Rami,

 Abu Mujahid is wrong in many things because he may be living in far country. The people in Indian sub continent have good experience of the so called Wahhabi or salafi sect. There are many mosques and schools teaching the salafi doctrine. Its headquarter was in Patnah in India more than 150 years ago.

 The present day salafi school of thought seems to emanate from Sh. Mohmmad ibne abdul Wahhab. WE do not have any earlier history of these people. Now I come to some of the beliefs of these people and others.

1. They do have some good points because the brelvis (or may be Sufis too) had many shrines and they were actually doing lot of worthless anti-Islamic deeds on the shrines. The poor illitrate muslims used to go to Peers asking for advice and even seeking children. I cannot go into detail. There were a lot of very bad things being done there including lot of music and dancing.

2. The Wahhabis came as a treatment for the above type of maladies. That was good. But then they all got mixed up in the Noor (Light) and knowledge / no knowledge of the unseen (Ghaib). There was lot of tussle.

3. More problem because the Wahhabis (pls excuse me for using this term) said that the prophet was just a man (Bashar) like us. The Berlvis or the sufis did not like it. They said it was a sin to say such thing.

4. The work of the Salafis on that line was very good. But please note that I myself heard one of those Salafi types saying to me about the Aulia Allah (The saints ) that they were all fraud. I did not like it.

 I will try to continue this subject in next posts, Insha Allah.

 There have been querrels on the way the people pray (Salat). There is pressure for loud Aameen and raising of both hands at every takbeer by the Ahle Hadith. The people in Indian sub continent were not used to it. Theyhad been living peacfully and praying for centuries in the country but never seen such a thing.

 When these Hadith people came, there were differences in the mode of the prayers just because some one read in the books of Hadith about loud Aameen. So they wanted to put it into practice. That was because it was written in the books of Hadith. That is all. But they forgot the practice of the holy prophet which was being done from generation to generation. Was that all wrong?? Suddenly??

Also Fateha khalf Imam (to recite the Sura Fateha behind the Imam in all cases even when he is reciting the Surah loudly). Imam Abu hanifah did not advise that and did not do that and many and all people were not doing it. On top of all that, another loud Ameen. Imam Abu Hanifah said that Ameen can be said gently and quietly. But Ahle Hadith did not want it like that because it was written in some Hadith.... One should remember that Sunnah, the practice of the prophet was also a good source of knowledge.

Then the ahle Hadith were saying that if there was no Hadith then people will not know how to do Wudhu (ablution) and people would not know how many Raka'at prayer (Salat) is required at different times. I say that is the biggest lie of the proponents of the Hadith.

The books of Hadith were written after about 200 years. Were the people not doing any Wudhu before that?? Were the people not praying (Salat)??

The important thing is that there are three sects.

1. Ahle Hadith, who give more importance to the Ahadith after the Quran.

2. Ahle Sunnah, who give more importance to the Sunnah (Practice) of the holy prophet after the Quran.

3. Ahle Tashieh, the Shias who have their own hadith (and probably Own Quran too).

The discussion here is between the group No. 1 and group No. 2. Who is right and who is better in the matter of Deen e Islam. There is no need to be harsh. Every one can present their view peacefully.

More later if required.

 The above reply from Abu Mujahid is to Rami. See his post:

 Again, don't you get it eh? I can't keep up with your ignorance. What is wrong with you bro? Where is in the world I said Wahabi Sheikh said this or that in our exchange here?.  The simple fact is and  most muslims agree: four imam opinions don't count unless they back up by daliil. Period.

My comments:

Who are the most Muslims? The salafis or Wahhabis are a minority group. And Abu Mujahid wants a daleel from some where for what the four Imams say. According to him the daleel should come from where, from his book of Hadees??? or from Quran?? orfrom the practice of the holy prophet s.a.w.s.

 But Abu Mujahid is not telling which daleel will suit him. I had posted above. Perhaps Abu Mujahid has not seen that yet. Anyhow, I will wait for a reply. I feel that Abu Mujahid lives in a different world. I have seen that this salafi faith is all over the S. Arabia and that was prescribed by Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab.

 Abu Mujahid has objection to following the Imams blindly. Likewise we have objection to the Salafis about following the Hadith blindly and giving it too much importance, undue importance. We Sunnis do not reject the Hadith. We do Taqleed. Our Imam (Abu Hanifah) was well aware of the Hadees too. Imam Malik was a great teacher of Hadees in Madinah.

The problem with the salafis is that since they do not have an Imam, they have to interpret the Hadith themselves. So every one becomes a Mujtahid. How come?? The present day salafi teachings all seem to emanate from Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. But letus say thatitis wrong. Then Abu Mujahid should tell the status of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab in the salafi line or doctrine.

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

Please Brothers, can we stop this kind of bitting talk to one another. The Companions of the Prophet (May Allah be Pleased with Him) did not do such things.

The Companions (May Allah be pleased with them all) used to have opinions that differed from one to another. Umar (May Allah be pleased with Him) and Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with Him) had these frequently. But Alhumdulilah, Masha�Allah they never talked this way to each other and these are our examples in Islam.

The Muslims have enough enemies right now, the last thing we need is to fight one another, even if it is only with words or insinuations.  Please remember that the way that we talk to one another is dawah and that non-Muslims are watching all the time. Perhaps, comments such as these could influence a possible convert to shy away from the Path. Remeber please, that this could result in a Muslims who is negatively infulenced by our example to have his sins be put into our account, May Allah forbid.

Asalaamu Alaikum

Nichole

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 wrote: Please Brothers, can we stop this kind of bitting talk to one another. The Companions of the Prophet (May Allah be Pleased with Him) did not do such things. The Companions (May Allah be pleased with them all) used to have opinions that differed from one to another. Umar (May Allah be pleased with Him) and Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with Him) had these frequently. But Alhumdulilah, Masha�Allah they never talked this way to each other and these are our examples in Islam.

Assalam Aleikum Sr.

You are correct that there was always some kind of respect amongst the companions, and they did have differing opinions. But, this is not an example of just �differing opinions�, it is much more fundamental that concerns how we take our knowledge from the primary texts: high standards or below standard mediocrity.

As someone (a layman) who approaches Allah in my practice of Islam according to the methodology set forth by Imam Malik and the scholars after him, I can tell you that some of my practices will slightly differ with that of Brother Rami, who studies Hanafi fiqh. Brother Rami and I will have no problem with these differences, as we both have come to our decision based upon sound methodologies that recognize one another.

The Muslims have enough enemies right now, the last thing we need is to fight one another, even if it is only with words or insinuations.  Please remember that the way that we talk to one another is dawah and that non-Muslims are watching all the time. Perhaps, comments such as these could influence a possible convert to shy away from the Path. Remeber please, that this could result in a Muslims who is negatively infulenced by our example to have his sins be put into our account, May Allah forbid.   Asalaamu Alaikum Nichole

 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.