Do Salafis Really Follow the Salaf?

[Omar del Sur]

firstly- we need to follow the salaf. following the salaf means following the salaf. and I've said it before-

if Sheikh Fawzan and every scholar in the Arabian gulf start preaching something that contradicts the salaf as-salih- reject what they are calling for and follow the salaf as-salih instead.

in this thread, I want to discuss two topics where many modern day Salafis have a different approach than the salaf.

1- Abu Hanifa.

and it's been shown in another thread btw how Abu Hanifa promoted rebellion against Muslim rulers. Imam Hanbal opposed him on this and I believe Abu Hanifa was really seriously wrong on this issue. and I do think it's a khariji view. anyways, I want to show here- look at how the salaf talked about Abu Hanifa and look at how the modern Salafi scholars (many not all) talk about Abu Hanifa

 

[Omar del Sur]

if you want to know what I'm talking about, you simply have to watch the videos. before anyone makes any post attacking this thread or whatever- and if you see such a post- watch the two videos in the first post and the video in this post before you form a conclusion.

ok. Abu Hanifa is the first topic.

second topic- Is Iblis an angel?

this may shock many people but the salaf actually believed that Iblis is an angel. not all of them but to my understanding it was the majority opinion. and this was held by scholars like Ibn Abbas. this is another topic where many modern "salafis" have a different viewpoint than the salaf as the video below shows.

 

[Omar del Sur]

I really recommend this channel and my aim here is to promote the way of the salaf not to attack it- and it's also not really to attack modern salafi scholars like Sheikh Fawzan or Sheikh Uthaymeen. I love those scholars and I like learning from them but I believe we have to go back to the salaf and not rely overly much on modern scholars.

 

[hanif#]

firstly- we need to follow the salaf. following the salaf means following the salaf. and I've said it before-



in this thread, I want to discuss two topics where many modern day Salafis have a different approach than the salaf.

1- Abu Hanifa.

and it's been shown in another thread btw how Abu Hanifa promoted rebellion against Muslim rulers. Imam Hanbal opposed him on this and I believe Abu Hanifa was really seriously wrong on this issue. and I do think it's a khariji view. anyways, I want to show here- look at how the salaf talked about Abu Hanifa and look at how the modern Salafi scholars (many not all) talk about Abu Hanifa

Sheik Salh Al Fawzan and other major Salafi figures today maybe lenient towards Abu Hanifa but it can't be ignored how all the heat he receives nowadays comes from Salafis to the point that slander of Imam Abu Hanifa is associated with Salafism. Sheikh Muqbil has written a whole book exposing Abu Hanifa رحمه الله isn't he Salafi?

 

[hanif#]

- Abu Hanifa.

and it's been shown in another thread btw how Abu Hanifa promoted rebellion against Muslim rulers. Imam Hanbal opposed him on this and I believe Abu Hanifa was really seriously wrong on this issue. and I do think it's a khariji view.

You're seriously wrong on this issue and I've been trying for a while to demonstrate to you how fighting rulers of injustice is not Kharijism, but an old fiqh khilafi issue between the Salaf.

Abu Hanifa was from the Murji’ah according to the Salaf and you’re calling him a Kharijite this is from the contradictions. The Salaf cooked him for holding Murji’ah views but never for being a Kharijite(despite him holding what you view as Khariji views), why do you think is that? Simply because they never saw fighting the unjust rulers as a form of Kharijism.

 

[mohammdov]

You follow Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab more than the rest

 

[Omar del Sur]

Sheik Salh Al Fawzan and other major Salafi figures today maybe lenient towards Abu Hanifa but it can't be ignored how all the heat he receives nowadays comes from Salafis to the point that slander of Imam Abu Hanifa is associated with Salafism. Sheikh Muqbil has written a whole book exposing Abu Hanifa رحمه الله isn't he Salafi?

I'm not sure if you watched the first two videos. The guy doing the videos actually is citing that book from Sheikh Muqbil.

What seems to have happened is... a lot of modern Salafis are being sort of... politically correct when it comes to Abu Hanifa. But watch those first two videos. No one should be blamed or attacked for criticizing Abu Hanifa. The first video shows- the salaf were.... not exactly fans of Abu Hanifa.

And Abu Hanifa has been on my mind because I've been looking at Al-Aqeedah al-Tahawiyyah- and notice how that that book is a Hanifi book, teaching the aqeedah of Abu Hanifa- and notice how it does teach murji aqeedah.

Anyways, not all Salafis are the same on this topic. Sheikh Muqbil of course is a Salafi and he.... he wasn't shy when it came to the topic.

 

[Omar del Sur]

You follow Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab more than the rest

are you saying they do or I do? I am not a hardcore follower of those two, although I'm not against them either.

 

[Omar del Sur]

You're seriously wrong on this issue and I've been trying for a while to demonstrate to you how fighting rulers of injustice is not Kharijism, but an old fiqh khilafi issue between the Salaf.

Abu Hanifa was from the Murji’ah according to the Salaf and you’re calling him a Kharijite this is from the contradictions. The Salaf cooked him for holding Murji’ah views but never for being a Kharijite(despite him holding what you view as Khariji views), why do you think is that? Simply because they never saw fighting the unjust rulers as a form of Kharijism.

to my understanding there were salaf who viewed him as a khariji. honestly I am not a huge fan of Abu Hanifa and I think this idea that he was a great scholar.... I think this is a different way of thinking than how the salaf viewed him. the first video on this thread talked about how the salaf viewed Abu Hanifa. I believe Shafi is cited as well.

 

[Omar del Sur]

You're seriously wrong on this issue and I've been trying for a while to demonstrate to you how fighting rulers of injustice is not Kharijism, but an old fiqh khilafi issue between the Salaf.

Abu Hanifa was from the Murji’ah according to the Salaf and you’re calling him a Kharijite this is from the contradictions. The Salaf cooked him for holding Murji’ah views but never for being a Kharijite(despite him holding what you view as Khariji views), why do you think is that? Simply because they never saw fighting the unjust rulers as a form of Kharijism.

I want to mention as well- my stance against Abu Hanifa on this topic of rebelling against Muslim rulers... this was the stance of Imam Hanbal. so if you take Abu Hanifa's stance and build from there, you are building on very shaky ground.

 

[hanif#]

to my understanding there were salaf who viewed him as a khariji. honestly I am not a huge fan of Abu Hanifa and I think this idea that he was a great scholar.... I think this is a different way of thinking than how the salaf viewed him. the first video on this thread talked about how the salaf viewed Abu Hanifa. I believe Shafi is cited as well.

Imam Abu Hanifa repented from most of the deviance he is attributed like believing the createdness of the Quran so I think some of the slander maybe unfair. But you are right There's a constant attempt to whitewash Islamic scholarship for various agenda and Salafis removing the section about Abu Hanifah in Kitab Al Sunnah by Abdullahi bin Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal is a prime example of that

to my understanding there were salaf who viewed him as a khariji.

Never heard about that. Imam Abu Hanifa was known for refuting Khawarij

 

[hanif#]

I want to mention as well- my stance against Abu Hanifa on this topic of rebelling against Muslim rulers... this was the stance of Imam Hanbal. so if you take Abu Hanifa's stance and build from there, you are building on very shaky ground.

You're missing the whole point. Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal believed repelling against rulers is Kharijism? Bring evidence for it.

This is a khilafi issue as I said with some believing it better to not fight and others believing its more appropriate to fight. No one was labelled a khariji from holding a side in this issue

 

[Omar del Sur]

You're missing the whole point. Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal believed repelling against rulers is Kharijism? Bring evidence for it.

This is a khilafi issue as I said with some believing it better to not fight and others believing its more appropriate to fight. No one was labelled a khariji from holding a side in this issue

ok when I read this earlier I think you questioned whether Imam Hanbal called Abu Hanifa a khariji for his view.

anyways.... I believe I have something where one of the salaf did explicitly consider Abu Hanifa a khariji for the view in question (I'll go find it and post it later insha'Allah).... and this is besides the salaf who also criticized him for it but it isn't recorded that they explicitly called him a khariji. worst-case it's a khariji viewpoint, I believe best-case it's a misguided viewpoint but really I believe it is a khariji viewpoint.

but at the same time... this is something that was spread by Abu Hanifa and... many modern Salafis as we've talked about.... are being... very mild when it comes to the topic of Abu Hanifa... so that being so, this is why I'm kind of lenient when it comes to this wrong view.

 

[hanif#]

but really I believe it is a khariji viewpoint

So were sayiduna Al Hussain and the other Sahabas who fought Yazid bin Muawiya Khawarij?

 

[Omar del Sur]

So were sayiduna Al Hussain and the other Sahabas who fought Yazid bin Muawiya Khawarij?

I think it's recorded in bidayah wal nihaya of Ibn Kathir that they made takfir of him. I'm not one hundred percent for sure. I'll have to double check. btw I looked and I thought I had something from the salaf where one of them explicitly called Abu Hanifa a khariji for that view on khurooj but I'm not seeing it. If I find it, I'll post it insha'Allah but I may have remembered wrong.

anyways, I am convinced that this rebellion against the Muslim rulers viewpoint is wrong and I'm not in some rush to normalize these viewpoints that lead to anarchy and chaos. and I don't think this view was considered normal or okay amongst the salaf.

 

[Omar del Sur]

honestly, I ask people who promote "destroying-the-muslim-society-is-an-act-of-ibadah" viewpoints... what is the point of going out of your way to choose unusual viewpoints that serve to wreck the society?? if you can just go for the safer, more widely held amongst the scholars- salaf to present- viewpoint and make the society safer and stronger.... why not go for the more conventional viewpoint and promote the interests of the society instead of pushing to destroy your own society?

 

[hanif#]

I think it's recorded in bidayah wal nihaya of Ibn Kathir that they made takfir of him. I'm not one hundred percent for sure. I'll have to double check. btw I looked and I thought I had something from the salaf where one of them explicitly called Abu Hanifa a khariji for that view on khurooj but I'm not seeing it. If I find it, I'll post it insha'Allah but I may have remembered wrong

Al Hussain رضي الله عنه did not make takfir of Yazid as far as I know even if he made takfir this is a point against you as you don't even condone fighting kuffar rulers

Here the Mufassir Al Qurtubi makes it clear the Salaf did not the Umayad sultans as kufar and yet at the same time fought them

استدل جماعة من العلماء بهذه الآية على أن الإمام يكون من أهل العدل والإحسان والفضل مع القوة على القيام بذلك وهو الذي أمر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ألا ينازعوا الأمر أهله على ما تقدم من القول فيه فأما أهل الفسوق والجور والظلم فليسوا له بأهل؛ لقوله تعالى {لا ينال عهدي الظالمين} ولهذا خرج ابن الزبير والحسين بن علي رضي الله عنهم وخرج خيار أهل العراق وعلماؤهم على الحجاج

A group of scholars have used this verse as an evidence that the imam(khilafah) is one of the people of justice, benevolence, and virtue, with the power to do so, and he is the one the prophet scw commanded us to obey him. As for the people of immorality, and injustice, they are not worthy of it; According to God Almighty’s saying: “لا ينال عهدي الظالمين” That is why Ibn al-Zubayr and al-Hussein bin Ali, may God be pleased with them revolted, and this is why the best of the people of Iraq and their scholars came out against al-Hajjaj.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Al Hussain رضي الله عنه did not make takfir of Yazid as far as I know even if he made takfir this is a point against you as you don't even condone fighting kuffar rulers

Here the Mufassir Al Qurtubi makes it clear the Salaf did not the Umayad sultans as kufar and yet at the same time fought them

Al Qurtubi huh. And what was he? An Ashari was he not? I don't trust Al Qurtubi or any Ashari and I think we should follow the imams of ahlus sunnah. And Qurtubi especially.... I think saying his aqeedah was deviant would be a huge understatement.

Anyways, if I'm wrong on something and someone can prove it... I don't mind ppl disproving my view. But I believe you are trying to push me to accept pro-rebellion against the ruler views. A way of thinking that leads to chaos and destruction of the Muslim societies and in fact considers it an ibadah. Muslims are supposed to protect the Muslim societies, working to destroy them is the work of the enemy.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Al Hussain رضي الله عنه did not make takfir of Yazid as far as I know even if he made takfir this is a point against you as you don't even condone fighting kuffar rulers

It depends on the circumstance.

As I've mentioned before, I believe what Sheikh Ibn Baz said on the topic:

Praise be to Allah.

The basic comprehensive principle of sharee’ah is that it is not permitted to remove an evil by means of a greater evil; evil must be warded off by that which will remove it or reduce it. Warding off evil by means of a greater evil is not permitted according to the scholarly consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that is OK. But if rebellion would result in greater trouble and lead to chaos, oppression and the assassination of people who do not deserve to be assassinated, and other forms of major evil, then that is not permitted. Rather it is essential to be patient and to hear and obey in matters of good, and to offer sincere advice to the authorities, and to pray that they may be guided to good, and to strive to reduce evil and increase good. This is the correct way which should be followed, because that is in the general interests of the Muslims, and because it will reduce evil and increase good, and because this will keep the peace and protect the Muslims from a greater evil.

 

[hanif#]

Al Qurtubi huh. And what was he? An Ashari was he not? I don't trust Al Qurtubi or any Ashari and I think we should follow the imams of ahlus sunnah. And Qurtubi especially.... I think saying his aqeedah was deviant would be a huge understatement

This is not of course Al Qurtubis views he believes rulers should not be fought unless they commit kufr bwah. This is merely him narrating a well known historical event. Btw Al Qurtubis tafseer with the tafseer Al Jalalayn of Suyuti(another) are popular with Salafis and Read on every mosque and university of Madina. So this is a moot point and unexpectedly low quality reply from you