Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Unfortunately, since there is a very long history of anonymous IP editors unilaterally trying to hijack this article, therefore major changes by anonymous IP editors which have not been previously discussed on this talk page, and are not obvious improvements over the current quasi-consensus version of the article, are almost guaranteed to be reverted. AnonMoos 03:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Salafi

Should it not be noted that Salafis take a very negative view to Women having any rights, and also that Salafi's pray like Hanafi women? --195.7.55.146 10:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"pray like Hanafi women"? I think you are talking about Saudis and others not folding their hands? That's not because they are praying like Hanafi women, it's because they are from a Maliki background; and most Malikis pray that way—for example, all of sub-saharan African Muslims were also traditionally Maliki, even though they were not Salafi-influenced till very recently.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 17:15, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

If you are talking about praying with your hands down than that has no basis in islam. Imam Malik only prayed like that because they beat him so hard during his time that he could no longer lift his arms. Infact in his fatwas he forbid any muslim to pray like that because it was an innovation in the religion of islam by the shia.

And what do you mean by they have a nagetive view to women having any rights. I dont know of any negative view they have. So if you could tell me of what it is I would like that.

The main position of the Maliki school is to not fold the hands.

I'm a Christian and study not this sort of thing, but I fail to see the connection between the positioning of one's hands and the proper respect of God. Whether a prophet announced that God had specified a specific hand arrangement as proper?

Neutral Point of View

This article has had to be reverted twice in the past few days after disparaging and non-neutral text was inserted (and then re-inserted) regarding so-called "neo-Salafis". Any user wishing to expand on this issue should try to approach the matter with a neutral point of view, as per Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Rhymeswithgod 11:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:24.193.225.39 continues to revert this article and add non-neutral text referring to the "self-righteousness" of the neo-Salafis and how it "sickens" those who come across them. I'd rather not get caught up in an edit war over this. Rhymeswithgod 08:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whoever says that Imam Malik prayed with his arms down because he was tortured is a liar and should fear Allah (SWT). They should also consider studying Al-Muwatta. The deliberate ignorance of the neo-Salafis on the matter of sadl is disingenuous at best.

Word Meaning

My Arabic is close to non-existent. Does the word Salaf really mean "predecessor"? Isn't the term from one of the canons (Qur'an, Sunna, Seerah) and thus from The

Reversion to older version

I have reverted to the version that had evolved over time. The new version by User:82.36.194.21 has been saved at Salafi/Temp.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:28, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Protected

24.193.225.39,

Your edits on Salafi violate the Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. If you don't at least attempt to contribute in an encyclopedic manner, you will be banned from editing.

Regards,

172 09:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An useful source found about this issue

In the Name of Allaah:

I do not know where you are getting your information from but I think it is wrong. I am willing to help eachother out to write this article to the fullest. There is a book freely available about the whole thing. English isn't my first language so maybe someone can start writing using the book. The book is available at the following link: [1].

Thank you very much. A. 21:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. You are right about the fact that the Note at the end said

The article's denial that Wahhabism exists is dishonest. It is like claiming there are no Germans because they call themselves "Deutschers". There are followers of the Wahhabi doctrine, and they control Saudi Arabia. They fund madrassas around the world, whose students are going out with bombs to kill themselves and others. Tolerating their evasions and dishonesties is complicity with it.

Technically speaking, the terms Salafi and Wahhabi are not the same. Wahhabists follow the Hanbali school while Salafists reject all four schools.

You are wrong. Wahhabies dont exist, and if you can find me any scholer on this earth who calls himself a Wahhabi, or teaches a religion called Wahhabism, pleas tell me i would like to know. And you are also wrong about Salafies, they accept all four schools.

but then went on to say

In modern discourse, however, especially post-911, the term Salafi has come to describe various sects and groups sharing their views

I have changed that to:

In modern discourse, however, especially post-911, the term Salafi has come to describe various sects and groups that espouse a form of Islamic ideology and practice that is variously described as "purist" or even "reformist".

Is that better?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:45, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Made further changes—made this a separate heading now that it is a longer discussion. And included a new paragraph referring to the link you mentioned. Please read and comment.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:50, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense

"The Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia refer to themselves as Salafis"

So who does refer to them as Wahhabis? Why are they not called Salafis by everyone else? I'd like to see the Wahhabi V Salafi V Qtubi sections lengthened.

The simple answere would be is that Wahhabis do not exist. Did you ever see anyone who calles himself a Wahhabi or did you hear somone labeling somone els a wahhabi. The peopole of saudi arabia dont call them selfs Wahhabis but Salafies Because they them selfs dont know what wahhabiesem is.

--Sa11 07:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Yes i know for sure there are many people in Pakistan who call them self Wahhabi, actually they had some Madreassa and from their reciting and speach style you could say they have same training. I visited Saudi Arabia and i saw an Imam in a Jeddah mosque who is orignaly from Pakistan. So to me that means Saudi Arabia's strict relegious rules still allow Pakistani Wahabbis to work as Imam at Mosques there (hence they approve Whabbis).

On top of that, when we look to where the label Wahhabi might come from, than the closest view would be that it comes from a man called Muhammad bin Abdelwahhaab. Which by those, who refer themselves to the early generations in their Islamic understanding, is seen as just one of the many great scholars who held back to the understanding of the early generations (predecessors). The only difference I can think of is that from those classicaly accepted scholars from the past, he might be from the latest of them with comparitive influence. So it is not only a linguistical distortion, but also practically. - unsigned comment by IP 83.84.250.60 14:26, 9 January 2006

People in the former USSR republics such as Uzbekistan refer to Arab Islamists as Wahhabis. The term is also used in Ruthven's book 'Islam in the Modern World' and many other books about Islam. Wahhabism is not precisely the same as Salafism, although the two share many of the same traits. It is my belief that people who follow the Saudi supported form of Islam are Wahhabi not true Salafi. Salafism tends to reject authority and is against the notion of Caliph - these are not seen in 'neo-salafism' but are seen in Wahhabism. Perhaps the term 'neo-salafism' may be used to distinguish between true Salafism and those that are really Wahhabis but don't want to be associated with the house of Saud - which is one of the main reasons why may people have adopted the term Salafi instead of Wahhabi (to distinguish themselves apart from the Saudis - note this argument works both ways with the Saudi royal family wishing to distance themselves from terrorists and terrorists wishing to distance themselves from Suadis) - another plausible argument for this sudden use of the word Salafi to describe Wahhabism is that the term Wahhabi has become associated around the world with terrorism and religous violence. However, using the word Salafi is simply transferring this perceived relationship between Wahhabi and terrorism to Salafi and terrorism.

Famous Salafis?

The author of the Famous Salafis section obviously just grouped several of his idols as "Salafis," as quite clearly many of the luminaries listed are not Salafi, contrary to the author's clear misconceptions...

Every single one of the men named under the Famous Salafis section are salafis. One reason being is they all consider themself followers of Ahl Al Sunna Wal Jamaa. That is another way of refering to your yourself as a salafi. And another reason is maby because all Salafi scholers of Saudi Arabia, Yemen and any other place on earth accept their teachings, teach their teachings and admit to them as being Salafies.

How can they all be salafis? For example if Imam Jafer al-Sadiq was a salafi, then how come he has his own school of thought? It doesnt make sence. Im only removing Imam Jafer's name, cos i dont know about the others. --Khalid! 18:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Infact i'm removeing all of the Shia Imams, cos they defenatly did not believe in the Salafi school of thought.--Khalid! 18:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You make it seem as if the followers of the salaf dont accept the so called 12 Imam's of the Shia. When infact they do. Salafi scholars dont teach the followers of the salaf to worship them the way shia do but they only love them and respect them for being true followers of Islam and form the household of the Prophet. As for Imam Jafar I will put him back on the list because he is from the household of the Propher Muhammad and one of the most respected scholars of the salaf. I will also put back in the list his father Imam Baqir because he is also a belovid salafi scholar. The followers of the Sunnah dont beleve in them the way the shia do. The followers of the Sunnah dont beleve in what they say in shia Hadiths, but they have their own sayings so sometime in the future I will try to edit the articles on them.

Salaf - the early generations of the Muslims. Salafi - a term used to describe a modernist group of Muslims led by Al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh at the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries common era.

At present they are literalist and tend to make strange claims such at the often repeated falsehood that Imam Malik prayed with his arms down because they were crippled. They also have a tendency to pronounce takfir on other Muslims who disagree with them. They also insist that others are polytheists and ignore clear proofs from the texts that permit asking Allah (SWT) for something for the sake of his Friends.

Malik did pray with his hands down because he was crippled.But lets just say he did pray with his hands down ,which he dident but lets just say he did. Who is he to do that and say that. Is he all of a suddin 100% right in everything he did. When in Sahih Al-Bukhari it is said by Shal Ibn Sad that they were orderd by the prophet to place their right hand over the left in prayer. Imam Malik is going to go agenst that. Sahih Al-Bukhari is 2nd to the Quran for every Sunni Muslim on this earth. The most respected Hadith book. Salafi or not all Sunnies say it is 100% correct and not one Sunni scholar till this day found one mistake in it. Now your going to tell me Imam Malik one of the 4 schools of thought did not know this. went agenst it and made a mistake this serous in his prayer all his life.

As for claiming that they takfir. Who do they takfir. this is the first I hear of this.

The world is not black and white, but rather gray. Accept that there can be various interpretations and that maybe *your* interpretation is merely one amongst many.

---

I feel the need to respond here as there is clearly a mistake in what this respected brother wrote. He is right when he says that the Sahih al-Bukhari is authentic 100%. It is second only to the Qur'an. However, what you said that all Sunnis said that Bukhari is 100% authentic. One of the scholars of the early generations, Abu Ja'far al-'Uqaylee said, "When al-Bukhari compile the book, al-Saheeh, he showed it to 'Ali al-Madeenee, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Ma'een, and others. They declared it to be authentic, except for four ahadeeth." Abu Jaa'far continued stating, "And the correct saying of those (four) is the saying of al-Bukhari-they are authentic." So what the small handful of scholars who disagreed with these four hadeeth, the scholars responded to them and showed them these are correct hadith.

Some may accuse me of not being salafi for posting this so I will include the reference because I try my best to be salafi and I only like to speak with the proof. Here is the reference:

"The 'Aqeedah of Imam Al-Bukhari Died 256H"
Publisher: Salafi Publications
Second Edition
Page 5

I hope this clarifies things, and if I made a mistake, please correct me because I am not infallible and makes mistakes. If I made a mistake, I ask Allah then you to pardon me.

ZaydHammoudeh 23:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sahabah, Taba'een, Taba Tabe'een

The above mention lists are now found, in part, at the List of companions of the prophet Muhammad site

JuanMuslim and dawah

Juan, I took out your little para on how Salafis believe that they have to do dawah to fight bidah. It sounds too POV to me, and it's basically saying "Salafis believe they have to spread their faith" in fancy words. I think the "spreading the faith" bit is amply covered in the article.

The article as it stands is POV, very Salafi-leaning, and I am sure that there are many other Muslims and non-Muslims who would take issue with it. I haven't wanted to intervene, because I'm not sure that I really know all that much about the various currents of Salafism. But someone else is sure to object -- just think about all the anti-Islamic bigots who are busy in articles like Jihad, Islam, and Muhammad, and what they would make of this article if they knew enough about Islam to realize that there are Salafis! Zora 04:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Dawat-us-salafiyyah, also "Dawah Salafi", or "salafi dawah"

Dawat-us-salafiyyah, also "Dawah Salafi", or "salafi dawah" are all synonymous with the Salafi movement. This particular article is a good example of what I am talking about. You can't discuss Salafis without mentioning the name of their dawah movement. It's kinda like mentioning the Evangelicals without mentioning anything about their Evangelicalism.

This is my edit that you deleted:

Dawat-us-salafiyyah, also "Dawah Salafi", or "salafi dawah" is the methodology by Salafis to spread Islam based on the understanding of the Salaf as being superior and more accurate with an intention to avoid bidah. --JuanMuslim 04:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

If you must mention this Arabic term, surely there's a better place than the top of the article. It would fit better into the historical discussion, something on the order of, "Salafis have always believed that they should awaken other Muslims to the sin of bidah, and have engaged in dawat-us-salafiyyah, Salifi evangelism". And then explain how they have done that. Zora 04:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Well that's a good idea but I think it would be easier to throw in those terms in the discussion about bidah; please, read that article about salafis, and let me know what you think. --JuanMuslim 04:44, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the website you linked to and was not impressed. But I'm not a Muslim, I'm a Buddhist. I also read over the article and while you don't really have a history section per se, the discussions of the various currents of opinion in Salafism approach to being one. So that's where a discussion of dawah would go -- and it would probably take some thought on your part. I would presume that the earlier dawah just consisted of preaching, writing, publishing, and distributing printed works. I don't think there were any actual "missionaries", yes? No? Just clerics or regular Muslims who adopted the ideas and then tried to spread them? It seems to me that matters have been entirely different in the last fifty years, with the Saudi oil money funding literature, mosque-building, madrassas, websites ... and, what else? Talking about how dawah works on the ground, so to speak, is very different, and a lot more informative, than just giving an English definition for an Arabic term. Zora 08:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't trying to impress you; I just wanted you to become more familiar with the basis for their idea. Well, there are various dimensions in understanding salafi dawah. it's a complete methodology, based on their beliefs that the best ummah, Muslim community, was the first three generation of Muslims, so their dawah consists of calling nonMuslims and Muslims toward that methodology. That's the essence of salafis aka salafi dawah. Yes, your examples are all examples of the methodology (methodology and ways) of salafi dawah.--JuanMuslim 21:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Back Up

This article needs to be cleaned up to conform with a NPOV... please don't use this page to proselytize for the "salafi dawah."

POV sign added. "Wahhabi was the label given to the Salafis of Saudi Arabia, and now the world, by Sufis and Shia in which their Bidah (innovation) were shown to them." ? --Striver 10:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Add to which, "Many claim that the offical religion of Saudi Arabia is Wahabbi. This is absolutely false for the simple fact that Wahhabism does not exist." Pretty much an "up yours, NPOV". I wish I were more knowledgeable in this area, but can I suggest that this section should instead present sourced arguments as to why Wahabbism is/is not sensible terminology, distinct from Salafism, etc. Alai 01:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Alai, your point about no-one self-identifying as wahhabi needs to be made. But the fact is that wahhabi is a term that gets used and we need to explain what people who do use the term are referring to when they use it (including a note that it is derogatory) in a NPOV. Ashmoo 02:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I'd agree that point should indeed be made, I don't see how this comment relates to mine. My present objection to the current state is that it's nothing but objection to the use of the term, with no indication as to why anyone ever uses the term, or justifies using it, or argues that it's descriptive of some distinction from "mainstream" Salafism. Alai 02:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I messed up reading. I think we are actually in agreeance on what needs to be changed. Regards, Ashmoo 03:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem; I think so too. Alai 05:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of wordsmithing the section on Note on Salafi vs. Wahabi vs. Qutubi for better flow and NPOV. Note that "Wahhabi" is misspelled in the title. I would like to fix that, but I don't know how without messing up the links to that section. Epepke 11:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Bias

The section on "modern usage" has an inappropriate strong apologistic slant, and the section on Wahhabi vs. Salafi (apparently formerly titled "Note on Salafi vs. Wahabi vs. Qutubi") is now blank. AnonMoos 23:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Action

Since I didn't receive any reply to my comments, I restored the section "Modern usage" to its state as of "21:01, 2 August 2005" (before IP 207.74.176.232 started banging on it in a big way), and restored the section "Salafi vs. Wahabi vs. Qutubi" (which several other articles link to) to its state as of "07:40, 13 June 2005" (just before it had the soul sucked out of it). Since in the previous version of the article (before I edited it), the "Salafi vs. Wahhabi" section was completely blank, while the "Modern usage" section had been reduced to apologistic quotes from Saudi Kings about how Wahhabism never existed, this restoration will provide a much more solid basis for moving forward. AnonMoos 16:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous IP vandalism

No matter how many times the anonymous IP person trims away most of the article, and replaces it with a paragraph with a quote from a Saudi king about how Wahabbism never existed, it's still nonsense which doesn't belong in this article. AnonMoos 21:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Infamous Salafis

some ideat added infamous salafis to the page not knowing what he is talking about. so i took the privilege of taking it off. i added in its place SALAF ON KHAWARIJ so that if anyone wants to add INFAMOUS SALAFIS let him read salaf on khawarij firstly.

The founding of Salafi dawah

The article lacks clarity in defining the origins of the Salafi dawah. I mean it doesn't mention a clear relationship to the Hanbali madhab. And, the basis/foundamentals of the madhab is essentually Hanbali, because the founders of Salafi dawah were Hanbali. Hence, like the other schools of thought, they all share similar fundamental ideas regarding fiqh. For example, these different madhab accept certain fundamental concepts regarding various aspects of aqeeda. So, if you could mention, some of the characteristics of the hanbali madhab that would work well - very literal, for example, then mention how that influences with salafi thought. And, also the various scholars had tremendous respect for one another. They're all known for making statements, such as "If he is correct then that is my madhab." Thus, Salafis don't reject the founders of the various madhab. In fact, they consider them to be Salafis, because they fit into their definition of a salafi. The Salafis do, however, reject the direction/evolution that the the various madhab took. Hope that helps. --JuanMuslim 06:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Major revision

The article as it stood was Salafi apologia. I tried to NPOV it. I also merged the lists of famous and infamous Salafis into one list of Notable Salafis. The list needs to be pruned. The article still needs lots of work. Zora 20:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I'd like you to reconsider your addition of the old sections re current trends of thought to my rewrite. I believe that I took the relevant information out of those sections and completely rewrote and re-organized it. Just because the sections are gone doesn't mean that the info is.

I don't like the organization by external events. It actively OBSCURES the connection between Wahhabism and the Saudi state, and the role of Saudi politics in the propagation of Salafism. From everything I've read, the Saudis were loosening up their version of Islam until the armed takeover of the Kaaba by insurgents in ... um, 1979. The insurgents were claiming that the Saudi state had become heretical. In response, the Saudis upped their support for the most hardline mullahs and strict enforcement of religious law.

That's material that should be in the article, but I don't have outside sources and cites for it. I'd have to go digging. Zora 21:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't really take the time to go through your all edits in detail, and I was just trying to put something adequate up to recover from the anonymous IP's edits. I'll make the effort in the next few days. AnonMoos 22:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora, thanks for your patience. When I put up that edit of the page, I was just trying to recover from the anonymous IP's vandalism, and while trying to put something together in place of the vandalism, I was kind of thrown for a loop by the fact that you had eliminated so many subsection headers. I didn't really want to go through all your edits at that moment, so I just duplicated some sections with the old version as a stopgap. See what you think of the current version -- I tried to keep the section header "Note on Salafi vs. Wahabi vs. Qutubi", because I think it's useful, and because some other articles link there. Thanks. AnonMoos 03:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Good job. There's still more material that could be added, and the notable list should be pruned, but hey, this seems to me to be a solid NPOV article in the meantime. It is certainly an improvement on what we had previously. Zora 06:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

In case anyone wonders -- there are two people reverting the article to the old version, which I believe puts forward Salafi dogma as if it were "the truth". IMHO, it's extremely POV. I can understand why the anon is doing it -- it's a matter of conviction. I'm guessing that Harpit is doing it because he's angry at me, but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you could explain, Harprit, why you think the other version is better? Zora 08:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

External Terms versus Self-Naming

Wahhabi is a term used by non-Salafis, usually in a disparaging way, to refer to Salafist persons and especially those in Saudi Arabia. It means someone who follows ibn Abdul-Wahhab.

Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida called themselves Salafi, but are termed by others as Modernists. Abduh's usage of Salafi was to emphasize his view that the Modernist interpretations were actually more authentic than the contemporary Traditionalist interpretations because they echoed the openness and beleifs of the first Muslims. (Citations forthcoming)

I have the strong impression that the various movements all called Salafi (as in, a return to the fundamentals) were not necessarily linked in the beginning, and that ibn Abd al-Wahhab's movement was rather different from the other Salafi movements. The other Salafis weren't killing and looting other Muslims, for example, whereas the Saudis took Wahhabism as a license for raiding and conquest. It seems to me that the Saudis are covering that up these days and prefer to be just "Salafis" as a way of obscuring an unsavory past. So in that sense it might be useful to distinguish between the Salafis that would profit from this past, and those that would repudiate it. Zora 01:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Addition

I added in "Salaf on Khawarij" feeling that this page needed it. So i hope nobody takes it off without a good reason.

I took it off because it seemed to be a personal essay on why Salafis should not rebel against duly constituted government, thus an attack on the jihadis who call themselves Salafis and say that the contemporary Muslim world is living in jahiliyyah, and that governments like those of Egypt or Saudi Arabia must be overthrown.

I agree that the article is confusing right now and I am trying to figure out how to rewrite it. The problem is that a great many people want to use the term Salafi to describe themselves, and want to define Salafi in such a way that they and their views are RIGHT, the TRUE ISLAM as practiced by the Salaf, and the other self-proclaimed Salafis are wrong, are fake Salafis. So we need a catalogue of all the people and movements who have called themselves Salafis, or Salafiyyah, and descriptions of their beliefs. Wikipedia can't take sides on who is a Salafi and who isn't. Zora 23:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A number of mainstream Sunnis call the Wahhabes "Kharijites" -- I wonder if that has any relation to this? Anyway, it seems disproportionate to the length of the rest of the article... AnonMoos 18:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the same sort of accusation. The historical Kharijites believed that it was OK to kill self-professed Muslims if, in the eyes of the Kharjites, they weren't REAL Muslims. The Wahhabis took the same stance. I have been trying to figure out if there was any lurking residue of Kharijite belief behind the rise of Wahhabism and so far as I can tell, there wasn't. The Sunni emphasis on tolerance for a variety of beliefs within the Sunni community is -- IMHO -- a reaction to Kharijism, and "Kharijite" is still the favorite epithet for an intolerant Muslim. Zora 21:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Salafism is a broad discussion but mainly they are identified with people who dont go to saint's and other dead people's graves to ask something from God through their inercession, nor do they ask for something through a lving person etc. They dont offer scarifices through or in the name of dead people and believe in the attribiutes of God without giving resemblence to a human or any living thing (Bila Keif). Dont follow the earlier imams of the four Sunni school of thoughts blindly (Taqleed). Dont believe in things like amulets/charms etc. They also consider making any pictures of prophets or their comapninions as un orthodoxy defined as (transgression) and their reveration through pictures as idolatory.

The hypocritical wars

It should be noted that one of the arguement about salafism/wahabism/(Non Madhab confirmation) is about the open (armed or spoken) rebellion against eachother. The present day government of Saudi Arabia defines anyone who is rebellious ( armed or spoken or written) agaisnt the Kingdom to be a non salafi and labelled a khawarij/Ikhwanee etc. like Bin laden, clerics like Sheikh Safar al Hawali and Salman al Oudha and Dr Saad al Fagih and that they should be reformed with or without force, the former being the better choice. This itself is hypocritical of those Sheikhs within the kingdom ( not naming few of them since they are deceased I my self a muslim ) who were and do still label Bin laden, Safar al Hawali, Salman Oudha and Dr Saad al Fagih as non salafist/non Wahabist but rather calling them heretics with labels of Ikhwani/Khawarig/Qutbist.

As a matter of fact armed struggle was done by their Sheikh abdl Wahab and the house of Saud against other tribes and muslims who were ruling Nejd, Medina Munawwara and other parts of Arabia who were named idol worshippers, grave worshippers or followng unorthodox ways in Islam by Saud and Sheikh Abdl Wahhab. So in conclusion we could say that Laden, Shaikh Hawali, al Oudha and Dr Fgih are the real salafist or to a one who doesnt know whats the difference netween the two true wahhabists. -- unsigned comment by User:Rezza 01

People around Najd in the era of Muhammad ibn Abd AL Wahhab did a lot of shirk. The current Saudi king does not. Huge difference there ! (imran)

Just speaking for myself, I'd say that worshipping money, and wasting it on luxury instead of providing for the poor, is shirk of highest order. Zora 11:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Imran, were you there witnessing this *shirk* that was going on? Or are you just repeating what someone else told you? And Zora, I totally agree.

---

Yes thats true Suudi rulers are not really the true salafist as defined by many muslims due to your above mentioned points. Although my point was to how slafism is generally defined as. You want to know about the shirk go to Saudi Arabia and ask street wandering saudis what was going on during the time of Sheikh Wahab. No need to ask the corrupt saudi officials. Even those saudis who hate the saudi goverment and its corrupt/money worshipping rulers would tell you that these things were happening in saudi. The words of ordinary saudis hold more weight than the house of Saud. The fact is that there are differences among the saudi scholors themselves as to who should rule the kingdom and under what circumstances it becomes their duty to force the king to abdicate. For your above mentioned points Safar Hawali, Sheikh Oudha, Fagih have lashed out at the saudi family which has resulted in many sheikhs being tortured in jails and some being forced to live abroad. -- unsigned comment by User:Rezza 01

BTW I am not Imran.

Added NPOV

Someone changed and added to this article quite a bit. While I'm tempted to revert it back, there might be some useful information in there. The "new" article may not have a NPOV, so I added the NPOV tag. I'll let the people here sort this out. — TheKMan^talk 06:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It may have some useful information in it somewhere, but it was an unbalanced missionary tract which replaced and ignored all the contributions that other people have made to this article. There's a bad history of people attempting to radically rewrite this article -- if there's good information in User:Efxco's missionary tract, then it's his job to extract it in a form which is acceptable on Wikipedia. AnonMoos 17:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes

There have been a flurry of changes over the last day -- basically, removing any mention of Salafis deemed embarrassing, like terrorists, and claiming an ancient origin, in the time of Ibn Taymiyya. This is a gross distortion of history. Ibn Taymiyya didn't call himself a Salafi, he didn't start a movement -- he was mostly FORGOTTEN until al-Wahhab revived his works. The Wahhabis did not call themselves Salafis until fairly recently.

The article does need more work. As I understand it now, Salafism started with al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh and was considered a modernist movement until the Muslim Brotherhood linked it with traditionalism and then, after the flight of many Muslim Brothers into Saudi Arabia in the 1950s and 1950s, with Wahhabism. But I'll need to do a fair bit of research to flesh that out. I'm also handicapped because I don't read Arabic and don't have access to a good library with collections of Muslim texts from that recent time period.

You guys are rewriting history. NOT OK. Zora 02:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This is also my understanding. Although there is actually a connection between their Salafism and the modern term. They believed that the original Muslims, the Salaf, were the ideal to aspire to and that later traditions were unhealthy innovations. They did favor the return of a true caliphate as I recall. However what that meant in practical terms was they believed Islamic law should be interpreted according to what does the most benefit for the most Muslims. Kind of a utilitarianism based on an idea from, oddly enough, Ibn Taymiyya. This meant that they felt Islam should be applied to a way that best responds to the challenges of the West and modernity. They actually rejected theological Modernism, of the kind that believes Islam or any faith should evolve, in favor of something else. They believed Islam was the true faith and better able to do with the modern world than Christianity or the others. It's all pretty complicated and I'm not Muslim so I may be ticking them off. Basically though they did not intend to change anything about Islam because they felt within Islam, if rightly understood, they could find everything they needed. In theological terms "Modernists" have a tendency to downplay the idea that a religious book is written solely or primarily by God, Abduh et alia were very much not of that persuasion. If we're using Christian terms, which we shouldn't but there it is, maybe they could be seen as wanting something like "clarification" in the Catholic sense or Neo-Orthodoxy. Likewise, if we're going to stick with using Christian terms, they were a bit like the Restorationism that occurred in Nineteenth century Christianity. By rejecting traditions they deemed to be corrupting they led to modern Salafism which in its more extreme form has violently purified what they deem corrupt while not being as interested in the utilitarian "deal with modernity" side of their ideals. I think the shift started when the caliphate was ended in 1922. Anyway most of this is from what I remember of a class on Islamic movements. I'm a bit nervous some angry or heavy-handed Muslims will now pop up to correct the error of my ways so I'll stop there.--T. Anthony 07:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What I wonder at is that Abdouh was proclaimed to be the Great Liberal Progressive Arab Reformer of Islam in his own day, yet 100 years after his death, all those who call themselves followers of Abdouh are basically reactionaries or extremist Islamists. AnonMoos 09:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder where you get that impression from? Most of the people i know who talk most about Abdu and Afghani are either reformist Muslims, outright liberals, or even Marxists (but then, I live in the Arab world; elsewhere, the picture may be different). The "neo-Salafis" are most likely to talk about Ibn Taymiyya and not worry too nuch about Abdu.

Incidentally, one of the most striking points of divergence between Abdu et al and the neo-salafis is the admiration that the former had for European progress, and their desire to emulate it. The neo-salafis quite despise Europe.

As far as T. Anthony's points go, I would generally agree. Rashid Rida is I think generally seen as the link between the salafiyya of Abdu and the ultra-reactionary neo-salafiyya of more recent times. However, I would have to utterly disagree with T Anthony's statement that "they did not intend to change anything about Islam because they felt within Islam, if rightly understood, they could find everything they needed." You could say the same about Marthin Luther and Christianity, or even about all the various religiously-inclined leftists who tried to justify Marxism in terms of Catholic or Islamic thought. Abdu and al-Afghani wanted to bring about a wholesale change in Islam; they justified that, quite sincerely, on the basis of what "real Islam" was. But this is more a question of the nature of their arguments than the nature of their ambitions, which was an Islam fit for the modern world.Palmiro | Talk 15:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Abduh and Afghani both worked for independence from colonizers. They wanted to modernize and interpret Islam in light of modern science/ideas. They were reformists and wanted change in the Islamic world, I didn't mean to deny that. I just meant that even in their age there was people who outright argued that even the first Muslims and Muhammad himself were flawed so they needed to go beyond that. Qasim Amin argued that perfection, if it were to be achieved, would be done through progressive efforts the future rather than interpreting lessons of the past. Abduh and Afghani were generally not in favor of that. They were reformist, but they weren't entirely progressivist/secularists I don't think. A modern Muslim maybe similar to Abduh was Mahmoud Mohamed Taha who was a pious, if unconventional, Muslim who based his ideas on interpreting the Qur'an.--T. Anthony 02:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Would-be progressive Islamic reformers may make a rhetorical appeal to Abdouh, because he's one of the few guys they've got, but it seems that those who are the actual direct intellectual heirs of Abdouh (students of students of students etc. of Abdouh, or the direct historical continuations of trends of thought strongly influenced by Abdouh) are now part of the Muslim Brotherhood, or even more extreme groups. That's why Abdouh is remembered today as playing an early catalytic role in the formation of modern Salafism -- not as giving rise to a glorious period of influential Islamic progressivism in the Arab world (because there hasn't been any glorious period of influential Islamic progressivism in the Arab world). Sorry I indulged in oversweeping rhetoric. AnonMoos 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Zora. The current form of the article gives Salafism an ancient history it doesn't have and also neglects to mention the fact that modern Salafism is heavily influenced by Nazi ideology.

The traditional meaning of "Salafi" was a Muslim who died within the first 400 years of Islam. In the context of the late 19 and early 20 centuries, it refers to a movement founded by al-Afghani and Mohammad 'Abduh which was pan-Islamic and modernist.

Nowadays, Salafi refers to the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and related groups. There is little connection between this ideology and Salafi in either of its historical senses. MB ideology represents a fusion of Islamic and Nazi thinking, i.e. Islamofascism. MB leaders like Banna in Egypt and Husayni in Jerusalem were openly pro-Hitler and Germany provided crucial financing to the MB's 1937 Arab Revolt against the British. After the war, "a pro-Nazi past was a source of pride," as Bernard Lewis puts it.

The charter of Hamas, the MB's Palestinian affiliate, depicts Ataturk's abolition of the caliphate in 1924 as a Jewish plot, along with communism and the French Revolution. The belief in an international Jewish conspiracy is not found in traditional Islam. Rather, it reflects the influence of propaganda distributed by the Nazis such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Tsarist forgery cited in the Hamas charter as if it was holy writ.

The MB has a nonsectarian organization modeled on 19th century European socialism (or 20th century communism). Wahhabism is a Muslim sect dominant in Saudi Arabia. In the 1950s, Saudi Arabia encouraged Egyptian MB adherents to teach in Saudi schools and made Salafism part of its official ideology.

The article traces Salafism back to Taymiyah, but the idea of a nonsectarian, international political movement would not have occurred to someone living in Medieval times. In fact, Taymiyah wasn't even an internationalist. He opposed the caliphate and favored rule by local emirs. Traditional, mainstream Islamic thinkers like Taymiyah emphasized the need for Muslim unity i.e. a good Muslim obeyed his local emir. So Taymiyah can't be used to justify the MB program of Islamic opposition movements aimed at the establishment of caliphate, much less the Qubtist program of religious terrorism.Kauffner 16:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro: Salafiyya and Wahhabiyya

The intro currently refers to "an adherent of a contemporary movement in Sunni Islam that is sometimes called Salafism or Wahhabism." I thought it was fairly well-estanlished that the two are not the same thing, even if there is nowadays a considerable overlap. As far as I recall, the Encyclopaedia of Islam article on Salafiyya starts with al-Afghani. Wahabiyya starts over a century earlier.

This needs to be fixed. Palmiro | Talk 11:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Salifism and Wahhabism do have different historical origins, but nowadays it is suspected that there are people who call themselves Salafis almost solely to avoid being tarred with the rather mixed reputation of official and semi-official Saudi Islam. AnonMoos 01:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. The article really needs a good spring-cleaning and rewrite. I just haven't had the time ... nor do I feel completely up on the history. It's so recent, and so contentious, with, as you say, a contingent of folks who are determined to distort and hide. I'd feel on much surer ground if I could read Arabic and had a good collection of books and pamphlets produced AT THE TIME . Primary sources, not just access to English histories based on someone else's Arabic reading. Zora 02:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Many people confuse Wahhabism and Salafism, Wahhabism is a reinvention of Salafism according to the views of Mohammad bin Abd-l-Wahab of the eighteenth century. Wahhabis see themselves as Salafis. Most do not like to be called Wahhabis, although this name was acceptable in the past. Salafis themselves insist that their beliefs are simply pure Islam as practiced by the first three generations of Muslims and that they should not be regarded as a sect. Although most Salafis follow the Hanbali school of thought, they mostly rely on Hadith and not much on Ijtihad and thus their laws might meet with any sunni madhab.

This is an important calrification. Do not just mix Wahhabism and Salafism because you are suspicious. The word salafi came into being before the time of ibn Taymiyah existed let alone abdel wahhab. Look for salafism just below the line here an dyou would see the big difference of the salfis of Wahhabi inclination and Muslim brotherhood inclination. AnonMoos I would appreciate your help in showing me how to sign with TPW when I edit a page instead of 129. By the way an IP address is a lot longer and your name AnonMoos is very anonym to me. 129. 22:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"Salafism" is not well defined ..

The word Salafi is a very general term, there's no organization that started this ideology per se. The only thing that makes a person Salafi is that if he refers to himself as a Salafi. Returning to the pure Islam of the early days is not enough to define it; this definition applies to many non-Salafi groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

There's no reference which defines who's a slafai and who's not. Traditionally, a Salafi is one who follows the fatawa of Scholars of Saudi Arabia, and this maybe a stereotype, but what really distinguishes Salafis these days is their view that growing a long beard (and wearing a short dishdasha) is mandetory, they would engage in hot debates on this subject and won't accept any other opinion regarding it. Although this may no longer be true ..

So, because of this absense of the definition, there are today at-least three different groups which call themselves Salafis:

• Jihadi Salafis: (i.e. Al-Qaeda), an example of this is Osama Bin Laden.
• Jamya Salafis: they hate Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, they particularily hate Saiyed Qutb and Hasan Albanna. They also see that there should be no Jihad in this time, because muslims are too weak to fight. An example of this is Rabei Al-Madkhaly.
• Moderate Salafis: they don't necessarily hate Al-Qaeda, but they condemned many of their actions. They also look at the Muslim Brotherhood movement in a positive way, they share most of their views with regard to Jihad (mainly, that Jihad should only be against Foriegn Occupation, and not turn into a civil war). An example of this is Salman Al-Odah.

Hasan aljudy 12:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That is very useful. I think it should be added to the article too.

--Islamic 16:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Link-pruning

The list of external links was very long. I clicked on every dang one. I deleted the ones in Arabic and Swahili. I deleted the extremely short and uninformative ones, and the websites for local groups. I deleted the commercial ones. Finally, I found that a number of sites had different domain names for different parts of their site, and had listed ALL of their domain names. I think that's a bit deceptive. If you can get there by clicking on a link on a portal, all we need is the portal. I tried to select sites that didn't link to each other, reasoning that these would be different currents of Salafism, and that variety was good.

We are left with relatively few links. Anyone who wants information can easily find it by going to those sites and then clicking on THEIR links.

Next step is pruning all the sheykhs. It's like having a list of every Episcopal minister in the US. It's not necessary.

I don't know if there are any registered editors here who are Salafis. The Salafi edits seem to mostly come from anonIPs who edit and run, so to speak. If there are any Salafis here reading this, I invite you to come discuss with me which top ten teachers should be listed. If I don't hear from anyone, I'll make my own infidel choices, so discussion would be good. Zora 05:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

zora i am a salafi and i could help you out with who the top 10 teachers are. i try not to edit too much but i can tell you that more than 90% of what is on this page is incorrct. as for the teachers it is omar ibn abd-ul-aziz, abu hanifa, malik, shafi, ibn hanbal, ibn taymeya, ibn al-quayam, ibn kathir, at-tahawee, al bukhari, imam muslim, at-tabari, muhammad ibn abdal wahhab, bib baz, al-albani, ibn uthaymeen, shayk moqbil and muchmore -- unsigned comment by IP 207.74.176.141 20:43, 28 February 2006

Your loose transcription conventions and lack of use of capital letters doesn't make it all that easy to tell, but this list seems to suffer from the same problem as many past lists which have been controversial on this page -- namely, indiscriminately mixing together early figures which are broadly influential among many groups of Muslims (such as al-Tabari and the founders of the madhahib) in amongst more narrowly "Salafi" figures, such as the founder of Wahhabism. AnonMoos 22:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not particularly helpful, since most of those people are dead, and wouldn't have defined themselves as Salafis in any case. You're just annexing anyone you respect. I was asking for the top ten teachers alive today -- preferably from different traditions, not all from one. Zora 22:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

if what you are looking for is salafi scholars who are alive or died recently than you should be more specific this is a few who are salafi and openly say they are salafi.

      Shaykh Muqbil Ibn Haadee al-Waadi’ee 
      Shaykh Muhammad Naasir-Ud Deen Al-Albaani 
      Shaykh muhammad ibn salah al-Uthaymeen
      Shaykh ‘Abdul-‘Azeez ar-Raajihee 
      Shaykh Abdul Azeez Ibn Abdullaah Ibn Abdur-Rahmaan Ibn Baaz 
      Shaykh Abdul Muhsin al Ubaykaan 
      Shaykh 'Abdul-'Azeez Ibn 'Abdullaah Ibn Muhammad Ibn 'Abdul-Lateef Aal ash-Shaykh 
      Shaykh Abdullaah al-`Ubaylaan 
      Shaykh Abdullah ibn Ghudayyaan 
      Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin Ibn Hamad Al-Abbaad 
      Shaykh Abdulsalaam Al Burjiss 
      Shaykh Ahmad Ibn Yahya an-Najmee 
      Shaykh Ali al-Haddaadi 
      Shaykh Ali Ibn Hasan Ibn Ali Ibn Abdil-Hameed Al-Halabee Al-Atharee 
      Shaykh Dr Rabee' Ibn Haadee Umayr al-Madkhalee 
      Shaykh Dr Saleh Ibn al-Fowzaan Ibn Abdullaah Ibn Fowzaan 
      Shaykh Dr. Muhammad Amaan Ibn 'Alee al-Jaamee 
      Shaykh Dr. Saleh as-Saleh
      Shaykh Ehsan Elahi Zaheer 
      Shaykh Falaah Ismaa'eel al-Mindikaar
      Shaykh Hamad al-`Uthmaan
      Shaykh Ibraaheem Ar-Ruhaylee 
      Shaykh Khaalid Ar-Raddaadee
      Shaykh Khalid al-Alaonah 
      Shaykh Muhammad Al-Anjaree
      Shaykh Muhammad al-Bannaa
      Shaykh Muhammad bin Haadee al-Madkhalee 
      Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Fayfee 
      Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ibraaheem Aal ash-Shaykh
      Shaykh Ramadaanee al-Jazaa‘iree 
      Shaykh Saalih al-Luhaydaan 
      Shaykh Saalih Ibn Abdul-Azeez Aal ash-Shaykh
      Shaykh Saalih ibn Muhammad ibn al-'Uthaymeen at-Tameemee 
      Shaykh Saleh al-`Ubood 
      Shaykh Sulaymaan Ar Ruhaylee 
      Shaykh Sultaan al-'Eed 
      Shaykh 'Ubayd ibn 'Abdillaah al-Jaabiree 
      Shaykh Wasee Allaah 'Abbaas Al-Hindi
      Shaykh Yahyaa al-Hajooree 
      Shaykh Zayd ibn Muhammad ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee 
      Sheikh Ali Abdur-Rehman Al-Hudhaifi of Masjid-e-Nabuwi 

We don't give them titles, we don't use the idiosyncratic Salafi transcription, and that's TOO MANY names. Who are the top ten? And why do you think so? By the way, you can sign your talk page contributions by adding four tildes, like this, ~~~~. Zora 18:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is better to keep the list to scholars who had strong influence on Salafism while they are agreed upon by all Salafis. That is why it is better to avoid contemporary scholars. --Islamic 02:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora,

1- You have deleted the sentence "In common with mainstream Sunni Muslims, the Salafis view the first three generations ... as perfect examples " You said: "claims mainstream status for Salafism". The sentence is true (see what Fariduddien have said). However, Salfis think that any idea or practice that was not known to the Salaf (first generations) they it should be banned (they call it as an innovation). Other Sunni Muslims (such as Sufis) disagree with that.

2- You said: "Hadith cannot be proven to have been stated by Muhammad -- that's opinion -- see talk" Nothing on the talk page! Also it is only your opinion as a non-Muslim. However, that hadith has been narrated by Bukhari and Muslim. There is an Ijma among all Sunni Muslims (Salafis and Sufis) that this hadith has been stated by Prophet Muhammad (P).

3- You have reverted my writing. You said: "rv - no, wait, revert further back -- editor removed controversial Salafis, names of teachers he didn't like" Well, I understand that you want keep the list, so I will bring back my other writings and leave the list as you had it before my edit.

4- I removed controversial Salafis only but not names of teachers I didn't like. I said in the discussion before: It is better to keep the list to scholars who had strong influence on Salafism while they are agreed upon by all Salafis. That is why it is better to avoid contemporary scholars. This is my personal opinion, but if you have other criteria please state it.

Fariduddien,

5- You said: "Salafis reject the established Sunni madhhabs". That is not correct. Some Salafies (i.e. Albani) say that Muslims are not obligated to follow any of the four Sunni schools (madhhabs). On the other side, many Salfies say that Muslims have to follow one of these four schools. Ibn Rajb al-Hanbali worte a whole book on this issue. That paragraph should be removed.

All,

I think the Arabic version of this article does a much better job explaining what Salafism is all about. We need a translator.

--Islamic 21:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hadith

Muslims may think that hadith are the words of Muhammad, but few non-Muslims academics do. You can't state your belief as if it were a fact. Zora 03:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

I finally did it -- completely rewrote and reorganized the article. It still needs lots of work, but I hope that there's a framework for adding more material. Also, it needs references, badly. I spent several hours on this, and thought I should get it up and worry about the references later. It at least isn't any worse than the article it replaces.

Personally, I don't like Salafism. But I hope that the Salafi editors here will see that I have done my best to be neutral. Zora 02:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The list still needs a rewrite. See my previous notes on it. Also, Muslim Brotherhood was influenced by Salafism, but it did not adopt it. Only some of its members did.

--Islamic 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Islami, you keep adding your opinion as to what Salafism "really" is, and I keep deleting it, because it's superfluous and POV.

You seem to be convinced that you know who is really a Salafi and who isn't, but I'm not at all sure that other people who call themselves Salafis would agree with you. Since WP can't take sides -- since we can't say that you are the true Salafi and the others are wrong -- we have to give all positions. It would help if you could cite references for your beliefs. If they're in Arabic, paste in the original and then translate them for us non-Arabic speakers. When we have references, we can say, "The X people believe Y (see XXXXX)" and it's perfectly neutral. If if the Q people don't believe Y, they can agree that the X people believe Y.

The point is to add further detail rather than trying to make generalizations about matters on which people don't agree. So if you think that the Muslim Brotherhood was only partially Salafi, give us quotes and references. You may well be right on this, but you have to show us (and the readers). Zora 03:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Too much detail in the Saudi article

AnonMoos, you restored some material that I deleted from the Saudi section. If you want to keep it, do, but move it up to the general discussion of contemporary Salafism. I deleted it because it applies to Salafis in general, not just Saudi Salafis.

One thing that might reward investigation is the acrobatics required for Saudi clerics to insist on obedience to a Saudi state that many Saudis believe is corrupt, when the clerics can't fall back on the usual pious Sunni exhortation to submit rather than cause fitna. Wahhabis were all about fitna and conquering other Muslims who were less than perfect Muslims in their eyes. Is the apparent trend to downplaying Wahhabi history and stressing Salafism part of a campaign to restore the traditional Sunni command to submit? This is all wild speculation on my part -- I'd have to read and listen to contemporary Saudi teachings to be sure -- but maybe there's something there.

Dang, now that I've opened the article up, there's room for lots of interesting detail. Zora 03:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but on this particular article, I've learned to be very very suspicious of unexplained deletions of paragraphs or whole long sentences by editors whom I don't know, and it looked like someone else deleted it, and you forgot to add it back in... AnonMoos 15:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As I expected

We're now having a tussle over the article, as several Salafi editors try to expunge anything they see as controversial or derogatory, and remove mention of people they don't regard as "real" Salafis. What we need to see from Izaak and Islami is references and some explanation of just WHO shares their beliefs. Guys, are you here representing yourselves, or are you part of groups? What do your groups believe?

We also need more references to the academic views. I need to do some reading and pin down stuff that I just "know" from general reading. So all of us need to do some work. Zora 04:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Salafism vs. Qutbism

Under the section "Contemporary Salafis", I find:

• Other Salafis believe that it is permissible, even required, for believers to engage in violent jihad to overthrow oppressive regimes, even if they claim to be Islamic. One of the strongest proponents for violence was Sayyed Qutb, an Egyptian member of the Muslim Brotherhood. After the Egyptian Brotherhood assassinated the Egyptian leader, the Brotherhood was suppressed and Qutb went to jail. There he wrote a long treatise on political Islam called Milestones. This book was and is widely read, and has had a strong influence on various Islamist or jihadi movements. Hence these Muslims are sometimes called Qutbis. They are often linked with terrorism. The teacher Abdullah Azzam is also said to be a proponent of violent jihad.

I think there's a confusion here between Salafism and Qutbism, which happens to be deviation from Salafism. My understanding is that Salafis usually do not support violence. Comments?

YOU think Qutbism is a deviation. The Qutbis think that they are the only ones truly following the way of the Salaf (who were, indeed, engaged in the violent conquest of the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia).

What we really need here is citations instead of generalizations. You need to get quotes from Salafi scholars who say that Qutbis are deviationists (quotes given in original and English translation, with references, so that they can be confirmed). I need to get quotes from the Qutbis proving that they consider themselves the true Salafis. Sigh. More reading for me!

I've just finished reading Marc Sageman on Understanding Terror Networks and that actually has a good outline of the development of Salafi thought. Though the end chapter, on "What we need to do", makes me want to say, per Tonto, "What do you mean WE, white man?" [2] Zora 20:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Their Da'wah or Their Manhaaj - What is "Salafi" really

Assalamu Alaiykom

Alhamdulillah for everything, and peace and blessings be upon the prophets of Allah and their followers and the righteous until the last day, ameen. Reading over a lot of these responses has influenced me to try to write something that is constructive and informative on this page. I was hesitant because so many people can change words, and misunderstand what I write. I will try, and Allah is my witness, to be most honest and to try to convey the message as best as possible.

First of all there have been many attempts to linguistically define Salafi or Salfeeyah, which have been good Alhamdulillah. I'd like to add an example to that in order to allow all readers to fully understand the meaning. The last letter of the word Salafi in arabic is called a yaay of nasab (ي). Hopefully that arabic letter shows. For those who understand the language, they know that this letter is added to words in order to show affiliate/belonging/orgination. For example, some one who is from America is called American. This additional n at the end allows for the person to be described to the connection that they have (racially I guess) to the country they are from/born in, etc. The same for a person from Egypt, we would call them an Egyptian. The additional ian at the end tells us that they are FROM this area, that is their racial affiliatation. In arabic the word America would be America and Americi would mean American. Misr for Egypt and Misri for Egyptian. That additional "i" or in arabic the yaay (ي) gives that person an affiliation to that country.

Now to investigate the meaning of the word Salafi. It is the same concept, the last "i", or in arabic (ي), gives the nasab (affiliation) to the Salaf. Who are the Salaf? They are the first three generations of Muslims who followed the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. They are known as the Salafus-Saleeh (Pious Predecessors). This is a generally understood meaning. However, the word Salaf itself, outside the religious context, means those before us. My Dad and Mom are my Salaf, and I am their Khalaf. Allah says in the Qur'an in Surat Al-Baqarah (2) verse 30 " And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth." They said: "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks (Exalted be You above all that they associate with You as partners) and sanctify You." He (Allâh) said: "I know that which you do not know."

In Arabic the word خَلِيفَةً which means a creature (creation) that generates offspring. From that we know that we are the Khalaf of those who came before us, the offspring, those who follow, those who came after. It is common sense really. Salaf are those before us, Khalaf are those after us. So our parents are our Salaf, and our kids are our Khalaf. Now in the Religous context we say Salaf are the first three generations, also known as the Salafus-Saleeh as mentioend previously. And Salafi, gives affiliation to those three generations, and specifically to the Manhaj (ciriculum) of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and his companions.

A Salafi is not a person who follows a certain group, or anything like that. Salfeeyah itself is not a group. Allah sent ONE final messenger and ordered all Mankind to follow this messenger. Who ever obeys him and worships Allah alone will enter Paradise (may Allah make us all from those in Paradise, ameen) and whoever disobeys him will enter Hell-Fire. This is indicated in the Hadith by Abu Hurayrah in Sahih Muslim where the Prophet Sallahu Aleeyhi wa salim said, "All of my Ummah will enter paradise except those who refuse." The companions asked, "And who will refuse Oh Messenger of Allah." And so the prophet replied "Who ever obeys me, enters Paradise, and who ever disobeys me... they have refused." Many people however take this to mean anyone who disobeys a single command of the Prophet Muhammad will enter the Hell Fire forever. This is not the correct understanding of the Hadith. There are many people who do not follow the Prophet in many matters which have been obligated. These people are sinful and will be punished for their sins. If they are Muslims, they will enter the Paradise after they have been purified of their sins in the Hell-fire (we ask Allah to keep us out of the hell-fire, ameen).

All Salafis are Muslim, but not all Muslims are Salafi... but they should be. Every single group in the world has to be looked at carefully and examined. Everything that adheres to that which the Prophet came with (Qur'aan and Sunnah) is followed, accepted, resepected, even if it comes from the worst of Enemies and greatest of liars and deviants. An example of this is in the Qur'aan in Surat An-Naml (27) verse 34 "She said: "Verily! Kings, when they enter a town (country), they despoil it, and make the most honourable amongst its people low. And thus they do." The Queen of Sheebah (Saba') received a letter from Prophet Soliman inviting them to Islam. She asked her advisors what to do, and the replied with their advise. Then she said the verse stated above. The point to focus on is the last sentence "And thus they do." This woman was not a Muslim, rather she was a kafir and Allah the All-Mighty said "And thus they do." This is an agreement of Allah the All-Mighty to the words of this woman who had not yet accepted Islam. Therefore it is proof that that truth is taken from ANYONE, if it is the truth. There is also a lengthy hadith in which Abu Huraryrah was told by a man that he will teach him the best verse in the Qur'aan. He taught him ayatul Kursi (Surat Al-Barqarah verse 255) telling him it will protect him (Abu Huraryrah). He told the prophet of this at the end of the hadith to which the prophet asked him "Do you know who it was?" -- "It was the shaytaan, he told you the truth and he is a liar." And so the truth may come from any place. Side note: it is always best to stick with the books and scholars that teach the pure truth in order to make sure that your deen is pure.

Everything that conflicts/negates that which the Prophet came with (Qur'aan and Sunnah) is rejected, denied, left alone, even if it comes from the best of Scholars or the best of the Companions of the Prophet even. As Imam Maalik said, everyone can be taken from and rejected except the man in this grave, and he was by the grave of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. Ibn Abbas, the great scholar and cousin of the Prophet, one day said to the People "Allah's Messenger said... such and such" and the people replied "We heard Abu Bakr and Umar say." And so he said to them "I fear that stones will fall from the sky, I say Allah's messenger says and you say ABU BAKR AND UMAR??" He is not insulting the companions, on the contrary if Abu Bakr or Umar heard these people they would also reject their sayings. Nothing goes above the word of Allah and his Messenger. Allah says in Surat Al-Hujurat verse 2 "O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk as you speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds should be thwarted while you perceive not" Many of the Scholars and Mufassirin have said this is regarding all matters of religion, not just phsyically standing infront of the Messenger and raising one's voice. Rather, if a person says that Allah's messenger says such and such, no one should go against this saying, this is like raising the voice. Of course, one may disagree with the hadith or even the verse from the Qur'an if it has been abrigated. For example, not visiting the graves, one man may say to another man you cannot visit the graves because the prophet ordered us not to. If the second man disagrees he is not raising is voice or being defiant, rather, he is following a hadith that has abrogated that hadith. Many of today's students of knowledge jump to call out people who do not follow hadiths and verses from the quran, even though they may be abrogated or have more than one interpretation by the scholars of the Religion. For example, someone who goes down to prostrate in the prayer with their knees first. There is another group of scholars that say this is inncorrect, as Shaykh Nasirud-Deen Al Albani as mentioned in his Propeht's Prayer Described text. Many students of knowledge will read one book and call out those who put their knees on the ground first before their hands. However, one of the other great Scholars, Shaykh Ibn Baaz, has mentioned that it should be the knees first, and this is also the understanding of Imam Ahul-Sunnah Ahmed Ibn Hanbal. However, since they have not studied, they cause trouble and call out those who practice another accepted understanding of the same hadith. The understanding is based on sure knowledge from the Qur'aan and Sunnah, and so it is accepted as an opinion. I say this in order to clear myself of any evil people may do saying that they think what they are doing is an acceptable action in Islam, rather any opinion in Islam is only acceptable if it based on clear knowledge from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. And it is not for anyone to come out with an opinion except a scholar. This is due to their indepth knowledge of the Qur'aan and sunnah, for which they have a much broader understanding than someone who knows some hadiths and some verses here and there. Since opinions and rulings are not based soley on one hadith or one verse of the qur'aan, the scholars are the ones to give their opinions on a matter with their indepth (broad) knowledge of the deen. Also, to clear myself of any misunderstandings, this does not mean that a ruling or knowledge cannot come from ONE single hadith (ahad) or from one verse in the quran. On the contrary, as the one of the 4 Imams said, if the hadith is saheeh (authenticated , known to be correctly attributed to the prophet) then it is my mathaab. The prophet himself sent one companion, Mu'aath ibn Jabal, to Yemen so that he can preach Islam to them. The fact that he sent only one person indicates that if the hadith is narrated only from one companion, then we take it and love it and follow it.

Sorry for the tangent but I believe that those important matters should be covered. Many of the "Salafi" students of knowledge have taken it upon themselves to call many groups that are not completely adherant to the Salafi Manhaj (Manhaj AsSalafeeyah) to be of the 73 Sects mentioned in the Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad. The hadith itself indicates that there is one saved sect, "those who are upon what I am upon and my companions." We ask Allah the most high to make us from amongst them, ameen. Now, every group, every sect, every invented mathaab and manhaaj must be compared and weighed against that which the prophet came with (Manhaaj of the Prophet, Manhaaj of the Salaf, Manhaaj As-Salafi, whatever you want to call it). Let us call it X for simplicity. So if group Y says ABC we match it against X (that which the prophet came with), if it adheres to it, then we accept and follow and we have wala (association) with the one who says this from that angle. However, if it conflicts with it, we reject it, even if it is from the GREATEST scholars in the world.

Side note: The 4 Imams have some issues that are not in agreement with the Sunnah of the prophet due to ahadeeth that they have not received or ones that they have thought to be authentic and have later been deemed weak. The prophet said that the scholar who makes ijtihad (makes an opinion based on knowledge) and is right gets two rewards, where as if they are wrong they get one. So we say about our beloved scholars that if they are right, they get 2 rewards, if they are wrong they get 1 since they make their opinions based on the knowledge from the Qur'aan and sunnah. This is why we cannot adhere to any specific group, mathaab, etc because EVERYONE makes mistakes in Islam except the prophet since it is revelation from Allah. And what is better than to follow the one who is perfect in this religion? What is better than to follow the one who Allah commanded us to copy and follow? We love all the scholars of the truth, and because of this love we follow that which agrees with what the prophet came with, and reject that which doesn't while asking Allah to reward them and forgive them for any mistakes they may have made. Imagine if someone had said that there is no Operating System that supports 64-bit processors. They did not get the knowledge that there are operating systems that support it. So, eventually they recieve sure knowledge that they are wrong. Should they change their ways and accept the truth? YES of course! And those who listen to them, and learn from them should also change what they think and make it according to the truth. Those who follow a mathaab or any group or whatever conflicts with the qur'aan and sunnah should ponder on this example and think... why am I following it when clearly the truth is other than this?

Another important side note: Many people will say, yes we follow this hadith, etc, and this verse and this is what it means. However, the meaning is other than that. The meaning must be understood to how the prophet practiced as well as the context for revelation of the verse or hadith. Also, we go to the understanding of the best generation, the Companions. This is indicated in the qur'aan surat An-Nisa (4) verse 115 "And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad SAW) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers' way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell - what an evil destination. "

The believers are the companions of the prophet. In Imam Al-Barbaharee's Explanation of the Creed he goes in depth with this (visit .... for a free download). It is essential that our understanding is that of the best people, the companions. The prophet himself said, the best of PEOPLE is my generation, then the one after, then the one after. He stopped at three generations, and these are the generations considered to the Salafussalih since the prophet himself gave clear indication that they are the best generations. These generations are that of the Companions - Sahabah (for example, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, Ali, etc), then the Followers of the Companions - Tabeein (for example Sufyan Al-Thawhree, Qatadah, Mujjahid, Al-Hassan Al-Basri, etc), then the Followers of the Followers - Tabeein al-Tabeein (for example, the 4 Imams, Al-Bukhari, Muslim etc). They are all considered to be from the Salaf. Those who follow them, are considered to be upon the way of the Salaf (salafi, on the salafi manhaaj, adhering to manhaaj as-salafeeyah). All of those terms are the same and used intermingled. However, today we have people who claim to be followers and only show this externally by growing their beards and shortening their pants and thobes. It is fair and honest to note that these actions are obligatory on the man in Islam; this is derived from many authentic ahadeeth which the prophet commanded leaving the beard grow and trimming the mustache - in fact every single companion of the prophet (more than 100,000 left their beards to grow and only two ever trimmed what ever was more than fist length according to their understanding of a verse in the Quraan). Also, the prophet warned of the person who out of arrogance drags their pants/thobe (loose clothing in general) below their ankles, that Allah will not look at them. He also mentioned in other hadiths that if the garment is below the ankles out of arrogance or not, that portion of the body is in hell fire (ie. the foot) and he also mentioned in other sahih hadiths that that action (sibaal) in itself is a form of arrogance. (Please refer to the text on this matter by Dr. Saleh As-Saleeh at http://www.understand-islam.net). Not to lengthen the discussion, these individuals only take that which is from the external feature and do not change their hearts and actions. We say to them, to be Salafi is to follow the prophet in EVERYTHING (Beliefs, manners, characters, actions, WORSHIP, Halal/Haram, etc). So they are not practicing the correct Salafi manners and characters and we advise them sincerely. The prophet himself said "There is nothing which is heavier upon the balance than the good character" (Reported by Ahmad - Authentic/good Hadith) and also "Two characteristics are not found together in a hypocrite: good manners and understanding of the Religion." (Reported by At-Tirmidhi -Authentic/good hadith). I would advise for everyone to buy the book "40 Hadith on the Islamic personality" or to download it from .... I'm sorry I cannot give the best reference to the ahadeeth since I do not have the original book, however all the ahadeeth in the book are authentic or good and Allah knows best.

And so with this said, we must follow and adhere to the quran and sunnah inside and outside (appereance, beliefs, manners, worship). As the great scholar Ibn Uthaymeen says in his explanation of the first Hadith of RiyadusSaliheen (Deeds are by intentions). Two people are performing the same exact act of worship (prayer). They go up and down, etc, but each one is different in intention. One of their worship is amazing, and will be accepted and loved by Allah while the other is the reverse. This is even if they are doing the same exact actions! So the intention makes a huge difference, it can be the difference between sincere worship and shirk (associating partners with Allah). He also goes on to quote the hadith from Sahih Muslim Narrated by Aisha that the prophet said, "Who ever introduces anything in this matter of ours (the religion) then it is rejected" and in a narration "Whoever does an action not recommended (approved) by us then it is rejected." So with these two hadiths we must see what our actions are like. Is the intention correct... ok then one of the conditions for the action to be accepted has been achieved. Now, what about the action itself. Does it follow the qur'aan and sunnah? If yes, then it is accepted, if not, then it is rejected. Allah orders us to worship him in a certain way, that which the prophet came with. So we must do it according to the texts, otherwise it is REJECTED and considered an innovation, even if the doer has the best intentions in the world. Can you imagine, if we bring someone who loves humanity, and is a great person. Can they perform surgery if they do not have the knowledge? And if they do, they must follow perscribed procedures (anestisia, etc). If they do not, then they will kill the patient. Similarly is the actions in the religion, they will kill your worship if you do not do them according to the texts (qur'aan and sunnah). It is also a form of obidence and worship to Allah to follow the messenger and it is what Allah loves. This is clear in surat Al-Imran (3) verse 31 "Say (O Muhammad to mankind): "If you (really) love Allah, then follow me (i.e. Muhammad), Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

From the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer "Al-Hasan Al-Basri and several scholars among the Salaf commented, 'Some people claimed that they love Allah. So Allah tested them with this Ayah;'" It is also known as the verse of exposure, exposing those who think or claim they love Allah. So if we really love Allah, then we follow his messenger Muhammad over anyone else, and this is the true Salafi way, and this is what Salafis preach, and many other people to in that accord. The best example is the prophet, so we follow him and adhere to him. It is clear in the testimony of faith (Shahadatayn) La illah il Allah Muhammad Rasoul Allah. There is no God worthy of Worship except Allah and Muhammad is his prophet and messenger. THe last aspect means that, Muhammad is the guide that Allah sent. To get to the straight path, follow him the one who Allah sent with the truth and guidance. To follow him is to be on the sirat Al mustaqeem (the straight path) and we are warned of following other paths and groups in the Qur'aan and many many many hadiths. So one must as themselves... do I love Allah? Ok, so do I put anyone else in front of the prophet, any Imam, shaykh scholars, my desires, my parents, my wife, etc. If so, then the love is not pure, and love must be pure for Allah this is a form of tawheed. No one is in front of Allah and his messenger, and no one knows what is best for us more than Allah and his messenger Muhammad.

And finally I end and say Salafi is not "us", "we", or "our" dawah. It is the Dawah and way of the Prophet and his companions and no one has the right to claim it or prevent anyone from following it. It is the straight path Allah has sent down. It is not the manhaaj of people from Saudi, or anything like that. It is not the manhaaj of those who adhere to Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymeeyah or his students, or any scholar. Rather, these great shaykhs adhere to that manhaaj, the way of the prophet and his companions. The 4 Imams adhere to it and this is verifiable in their books and their teachings. As they have said many times, if the hadith is sahih than that is my mathaab or if my saying is different than the sunnah, then take the sunnah. Also, if the hadith is correct, then throw my saying against the wall. And I end with a story of Imam Maalik in which he was giving a fatwa session and made a fatwa based on knowledge. And so, a good student of knowledge, with great manners spoke to him after the session and said, Oh Shaykh we have a hadith in this matter. And the humble Imam Maalik asked, What is it. And so he said on the authority of 1,2,3,4 (naming the chain of narrators) such and such matter. And so Imam Maalik replied, this hadith is sahih and I did not know of it until now. And the student goes on to say that the next fatwa session, the Imam went against his OWN saying and told the people to inform everyone that the saying has changed and praised the student saying that he was his teacher. This is the way of the people who love the sunnah, and those who love the followers of the sunnah and the scholars of the sunnah. We love the truth more than our selves and our teachers and our parents and everyone in the world. So to truely show that love we must adhere to that which is revealed in the texts (qur'aan and sunnah) even if it goes against our desires. As the prophet said, "None of you truely believes until their desires are that which I came with." So we will not attain the high levels of eeman (faith) until we follow the truth, and go against our own evil desires.

I ask Allah to accept from me. Anything correct I said is from Allah, and anything in correct is from my self and the Shaytaan. I seek refuge with Allah from the shaytaan for myself and for everyone out there. I hope that this has touched the heart. Wallahi, and Allah is my witness, I do this for the pleasure of Allah not for my own desires or for anyone to follow that which I believe, etc. Rather I do it so that people can be informed and follow the prophet Muhammad so that Allah can love them and forgive their deeds and admit them to Paradise. I ask Allah that we are all guided to the truth and admitted to Paradise, ameen.

Assalamu Alaiykom --Abu Mahdhoorah 01:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

To MuslimRevivalist

MR, it's very clear that you reject the Qutbis and Al-Qaeda and believe that this is not "real" Salafism. But that's your own opinion. Other Salafis don't share it. WP has to be neutral; we give all notable views. That means published views, widespread views, etc. You would do better to find statements about involvement of Salafis in politics by well-known Salafi teachers (presumably the ones you follow) and give us the original statement (in Arabic) and a translation into English. We need the Arabic so that other editors can check your translation. There's a big difference between saying "X is true" and "Sheykh Y said X" and giving a reference. The first says that WP thinks X is true, and it would be hotly contested by the anti-X people. The second version just says "Y believes X" and even the anti-X people would have to accept that as true.

There's also a problem with saying that Bin Baz and other sheykhs "privately" opposed Saudi policies. What is the authority for that? You could be lying or mistaken. We don't know who you are, or what contacts you have, or how reliable they are. If someone has written a book in Arabic on "My years as Bin Baz' secretary and how he actually hated the royals" :) then we could quote that book. Then people who disagreed could attack the veracity of the writer. However, they would have to agree that the writer did, in fact, say those things.

The Salafi article is not all that good, primarily because we don't have enough references, quotes, and citations. You could put your views out there, without breaking any Wikipedia policies, if you just help us give a closer and more detailed view of the currents within contemporary Salafism/Wahhabism. Zora 00:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (oops, forgot to sign)

Notable Salafis / Disputed Salafis

I was the one who originally recommended dividing the notable salafi list into two groups, namely disputed and notable. However, I am now starting to rethink this decision based on the modifications made to the list recently. I have noticed names being posted on the list that when I try to look them up in google, I get no hits. This applies specifically to the names posted in the kashmir section. Similarly, I noticed today that people moved the al-Madkhalee's into the disputed salafi section.
It is another issue whether one of us agrees or disagrees with the actions of Dr. Rabee. In all honesty, I don't agree with him in some of his actions but I leave that to him. I don't think any of the scholars or people have knowledge have said he is not Salafi. I am not an expert in this issue. However, I know al-Albani when he was alived praised him highly.
Along those lines, I think we should develop some sort of protocol or method on how to divide people into different catagories, namely Salafi, disputed and not salafi. If anyone has any ideas or thoughts, I will try to be open minded.ZaydHammoudeh 04:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, about half of the people on the list are not famous, and they don't have an entry on Wikipedia. I agree that there should be a protocol to tell which person should be on the list. They should have some type of contribution to the Salafi school. BTW, Jihadi Salafis do not consider al-Madkhalee as a Salafi. --Islamic 05:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe for the list portion of this article less is more. I think maybe we just change the full list to one that is very short and contains more or less the largest scholars of the Salafiyyah. I think that way we don't get bogged down in saying well A disputes B is salafi, which would in turn lead to B disputing A being Salafi. Maybe just merge it into on smaller list with just the largest and most clear cases. Names I recommend include Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Baaz, Al-Albani, and Uthaymeen. Some would argue for Muqbil ibn Hadee too but maybe he would not be of the same caliber of the others. How do the others feel about this recommendation?

Also Islami, do you have evidence that they say Dr. Rabee is not salafi? If I recall correctly, he may have had a disagreement with Shaykh Safar about Jihad issues but I have not heard Shaykh Safar or others saying he had left the Salafi way. If you could provide me with a reference, I would be greatful.

Moreover, I don't think we should judge how famous someone or how notable he is by whether or not they have an article on Wikipedia. For instance, the scholars of hadith at-Tabarani and Yahya ibn al-Ma'een both do not have Wikipedia articles with at least Yahya ibn al-Maeen and most likely at-Tabarani being bigger scholars of hadith than ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and al-Albani.ZaydHammoudeh 20:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How about some paras of discussion on which Salafis accept which other Salafis as "real" Salafis? Maybe it can't be done as a list, but needs more exposition. With quotes! Zora 06:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora's copyedits

I went through the article and made various copyedits for style. I don't think that any of them will be controversial. However, I did restore one thing that someone had removed: a note on the Salafi style of transliteration. I think this is useful information!

First of all, I've read a few Muslim web discussion forums where Muslims who take a more traditionalist approach are discussing how to avoid buying Salafi literature. One guy wonders how he can tell which books to buy, which sheikhs to follow, etc., and another advises him to avoid anything published in Saudi, anything that's too fancy (Saudi money), and anything using that system of transliteration.

Second, I have spent a lot of time googling for Muslim opinions on this, that, and the other thing. I have to figure out just where a particular scholar, or website, fits into the big picture. Most Salafi sites and teachers do not identify themselves as Salafi! It's just, "We're teaching pure Islam, we're just Muslims." You have to read carefully to see the Salafi background. I don't like this! It isn't honest! Though I must say that the craziest thing I've seen lately is an aspiring Shi'a public speaker who doesn't identify himself as Shi'a. I wonder if any Sunni mosques have hired him to speak at a conference, thinking he is a Sunni.

You have to admit that it's more than a little crazy that so many people are claiming to be "just Muslims" and at the same time takfiring each other right and left, to the point of killing each other as heretics. It would be nicer all round if people stated their preferences honestly AND agreed to disagree. Zora 09:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing POV tag

That tag has been up for months. I think the editor who added it hasn't been here the whole time. Is there anyone here who feels that it is still needed? If I don't hear any complaints in a day or so, I want to remove the tag. Zora 09:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for the POV tag, but the article still needs a lot of editing. --Islamic 13:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think before we remove the POV tag, we should sort out the list of who is and is not salafi. I tried to make some recommendations on the name list including shortening it to only the very selective list. I would hope that could be sorted out before we take off the POV tag.ZaydHammoudeh 04:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The list has been an eternal problem. We get anons adding the name of someone who must be their teacher, no article, no info, and then just leaving. How about cutting the list drastically (no red links?) and then organizing the list by affinities? Those who follow a certain sheykh, or line of thought, go together. Put Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri under Qutb, perhaps. You can also drop some of the geographical divisions. Maybe just have sections on Saudi and Egypt. Zora 05:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your saying: "We get anons adding the name of someone who must be their teacher". There should be no red links, and I also suggest that we move most of the Contemporary Salafis to thier geographical sections, leaving the Notable Salafis list for poeple that shaped the Salfi why. Meaning, some books that made an influance. --Islamic 06:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah there are definitely anonymous edits on both this article as well as the wahhabi one. I noticed for some articles they locked down the articles to prevent edits from those who are not usual editors. I think this it is worth considering for the Salafi article as well. I reorganized the list some. I tried to leave those who have had a lasting influence on the Salafi movement and were scholars. If I was too selective or particular, please feel free to comment. I will add descriptions of what those whom I know about, but I don't know anything about Abu Bakr Bashir or Ahl-e-hadith from pakistan beyond the little I heard on TV, so someone else should do that. Similarly, I think the article would be better served by removing the notable salafi list (as most of the names are duplicates) and just putting the description of each person in the country section.ZaydHammoudeh 21:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel pretty secure now with the article. I think it is time to remove the POV tag. It seems I was the final stumbling block to it happening, and I feel the article is in good shape. Anyone want to make an input before it is done? ZaydHammoudeh 03:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing the tag. The article seems reasonably neutral to me. Which is good, since I'm not a Muslim and definitely not a Salafi. Zora 09:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok its done. No one else seems to have been up and arms about it so I hope we can keep it this way. ZaydHammoudeh 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Pruning links

There are too many pro-Salafi links. We get linkspammers all the time. Would it be possible to prune this to six of the best, most informative links? Scholarly and academic is the best -- WP is for information, not dawa. Zora 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I tried to cut it down to the more informative links. Most were salafi publications or its derivatives which do contain scholarly and informative articles. I got it to seven. Any changes that recommended I am open to discussing.ZaydHammoudeh 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I can live with seven links.

It's pleasant working with you, Zayd. Many of the Salafi editors have been here and then gone, and have not been cooperative. Zora 03:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging Saudi Arabia subsection in Contemporary Muslim Section

Ok, here is the update of my edits. I redid the list of Notable salafis. I tried not to do anything controversial, but I just went for the most well known and influential names. The list before was too cumbersome and contained more names in the media than those who have had a real affect on the Salafi movement. If I have stepped on anyone's toes or if they think I made a mistake or went to far, I am open to reconsider what I did. That said, I notice that in the contemporary Muslims section there is a subsection regarding the position of Salafiyyah and the rulers. I think that can be merged with the section on how to give dawah as the three groups more or less divide the same way. If no one objects, I can try to do that.ZaydHammoudeh 07:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Try merging and see what happens. I might object, but we can easily go back to another version. I hate to lose country-specific information, but perhaps we could do that in breakout articles?

The list of notable Salafis would be greatly improved by (birth-death) notation after the name, so that we could see who lived when, or who is still alive.

We haven't mentioned the Deobandi and Maududi. I think that's necessary, if only to say how they differ from Salafis, or have been influenced by Salafis. Do we have a link to Islamism? I think that political scientists/academics have settled on that term for what could loosely be described as a political philosophy associated with (Shariati and Khomeini), (Muslim Brotherhood and Qutb), and (Deobandi and Maududi). Zora 09:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the birth dates and deaths but now the article looks a bit cluttered. It might be worth putting a blank space between each name to increase readability. I don't know much beyond the basics regarding Mawdudi and Deobandis. I do know they were influenced a great deal by the Muslim brotherhood, i think much more than teh Salafi movement so that may be a more appropriate place to put it.

Also, I did not mean to get rid of the country specific alignments. What I mean was in the Contemproary salafi section, there is just the mention of one country (Saudi Arabia) and then Saudia Arabia is mention again in the Notable Salafis category. What I meant was to keep the notable salafis category arranged as is and then merge Saudi Arabia more into the contemprary salafis category. I will try to do that tonight.ZaydHammoudeh 17:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed someone went through and edited the notable salafis section. I think we should rever to just the real scholars of the movement and rename it Notable Salafi scholars. I think that is best. ZaydHammoudeh 03:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable Salafis

Many scholars named as "notable Salafis" are simply not Salafis. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, for example, was not a Salafi- although he is respected greatly and regarded as a primary inspiration for their movement, Salafis did not exist at the time of these classical scholars; Taymiyyah is respected by orthodox Sunnis as well as Salafis. The same applies for Ibn al-Qayyim etc. who were all classical Islamic scholars before the inception of the Salafi movement. Most of these classical scholars wre all part of Tariqas and practised Tasawwaf! Salafis claim them as theirs, but so do all other Sunni Muslims! I have removed many of their names from the lists. Tanzeel 16:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a false claim. The topic is discussed over and over until we have reached this page and removed the POV tag. Don't bring the page again under the disputed status. Salafis did exist at the time. The Ash'ari-Salfi dispute has been since the 300 AH. --Islamic 22:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone with a modicum of learning about Islamic history and theology and different Islamic groups would realise the ridiculousness of this ignorant position. According to orthodox Sunni tradition, Ash'ari school of Aqeedah is perfectly valid and the (modern) Salafi ideas did not exist at that time. To claim Imam Bukhari as a Salafi is just ludicrous! I shan't bother to tear apart your arguments because it seems you have a closed mind and you have convinced yourself of these ridiculous claims. I'm not even going to bother tagging it with POV because I know someone will bring it down. It's no use- this ignorant ideas monopoly will continue in this article and, it seems, there is little room for historical and theological accuracy. Tanzeel 16:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Read Imam Bukhari's book Khalq Af'aal al-Ibad (The Creation of the acts of Servants). It shows the Salaf's creed regarding many issues. The same applies to Imam Ahmad books. --Islamic 17:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Salafi vs. Wahabi vs. Qutubi

Dear editors, I'm trying to add to and improve the "Qutbism" entry which I get the impression is a stub originally created from this (Salafi) entry. Qutbism refers to and has a link to "Salafi vs. Wahabi vs. Qutubi at Salafi". Unfortunately it appears "Salafi vs. Wahabi vs. Qutubi" has been deleted. I looked through the History but that is huge and I could not find it. Could I interest one of you in reposting it?

Much abliged, --Leroy65X 22:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to keep that section header in the article for a month or two, but the article has gone through many mutation since then... AnonMoos 23:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me when that was? I'll try to find it in the history. --Leroy65X 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

... If not I will create my own for Qutbism wiki.

P.S. I plan to add some content to the "Distictive beliefs and practices section. -- Leroy65X 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed enlarged and modified section on Distinctive beliefs and practices

Please tell me what you think --Leroy65X 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Salafis claim to preach a purified Islamic monotheism, or tawhid that strictly prohibits shirk (a comprehensive term which is commonly translated as polytheism), or bid`a (innovation). Salafis believe that widespread Muslim practices such as venerating the graves of Islamic prophets and saints are shirk. Photographs of any living being that possesses a soul are forbidden. Celebration of Muhammad's birthday (Mawlid) is bid`a. All these practices are considered shirk or as bidah (innovation). Salafis in general are opposed to both Sufism and Shi'a Islam, which they regard as deviations.

Salafi place great emphasis on ritual not only in prayer but in every activity in life -- three fingers should always be used when when eating, water is to be drunk in three pauses with the right hand while sitting -- so as to follow the example of the Prophet (p) and his companions and make religion part of every activity in life. Salafi also discourage many other activities, including music, kite-flying, beard-saving, (The Taliban In Their Own Words) that do not follow the example of early Muslims and that distract people's attention from religion. This has been criticized as overly strict or trivial by some.

Salafi differ from the earlier contemporary Islamic revival movement of Islamism of the 1970s and 1980s, in that (at least many) Salafi reject not only Western ideologies such as socialism and capitalism, but also common Western concepts like economics, constitutions, political parties, revolution and social justice. Muslims should not engage in Western activities like politics, "even by giving them an Islamic slant." Instead, Muslims should stick to Islamic activities, particularly dawah and jihad. Salafi promote sharia rather than an Islamic political program or state.

Salafis reject mainstream dogmatic theology (kalam). They consider this to be based on classical Greek philosophy (Plato and Aristotle) and an import foreign to the original practice of Islam.

Salafis are divided on the question of adherence to the four recognized schools of traditional legal interpretation (madhhabs).

• Some Salafis wish to base their jurisprudence directly on the Qu'ran and Sunnah. They believe that literal readings of the Qur'an and the hadith (or oral traditions) are sufficient guidance for the believing Muslim. They thus reject the madhabs. One scholar who supported this position was Albaanee.
• Some Salafis follow the teachings of the 14th century Syrian scholar Ibn Taymiya, and his students Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Kathir.
• Some Salafis rely on the jurisprudence of one of the four famous madhabs. For example, Ibn Taymiya followed the Hanbali madhhab. Some of his students (such as Ibn Kathir and Al-Dhahabi) followed the Shafi madhhab. Other students (such as Ibn Abu al-Iz) follow the Hanafi madhhab.

Because Salafis see themselves as practicing "pure" Islam, Salafi teachers and adherents will not necessarily identify themselves as Salafi. They can be identified as part of a particular current of contemporary Islam by their characteristic beliefs, by their use of terms like "the Salaf" or "Qur'an and sunnah." They also tend to use a more rigorous style of transliteration of Arabic into English: long vowels are indicated by doubling, emphatic consonants are doubled, and words that end with a ta marbuta in Arabic are rendered with a terminal h.

It seems that the major change you are adding is "Salafi place great ... Islamic political program or state." Most of that is talking about 'some' Salafis and not all. It is hard to generalize that. --Islamic 17:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Modification made. Now reads: "(at least many) Salafi"

Any other complaints? --Leroy65X 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no complaints I will post. --Leroy65X 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Further Changes

Just a line added to give a more complete description.

Current:

Salafi place great emphasis on ritual not only in prayer but in every activity in life -- three fingers should always be used when eating, water is to be drunk in three pauses with the right hand while sitting [1] -- so as to follow the example of the Prophet (p) and his companions and make religion part of every activity in life. Salafi also discourage many other activities, including music, kite-flying, beard-saving, (The Taliban In Their Own Words) that do not follow the example of early Muslims [2] and that distract people's attention from religion. This has been criticized as overly strict or trivial by some. [3]

Proposed:

Salafi place great emphasis on ritual not only in prayer but in every activity in life -- three fingers should always be used when eating, water is to be drunk in three pauses with the right hand while sitting [1] -- so as to follow the example of the Prophet (p) and his companions and make religion part of every activity in life. Salafi also discourage many other activities -- including music, kite-flying, beard-saving, (The Taliban In Their Own Words), neckties, laughter, handshakes, applause, and the use of Western forms of salutation -- that do not follow the example of early Muslims [2] and that distract people's attention from religion. This has been criticized as overly strict or trivial by some. [3]

--Leroy65X 16:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

it should be shown that the "salafi" positions on music, beard-shaving and laughter are unique to salafis and not existent within what may be regarded as more "mainstream" by some, as i can confirm that the "sunnis" have very similar positions on all of these things hence some of the listed points do not serve the intended distinguishing between salafi and others. ITAQALLAH 08:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps we should add a footnote saying some non-Salafi Muslims also oppose music, beard-shaving and laughter, but this opposition is much less common among non-Salafi Muslims? --Leroy65X 19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Another new line in "Distinctive beliefs and practices"

Which would read:

Many Salafi perform a specific prayer of supplication dua for every activity of the day: getting up, dressing, eating, going to sleep -- there is even a "supplication when turning over during the night." --Leroy65X 19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Article is not dawa

Anons have been turning the article into an example of Salafi piety. It needs a thorough spring-clean. Also, some anons removed the "pro-Salafi" heading in the external links. then removed some links and added others. I haven't had time to check out the changes. I suspect it's one strand of Salafism trying to expunge another. Zora 19:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Zora. The link section needs some clean up. We have a lot of link-spams. In order to solve the problem, we need to agree on some rules regarding what is valid and what is not. --Islamic 01:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Great article. It really helps to demystify the topic. I have three questions:

Are the prohibitions regarding music, kite flying etc., observed by Salafis in general or was/is that just a doctrine of the Taliban? To what extent were the Taliban representative of Salafism?

Similarly, to what extent was the Taliban's greater regulation of female life than other Muslim authorities' representative of the doctrine of Salafism?

What is Salafism's general position on women's "rights" etc.?

"To what extent were the Taliban representative of Salafism?"

I think it is pretty generally accepted that the Taliban belief that music is haram is also a common salafi belief.

from: http://islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=9125&ln=eng&txt=music

Question: My Muslim brother asks: "At my job site the disbelievers play music over the intercom. I want to know whether I am responsible for this. Insha Allah!"

Answer: Praise be to Allaah. If you have the choice and are able to remove this evil, then do so. If the matter is beyond your control, then you will not be held accountable, so long as you do not deliberately listen and enjoy that, because music is haraam (see Question #5011). The same applies to singing, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And of mankind is he who purchases idle talks (i.e. music, singing) to mislead (men) from the path of Allaah without knowledge…” [Luqmaan 31:6]

see also: http://calltoislam.com/downloads/Music%20&%20Singing%20in%20Light%20of%20the%20Qur'aan%20&%20Sunnah.pdf .

Kite flying is also a bone of contention among salafi and non-salafi Muslim (Barelvi who are Sufi) in Pakistan (source: PAKISTAN : A Modern History by Ian Talbot, New York : St. Martin's Press, 1998, p.251)

Another Taliban prohibition that Salafi generally seem to favor: beards

Shaving the beard is haraam because of the saheeh ahaadeeth that clearly state this, and because of the general application of texts that forbid resembling the kuffaar."

http://islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=1189&ln=eng&txt=beards

"What is Salafism's general position on women's 'rights,' etc.?"

See if these comments help. They are from a couple of the pro-salafi websites listed on this wiki: http://abdurrahman.org/women/theidealmuslimah/Index.htm

... The true Muslim woman is always obedient to her husband, provided that no sin is involved. She is respectful towards him and is always eager to please him and make him happy. If he is poor, she does not complain about his being unable to spend much. She does not complain about her housework,

... If the woman .... fears that she may commit the sin of disobeying and opposing this husband whom she does not love, then she may ask for a divorce.

... The true Muslim woman devotes herself to taking care of her house and husband. She knows her husband's rights over her, and how great they are, as was confirmed by the Prophet's words

from: http://abdurrahman.org/women/theidealmuslimah/Index.htm

Abandoning sins and disobedience Allaah the Exalted said:

Indeed Allaah does not change the condition of a people until they change what is in their souls. [Soorah Ra'd 13:11]

Disobedience is a barrier which stands in front of khushoo' in the prayer Included in this disobedience is clinging to a woman possessing evil manners ... Also included in this is the disobedience the wife shows to her husband and the slave who has run away from his master, ...

from: http://calltoislam.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=390&Itemid=2

Even more extreme are fatawa from a Salafi book (Fatawa min Hayat al-Mar-ah al-Muslimah by Al-Sadiq `Abd al-Rahman al-Ghiryani, Beirut: Dar al-Rayyan, 2001) quoted in Abou el Fadl's The Great Theft (p.258-60). They proclaim

`because of its seductive powers, the voice of women should not be heard in public, or in a private setting where it might cause sexual enticement,`

`Women may not chew gum because it is seductive.`

The Algerian GIA, generally described as Radical Safafi, also encouraged women to stay indoors. According to the author of Nadia, femme d'un emir du GIA, (Editions du Seuil, 1998)

When girls reached the age of nine, they couldn't go to school anymore and had to cover their heads when they went outside. If they didn't, they would bring shame to the village. They carried within them the seed of fitna, the GIA claimed. My husband even made my little sister wear a headscarf -- and she was only seven." (p.46)

I should add that it may be that the prohibitions of the Taliban are more severe than the salafi prohibitions published online. But this could well reflect the natural tendency for those who believe true Islam is not being enforced to be circumspect about beliefs they know to be unpopular until they gain the power (as the Taliban did) to enforce them. --Leroy65X 19:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Taliban were not Salafis

The Taliban were not Salafis at all. The Taliban were "muqallids" - their theology differed from the Salafis in the most defining theological aspect of belief in Taqleed and Madhahib (schools of thought) and Tasawwaf (sufism). I think a mistake is being made in equating Salafism with extremism. The Taliban were extremist and the Wahhabi-Salafi extremists like Osama Bin Laden got along together because they were both extremist, although of different theology. Many Salafis are moderate Muslims. However, it is also very true that Salafi thought is more likely to bring Muslims to extreme interpretations of Islam. You see, the Salafi spectrum of thought is not a monolith - it is indeed very broad. There are salafis who, to use the vague western terms that we are familiar with, are moderate, and there are those who are fundamentalist (and some even more fanatical, and loads of stations in between). Some Salafis are very lenient - permit music, videos etc.

I will checkout further the doctrinal differences between Salafi and Taliban. At least they have much in common -- influence from wahhabism, belief that Shia are not Muslims, literal interpretation of texts. I was under the impression that Deobandi and thus Taliban opposed Sufism, but it seems they only opposed barelwi sufi.

Agreed the Salafi spectrum of thought is not a monolith and that there are, for example, serious, even lethal, differences between radical salfi or jihadist-salafist and mainstream salafi over the relative importance of jihad and da'wa. But I have to question the idea that there is not a definite tendency toward strict and traditional interpretation of the Quran and ahadith in Salafism. Doubtless there are Democrats in America who think Bush is a great president and strongly support capital gains tax cuts and the War in Iraq, but does that mean it is incorrect to say "Democrats oppose Bush"? If we look for every little qualifier it becomings difficult to describe things. Appros "Many Salafis are moderate Muslims," do you have a link to a sheikh or group of same? --Leroy65X 22:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

At least for the time being I will remove the taliban link and reference to kiteflying as related to deobandiism and not necessarily salafiism. --Leroy65X 19:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

more changes

This sentence in "Distinctive beliefs and practices" seems redundant: "All these practices are considered shirk or as bidah (innovation)." Leroy65X 22:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

hearing no complaints I inserted it 8-29 --Leroy65X 18:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

oops. the insert refers to this phrase: Many Salafi perform a specific prayer of supplication dua for every activity of the day: getting up, dressing, eating, going to sleep -- there is even a "supplication when turning over during the night." [5] --Leroy65X 19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I will also remove "All these practices are considered shirk or as bidah (innovation)." --Leroy65X 21:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

SALAFIS DO NOT GIVE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF ANY TEXTS

i have been reading alot in this discussion page and in the artical and i've been seeing that many of you keep on reapting that the salafis give literal interpretation of the texts, i belive your reffering to the quran and sunnah. and i would just like to ask one quertion and that is what is your evidence for this? when a literal interpretation is made you really dont need an interpretation. you just pick up a book and read. and from what i know i have never heard any salafi scholar of our time ever ever say "we give literal interpretation of the texts." but i did read and hear bin baz, al-albani, al-uthaymeen, and many others say "we only interpretat our religion the way the companions of the prophet muhammad (peace be upon him) did." i would like a reply on this

Here's one person's reply (I did not write the "literal interpretation" line myself):

I think a Muslim by definition is one who "interprets our religion the way the companions of the prophet muhammad (peace be upon him) did," i.e. it's not just salafi/wahhabi who endeavor to follow the Prophet and other early Muslims.

In trying to write a reply, I came across this link on a debate over the attributes of God and the differences between wahhabi/salafi and non-wahhabi Muslims over how to interpret what the Quran says about God's attributes.

http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/muslimarticles/ashari.html

It explains how salafis interpret the Quran and the sunna "literally" better than I can. --Leroy65X 19:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

that (which seems to be a rather poor exposition) only proves "literal" (or should we say, "most apparent") interpretation with regards to divine attributes. ITAQALLAH 01:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it is an example. Another would be ibn baaz famous claim that the earth is stationary "using Quranic literalism as evidence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd-al-Aziz_ibn_Abd-Allah_ibn_Baaz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranic_literalism How does "If the Qur'an says that the sun courses over the earth, then the sun courses over the earth" sound as a description of literalism? Or alternately: "If the Qur'an says that the sun courses over the earth, then the sun is moving and not the earth."

it is not an example, simply because interpreting a certain nature of verses literally does not equate to "quranic literalism", as many verses are interpreted literally even by the claimants to orthodoxy. the "quranic literalism" article is one i have already noted my qualms with and find it rather inaccurate. that is not an evidence. and the statement of bin baz cannot be taken as an indication or representation of salafi thought, and he had some views which can only be described as "odd" (such as believing the earth was stationary). you need to provide a proper source stating that salafis believe such and such instead of stating bin baaz's personal belief and imputing it upon the salafis. ITAQALLAH 23:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

yes many verses are interpretted literally by all Muslims, but some verses Muslims disagree over whether to interpret them literally or metaphorically.

If bin baaz was a crank whose personal belief's should be disregarded, how did he get to be Grand Mufti of the two holy places? Is he not quoted liberally on salafi web sites as a reputable authority? I've heard tell that his death was considered a great loss as there was no one of his stature to replace him. Leroy65X 16:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroy65X (talk • contribs)

well the difference between the ash'ariyyah (who are apparently not considered "literalists") and salafis is that the ash'aris literally interpret seven (or eight) attributes while giving less-apparent meanings to other attributes, whereas salafis interpret all attributes with their most apparent (or "literal") meanings. that they do so, in this instance, does not necessarily make them "qur'aanic literalists" by any stretch of the imagination.

bin baaz's personal view on an inconsequential matter has no bearing on what salafis do or do not believe. in his personal estimation, he apparently thought that the earth was stationary (or at least, this is what was alleged about him. perhaps his being visually impaired contributed to view?). he did not impute kufr upon the one who rejected this idea (i.e. he accepted disagreement with his view in this area), and you do not find such a view in any "salafi" books on creed. so it's not really a substantial example of "qur'aanic literalism" committed by the corpus of "salafis" ITAQALLAH 05:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed cleaned-up version of first section of article

I tried to include all the content from the original but remove redundancies and make it more readable. --Leroy65X 21:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Salafism (Arabic سلفي , from the Arabic word Salaf سلف literally meaning predecessors or early generations), is a contemporary movement in Sunni Islam whose adherents base their understanding and practice of Islam to the 'Salaf'. The word Salaf or phrase Al-Salaf Al-Salih ("predecessors" or "the Righteous Predecessors"), refers to the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad and other early Muslims.

The Salafis view the first three generations of Muslims, who are the prophet Muhammad's companions, and the two succeeding generations after them, the Tabi'een and the tabi'it Tabi'een as perfect examples of how Islam should be practiced in everyday life. These three generations are often referred to as the pious generations. This principle of law is derived from the following hadith (tradition) by Prophet Muhammad:

"The best of people is my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them (i.e. the first three generations of Muslims)." (Bukhari 3:48:819 and 820 [3] and Muslim 31:6150 and 6151 [4].

Salafism seeks to revive the original practice of Islam [5], believing that Islam was perfect and complete at the days of Muhammad and his Sahaba, but that much undesirable innovation ( bid`a) was added to Islam afterwards due to materialist and cultural influences over the later centuries.

Controversy centering around Salafism includes whether it is a sect in Islam or simply pure Islam as practiced by the first three generations of Muslims praised by Prophet Muhammad in hadiths; whether it has become a euphamism for the more controversial form of Islam known as Wahhabism; and whether the term Wahhabi should be used at all. (Saudi Arabian Salafis do not like to be called Wahhabis, although this name is said to have been acceptable in the past.)

More proposed changes

Now that the article has this at the beginning:

This article is on the contemporary Islamic movement. For the article on the group of early muslims , see Salaf

Perhaps we could put in some history about the contemporary salafi movement -- Muhammad Abdah, Muhammad Abduh and Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Rahid Rida -- since it is obvious this is an article about contemporary salafist movement. DOes anyone have any objections to this? -Leroy65X 23:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

what are you talking about.

how can you put Muhammad Abduh, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Rahid Rida as the contemporary salafi movement. this makes no sense whatsoever. they are not salafi, infact Jamal al-Din al-Afghani was a shee'ah. Shaykh, Dr Muhammad bin moosaa Aal-Nasr in his book "The Rationalist School of Thought and the Invalidity of its Proofs" brought fourth evidence of how these people are not salafi rather they are rationalists, extreme modernists who preached overthrowing islamic governments and so the likes. this is not the way of the salaf. Dr Muhammad bin moosaa Aal-Nasr is one of the leading careyers of the salafi manhij in jordan. when the people of knowlage (scholars) in the kingdom of saudi arabia were asked about him they said that he was a salafi and a person of knowlage. so these people have no right to be on this page.

THINGS THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED FORM Distinctive beliefs and practices

Salafis are divided on the question of adherence to the four recognized schools of traditional legal interpretation (madhhabs). Some Salafis wish to base their jurisprudence directly on the Qu'ran and Sunnah. They believe that literal readings of the Qur'an and the hadith (or oral traditions) are sufficient guidance for the believing Muslim. One scholar who supported this position was Albaanee.

WHAT IS THIS. What do you mean that salafis are divided on the topic of adherence to the four schools of thought. This makes no sense. Salafis will differ on stuff related to jurisprudence but they do not THEY DO NOT differ on ideas related to creed and mythology whatsoever. All salafi scholars no matter who he is, if it be Abdullah ibn Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Taymeya, Ibn Katheer, Ibnul Quayem, Mohammad ibn abdulwahhad, Ibn Baz, Al-Albany, Ibn Uthaymeen, Shake Mukbil Bin Hadi Al-Wadiee or anyone els from the past or present say that they love and respect all of them. They are all imams to ahl al-sunnah wa al jama’aa and that we take from them all, not following any of them blindly and that you can adhere to one of them but acknowledge the fact that they all had their own mistakes regarding jurisprudence NOT CREED. And remember the sayings of all four of them, “My mathhab (way, method, school of thought) is any hadith that is sahih (correct) so if any of you find any of my sayings that contradict a sahih hadith then leave if and take the hadith.” Not one or two, but all four said this. So this little part you have under Distinctive beliefs and practices should be removed and replaced with the correct idea.

With due respect to the person who posted above me, what this person is referring to is whether or not to allow blind allegiance to a specific school of fiqh in some situations. This is not something unprecedented in fact because sometimes in remote areas or non-Muslim countries, sound Islamic understanding is not always present so they had to do blind following as a last resort. Similarly, some people were uneducated or disabled so they could not seek out the knowledge to a sufficient extent to be able to judge what the Qur'an and Sunnah says. However, for the one who is able to understand the evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah fully, then he should strive to find the best opinion. This is the true opinion of Al-Albani as he explained in many works. Very few scholars gave freedom for pure taqlid (blind following) or for anyone to just guess the truth. The way of the People of the Sunnah was the middle. ZaydHammoudeh 06:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden is not a Salafi

Osama bin Laden is rejected by Salafi scholars and is termed as deviant. http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/wahhabis_like_osama.htm The same applies to Sayyid Qutb and Abdullah Azzam. http://www.fatwa-online.com/creed/deviants/index.htm . These people do not represent the Salafi movement of Islam and are rejected by the scholars. Please correct this major flaw in this article.

The reference you gave does not talk about Abdullah Azzam. --Islamic 03:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your refrences did talk about how Osama Bin Ladin and Sayyed Qutub are not salafi, and it was a strong evidence. That in itself should get them removed off this Salafi page.

SAYYID QUTUB IS NOT SALAFI

The People of Hadeeth (ahl ul-Hadeeth) hold that prayers of al-Jumu’ah, the two Eids and any other prayer can be performed behind every Muslim Imaam irrespective of whether he is righteous or immoral.

Sayyid Qutub refused to pray Salaatul-Jumu'ah (friday prayer) with the justification that there is no khilaafah at the present time.

Alee Ashmaawee says in his book: "The Secret History of Ikhwaan ul-Muslimeen" (at-Taareekh as-Sirree li-Jamaa'atil-Ikhwaan il-Muslimeen): "And the time for the Jumu'ah prayer arrived so I said to him (Sayyed Qutub): 'Let us leave and pray' and it was a surprise that I came to know - and for the first time - that he did not used to pray Jumu'ah" (p.112)

Imaam as-Saboonee (d. 449H) said, “They also hold that Jihad against the disbelievers is valid with them, even if they are oppressors and tyrants. They agree to make supplication for them, asking to rectify their situation, to be given tawfeeq and to establish justice amongst the subjects. They do not deem permissible rebellion against the leaders by the sward even if they are unjust and tyrannical. They the salaf say that the extremists (transgressive group) should be fought until they return to the obedience of the Imaam.” The Creed of the Pious Predecessors the People of Hadith (p. 93).

Does Sayyid Qutub follow this or did he order Muslims to fight leaders by the sward, killing them and the citizens of these Muslim nations.

Al-Bukhari (d.256H) said, “And the sword is not to raised against (any of) the Ummah of Muhammad salalahu alahi wa salam.” The creed of Imaam al-Bukhari (p. 41).

This is what the Salaf say. Now tell me what the Khawaarij and then tell me which category Sayyid Qutub falls under.

The Imaam of the Sunnah of his time Imaam al-Barbahaaree (d. 329H) said, “Whoever rebels agenst a Muslim ruler is one of the Khawaarij, has caused dissent within the Muslims, has contradicted the narrations and has died the death of the days of ignorance.” Sharhus-sunnah, (p. 42).

This is the Imaam of the Sunnah of his time saying this. He is loved and respected by all Salafies today and his book "EXPLANATION OF THE CREED" is one of the best works on creed ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama'aa has today.

Imaam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (d. 241H) said, “And the killing of the one in power is not lawful, and nor is it permissible for anyone amongst the people to revolt agenst him. Whoever is an innovator (mubtadei), (and is) upon other than the Sunnah and the (correct) path. Foundation of the Sunnah (p. 30).

Shaikul-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) said, “There are three sayings. The weakest of them with ahl al-Sunnah is the saying, ‘rejecting everything from his (the Ruler) orders, his rule and the division (of charity etc.) And the most correct of them ahl ul-Hadeeth, the Scholars and the Jurists is the first saying, ‘that he is to be obeyed absolutely, and likewise (he is obeyed) absolutely in whatever he orders from the obedience of Allah and the decision that he makes with respect to the rule and the division (of charity etc.) And this is the case with the ignorant Judge and also the oppressor --- his judgment and (orders for the) division (of charity etc.) when it is just to be carried out in accordance with the saying of the majority of the Fuqahaa (jurists).” Manhaajus-Sunnah, (3/390).

Does Sayyid Qutub follow this or do I have to explain myself again.

Shaykh ‘Abdul-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, one of the leading Salafi scholars of our time said “It Is not from the mythology of the Salaf to publicize the faults of the Rulers and to mention such things from the pulpit because that leads to confusion/disorder and the absence of hearing and obeying the Ruler in what is good. It also results in (the people) becoming engrossed (with these matters, arguing and debating) which causes harm and produces no benefit. The following path of the Salaf however was to give advice (naseehah) with respect to the matters which are between themselves and the leader, writing to him, or by reaching him through the scholar who keeps in touch with him (to advise him) until the Ruler is directed towards the good.” Al-Ma’loom min Waajibil-‘Ilaaqah bainal-Haakim wal-Mahkoom, (pp. 22-23).

Why would ibn Baaz say this? Is it because he is a Scholar of the Rulers of Saudi Arabia and must say what they order him to say. BY ALLAH NO. He is an honest man who spoke the truth. He rememberd the Hadeeth of the Prophet Muhammad salalahu alahi wa salam of ‘Iyaad ibn Ghunm who said, “The Messenger of Allah salalahu alahi wa salam said, ‘Whoever desires to advise the one with authority then he should not do so openly, rather he should take him by the hand and take him into seclusion (and then advise him). And if he accepts (the advise) from him then (he has achieved his objective) and if not he has fulfilled that which was duty upon him.” Reported by Ahmad (3/403) and Ibn Abee’ Aasim (2/521) with an authentic chin of narration.

Hudhaifah, radiyallahu ‘anhu, related that the Prophet salalahu alahi wa salam said: “There will come leaders who will not follow my guidance and will not follow my Sunnah. There will be amongst them men, who will have hearts of devils and bodies of humans.” Hudhaifah asked: ‘What shall I do o messenger of Allah, if I reach that?’ He replied: “You should hear and obey the Ruler, even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth. Then still hear and obey.” Sahih Muslim Hadeeth number (1847).

Sayyad Qutub was Imprisoned and beaten under the rule of Gamal Abdel Nasser. But from what I know, he did not hear and obay. infact he declared Abdel Nasser an infidel. So now you tell me. Did Sayyad Qutub follow what the salaf said and at the head of them if being the Prophet Muhammad salalahu alahi wa salam.

The ‘Aqeedah (creed) of the Sunnah, ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’aa, ahl ul-hadeeth, ahl ul-athar, as Salaf us-Saalih, as-Salafyoon or whatever you want to call them because they are all same, is that he who says that prayer is to be performed behind every (Imaam), pious or wicked, that Jihaad is to fought along every Khaleefah and he does not hold permissible to oppose the Ruler with the sword and he makes supplication for them to be upright has escaped the saying of the Khawaarij; its beginning and its end. And he who believes in any one of these points is a Kharijee.

O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. The Nobel Quran chapter 4 verse 59.

Imaam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (d. 241H) said, “If the aided group is not the People of Hadeeth, than I have no idea who it is.” Ibn Maajah (3993). This Haheeth is Sahih.

The People of Hadeeth (ahl ul-Hadeeth) who are as-Salaf and the Khawaarij are two different groups with different ideas in obeying the Rulers. In order to be a Salafi you must believe in all of what our Pious Predecessors (as Salaf us-Saalih) believed in with regards to the creed.

What makes a Salafi is his creed. Not going around saying you must grow your beard or that celebrating the birhtday of the Prophet salalaha alahi wasalam if forbidden even though according to the authentic narration it is.

Islaam is creed. Without the creed there is no islaam. Islaam is built on the ideas of the creed. Sayyad Qutub disbelieved in one of the beliefs in the creed of the Salaf, one of the most important ones.

All I am asking is that Sayyad Qutub be removed from the Salafi page. I hope you will show respect to what I wrote and to the Salafi page by removeing this man from it. Thank You.

If anyone would like information regarding the creed of Sayyad Qutub in matters other than in dealing with the Rulers I will be glad to post them, because that wasent his only mistake in the creed of the Salaf but I felt that this topic would be enough.

Brother, may Allah reward you for transcribing the article. However as Muslims, we are need to be fair and just. It has to be noted here for the sake of clarity that someone who makes a mistake in Aqeedah is not discarded inherently. For instance, Imam an-Nawawi and ibn Hajar al-Asqalani had some of the Ashari traits so mistakes in aqeedah come at different levels. Clearly for isntance if you pray to the wali in the grave, that is more grave that is clear shirk. This is a clear part of al-Wala' wal-Bara. I do notice though that in your article you make assertions about his creed. However, you did not provide a scholar saying he wasn't salafi; he made mistakes but it takes a scholar to say that those mistakes makes someone not salafi anymore. It is not a matter for the general Muslim to decide. His mistakes are refuted and rejected but that is a different issue than saying he is not salafi. Someone can make mistakes because they were ignorant or had been mislead; to say someone is not salafi requires the hujjah be established. Could you provide a saying from ibn Baaz, ibn Uthaymeen, al-Albani, or Shaykh Muqbil ibn Hadee' saying he is not salafi? I don't know a ton about Sayyid Qutb specifically; I admit that. However, I do know a good deal about what is required to say someone is not salafi totally and what that entails and requires. I would prefer his name not appear with the likes of ibn Baaz or ibn Uthaymeen as he is not of their level but I don't own wikipedia. ZaydHammoudeh 00:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

REMOVING SAYYED QUTUB

Since I waited THREE DAYS and never got an answer to “SAYYID QUTUB IS NOT SALAFI” (above) I took the liberty of taking him off myself.

CLEANUP

This page is false on so many levels. It’s sad to see how you people argue about something you don’t even understand. I will take it upon myself to repair the damages all of you have caused. This page is supposed to be about Manhij as-Salafi and what the followers of Manhij as-Salafi believe. And right now it’s the furthest away from that.

You disagree with much of what is in this article; given the nature of the topic under discussion, that is to be expected. Currently, different people have different understandings of what the term "Salafi" means. I disagree personally with much of whst is this article. However, since it is the expressed goal of Wikipedia to give a factual NPOV explanation of the topic, all relevant, prevelant opinions are shown. Whether you agree with them or not, it can not be disputed that groups like "Ansar at-Tawheed wa'l Jihad" and others like them assert they are salafis. I personally disagree with them, but the article just attempts to show there are differences of opinion. Those who are intelligent should be able to see who is correct and who is wrong. ZaydHammoudeh 16:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You still don’t understand. It’s not about what I believe, or what I think Salafiya is. It’s about what Salafies believe and this page does not represent their beliefs. This page is false, inaccurate and misleading. It must be changed.

I do understand what you mean. In all probability we see salafiyyah as the same thing. I disagree with Sayyid Qutb and Osama ibn Laden. However, the next step will be someone who agrees with them will say that we don't understand salafiyyah and the article will be changed to that perspective. It will be a circle and nothing will be accomplish. Clearly stuff in here has mistakes. There is no doubt about it. Some are glaring in fact. However when we say that this is what Salafiyyah really is, that is a point of view and wikipedia requires NPOV. I wish too it could reflect the truth but too many sects out there grabbing on to salafiyyah. ZaydHammoudeh 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. But i am still changing this page in a non bias way. I am working on it at this moment.(69.220.233.245 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

THE FACTS ARE CLEAR

I don’t know who it is but someone keeps on bringing back Sayyed Qutub and putting next to his name “Disputed” as if he is a Salafi. Sayyed Qutub is not a Salafi, you are misinforming people who come to this page to think he is a Salafi. I gave my evidences about how he is not a Salafi under the title (SAYYED QUTUB IS NOT A SALAFI) above. So the only way Sayyed Qutub is coming back onto this Salafi page Is if you can bring forth evidences that he is a Salafi. By simply putting “Disputed” next to his name does not make it o.k. to put him up. This website is built on facts and evidences and you brought none about.

Some poeople like you don't consider him a Salafi, but some other people like Dr Salah Khalidi considers him a Salafi. Both views should be represneted here. --Islamic 04:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You are either stupid or a blind fool. On the top of this page it says “If you plan on making major edits, please discuss them here first BEFORE you make your changes.” So I take it that you’re both. So don’t come telling me “Some people like you don't consider him a Salafi” when you know damn right that I gave my evidences and proven that he isn’t. Why don’t you try reading above on this discussion page the “SAYYID QUTUB IS NOT SALAFI” section and then you tell me it’s my opinion. But the thing is you can’t because it’s not my opinion. It’s the opinion of the Scholars of the Salaf. And one more thing, who the hell is Dr Salah Khalidi. You can’t just bring names of anyone and say “he said so and so.” This person must be known to the Salafi community as a legitimate source of evidence. It’s not about what we think Salafiya is, it’s about what Salafis say what they believe and whom they follow. So once again you must bring fourth some REAL EVAIDENCE (which I doubt you will) and until then Sayyed Qutub is not staying on this Salafi page. (69.212.63.157 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

Dear anonymous. You are clearly violating Wikipedia's official policy WP:No personal attacks. You are not welcome here if you don’t respect this site’s policies. You need to bring reliable academic sources not poorly translated web quotes. Dr Salah Khalidi is a Ph.D. holder and is a specialized in that field. That is a good example of valid reliable sources. Unlike people like Ibn Baz who never studied at a college. It is funny that you need a current Ph.D. holder to be evaluated by "the Scholars of the Salaf", whom have died by definition before 300 AH. --Islamic 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I need to clear something up. A Ph.D. is not a sign of being a reliable academic source in Islam. If this was the criterion, then we must through away all of the sahaba and the four imams. It is not Dr. Abu Hanifa or Dr. ash-Shafa'i. They studied Islam at the feet of the people of knowledge exactly like the companions studied at the feet of the Prophet. This is the Islamic way of seeking knowledge. To attack ibn Baaz for not having a Ph.D. is an erroneous and specious argument. You can become an expert in mechanical parts or eletrical components by living a life that trains you in that field just as ibn Baaz did with Islam. ZaydHammoudeh 05:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We have all been polite with you. It is imperative if you want to discuss things on wikipedia that you also be polite with others. Name calling is entirely inappropriate and unacceptable here. You can disagree with people yet still be civil. Your behavior makes your opinion look bad as unfortunately messages are always tied to their messenger. If their messenger is unsavory, then people will think the same of the message. If you want to contribute something, be constructive; tirades do not help you. When we judge evidence, we base it on the Qur'an, Sunnah, and understand the companions and some of the early generations. This is the way you weigh the merit of soemthing in Islam. Even if Imam Ahmad or Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah say something that conflicts with what the Prophet said, it is rejected despite them being known to the salafi community. If you want evidence to back this up, I will gladly provide it. Also, if you keep reverting his name off the page, you can be blocked from wikipedia even if you are right per the three revert rule. ZaydHammoudeh 17:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing is that you bring your evidence. That’s one thing you and every other person have not done. It angers me when I see how I bring fourth evidences and prove my case and yet no one cares. You place whatever you want causing confusion. When you do bring your evidences its inaccurate illegitimate garbage. And your saying how I’m impolite, how can I be when I typed up a whole article in itself on how Sayyed Qutub is not a Salafi that no one replied to till this day because they couldn’t. With no evidence and no nothing you still put Sayyed Qutub back up as a Salafi and then to top that you threatening to block me. This is not right. I’m willing to work with you as long as you don’t argue with the facts. (69.212.63.157 23:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

I should clarify that I wasn't threatening that I would block you. To the best of my knowledge, you must be a wikipedia admin to block someone, which I am not. However, I was telling you what would most likely given what Wikipedia's policies are and what has happened in the past. On this particular article, I have contributed little. I only made small changes here or there. I do know that this debate of sayyid qutb being salafi or not was something discussed long before I came to wikipedia and may be discussed long after I die even. In fact if you saw the changes I made to the list a long time ago, you would see it was different from what it is now so I recommend before making accusations, you check the facts. Similarly, I was not the one who reverts your edits. It is others. These are the facts. If you want to discuss this more, you can email me. ZaydHammoudeh 00:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

DISTINCTIVE BELIEFS AND PRACTICES HAS BEEN CHANGED

I changed the “Distinctive beliefs and practices” section on this page for many reasons. The main one being that 90% of it was inaccurate misinterpreted filth. This page is going to take a huge turn. From now on if anyone wants to add or delete anything on this page he must discuss it on the discussion page first. What I put up MAY NOT BE REMOVED unless evidences are brought forth of its incorrectness through authentic SALAFI sources. And more changes are coming.

I have genuinely tried to show patience with you. However, you are really pushing people's patience. Your language in your talk pages are unnecessarily inflamatory. Second, I checked your changes so far. Most are cosmetic and filled with grammatical/spelling errors. If you plan to make changes to the article itself, please check spelling and grammar. There is of course more flexibility to the main page.

Next, the hadith you changed was simply a similar narration with different working, hardly inaccurate misinterpreted filth. In addition, the change from pious to righteous is not something of consequence given the nature of the terms. Moreover, you use different conventions in the article between Salafiyyah and Salafiya. If you plan to make edits, it should be consistent with the rest of the article. Furthermore, Salafism is just the English language version of Salafiyyah and definitely not misinterpreted filth. Likewise, no one person has the right to bully an article. You say, "What I put up MAY NOT BE REMOVED unless evidences are brought forth of its incorrectness through authentic SALAFI sources." This is POV statement as authentic to one is different than authentic to another. You have to understand people view salaffiyah differently. If we allowed one person to dominate articles, some articles would be pitifully weak as for isntance certain sects tried to hijack the Sunni Islam article. Given these facts, I have to press for this article to be locked. ZaydHammoudeh 21:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If I have grammatical mistakes than fix them. But the information is correct.

In the future, it is consider good wikipedia style to sign your posts so later people can discuss things with you. I would recommend that. In addition, the Aqeedah you explained is Sunni Islam (Islam in general too), by placing it in the Salafi article, it gives the impression that it is something exclusive to us which is incorrect. I think it would be better placed there.

Plus, I have genuinely tried to show you good manners and patience, but it has not worked. I should note here that you should try to show more respect to others. In all honesty, you have been more rude to me than anyone else on Wikipedia. Maybe I have misread things but part of the Sunnah of the Prophet is good manners which in this case is lacking. May Allah give us all manners, ameen. You speak down to people and at the end of the day, I was trying to help you. You just show everyone utter disrespect and contempt. You should not treat others this way. If you wish to make a difference in Wikipedia, that is great and may Allah reward you but you should deal with people more appropriately. It feels to me you speak to others as if they are below you, which is not the way of the Salaf. Please try to respect protocol and others. In my experience, rudeness has turned many people of Salafiyyah which is a shame and if this happens, those people will have a heavy burden on their necks on the day of judgment. It is worth thinking about because every avenue of kindness i showed to you was responded to with rudeness. ZaydHammoudeh 00:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I don’t know how to sign my posts so if you can tell me that would be good. Secondly you say that Aqeedah I explained is Sunni Islam. What do you think? Of course it’s Sunni Islam. Aren’t Salafis “Ahl as-Sunnah waj-Jama’aa” or are you going to be like some ignorant people and say they are their own Wahabbi sect. But you do make a good point. That why I’m taking off the word “distinctive” and just leaving “beliefs and practices.” And last you say I’m rude. No I am not. I hate lies when it comes to Salafiyya. Now let me ask you something and you must be honest. What I put on this Salafi page so far to your knowledge, Is it the belief of the Salaf. If not than I ask you to pleas correct me with authentic sources of the authentic works of the Salafi scholars. And if so, why do you keep complaining. If so than help me do the right thing and quit attacking me. And I am not rude.

Brother, I have posted something below. It should help clarify somethings as some non-aqeedah related things can take one out of the fold of Islam; I think we both find these sources trustworthy. Also, to say this can be considered confrontration and impolite, "Aren’t Salafis “Ahl as-Sunnah waj-Jama’aa” or are you going to be like some ignorant people and say they are their own Wahabbi sect." And for reference when al is followed by jeem, it does not inherit the sound of the jeem for instance al-juma'ah, al-jam'ah, al-Jahmiyyah, al-Jafri, etc. Brother, here is what i recommend, I will post my email address here and you can contact me ok? That way we can speak more freely Insha'Allah. My email is hammoudeh@gmail.com . You can email me or not it is upto you. I have outstretched my hand to reconcile with you brother so the onus is on you now brother. Private email is good as it keeps any disagreement between ourselves.

Also, to sign a page, you put four tildas in a row. (~~~~) just like that. You should also register a username so people can find you specifically. You log in and it keeps track of your edits and gives you a user page that is save regardless of your ip address so that it can travel with you. ZaydHammoudeh 03:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-aqeedah related mistakes

Non-aqeedah related mistakes can take one out of the fold of Islam in a general sense. Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan hafidahullah said in his notes on Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab's treatise regarding 10 things that nullify one's Islam:

"They have stated that the apostate is the one who disbelieves after having accepted Islam, either by way of his heart's belief, or some doubts that have arisen within him about some affairs of the Religion. Or he may have apostated due to an action that he performed, like prostrating to other than Allaah, slaughtering (an animal) for other than Allaah, or taking an oath by other than Allaah. These are actions, and whoever does them has apostated, Or apostasy can be due to to a statement like speaking in an insulting way about Allaah the Most High, insulting the Messenger, or insulting the Religion of Islam." Citation Page 18 "Things That Nullify One's Islaam.:" Troid Publications, First Edition

I understand the point that was trying to be made. Jama'at at-Takfeer and their predecessors the Khawaarij applied general takfeer to those people specifically. For instance, if someone did not pray, they said he specifically is kaafir. THe position of Ahlus-Sunnah is that only the scholars can say a specific person is Kaafir once the conditions have been fulfilled and impediments like ignorance have been removed. However, doing magic or helping the kufar against the Muslims without an excuse are non-aqeedah sins that can take one out the fold in general (not applied specifically). Regarding the verse (2:102) in the translation of the meaning

"However, the devils disbelieved, teaching the people magic."

Shaykh Fawzaan said, "Both learning and teaching magic are disbelief in Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic. It is also one of the kinds of apostasy. If he was first a believer and then practised magic, then he has apostated from the Religion of Islaam." Citation Page 51 "Things That Nullify One's Islaam.:" Troid Publications, First Edition

Furthermore, Allah said in the translation of the meaning:

"If you ask them (about this), they declare: "We were only talking idly and joking." Say: "Was it Allah and his Ayat and His Messenger that you were mocking?" Make no excuse, you have disbelieved after you have believed. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others among you because they were criminals."

As clear from this verse, the person had believed originally making him a Muslim then disbelieved later.

The clarification needs to be made. ZaydHammoudeh 03:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Referring to Shaykh ul-Islam Mohammad ibn abdul Wahhab’s statement he said actions can take someone out of the fold of Islam and how it has nothing to do with Aqidah. Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan also put in his work “Sharh Aqidah al-waasitiyyh” (p.135) says, “And his (Ibn Taymiyyah’s) saying, ‘And among the fundamentals of Ahuls-sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah…’ means the principles and rules upon which the creed is built. ‘…is that the religion…’ which is whatever Allah has commanded, ‘…and faith…,’ which means belief, ‘…is speech and action.

So apostasy through actions is connected to Aqidah as you have read.

You also say that “However, doing magic or helping the kufar against the Muslims without an excuse are non-aqeedah sins that can take one out the fold in general.” This is incoccect because in “The creed of the pious predecessors the people of Hadeeth” by the great Salafi Imam As-Saaboonee he states on page 104 that “whoever bewitches, practices magic and believes that it can cause harm or benefit without the permission of Allah, the most high, he has indeed disbelieved in Allah.” Notice he said without permission. This falls under Aqidah because at that point you believe Allah has no power over this. He also says “if he maintains that magic is not unlawful and believes it to be permissible, then it is obligatory to kill him. This is because he has made permissible a thing which all the Muslims have agreed to be unlawful.”

And with regards to mockery in the religion. The Quran states that it is Kufer. From the creed is belief in the Quran and from the belief in the Quran is living by what it says. By joking about the religion it means you did not live by what it says. So this falls under the topic of Aqidah. I will look more into this.

I understand your point. Aqeedah is broad and encompasses many things. My main issue with the statement was the vague phrasing not the idea. Clearly, some aqeedah related issues are bigger and some are smaller; some very small issues the scholars disagreed whether it was part of the aqeedah as you will notice in one of the footnotes regarding a weak hadith in Barbaharee (it might be saaboonee I will check later). I think the point could have been better served by making it clearer. However, regarding the verse,

"Any they (the two who taught magic) did not teach anyone before first saying, 'We are merely a tribulation, so do not disbelieve,"

Shaykh Fawzaan said, "Meaning: 'Do not learn magic.' So this proves that learning magic is disbelief." Citation Page 52 "Things That Nullify One's Islaam.:" Troid Publications, First Edition

Thus, just the act of learning it is disbelief independent of their belief of its power beyond Allah. It is not a huge issue but specificity and clearness will better serve the discussion. Also, I hope you take the time to email me. ZaydHammoudeh 05:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I will look into it.(69.212.63.157 13:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

Edit warring

This article looks like a battle ground. Newly registered accounts (excluding sockpuppets) as well as anons are very welcommed to contribute. However, wikipedia policies should be respected. edits of this kind do not belong to the article but to the talk page instead. In order to give it a chance, i'll not semi-protect this article for now but i'll keep a vigilent eye. -- Szvest 10:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this article is going to be a battle ground until you can bring evidences from authentic Salafi sources for each and every lie you currently have in it. But until then IT WILL BE CHANGED. (69.212.63.157 13:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

Are you talking to me? -- Szvest 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you Szvest

Yes i am and i ask you to contribute gently according to the guidelines and policies of this site. I am an administrator and not an editor of this article. I don't advocate or endorse any of its versions. The only thing that i care about is to maintain order and ask everybody to discuss major changes before any edit warring. I use the administration tools in order to execute those tasks. The simpliest thing i could do is to lock the article until you fix your differences here but it was wiser to advert contributors before doing so (if necessary). I mainly talked to anonymous users and newly registered users because of the fact that they theorically know so little about the rules and procedures over here.

Now that everything is clear, i'd suggest that you create an account as i see that you are becoming a regular contributor to this article. That would help your case i suppose in a way that many admins consider IPs as a way to increase edit warring and sockpuppetry. Using CAPS and editorial threats are not advised. So, present your case firmly as you believe in it (based in facts and sources) and be patient. Do not forget to sign your comments. Be aware of Wikipedia:3RR policy. Cheers. -- Szvest 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I do contribute gently according to the guidelines and policies of this site. Since you are not an editor of this article that would mean that you don’t know what’s going on. I am not saying that my way is the only right way, what I'm saying is that if anyone and I don't don’t care who he is, if he wants to add, edit or remove anything on this page he has to bring forth authentic Salafi sources. If someone cannot prove his case it doesn’t mean that he puts “disputed” next to it like what we have seen with Sayyed Qutub. (69.212.63.157 15:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)