How , who and why Wahhabi?

[ILuvAllah]

Salam everyone,

I have a question about the Wahhabis. why are they so hated? how are they misguided? I'm just asking of curiosity. I don know anything about them.

Hope you dont mind my question :)

[CosmicPathos]

w salam,

I think they are hated for supporting the Kingdom of Saud.

[GuestFellow]

Salaam,I don't believe there is such as thing called Wahhabi. It's a term used to describe Muslims that support Abdul Wahab, an Islamic scholar. The supporters don't call themselves Wahhabi, so I don't understand why we label them. That's all I know.

[Muhammad]

Wa Alaykum Assalaam sister,

The term 'Wahhabi' is a term that seems to be widely misunderstood. It means different things to different people. Some people use it to brand anyone who contradicts their beliefs and practices.

But the word comes from the name of a Muslim scholar, Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, who lived a couple of hundred years ago at a time when polytheism and deviant beliefs had become widespread. He called people back to Tawheed and following the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Unfortunately, many lies have been spread about this scholar where people think he came to alter the religion of Islam. But any objective observer would note that most of his books are nothing but compilations of texts from the Qur'an and Sunnah with minimal wording of his own.

As to how exactly the word 'Wahhabi' was coined and by whom, I do not know. But this much seems clear that most of those labelled with this term do not ascribe themselves as belonging to a supposed sect entitled 'Wahhabism'. It is more a defamatory term and one which the media seem to like disseminating with their own concocted meanings, to the extent that any practising Muslim who follows his obligations, practises the Sunnah and leaves the prohibitions is branded as an extreme Muslim, or 'Wahhabi', or whatever else you hear in the news these days.

And Allaah (swt) knows best.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[ILuvAllah]

Wa Alaykum Assalaam sister,

The term 'Wahhabi' is a term that seems to be widely misunderstood. It means different things to different people. Some people use it to brand anyone who contradicts their beliefs and practices.

But the word comes from the name of a Muslim scholar, Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, who lived a couple of hundred years ago at a time when polytheism and deviant beliefs had become widespread. He called people back to Tawheed and following the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Unfortunately, many lies have been spread about this scholar where people think he came to alter the religion of Islam. But any objective observer would note that most of his books are nothing but compilations of texts from the Qur'an and Sunnah with minimal wording of his own.

As to how exactly the word 'Wahhabi' was coined and by whom, I do not know. But this much seems clear that most of those labelled with this term do not ascribe themselves as belonging to a supposed sect entitled 'Wahhabism'. It is more a defamatory term and one which the media seem to like disseminating with their own concocted meanings, to the extent that any practising Muslim who follows his obligations, practises the Sunnah and leaves the prohibitions is branded as an extreme Muslim, or 'Wahhabi', or whatever else you hear in the news these days.

And Allaah (swt) knows best.

Thanks for the explanation brother. I never really understood all the hate towards them.

[aadil77]

Its mostly the sufi's and brelvis who hate them, it's because 'wahabbi's' annihilate all their false beliefs and practices

[GuestFellow]

I will play the devil's advocate.

Those that are against Abdul Wahab tend to be Shia Muslims and some Sufis. Abdul Wahab took an aggressive stance against those he disagreed with on fundamental issues. Abdul Wahab was concerned about people worshiping graves and practices that were not from Islam. So he destroyed the graves and tried to implement the Sharia. It has been claimed that he does not support/agree with the four schools of thoughts.

He's a reformer but a strange one. Though he was aggressive against anything that was not Islamic, he was fairly tolerant of the Saudi Royal Monarchy.

[Muhammad]

It has been claimed that he does not support/agree with the four schools of thoughts.

From http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/12932 :

If we want to know more about him, we cannot find anyone who can describe the man better than himself, because when there is a man concerning whom people’s opinions vary greatly, with some praising him and some condemning him, we should look at what he says in his writings and his books, and at what is correctly attributed to him, then weigh that against the Qur’aan and Sunnah. What Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab said, describing himself, was: “I tell you that– praise be to Allaah – my belief and my religion, according to which I worship Allaah, is the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, which was the way of the imaams of the Muslims, such as the four Imaams and their followers until the Day of Resurrection. But I explain to people that they must devote their worship sincerely to Allaah (ikhlaas). I forbid them to call upon the Prophets and the dead among the righteous and others, and from associating them with Allaah in any act of worship that should be done for Allaah alone, such as offering sacrifices, making vows, putting one’s trust, prostrating and other actions which are due to Allaah and in which no one should be associated with Him, not any angel who is close to Him or any Prophet who was sent. This is the Message which was proclaimed by all the Messengers, from the first of them to the last of them, and this is the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah…” (al-Durar al-Sunniyyah, 1/64-65, 79-80)

And from http://www.ahya.org/amm/modules.php?...icle&artid=126 :

5- The allegation that leaders of other mazahib have no authority and their followers are not Muslims, and that'

6- 'anyone who does not join the Wahhabi movement is a Kafir.

Both the above allegations are clear fabrications. Sheikh Abdullah, son of Sheikh Muhammad ibn al Wahhab, wrote a treatise after he entered Makkah victoriously with Prince Saud bin Abdul Aziz on Saturday 8 th Muharram 1218 AH. In this he wrote,

'Our mazhab in the principle of the deen is the deen of Ahl ul Sunnah wal Jama'ah. Our way is the way of the Salaf, the pious predecessors. Our branch of mazhab is that of Ahmad bin Hanbal, but we do not reject anyone who follows any of the four Imams excluding other mazahib which are not fully regulated.'

Abdullah b. Abdul Rahman b. Salih al-Bassam: Ulama Najd Khilal Sitah Quroon, 1 : 51

[MustafaMc]

“I tell you that– praise be to Allaah – my belief and my religion, according to which I worship Allaah, is the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, which was the way of the imaams of the Muslims, such as the four Imaams and their followers until the Day of Resurrection. But I explain to people that they must devote their worship sincerely to Allaah (ikhlaas).

Assalamu alaikum How can any Muslim have difficulty with this statement?

Our way is the way of the Salaf, the pious predecessors. Our branch of mazhab is that of Ahmad bin Hanbal, but we do not reject anyone who follows any of the four Imams excluding other mazahib which are not fully regulated.'

The issue of the OP question in my opinion applies to those most conservative Muslims who do not follow a particular madhab and adhere strictly to the Qur'an and the Sunnah. These Muslims are adamant about eliminating what they feel is bidah or innovation. They use the "Salafi Da'wah" and use the way of the Salaf in defining their application of Islam. The term 'Salafi' can be assumed to be synonymous with 'Wahhabi' in my opinion. The modern Salafi often criticize those who follow one of the madhabs, most vehemently the Hanafi madhab. I have witnessed this myself in the masjid I attend.

[GuestFellow]

Both the above allegations are clear fabrications. Sheikh Abdullah, son of Sheikh Muhammad ibn al Wahhab, wrote a treatise after he entered Makkah victoriously with Prince Saud bin Abdul Aziz on Saturday 8 th Muharram 1218 AH. In this he wrote,

Salaam,

What about his connection with the Saudi Royal Monarchy?

[joyous fairy]

Hmm, All I can advise you at the moment is to not get into this kind of stuff.

There are at least 2 sides to every story and I have heard stories that are completely opposite to each other, i.e one side opposing 'Wahhabis' and the other actually following their teachings. I guess researching yourself would be a good thing, but nowadays you can find all sorts of stuff online and a lot of it might not be true. If you dont know much about it, leave it out and try and find some good Islamic teachers in your local area that can teach you about Islam. Dont get into things that will not directly influence your personal Islamic practice.

I say this because while I was at uni I remember a lot of these kind of things happening where people would get into arguments about which group is correct. It really did affect me, more negatively than positively. After that, I stopped getting involved in that kind of stuff and I feel that I was able to focus on my personal practices rather than on what other people think and do. I had a more positive view of people and found myself happier when talking about Islam. Alhamdulillah.

[Muhammad]

Wa Alaykum Assalaam,

The issue of the OP question in my opinion applies to those most conservative Muslims who do not follow a particular madhab and adhere strictly to the Qur'an and the Sunnah. These Muslims are adamant about eliminating what they feel is bidah or innovation. They use the "Salafi Da'wah" and use the way of the Salaf in defining their application of Islam. The term 'Salafi' can be assumed to be synonymous with 'Wahhabi' in my opinion. The modern Salafi often criticize those who follow one of the madhabs, most vehemently the Hanafi madhab. I have witnessed this myself in the masjid I attend.

You are right in that they are often used synonymously. In terms of descriptions, what you have mentioned applies to all Muslims. All Muslims try to adhere strictly to the Qur'an and Sunnah, are opposed to innovation and try to follow the way of the early Muslims, the Salaf. Whether they actually call themselves Salafi or not does not matter. But some people have used the label Salafi yet gone against what it stands for. If it is taken to mean a special party with specific rules whose members consider anyone who differs with them as astray, then they have nothing to do with what this term means. Rather it is to follow the Salaf in beliefs, sayings, actions, their way of differing and unity, their way of being merciful and compassionate to one another. True Salafis respect all the maddhabs and do not have a problem with the following of a maddhab. The argument that is often raised is to do with blind following of a maddhab, which is a different discussion.

What about his connection with the Saudi Royal Monarchy?

Allaah knows best, I don't know of any such connection.

[MB_324]

:sl:

A while ago i was searching into this Salafi stuff cause following only 1 madhab was confusing for me cause there are some differences between them and Salafi way made sense. But 2 things made me not go into it and i'm hoping that Salafis here can clarify them for me...

First was finding out that Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahab was a considered as a good scholar or whatever cause i saw many videos and read in sooo many places that he went around with his followers killing anyone (including Muslims) who didn't view things his way. And i thought that people who follow him are "wahhabis" and do they have the same teachings as salafis?

And second, something to do with salafis "Give Physical attributes to Allah - Believing that He (swt) has feet, arms, fingers, eyes etc" and then both sides provide their proof from Sahih hadith and the Quran and then i dunno who's right... But i also kinda don't really take those verses literally but metaphorically, but since both sides have good arguments i'm not sure...

also, another small thing i forgot, i saw some video on youtube a video of Dr. Zakir Naik called "Unity of the Mulsim Ummah" and he mentioned i think that there were different types/groups of salafis or something like that so that also left me in doubts

thanks,

MB

[Haya emaan]

in society i live, those who do not believe in 'grave worshiping', and other such things which brings "something" or "some one" (including some ullamas/pious people) in between you and Allah are simply labelled as wahabis and in such case if i m said so, i say "yes i m a 'wahabi' "

common muslims dont know why they are using the word 'wahabi' . once a girl gave a book to my friend to "correct" her believes. she came up with the chapter against wahabis and asked the girl what is a 'wahabi'. i was surprised when the girl said she didn't knew but she believed wahabis are not the 'right' people.

[~ Sabr ~]

Its mostly the sufi's and brelvis who hate them, it's because 'wahabbi's' annihilate all their false beliefs and practices

Excuse me brother, don't you dare "diss" that sect. They are more in touch with their Imaan than you will ever know!

[MustafaMc]

those who do not believe in 'grave worshiping' ... are simply labelled as wahabis

Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab destroyed many graves and was also considering destroying the grave of the Prophet Muhammad, out of fear that it maybe worshiped. http://www.religious-information.com...-religion.html

It made a strong controversy when in 2007, the Grand Mufti (Abd al-'Aziz al-Ashaikh) of Saudi Arabia, stated that "the green dome shall be demolished and the three graves flattened in the Prophet's Masjid" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masjid_al-Nabawi

Excuse me brother, don't you dare "diss" that sect. They are more in touch with their Imaan than you will ever know!

It is because of statements like this and because of their dissing followers of a madhab (particularly the Hanafi) that the Salafi/Wahhabi are disliked. My opinion is that this arrogant attitude is dangerous and reminds me of the Khawarij.

[Al-manar]

Wahabia is term that is used to refer to a particular ultra-conservative orientation within Salafism ....
some muslim sects eg;shia,sufia use the term with negative intention ,while they criticise the movement
mainstream muslims use the term not necessarily negatively but seeking more accurate langauge ,in order to distinict those who adhere to the movement from other muslims who belong to the Salafi movement (which wahabia is just one branch of its schools) ....


criticism of the movement is varied in both theory and practice :

Criticism in theory?

Such criticism is older than the appearance of the movement itself

A- the old controvesry between the people of Taweel ,exegesis (Ashari and mutazeli schools), and the strict literalists (Hanbali and salafi wahabi schools ) ..
both of them disagreed regarding some items of the Islamic beliefs eg; how should we understand Allah's attributes etc....

due to their financial abilitites (supported by Oil interests)Their movement produced a huge amonut of publications directed at their opponents reviving such disputes in all of its details ,using mostly a tough language , leads to various awful concepts eg; most of them would say that shia are worse than Jews and Christians !!!! la ḥawla wa la quwwata illa billah ....

would you still wonder why the modern Saudi Arabians would ally the christian west against Iran !!

B- The point that Bro Mustafa already mentioned ,their dissing followers of a madhab (particularly the Hanafi)...
That is true partially , as though they urge muslims not to follow strictly any fiqh madhab ,yet they are greatly influenced by the famous Hanbali scholar Ibn Taymiyyah ,that is why some people would argue Salafi =Hanbali refined .... that is why you find their unfavorable opinions of Abu Hanifah and his moderate,rational school of fiqh ...

C- They are criticised on their naive concept of reform ,they missed what the priorities in the process of reform should be, treat the matters from the surface not the essence and compress the idea of reform into merely the religious reform.... their unrealistic approach got them missed that the tremendous challenges facing the Islamic world need various steps of reform ,including the understanding of how valuable the scientific progress nowadays ... instread of filling the minds of youth with the scientific knowledge that is necessary to build a powerful respected independent nation,they try to stuff their minds with huge amounts of critical publications that don't build ,unite but destroy ..


Criticism in practice?

Their cooperation with the British imperialists against the great Muslim Ottoman empire (that is well documented) and their violent attacks against their opponents whether those belong to mainstream Islam eg;Ashari (The school that dominated the muslims academic scene for centuries) ,or the sects of Shia and Sufi ...such atack took the form of publications or violent means ,eg their past and present attacks of Shia sect and their state etc., also their strong support to the backwarded Saudi Royal Monarchy , and lastly their negative (at most) attitude towards the current Arab revolutions against the tyrants .

by the way I don't follow any madhab strictly (though I don't advice any beginner to do the same) , neither any creed strictly whether Taweel approach or the strict literalists ... I held the neutral position , Allah is the judge between us on the Day of Judgment, as to our differences.

I hope the salafi movement reform itself and be more civilized, realistic ,tolerant ...then their opponents would decrease their criticism inshAllah...

to sum ,That was the outline of the negatives that people would criticise them for , still they have their positives as well ...but that may needs another post ..

peace

[Salahudeen]

:sl:

A while ago i was searching into this Salafi stuff cause following only 1 madhab was confusing for me cause there are some differences between them and Salafi way made sense. But 2 things made me not go into it and i'm hoping that Salafis here can clarify them for me...

And second, something to do with salafis "Give Physical attributes to Allah - Believing that He (swt) has feet, arms, fingers, eyes etc" and then both sides provide their proof from Sahih hadith and the Quran and then i dunno who's right... But i also kinda don't really take those verses literally but metaphorically, but since both sides have good arguments i'm not sure...


MB

Not that I know much on this topic, but in short, salafis say they affirm whatever attribute Allah mentions for himself without twisting its meaning to mean something its not, i.e when Allah says he created Adam (pbuh) with his hands, they believe Allah has hands, but they key point is, how his hands are we don't know, we do know that they are not like the hands of creation because he says there is nothing like him.

The attribute of Allah can be similar to His Creation in meaning but not in shape, form or apperance. Allah (swt) has hands but his hands are not like human hands in any shape or form e.g a human has hands and a clock has hands they are called the same thing but are different in shape and form, thus Allah's hands are nothing like human hands.

So the attributes of Allah we can understand but we can't comprehend. And we know what a hand is but we don't know HOW the hand of Allah is or what it looks like.

Other group say his attributes have metaphorical meanings, such as when Allah says he has hands, it means his power, because they were afraid of making Allah like his creation, but then they also say allah can hear, and his creation can also hear, they also say Allah can see, his creation can also see. So should we deny that Allah can hear and see and has knowledge because all these attributes are found in his creation :hmm:

So I don't understand their point of view. I'm no expert on this topic so may Allah forgive me in any mistakes I said.

[Salahudeen]

Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab destroyed many graves and was also considering destroying the grave of the Prophet Muhammad, out of fear that it maybe worshiped. http://www.religious-information.com...-religion.html

It made a strong controversy when in 2007, the Grand Mufti (Abd al-'Aziz al-Ashaikh) of Saudi Arabia, stated that "the green dome shall be demolished and the three graves flattened in the Prophet's Masjid" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masjid_al-Nabawi

It is because of statements like this and because of their dissing followers of a madhab (particularly the Hanafi) that the Salafi/Wahhabi are disliked. My opinion is that this arrogant attitude is dangerous and reminds me of the Khawarij.

When you say destroying graves, do you mean destroying shrines and levelling them to the ground because people would make special journeys to the shrines in order to receive blessings?

@ op these lectures may clear up your confusion

[Muhammad]

:sl:

Wahabia is term that is used to refer to a particular ultra-conservative orientation within Salafism ....
some muslim sects eg;shia,sufia use the term with negative intention ,while they criticise the movement
mainstream muslims use the term not necessarily negatively but seeking more accurate langauge ,in order to distinict those who adhere to the movement from other muslims who belong to the Salafi movement (which wahabia is just one branch of its schools) ....

Some people regard Salafism or Salafiyyah as a new maddhab, but in its true sense it is simply adhering to what the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his Companions and those who followed them were upon. This is what all the maddhabs do, and so they all follow the methodology of Salafiyyah, i.e. they follow the Qur'an and Sunnah upon the methodology of the Salaf (the pious predecessors). But now we have people who have used this term to create division and given it a bad name by acting without knowledge and wisdom, and they are not following the way of the Salaf as they should. This then had led to misconceptions about what it is.

Regarding Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab - we have to be aware that there are many lies and fabrications in circulation about him. It is therefore important to verify what we hear to ensure it is the truth. I came across a detailed work on his life and influence which might be of interest:
http://www.islamhouse.com/p/54190

At the end of the day, as long as we follow the Qur'an and the Sunnah as understood by the Companions and early Muslims, that is the main thing.

[MustafaMc]

Wahabia is term that is used to refer to a particular ultra-conservative orientation within Salafism

Assalamu alaikum, thanks I didn't know that

.most of them would say that shia are worse than Jews and Christians !!!! la ḥawla wa la quwwata illa billah ....

I don't have animosity toward the Shi'a. The Muslim room mate that I had in college was a Shi'a from Iran and he was the first Muslim I ever met.

by the way I don't follow any madhab strictly (though I don't advice any beginner to do the same)

Neither do I, but I have an inclination towards Shafi'i. I have 'Reliance of the Traveler' but haven't read all of it yet.

[MustafaMc]

:sl: I came across a detailed work on his life and influence which might be of interest:
http://www.islamhouse.com/p/54190

Assalamu alaikum, thank you for the link. Insha'Allah I will check it out.

At the end of the day, as long as we follow the Qur'an and the Sunnah as understood by the Companions and early Muslims, that is the main thing.

I agree with you. I would like to add that we should also be more tolerant of the differences among us and respectful of others.

[Salahudeen]

Assalamu alaikum, thanks I didn't know thatI don't have animosity toward the Shi'a. The Muslim room mate that I had in college was a Shi'a from Iran and he was the first Muslim I ever met.Neither do I, but I have an inclination towards Shafi'i. I have 'Reliance of the Traveler' but haven't read all of it yet.

Brother you don't feel any animosity for a people who curse Abu Bakr, Umar, and Ayesha RA?? And say they apostated after the death of the prophet (saw) and when the mahdi comes he's going to resurrect Umar and Abu Bakr and then hang them and whip them??

[MustafaMc]

Brother you don't feel any animosity for a people who curse Abu Bakr, Umar, and Ayesha RA?? And say they apostated after the death of the prophet (saw) and when the mahdi comes he's going to resurrect Umar and Abu Bakr and then hang them and whip them??

My statement was in reference to a statement by Al-manar, 'most of them would say that shia are worse than Jews and Christians !!!!". I respect Abu Bakr, Umar and Ayesha and my opinion is that the view or belief of someone else regarding them does not put them outside the fold of Islam. For that matter neither do I feel animosity towards Christians who worship Jesus as only Allah (swt) should be worshiped even though "the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin" at what they do.

I don't know a lot about the details of history, but my opinion is that both Muawiya and Ayesha were wrong to oppose and to fight against Ali. To illustrate my point, at Karbala on whose side would you have fought, Yazid's or Hossein's? The problem is that the Shi'a capitalized on this conflict and used it as an excuse to deviate in their deen and to rewrite history.

[MustafaMc]

When you say destroying graves, do you mean destroying shrines and levelling them to the ground because people would make special journeys to the shrines in order to receive blessings?

The problem is in people's hearts and their lack of iman. You change that by education not with a bulldozer. I don't agree with the wanton destruction of sites that were important in Islamic history. Likewise, I don't believe the graves of Muhammad (saaws), Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) and the green dome on Masjid An-Nabawi should be destroyed. I visited these graves a couple of times when I was in Medina, but my intention was to pray in the second most holy masjid in Islam which I assume was also the intention of all other Muslims that I saw. While I was there, why should I not visit the grave of Prophet Muhammad (saaws)?

[Al-manar]

:sl:

:sl:
Some people regard Salafism or Salafiyyah as a new maddhab

I agree with you ... as the word (Salaf) in Arabic simply means the past ....

:sl: This is what all the maddhabs do, and so they all follow the methodology of Salafiyyah

That is again true .....

:sl:it is simply adhering to what the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his Companions and those who followed them were upon.

That is where the disagreement between the Islamic theologies emerge ,

1- How trustworthy the traditions? The shia sect (due to the known political problem of Imamah) not only they radically mistrust the sunni hadith collections ,but also forged traditions that support their political position...

2- How far the traditions (sunna.. etc) be helpful in fiqh ,is where both the school of Abu Hanifah and Ibn Hanbal (God bless their souls both) differs (I think the later exaggerated its significance) ...

3- should we accept beliefs with certainity that included in Hadith Ahad or it has to be Hadith Mutawatir? ,what if Hadith Ahad contradicts the Quran? a controversy that led to theological differences .

4- could we question the understanding of Salaf (the early generation after the prophet) in some points, or if we do so ,we make bad innovations? could we simply, rely all the way on the interpretations of texts provided by medieval clerics, or we need to use reason to keep up with changing times.

I'm not posing those question seeking answers ,just to elborate the point

:sl:

Regarding Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab - we have to be aware that there are many lies and fabrications in circulation about him..

That is true , but that is the way with the reformers ,some would praise them ,others would criticise .....

but you know, the focus of criticism on the Salafia ,wahabia movement (be sure I'm using the term with good intention),is not on the its founder (may Allah bless his soul),but on the actions of the movements itself all over the years .....

:sl:
At the end of the day, as long as we follow the Qur'an and the Sunnah as understood by the Companions and early Muslims, that is the main thing.

Though I don't think the part in bold has to be accepted strictly ,yet I respect and appriciate those who held it ,who put the understanding of the early muslims all the way above criticism ..... me personally I think some later understandings ,I won't say better but at least possible ...

away from the methodology ,I don't think the movement was civilized,ambitious, realistic ,tolerant as it should be......
I pray for Allah that they reform the movement in a way to be suitable for the serious challenges that face our Islamic nation....

They have the financial abilities to build a united,civilized,tolerant and powerful nation that is feared and respected by the other nations ,but they lack the open minded leadership ...

Thank you Bro Muhammad for your input .... and I'm pleased ,we for the first time, have a discussion...

peace

[Muhammad]

Wa Alaykum Assalaam brother Al-manar,

That is where the disagreement between the Islamic theologies emerge ,

1- How trustworthy the traditions? The shia sect (due to the known political problem of Imamah) not only they radically mistrust the sunni hadith collections ,but also forged traditions that support their political position...

2- How far the traditions (sunna.. etc) be helpful in fiqh ,is where both the school of Abu Hanifah and Ibn Hanbal (God bless their souls both) differs (I think the later exaggerated its significance) ...

3- should we accept beliefs with certainity that included in Hadith Ahad or it has to be Hadith Mutawatir? ,what if Hadith Ahad contradicts the Quran? a controversy that led to theological differences .

4- could we question the understanding of Salaf (the early generation after the prophet) in some points, or if we do so ,we make bad innovations? could we simply, rely all the way on the interpretations of texts provided by medieval clerics, or we need to use reason to keep up with changing times.

I'm not posing those question seeking answers ,just to elborate the point

These points are separate discussions on their own but are not related to the one in this thread, because we are not talking about theological differences between different sects of Islam. We mentioned earlier that all the maddhabs adopt the same methodology in terms of following the Qur'an, Sunnah and understanding of the early Muslims, and therefore are not different sects. And Salafiyyah is one of the names given to this methodology.

but you know, the focus of criticism on the Salafia ,wahabia movement (be sure I'm using the term with good intention),is not on the its founder (may Allah bless his soul),but on the actions of the movements itself all over the years .....

This is an important distinction to make. If we can separate the actions of some people from what the true teachings (which they claim to follow) are, it helps us to understand the discussion better.

Though I don't think the part in bold has to be accepted strictly ,yet I respect and appriciate those who held it ,who put the understanding of the early muslims all the way above criticism ..... me personally I think some later understandings ,I won't say better but at least possible ...

This requires its own discussion - there are textual and rational evidences establishing the authority of the Companions and those who followed them. And there are further details regarding the role of their statements and different types and so on. That doesn't mean that later scholars do not have any role though...

Thank you Bro Muhammad for your input .... and I'm pleased ,we for the first time, have a discussion...

It is an interesting discussion, but firstly I do not consider myself knowledgeable to discuss this in any depth and secondly I haven't got much time to devote to it. Also, we generally discourage such topics from being discussed on the forum as they often lead to argumentation and disunity. That is why I was only intending to give brief points and was hoping to close the thread if the original question had been answered.

May Allaah (swt) bless us all with understanding of His religion, guide us to the Straight Path and forgive us for our mistakes and anything we may have said out of ignorance, Aameen.

[Al-manar]

peace brother Muhammad

Wa Alaykum Assalaam brother Al-manar,

These points are separate discussions on their own but are not related to the one in this thread, because we are not talking about theological differences between different sects of Islam.

except point (1) the shia, I didn't refer to any sect ,I don't think points 2,3,4 requires a sectarian definition .

It is an interesting discussion, but firstly I do not consider myself knowledgeable to discuss this in any depth and secondly I haven't got much time to devote to it. Also, we generally discourage such topics from being discussed on the forum as they often lead to argumentation and disunity.

and I agree with that approach ... that is why my points were in brief too . but I hope there would be a balance ,I mean ,the forum should attract the beginners and the advanced learners as well..... to do so it should have some input that attracts the in depth readers ....

still I agree with you ,I guess this thread ,if continue with its theme ,would lead to disunity....

May Allaah (swt) bless us all with understanding of His religion, guide us to the Straight Path and forgive us for our mistakes and anything we may have said out of ignorance, Aameen.

Aameen Aameen...

[MustafaMc]

:sl:

away from the methodology ,I don't think the movement was civilized,ambitious, realistic ,tolerant as it should be......
I pray for Allah that they reform the movement in a way to be suitable for the serious challenges that face our Islamic nation....

Wa alaikum assalam, I agree that the methodology is good, but also there tends to be a serious lack of civility, respect and tolerance.

They have the financial abilities to build a united,civilized,tolerant and powerful nation that is feared and respected by the other nations ,but they lack the open minded leadership ...

Sadly, I don't see how the immense wealth generated from oil has significantly benefited Islam, perhaps it is only due to my ignorance of what has actually been done.