Salafism

[Sadreddine]

I've been wondering for a while...what is really Salafism? Is that really a despicable, backward doctrine in all its aspects? Only evil can arise from it? Or has it possitive values? How do muslims and non-muslims alike view Salafism (which is generally confused with Wahhabism)? Since it is arguably the most critiziced Islamic doctrine, considered by many a significant source of "evil" in the world, how do people foresee its implications in Islam and the world?

As far as I know, Salafism is based mainly in the doctrine of Unity or tawhid, and its adherents are also called Muwahhidun (Almohads, anyone?), meaning something like "Unifiers". They believe in a return to strict, purest Islam, like -they claim- practiced by the first three generations of Muslims, to solve the problems Islam is facing nowadays and create a new, glorious Caliphate. They reject saints, peregrination to saints tombs and pray only, strictly, to God. Although essentially Sunni, strict adherence to any of the 4 orthodox schools of thought is discouraged. Shia Islam is considered an heresy, doors of Ijtihad (reasoning by analogy and consensus of scholars in matter of religious law) are closed to them, and they disregard any kind of innovation to the religion, considering as such the famous kalam or Islamic philosophy/theology because they consider it tainted by greek (and therefore un-islamic) influence.

Now, Salafism is generally viewed as a violent branch of Islam, but how is that correct?

Any opinions welcome

[jankren]

Salafism believes in a return to purest Sunnism, not really Islam. If the Salafist really go back to the roots of Islam, they would not stone people to death as a form of punishment and force women to dress in Arabian desert traditional dress which actually have no basis in Islam (Al Quran) but merely pure centuries old customs.

By the way, Im definitely talking about Saudi version of Salafism.

[Aristophanes]

I've been wondering for a while...what is really Salafism? Is that really a despicable, backward doctrine in all its aspects? Only evil can arise from it? Or has it possitive values? How do muslims and non-muslims alike view Salafism (which is generally confused with Wahhabism)? Since it is arguably the most critiziced Islamic doctrine, considered by many a significant source of "evil" in the world, how do people foresee its implications in Islam and the world?

As far as I know, Salafism is based mainly in the doctrine of Unity or tawhid, and its adherents are also called Muwahhidun (Almohads, anyone?), meaning something like "Unifiers". They believe in a return to strict, purest Islam, like -they claim- practiced by the first three generations of Muslims, to solve the problems Islam is facing nowadays and create a new, glorious Caliphate. They reject saints, peregrination to saints tombs and pray only, strictly, to God. Although essentially Sunni, strict adherence to any of the 4 orthodox schools of thought is discouraged. Shia Islam is considered an heresy, doors of Ijtihad (reasoning by analogy and consensus of scholars in matter of religious law) are closed to them, and they disregard any kind of innovation to the religion, considering as such the famous kalam or Islamic philosophy/theology because they consider it tainted by greek (and therefore un-islamic) influence.

Now, Salafism is generally viewed as a violent branch of Islam, but how is that correct?

Any opinions welcome

It's backward if its doctrines lead to societal regression/stagnation in health, in wealth and in science. It's violent if a sufficient percentage of its supporters view it as a strong rationalization for violence against anyone: each other, women, alledged criminals, homosexuals, apostates, infidels, or people of other nationalities or ethnicity.
Salafism certainly meets requirement one, and seems to lead a lot of requirement two.

[MasterAdnin]

The problem with Salafism is that it combines Pre-Islamic concepts with Islam ideals. This creates a conflicting ideology as the two contradict each other. Salafism brings Arab tradition and culture into Islam, where as Islam completely turned Arab tradition and culture around 180 degrees. This being said, Pre-Islamic culture in Arabia was extremely violent. When this is combined with Islam it obviously created a violent ideology which is what we see in Salafism.

I know, how could such a thing rise if it contradicted its main beliefs so much? The problem is that the founder of Salafism, Abdul Wahhab made a pact of sorts with the Arab Prince at the time that Wahhab would unite the Arabian tribes if the Arab Prince agreed to adopt Wahhab's method of Islam instead of the mainstream Islam at the time.

After this, obviously Salafism spread quickly throughout the Islam world to places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and many others. The reason is because Saudi Arabia adopted it and it is the birthplace of Islam, so all would follow it, which Wahhab knew and took advantage of.

Iran was left un-scathed from this as it is mostly Shiite. There we see the large arguments arise from other Islamic nations, and this is where the hate grows as Salafism encourages Pre-Islamic Arab culture which is centered around violence.

Salaam bro & hope this helps,
Adnan

[Sadreddine]

Fair enough, but what has our well known Salafist member to say about this? One must take into account all views.

[MasterAdnin]

Fair enough, but what has our well known Salafist member to say about this? One must take into account all views.

Very true, many of my friends are Salafists, many of them claim that the Qu'ran should be followed literally, and not how Muslims traditionally do, metaphorically. This is one main difference between most Sunni sects, and most Shiite sects, and this is where the difference is shown. Many Sunni's now a days are Salafists.

This difference can be seen when a top Shiite Scholar was invited to have dinner with the King of Saudi Arabia. The King's top Sunni Scholar, who was blind and Salafist, exclaimed, "Why have you invited a Shiite into our presence?" The Shiite Scholar replied "Tell me what you think of this Iyat, 'Those who are blind in this world are blind in the next'." The Sunni Scholar did not respond with anything.

The purpose of that is to show how Salafists take the Qu'ran literally and how he had no response. This is the problem. Salfaists ONLY take the Qu'ran literally. It may seem as though I am biased, but many of my Muslim friends are Salafists and I have talked to them about this before.

Even though they are not die hard, they are still very stiff about taking the Qu'ran metaphorically and believe this wrong.

Salaam and hope this helps,
Adnan

[AngryTitusPullo]

I'm always believe that the Qur'an should be taken both literally and metaphorically. I do not mean some verses to be understand literally and some other verses metaphorically, but the same verses can be taken both literally and metaphorically.

For me, it become literally when taking into context of when, why, where the verses were revealed and metaphorically when using the verses as precedents or for guidance.

p/s: honestly I never even heard of the word salafism before I join this forum... and I absolutely have no idea about it. Muslims in my country are basically from the Shafie school of thought though.

[Real.]

Dear Friends,

(...) they disregard any kind of innovation to the religion, considering as such the famous kalam or Islamic philosophy/theology because they consider it tainted by greek (and therefore un-islamic) influence.

(...)

There can be no evolution if a whole civilisation is static. Religion is very connected to politics in Islam. When religion and politics are connected, both follow the interests of the religion. If nothing is done to develop a country... because innovation is not just technological, that's a mere percentage. Social evolution is more important, and loosing time with God... No offence, but it's a total waste of time, imho.

Salafism believes in a return to purest Sunnism, not really Islam. If the Salafist really go back to the roots of Islam, they would not stone people to death as a form of punishment and force women to dress in Arabian desert traditional dress which actually have no basis in Islam (Al Quran) but merely pure centuries old customs.

Religion and old costumes can co-exist. In Asia and Europe women were seen as mere sex machines that existed only for reproduction and to serve men and their children.
But the world's moving, all the islamics I know (personnally, of course) do not agree in having their wives completely covered in an Arabian dress.

It's backward if its doctrines lead to societal regression/stagnation in health, in wealth and in science. It's violent if a sufficient percentage of its supporters view it as a strong rationalization for violence against anyone: each other, women, alledged criminals, homosexuals, apostates, infidels, or people of other nationalities or ethnicity.
Salafism certainly meets requirement one, and seems to lead a lot of requirement two.

By what Ibn Rushid said, Salafism doesn't have to regression or stagnation in health, wealth and science. What's proven is proven, and cannot be denied. Health... it's stupid to let people die just because you believe in God. Wealth? No comments... why would they want to be poor? Maybe I misunderstood you, I'm sure you did not mean regression in wealth, but maybe in economy. Well, as to that, I have to say that the right one must adapt to the country, not the other way around.

The problem with Salafism is that it combines Pre-Islamic concepts with Islam ideals. This creates a conflicting ideology as the two contradict each other. Salafism brings Arab tradition and culture into Islam, where as Islam completely turned Arab tradition and culture around 180 degrees. This being said, Pre-Islamic culture in Arabia was extremely violent. When this is combined with Islam it obviously created a violent ideology which is what we see in Salafism.

Well, that's what the Islamics were in the very beginning: not pure Islamics, they had Arabian roots. Besides, Islam adaptaded such traditions to their own.

Very true, many of my friends are Salafists, many of them claim that the Qu'ran should be followed literally, and not how Muslims traditionally do, metaphorically.

I'm always believe that the Qur'an should be taken both literally and metaphorically. I do not mean some verses to be understand literally and some other verses metaphorically, but the same verses can be taken both literally and metaphorically.

I believe the Bible is to be taken metaphorically in all its words, but I have never laid my eyes upon Al Qu'ran, but I think that it should be taken metaphorically, since I believe there is not God. Even though it is a religious book, it carries a message to everyone, muslims or not, theists or not.

Salaam,
Real

[Yosemite]

I found this website pretty enlightening about Islam for me:

http://ourbeacon.com/

[MasterAdnin]

Well, that's what the Islamics were in the very beginning: not pure Islamics, they had Arabian roots. Besides, Islam adaptaded such traditions to their own.

So you're saying that people during Prophet Muhammad's(pbuh) time were not true Muslims, but later on there were true Muslims? Care to explain because this does not really make sense to me, no offense, just wondering how you came to this conclusion.

I believe the Bible is to be taken metaphorically in all its words, but I have never laid my eyes upon Al Qu'ran, but I think that it should be taken metaphorically, since I believe there is not God. Even though it is a religious book, it carries a message to everyone, muslims or not, theists or not.

Salaam,
Real

I agree with LestA. I meant to say that obviously some verses in the Qu'ran are literal such as "We cast down Iron for the many uses of man," because I do not know how that can be metaphorical. In the Qu'ran, you mus see it as both metaphorical and literal, but in order to do this, you must study it which is very important.

Salaam bro's,
Adnan

[LSJ]

I think some problems in Arab Salafism is when tradition becomes law. Like how the Hijab was optional, instituted by the original Muslims to protect women from rape during periods of persecution, and later to show that they are modest people. But after a while, it seems that some of the Arabs took that practice and taught it as though a woman must always wear one, and violently punishing those who do not. But forcing a woman to cover her head is not in the Qu'ran as far as I've read. Isn't violently forcing a women to do something like that against the Qu'ran's teachings?
So, although they claim to take the Qu'ran literally, they also augment its contents... It seems contradictory to me; to stick by the book, believing in Islam as how the original Muslims practiced it, but change a word here and there in practice, altering its meaning. Not all Salafis do that, but it appears fairly common in the Arab world. At least its definitely how the House of Saud institutes it, and the Taliban.

[AngryTitusPullo]

I think some problems in Arab Salafism is when tradition becomes law. Like how the Hijab was optional, instituted by the original Muslims to protect women from rape during periods of persecution, and later to show that they are modest people. But after a while, it seems that some of the Arabs took that practice and taught it as though a woman must always wear one, and violently punishing those who do not. But forcing a woman to cover her head is not in the Qu'ran as far as I've read. Isn't violently forcing a women to do something like that against the Qu'ran's teachings?

I believe the Hojab is more due to the nature of Arabia to cover the eyes and the nose from sands etc. Not just the women but men also covers their faces especially during sandstorm.

Well, the Qur'an do tell the women to wear modestly especially in the company of non-related males. The modestly part is up for interpretation though.

So, although they claim to take the Qu'ran literally, they also augment its contents... It seems contradictory to me; to stick by the book, believing in Islam as how the original Muslims practiced it, but change a word here and there in practice, altering its meaning. Not all Salafis do that, but it appears fairly common in the Arab world. At least its definitely how the House of Saud institutes it, and the Taliban.

They put the Hadith above the Qur'an. While I do not totally reject the Hadith I acknowledge the Hadith is not guarded against corruption and was not to be taken as the absolute law, unlike the Qur'an.

[jankren]

Well, the Qur'an do tell the women to wear modestly especially in the company of non-related males. The modestly part is up for interpretation though.

True, modesty standard is according to the culture. Besides, even no matter how covered women are there will still be horny mofos out there who will do anything with two or four legs He He He .

That is why God says in the beginning of the verse:

"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, for that is purer for them. God is fully aware of what you do.
And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts ..."
(Al Quran 24:30-31)

Therefore what a woman or a man wears is definitely not an excuse for anyone to sexually harass others for God tells us that we should control our own desire first. So if you dont like what you see then DONT LOOK!

Peace,

[jankren]

I somehow find it funny when people use the word 'Islamics' instead of 'Muslims'.

I found this website pretty enlightening about Islam for me:
http://ourbeacon.com/

There is a pretty good article in that site called 'The Criminals of Islam'.

[Sadreddine]

Indeed, many of the "barbaric" (in a westerner's view) practices usually considered as genuinely Islamic are a product of culture, and selective translation/understanding, more than objective scriptural statements.

Does this mean that salafism is reduced to arab/african muslims? It looks like Salafism is more adequate to those cultures.

About the Hijab issue, I don't consider it to be compulsory. I've read many translations of surah 24:31 and some of them mention merely to "cover the bosom in modesty". However it would be highly desirable to wear it while in mosque, basically for respect and to avoid annoying whisperings. I myself haven't addressed deeply this issue, since my girlfriend is a Christian (non-trinitarian, non-catholic, God bless her!).

[Yosemite]

I mean, what is covering the face. It's not written in the Quran that women have to hide the face. In the Quran is written that women should wear stuff that hides the bossom, and that their garnement should be long.

[Aristophanes]

In "There is no God but God" I believe the authour's thesis is that the hijab, etc...come from a misinterpretation of the scriptures.
My personal theory is that Islam adopted pagan practices into the religion, depending on the area, because, with conquests so vast over such a short time period, not compromising with the locals would have been slightly problematic. Which is probably one of the reasons there are so many different Islamic sects.

[Sadreddine]

Yep.

There is no mention of head covering in the Qur'an as far as I can tell. There is one verse however that mentions that there should be a "veil" between the believers and the Prophet's women, to avoid problems that would have shattered the Ummah in such an early stage.

That, and another verse encouraging women to "wrap their dresses all around themselves" so they are not annoyed (by men) when alone. Remember that in those times a one-piece large dress was the only female clothing, not jeans at all And certainly, risk of raping has been an important issue since humans are humans.

[Aristophanes]

Yep.

There is no mention of head covering in the Qur'an as far as I can tell. There is one verse however that mentions that there should be a "veil" between the believers and the Prophet's women, to avoid problems that would have shattered the Ummah in such an early stage.

That's the quote I was thinking of.

That, and another verse encouraging women to "wrap their dresses all around themselves" so they are not annoyed (by men) when alone. Remember that in those times a one-piece large dress was the only female clothing, not jeans at all And certainly, risk of raping has been an important issue since humans are humans.

Yup.