideas.

 

Salafiyah is not for Saudi Arabia, so the Saudi connection is irrelevant. Basically it is to say that one follows that which the salaf (pious predecessors) were upon, which are the Quran and authentic Sunnah based on the understanding of the first three generations of Islam. Sure Muslim will cover it beautifully (which is what i prefer personally), but in a time where even some of the Druze claim Islam, distinctions may be needed, it is just a description.

 

The "Salafi" always say that ibn Baz and Albani are the greatest sheikhs of our era but those outside their sect usually don't agree, but they have high respect for them. But the "Salafi" attack other scholars with fatwas usually from the two sheikhs above.

I’m sure if I were to ask a Sufi who they deemed the greatest scholars of our lifetime, certainly Sh. Albani and Sh. Ibn Baz would not be among the ranks , but I speak in terms of those who claim to follow like I said the Quran and authentic Sunnah based on the understanding of the first three generations of Islam. Scholars (this is a noble title, not any Maxamad with minimal knowledge is a scholar, with no direct pun intended, for example brother Xamza Yusuf is not a scholar, he a dacii- propagator of Islam) disagree and lay people, such as you and I are not in a position to discuss their personal disagreements. We can choose to uphold a particular opinion because we deem that it is based on proof which is stronger, but to attack a scholar is wrong, for every wrong ruling they still receive their reward. They are humans and hence are bound to make mistakes, but they should be safe from our tongues. If some people do it, then it is ultimately their issue and it is them who will be accountable. Such individuals do not necessarily represent “Salafiyahâ€.

 

As for the opinion of Sh. Albani on this matter, check out:

 

http://www.al-manhaj.com/Page1.cfm?ArticleID=156

 

 

This might seem as a joke to you but it is not. It's not an "obsession", our Diin that is in jeopardy here.

 

Saying "Wahabism" isn't a "vomit" either. It is attributing the sect to the person who revived the thoughts of ibn Taymiyah and helped it spread. No one can deny the role AbdulWahab Najdi has had on the creation of this sect.

I think this has been done to death, but let’s get real. Wahabism is non-existent and to claim it exists is a joke. It is nothing more than a term coined by the kuffaar to divide the Muslims. For this reason it equates to vomit for it is a term used in a derogatory fashion. Where will you find a Muslim calling themselves a “Wahabi� I have yet to meet one, have you? Till this occurs, this does not exist, i mean how are you going to have a group/idealogy with no followers? Who believes in it for it to exist?

 

As for Sh. Muhammad ibn Abdulwahab, he was a great scholar of Islam and did not bring in anything new to this religion. All he did was revive Islam as it had been lost from the practice of the people.

 

Then why did Salafi post "Our Creed and Call" and where did he get the list from?

Like I said it is a word used as a distinction. I personally do not agree with the rule mentioned, but then again there are varying opinions of it even amongst the Salafi scholars (Salafi Dacwa is propagating the opinions of some Salafi scholars-still inshallah they recieve their reward from Allah). Either way does this change the position of a person with respect to their overall ideology? No. It takes more than that.

 

All in all, if we want to speak about a certain group of extremists who call them selves “Salafisâ€, then do so, but let’s not paint Salafiyyah as the problem.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Rahima:

I’m sure if I were to ask a Sufi who they deemed the greatest scholars of our lifetime, certainly Sh. Albani and Sh. Ibn Baz would not be among the ranks

,.

Why do you think the Sufis won't name them? It is because the Salafi scholars call anyone who doesn't agree with them heretics. Look at the "fatwas" Salafi (the Nomad) has posted on other scholars and you will understand what I'm talking about. He even said that Muslims should noit read the works of Al-Ghazzali (one of our greatest scholars who is even admired by non-Muslims for his wisdom).

 

 

Originally posted by Rahima:

but I speak in terms of those who claim to follow like I said the Quran and authentic Sunnah based on the understanding of the first three generations of Islam.

Every group claims this...the Shi'a too claim to be the real ahlulsunnah wa Jamaca and claim to follow the authentic hadiths and the Qur'an. Any Muslim who claims otherwise has deviated from the teachings of our Noble Prophet SAWS..

 

 

Originally posted by Rahima:

Scholars (this is a noble title, not any Maxamad with minimal knowledge is a scholar, with no direct pun intended, for example brother Xamza Yusuf is not a scholar, he a dacii- propagator of Islam) disagree and lay people, such as you and I are not in a position to discuss their personal disagreements. We can choose to uphold a particular opinion because we deem that it is based on proof which is stronger, but to attack a scholar is wrong, for every wrong ruling they still receive their reward. They are humans and hence are bound to make mistakes, but they should be safe from our tongues. If some people do it, then it is ultimately their issue and it is them who will be accountable. Such individuals do not necessarily represent “Salafiyahâ€.

First of all, we have to be careful when determining who is a scholar and who is not. We are discussing in English and this is the defintion of a scholar...

 

1 : one who attends a school or studies under a teacher : PUPIL

 

2

a : one who has done advanced study in a special field

 

b : a learned person

 

3 : a holder of a scholarship

 

 

Surely, if we are using English terms, we can not deny that Hamza Yusuf can be referred to as a scholar.

 

I'm gald to see that you dislike the criticizing of scholars, but if you read the fatwas of the "Salafiyah" scholars and observe the actions of their followers, you'd see that they are very harsh towards scholars who don't abide by their dogma. Many are referred to as heretics.

 

 

Originally posted by Rahima:

I think this has been done to death, but let’s get real. Wahabism is non-existent and to claim it exists is a joke. It is nothing more than a term coined by the kuffaar to divide the Muslims. For this reason it equates to vomit for it is a term used in a derogatory fashion. Where will you find a Muslim calling themselves a “Wahabi� I have yet to meet one, have you? Till this occurs, this does not exist, i mean how are you going to have a group/idealogy with no followers? Who believes in it for it to exist?

The "Salafiyyah" do not like the term "Wahabi" because this implies that they follow his footsteps rather than that of the Prophet SAWS. But, the reality is different. Almost all Muslims refer to them as "Wahabi" because they know that the teachings they follow (intially of ibn Taymiyyah) were revived by AbdulWahab al-Najdi and spread with the help of the Sa'ud family.

 

The followers of Imams such as Malik, Hanbali, Abu Hanifa and Shafici are referred to according to the interpretation of the sheikh they follow. Even the Shi'a are called Shi'a because they are seen to be of "Shi'at Ali" (the party of Ali [RA]).

 

The term "Wahabi" might seem loaded because the kufar use it to cause division (among Muslims) but the impact AbdulWahab al-Najdi has had on the dogma of the "Salafiyyah" movement can not be denied by any sane person.

 

 

Originally posted by Rahima:

As for Sh. Muhammad ibn Abdulwahab, he was a great scholar of Islam and did not bring in anything new to this religion. All he did was revive Islam as it had been lost from the practice of the people.

This is what his followers say! But he was a Hanbali but has departed a lot from the teachings of Imam Hanbali. I can give you two examples that have been changed from Imam Hanbali by AbdulWahhab...

 

1. Having a beard is obligatory for men.

 

2. Congregational prayers are obligatory.

 

Those who are NOT "Salafiyyah" do not follow these "new laws" but they know that both are very beneficial and are Sunnah (but NOT obligatory). They know too that congregational prayers have 27 daraja more than prayrs offered individually.

 

 

Originally posted by Rahima:

All in all, if we want to speak about a certain group of extremists who call them selves “Salafisâ€, then do so, but let’s not paint Salafiyyah as the problem.

Sahal has been through this a million times (about the ills of the "Salafiyyah" sect) and there's no point in flogging a dead horse.

[sahal]

Rahima, Has anyone of our ULUMA (both Salaf & Khalaf) called hmself as SALAFI, we heard many middle ages ULUMA labelled Shaafici, Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki etc. but we never heard one Scholar called himself or labelled by others as SALAFi.

 

 

Therefore this name is one of the recent INNOVATIONS. , whether Scholar called himself or labelled by others.

 

Those who were called Shafici, Hanbali etc were near to our Salaf some of them were living and took the knowldege from Salaf scholars like $ IMAMS and this name was their nickname not the substitution of ISLAM, but today we're hearing some ppl sayin ISLAM isn't enough you have to say i'm SALAFI etc.

 

 

When you made some innovation you have to provide an evidence, there is no evidence from KITAAB, SUNNAH, SALAFUSALIH to call yourself as SALAFI.

 

therefore, this name (SALAFI) is the INNOVATION of this ERA, and it's not allowed to call yourself rather than ISLAM. full stop.

[Final_Say]

salamz; rahima sis, you are arguing for something they do not wish to here. you have done ur best, you, u explained to the best of your ability; these people you are debating just wanna pick holes in everything u say, regardless.

they also seem to be educated in "ISLAM" which ever sect they follow, anything thing u say will be looked at frm their percpective. so just leave it. our debate may cause them or us to sin.

 

macasalam

[sahal]

Truth Hurts

[Final_Say]

lol sahal

 

if you say so brother, and if it makes u feel better;

 

but it hurts to know that attacking people, especially ulum's seems to be a hobby in SOL

 

may allah guide us all

salamz

[sahal]

I tired b4 for asking Salafi Da'wa and i'm asking you and Rahima now:

 

Give me an evidence justifying that you can call yourself SALAFI rather than than the MUSLIM?

 

 

That's what i meant TRUTH HURTS not insulting or attcking to anyone just tired waitnig an answer for the above question.