Salafi Publications

Thank's what is this about sis?

I have no idea.

Is salafi a good or bad thing in Islam?

format_quote Originally Posted by searchingsoul

Is salafi a good or bad thing in Islam?

Salafi means really folower of the salaf, the early generation iof righteous muslims. Today muslims use it slightly differently, usually needlessly labelling people salafi if they disagree with thmeselves on issues or seem a bit extreme

Salafi is more of a reformation movement started to guide people back to the straight path since many innovation has crept in, innovation that are being propagated especially in the west.

Extract From "Bearing True Witness" (or, “Now That I’ve Found Islam,
What Do I Do With It?”) DR. LAURENCE B. BROWN, MD


"So what is the safest and best path by which new Muslims may learn and practice their religion of Islam? The answer to that question varies from one ‘scholar’ to another, but thankfully offers only a few possibilities. To begin with, many scholars and imams tend to recommend more modern books of Islamic jurisprudence, such as Fiqh us-Sunnah, by Sayyid Saabiq, smaller treatises by Nasr Ad-Deen Al-Albaani and others, and self-study of collections of hadith and tafseer. Others direct the new Muslim to fundamental books of one of the four Madhhabs. Al-Nawawi’s Manual of Islam and Reliance of the Traveler, both translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, are the best translations of foundational books of Shafi fiqh into the English language known to this author, although they both bear the unfortunate taint of the translator’s strong dedication to Sufism and Ashari aqeeda.

That said, all of the above books have their proponents and antagonists, and each individual simply has to investigate the various opinions in order to decide which to follow. Initially, that is. Not surprisingly, many who at first embark upon one path of study eventually gravitate towards another. This process is not altogether unhealthy, for people can best choose their direction after weighing all the options. I would suggest, however, that much of the initial indecision and vacillation between schools of thought results from misunderstanding the roles of the Madhhabs and what is known, in present day terms, as the Salafi movement. Many conceive these two entities to be in conflict with one another, and outwardly this may appear to be true. However, when investigated, Muslims usually come to appreciate that these two schools of thought are, in fact, complementary, for the Madhhabs were originally developed as schools of fiqh, whereas the Salafi movement is one of Islamic reform. The Salafi reforms primarily focus upon correcting those errors which had grown to corrupt the Muslim ummah in general and the Madhhab system in specific, with the major issues being:

1) Errors in aqeeda, which became institutionalized in the Madhhabs through the regrettable adoption of the Ashari and Maturidi aqeedas;
2) The practice of Sufism, which not only became fanatical and extreme, but which also became seemingly inextricably bonded with the Madhhabs following the period of Abu Haamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (1058-1111 C.E.);
3) The relative unwillingness of Madhhab scholars to modify the fiqh of their Madhhab when presented with conflicting hadith evidence, despite the religious mandate to do so when encountering valid hadith evidence;
4) Taqleed, or blind following, on the part of the Madhhab adherents;
5) And the infiltration of non-religious customs (including those revived from the period of ignorance) into the practices of the Islamic religion.

The Salafi movement is not, and never has been, primarily a fiqh movement, and the Madhhabs are practically nothing but. So, in fact, these two schools support and complement one another. The fiqh of the Madhhabs forms the foundation upon which modern fiqh research is largely based, whereas Salafi ideology identifies and corrects those errors which, over the centuries, surreptitiously crept into the beliefs and practices of the Muslims, most of whom adhered to one of the four Madhhabs. So complete and universal was the infiltration of Sufism and either Ashari or Maturidi aqeeda into the Madhhab world that, in time, they came to be considered integral with the Madhhabs. Such does not reflect the thinking at the period of origins, and the Muslim world has the Salafi’s to thank for identifying and announcing that fact.
The four Madhhabs claim a dynamic structure with the provision for progressive fiqh modification given new knowledge. However, such changes are in scarce evidence, and a person is hard put to find changes in mainstream Madhhab fiqh given what many have argued to be relatively conclusive evidence. The following statements by the imams of the four Madhhabs apply:
1. Abu Hanifah – “When the Hadith is authentic, then that is my Madhhab” (Ibn Abidin, Al Hashiyah, p. 1/63) and “If I make a statement at variance with that which is in the book of Allah, or at variance with the statement of His Messenger, then leave my statement.” (Al-Fulani, I’qath Al Himam, p. 50)
2. Malik – “I am only a man; I make mistakes and am at times correct. Therefore look at my opinions; everything that agrees with the book and the Sunnah then take it, and everything that does not agree with them then leave it. (Ibn Abd Al Barr, Al Jami, p. 2/32)
3. Shafi – “When the Hadith is authentic, then that is my Madhhab” (Al-Nawawi, Al Majmu, p. 1/136); “Every issue in which there is an authentic statement narrated from the Messenger of Allah and it goes against that which I have said, then I go back on my statement during my life and after it” (Abu Nafiim, Al Hilyah, p. 9/107); and “Every hadith from the Prophet, then take it as my opinion, even if you did not hear it from me (Ibn Abi Hatim, Adab Al Shafi, pp. 93-94); “There is consensus amongst the Muslims that he who is shown the Sunnah of the Prophet is forbidden to leave it for the saying of anyone, no matter who that person may be (Al Fulani, I’qath Al Himam, p. 68)
4. Ahmad ibn Hanbal – “Do not blindly follow me, nor Malik, nor Shafi, nor Al-Awzafii, nor Al-Thawri. Instead, take from where they took” (Al Fulani, I’qath Al Himam, p. 113).
Tirmidhi (2167
The four Madhhabs claim a dynamic structure with the provision for progressive fiqh modification given new knowledge. However, such changes are in scarce evidence, and a person is hard put to find changes in mainstream Madhhab fiqh given what many have argued to be relatively conclusive evidence. The following statements by the imams of the four Madhhabs apply:
1. Abu Hanifah – “When the Hadith is authentic, then that is my Madhhab” (Ibn Abidin, Al Hashiyah, p. 1/63) and “If I make a statement at variance with that which is in the book of Allah, or at variance with the statement of His Messenger, then leave my statement.” (Al-Fulani, I’qath Al Himam, p. 50)
2. Malik – “I am only a man; I make mistakes and am at times correct. Therefore look at my opinions; everything that agrees with the book and the Sunnah then take it, and everything that does not agree with them then leave it. (Ibn Abd Al Barr, Al Jami, p. 2/32)
3. Shafi – “When the Hadith is authentic, then that is my Madhhab” (Al-Nawawi, Al Majmu, p. 1/136); “Every issue in which there is an authentic statement narrated from the Messenger of Allah and it goes against that which I have said, then I go back on my statement during my life and after it” (Abu Nafiim, Al Hilyah, p. 9/107); and “Every hadith from the Prophet, then take it as my opinion, even if you did not hear it from me (Ibn Abi Hatim, Adab Al Shafi, pp. 93-94); “There is consensus amongst the Muslims that he who is shown the Sunnah of the Prophet is forbidden to leave it for the saying of anyone, no matter who that person may be (Al Fulani, I’qath Al Himam, p. 68)
4. Ahmad ibn Hanbal – “Do not blindly follow me, nor Malik, nor Shafi, nor Al-Awzafii, nor Al-Thawri. Instead, take from where they took” (Al Fulani, I’qath Al Himam, p. 113).
Tirmidhi (2167
The four Madhhabs claim a dynamic structure with the provision for progressive fiqh modification given new knowledge. However, such changes are in scarce evidence, and a person is hard put to find changes in mainstream Madhhab fiqh given what many have argued to be relatively conclusive evidence. The following statements by the imams of the four Madhhabs apply:
1. Abu Hanifah – “When the Hadith is authentic, then that is my Madhhab” (Ibn Abidin, Al Hashiyah, p. 1/63) and “If I make a statement at variance with that which is in the book of Allah, or at variance with the statement of His Messenger, then leave my statement.” (Al-Fulani, I’qath Al Himam, p. 50)
2. Malik – “I am only a man; I make mistakes and am at times correct. Therefore look at my opinions; everything that agrees with the book and the Sunnah then take it, and everything that does not agree with them then leave it. (Ibn Abd Al Barr, Al Jami, p. 2/32)
3. Shafi – “When the Hadith is authentic, then that is my Madhhab” (Al-Nawawi, Al Majmu, p. 1/136); “Every issue in which there is an authentic statement narrated from the Messenger of Allah and it goes against that which I have said, then I go back on my statement during my life and after it” (Abu Nafiim, Al Hilyah, p. 9/107); and “Every hadith from the Prophet, then take it as my opinion, even if you did not hear it from me (Ibn Abi Hatim, Adab Al Shafi, pp. 93-94); “There is consensus amongst the Muslims that he who is shown the Sunnah of the Prophet is forbidden to leave it for the saying of anyone, no matter who that person may be (Al Fulani, I’qath Al Himam, p. 68)
4. Ahmad ibn Hanbal – “Do not blindly follow me, nor Malik, nor Shafi, nor Al-Awzafii, nor Al-Thawri. Instead, take from where they took” (Al Fulani, I’qath Al Himam, p. 113).
Tirmidhi (2167
Having said that, a person can easily understand why the Salafi movement and the Madhhabs are frequently considered at odds with one another. For although in truth they are not, in practice the adherents to these different schools frequently fail to separate the issues. Too many ignorant ‘Salafi’s’ reflexively dismiss the fiqh of the Madhhabs, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, because they do not differentiate between the importance of the fiqh of the Madhhabs and the deviations in belief and practice which became associated with Madhhabs over time. Other Salafi’s erroneously consider differences in fiqh to be the main issue, whereas in fact the main issues are those listed above. On the other side of the equation, Madhhab adherents frequently view Salafi’s with animosity because Salafi ideology challenges the aqeeda and Sufism which they have come to consider integral with their particular Madhhab. This animosity is, of course, real, and upon these issues a person simply has to take sides -- for or against Sufism, for or against Ashari or Maturidi aqeeda, etc. Let us recognize, however, that it is not the fiqh of the Madhhabs that is being challenged so much as the errors in aqeeda, deviation into Sufism, stagnation in fiqh, blind following on the part of the adherents, and adoption of non-Islamic practices.

The end result is that those Muslims with balance typically align themselves upon a middle path between extremes, seeking the good within both groups, which in the opinion of this author means recognizing the excellence of the fiqh of the Madhhabs on one hand, and the merit of Salafi reforms on the other.

This opinion is not without precedent, for all of the scholars who revived Salafi ideology (including Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymeeyah, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzeeyah, and Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab), began their studies as adherents to one of the traditional Madhhabs, endorsed this pathway of study, and never sought to overthrow any of these schools of fiqh. Rather, they sought to revive the Madhhabs, but at the same time reform the manner in which were followed. Furthermore, none of these scholars ever claimed to have established a new school of fiqh, despite the fact that, given their popularity and scholastic achievement, they undoubtedly could have had they thought it appropriate. And, in fact, at each point of history during the past millennia the vast majority of Muslims, laity and scholars alike (Salafi scholars included), have adhered to one of the four traditional Madhhabs.[1]"

I recommend to read the book, click on the link below to get a pdf format or in "MS Word"

Ref:
[1] Bearing True Witness

format_quote Originally Posted by Islamicboy

Why label ourself Salafi cant we be happy with muslim?

Exactly. It is just a movement outline as above. Not a set of different belief.

I try to follow my religion practically and simply.

Here is my logic to all the secterian out their. If it has not been mentioned in the Quran or by our prophet stay away from it.

If it was not good enough to be mentioned (all this sectarian name) than it is good reason to stay away from it.



1. In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

2. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;

3. Most Gracious, Most Merciful;

4. Master of the Day of Judgment.

5. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.

6. Show us the straight way,

7. The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray. [surah 1]