[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
that is great. You guys have a fine accomodations waiting for you in Camp X-ray. :)
[/QUOTE]
Matty, following ones religion as prescribed, without additions is not a crime..especailly in a country where freedom of religion is a right protected by law.
that is nice logic. So do all hindus believe in Sati…, do they all like to drink cows urine? Nice generalization. Not all Wahabis support/sympathize with terrorists. Come one Matsui, you know better than that.
An interesting discussion here indeed. Shias, Ahmedis, and now Wahabis. I must clarify that i had no idea what the so-called Wahabism was. However, i was often called one for raising questions like 'which imam did Prophet :saw: follow, do we follow the christians when we celebrate the birth of prophet :saw: etc. within my circle. I think some take it as limiting the role of prophet :saw: . Faisal’s explanations make a lot of sense and Lajawab I have to agree that tombism (?) and grave-worshippers have plagued the pakistani (and indian) society alot. And if Wahabism goes against that then i am all for it. I don’t know what teachings do mainstream Wahabis follow but presently, to consider one’s sect as the most appropriate version of islam is far from wise.
Salaam Alaikum,
Firstly like the other brothers pointed out Salafi’s do not reject Ahadith but believe in and follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Salafi’s believe that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) never spoke anything from himself rather it was inspired to him by his Lord Allah (the Exalted and Majestic) and we believe that no body can practice Islam with Quranic knowledge alone. In fact the other name for Salafi’s is Ahl-ul-Hadith or back home in Pakistan and India its Ahl-e-Hadees.
Secondly like the other Muslims Salafi’s believe that a persons faith can never ever be complete until that person loves Muhammad Mustafa (peace and blessings be upon him) more than his own self, his children, his parents, his siblings and all of creation but we love no one like we love Allah (the exalted and majestic) and worship only Him, pray to only Him and ask for help (from the unseen) only from Him.
And as for following one of the four Imams well… The Salafis respect all four of the Imams and acknowledge their hard work but the four Imams were only human beings and made mistakes. Sometimes they only had access to weak or fabricated Ahadith and sometimes a Hadith did not reach them because the books of Ahadith e.g. Bukhari and Muslim were compiled after the four Schools of thought began.
All four Imams would tell their students and other people to ignore their rulings if they go against Ahadith of the holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
*“This is my opinion, but if there comes someone whose opinion is better than mine, then accept that.” [Imam Abu Hanfia]
“I am only human, I may be right or I may be wrong, so measure my words by the Quran and Sunnah.” [Imam Maalik]
“If the hadith is authentic, then ignore my words. If you see well established evidence, then this is my view.” [Imam Al-Shaafa’i]
“Do not follow me blindly, and do not follow Maalik or al-Shaafa’i or al-Thawri blindly. Learn as we have learned.” [Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal]*
Salafis follow these Imams when their rulings and opinions are backed by evidence from the Book of Allah or authentic Ahadith and if that is not the case then they look towards the opinions of other trust worthy scholars both past and present. No one should follow any one Imam stubbornly and blindly rather he should accept that which is in accordance with the truth weather it is from his Imam or anyone else.
It is better for a person who has knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah to derive rulings themselves.
Allah (the Exalted) knows best.
May Allah bless our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), his family and his companions.
Wassalaam.
[QUOTE]
I belonged to the class of Muslims that worshipped graves and went to pirs and faqirs...All ignorance...
[/QUOTE]
Same here brother, sadly this sort of bukwaas is so prevalent in our country. I remember when I was young we would go to Pakistan during the summer holidays and every Thursday afternoons our cousins would take us to the graves of saints and we would light diyas before the sun set and ask the holy dude inside to give us such and such a thing.. Even as a kid I felt stupid doing it and knew this can't have anything to do with our religion... but now all Praise be to Allah, all my close relatives have seen the light and are on Sirat al-Mustaqeem.
Most of the saudi population and governance rulings are based on the Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal school of thought. Abudullah bin wahab was of this school of thought too.
Very interesting read, indeed.
One thing that comes out very prominently is that the general Muslim public is not very strict in their understanding, interpretation and especially the affiliation of different schools of thoughts within Islam. One reason is that none of the various sects have a structural form of authority on doctrine, nor a leadership that defines that doctrine. If you ask an average Abdullah off the streets of Pakistan, what school of thought he subscribes to; he will probably answer in two broad terms Sunni or Shia! Even though the differences in the understanding of Quran, Sunnah, Hadiths & Fiqh are widely different in many of the sects within these two broad branches of Islam, he wouldn't have a clue what he believes in.
One reason for such a broad understanding is that not many Muslims these days really care to study Islam. Their knowledge is limited to what is being preached in the Mosque every Friday, that is if they happen to be listening. Or something that came out as controversial & they had to do a little bit of research. Others who do read some Tafseer-ul-Quran or books on jurisprudence & Fiqh, don't really go on to read the difference in opinion on it. Some knowledge where they can save the face in case of a discussion is deemed enough.
Most Pakistanis that come to our little town in US have a choice of going to 2-3 different mosques. Their criteria on which one to choose is as follows: 1) Sunni or Shia 2) How far away from home/work 3) How much will I have to pay in Chanda, if any.
The Imam of the mosque can be Baralvi, Duobandi, Salafi, Hanafi, Wahabi .. it really doesn't matter. Masajid does not keep any official record of their membership, nor any affiliation to a perticular doctrine is officially recognized.
Another interesting thing is that even though most of the Muslims subscribe to a perticular understanding of Islam, they insist that their is no division of thought. For example, those who reject the Hadiths, Sunnah or Fiqh and are sometimes referred to as "Ahlay-Quran" argue that if Quran is one, why all the sects? In their opinion, a true Muslim doesn't subscribe to anything but Quran. So, even though they insist on their unique understanding of their interpretation, emphasize that understanding and preach it as well .. yet they don't like to be considered a separate sect!! Same is the case with Wahabis, who deny all together that such a sect even exists, even though their understanding of Islam maybe totally how Abdul Wahad preeched!!
p.s: The above are my observations and I do not claim to have an absolute knowledge of all the different sects & their authority.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
Very interesting read, indeed.
[/QUOTE]
It sure is, but more interesting is your post. Now I don't wanna get into a flame war with you. Islam has been around for 1400 years and a billion strong population, yes there are sects within it, but your religion has only been around for 100 years and you already have a major split ie the lahoris, and that as far as my memory serves me right was at the begining of your religion.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
One reason is that none of the various sects have a structural form of authority on doctrine, nor a leadership that defines that doctrine. If you ask an average Abdullah off the streets of Pakistan, what school of thought he subscribes to; he will probably answer in two broad terms Sunni or Shia! Even though the differences in the understanding of Quran, Sunnah, Hadiths & Fiqh are widely different in many of the sects within these two broad branches of Islam, he wouldn't have a clue what he believes in.
[/QUOTE]
I am not sure about an average Abdullah, but a reasonably knowledgable fellow will certainly be able to go into considerably more detail than shia and sunni.
In my view, feel free to disagree, shia and sunni is more of a political dispute than anything else. And out of that original political dispute there came about some differences in some aqaid and then in the way certain actions are performed.
However, in sunni or Ahl-e-Sunnah-Wal-Jammaat, commonly we refer to the four imams, namely, Imam Abu Hanifa (Nu'man ibn Thabit), Imam Malik (Abu Abdullah Malik bin Anas), Imam Hambal (Ahmed bin Muhammad Hanbal) and Imam Shafi-ee (Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Idris). While most people, may associate themselves with the guidance provided by one or the other, there is no hard rule that you have to follow one imam in all matters. After research, if we conclude that the evidence used by one Imam on one particular issue is stronger, then we can follow that ruling for that matter. Ofcourse, it requires investing time and gaining knowledge. Some people take the short-cut and just pick one imam and stick to all his rulings in all matters. Fine. Thats their choice.
It is for this reason, that we say that most sunnis in Pakistan are the followers of the interpretations provided by Imam Abu Hanifa. And as someone else corrected me that most in Saudi Arabia follow Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. It is not to say, that one who follows Imam Abu Hanifa can not use the ruling of Imam Hanbal if he feels the evidence used by Imam Hanbal is more credible. Ofcourse, this decision should be based on the evidence, not that the ruling is easier to follow than the other. :)
And, therefore, it is futile to insist that someone must associate themselves with one or the other of the imams.
Faisal Bhai,
I totally agree with most of the things you mentioned. If Sunnis had only four schools of thought than there would have been only four more branches within them, but that's not the case.
As you pointed out, not all teachings of a single Imam are always followed, which in turn creates sub groups that for example follow 30% of Hanafi but 10% Malaki & the rest of Shafi fiqh. And even though they themselves would call themselves Sunni, they are big enough to be considered a sect & thus sometimes is referred to as one.
For example, Maududi had no official affiliation to any school of thought. (please correct me if I am wrong). Being from sub-continent, most people assume him to follow the Hanafi fiqh but others who have read his work usually consider him leaning towards Malaki, at times even Salfi. Leaders of the school of Duoband & Lukhnow also criticize him on his work. Now, if you ask someone who quote fervently from the tafaseer or book of Maududi & understand (mostly politically) his Islam from him, that person will fervently deny that he considers him an Imam or himself a Mududian. Just like a Wahabi frequently deny that he follows the teachings of Abdul Wahab.
This is not to say that such gray lines of belief are somehow wrong but they do give a very skewed image of Islam or doctrinal authority. It also gives leverage to westerners who take what the Maulana from Checho ki MalyaaN said about Islam as an authority!
ahmadjee... frankly speaking, I have never tried to quantify in percentage terms how much of one Imam do I follow. If you think about it, it really doesn't make sense to do that either. What will it prove? As any sunni will tell you all four imams are right. And that is the basic argument. Since none of them are wrong, so why would we quantify how much of whom we follow. On anything of significance, we can easily look up the evidence used by all four and decide which one seems the strongest. Allah has promised us reward to make the effort and finding out knowledge, even if we get to the wrong conclusion.
Long story short, there is no point in dividing the ummah any further than what they already are.
Re: Maududi and Abdul Wahab.. I reserve my comments. :)