Re: What is salafite ?
Faisal,
Thanks for the clarification.
I agree with the violance, my understanding is that they use out of context hadith of the prophet or ex. khalif...taking the one example of beating someone to do "right" ignoring 10 ex. of being gentle, kind and humourous.
Reminds me of the imam in undergrad who would take great pleasure in giving me dirty looks for wearing a short sleeve t-shirt but forgot the stipulations of lowering his gaze from the quran...
Re: What is salafite ?
the problem these days with the name 'salafi' is that everyone's jumped on the back of it... the salafi school (not strictly a school, more a methodology) saw a strong wave of popularity and resurgence among Muslim youth in particular, especially in the west, over the past couple of decades, attracted to its evidence-based, outwardly academic approach (unfortunately often at the expense of more spiritual, character-building aspects of faith)... when other groups/cults/sects caught wind they soon leaped on the bandwagon in one way or another in the hope of appearing attractive to the same (impressionable?) audience... so it's a cocktail containing every man and his dog
so what happened? infighting! with every such group out to prove it represents the true salafi way and as often happens the extremists win out since they are always prepared to shout the loudest and hit the hardest... they get the attention and everyone gets tarred with the same brush... yet when recently a salafi group in the UK announced that it, its scholars and Islam "condemn suicide bombers as 'perpetrators of evil'" it's picked up by just a couple of media outlets in India and a couple in Britain...
even defunct groups like Al Muhajiroun (a Hizb ut-Tahrir offshoot) have been known to call themselves salafis and it's no coincidence that two new Al Muhajiroun offshoots have taken on names like Al Ghuraaba (The Strangers) and Al Firqa al Najiya (Saviour Sect or the Saved Sect) knowing full well that both terms were previously popularised by salafis... now the Saviour Sect is busy labelling other Muslims as 'fake salafis'!
whether OBL calls himself salafi or not... i remember one of the first substantive Muslim writings i came across against 9/11 was from a salafi group, correctly denouncing suicide bombers and utterly lambasting OBL for being of the khawarij ilk... a reference to an early Islamic deviant sect known for its fondness for declaring Muslims as apostates and calling for their blood
in fact many (if not most?) jihadist groups are happy to receive the salafi name since they fool themselves into believing their violent brand of religion somehow has an origin in early Islam (the salaf)
BBC, 30 July: "Some western analysts have associated Salafist thinking with Al Qaeda because some militant groups in the Middle East describe themselves by the same name. But British followers of the sect say the association is completely wrong because they themselves have been targeted by militants for speaking out."
if being a salafi means to express Islam according to the methodology of the earliest righteous Muslims (al salaf al saleh) then in that sense many (if not the majority) of Muslims are salafis... the followers of the four famous schools of fiqh trace their school and jurisprudic preferences to one or more Imams of that earliest period...
if (some) salafis (or wahabis) are aligned to saudi arabia and its "official" scholars then one will naturally and rightly expect them to speak out against suicide bombings and terrorism as that has usually been the prominent stance of saudi grand muftis and the country's leading clerics... any scholars expressing an opposing view probably wouldn't get a voice...
so the assertion that salafis believe and encourage this or that only begs the question: which salafis?
p.s.
(you can all wake up now... i've finished)
Re: What is salafite ?
gupguppy, thank you for detailed reply clarifying the position of the salafis. One of the mainstream salafi website has been clearly denouncing 9/11, London bombing and other such acts. Therefore, it would only show ignorance on the part of those who assume that salafis propagate violence and terrorism.
In fact, such acts go against the very basic teachings of carrying out jihad, where killing women, children and the elderly is not permissible and Allahu aalim.
Re: What is salafite ?
Ofcourse. Being an historic event (i.e. rise of House of Saud and its relationship with the followers of Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab), there are many conflicting accounts. If we remove the religious biases from any of those accounts, and focus solely on facts, large number of muslim deaths around that time is not disputed. If you read this book, it documents and summarizes those events quite adequately.
Coming back to the issue of Salafis, we all agree that the original Salafis were very religious people. Its the hijacking of the name “Salafis” by many modern day groups, which irks some people. Then again, this is more semantics and in my mind is not a major issue. They can call themselves “Salafi” if they want. Islam has many schools of thought, and various fiqhs and muslims who subscribe to various customs or aqeedah’s. We have sunnis and shias and within each group, dozens of sub-groups. This is all well and good.
The problem most people, including myself, have with some of the so-called Salafi groups, is that if you don’t agree to their views, they will force the issue with all means in their power. Some of that may just be because of the origins of modern-day Salafis where they killed muslims whom they felt have deviated from the righteous path of monotheism. This self-righteous attitude manifests itself in many ways, including this thread. Proof is in the pudding.
In addition, Saudi Arabia is the hotbed of Salafis, and being one of the richest countries in muslim world, Saudi Arabia uses considerable monetary resources to propagate its views. This includes funding of new masjids all over the world, usually on the condition that the views expressed from the podium of those masjids will represent the views of Saudi government and its Salafi scholars. And since the Saudi government is a dictatorship, they do not allow differences of opinion. Any domestic public opposition to their rule or their views is diverted by imploring their people and followers to hate those who does not subscribe to their thinking.
The term “Salafite” as mentioned in the first post, usually refers to the same elements who are either actively funded by Saudis (government or individuals) or otherwise propagate hateful views for those who don’t agree to them. This brand of brain-washing creates people who take the message of “spread good and stop evil” to new heights of violence. This doesn’t mean that all so-called Salafis and salafi groups are bad. They have some very learned scholars in their midst. Regardless of whether I or others agree or disagree to their opinions, they are entitled to their faith and thinking. But some of the more violent elements of muslim ummah are also coming from some of the so-called Salafi groups, which is why western media and many muslim communities are now beginning to create a nuance in their analysis by identifying some of the salafi thoughts and elements as responsible for violence, rather than the entire faith of Islam and muslims.
Re: What is salafite ?
no sir,the problem is much older.salafi is a puritan thinking collection of zealots who want to take things in their own hands
Re: What is salafite ?
I was gonna let it go Faisal, but since someone brought the thread back up, I'll mention it...
You are referring to a book written by Stephen Schwartz, an avowed Muslim hater as your reference? ? :D
My brother, that's like referring to Leon Uris about the history of Arabs...:D
Re: What is salafite ?
Asalaaamu Alaikum brothers and sisters.
i am a Salafi. ask me questions if u wanna the truth abt the0 salafiyyah Principles!
Re: What is salafite ?
Lets focus solely on the facts and not conjecture. I am not relying on a jew for getting religious guidance on the correct path to go to heaven. But you can get the statistics on how many people died from anyone who has access to accurate historical records. If you have any other book that authoritatively covers the historical facts around the time of the rise of Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab and the House of Saud, then feel free to look it up for guidance.
Re: What is salafite ?
why don’t you start by responding to original question as 1st step if you are one? 
Re: What is salafite ?
Just as not all Christians are like Bush or support him, same way not all Muslims or those who claim to follow to the Salaaf as-Salihoon (first three generations of Muslims) are terrorists.
Whilst all those who claim to be Muslim will have the same (or similar) core beliefs and creed, their political views can vary a lot even within the sub-denominations of a sect just as amongst Protestants you have Pentecostal, Baptist, Anglican, Evangelical, Lutheran etc. and probably 2000 others or so others.
Re: What is salafite ?
All i know is that the Salafis are the ones easily penetrated by intelligence agencies. (the whole Muslim Brotherhood is one big stinkhole intelligence operation).
Strange isn't it that such a violent anti-western theology could thrive mostly with principal offices only in the western world with its leaders (like Omar Bakri) freely roaming around in London, Paris, Hamburg, widely covered by the mainstream media .. even CNN news!
Re: What is salafite ?
Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,
First and foremost, may Allah bless all our ikhaan and ikhwaat on this forum trying to seek the truth. I would like to say that brother Sharaabi seems to know what he is talking about. The term ‘salaf’ does mean pious predecessors, and refers to the three generations after the prophet (saw). We know that all Muslims strive to be like the prophet and salaf, due to what the peophet (saw) himself said. The arguments arise when the talk is about the people who call themselves salafi in this day and time. I recommend you (especially amelie since amelie wants to know) check out the following link to learn more about that, and it also includes stuff about the word salaf and who they were:
http://www.islamworld.net/salaf_in_ramadhan.html
http://muttaqun.com/salafiyyah.html
http://www.calgaryislam.com/imembers/FAQ+index-myfaq-yes-id_cat-1.html
http://www.al-manhaj.com/artlist.cfm?SectID=25 (5 ARTICLES IN THIS LINK)
I remember one of my teachers, Ustadh Muhammad Al-Shareef, before he was my teacher- I asked him,“Can we call ourself salafi, as in the fact that we try to be like them?” and we had a long talk. At the end of the talk, I asked him, “So what do you call yourself?”. He said, “I am Muslim”. That gave me a lot to think about.
NOW< As for myself, I prefer to label myself Muslim and I also do not have full knowledge on this issue like our scholars, so I don’t like getting invloved in debating this issue, nor do I neccessarily agree with EVERYTHING in the links I posted. I only posted the information for anyone to check out, also from what I do know, most of it is truthful.
[side note for sharaabi; How are you akhee? Have you read ‘The Prophet’s Prayer Described’?]
I agree with Lajawab on the fact that I wouldnt suggest that book to anyone. It should also be clear by now that wahabbi and salafi are not exactly the same, as wahabbi would mean to associate oneself with Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab who himself did not start any group named after him. Neither did he start the salafi movement, which is proven by the statements of Imam Abu Hanifa, and Imam Ahmed. If anyone want’s to have a fresh and clear persepective on the issue of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab himself, then you should read Biography And Mission Of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab; by Jalal Abualrub; edited by Alaa Mencke.
WHY THIS BOOK? Look at the reasons listed:
In his book, the author uses four approaches in his research about the life, legacy, creed, and works of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. They are:
[ul]
[li]Western Perspective (via Christian authors and historians)[/li][li]Muslim Perspective[/li][li]A detailed description of the creed and methodology of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab[/li][list]
[li]"Translation of two correspondences that Muhammad sent to various areas of the Muslim world calling them to embrace his creed” (3)[/li][li]Extensive footnotes from unreliable sources, but have been translated[/li][/ul]
[li]Accusations and doubts about Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and the ‘Wahhabi Movement’ (discusses the effect the movement had on Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world)[/li][/list]AudienceThis book is made for both Muslims and non-Muslims seeking to expand their knowledge about the principles of Islam and to gain access to the truthful, substantial facts about the Islami Movement, with criticism/views/opinions from both supporters and opponents of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab.
If you cant get the book, check out the notes and footnotes someone I know made at http://forums.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=7420
For the stuff on OBL and him ‘being a wahabbi’, I RECOMMEND you check out the following link:
http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/salafism.htm
One of the Imam’s of the salaf, Al-Zhaahiriya (whose madhab is not often heard of), was also considered a literalist. I read a book on hanafi fiqh which talked about Al-zhaahiriya, and how SOME of his opinions were taking things literally. This does not mean that he is wrong, because, in fact, some things are meant to be taken literally (but not all things). So they wrote that in order to show how SOME of the hanafi opinions in certain issues were more reasonable than the opinion of Al-Zhaahiriya in those issues. They did not call him devious because of that, rather they only tried to show why some of his opinions were not that strong. As a sidepoint, To call a great scholar of the salaf like him devious would not be respectful for a scholar of a time that the rasool (saw) himself has said good of.
ON that note, we know that we dont take the WHOLE quran literally. For anyone to do so would be an obvious mistake. But for anyone to say that the salafi of this time do such is also an obvious mistake, because they don’t.
Also, Cap 1, I believe that the reason that later scholars (not all of them) said to follow one imam, was to make fiqh easer for the laymen, as not all people can become scholars, do ijtihad, or study all the different opinions in fiqhi issues. So, they made it permissible to follow one imam in all fiqhi issues. One of my teachers had told me that it was permissible to do taqleed in fiqh, but not aqeedah- because this is what sends us to hell or heaven- our fundamentals, and what would happen if someone blind-followed another in this matter. This whole subject of Taqleed, however, should not be on this thread. I only mentioned it to clear up why taqleed was allowed. In fact, it probably should’nt be discussed at all, since people would only end up arguing instead of debating- something that none of us desire.
And, no, cap, they dont follow one scholar (ibn taymiyyah). We learn from the scholars, and indeed Allah takes away the knowledge from us (muslims) by the death of our Ulema. And one of the scholars that people (non-salafis also) take knowledge from (and quote) is ibn Taymiyyah. He is also known for his books on many different matters in Islam. [Keep in mind that the people who try to refute Ibn Taymiyyah attribute many false statements to him, and many other lies. For BASIC info on Ibn Taymiyyah, it would be best to read one of his books instead of searching for articles on the internet (unless they are written by him)- for a comprehensive article ON ibn taymiyyah and a refutation of those accusations made against him, check out http://www.islamworld.net/tay.html]
Many people also might know his famous quote, "What can my enemies do to me? My paradise is in my heart, it is with me wherever I go. To imprison me is to provide me with seclusion. To send me into exile is to send me away in the Path of Allah. And to kill me is to make me a martyr. "
Last thing I’d like to say is, dear pakiabroad, The Muslim brotherhood and salafis are not the same. I plan to post a thing about the Muslim brotherhood in the near future, insha’allah.
If I said anything wrong, may Allah forgive me. If I said anything right, it is not of me, indeed, it’s from Allah. If I offended anyone, forgive me. And Allah knows best.
If you have any questions on this that you may not want to post on the forum, email me at [email=“[email protected]”][email protected]
Re: What is salafite ?
Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,
Brother Faisal, you posted:
“Salafi” is the adopted name by those who were otherwise commonly known as Wahabis.
These people who take the name ‘salafi’ are not actually wahabbis, neither do they call themselves wahabbi. The reason you might have said this is the fact that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab was a reviver of the following of the salaf. During his time, it is true that Bid’ah was prominent. His stance in these matters (of Bid’ah and aqeedah) was firm. And he did not create a new salafi ideology. There were many before him who include Ibn Al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyyah. And there were many before these two all the way back to the salaf themselves. So the ideology of following the salaf is not a bid’ah. It is from the sunnah of the prophet because of the ahadith concerning them (the salaf). please read the links i put in my last post.
You also posted: and followers of the teachings of Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab.
If you mean by this that they followed the teachings of the salaf that Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab revived in his time/place, you are correct.
You also posted: The premise of Abdul Wahab’s teachings is borne out of his disgust at Turks.
This is not true becuase the premise of his teachings, rather, was borne out of the disgust that any true Muslim holds for bid’ah and shirk. This was rampant in his time among the Muslims due to the fact that they were misguided (read http://www.cocg.org/articles1/dawn.htm and http://www.sultan.org/articles/wahabism.html for reference)and thus it lead to his reviving of the truth methedology and aqeedah of the salaf. In fact, one of the conditions of the shahadah is that a person must have a hatred of the acts of Shirk (kufr, bi’dah, and nifaq). For proof from quran and sunnah, refer to article on conditions of shahadah, http://www.as-sahwah.com/print.php?articleID=460&
I’d like to know if that post was an excerpt from the book. I’ve heard almost the same thing before. Insha’allah, that will be useful to me. Jazakallahukhayran.
Also, I agree with brother Sharaabi on the fact that there is bid’ah in the indo-paki area. I myself am pakistani, and of the times I have visited the country(very few), I could not believe my eyes, seeing people going to the graves for worship, having the graves in the masjid even though it’s forbidden, etc. My father keeps on telling me that that the culture of pakistanis and indians (since my grandparents are indian) adopted traditions from the hindus. That really explains a lot. But that is a TOTALLY different subject. I hope that I can one day study (in-depth) the history of pakistan and india.
Insha’allah, I plan to send only one more post on this topic, which is an article by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab about the manhaj he follows. I do not like to spend any amount of time on this especially due to the fact that I had asked my ustadh about Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (since I did not know much, and I still do not know that much.) He told me, “You should worry on learning the fundmantals and basics of Aqeedah” before going onto matters of 'sects, hizbees, and the like." This was his naseeha to me and mine to you.
Keep in mind also, that the present day scholars from the salafi do not in an way or form support terrorism. If you want the fatawaa from a binch of different scholars, you can email me at [email=“[email protected]”][email protected]
Brother gupguppy, you posted:
“if being a salafi means to express Islam according to the methodology of the earliest righteous Muslims (al salaf al saleh) then in that sense many (if not the majority) of Muslims are salafis… the followers of the four famous schools of fiqh trace their school and jurisprudic preferences to one or more Imams of that earliest period…”
The majority of the people in the indo/pakistan area ascribe themselves to Imam Abu Hanifa. And the majority of the people during the time of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and also through out the times have ascribed themselves to an Imam. But it was also these people (obviously not all of them) who did Shirk and bid’ah. So how could they possibly follow the salaf by doing such? This was the reason that a revival of the true teachings of the salaf was neccessary and still is.
Again I would recommend reading the book which I talked about in my last post for anyone who wants to know about Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab.
**If I said anything wrong, may Allah forgive me. If I said anything right, it is not of me, indeed, it’s from Allah. If I offended anyone, forgive me, and may Allah bless you for your patience. And Allah knows best.
**
Re: What is salafite ?
jazakallah brother abkmujahid... for the detailed description.
Re: What is salafite ?
i do have a question for my Salafite brothers on the forum..
why oh why do you not weed out the "agents" within your folds? why do you not shun them totally or humiliate and disbar them immediately when they from within your organization/sect preach hatred and intolerance..
who's the 'fatwa chief' head honcho for Salafites these days anyway?
Re: What is salafite ?
Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullah,
Pakistaniabroad posted:
*i do have a question for my Salafite brothers on the forum..
why oh why do you not weed out the "agents" within your folds? why do you not shun them totally or humiliate and disbar them immediately when they from within your organization/sect preach hatred and intolerance..
who's the 'fatwa chief' head honcho for Salafites these days anyway?*
I am not salafite (and the present day people known as salafi do not call themselves salafites- i hope people are reading the links i sent out because they explain that), but the answer to your question is simple. Where I live, in NJ, I have visited a couple masaajids that have a majority of african americans who are salafi. I, however, travel often to the two masaajid near my home (which consist of a majority of pakistani's who are hanafi) due to the ease and lack of transportation. I visit the other masaajids a few times a month because the lectures are very beneficial, alhamdulillah. Whenever, I go there, I see the brothers rocking the Thawbs, the kufi, and somtimes the lunghi (even though dress isnt everything) and women with niqaabs. But I have never seen any of them support what you claim they support. In fact, I just visited the one in newark, NJ for an event about 'Family structure and child education in Islam'. Though (one of) the speakers was not on topic (since they changed his schedule), he gave a talk on 'The real Salafi'. His talk was based on a book one of the shaykh's he knew had wrote (for all the arabic readers, check it out- it is called, 'The Real salafi') and near the end, he mentioned how Islam is a religion based upon the fitrah, and so in no way can it support terrorism or violence. He mentioned from the quran the proof, and also gave a list of scholars who issued fataawa against it. So here the salafi's show that they do not support those who engage in these acts .This also explains 'avioding agents' because which ones do you want me to aviod? Those ones in this country that I just mentioned? or If you're talking about the ones out doing terrorism, then... (read below)
If you read the link i posted before on OBL and jihad, you will find out that media outlets like CNN and FOX are distorting the truth by labeling those terrorists wahabbi's or salafis. But if I were to say that there is not a single terrorist who claims to be salafi, then I would also be wrong. However, the few that do such are obviously not salafi, due to what the actual stance of salafi is (not supporting terrorist acts).
There is no 'fatwa chief' head honcho for salafites. The daleel of the salafi on different issues is from quran wa sunnah and what has been approved by these two. (ijma', etc.)
In addition, I would like to say that I read an article in the "MUSLIMS" newspaper, and the reporter was saying that today we see Muslims race towards condemning the attacks that are occuring in places like the U.S, Spain, and U.K. Ok, there is nothing wrong with that, but you see that these same people (or most of them), in comparison to the time they spend on condemning those attacks, you rarely find them condemning what is happening in Palestine, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, Kashmir, etc. (my side note: they basically are sucking up to the same people who opress their brothers and sisters, another side note: not everyone might have this intention) Basically, the message is that the Muslims end up fighting against each other (which Allah tells us is what the kaafiroon want; to divide the ummah). This reminds me of a quote my friend put up as his signature for emailing:
"You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down."
I might have been a little blunt in this post, If i offended anyone one- it was not intentional, so forgive me
And Allah Knows Best.
Re: What is salafite ?
Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,
This article was written by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab himself:
**by Ash-Shaykh 'Abdullaah ibn ash-Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab **
In the Name of Allaah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
All praise is due to Allaah, the Lord of all that exists, and may blessings and peace be upon our trustworthy Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and his Sahaabah and the Taabi’een. To proceed:
We, the assembly of the ghazw (military expedition) of the muwahhideen, when Allaah blessed us – and to Him is due all praise – with entering Makkah al-Musharrafah at midday on yawm as-sabt (Saturday), the eighth day of the month of Muharram al-Haraam in the year 1218 after the Hijrah, after the chiefs of Makkah, its ‘ulamaa’ and all of its general public had sought the covenant of security from the ameer of the ghazw, Sa’ood; after they had previously agreed with the leaders of the hajeej and the ameer of Makkah to fight him or to make a stand in the Haram, to prevent him from the House; so when the troops of the muwahhideen marched against them, Allaah cast fear into their hearts, so they scattered in disarray, each one of them considering retreat their best option;
And the ameer at that time offered the covenant of security to everyone in al-Haram ash-Shareef, and we entered, our slogan being the talbiyah, in safety, our heads shaved and trimmed, not in fear of anyone of the creation, rather of the Master of the Day of Judgement;
And from the time that the troops entered the Haram, in their great numbers, self-controlled, well-mannered, without cutting down any tree, nor chasing any game animals, nor shedding any blood except for the blood of the hady, or whatever animals Allaah had made lawful according to the legislated manner;
And when our 'Umrah was completed, we gathered the people on the morning of yawm al-ahad (Sunday), and the ameer (rahimahullaah) proposed to the ‘ulamaa’ that which we seek from the people and for which we fight them, which is: the purity of tawheed for Allaah ta’aalaa alone. And he informed them that there is no disagreement between us regarding anything except for two matters:
The first of them being the purity of tawheed for Allaah ta’aalaa, and the understanding of the types of ‘ibaadah, and that du’aa’ is one of them, and clarification of the meaning of the shirk due to which our Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam) fought the people, and his call continued for a long period of time after the Prophethood to that tawheed and to the abandoning of attributing partners with Allaah, all of that before the other four pillars of al-Islaam were made obligatory.
And the second matter is al-amru bil-ma’roof wan-nahyu 'anil-munkar (commanding the good and forbidding the evil), of which nothing remains among them except its name, its effects and meaning having been erased.
So they agreed with us regarding the goodness of that which we are upon, in general and in detail, and they gave the bay’ah to the ameer upon the Book and the Sunnah, and it was accepted from them and they were all pardoned. So he did not put the slightest pressure on a single one of them, and he continued to treat them all with the utmost kindness, especially the ‘ulamaa’.
So we explained to them in that meeting, before they departed from us, the evidences for what we are upon, and we sought from them sincere advice, reminder, and explanation of the Truth.
And we informed them that the ameer clearly stated in their meeting that we would accept anything for which they brought a clear evidence from the Book, or the Sunnah, or an athar from as-Salaf as-Saalih, such as al-Khulafaa’ ar-Raashideen whom we are commanded to follow by his saying (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa-sallam): "You must follow my Sunnah, and the Sunnah of the rightly-guided Khulafaa’ after me." Or from the four mujtahid imaams and those who received knowledge from them, until the end of the third generation, in accordance with his saying (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam): “The best of you are my generation, then those who follow them, then those who follow them.”
And we informed them that we are with the Truth, wherever it goes, and followers of the clear evidence, and we do not care if that means opposing what those before us were upon, and they did not reject any of that…
http://www.rayatulhaq.com/ebooks/lettertoulama.html FOR COMPLETE ARTICLE
Last Post
Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullah,
I hope this will be my last post on this thread. The few things I have posted have been refutations of what people have said, and a lot of things concerning the salaf, todays salafis, the link between the two, wahabbis, where these words come from, false claims by the media, etc.
The link I provided below goes to another forum site - Islamica web. It is a very basic and DIRECT answer to the FIRST question posed by Amelie (which means it’s like a summary of all my posts and links which im guessing everyone did not have the time to read):
I’ve seen this word (salafite) 2x now in articles refering to the london bomers and al-qaida…
The link I provided does not say salafite, though it mentions it in brevity. The term asked about is Wahabbi. Read the question and the last response in the FIRST post of the thread by ustadh Muhammad Al-Shareef. For anyone who did not read all my posts, please take the opportunity to read the following link. I hope everyone finds it beneficial.
http://www.islamicaweb.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=14803
Re: What is salafite ?
You guys can sugar-coat whabbism all you want, but here’s an interesting (& unbiased) website that discusses the history of the salafis including how they’ve terrorized other muslims:
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/wahhabi_movement.htm
Influenced by the thought of medieval theologian Ibn Taymiyya, the Wahhabis practice a form of legalism somewhat resembling the Hanbali School of jurisprudence. An innovation of theirs, however, is the exclusion of the normal Islamic practice of ijma (“consensus”) as the basis of Islamic Sharia law.
Wahhabis in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries went on an uncompromising campaign against Sufis, Shiites, and all others deemed unfaithful to the Wahhabis’ strict interpretation of the sunna (“custom”) of the Prophet Muhammad.
Ibn Abd al-Wahhab labeled all who disagreed with him heretics and apostates, which in his eyes justified the use of force in imposing both his beliefs and his political authority over neighboring tribes. This in turn led him to declare holy war (jihad) on other Muslims (neighboring Arab tribes), an act which would otherwise have been legally impossible under the rules of jihad.
Wahhabi zealots even tried to destroy the tomb of the Prophet in Medina and were narrowly prevented from doing so through the intervention of King Abd al-Aziz al-Saud.
In 1802, the Wahhabis captured Karbala in Iraq and destroyed the tomb of the Shiite Imam Husayn. In 1803 the Wahhabis captured Mecca.
The Wahhabis went on a rampage throughout the peninsula at this time smashing the tombs of Muslim saints and imams, including the tomb of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima.