Who are the Salafis?

x"

Salamunalaykum,

There are a few key points i would like to address here:

1. In terms of calling any particular individual a 'wahhabi' i have not done so. If you recall the period where i was called a 'rafidhi' on several occasions, i never returned the insult and called the person doing so a 'wahhabi'.

2. I put the term 'wahhabi' in quotation marks, because the sunni lecturers and sheikhs used that word. Hence this is not an attempt at sunni-shia sectarianism, but rather, i am only quoting the title of the video, and the 'group' by which the sunni sheikhs themselves use to refer to a group or movement.

Therefore i believe there is a clear and distinct difference here. You may respond to this post, and i may check it to see if you have raised legitimate points. However, i feel this is it for me in terms of debating this point, because i do not want to see it turn into a war of ego, in terms of who can make the last post or comment.

Wa'alaykumasalaam

1) It doesn't matter that you haven't called any particular individual it. But thanks for letting me know that this makes it OK, this is the weakest excuse for sectarianism I've seen.

2) Strange. You seem to complain when I quoted scholars who used the word rafidi. But next time when I use the word rafidi, I'll try to bolden quotation marks and hopefully you won't complain then.

Not really Tawheed. It was weak attempt to defend your own sectarianism. It's a shame unity and sectarianism are all a one way thing.

I think that in general, not all offensive terms are equally offensive. For example, in a majority white nation like the UK where racism towards minorities exist, racial epithets aimed at non-white minorities carry a far greater impact than a racial epithet against white people. Would you not agree the "n-word" is more offensive than the word pikey? So sure, using any offensive term is not good, but we can't act like they are all equally as bad. There is a long history of animosity among Sunnis and Shias, and in cases where either has been a minority, there has been examples of persecution. If we are talking about the UK, TSR or the I-Soc, it is quite clear that Shia exist as a minority.

As for quoting scholars who use sectarian language, you should be able to do so, as long as you are using an appropriate medium. It would not be appropriate to post such a quote in a non-sectarian I-Soc, but there would be no problem in posting such a quote in a discussion in a debate forum.

"Anti-practicing Muslims"? What does that even mean?

Anyway, like I stated above, it is because certain groups are in the minority. If Mormons started getting abuse in the Christian society and I seen it, I would defend the Mormon. If however a unitarian started criticising Trinitarians (who are in the majority) I would take less of an interest, though still would consider it a problem.

I could point out that you only ever show sympathy for certain groups who share your religious views, and not for those who don't. So I think there is a huge irony in your criticism of me. Anyway, as I just stated in my previous (if you actually bothered to read it), "using any offensive term is not good". That includes sectarian comments towards Sunnis in an I-Soc which is meant to be inclusive and non-sectarian. However, as I quite clearly explained, not all offensive terms are equally offensive.



Not at all. We are talking about a Muslim community with a Sunni majority and a Shia minority. It is the same reason why Pikey is no way comparable to the 'n-word'.



No, I don't care to see blatant hatred, especially when it involves a minority being on the receiving end. I also take issue in that the I-Soc claims to be a welcoming society, and yet with all the sectarianism I see, it fails to live up to these claims. If a claim is made, and isn't lived up to, whether it is an I-soc, Atheist soc, Christian soc etc.. then I will challenge it.

According to the "Salafi" ideology, a "Salafi" is someone who has special knowledge or ability to follow the beliefs of the Salaf above the mass Majority of common Muslims, they also include certain hand-picked scholars of later times.Of course, this illusory definition is questioned by Sunni Muslims. Even the name of "Salafi" as understood by the "Salafi" movement, is rejected on the grounds that is is an innovated appellation which Ahl al-Sunnah have not used and which has appeared only a few decades agoWhere Ahl al-Sunnah further differ with "Salafis" is in the promotion of a handful of controversial scholars as supposedly representing all of Islamic scholarship after the time of the true Salaf. They praise and advertise these controversial scholars over and over the established, non-controversial Ahl al-Sunnah scholars of the intervening centuries.These few scholars are:- Ibn Taymiyya al-Harrani & his student Ibn al-Qayyim- Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab & his Najdi epigones- Bin Baz, Uthaymin, Albani & their propagandistsThe Sunnis disagree with the above because neither do these belong to the time of the Salaf, nor are they considered representatives of the beliefs and practices of the Salaf, nor are they considered foremost authorities by Ahl al-Sunnah. In fact the condemnation of the first three by many scholars is well-known, as are the innovations and blunders of the latter.The most diminutive proof that "Salafis" are the most distant of people from the Pious Salaf lies in the following fiver fundamental aspects of the Salafi ideology:- Anthropomorphism of God's attributes: affirming a place, direction and corporeal limbs to God who is far exalted above all those;- Disrespect of the Prophet Muhammad;- An amateurish, egalitarian approach to the Quran & Hadith (no need for scholars or mastery of Arabic or Ijaza - traditional accreditation, or the Islamic sciences);- Hatred for the Four Sunni Schools of Law (The 4 Madhabs), the two schools of doctrine (Asharis and Maturidis), and all the schools of self-purification (Tasawwuf - Sufism);- The practice of Takfir: Declaring other Muslims unbelievers

I learnt it from TSR actually. It's when people claim that they don't hate or dislike Muslims but then they describe a type of Muslim they seem to hold animosity for and that description just tends to paint a picture of a normal practicing Muslim who is just following Islam properly.

I'm sure ISIS would use the same argument against me too. I oppose extreme interpretations of religion in general. I will oppose homophobia whether it comes from a Christian or Muslim.



Minority groups are a far easier target. For example, what do the Rohingya and Uighurs have in common? They are both minority groups in their respective country and receive a lot of discrimination, and this discrimination is difficult to challenge as these groups are a minority. Minorities are less able to protect themselves by the mere fact of numbers, hence why it is more important to take a stance.



Whether it is rare or not, I don't care. But I was just pointing out the irony in your comment.



You didn't read it properly then, because I never said it was OK. I just said that the level of offense is not equal among all offensive comments.



Trolls do tend to get dealt with in the I-Soc. Pretty much 99% of active members in the I-Soc are in agreement over this and there is no shortage of people in the I-Soc to oppose this. Whereas when other unacceptable comments are made, they go unreported because there are few to oppose it.



I oppose Islam because people reported my posts? What a ridiculous statement.

I do take issue with the fact that the I-Soc is willing to harbour individuals with extreme interpretations of Islam. But that is not something I have ever hidden. Now, I wont deny that I report posts more often than I used (in fact, I went probably 4 years without reporting a single post despite being active), but this was on recommendation by the CT.

by Ahl al-Sunnah do you mean Barelvi?

No

there is a tiny minority(vexed?) who hold extreme beliefs such as a thinking bad of certain sahaba

My goodness, how extreme! It's bad enough that people justify slavery, stoning and killing homosexuals and apostates etc. but thinking badly of certain sahaba? Step too far...

Then who?

The Asharis & Maturidis

Ah here we go. Started with the comparisons to ISIS already

And as long as people continue to target Muslim minority groups in an inclusive I-Soc, don't worry, as there will always be people ready to deal with that. The fact is that TSR does not accept it, and it is against TSR rules.

The issue is that some groups we deny are Muslim to start with e.g. Alewwi, Ahamadiyyah, so it's not like they are targeted Muslim minority groups, but you insist that the ISOC should allow them to propogate their beliefs on the thread; the ISOC says it's inclusive and allows anyone to post, but that doesn't mean that one can post about anything and everything - it has to be at least somewhat acceptable to the beliefs of Muslims as understood by the majority.

No, see you don't understand how inclusiveness works.