Western Salafiyyah and its problems with scholarship and pedagogy

 

I remember reading more than once in published books by well-known Salafi scholars about the obligation of giving dawah and that if there are no qualified, the unqualified have to stand up and do it. When I made hajj in 2006 I asked one of the famous Salafi duaat of the West (who is still active) about this. Occasionally in Peoria, a local school would contact the masjid where there was no imam, and they would ask me to present Islam for them. The brother, rather than take my question to the scholars, he just said “the question answers itself, if they are not qualified, they are not qualified, and therefore should not”. Even when I quoted to him his very own shaykh saying “…even the unqualified must do so.” He squirmed around. This is one of the contradictions that Madkhalis created: They obligated dawah and then forbade it, except from a tiny minority who aren’t really doing dawah, just translating.

We all have gheerah for the deen, and when some of us who have some qualifications hear about those with less doing da`wah, it may provoke us. But we have to remind ourselves, if we don’t have time, something from one less qualified, is usually better than nothing.

And this may be an example of where their scholars abroad say one thing, but the students in the West teach people something else. One of many such examples.

 

When an Ummah learns from students of hadeeth as opposed to scholars of uṣūl and fiqh

 

“If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”

The ‘law of instrument’ or Maslow’s Hammer, refers to an over-reliance on a familiar or favorite tool.

After learning what I’ve learned, I could never go back to western Salafiyyah. I just see it as immense ignorance that breeds oppression. The only way to go back would be to unlearn what I have learned – may Allah never let that happen. May Allah always increase me – and all who read this – in wisdom, ikhlaas, beneficial knowledge and accepted deeds, ameen.

I believe much of the problem with the Salafi mindset is the obsession with hadeeth and narrations. Sometimes this obsession and preference is justified by quoting imams of the Salaf. But this is a mistake. The Salafis mischaracterized and misapplied the historic debates between ahl-ra’y and ahl-hadeeth of the past.

I inferred to these mistakes when I mentioned the “culture of daleel [seeking]” and “culture of tarjeeh [choosing the stronger opinion]” on the first page when discussing what are matters of ijtihad.

There is no doubt that scholars of hadeeth have the most intimate familiarity with the hadeeth and narrations of the past scholars. But the principles of fiqh through hadeeth, mostly literalism, often lead to a loss of nuance. There is also no doubt that the scholars of hadeeth tend to be the most disciplined in their general practice and living, and knowledgeable of the minute aspects of sunan that may be devoid in books of fiqh, except for the most voluminous among them. However, what’s amazing is that in spite of this, how many traditions or precedents may seem to escape them. Truly, Allah only guides whom He wills.

But one of the Four Imams once told a muhaddith, “you are the pharmacists while we are the physicians”. Or, to paraphrase: you hadeethists are the chemists who test and verify the raw materials good for usage while we jurists bring out the meaning of those verified raw materials and how they apply to the masses in their faith, worship and living.

Scholars of hadeeth, muhaddiths, were essentially the laboratory researchers. This is evident when you look to books of hadeeth of old. None of them were written with the lay Muslim in mind. Al-Tirmidhi’s Sunan is the only one that comes close. Some muhaddithun even lamented when the hadeeth were published, as it meant wider access to those without the discipline, reverence and effort. If only they saw today and “Shaykh Google”! But the scholars of fiqh were the ones who more actively worked on how Muslims should live and worship.

Imam Ahmad, who was a bridge and summit of both worlds, famously told the scholars of hadeeth that they should give in to the threats of the caliph, while he could not, because he was known and looked up to by all.

Part of the reason I believe over emphasis of hadeeth is problematic is because it is unsystematic for the student of knowledge. The benefits that may be extracted from a single hadeeth range in aqeedah, to fiqh, to theory, to tafseer, to shamaail and language. Studying hadeeth is more of an exercise for those who have already mastered usul al-fiqh and have at least a foundation in fiqh and aqeedah. But for those who have not, it leads to an uneven and unbalanced foundation. And when you study hadeeth, your obsession and exposure is almost exclusively with the Salaf. If discussing a hadeeth leads to a branching question “what about…” then that hadeeth won’t answer it. But in the study of fiqh, that follow-up question is the very next issue.

When you study fiqh and usool, especially modern issues, you have no choice but to read the research and works of modern scholars from throughout the world. And when you perform the research or read the research of others, going hundreds of pages on certain issues, providing evidences from the Quran and Sunnah, in light of the understanding of the companions, you realize quite clearly that nearly all jurists of Islam and researchers, be they Athari in aqeedah or otherwise, follow the same methodology, and follow the legacy of the Salaf, and respect their consensus. It helps you appreciate the rest of the Ummah.

Fiqh madhabs are unseatable because they filled a void. Fuqaha’ of the early Salaf taught based on their knowledge of the traditions they learned. But certain scholars became so well known for their scholarship in all areas and prolific teachings that schools developed around their teachings. The schools followed their opinions and their principles of extraction and harmonization. Nothing could be more “Salafi” in spirit than following one of the four Sunni madhab. But Salafis who shun madhab learning and following essentially want to go back to that time where madhabs did not exist. Was that a better time? A time of perhaps greater virtues, yes, but the benefits of madhabs are great.

But apart from that, the manhaj of all madhabs in fiqh research is identical, alhamdulillah, and the respect for the Salaf is there, alhamdulillah. The way that a Hanbali scholar in Saudia researches an issue of halal and haram is no different than an Ashari Shafii scholar in Egypt or a Hanafi Maturidi scholar in Iraq. They will each respect the words of the Salaf.

And so I wrote this piece. But if there are terms in this article that you the reader do not understand, and you being pressured into joining a cult that denigrates other scholars and scholarship, then I feel like you are a little child being abducted off the street by a stranger offering candy. You don’t realize how ignorant you are. That’s all I can say, because I’m watching in horror, along with the rest of the Muslim world, the sawaad a`zam [the greatest crowd], as you’re being driven away in an unmarked van to unknown location to be brainwashed. And if you escape and return, you are different. May Allah guide you.

All throughout history, deviant movements gained their strength by taking advantage of the ignorance of zealous converts. If you find yourself surrounded by them, then maybe it’s time to come home. And just like that, so often when people do finally leave the cult, they leave Islam entirely, or they go to another extreme within Islam—which is why many extreme Sufis used to be Salafis—or if they were mellow within the cult, then maybe Allah will favor them with a balanced return to normal Islam.

Also understand that when I say Salafi, I am specifically referring to the cult that today follows the hadeeth scholar Rabee al-Madkhali, and are often called Madkhalis or Jaamiyah in the Arab world. There are a number of other scholars that have come and gone within them, nearly all hadeeth specialists. Rarely, if ever, a faqeeh. And that is very telling.

Fuqaha jurists are forced to network with scholars of other aqa’id and thereby recognize that their usul is one and the same. The others follow different usul in aqa’id, that’s true, but many of them do not even bother teaching their `aqa’id to the general Muslim public.

Of course, they would say “not every faqeeh is a muhaddith, but every muhaddith is a faqeeh”. But that is wrong. It would be like saying that you know fiqh without studying Usul al-fiqh, which is incorrect, and would not make anyone a faqeeh, even if they studied fiqh. Imam Ahmad once met a student who just came from Egypt. The Imam asked him, “Did you copy the books of al-Shafi`ee?” [هل كتبت كتب الشافعي؟] The man said no. Imam Ahmad said, “You wasted your time then.” [فرّطت]

In fact, even the science of Usul al-Fiqh was first founded when a muhaddith(!) wrote to Imam al-Shafi`ee asking him how he discerns fiqh. And so he wrote al-Risaalah (the Epistle) which changed Islamic scholarship forever.

And so Usul is required. Just as you cannot be a scholar of hadeeth without knowing usul al-hadeeth, in theory and in practice. Even if you memorized Fath al-Bari. But even that may not qualify you to explain the actual indications of the Prophet’s Sunnah, or what is halal or haraam in the religion. And if you’re going to give any fatwa or do any research, a great deal of Usul is required. So it’s a false statement, and a dangerous one that has led to untold delusion. On top of that, so much fiqh is derived not only from hadeeth, but from Quran of course, and by understanding qiyas and `ilal, and qawaa`id. Hadeeth is critical, but beyond that, what jurists have extracted and derived from that in academia as it applies to many advanced contemporary topics, with Usul, is amazing.

It is tragic that Salafism came to America through hadeeth scholars and students—I’m saying that while I love hadeeth, and most of my halaqahs teach hadeeth. But that’s part of the reason I teach hadeeth. Because hadeeth needs a teacher who not only knows hadeeth and its sciences but also through a fiqh lens to better contextualize it and explain that everything is not as it may first seem.

I have heard of many scholars abroad say, “Western students of knowledge should only seek to study Sharia [meaning fiqh and usul al-fiqh] as that is what is most needed and appropriate for where they came from and will do dawah.” I agree wholeheartedly. Salafi students usually neglect this advice.

Many of the “Salafi scholars” of Saudia actually followed the Hanbali madhab. I remember attending a Salafi conference in 2005, and many of the questions given to the mashayakh on the telelinks was about something that they had just heard, that ibn Uthaymeen was a Hanbali. And the mashayakh were all consistently saying “of course he was and what’s wrong with that? There’s nothing wrong with ascribing to a madhab. And Imam Ahmad had the best madhab…”

However, because with hadeeth one is directly studying a form of daleel, in fact, the most precise form – not necessarily the strongest (ijma) nor the most rooted and indisputable (Quran) – but most readily applicable. So a “cult of daleel” developed where some hadeeth scholars would say “don’t follow the madhab, follow the daleel!” And even then they still differ, which is why there are madhabs. Because what you think the daleel points to, might be different from what I think the daleel indicates, and so on. If you put 2 scholars in a room, or even a hundred, without being able to talk to each other, but just give them each the same copy of a paper with a dozen issues on it, along with a few sets of potential evidence of varying strengths related to each, and out of a hundred scholars, probably no two will have the same conclusions about what “the daleel” points to matching perfectly for all dozen issues. And that’s just how human reasoning is. Which is why anyone who claims to be following “the daleel” is still just following one scholar’s imposing of what “the daleel” indicates. It’s like how we say “this is not a translation of the Quran, it’s that dude’s interpretation of what the Quran means”.

I remember reading Sh Muhammad Nasir al-Deen al-Albani discuss the ruling of a woman dancing for her husband. He described what he believed was allowed and what he believed was discouraged. Then a questioner asked him for the daleel of his answer(!) Ultimately, it boiled down to what is greater good, and less likely to lead to fitnah of doubts. The point being, just as hadeethists sometimes criticize fuqahaa, they may end up often making the similar justifications for issues at times. Hence, it is said that all madhabs, even that of ahl-hadeeth, essentially follow the same principles, whether they realize or not, out of necessity. Each madhab has its examples.

By creating the “cult of daleel” you then misjudge the research results of other scholars as “going against the daleel” and therefore, as heretical. This is, by Allah, a fitnah upon the ummah, especially when it is not even fiqh issues that they are disagreeing over, but rather, political and dawah issues which is pure ijtihad, which, if scholars differ, then it means you cannot impose as if it were an issue of consensus. They criticized the 4 madhabs for dividing the ummah but they went far beyond what the 4 madhabs ever did in terms of division and separation. This is the kind of fawda (chaos) that happens when people of one science (hadeeth) involve themselves with different ones, speaking out of place and practicing judging people, situations, etc without proper qualifications.

So who is better to follow? True undeniable agreed upon mujtahid mutlaqs like Imam Abu Haneefah, Malik, Shafii and Ahmad and the scholars who learn and teach in their traditions, or contemporary scholars who can only shine light on their legacy? If someone says “contemporary scholars are more familiar with our time and better know which opinions to apply” then you actually prove at the same time why local US-based scholars are more suitable to follow than scholars abroad. The more a contemporary scholar is grounded in those principles, then the more consistent they will be inshaAllah.

The path to clarity is through greater knowledge. Which is why I tell people who want to debate with me about Salafiyyah “come back after you have studied Usul al-Fiqh, in Arabic, as a beginner, intermediate and advanced.” And if you have, then you would not need to even question me. You would know how to research. And you would see the general acceptability of what I say, even if you disagree.

Lastly in this section, I must mention that there are several ijtihadi fiqh issues that have become hallmark to the Salafi dawah, and are the cause of many people writing me, asking for guidance, despite the difference of opinion that has been solidified past or present. Many times this dogmatic attachment to one single opinion comes because they learned the opinion, not by reading a book of fiqh, but because they translated a spirited academic treatise on the topic. When scholars debate with each other, it is an academic exercise, and they usually respect each other’s difference otherwise. But if you simply read or saw the debate, and nothing else, you may feel like this issue is the 6th pillar of Islam! This includes whether a woman must cover her face in public; or if isbaal is forbidden; the Mawlid celebration, is it a good or bad bid`ah <sup>[1]</sup>Scholars of the past always divided bid`ah into two categories, good and bad if it does not contain other prohibited elements; and modern issues like photography, celebrating birthdays and thanksgiving.

 

EDIT: Since I first published this, I heard a lecture from Sh Khalid Bahameed al-Ansari, a former student of ibn al-Uthaymeen give a different explanation for what he calls “chaos in fatwa” (الفوضى في الإفتاء). He alleges that ibn Taymiyyah (rh) used a lot of the methods of the Zahiriyah madhab. Two of ibn Hazm’s great differences with the rest of the fuqaha were his rejection of qiyas and his dismissal of consensus after the time of the companions.

The dilemma in this, according to him, is that the Zahiriyah, ironically, do not restrict themselves to the “understanding of the Salaf” nor any consensus after the companions. Ibn Hazm was not afraid of innovating a third opinion, even if the scholars before him never went beyond two opinions for an issue, or even one.

Al-Ansari then says that Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhaab (rh) and his followers traditionally followed the Hanbali madhab. However, Muhammad Ibrahim Ali Shaykh leaned towards the methods of ibn Taymiyyah, and his student, Abdul Aziz ibn Baaz even moreso.

 

Mishandling the teaching of fiqh, aqeedah and tazkiyah

 

The Rabbani is the one who teaches people the foundational knowledge before the minute knowledge.

And because laymen cannot look at scripture by themselves but are indebted to scholars and precedence, it is essentially an exchange, instead of performing taqleed of Imam Abu Haneefah and his two companions, then it is taqleed of ibn al-Uthaymeen or Rabee` al-Madkhali. Hence, many “Salafi burnouts” among students of knowledge have returned to the “root” and left the “twig”, by studying a madhab.

With the teaching fiqh, rather than go through texts like a madhab, Salafis usually go through more of a Q/A style or learn through hadeeth commentaries reminiscent of the teachings of the companions and the Salaf. Hadeeth commentary is wonderful, but madhabs were codified and created and filled a void. Their effectiveness and validity are so great that they have been unseated ever since. They have “stood the test of time” and resisted the various movements of those who tried to dethrone them. They are to fiqh, what Bukhari and Muslim, and the 4 sunan are to hadeeth. Not perfect, but irreplaceable and have stood as a filter throughout history for orthodox and anomalous shaadh opinions in fiqh. Although contemporary scholars have written works of fiqh geared for the educated layman, they all owe a great debt to the generations that preceded them.

With regard to theology, its importance was overemphasized. Most imams and teachers in the west neglect its teaching entirely, which is obviously wrong. The Salafis over emphasize it and are directly responsible for the “aqeedah wars” in America that led to greater attention being given to minute theological points, even sucking in many of the laity, while neglecting great social issues, fiqh misunderstandings etc. The result is that most masjid leadership now hate hearing about aqeedah and consider it divisive.

Western Salafis are inconsistent in regard to their treatment of fiqh and their treatment of aqeedah. They may gladly refer to the works of ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab taking their word for it in those relevant issues, yet they have to go all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ regarding fiqh. Strange.^[2]I’m always glad to hear about Salafi dawrah’s that go over early Salaf works in aqeedah, like by al-Daarimi, al-Bukhari, ibn Abi Asim or ibn Abi Dawud, etc. Either that or their 3 or 4 contemporary shaykhs of the day, one or the other. I think a lot of them realize that studying a madhab is an almost inevitable gateway to leaving Salafiyyah.

 

Extremism with the words of “the scholars”

 

A luring trait in Salafi masjids and websites is referral to their group of scholars from the Arab gulf countries, establishing frequent tele-links with them. Placing the emphasis on foreign scholars creates a sense of wonderment and reverence for those scholars, as they are imagined with an aura or glow—foreign, as if alien, like supernatural and that no one from our neighbors could ever become one of their peers. The scholars. When my mentor and I visited a few Muslims in a small town, a convert sister asked a question, and we mentioned we would “consult the scholars”. She was excited and said that it indeed sounded mystical.

Madkhali Salafis are notorious for treating the words of contemporary scholars as if they were evidence, as if they are revelation from the Quran and Sunnah, while simultaneously discarding the words of a vast majority of scholars, past and present. This absolutism and elevation of scholars’ words isn’t just my observation, but that of many others.

Statements and fatawa of the “Salafi scholars” no matter what the topic is. So the scholar’s word becomes “the words of the scholars” to be revered like an absolute. They lack Usul and so they cannot distinguish between matters of consensus, matters of ijtihad, nor statements and observations. This is worse than mixing between usul and furoo – irrefutable fundamentals and debatable branches. But rather, the absolutist take on words of the scholars even extends to issues of modern ijtihad. From the past immaturities of the movement has been hereticating anyone who doesn’t pray a certain way, namely based on Al-Albani’s Sifat Salaat al-Nabiy.

I remember in the Arabic college of Medinah, once saying to a teacher, “Shaykh ibn al-Uthaymeen said…” and the professor asked “Did Shaykh ibn al-Uthaymeen receive wahy? What was his evidence?” Is it as Imam Malik said, “everyone can be taken from and rejected from except the Messenger of Allah ﷺ”.

“Shaykh so-and-so said is not an evidence in Islam.”

Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab warned against going to extremes with the righteous. And before him, Abdullah ibn Mas`oud “do not follow the living because they are not safe from fitnah”.

Some statements of the Salaf have almost been used to negate what we know of the Sunnah. For example, the statement, “the graves of the pious of ahl-bidah are pits of Fire while the graves of the sinful of ahl-Sunnah are gardens of Paradise”. This is not a hadeeth and goes against what we also know from the works of creed of those very same scholars of the past. Namely, that we do not bear claim that anyone of the people of the qiblah is in the Fire or Paradise. It is an example of something that translators should have been more discerning with before dictating to lay Muslims. I’ve even heard of Salafis drinking alcohol, citing that statement as evidence.

Extremes with the scholars lead to tabdee` excommunication for things that did not require it at all, such as taking the word of a scholar regarding a minor sin (like shaving the beard) or an issue of fiqh difference (like wearing a niqab) or issues of wara` (like owning a TV) turning it into not only a major sin, but an issue of alliance & disavowal. When a scholar says it is sinful to do something, and another scholar says that you should not associate with sinful people, it leads to salafis abandoning everyone with even minor sins, or even disputed matters. When people, even students of knowledge, are cast “out of the fold” or “off the manhaj” for things like this, it just shows the great consequence of extremism with the words of scholars. But again, part of the problem here is that the scholars, according to them, are thousands of miles away, and so there is no way the people can interact with them on a personal basis and see the human side of the scholars or how they interact with regular Muslims.

Another problem with extremism with the words of the scholars is when those words are disconnected from their intended audience and context. For example, many scholars may become enthusiastic and particularly aggressive when arguing their fiqh position in an academic debate, verbal or written, in a matter where there is confirmed difference of opinion. They take an academic exercise and its emotions and then let those emotions take over the rest of the Muslims. I’ve seen it on the ground, where Salafi students or regular Salafi Muslims may read of a debate, for example, between al-Albani and another scholar over a fiqh issue, and then begin pressuring others to follow the seemingly won position from that debate. Taking those aggressive words out of context and conveying them to the lay Muslim leads them to be aggressive and harsh with other Muslims. There’s a saying “there is no rebuke in issues of valid difference” and it has its precedents in some of the practices of the Prophet ﷺ and his companions.

لا إنكار في مسائل الخلاف

Part of this mishandling and absolutism with scholars’ words culture came as a result of the overarching influence of the late hadeeth scholar shaykh Muhammad Nasir al-Den al-Albani (rh). The imam had a fatherly influence over the Salafi movement due to his charisma, quick wit, courage and nearness to the general audience. Shaykh al-Albani was known for championing hadeeth especially, as evidence in Islam, and advocating that scholars respect and return to the sources more. He suggested that by following the legacy of scholarship too much, people had inadvertently left off some of the established traditions as they were known during the Prophet’s time. He promoted following hadeeth rather than scholars in between, such as the Four imams and their schools. He brought the receipts to back it up, even quotes from those great imams themselves. Unfortunately, in his famous “The Prophet’s Prayer” introduction, he does not make the distinction between scholar and lay person in his address which led to great misunderstanding by his academic opponents, and by Salafis themselves. He also strongly claimed in his work that anyone who does not pray in the way he describes in the coming pages is an innovator. This mentality led a lot of lay Salafis to unjustly criticize and hereticate the rest of the Muslims. I recall reading in a debate between him and al-Buti that al-Albani clarified that he not mean for the layman to look at scripture by themselves.

The Prophet’s Prayer was an important work in contemporary fiqh to bring Muslims closer to feel closer to Allah’s Messenger ﷺ, rather than to follow a book devoid of evidences. He raised the readers’ sense of care for individual narrations, the authentic from the weak. But in so doing, many Muslims became more critical of one another.

 

Between “Scholars of bid`ah” and Salafi “Scholars of Sunnah” and what it actually means to “follow the scholars” and the way of the Salaf

 

It is nigh impossible—if not outright dangerous—to restrict your complete understanding of the deen to the output of just a handful of scholars in one locale – especially when you live in a different one. For a while I believed that the scholars of Saudia, and the “Salafi scholars” in particular, that they must be the major scholars and were simply more qualified than the rest and were so lofty that they were in this realm all by themselves and anyone else was a scholar of bid`ah. But by virtue of what?

Their students were mystifying the definition of scholar. They did not study Usul al-fiqh and so they did not even know how to define a scholar. Many times I asked and was given strange definitions that even included “they are often blind(!)”.

Scholarship is a virtue. These scholars were not born as scholars. They became scholars through long study and dedication, but first and foremost, tawfeeq from Allah. But the books they read or memorized to become scholars are not hidden away or locked up. What if you or I read those books and applied them and passed tests as well? Is it possible that the West could produce a scholar? Is it possible that scholars may have moved to the West or even to America?

Shaykh Rabee al-Madkhali, a Saudi shaykh mashaAllah has two PhDs! There is an imam in my city of Pittsburgh with two PhD’s in fiqh! Is he not a scholar too? Even if he is not famous or “known” to a tiny handful of scholars from the Hijaz?

If I read the biography of many scholars abroad and what makes them a scholar or qualifies them as a scholar, I will see the exact same credentials, or even more, with many other preachers and teachers and researchers here in the US. Read the biography of Bilal Philips or Jamal Zarabozo—both converts—and many of the imams who immigrated here like Hatem al-Haj, Waleed al-Maneesi, Salaah al-Sawi, etc. What makes the individuals of one group “legitimate” and the other not so? Whether it is PhD’s or ijaazahs or tazkiyahs from teachers or memorized texts, etc.

Usually, the answer from the “restrictionists” is that the other scholars are scholars of bid`ah or have faulty manhaj. It is tough to conceive that the “sawaad a`zam” of thousands of scholars throughout the world have gone astray and only a half-dozen scholars on earth are in the right.

They will say they are following the “understanding of the pious predecessors”. Okayyy, this is a general entry level point for fiqh. Sure, many scholars have deviated on this matter in terms of aqeedah, so learn your aqeedah elsewhere, but don’t let that prevent you from the knowledge that a faqeeh or grammarian or hafiz has to teach. I’ve found many scholars of fiqh, in spite of the different creeds they followed, take important principled stances in practical matters, and the opposite from individuals with sound creed. Ultimately, what is “creed” should be what is *indisputable* in the religion, whether in the mind or on the limbs. What is “known about the religion by necessity”. As for issues where scholars have differed about since the time of the Salaf, each with their reasoning, then these are not matters to fight over—and certainly not among the 1% of Muslims in the West. As for scriptural commentary, as before, take anything doubtful to another source. Take Islamic scholarship as a holistic body, not a few individuals.

Following “those on the way of the salaf” is too ambiguous, and it silently discredits 1,000 years of scholars who were also trying to follow Islam based on that understanding. I can’t think of a greater way to “abandon the scholars”. SubhanAllah.

The restrictionists acted as if native students of knowledge can never become a scholar, enforcing them to just settle for studying Arabic and translating for “the [madkhali-salafi] scholars”. What’s the goal of studying if not to be able to become a scholar and get out of taqleed! For people who decry taqleed, they force it at an extreme that mirrors Sufis. At least Sufis make taqleed of people who are with them who can monitor their day-to-day activities, rather than individuals on the other side of the globe.

If you read the tract “The Six Principles” by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhaab, you will find among his great criticisms of the people of his time was their refusal of ijtihad and also raising the bar of scholarship so high that Abu Bakr and Umar could not even reach it. And this was the same attitude I found present in Western Salafiyyah.

The purpose of the Islamic University of Medinah was so that people from far away did not have to look to Saudia for scholarship, but that IU Medinah could train foreign sons who would then return to their lands and teach the people. Can Salafiyyah praise seeking knowledge and then smack you down for trying to seek knowledge and using that knowledge?

One of the most troubling examples of taking a word, not even by a scholar, but by some of their duaat and students attempting to discredit the rest of American Muslims, is that “there are no scholars in America”. Without scholars here, as they claim, you cannot be sure that your conduct, understanding, and application is correct and beneficial and not wrong or harmful. After all, there are no scholars here that you take from to look at your actions in the environment we live in.

So what does it mean to follow the scholars and the Salaf?

In general, have a precedent for what you follow in Islam from a scholarly authority. Don’t talk about something without knowledge. Say you don’t know if you don’t know. If someone has been appointed to give fatwa, they are probably trustworthy for what they speak on, even if they make mistakes from time to time.

Nearly every scholar of Islam – if they are a scholar – is going to follow the same basic general principles of the religion and attach themselves to the Salaf. And most fiqh students will likewise follow the same principles in studying the words of the scholars to give to you.

Some scholars, and by extension, imams and duaat error in aqeedah principles for certain issues, and others error in sulook or tazkiyah principles. And for others, many of their other differences are political, whether to support certain governments and politicians or not. Some of their differences are in the appropriate strategy to rectify the Muslim community socially, economically, politically, etc. But the goal of all is similar, and their approach to fiqh – how to worship and live – will generally be identical. As for the other matters, follow the scholars you believe to be best following the general practices of the companions of the Prophet ﷺ.

 

The legitimacy of the “Salafi Scholars”: Are they *really* praised by the great scholars who taught them?

 

The Salafi movement in America was once very large and about to become the dominant understanding of Islam in America. What changed? Did all the Salafis leave Salafiyyah?

Just before 9/11, the four main scholars of Salafiyyah passed away, all within 3 years of each other: Shaykhs ibn Baaz, ibn al-Uthaymeen, al-Albani and Muqbil. Then with 9/11, many Salafi Muslims themselves gravitated to become more mainstream.

With the vacuum waiting to be filled, many Salafi students in Arabia followed the paths of their own shaykhs, mostly based on the intellectual traditions of those shaykhs. The students of ibn Baz in Riyadh, and ibn Uthaymeen in Qaseem – since those scholars were more of a fiqh tradition – the students became more mainstream. In fact, I don’t know of a single student who studied even a year with either of those two scholars, except that they are well integrated within the Muslim community at large, and their creed is still Athari. But as for Muqbil in Yemen, since he was a hadeethist, his students followed his successor in Yemen, Shaykh Yahya al-Hajuri. Those who more greatly were attached to Shaykh Naasir al-Albani split. Some followed his students in Egypt or Jordan, while others followed Sh Rabee` al-Madkhali of Makkah, who shaykh Naasir had praised on occasion. And those who remain in the cult today generally follow Shaykh Rabee`. The successors of all the rest have assimilated with mainstream Muslims. Scholarly observers note that what really changed was that the great following of al-Albani essentially shifted to Rabee`, who was not a proper subject for it.

What many western Salafis today do not understand is how open-minded Shaykh Naasir (rh) was, while being extremely critical of Saudi Arabia, and even of Sh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhaab (rh) himself. Positions and words that most would find troublesome today, to say the least. Shaykh Naasir himself has been recorded on tape to say that he follows the dawah methodology of Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. ^[3]Sh Rabee` and those like him consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be the fountainhead of the khawarij in this era, and inevitably leading to the proliferation and normalization of Shia grave worship. … Continue reading I only mention this to show the actual diversity and divergence of their own untouchable figureheads. This is why the students [who became scholars of hadeeth in their own right] more closer to Shaykh al-Albani in Jordan are in fact disparaged by today’s Salafi scholars of the Hijaaz. When these things are pointed out, those living today may say that the past scholars are not infallible. Okay, but why then treat certain other statements of theirs as dogma? Statements like, “to discern who is on the Sunnah, ask them their opinion of Shaykh Rabee` al-Madkhali”! And why not extend the same generosity of “everyone makes mistakes” to those alive today, scholar and daaiyah alike? They hardly have a consensus to use as evidence!

But to appreciate the credibility of Shaykh Rabee` and by extension, anyone and everyone he then praises or disparages, they display the general words of praise that scholars like al-Albani, ibn Baz and ibn al-Uthaymeen say about him. And of course, scholars want to preserve the general respect of laity towards scholars. And for any scholar who is busy teaching, most of their message will be worth benefiting from, alhamdulillah. However, if you look deeper, you will find specific words of criticism from many of those scholars. Some of those greater scholars will criticize the Salafi movement in particular. For example, when Sh ibn Uthaymeen famously said, “follow Salafiyyah, but do not follow the Salafis.” And some will even criticize the methods of shaykh Rabee` al-Madkhali in specific. And one thing that many of these students have taught laity, because they value the tradition of hadeethists, is that specific criticism is given preference over general praise.

And they have also taken some principles of muhadditheen to try to claim that Sh Rabee is infallible(!) Ya Allah, how these Muslims have gone down the lizard hold.

Read the post below:

 

 

Translation: Allah be good to you! Some brothers describe a scholar from the scholars that he is the carrier of the banner of Jarh and Ta`deel. And whoever [that scholar] dispraises, is dispraised, based on that he would not dispraise someone without evidence, so it is incumbent to follow him in that?

[CC – you see they want to turn him into the Muslim pope, infallible and obligatory to follow as long as he is criticizing people!!!]

Response from shaykh Salih al-Fawzan: “Jarh and Ta`deel has to do with chains of narration and the science of hadeeth, and that… its people have passed away. No one remains of them. There is no one alive today remaining that we know of, from scholars of jarH and ta`deel. But there are scholars of backbiting and gossip. That is present among those who dispraise people and backbite people. That is not jarH and ta`deel. … As for saying “this one is from the scholars of jarH and ta`deel, that is a big statement. And it does not fit someone who can only read books and peruse the books. They are not from the scholars of Jarh and Ta`deel, but they can be called a peruser, well-read of the books of jarh and ta`deel only.”

 

Further errors in manhaj and pedagogy

 

• The Salafis of the late 20^th century spread the idea that taqleed was a bad thing and they decried “blind following” and instead promoted “following the proofs” directly. And so a hallmark of theirs is that if you ask them what madhab they follow, they may say they follow the Messenger of Allah ﷺ They may even quote an athar from ibn Abbaas when he said, “I feel like meteors will shower down upon us. I say Allah said and the Messenger ﷺ said, and you are telling me Abu Bakr said and Umar said.” They may quote a dozen ayahs and hadeeth about following the Messenger .
  • Ironically, this mirrors many extremist Sufis. But in reality, they do follow what the scholars present to them of hadeeth, based on those scholars’ understanding of those texts. The proof to that is that if you present them with a different hadeeth about a tradition, they have to get back to you by going to their scholars! Oh, but I thought you followed the Messenger ? I guess not. And so they mischaracterized, misunderstood, misapplied the condemnation of taqleed by great scholars who were speaking to their great students of fiqh and usul that would surpass scholars even today, encouraging those great students to practice their malakah (skill) of ijtihad – not laity today, nor even most students today.
• At the same time, many of their immature speakers who never completed their studies (it’s really amazing how many of them did not actually graduate!!) made lots of mistakes in dawah, and this led to a recognition that scholarship abroad is the only thing that can save the community and properly guide them. And that there were no scholars in America. This is the 90’s mind you. So instead of “blind following” (which in reality is *guided following*) of over a thousand years of Islamic scholarship via the 4 madhabs, they instead do the same taqleed of a small number of contemporary scholars. As a brother told me once, “Shaykh Muqbil said that a prayer sutrah has to be such-and-such size and height”. Wonderful! Now you’ve quoted a scholar. But what if I come back and quote Imam Ahmad? Is your taqleed better than mine?
• Normalizing the testing of people: scholar, student and lay Muslim alike.
• Pointing out errors is one of the strengths of the Madkhali Salafis. So much so that they will literally read every article, listen to every cassette or watch every video, spending hundreds of hours – not to learn thousands of gems and benefits, but to gather and compile a refutation.
  • Part of their culture of unforgiving excessiveness, ill suspicion and vindicated love to find, amplify and spread the mistakes of others while forgetting their clearer more thought-out positions and mission is running with what may be poorly worded, or lapse of the tongue [سبق اللسان] or the momentary irrational unthought word that comes out wrong [إغلاق الفكر]. Or when someone gets ahead of themselves. These kinds of mistakes happen occasionally from scholars when they write, but more frequently when they speak, as is the case with all humans.And the Prophet ﷺ gave us a beautiful example of that, regarding the man who was happy to find his camel and said “O Allah You are my slave and I am your lord—he made a mistake from intense happiness.”

A nice person would say, “ya shaykh, I found what I believe could be errors in your book, please review for a future edition. Or please address your readers.” But nope.

They take those mistakes and then rather than even give naseehah or research the issue themselves or give the benefit of the doubt, they imitate the liberal progressive cancel culture, exposing, refuting, discrediting, dragging in the mud, tar and feather around the village square, and then make a plea for the individual to “return to the Sunnah and the scholars”.

• Since the Western Salafi students and callers reject that there exist any scholars in the Western hemisphere, as if it were a matter of creed, this forces their words and actions to be a guesstimate of what their few scholars overseas actually want from them (remember my example of when one of them told me, despite me showing them the shaykh’s quote, that the unqualified cannot give dawah). Plus, these scholars themselves are a significantly small number compared to the dozens or even hundreds of orthodox scholars around them in Saudi Arabia. Not to mention the hundreds or thousands elsewhere that generally disapprove of their management over affairs of heresy and the culture of McCarthyism they’ve created at home and abroad – if other scholars have even heard of them. The first misinterpretation was from this minority group of scholars, and the second from their students in the West.
• Baiting scholars with questions and quotes devoid of context. This is again from the immaturity and insincerity of their duaat. Lots of what they criticize others for would probably be agreed upon by their scholars back in Saudia if those scholars were given the proper context rather than sensationalist  tabloid-like snippets. I can imagine my words now being packaged with removed context. “There is an imam here who disparages the scholars and says to follow the unqualified instead, what do you say about this?” ::facepalm:: Have you learned nothing??

This is part two, inshaAllah, in a 3 or 4 part series detailing my and common criticisms of western Salafiyyah and the cult that they have created. The next part will concern issues of political change. The last part will touch on their isolationism, refutation culture and “guilt by association”.

This part was necessarily long, because defining the scholars and understanding who we can and cannot “take from” is not a black and white issue, but one with lots of grey areas that need to be explored. Because here in America, admittedly, it is the “grey areas” that dominate.

Admittedly, in the first two articles, my criticisms are mostly anecdotal, and more resemble a rant than a scientific takedown. However, those anecdotes are so commonly observed and universal that nearly every scholar or former Salafi makes the same criticisms, demonstrating that there is a rotten culture.