SHIA SUNNI, MALEKI, SHAFI, HANAFI, WAHABI

first of all [this is for everyone].. let us have some respect and use Muwahhidun [thank you bro/sis number41] instead of 'wahabi'. Even saying followers of him or her is wrong i believe becoz as muslims, we can only be followers of prophet Muhammad [saw] regardless of whom do we agree or disagree with..

now brother minuteman.. i do not kno about the other groups you have mentioned but Muwahhidun [or ahle hadith as you name them] and ahlus Sunnah are not different sects! I had mentioned it earlier that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab was trained by the Hanbalee school of thought and this is a fact. Even today what Muwahhidun follow or believe comes from the hanbalee school of thought so for you to say that they are different from ahlus sunnah would be something very wrong..  

the differences of shias and sunnis are crystal clear. We have different sources. If not Quran then the books of ahadith and we all kno that ahadith play a very important role in determining our path. They dont have what we have and we dont have what they do. I am aware of some deviant groups such as the one in india who claim that we should only do what is farz and make Quran our only source since ahadith might not be authentic as they were not recorded during the time of prophet Muhammad [saw]. But for the rest of us who believe in Quran, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and the other authentic books of ahadith.. how can we differ? how can we be different sects when we use the very same sources? just becoz you dont understand a verse or hadith the way i do, we split into two different sects? in such a case there should be millions of sects.. unity is what we truly require today and with such thoughts in mind, i doubt prophet Muhammad's [saw] ummah will ever be united. Its so sad wen you look around and find people in the west progressing at a speed of light and us Muslims being busy in finding faults of eachother..

 Thanks Abuzaid, I am in agreement with you about hadith being a  valid source of Deen. But I place it at the third place after the Quran and Sunnah.

But first you must understand that Hadith is not Sunnah. The Hadith may be a descriptive if the Sunnah. Hadith is different to the daily practice of the prophet. When ever any order came, the prophet s.a.w.s. acted on that order and every one learnt it. Then other people learnt it from the first group.

If you keep the Sunnah separate from the sayings of the prophet then you will see easily that I am belonging to Ahle Sunnah while you are belonging to Ahle Hadith. I have studied your posts and found that your beliefs are same as Ahle Hadith.

 You may be thinking that you are ahle Sunnah but with your beliefs it is clear that your beliefs are same as ahle hadith. We have seen many of them and we know all about it.

Next, your claim that all Imam of Fiqah have upheld the Hadith as a source of Deen, it is correct and I believe the same. But the Imams did not go for Hadith. They acted on the practice of the prophet. And used Hadith too for their guidance.

The ahle hadith accuse the Imams for not knowing the Ahadith. The followers of the ahle Hadith call the Sunni people as Muqallid. While they are themselves non Muqallid.

 No Sonya, there are many groups. There are Deobandis, Brelvis, Sunnis, Shias, Ahle Hadith (Wahhabis) and Ahle Quran (who are considered not Muslims) and there are many more.

Here our discussion is going on between the Ahle Sunnah and Ahle Hadith. The problem is that the Ahle Hadith want to keep the Sunnah (practice) with the hadith (sayings)  of the prophet s.a.w.s.

 They should consider these two as different and one is preceding the other. I have read the post of Abuzaid. His first sentence is right but soon he has created doubt. I will reply to him separately, Insha Allah.

What I understand from you is..Continuous practice of Muslim Ummah over the period of time till today is sunnah. and the moment these practice is written down in a book it ceases to be sunnah. I am not getting confused, when you try to define Sunnah while avoiding hadith you conclude this.

your Question:were the people not praying properly until the Ahadith were collected?? You have not replied.

Well! even Sahabah and early generation followed Hadith. Because what they heard from Prophet and observed Prophet doing is nothing but hadith. Only difference is that these hadith were not in written form. Muhadditheen in an attempt to preserve Sunnah/hadith; they collected available ahadith from people, verified its authenticity and wrote it for the ease of Ummah. And what you are saying is that we should not follow sunnah if it is written.

We are far away from Prophets period, and its easy to manipulate any prevailing practice among ummah as sunnah. In practice, for many, celebration of Prophets birth day is one of the greatest sunnah and for some worshipping grave is another important sunnah, just because they learned it from their parents and we are 1400 years away from Prophetic era.

you said: If you think that it is the books of Hadith which taught us how to do Wudhu and how many Rak'at of prayer at various times then you are very much mistaken. Why don't you admit that please???

Well, I never hesitate to admit my mistakes. But I don't totally agree with you. You are correct wrt to wudu by itself. But if any differences arises among ummah about wudu, like if wudu gets broken by touching wife. and if saying Bismillah is complusory before wudu etc.. In such cases the only option we have is to refer to Ahadith.