The Salafi Methodology?

This Link should help with the discussion http://www.abdurrahman.org/sunnah/sacredsalafimethod.html 

My point of view is that I think that the Salafi manhej is a good approach but were along the lines does that mean we abandon what the Four Imams have done, put it like this if someone adheres to the Hanafi madhhab and Imam Abu Hanifa(ra) said "And emaan does not increase, nor does it decrease." but Imam Malik(ra), Imam ash-Shaafi'ee(ra), and Imam Hanbal(ra) said emaan does Increase and decrease so does the Muslim who follows the Hanafi Madhhab reject what the other Three Imams stated and when their statements are correct? and I also heard someone state (and I dont know if it is true or not so feel free state if it is or it isnt) that Hanefi ruling marriage legal without wali which is in contradiction with Hadith. So do we follow the Imams or the Sunnah of the Prophet(saw)? and also I wanted to touch up on something minutenman stated.

"The problem with the salafis is that since they do not have an Imam, they have to interpret the Hadith themselves."

I highly dought this is the case I think as far interpretating Ahadith we rely on the consensus of the Ulama and as for those who attempt to add their own Interpretation to a Hadith without knowledge should be ignored. and who are these self proclaimed salafi scholars? the only real scholars to my knowledge who followed the salafi manhej were Muhammad Nasirudden al-Albaanee(ra), Muhammad ibn al-Uthaymeen(ra), and Abdul Azeez ibn Abdullah ibn Baz(ra). then when it comes to the past Ulama which most salafis refer to are Ibn taimiyah, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn kathir, Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Abdul Wahhab, etc.(May Allah have mercy on All of them)

Assalam Aleikum.

I would like to see peoples opinions on the salafi methodology. Whats Good about it?

I can give you both opinion and facts. I would say that the �salafi� methodology is good in that it presents a living 20^th century example of a sectarian split from a core belief system. So when we read about sects and how they develop, from an anthropological view, and a learning perspective, we can have an actual, living example and we can see first hand why sects are problematic and why they are intellectually bankrupt by their very nature.

Whats bad about it? etc.

Given that the Prophet (saw) warned us about debating in matters of religion, I would say that the one of the primary negative aspects is that the very nature of this sect is based upon such principles which asserts that 1) muslims have all been wrong for over a thousand years, or 2) Muslims have been unable to understand what scholars have said all along and we need them, in the 20^th century, to properly educate us (1 or 2 will depend on what group from this sect you talk to). This presents a dilemma and a constant tension with the majority of Muslims who have lived present and past. Therefore, the presentation is in general a matter of arguing with everyone and having to debate in nearly every aspect of theology. Matters of debate on major issues regarding ijtihad and matters regarding �kalam� do have their place and these are left to scholars, and so I do not wish to confuse this area of discussion with the matter of the alleged �salafi� methodology. The next item that comes to mind is that the very name is a fallacy in �equivocation�. I say this because the word �salafi� indicates people who lived in a certain time. The �time period� is necessary in order for the word to have a correct usage. This time period is gone. So a more proper term should be �neo-salaf�. The name they have given to themselves also tries to imply that their methodology is somehow �superior�, because they are taking their knowledge from the �salaf�. This is a rhetorical trick which tries to allude to a complete misrepresentation of how we derive rulings from the primary texts of Islam. Sometimes a rhetorical question can produce straight thinking: So if �neo salafs� imply, even by name, that they take their knowledge from the pious generations of Islam as a thesis that sets them apart from the only recognized methodologies that exist (the four madhabs, e.g. the only existent methods that can be traced to the Prophet (saw) with unbroken chains of transmission), then the four accepted schools somehow do not take their knowledge from the �salaf�, but some other source? That after over a thousand years, some new method that has no link back to the Prophet (saw) was �discovered� which every Muslims scholar has missed? Something was discovered that somehow �trumps� the four accepted methods that have been followed and developed by some of the greatest minds that have ever lived? These questions can only lead to a single conclusion, even before we begin to seriously consider the �neo-salaf� position: highly implausible.

Because I hear and see alot of indviduals saying negative things about the salafis or the "wahhabis" and have alot of opposition towards them

This should not be surprising given the �thesis� upon which the �neo-salafi� foundation is based upon. By its very nature it stands in constant tension with mainstream scholarship that is tried, true, and proven over centuries. The neo-salaf movement has repackaged and reworked sciences such as �aqida�, in contrast to the �aqida� that has been established for centuries. Over night that have taken acts that have always been deemed permissible and even practiced by the great ulema themselves, and made them an issue of �aqida�, accusing thousands of Muslims has �kafir�, and �mushriks�, and �apostates�. Given their beginning was violent and belligerent, without any proven scholarship, it should not be a surprise that their group creates feelings of resentment.

when to my understanding the Salafi methodology places all of its jurisprudence on the Qur'an and Sunnah according to the interpretation of the Salaf (i.e. first three generations of Muslims) and rejects all Bid'a and Shirk.

This is their claim, which asserts something that is extremely insulting to the four established schools: So the four established schools do not place its jurisprudence on the Quran and Sunnah? Of course they do. So the four schools do not reject innovation and shirk? Of course they do. This claim by the neo-salafs is a �red herring�. What the neo-salafs do not tell you is that after they have re-interpreted major concepts in jurisprudence, gone against established and proven concepts, and they have even gone as far as to tamper with classical works, they then superimposed their deviated creed onto traditional Islam. They have played a �shell game�, and using catchy slogans and phrases, trick unsuspecting Muslims. Their method does not get you any closer to the Prophet (saw) than what the four surviving schools get you, and the four schools also reject innovation and shirk. Keep in mind that the early Muslims understood very well the importance of safe guarding the deen, and the importance of maintaining strict and high standards for anyone who would dispense knowledge. Confidence in obtaining accurate and reliable knowledge comes only through the high standards that are in place for anyone who wishes to teach any of the Islamic sciences. When you move away from the methodologies put into place by the greatest minds that ever lived, and trade it off with a lesser standard, with gaps filled in with slogans and �howlers�, then you will approach God with inferior acts. Engineers, doctors, scientists, teachers, professors, all require standards that will grant confidence. University accreditation, licensure exams, diplomas; all are in place to grant confidence in those who seek out knowledge or services. No one complains about such �methodologies�, so it is a mystery why we have a sect who has drudged up an old fitnah and demands a lesser standard in matters of faith then they do seeking out a doctor, or learning engineering.   

 Nichole is right. There is no need to bicker and start infighting. Rather an example of unity, good faith and good moral should be presented to the world.

We will not conquer the world through logic and weapons (bombs). It will be through being the best morale people. That means a lot of work is waiting ahead.