Who are the Salafis?

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    x"

    I will inshAllah respond to this. I have delayed doing so because i want to be in a position where i have enough time and am in a state where i can dedicate my full mental resources to research the finer points of what has been raised, owing to the serious nature of this discussion - the attributes of Allah azwj.

    I feel you've made some false comparisons here, as well as a number of issues, but more of that when i come round to addressing it, inshAllah.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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.
    Strange how anti- practicing Muslim people such as yourself stop screaming sectarianism when someone does the same thing against salafis. Although it's to be expected I guess.

    If you want to debate about those words then I'm not your guy. I've never spoken to a gypsy about that word so I wouldn't know. But I do know enough about words like rafidi or wahaabi or najdi. So don't worry, I know they're comparable.

    Please stop pretending like you care about Isoc. You don't. In any case I never mentioned the Isoc. It's not the only place I've used rafidi from scholar with Tawheed coming in with the word sectarian(ism). So perhaps that's an issue you need to discuss with him.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    Strange how anti- practicing Muslim people such as yourself stop screaming sectarianism when someone does the same thing against salafis. Although it's to be expected I guess.
    "Anti-practicing Muslims"? :lol: What does that even mean? :lol:

    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 post (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.

    If you want to debate about those words then I'm not your guy. I've never spoken to a gypsy about that word so I wouldn't know. But I do know enough about words like rafidi or wahaabi or najdi. So don't worry, I know they're comparable.
    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'.

    Please stop pretending like you care about Isoc. You don't. In any case I never mentioned the Isoc. It's not the only place I've used rafidi from scholar with Tawheed coming in with the word sectarian(ism). So perhaps that's an issue you need to discuss with him.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Salafi and Wahhabi are not the same thing
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    "Anti-practicing Muslims"? :lol: What does that even mean? :lol:

    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.
    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 see. I don't really agree. Whether you abuse the majority or minority, it's the same to me.

    I know I do. I definitely feel more for my own people. I think that's the case with the vast majority of people. I didn't think that was a such rare phenomena. However, if you want, I can pull out some past posts that I made against the Saudis in Yemen or people shooting innocent shias. Seeing as most of my posts are on the Isoc nowadays, and the Isoc has always been a sunni majority, it's no surprise that you mostly see me post about sunni issues, is it... But the difference between me and you is that I don't pretend to be some TSR activist for non-sectarianism.

    I did read it properly.You were trying hard to make it look like sectarianism against salafis is OK or less bad. Which I disagree with.

    I don't agree with the logic of "they're a minority so this word is worse".

    You don't care about hatred. If you did, you might've quoted Tawheed first and then me second. If you did, you might actually call out non-Muslim trolls in Isoc instead of just appearing whenever someone highlights a difference with shia. You're just obsessed with opposing Islam and the Isoc because people reported you for a while and that's frankly it. We'll welcome you or tolerate you at the very least but if you post unislamic things or ideals then don't be surprised if Muslims take issue.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MuhammadDarcy)
    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
    by Ahl al-Sunnah do you mean Barelvi?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    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.

    I see. I don't really agree. Whether you abuse the majority or minority, it's the same to me.
    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.

    I know I do. I definitely feel more for my own people. I think that's the case with the vast majority of people. I didn't think that was a such rare phenomena. However, if you want, I can pull out some past posts that I made against the Saudis in Yemen or people shooting innocent shias. Seeing as most of my posts are on the Isoc nowadays, and the Isoc has always been a sunni majority, it's no surprise that you mostly see me post about sunni issues, is it... But the difference between me and you is that I don't pretend to be some TSR activist for non-sectarianism.
    Whether it is rare or not, I don't care. But I was just pointing out the irony in your comment.

    I did read it properly.You were trying hard to make it look like sectarianism against salafis is OK or less bad. Which I disagree with.
    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.

    You don't care about hatred. If you did, you might've quoted Tawheed first and then me second. If you did, you might actually call out non-Muslim trolls in Isoc instead of just appearing whenever someone highlights a difference with shia. You're just obsessed with opposing Islam and the Isoc because people reported you for a while and that's frankly it. We'll welcome you or tolerate you at the very least but if you post unislamic things or ideals then don't be surprised if Muslims take issue.
    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.

    You're just obsessed with opposing Islam and the Isoc because people reported you for a while and that's frankly 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 to(in fact, I probably went 4 years without reporting a single post despite being active), but this was on recommendation by the CT.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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.
    Ah here we go. Started with the comparisons to ISIS already :lol:

    I disagree, I don't think situation of those two groups are comparable to shia. On the contrary, it's currently the shia who've got far more bloodshed and oppression on their hands than the sunni majority in the last 5 or so years. They put ISIS (used the ISIS example too :teehee: ) to shame with their atrocities.

    There is no irony. I don't pretend to be neutral.

    I did read it properly. I thought it could mean 1 of two things and you confirmed it meant 1 of them.


    The issue isn't that trolls don't get dealt with by the mods. The issue is people such as yourself pretending that you care about Isoc whilst the vast majority of the time you don't do anything about it but then appear out of the blue when someone says something about shia.

    Don't worry Epicurean, I assure you, many of my posts about shia get reported fairly quickly. You probably don't notice this because unlike you and your friends, I don't feel the need to always share this information on the Isoc. Perhaps this can put your heart to rest and in future we won't see your hypocrisy on the Isoc again.

    Not ridiculous at all. You seemed quite bitter after all the reporting and probably wanted a bit of revenge. You can deny it if you want but it's obvious you hold a grudge. *Although grudge is more against the Isoc than Islam itself.

    The Isoc does not harbour extreme individuals. The vast majority of us are normal Muslim following beliefs which have been there since day 1, there is a tiny minority(vexed?) who hold extreme beliefs such as a thinking bad of certain sahaba but don't worry we'll be there to refute their beliefs. Report away but Islam will always stay regardless of your efforts and the efforts of your friends

    I think this is the end of this conversation as it seems to have become yet again a ranting platform for you against Isoc which I don't want to waste time on.

    Late edit: also when I talk about Shia and bloodshed. I mean very specific groups or people (like khamenei). I don't believe all Shia are like that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AbdulALI)
    by Ahl al-Sunnah do you mean Barelvi?
    No
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MuhammadDarcy)
    No
    Then who?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    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...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ascend)
    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...
    OMG lol :laugh:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AbdulALI)
    Then who?
    The Asharis & Maturidis
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MuhammadDarcy)
    The Asharis & Maturidis
    I swear even the founder of Ashari belief abandoned Ashari theology, so I am confused why people still believe in it when it contradicts the Quran and Sunnah; Athaari theology is the theology of the Salaf...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    Ah here we go. Started with the comparisons to ISIS already :lol:
    But you don't go as far as denying my comment, as you know it is true. If I criti
    cised ISIS and they seen it, their answer would be very similar to your answer.

    I disagree, I don't think situation of those two groups are comparable to shia. On the contrary, it's currently the shia who've got far more bloodshed and oppression on their hands than the sunni majority in the last 5 or so years. They put ISIS (used the ISIS example too :teehee: ) to shame with their atrocities.
    Shias have abused Sunnis when they have been in positions of power and vice versa. Which proves my point. I know you are pointing a finger at the Assad regime, who I have to qualms criticising. We however are in a country, on a forum and we talking about a TSR I-Soc, where the Shia are in the minority numerically. By the mere fact of numbers, they tend to suffer more from sectarian comments on the I-Soc. And the real problem is that people such as yourself seem to be so intent on justifying this sectarianism against certain Muslim minority groups.

    I did read it properly. I thought it could mean 1 of two things and you confirmed it meant 1 of them.
    No. I never said it was ok.

    The issue isn't that trolls don't get dealt with by the mods. The issue is people such as yourself pretending that you care about Isoc whilst the vast majority of the time you don't do anything about it but then appear out of the blue when someone says something about shia.
    I don't tend to follow the I-Soc. In fact, the majority of time I do "appear out of the blue", I have been linked to the thread by other people.

    Don't worry Epicurean, I assure you, many of my posts about shia get reported fairly quickly. You probably don't notice this because unlike you and your friends, I don't feel the need to always share this information on the Isoc. Perhaps this can put your heart to rest and in future we won't see your hypocrisy on the Isoc again.
    Of course these comments get dealt with correctly. People notify me a comment has been made, knowing that I have no qualms reporting and informing the CT about why sectarian comments against Muslim minority groups is not acceptable in an inclusive non-sectarian I-Soc. I have spoken with the CT many times, I am fully aware when action is taken. You however do sound really bitter though.

    Not ridiculous at all. You seemed quite bitter after all the reporting and probably wanted a bit of revenge. You can deny it if you want but it's obvious you hold a grudge. *Although grudge is more against the Isoc than Islam itself
    Not at all. I have a problem with a certain few members who engage in sectarianism and therefore prevent the society from being more open and inclusive.
    .
    The Isoc does not harbour extreme individuals. The vast majority of us are normal Muslim following beliefs which have been there since day 1, there is a tiny minority(vexed?) who hold extreme beliefs such as a thinking bad of certain sahaba but don't worry we'll be there to refute their beliefs. Report away but Islam will always stay regardless of your efforts and the efforts of your friends
    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.

    I think this is the end of this conversation as it seems to have become yet again a ranting platform for you against Isoc which I don't want to waste time on.

    Late edit: also when I talk about Shia and bloodshed. I mean very specific groups or people (like khamenei). I don't believe all Shia are like that.
    My qualms are with certain extreme members.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    No, see you don't understand how inclusiveness works.
    Basically you don't have a legitmate counter-point... If someone came on the ISOC and claimed God was Jesus but said they were Muslim, we wouldn't accept that, so similarly if anyone wishes to propogate their unIslamic beliefs and call it Islam and claim they are Muslim, then they are not allowed to do so - that is how the Islamic Society works both on here and at any university in the UK.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 21, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Study resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.