quote:Originally posted by Wanderer: Why is wahabi used as a bad word?
What are your views on wahabi's?
what are the main differences between these and other sects?
I would be grateful for your input
The Wahhabis are Coming, the Wahhabis are Coming!
By M. REZA PIRBHAI
From January 1857 to September 2007, the New York Times published eighty-six items that mention 'Wahhabism'--a 'puritanical' (salafi) Islamic creed named after its 18th century Arabian founder, Abd al-Wahhab. Six appeared before the attacks of September 2001, while eighty have appeared since. Although the frequency of references has tapered of late, giving way to more generic terms like 'Islamo-fascism,' Wahhabism continues to be stridently linked to Al-Qaeda; the Taliban Movement; the madrasas of Pakistan; the Sunni resistance in Iraq; the war in Chechnya; unrest in Dagestan; anti-government activism in Uzbekistan; multifarious attempted and successful bombings in Europe and elsewhere; the need for change in US foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia; the security threat posed by mosques in the US; and, review of the US armed forces' chaplaincy policy.
The same links are often echoed in other dailies as well as such current affairs magazines as Newsweek, and are by no means restricted to the US media, as attested by contributors to Canada's Globe and Mail, Britain's London Times, France's Le Monde diplomatique and Russia's Pravda. Many works of non-fiction also follow suit, including Charles Allen's God's Terrorists: The Wahhabi Cult and the Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad, Thomas Hammes' The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century, and Stephen Schwartz's, The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Saud from Tradition to Terror. Nor are late works of fiction exempted, as illustrated by Richard A. Clark's novel of international political intrigue, The Scorpion's Gate (2005). Given that Clark was associated with the US State Department, Pentagon and White House for three decades, not to mention the 'lapdog' stance assumed by mainstream media outlets since '9/11,' the US government is clearly on, if not behind the reins of this bandwagon--a point amply illustrated by the alarmed tone of a recently published hearing by the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, titled 'Terrorism: Growing Wahhabi Influence in the US' (2004), as well as the '9/11 Commission Report' (2004), by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the US, which concludes that Al-Qaeda belongs to the 'stream' of Islam commonly termed Wahhabism.
Although I will not suggest that this rhetoric is hegemonic, there can be no doubt that the idea of a 'Wahhabi Conspiracy' against the 'West' has, since 9/11, become lodged in the colloquial psyche of many in the US and beyond. The collective argument, however, can be reduced to three pieces of 'evidence':
1) Usama bin Laden and fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 highjackers were Saudi Arabians;
2) Saudi Arabia funds Wahhabi madrasas (schools), masjids (mosques) and imams (preachers) from South East Asia to Europe and North America, creating an ideologically and operationally coherent 'network' in which Al-Qaeda plays a leadership role; and,
3) Wahhabism is not only 'puritanical,' it is 'militantly anti-Western.' In short, Wahhabism is identified as the theology behind 'Islamo-fascism.'
Yet, there are a number of glaring omissions in this perspective, beginning with the fact that the Wahhabi clerics of Saudi Arabia--the sole state sponsor of Wahhabism--routinely issue decrees condemning jihad against the European and North American states, while Usama bin Laden has vociferously castigated renowned clerics (including Wahhabis) as 'slaves of apostate regimes' like Saudi Arabia.
As well, although Saudi Arabian funds have been used to establish various religious institutions across the globe, not only are they in the minority from state to state, but the most militant madrasas, etc., are not Saudi funded or Wahhabi in intellectual orientation. For example, in Pakistan (noted by the above governmental, media and pseudo-academic sources as a breeding ground for militant Wahhabism), an International Crisis Group study conducted in 2002, found that ninety percent of the madrasas catering to one and half million students, were proponents of South Asian 'Deobandi' or 'Barelvi' thought, while the remaining ten percent could be shared between 'Jama'at-i Islami' (Maududian), 'Shi'a' and Wahhabi organizations. The handful of madrasas promoting militancy (including the Taliban Movement) are not Wahhabi, but Deobandi, and their initial funding came from the US during the Afghan-Soviet war (1979-1989), extending to textbooks produced by USAID and Ronald Reagan's reference to their students as 'the moral equivalent of the founding fathers [of America].' Even a recent USAID report (2003) acknowledges that the link between madrasas and violence is 'rare,' and the same perspective has been forwarded to the US Congress in at least two Congress Research Services reports updated in 2004 and 2005, respectively.
The most damning indictment of the non-scholarly perspective, however, is the fact that Al-Qaeda's leadership is well known in scholarly circles to have been largely inspired by the ideology of Sayyid Qutb (d.1966), a late leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, while within the 'Salafi' fold, the Brotherhood, Wahhabism, Qutbism, Deobandism and Maududism, differ on issues as fundamental as the defensive or offensive nature of jihad, the legitimacy of 'suicide bombings' and civilian targets, the status of women, the legitimacy of electoral politics, nationalism, Pan-Islamism, Shi'ism and Sufism in Muslim society.
Demarcating the gaping chasm between scholarly and governmental/media/pseudo-academic perspectives should not be read as apologia for Wahhabism, let alone the Saudi Arabian regime that promotes it. As outlined by the eminent historian, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, many decades ago, Wahhabism rejects the "introvert warmth and other-worldly piety" of Islam's "mystical way," the rationalism of "philosophy" and "theology" and the sectarianism of the "Shi'a." In fact, Wahhabism rejects the very "interpretation of Islamwhich had become dominant" by the 18th century. As for the Saudi Arabian regime, there is little need for scholarly citations to contend that it is despotic, employing the Wahhabi creed to legitimate kingship and allow no forms of dissent within its borders.
The import of the distinction between representations of Wahhabism lies in the number of questions non-scholarly rhetoric raises about its origins and purpose in Europe and North America. To be sure, incompetence in government and elsewhere can not be discounted in explaining the distance between what is known and what is believed. However, the history of the idea of a 'Wahhabi Conspiracy' against 'Western' interests makes it plain that more directed concerns are also involved. Consider the following quote. "[D]uring many years past the Wahhabis have pursued a system in raising supplies for the support of the fanatics living beyond the North-West Frontier, who are waging war against the Government." No, these are not the words of a Whitehouse spokesperson commenting on the current debacle in 'North-West Frontier Province' of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan. These are the words of a colonial officer, uttered in 1868 and referencing the forces ranged against British rule in that same area. They were spoken in the context of a series of prosecutions called the 'Wahhabi Trials,' in which Muslims suspected of involvement in 30 years of anti-colonial activity, culminating in the 'Great Indian Mutiny' of 1857, were heard, convicted and executed or transported.
As the London Times had already published letters making the case that among these 'fanatics' were a number of Muslim 'philosophers and historians' (that is, clerics), the trials that followed the 1857 Uprising were quite explicitly directed against clerical groups, with particular emphasis placed on the prosecution of Muslim 'chaplains' in the British Indian Army. Furthermore, as it had been reported from the field that in 'every station, in every citythe movers of the present rising have agents sowing discontent and circulating intelligence,' vast swaths of the general Muslim population were identified with Wahhabism and placed under suspicion.
Indeed, even before the 1857 Uprising began, reporters of the colonial Allen's India Mail, had tied earlier, more local insurrections to an 'extraordinary system of network[that] unites together every town, village and hamlet' in South Asia. Never mind that the fragmented nature of the 1857 Uprising and those that preceded it was well known to colonial officials and other segments of the press even commented on the local, socio-economic determinants of discontent. Never mind that it was also widely known and reported that Muslims and Hindus of various sects and classes had participated in these anti-colonial actions, while even more, including Wahhabis, had not. Never mind that even those deposed and convicted in the 'Wahhabi Trials' testified that they were not Wahhabis, a significant section of the colonial establishment and the press remained adamant that the activities of 'seditious Wahhabis,' driven solely by their 'militantly anti-Western' creed, were the root cause of all the British government's failures in spreading Western 'liberalism' and 'democracy' as part of its colonial 'Civilizing Mission.' As the Bishop of London put it in 1857, the 'heathen' must be 'smote,' before the 'destinies of our race' and the 'progress of Christ and civilization' can be extended from Britain.
If the longevity of the rhetoric of a 'Wahhabi Conspiracy' against the 'West' is to be chalked up to the incompetence of its propagators, then it is ineptitude on a monumentally historic scale. Furthermore, it would also be necessary for the historian to attribute a century of cordial Anglo-American relations with actual Wahhabis to colossal oversight. After all, the Wahhabi Trials were no more than a few decades in the past when the British government, represented by 'Lawrence of Arabia,' instigated the Wahhabi House of Saud's revolt against the Ottoman Empire in World War I, then followed up by supporting the same supposedly 'anti-Western' force against local rivals to form the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.
As well, the historian would have to explain US involvement in the extraction of Saudi Arabian oil reserves from 1938 to the present as a further act of ignorance, given that the first mention of Wahhabism in the New York Times appears in a 1931 editorial that describes it as 'traditional' (itself a misnomer given the anti-traditionalist stance of 'Abd al-Wahhab), but by no means 'militantly anti-Western.' Indeed, it was not until the 1990's that Wahhabism made a limited comeback as a militant, though even then not necessarily anti-Western creed in US media and official circles. For example, in the New York Times, the US' Afghan allies against the Soviets were identified as Wahhabis by August 1989, Chechen separatists as the same by August 1999, the Taliban and Pakistani madrasas as such by June 2000 and anti-government Uzbek forces in a letter dated August 2001. Still, there was no need for alarm.
The 'problem' of Wahhabism (outside of intra-Muslim sectarian strife) was only identified in October 2001, after the '9/11' attacks on New York and Washington. Only after this event did a full-blown 'Wahhabi Conspiracy' became standard fare, with Wahhabism reprising its 19th century role as the 'fanatical' and 'despotic' antithesis of a 'Civilized World' defined by Western 'liberalism' and 'democracy.'
If not incompetence, then what explains the fact that historians of Islam and the Muslim World have long provided an alternative perspective to the theory of a 'Wahhabi Conspiracy,' while the same governmental and media outlets that tout this theory have had close relations with actual Wahhabis? I submit there is a conspiracy of sorts at play--one of willful over-simplification - but it is not a 'Wahhabi,' or even more broadly 'Islamist,' conspiracy direct against the 'West.' Rather, it is an official Anglo-American and, perhaps, more thoroughly 'Western' ruling-class propensity to obfuscate the political and socio-economic disenfranchisement that drives militancy in the Muslim World.
The prime victims of this 'conspiracy' are these governments' constituents themselves. Considering that the rhetoric of a Wahhabi Conspiracy was contrived and employed by Britain against anti-colonial movements in the 19th century, while evidence to the contrary was present and the actual Wahhabis of Arabia came to enjoy close relations with Britain, confirms that it served to cynically conceal the political and socio-economic underpinnings of those very movements from their own citizens. The sudden resurrection of this discourse now, despite a greater body of scholarly evidence to the contrary, closer ties between Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi regime and the US, as well as historical 'alliances' with the very groups today being prosecuted, makes the strongest suggestion that the contemporary rhetoric of a Wahhabi Conspiracy also serves as a mask for imperialist agendas and a carpet under which to sweep the protests and concerns of the Muslim classes disenfranchised as a result.
Now as then, Wahhabism's use as a catch-all term erases the motives of broad and disparate groups seeking redress for local discontentment caused by the colonial/imperialist activities of the powers-that-be, in favour of an official perspective, eagerly lapped up by invested media and pseudo-academic supporters, that conveniently presents a coherent, coordinated and globally conspiratorial network of ideologically driven violence and hate. 'The Wahhabis are coming,' just as the 'Commies' once were.
M. Reza Pirbhai is an assistant professor of history at Louisiana State University.
Posts: 173 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for taking the time to respond, I find that a little too political and biased in one direction rather than explaining what is wahabiism., which is what i was looking for, people's perspectives really.
quote:Originally posted by Wanderer: Thank you for taking the time to respond, I find that a little too political and biased in one direction rather than explaining what is wahabiism., which is what i was looking for, people's perspectives really.
But thanks anyway
Here you go boo
Wahabis and Salafis basically resemble each other. They both revere sheilk il sheiyookh (shiek of sheiks) Ibn Taymeyya. They are both pro-active with installing Islamic law sharia but they are both indifferent with political rule hence they don’t rise against any rulers. They both practice a form of a puritan Islam and more or less interpret in accordance with the views of previous esteemed scholars e.g. Sheik Al Bukhari, Ibn Katheer, Ibn Al-Qayyim, etc. In modern days they revered the teachings of Sheik ibn Bin Baz, Sheik Albani, Sheik Moqbel, Sheik Uthamayeen.
Ultimately many of their beliefs are very credible in many issues because they take their teachings from the days of Prophet Muhammad (saw) and that of the companions and tabi3een (or the next couple of generations after the Prophet). However when it comes to modern day issues Wahabis are very extreme in several issues. They lack compassion and mercy and tend to believe that Muslims should be beaten to perform prayers, also many of their judgments are arbitrary and Ali Ibn Talib opened such arbitrary judgments when he commanded that a drunk should be caned 80 lashes and not 40 because he believed that a drunk slanders people. Slander carrying 40 lashes punishment. The Wahabis do the same and an example of this is – if a woman is caught with two guys but only one guy was having sex with her – the other guy would be lashed as well – because they’ll argue that he would’ve had his turn. I am trying to explain this in a very layman way but I hope you arrived a general sense of what this movement is all about. I mentioned Salafis because these two are identical but not quite and many people think they are the same but no because they also vary as I mentioned earlier with Wahabis arbitrary judgments.
Posts: 2079 | From: 'by any means necessary' - Malcom X | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
He /she has been pmed on this .You could argue all day of this and if you look just being a muslim of any sect or not ,some of this can comply yes or no. I find in everyone lacks compassion and mercy would you not say .
Posts: 110 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Of course – and I simply introduced to wanderer some of the influencing personalities that have a profound effect on this movement. To understand wahabism one must look to who they follow. Sure they follow the Quran and Sunnah as do most Muslims – but we know sometimes many people complicate matters as is evident in this forum – the niqab – jalabiya –jilbab being one of such issues. Anyway what I’m saying here is that this movement follows correctly some of the previous scholars but some of the of the judgments that they arrived at in the present time comes from modern scholars and I noted the main 4. For example a woman can’t drive? Why – Aisha and others rode horses and camels in the earlier days. Some women actually traveled to Haj on a horse and all the way from modern day Iraq. There are many – many injustices that are occurring in Saudia Arabia at the hands of the Wahabi religious police. They beat without asking Christian Arabs who they see not praying – they don’t ask are you a Muslim or Christian – they just take out their sticks and beat. There is no mercy or compassion in this regard. A man is caught flirting with a woman and he is arbitrarily subject to lashings – since when – there is authetic hadith in which a man went to Prophet Muhammad (saw) and told him he did everything with a woman but have sex with her. The prophet (saw) told him ‘go – you did nothing’.
They have no mercy and they have no compassion. They are corrupt and they are wicked with many of their arbitrary judgments.
Posts: 2079 | From: 'by any means necessary' - Malcom X | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wanderer: Thanks Sei... So can you explain Salafis now?
pleeeeease
Thanks Wanderer I believe Sands is a Salafi (if i'm not mistaken) and perhaps it is better to hear it from him.
Posts: 2079 | From: 'by any means necessary' - Malcom X | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sei-i taishogun: ^^ Of course – and I simply introduced to wanderer some of the influencing personalities that have a profound effect on this movement. To understand wahabism one must look to who they follow. Sure they follow the Quran and Sunnah as do most Muslims – but we know sometimes many people complicate matters as is evident in this forum – the niqab – jalabiya –jilbab being one of such issues. Anyway what I’m saying here is that this movement follows correctly some of the previous scholars but some of the of the judgments that they arrived at in the present time comes from modern scholars and I noted the main 4. For example a woman can’t drive? Why – Aisha and others rode horses and camels in the earlier days. Some women actually traveled to Haj on a horse and all the way from modern day Iraq. There are many – many injustices that are occurring in Saudia Arabia at the hands of the Wahabi religious police. They beat without asking Christian Arabs who they see not praying – they don’t ask are you a Muslim or Christian – they just take out their sticks and beat. There is no mercy or compassion in this regard. A man is caught flirting with a woman and he is arbitrarily subject to lashings – since when – there is authetic hadith in which a man went to Prophet Muhammad (saw) and told him he did everything with a woman but have sex with her. The prophet (saw) told him ‘go – you did nothing’.
They have no mercy and they have no compassion. They are corrupt and they are wicked with many of their arbitrary judgments.
I agree with you from what im seen on here i read more than post and study more i admit i get stuff wrong ,but im agree a lot with you . There is good and bad in all .But as you mention the last sentance of the man with the woman ,there was a story of a prostitute do you recall this one when she went to the prophet mohammed (pbuh)to say she sinned what a story .
Posts: 110 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
So what if you dont know what you are? what if you just want to be a muslim that follows Qur'an and hadith?
Why do people break off into groups?
Am i also right in thinking that Mohammad Wahhab never created a group or sect and that other people refer to salafi's as 'wahabi's' in a disrespectful way, rather than people actually naming THEMSELVES wahabi's? So the people who are following the path of Salaf as-Salihin are being called 'wahabis'
Posts: 644 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
God says in Quran "And the first to embrace Islam of the Muhajiroon (those who migrated from Makkah to Al-Madinah) and the Ansar (the citizens of Al-Madinah who helped and gave aid to the Muhajiroon) and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allah is well-pleased with them as they are well-pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success."
Those "those who followed them exactly (in Faith)" should be us. That means we are asked to follow the ancestors and the salaf.
Posts: 338 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wanderer: Somewhere in the Sands...Where are you?
So what if you dont know what you are? what if you just want to be a muslim that follows Qur'an and hadith?
Why do people break off into groups?
Am i also right in thinking that Mohammad Wahhab never created a group or sect and that other people refer to salafi's as 'wahabi's' in a disrespectful way, rather than people actually naming THEMSELVES wahabi's? So the people who are following the path of Salaf as-Salihin are being called 'wahabis'
Yes, you are correct Wanderer, there is no actual group that calls themselves Wahhabis.
My take on this is that Islam is the religion and Muslims are those who follow the religion. Some of the labels are attached to people due to the school of thought that they choose to follow. Different scholars have studied the Qur'an and Sunnah in great depth and they have come to certain conclusions about the best way to interpret them...much like psychologists study human behaviour and come to different conclusions about what lies behind it. As long as the interpretations are within the boundaries of Islam and do not contradict the Qur'an and Sunnah, then it's acceptable.
I personally don't like to use a label and prefer to be called a Muslim, as that is what I gave witness to when I said my shahadah; that Allah was the only god and that Muhammad was His Messenger, and I try to make sure that my practice and understanding follows that.
Posts: 4576 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
AUTHOR: Imaam Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albaanee SOURCE: Al-Asaalah Magazine, Issue 9 PRODUCED BY: Al-Ibaanah.com
Question: Why use the name Salafee? Is it a call towards a party or a group or a madh-hab (school of thought)? Or is it a new sect in Islaam?
Answer: Indeed, the word Salaf is well known in the Arabic language as well as in the religious terminology. But what concerns us here, is its discussion from the religious standpoint. Thus, it has been authentically reported on the Prophet, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, that during the sickness from which he died from, he said to Faatimah, radyAllaahu 'anhaa: "So fear Allaah and have patience. And I am the best Salaf (predecessor) for you." [Saheeh Muslim: no. 2450]
Furthermore, the scholars have used this word "Salaf" many times, such that it would be too abundant to number and take into account. Sufficient for us, is one example, and it was that which they have used in their battle against innovations:
"And every good lies in following he who has preceded, while every evil lies in the innovating of he who came after."
However, there are from those who claim to have knowledge, some people who reject this ascription, claiming that there is no basis for it! And so they say: "It is not permissible for a Muslim to say: 'I am a Salafee.'" So it is as if he is saying that it is not permissible for a Muslim to say: "I am following the Salaf As-Saalih (the Pious Predecessors) in what they were upon from beliefs, worship and methodology"! There is no doubt that such a rejection - if that is what he intended - necessitates that one free himself from the correct Islaam, which the righteous predecessors were upon, at the head of whom was the Prophet, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam. This is as is indicated in the mutawaatir hadeeth found in the two Saheehs and other than them, that he, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, said:
"The best of mankind is my generation, then those that come after them, then those that come after them."
So it is not permissible for a Muslim to absolve himself from this ascription to the righteous predecessors, whereas, if he were to absolve himself from any other ascription, none of the scholars would be able to ascribe him with disbelief or sinfulness.
As for the one who rejects this name from himself, will you not see him ascribing himself to one of the madh-habs?! Regardless of whether this madh-hab is related to 'Aqeedah (Creed) or Fiqh (Jurisprudence)? So he is either Ash'aree or Matureedee. Or perhaps he is from the people of Hadeeth or Hanafee, or Shaafi'ee or Maalikee or Hanbalee or whatever else enters into the title of Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. But the one who ascribes himself to the Ash'aree madh-hab or to one of the four madh-habs is in fact ascribing himself to individuals that are not infallible, without a doubt, even if there were scholars among them who were correct (in their verdicts). I wish I knew - would these people reject the likes of these ascriptions to individuals who are not free from error?
As for the one who ascribes himself to the Salaf As-Saalih (righteous predecessors), then he indeed ascribes himself to infallibility ('ismah), in the general sense. The Prophet, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, has mentioned that one of the signs of the Saved Sect is that they will hold tightly onto what the Messenger of Allaah, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, was upon and what his Companions were upon. So whosoever holds tightly onto them, then he is certainly upon the guidance from his Lord.
And furthermore, it is an ascription that brings honor to the one that ascribes himself to it, and one that facilitates for him the way of the Saved Sect. And these matters do not apply to anyone that ascribes himself to any other ascription, since they are not free from one of two things. Either it is an ascription to a specific individual that is not infallible or it is an ascription to a group of people who follow the methodology of this individual who is not infallible. So there is no infallibility (in their ascriptions) either way. On the opposite of this, there is the infallibility of the companions of the Prophet, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, (as a whole). And it is that which we have been commanded to hold tightly onto, from his Sunnah and the Sunnah of his Companions after him.
And we must persist and strongly emphasize that our understanding of Allaah's Book and the Sunnah of his Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, be in accordance with the methodology of his, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, Companions. This is so that we can be upon infallibility, as opposed to inclining away towards the right or the left, or deviating with an understanding that comes solely from ourselves, of which there is not found in the Book of Allaah or the Sunnah of His Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, that which provides evidence for it.
Furthermore, why is it not sufficient for us to ascribe ourselves to (just) the Qur'aan and the Sunnah? The reason goes back to two matters, the first of which is related to the religious texts, and the second of which is due to the appearance of numerous Islaamic groups.
With regard to the first reason, then we find in the religious texts, a command to obey something else in connection with the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, as is found in Allaah's saying:
"And obey Allaah and obey His Messenger and those in authority over you."
So if there were someone in authority, who was given the oath of allegiance by the Muslims, it would be obligatory to obey him just as it would be obligatory to obey the Qur'aan and the Sunnah. This is in spite of him, as well as those around him, committing errors. So it would be obligatory to obey him in order to repel the harm of differences of opinions. And this is with the well-known condition: "There is no obedience to the creation in disobeying the Creator." [See Silsilat-ul-Ahaadeeth As-Saheehah: no. 179]
And Allaah, may He be Exalted, says: "And whosoever opposes the Messenger after the guidance has been clearly explained to him, and he follows a way other than the way of the believers, We will turn him to what he has chosen and burn him in Hell - what an evil destination." [Surah An-Nisaa: 115]
Indeed, Allaah, Mighty and Sublime, is free and far removed from all imperfections and defects. And there is no doubt or uncertainty that His mentioning of "the way of the believers" here, is only due to an immense and comprehensive wisdom and benefit. So it indicates that there is an important obligation - and it is that our following of the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, must be in accordance with what the first Muslims were upon. And they are the Companions of Allaah's Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, then those who came after them, then those who came after them. And this is what the da'wat-us-salafiyyah (The Salafee Call) invites and calls to. And it is that which is its main priority in the foundation of its call and the methodology of its educating process.
Indeed, the Salafee Call truly unites the ummah, while any other call only causes division to the ummah. Allaah, Mighty and Sublime, says:
"O you who believe, fear Allaah, and be with the truthful." [Surah At-Tawbah: 119]
So anyone that makes a distinction between the Book and the Sunnah from one perspective and between the Salaf As-Saalih (Righteous Predecessors) from another perspective, then he can never be truthful.
As for with regard to the second reason, then the groups and parties of today do not direct at all towards the following of "the Way of the Believers", which has been mentioned in the ayah. And there are some ahaadeeth, which further confirm and support that ayah, such as the hadeeth of the seventy-three sects. All of them will be in the Hellfire except one. The Messenger of Allaah, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, described them as: "The one which is upon the same thing that I and my companions are upon today." [See As-Saheehah: no. 203 & 1492]
This hadeeth resembles that ayah which mentions the "Way of the Believers". Also, there is the hadeeth of Al-'Irbaad Ibn Saariyah, radyAllaahu 'anhu, in which he, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, said: "So stick to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly-guided Khaleefahs after me." [See Irwaa-ul-Ghaleel: no. 2455] So therefore, there are two Sunnahs: The Sunnah of the Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, and the Sunnah of the righteous Khaleefahs.
So there is no doubt that we - us who come in a later time - we must return back to the Qur'aan, the Sunnah and the Way of the Believers. And it is not permissible for us to say: "We can understand the Qur'aan and the Sunnah by themselves, without turning towards what the righteous predecessors were upon."
There must be an ascription in this time that distinguishes and is detailed. So it is not sufficient for us to say, "I am a Muslim" only! Or "My madh-hab is Islaam"! For every sect says that! - the Raafidee, the Ibaadee, the Qadyianee, as well as other sectarians!! So what is it that distinguishes you from them?
And if you were to say, "I am a Muslim who is upon the Qur'aan and the Sunnah", this would also not be sufficient. This is because, the members of these sects - of the Ash'arees and the Matureedees and the Hizbees - they all claim to follow these two sources also. So there is no doubt that the clear, plain, distinctive and decisive classification is to say, "I am a Muslim who is upon the Qur'aan and the Sunnah and upon the methodology of the Salaf As-Saalih (Pious Predecessors). And that can be said in short by saying, "I am a Salafee."
So based on this, indeed the truth which is unavoidable, is that it is not enough to rely on the Qur'aan and the Sunnah without the methodology of the Salaf, for it explains these two with regard to understanding and concept, knowledge and action, and da'wah (calling) and Jihaad.
And we know that they (the Sahaabah), may Allaah be pleased with them, did not used to fanatically cling onto one specific madh-hab or to one specific individual. So there was not found amongst them he who was Bakree (a follower of Abu Bakr), or 'Umaree (a follower of 'Umar), or 'Uthmaanee (a follower of 'Uthmaan) or 'Alawee (a follower of 'Alee). Rather, if it were more easy for one of them to ask Abu Bakr or 'Umar or Abu Hurairah, he would ask any of them. This is because they believed that it was not permissible to have total and unrestricted devotion in following, except to one individual. Indeed, he was the Messenger of Allaah sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, the one who did not speak from his own desire, rather it was only revelation revealed to him.
And if we were to submit to these criticizers, for the sake of argument, that we would name ourselves "Muslims" only, without ascribing ourselves to the Salaf - in spite of it being an honorable and correct ascription. Would they abandon classifying themselves with the names of their parties or their madh-habs or their ways - based on the fact that they are not prescribed in the Religion nor are they correct?
"So this contrast between us is enough for you And every container will eventually let out what is in it."
And Allaah is the Guide to the Right Path. And He, free is He from all defects, is the One in whom we seek assistance. [1]
[1] Translator's Note: It must be noted here that there is a difference between one ascribing himself to the Salaf and thus syaing he is Salafee and one taking that as part of his name, calling himself i.e. Abu Fulaan As-Salafee. This (latter example) is not what is intended here by the speech of our noble scholar, Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albaanee, as can be seen in his example, since he did not used to attach the phrase "as-Salafee" at the end of his name. Neither was this the example set forth by the other major scholars of our time, such as Imaams Ibn Baaz, Ibn 'Uthaimeen and Muqbil bin Haadee Al-Waadi'ee. In spite of this, they were salafee in their Creed and their Methodology and when asked as to their methodology, they never hesitated to say that they were salafee or upon the Salafee Manhaj, and Allaah knows best.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to say something with regards to wahabis. It is wrong to assert that it is an insult. Many are proud of such a name and this is especially true for the wahabis in Saudia Arabia. It is prestige to them because this surname hails from one of the most prestigious families (Abdul Wahab family) who were esteemed judges. So it is not an insult. Also it is true that they are not a sect and it’s also true that they don’t belong to a certain school of thought – although hanafi’s madhab is very revered by them.
They are a movement and if anyone were to study wahabis they would know this. Initially it was a religious political movement. I however don’t want to discuss what occurred 200-300 years ago. Let us talk of what wahabism is now as in the present day. It is a religious movement in Saudia Arabia. Also studying the doctrines and teachings of Abdul Wahab won’t benefit anyone in knowing about this movement because most of the wahabis are not even familiar with Abdul Wahab’s doctrines e.g. Tawheed (rububeyah- alasma walsifat-ilaheya - etc).
It is a movement and primarily in Saudia Arabia that has historical ties to the house of Saud and such movement has a monopoly over internal social issues in the kingdom of Saudia Arabia. The old Saudi expedition/miltary flag bore two swords that represented the alliance between the house of Saud and the Wahabis. They control the courts and they control the religious police. They control the learning institutes from kindergarten to university level. The control charities, endowments and they control many others institutions. And their interpretations of Islamic issues are reflected in all these institutions. Foreign policy you won’t hear a word from them and this divide was established with the founding of modern day Saudia Arabia. It is true that you’ll hear of money being allocated to certain programs in different countries and even for the sake of Jihad but this is minimal and when doing it - it is with the blessing of the ruling family.
This is a wicked and biased movement and unfortunately some judges in some towns and villages might very well rule differently against a foreign Muslim than they would a local Saudi. A Pakistani man might have his hand cut-off but a Saudi might be given a second chance and this contradicts the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (saw). Are there many aspects of there judicial rulings in accordance with Sharia – the answer is an overwhelming yes BUT there is also TRANSGRESSION and there IS ARBITARY Judgments.
This is what wahabism is. Nevermind with the small number of wannabe Wahabis in other countries – those numbers are insignificant and ironically such are probably authentic adherents of the teachings and doctrines of Abdul Wahab. However we are talking about what is wahabism now and who are they – and for that – just look at modern day Saudia Arabia - look at the injustices and that is them.
Posts: 2079 | From: 'by any means necessary' - Malcom X | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see, o.k well that would make sense then why some people use the word as an insult. So people have formed into a group and call themselves 'wahabis' in Saudi then? almost in a political sense?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wanderer: I see, o.k well that would make sense then why some people use the word as an insult. So people have formed into a group and call themselves 'wahabis' in Saudi then? almost in a political sense?
I think there is a misunderstanding here. The word Wahabi is not derogatory in any way at all. Newcomer hit the nail on the head when she said some people are insulted when they are labeled as such and such when they simply want to be called Muslims. The fact is this movement is a Wahabi movement and it originated from the provinces that were loyal to Abdul Wahab. In essence they are Wahabis. I know in Saudia Arabia some want to be called Muttatawi3een. They are a movement Wanderer - they are the institutions in Saudia Arabia - it is a lineage thing it is in their blood, they are the tribes and descendants from the several provinces who advocated and supported Abdul Wahab's movement over the last 3 centuries.
You know many muslim young men actually use the word wahabi for their websites, screen names as they believe such a movement is Sharia based. How much sharia based is it 75%, 90%?
Certainly not 100% when they don’t rule accordingly – I guess some muslims are so desperate and so defensive about this subject that they will settle for an unjust wahabi movement because it has likelihood to Sharia. You know the mentality of lets look at the positives rather than the negatives. The mentality that has no problem than excess punsihment - they have no problems with 300-500 lashes when 100 was prescribed. To them it is Islamic!
The fact is it is a blatant movement. The rulings are unjust. They are biased and wicked and their recruits in the religious police are men who:
1.) Think Saudia Arabians are superior to other Muslims
2.) Have limited knowledge of Islam and the Sunnah
3.) Are basically the drop-outs and those who did not enroll in universities!
Things will hopefully change. You hear unknowledgeable Arabs, Muslim converts and Gulfies who praise such a movement. These ignoramuses who are for several reasons exempt from the harsh realities DON’T KNOW of the wickedness that prevails because of the injustice by Saudi Qutha (Islamic Judges) and Religious police. There are thousands and thousands of MUSLIMS who are violated in Saudia Arabia because they hail from poor muslim nations. Their rulings are unjust – they are arbitrary – many people are living in fear there because of the religious police. You won’t see such Qutha rule against the elite – you won’t see the religious police knock on the doors of their own in the same manner they would an immigrant worker. You call that Sharia – I call it damnation.
Saudia Arabia is trying to reform the judicial structure and make it coded and more uniform and hopefully this will take the powers from the Qutha who rule unjustly and arbitrarily.
Posts: 2079 | From: 'by any means necessary' - Malcom X | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wanderer: Somewhere in the Sands...Where are you?
So what if you dont know what you are? what if you just want to be a muslim that follows Qur'an and hadith?
Why do people break off into groups?
Am i also right in thinking that Mohammad Wahhab never created a group or sect and that other people refer to salafi's as 'wahabi's' in a disrespectful way, rather than people actually naming THEMSELVES wahabi's? So the people who are following the path of Salaf as-Salihin are being called 'wahabis'
I forget where it is written but it is good to follow some sort of madhab. There are four main madhabs and I believe the majority in Egypt are hanafis. I have followed the hanafi madhab for a short time now but I'm leaning towards the sufi's because I like their spiritualism, if that's the right word to use.
Best bet is to read about all of them and then see which one fits you the best.
Posts: 1808 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Why do you think it is better to join a madhab or a sect? The Sufis are certainly twisted and added many innovations to Islam. Innovations that were not present during the days of Prophet Muhammad (saw).
Madahib whether Shafai, Hanafi, Hanbali or Maliki only seem to confuse people and overstep their bounds. The prayer of the traveler is one example – there are no limits set(# of days) by Prophet Muhammad (saw) but such madahib require their followers to adhere with limitations set by such madahib - from where did they base this? From their own notions that's where and I challenge anyone to contest this.
Also is the fact that such Madahib have been changed over the course of many years by the students and the students of the students of the 4 Imams.
You don’t need them DB. You know the basics – isn’t the Quran and authentic ahadith enough?
Just my opinion.
Posts: 2079 | From: 'by any means necessary' - Malcom X | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, no but to each his/her own. I need structure and a madhab gives me that. Not all Sufi's are twisted but for sure some are a wee bit coo-coo! lol. I just like the dikr and the close connection with Allah that they seem to be able to achieve.
Posts: 1808 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
well i bought a book today that inshaallah will teach me a little about each madahib and why they differ on certain areas.
Sei, the reason i say that people use the word 'wahabi' as an insult is because alot of people around me (where i live) seem to do this, seem to view 'saudi's' and wahabi's badly.
On another note, who saw the thread about women's prayer? i was told today that each madahib agrees that women should pray differently to men (position of hands and feet), what do you know of this Sei?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that there are two levels of following a school of thought that are often mixed.
One is simply recognizing that someone has done a good job putting together the body of knowledge and its interpretation. Consequently, you tend to look up their opinions since you have found them to be generally thorough and convincing. You still understand that they are fallible, and you recognize that different opinions may not be completely doomed .
The other level is to get a bit carried away, and treat your school of thought as infallible, and opposing opinions as almost blasphemous. IMHO, this is getting dangerously close to falling into the trap of sects. Sects are an absolute no-no in Islam as evidenced by very strong language in the Quran:
"... And don't be among the mushrekeen (those who associate others with God), among those who split up their religion and become sects, each sect joyful about what they have." (Surat Alroom (30), part of verse 31, verse 32)
"As for those who split up their religion and become sects, you have no part in them. Their matter is with God and He will inform them about what they have been doing." (Surat Alanaam (6), verse 159)
In the first verse, I find it remarkably telling that "associating others with God" is mentioned in the context of sects. In the last verse, I used the translation "inform them" to be on the conservative side. The Arabic word in the verse can well translate into "break the news to them" which has an interesting implication in this context.
Posts: 374 | From: men gheir laff w dawaran | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
Khaled Abou el Fadl is both a prominent Islamic jurist and an American lawyer. In his many books he has accused radical Islamists of ignorance concerning the Koran and Sharia law. A portrait by Monika Jung-Mounib
Without an intellectual revolution that recollects the historic legacy of Islam, neither democracy in the Middle East, nor the integration of Muslim minorities in Western societies stand a chance. According to Khaled Abou el Fadl, a prominent Islamic jurist and American lawyer, this legacy is primarily about recognising the myriad of ways in which Islam can be interpreted and practiced.
In his modern interpretations of the Koran, Abou el Fadl shows exactly what this flexibility means: as far as he is concerned, divine sovereignty – in Islam, God is the only sovereign and the supreme source of legitimate law – does not exclude human intervention.
While the Koran does not prescribe any one specific form of government, it does define several fundamental social and political values: justice, mercy, tolerance, and non-autocratic, consultative methods of government. As he sees it, a constitutional democracy that protects the rights of the individual has therefore the greatest potential for promoting these values.
El Fadl's controversial theory concerning Sharia
The fact that a democracy would grant all humans the same political rights, would express the special status of humans in God's creation and would allow humankind to assume its responsibility. According to Abou el Fadl, there would be no room for subjection to human authority as required by an authoritarian regime.
The pivotal point of Abou el Fadl's theory – that the Scharia, the divine law, is not a moral code – is controversial. In his opinion, the Sharia is a divine guide containing methods and principles that attempt to turn the divine ideal into reality.
"We can debate God's will as much as we like. I encourage Muslims to do so in order to discover God's will," says Abou el Fadl. "If, however, we adopt a law and the state implements it, we cannot assume that it represents God's will. If, on the other hand, we give the state the power to represent God, that is not a democracy, but a form of ideology. This contradicts Islamic theology, because God does not have an equal partner."
This is why the divine law should only cover questions of faith and should not be subject to the state. It is not the job of the state to regulate the relationship between God and the faithful.
Besides influencing the theological discourse, Abou el Fadl is also considered one of the world's leading Muslim feminists; he rejects all puritanical requirements such as the wearing of veils by women.
"The Wahabis' claims about women reflect their preferences and are not based on classical sources. There are no textual sources that say that the government can force women to wear a veil," says Abou el Fadl. For example, the Wahabis expect women to obey their husbands blindly. "For me, that is idolatry; it makes demi-gods of men," says Abou el Fadl.
"Targeting civilians contradicts Islamic law"
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Wahabi theologians disagree with Abou el Fadl's criticism of suicide and terrorism that targets civilians. "Targeting civilians clearly contradicts Islamic law, even when it comes to the liberation of a Muslim's own country. This is an imperative of Islamic morality and it becomes even more relevant when this morality comes under pressure," explains Abou el Fadl.
It is obvious why Abou el Fadl's interpretations are such a thorn in the side of Islamic clerics and the puritanical Wahabi theologians that practice in Saudi Arabia: the Wahabis justify their autocratic rule with their monopoly on interpreting the Sharia and consequently consider Abou el Fadl's views to be a threat to their vision of Islam.
Instead of recognising the fact that Islam can be interpreted in a wealth of different ways, they reject all forms of democracy.
El Fadl: "Wahabis do not understand Islamic law"
In addition, Abou el Fadl's criticism of the Wahabis hinges on the fact that they claim to have a monopoly on interpreting the Sharia without following any particular methodology and without understanding Islamic law. The Wahabis, on the other hand, would appear to feel even more challenged by Abou el Fadl because he backs up his interpretations with classic Islamic sources and can refer to old traditions.
"What is happening in Saudi Arabia, where, for example, the opinions of three legal experts are considered to be God's law, is not in line with Islamic tradition. For the Wahabis, it is heresy to believe in or call for democracy. This is why they consider me a heretic," says Abou el Fadl.
Not only are all his works banned in Saudi Arabia, the professor of Islamic law has for years been receiving death threats from Wahabi activists.
"Wahabism is a harsh theology"
Be that as it may, it does not stop him criticising Wahabism: "Wahabism is despotism. There is never any mention of love; music, art, everything human, beautiful, and delicate is banned. Wahabism is a harsh theology; as hard, Arabic, and hostile as the desert itself."
Among other things, Abou el Fadl makes the widespread dissemination of Wahabism responsible for the difficulties encountered in integrating Muslim minorities into Western, secular societies. Wahabism has heavily infiltrated the USA, Europe, and the Egyptian clergy.
While it is not the dominant theology in either Egypt or Syria, the Saudis began spreading their variety of Islam in the 1970s with the help of their petrodollars. This was made possible because the puritans were able to use their money to fill the vacuum of authority created by the collapse of Islamic institutions at the end of the colonial era. However, this ability has been greatly limited by the attacks of 11 September 2001.
Wahabism has prevented Muslim integration in the West
Moreover, a large chunk of first generation migrants have resisted integration because of their loyalty to the Wahabi theology, which says that Muslims cannot be part of a non-Muslim community. "The Islamic knowledge of first generation migrants is usually abysmal," says Abou el Fadl. This is compounded by the fact that first generation migrants generally feel a close bond with the language and customs of their native country.
"They establish Islamic centres, which are more like cultural centres. Problems usually arise when the first generation considers the second or third generation to be too French, too British, or too German," says Abou el Fadl. This is why, he continues, it is above all cultural aspects that create problems when it comes to integration. He goes on to say that the fact that no clear differentiation is made between culture and religion can lead to conflicts between the generations, which in turn lead to conflicts of loyalty within families.
The Islamic intellectual does not see any theological reasons for the problems encountered in integrating Muslims. He says that the theology and jurisprudence of Islam show a great degree of flexibility when it comes to accommodating Muslims living in a minority.
In such cases, only a minimum of Sharia such as praying, fasting, and giving alms is required. If, however, Muslims would see that Islam can be interpreted in many different ways, he says, then Islam would give them room to manoeuvre within which they could feel French, German, or British while still feeling like an authentic Muslim.
German Muslims helping needy Germans?
Moreover, the wealth of interpretations would encourage them to play an active role in their new societies rather than withdrawing from them. This would mean, for example, that a German Muslim is obliged to help the needy in Germany and not the needy in his native land.
Abou el Fadl considers demands for a European Islam to be superfluous. "Islamic theology and Islamic law provide everything a Muslim needs to live in a secular, pluralist, and democratic society: tolerance, acceptance of pluralism, a rejection of coercion, participation in public life (as long as this is guided by moral principles), mercy, and love," he says. He instead sees it as the task of the Europeans to avoid making generalisations about Islam and instead learn more about Muslims and the humanist Islam and enter into dialogue with them.
Generalisations, he says, only create an atmosphere of fear towards Muslims in a society, which makes Muslims feel rejected by that society. After all, says Abou el Fadl, Europe's "Jewish question" also began with generalisations about the Jews.
About Khaled Abou el Fadl
Khaled Abou el Fadl is a professor at the School of Law at the University of California and a prominent Islamic jurist and intellectual. He has been a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom since December 2003 and serves on the board of directors of Human Rights Watch. He trained in Islamic law in Egypt and Kuwait and is a high-ranking sheikh. Since openly attacking Wahabism, he has received regular death threats and is now protected by the FBI. All his books have been banned in Saudi Arabia.
quote:Originally posted by Muhaajira: Why the word Salafee?
AUTHOR: Imaam Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albaanee SOURCE: Al-Asaalah Magazine, Issue 9 PRODUCED BY: Al-Ibaanah.com
Question: Why use the name Salafee? Is it a call towards a party or a group or a madh-hab (school of thought)? Or is it a new sect in Islaam?
Answer: Indeed, the word Salaf is well known in the Arabic language as well as in the religious terminology. But what concerns us here, is its discussion from the religious standpoint. Thus, it has been authentically reported on the Prophet, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, that during the sickness from which he died from, he said to Faatimah, radyAllaahu 'anhaa: "So fear Allaah and have patience. And I am the best Salaf (predecessor) for you." [Saheeh Muslim: no. 2450]
Furthermore, the scholars have used this word "Salaf" many times, such that it would be too abundant to number and take into account. Sufficient for us, is one example, and it was that which they have used in their battle against innovations:
"And every good lies in following he who has preceded, while every evil lies in the innovating of he who came after."
However, there are from those who claim to have knowledge, some people who reject this ascription, claiming that there is no basis for it! And so they say: "It is not permissible for a Muslim to say: 'I am a Salafee.'" So it is as if he is saying that it is not permissible for a Muslim to say: "I am following the Salaf As-Saalih (the Pious Predecessors) in what they were upon from beliefs, worship and methodology"! There is no doubt that such a rejection - if that is what he intended - necessitates that one free himself from the correct Islaam, which the righteous predecessors were upon, at the head of whom was the Prophet, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam. This is as is indicated in the mutawaatir hadeeth found in the two Saheehs and other than them, that he, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, said:
"The best of mankind is my generation, then those that come after them, then those that come after them."
So it is not permissible for a Muslim to absolve himself from this ascription to the righteous predecessors, whereas, if he were to absolve himself from any other ascription, none of the scholars would be able to ascribe him with disbelief or sinfulness.
As for the one who rejects this name from himself, will you not see him ascribing himself to one of the madh-habs?! Regardless of whether this madh-hab is related to 'Aqeedah (Creed) or Fiqh (Jurisprudence)? So he is either Ash'aree or Matureedee. Or perhaps he is from the people of Hadeeth or Hanafee, or Shaafi'ee or Maalikee or Hanbalee or whatever else enters into the title of Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. But the one who ascribes himself to the Ash'aree madh-hab or to one of the four madh-habs is in fact ascribing himself to individuals that are not infallible, without a doubt, even if there were scholars among them who were correct (in their verdicts). I wish I knew - would these people reject the likes of these ascriptions to individuals who are not free from error?
As for the one who ascribes himself to the Salaf As-Saalih (righteous predecessors), then he indeed ascribes himself to infallibility ('ismah), in the general sense. The Prophet, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, has mentioned that one of the signs of the Saved Sect is that they will hold tightly onto what the Messenger of Allaah, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, was upon and what his Companions were upon. So whosoever holds tightly onto them, then he is certainly upon the guidance from his Lord.
And furthermore, it is an ascription that brings honor to the one that ascribes himself to it, and one that facilitates for him the way of the Saved Sect. And these matters do not apply to anyone that ascribes himself to any other ascription, since they are not free from one of two things. Either it is an ascription to a specific individual that is not infallible or it is an ascription to a group of people who follow the methodology of this individual who is not infallible. So there is no infallibility (in their ascriptions) either way. On the opposite of this, there is the infallibility of the companions of the Prophet, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, (as a whole). And it is that which we have been commanded to hold tightly onto, from his Sunnah and the Sunnah of his Companions after him.
And we must persist and strongly emphasize that our understanding of Allaah's Book and the Sunnah of his Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, be in accordance with the methodology of his, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, Companions. This is so that we can be upon infallibility, as opposed to inclining away towards the right or the left, or deviating with an understanding that comes solely from ourselves, of which there is not found in the Book of Allaah or the Sunnah of His Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, that which provides evidence for it.
Furthermore, why is it not sufficient for us to ascribe ourselves to (just) the Qur'aan and the Sunnah? The reason goes back to two matters, the first of which is related to the religious texts, and the second of which is due to the appearance of numerous Islaamic groups.
With regard to the first reason, then we find in the religious texts, a command to obey something else in connection with the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, as is found in Allaah's saying:
"And obey Allaah and obey His Messenger and those in authority over you."
So if there were someone in authority, who was given the oath of allegiance by the Muslims, it would be obligatory to obey him just as it would be obligatory to obey the Qur'aan and the Sunnah. This is in spite of him, as well as those around him, committing errors. So it would be obligatory to obey him in order to repel the harm of differences of opinions. And this is with the well-known condition: "There is no obedience to the creation in disobeying the Creator." [See Silsilat-ul-Ahaadeeth As-Saheehah: no. 179]
And Allaah, may He be Exalted, says: "And whosoever opposes the Messenger after the guidance has been clearly explained to him, and he follows a way other than the way of the believers, We will turn him to what he has chosen and burn him in Hell - what an evil destination." [Surah An-Nisaa: 115]
Indeed, Allaah, Mighty and Sublime, is free and far removed from all imperfections and defects. And there is no doubt or uncertainty that His mentioning of "the way of the believers" here, is only due to an immense and comprehensive wisdom and benefit. So it indicates that there is an important obligation - and it is that our following of the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, must be in accordance with what the first Muslims were upon. And they are the Companions of Allaah's Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, then those who came after them, then those who came after them. And this is what the da'wat-us-salafiyyah (The Salafee Call) invites and calls to. And it is that which is its main priority in the foundation of its call and the methodology of its educating process.
Indeed, the Salafee Call truly unites the ummah, while any other call only causes division to the ummah. Allaah, Mighty and Sublime, says:
"O you who believe, fear Allaah, and be with the truthful." [Surah At-Tawbah: 119]
So anyone that makes a distinction between the Book and the Sunnah from one perspective and between the Salaf As-Saalih (Righteous Predecessors) from another perspective, then he can never be truthful.
As for with regard to the second reason, then the groups and parties of today do not direct at all towards the following of "the Way of the Believers", which has been mentioned in the ayah. And there are some ahaadeeth, which further confirm and support that ayah, such as the hadeeth of the seventy-three sects. All of them will be in the Hellfire except one. The Messenger of Allaah, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, described them as: "The one which is upon the same thing that I and my companions are upon today." [See As-Saheehah: no. 203 & 1492]
This hadeeth resembles that ayah which mentions the "Way of the Believers". Also, there is the hadeeth of Al-'Irbaad Ibn Saariyah, radyAllaahu 'anhu, in which he, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, said: "So stick to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly-guided Khaleefahs after me." [See Irwaa-ul-Ghaleel: no. 2455] So therefore, there are two Sunnahs: The Sunnah of the Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, and the Sunnah of the righteous Khaleefahs.
So there is no doubt that we - us who come in a later time - we must return back to the Qur'aan, the Sunnah and the Way of the Believers. And it is not permissible for us to say: "We can understand the Qur'aan and the Sunnah by themselves, without turning towards what the righteous predecessors were upon."
There must be an ascription in this time that distinguishes and is detailed. So it is not sufficient for us to say, "I am a Muslim" only! Or "My madh-hab is Islaam"! For every sect says that! - the Raafidee, the Ibaadee, the Qadyianee, as well as other sectarians!! So what is it that distinguishes you from them?
And if you were to say, "I am a Muslim who is upon the Qur'aan and the Sunnah", this would also not be sufficient. This is because, the members of these sects - of the Ash'arees and the Matureedees and the Hizbees - they all claim to follow these two sources also. So there is no doubt that the clear, plain, distinctive and decisive classification is to say, "I am a Muslim who is upon the Qur'aan and the Sunnah and upon the methodology of the Salaf As-Saalih (Pious Predecessors). And that can be said in short by saying, "I am a Salafee."
So based on this, indeed the truth which is unavoidable, is that it is not enough to rely on the Qur'aan and the Sunnah without the methodology of the Salaf, for it explains these two with regard to understanding and concept, knowledge and action, and da'wah (calling) and Jihaad.
And we know that they (the Sahaabah), may Allaah be pleased with them, did not used to fanatically cling onto one specific madh-hab or to one specific individual. So there was not found amongst them he who was Bakree (a follower of Abu Bakr), or 'Umaree (a follower of 'Umar), or 'Uthmaanee (a follower of 'Uthmaan) or 'Alawee (a follower of 'Alee). Rather, if it were more easy for one of them to ask Abu Bakr or 'Umar or Abu Hurairah, he would ask any of them. This is because they believed that it was not permissible to have total and unrestricted devotion in following, except to one individual. Indeed, he was the Messenger of Allaah sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, the one who did not speak from his own desire, rather it was only revelation revealed to him.
And if we were to submit to these criticizers, for the sake of argument, that we would name ourselves "Muslims" only, without ascribing ourselves to the Salaf - in spite of it being an honorable and correct ascription. Would they abandon classifying themselves with the names of their parties or their madh-habs or their ways - based on the fact that they are not prescribed in the Religion nor are they correct?
"So this contrast between us is enough for you And every container will eventually let out what is in it."
And Allaah is the Guide to the Right Path. And He, free is He from all defects, is the One in whom we seek assistance. [1]
[1] Translator's Note: It must be noted here that there is a difference between one ascribing himself to the Salaf and thus syaing he is Salafee and one taking that as part of his name, calling himself i.e. Abu Fulaan As-Salafee. This (latter example) is not what is intended here by the speech of our noble scholar, Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albaanee, as can be seen in his example, since he did not used to attach the phrase "as-Salafee" at the end of his name. Neither was this the example set forth by the other major scholars of our time, such as Imaams Ibn Baaz, Ibn 'Uthaimeen and Muqbil bin Haadee Al-Waadi'ee. In spite of this, they were salafee in their Creed and their Methodology and when asked as to their methodology, they never hesitated to say that they were salafee or upon the Salafee Manhaj, and Allaah knows best.
Mashaa Allah this (^^^)is an EXCELLENT post on the Aqeedah and Manhanj of As Salafee. Very conscise and to the point written by the GREAT Muhaddith of our time Allamah Shaykh Al Albanee (May Allah Azza wa Jal have Mercy upon him) Ameen.
May Allah Tabaraka Ta'ala reward you to your efforts in clarifying what a Salafee is. Hopefully it has answered the questions to those who want to understand what the aqeedah and manhaj of As Salafee is.
Posts: 2342 | From: Its not where I'm from but where Im going | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wanderer: well i bought a book today that inshaallah will teach me a little about each madahib and why they differ on certain areas.
Sei, the reason i say that people use the word 'wahabi' as an insult is because alot of people around me (where i live) seem to do this, seem to view 'saudi's' and wahabi's badly.
On another note, who saw the thread about women's prayer? i was told today that each madahib agrees that women should pray differently to men (position of hands and feet), what do you know of this Sei?
Hey – Good for you. I look forward to hearing some of the knowledge you gained. Now with regard to prayer differing for woman – the answer is no and anybody from ANY madhab that tells you otherwise – just tell them ‘i3tooni burhanukum’ give me your proof.
First things first with regards to prayer that everyone should know: There are obligatory acts of prayer and then there are the sunnah acts of prayer. The obligatory acts e.g. takbeer at the beginning of prayer, standing, ruku, etc are mandatory for each and every muslim praying, well unless you are physically/strategically/etc incapable or doing so and in which case other movements will suffice.
The point is we all pray the same with the fundamentals. The sunnah acts vary slightly from one madhab to another and this could be the placement of the hands while reciting the obligatory fatihah (or tasbeeh if you can’t recite in Arabic) and another variation is the movement of the index finger whilst saying tashhuud. But again we all basically pray the same. These variations are insignificant and actually Prophet Muhammad (saw) prayed with different variations and there is no one madhab that is right or wrong. Simply studying authentic ahadith that pertain that methodology of the way the prophet prayed will support this fact.
Conclusion: Men and women pray in the same manner as Prophet Muhammad(saw). Some acts might vary but these variations are attributed to the prophet (saw) and has nothing to do with gender.
Posts: 2079 | From: 'by any means necessary' - Malcom X | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The Prophet, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, has mentioned that one of the signs of the Saved Sect is that they will hold tightly onto what the Messenger of Allaah, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, was upon and what his Companions were upon. So whosoever holds tightly onto them, then he is certainly upon the guidance from his Lord.
The Qur'an seeems to say something slightly different.
There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. 2:256
Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good -- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve. 5:69
Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
wahabis are notthing but man made rules to try interpret quran in hardline views.
my country in somalia are confronting with these wahabis. i hope we defeat them before they run all over the country if they havent done so yet!.
the islamic courts in somalia are the latest wide spread wahabism in africa.
saudi arabia and muslim brootherhood in egypt are to blame with ideology and taleban fantism in somalia.
we in somalia are dealing with enough problem already and noiw wahabism unleashed its ideology because somalia do not have strong liberal goverenment at present due to civil war.
some may say somalia is muslim brotherhood gorup,which is banned some countries like masr/egypt.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sei - only just read this, so your saying we dont pray differently???
by the way, I have been up and down stairs all day, my back is now killing me, but i thought of you and jumped two (they were carpeted so i took the risk...lol) life on the edge me Posts: 644 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
the somali government historically used to limit the muslim brootherhood who always dreamed turning the country under mulsim brotherhood groups. but looking my country the muslim brootherhood not only took over nation but brain washed the people.
these muslim brotherhood in somalia especially the women who believe if women do not wear vail over her face not good muslim in their interperetaion has made strong confortable base in my country,and that is very sad wallah.
i have no problem with muslim brotherhood/wahabis as long they dont force their ideology on me,but sadly that is whay they do and its not right. ..as long they accept there is other scholars that mulim people can fellow and should not be intemidated because they dont accept group.
we need some one who is strong like hosni mubarak in masr to deal these muslim brotherhood in somalia who already brain washed 80% of somalia before it become 100% and become theat to world.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Islam is growing fast among African Americans, who are undeterred by ..... but the current versions of Islam such as Wahabism is very anti-modernity.
-------------------- UNITED KINGDOM Posts: 110 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic