Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 1

message: Unfortunately, since there is a very long history of anonymous IP editors unilaterally trying to hijack this article, therefore major changes by anonymous IP editors which have not been previously discussed on this talk page, and are not obvious improvements over the current quasi-consensus version of the article, are almost guaranteed to be reverted. AnonMoos 03:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

message: This article has had to be reverted twice in the past few days after disparaging and non-neutral text was inserted (and then re-inserted) regarding so-called "neo-Salafis". Any user wishing to expand on this issue should try to approach the matter with a neutral point of view, as per Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Rhymeswithgod 11:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: User:24.193.225.39 continues to revert this article and add non-neutral text referring to the "self-righteousness" of the neo-Salafis and how it "sickens" those who come across them. I'd rather not get caught up in an edit war over this. Rhymeswithgod 08:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Point of View

message: 24.193.225.39,
Your edits on Salafi violate the Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. If you don't at least attempt to contribute in an encyclopedic manner, you will be banned from editing.
Regards,
172 09:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: The author of the Famous Salafis section obviously just grouped several of his idols as "Salafis," as quite clearly many of the luminaries listed are not Salafi, contrary to the author's clear misconceptions...
Every single one of the men named under the Famous Salafis section are salafis. One reason being is they all consider themself followers of Ahl Al Sunna Wal Jamaa. That is another way of refering to your yourself as a salafi. And another reason is maby because all Salafi scholers of Saudi Arabia, Yemen and any other place on earth accept their teachings, teach their teachings and admit to them as being Salafies.
How can they all be salafis? For example if Imam Jafer al-Sadiq was a salafi, then how come he has his own school of thought?
It doesnt make sence. Im only removing Imam Jafer's name, cos i dont know about the others. --Khalid! 18:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous Salafis?

message: Juan, I took out your little para on how Salafis believe that they have to do dawah to fight bidah. It sounds too POV to me, and it's basically saying "Salafis believe they have to spread their faith" in fancy words. I think the "spreading the faith" bit is amply covered in the article. 
The article as it stands is POV, very Salafi-leaning, and I am sure that there are many other Muslims and non-Muslims who would take issue with it.  I haven't wanted to intervene, because I'm not sure that I really know all that much about the various currents of Salafism. But someone else is sure to object -- just think about all the anti-Islamic bigots who are busy in articles like Jihad, Islam, and Muhammad, and what they would make of this article if they knew enough about Islam to realize that there are Salafis! Zora 04:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  JuanMuslim and dawah 

message: This article needs to be cleaned up to conform with a NPOV... please don't use this page to proselytize for the "salafi dawah."
POV sign added. "Wahhabi was the label given to the Salafis of Saudi Arabia, and now the world, by Sufis and Shia in which their Bidah (innovation) were shown to them." ? --Striver 10:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alai, your point about no-one self-identifying as wahhabi needs to be made. But the fact is that wahhabi is a term that gets used and we need to explain what people who do use the term are referring to when they use it (including a note that it is derogatory) in a NPOV. Ashmoo 02:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'd agree that point should indeed be made, I don't see how this comment relates to mine.  My present objection to the current state is that it's nothing but objection to the use of the term, with no indication as to why anyone ever uses the term, or justifies using it, or argues that it's descriptive of some distinction from "mainstream" Salafism.  Alai 02:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I messed up reading. I think we are actually in agreeance on what needs to be changed. Regards, Ashmoo 03:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem;  I think so too.  Alai 05:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the liberty of wordsmithing the section on Note on Salafi vs. Wahabi vs. Qutubi for better flow and NPOV.  Note that "Wahhabi" is misspelled in the title.  I would like to fix that, but I don't know how without messing up the links to that section. Epepke 11:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Back Up

message: The section on "modern usage" has an inappropriate strong apologistic slant, and the section on Wahhabi vs. Salafi (apparently formerly titled "Note on Salafi vs. Wahabi vs. Qutubi") is now blank.  AnonMoos 23:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Since I didn't receive any reply to my comments, I restored the section "Modern usage" to its state as of "21:01, 2 August 2005" (before IP 207.74.176.232 started banging on it in a big way), and restored the section "Salafi vs. Wahabi vs. Qutubi" (which several other articles link to) to its state as of "07:40, 13 June 2005" (just before it had the soul sucked out of it).  Since in the previous  version of the article (before I edited it), the "Salafi vs. Wahhabi" section was completely blank, while the "Modern usage" section had been reduced to apologistic quotes from Saudi Kings about how Wahhabism never existed, this restoration will provide a much more solid basis for moving forward.  AnonMoos 16:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Action

message: No matter how many times the anonymous IP person trims away most of the article, and replaces it with a paragraph with a quote from a Saudi king about how Wahabbism never existed, it's still nonsense which doesn't belong in this article. AnonMoos 21:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous IP vandalism

message: The article lacks clarity in defining the origins of the Salafi dawah. I mean it doesn't mention a clear relationship to the Hanbali madhab. And, the basis/foundamentals of the madhab is essentually Hanbali, because the founders of Salafi dawah were Hanbali. Hence, like the other schools of thought, they all share similar fundamental ideas regarding fiqh. For example, these different madhab accept certain fundamental concepts regarding various aspects of aqeeda. So, if you could mention, some of the characteristics of the hanbali madhab that would work well - very literal, for example, then mention how that influences with salafi thought. And, also the various scholars had tremendous respect for one another. They're all known for making statements, such as "If he is correct then that is my madhab." Thus, Salafis don't reject the founders of the various madhab. In fact, they consider them to be Salafis, because they fit into their definition of a salafi. The Salafis do, however, reject the direction/evolution that the the various madhab took. Hope that helps. --JuanMuslim 06:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The founding of Salafi dawah

message: In case anyone wonders -- there are two people reverting the article to the old version, which I believe puts forward Salafi dogma as if it were "the truth". IMHO, it's extremely POV. I can understand why the anon is doing it -- it's a matter of conviction. I'm guessing that Harpit is doing it because he's angry at me, but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you could explain, Harprit, why you think the other version is better? Zora 08:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: Wahhabi is a term used by non-Salafis, usually in a disparaging way, to refer to Salafist persons and especially those in Saudi Arabia. It means someone who follows ibn Abdul-Wahhab. 
Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida called themselves Salafi, but are termed by others as Modernists. Abduh's usage of Salafi was to emphasize his view that the Modernist interpretations were actually more authentic than the contemporary Traditionalist interpretations because they echoed the openness and beleifs of the first Muslims. (Citations forthcoming)
: I have the strong impression that the various movements all called Salafi (as in, a return to the fundamentals) were not necessarily linked in the beginning, and that ibn Abd al-Wahhab's movement was rather different from the other Salafi movements. The other Salafis weren't killing and looting other Muslims, for example, whereas the Saudis took Wahhabism as a license for raiding and conquest. It seems to me that the Saudis are covering that up these days and prefer to be just "Salafis" as a way of obscuring an unsavory past. So in that sense it might be useful to distinguish between the Salafis that would profit from this past, and those that would repudiate it. Zora 01:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Terms versus Self-Naming 

message: I added in "Salaf on Khawarij" feeling that this page needed it. So i hope nobody takes it off without a good reason.
: I took it off because it seemed to be a personal essay on why Salafis should not rebel against duly constituted government, thus an attack on the jihadis who call themselves Salafis and say that the contemporary Muslim world is living in jahiliyyah, and that governments like those of Egypt or Saudi Arabia must be overthrown. 
: I agree that the article is confusing right now and I am trying to figure out how to rewrite it. The problem is that a great many people  want to use the term Salafi to describe themselves, and want to define Salafi in such a way that they and their views are RIGHT, the TRUE ISLAM as practiced by the Salaf, and the other self-proclaimed Salafis are wrong, are fake Salafis. So we need a catalogue of all the people and movements who have called themselves Salafis, or Salafiyyah, and descriptions of their beliefs. Wikipedia can't take sides on who is a Salafi and who isn't. Zora 23:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of mainstream Sunnis call the Wahhabes "Kharijites" -- I wonder if that has any relation to this?  Anyway, it seems disproportionate to the length of the rest of the article... AnonMoos 18:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: It should be noted that one of the arguement about salafism/wahabism/(Non Madhab confirmation) is about the open (armed or spoken) rebellion against eachother. The present day government of Saudi Arabia defines anyone who is rebellious ( armed or spoken or written) agaisnt the Kingdom to be a non salafi and labelled a khawarij/Ikhwanee etc. like Bin laden, clerics like Sheikh Safar al Hawali and Salman al Oudha  and Dr Saad al Fagih and that they should be reformed with or without force, the former being the better choice. This itself is hypocritical of those Sheikhs within the kingdom ( not naming few of them since they are deceased I my self a muslim ) who were and do still label Bin laden, Safar al Hawali, Salman Oudha and Dr Saad al Fagih as non salafist/non Wahabist but rather calling them heretics with labels of Ikhwani/Khawarig/Qutbist. 
As a matter of fact armed struggle was done by their Sheikh abdl Wahab and the house of Saud against other tribes and muslims who were ruling Nejd, Medina Munawwara and other parts of Arabia who were named idol worshippers, grave worshippers or followng unorthodox ways in Islam by Saud and Sheikh Abdl Wahhab. So in conclusion we could say that Laden, Shaikh Hawali, al Oudha and Dr Fgih are the real salafist or to a one who doesnt know whats the difference netween the two true wahhabists. -- unsigned comment by User:Rezza 01
People around Najd in the era of Muhammad ibn Abd AL Wahhab did a lot of shirk. The current Saudi king does not. Huge difference there !  (imran)
: Just speaking for myself, I'd say that worshipping money, and wasting it on luxury instead of providing for the poor, is shirk of highest order. Zora 11:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The hypocritical wars

message: Someone changed and added to this article quite a bit. While I'm tempted to revert it back, there might be some useful information in there. The "new" article may not have a NPOV, so I added the NPOV tag. I'll let the people here sort this out. — TheKMantalk 06:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have some useful information in it somewhere, but it was an unbalanced missionary tract which replaced and ignored all the contributions that other people have made to this article.  There's a bad history of people attempting to radically rewrite this article -- if there's good information in User:Efxco's missionary tract, then it's his job to extract it in a form which is acceptable on Wikipedia. AnonMoos 17:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added NPOV

message: The intro currently refers to "an adherent of a contemporary movement in Sunni Islam that is sometimes called Salafism or Wahhabism." I thought it was fairly well-estanlished that the two are not the same thing, even if there is nowadays a considerable overlap. As far as I recall, the Encyclopaedia of Islam article on Salafiyya starts with al-Afghani. Wahabiyya starts over a century earlier. 
This needs to be fixed. Palmiro | Talk 11:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Salifism and Wahhabism do have different historical origins, but nowadays it is suspected that there are people who call themselves Salafis almost solely to avoid being tarred with the rather mixed reputation of official and semi-official Saudi Islam. AnonMoos 01:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree completely. The article really needs a good spring-cleaning and rewrite. I just haven't had the time ... nor do I feel completely up on the history. It's so recent, and so contentious, with, as you say, a contingent of folks who are determined to distort and hide. I'd feel on much surer ground if I could read Arabic and had a good collection of books and pamphlets produced AT THE TIME . Primary sources, not just access to English histories based on someone else's Arabic reading. Zora 02:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro: Salafiyya and Wahhabiyya

message: The word Salafi is a very general term, there's no organization that started this ideology per se. The only thing that makes a person Salafi is that if he refers to himself as a Salafi.
Returning to the pure Islam of the early days is not enough to define it; this definition applies to many non-Salafi groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
There's no reference which defines who's a slafai and who's not. 
Traditionally, a Salafi is one who follows the fatawa of Scholars of Saudi Arabia, and this maybe a stereotype, but what really distinguishes Salafis these days is their view that growing a long beard (and wearing a short dishdasha) is mandetory, they would engage in hot debates on this subject and won't accept any other opinion regarding it. Although this may no longer be true ..
So, because of this absense of the definition, there are today at-least three different groups which call themselves Salafis:
* Jihadi Salafis: (i.e. Al-Qaeda), an example of this is Osama Bin Laden.
* Jamya Salafis: they hate Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, they particularily hate Saiyed Qutb and Hasan Albanna. They also see that there should be no Jihad in this time, because muslims are too weak to fight. An example of this is Rabei Al-Madkhaly.
* Moderate Salafis: they don't necessarily hate Al-Qaeda, but they condemned many of their actions. They also look at the Muslim Brotherhood movement in a positive way, they share most of their views with regard to Jihad (mainly, that Jihad should only be against Foriegn Occupation, and not turn into a civil war). An example of this is Salman Al-Odah. 
Hasan aljudy 12:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Salafism" is not well defined .. 

message: Muslims may think that hadith are the words of Muhammad, but few non-Muslims academics do. You can't state your belief as if it were a fact. Zora 03:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadith 

message: I finally did it -- completely rewrote and reorganized the article. It still needs lots of work, but I hope that there's a framework for adding more material. Also, it needs references, badly. I spent several hours on this, and thought I should get it up and worry about the references later. It at least isn't any worse than the article it replaces. 
Personally, I don't like Salafism. But I hope that the Salafi editors here will see that I have done my best to be neutral. Zora 02:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list still needs a rewrite. See my previous notes on it. Also, Muslim Brotherhood was influenced by Salafism, but it did not adopt it. Only some of its members did.
--Islamic 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete rewrite 

message: AnonMoos, you restored some material that I deleted from the Saudi section. If you want to keep it, do, but move it up to the general discussion of contemporary Salafism. I deleted it because it applies to Salafis in general, not just Saudi Salafis.
One thing that might reward investigation is the acrobatics required for Saudi clerics to insist on obedience to a Saudi state that many Saudis believe is corrupt, when the clerics can't fall back on the usual pious Sunni exhortation to submit rather than cause fitna. Wahhabis were all about fitna and conquering other Muslims who were less than perfect Muslims in their eyes. Is the apparent trend to downplaying Wahhabi history and stressing Salafism part of a campaign to restore the traditional Sunni command to submit? This is all wild speculation on my part -- I'd have to read and listen to contemporary Saudi teachings to be sure -- but maybe there's something there. 
Dang, now that I've opened the article up, there's room for lots of interesting detail. Zora 03:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but on this particular article, I've learned to be very very suspicious of unexplained deletions of paragraphs or whole long sentences by editors whom I don't know, and it looked like someone else deleted it, and you forgot to add it back in... AnonMoos 15:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much detail in the Saudi article 

message: We're now having a tussle over the article, as several Salafi editors try to expunge anything they see as controversial or derogatory, and remove mention of people they don't regard as "real" Salafis. What we need to see from Izaak and Islami is references and some explanation of just WHO shares their beliefs. Guys, are you here representing yourselves, or are you part of groups? What do your groups believe? 
We also need more references to the academic views. I need to do some reading and pin down stuff that I just "know" from general reading. So all of us need to do some work. Zora 04:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As I expected 

message: Under the section "Contemporary Salafis", I find:
*  Other Salafis believe that it is permissible, even required, for believers to engage in violent jihad to overthrow oppressive regimes, even if they claim to be Islamic. One of the strongest proponents for violence was Sayyed Qutb, an Egyptian member of the Muslim Brotherhood. After the Egyptian Brotherhood assassinated the Egyptian leader, the Brotherhood was suppressed and Qutb went to jail. There he wrote a long treatise on political Islam called Milestones. This book was and is widely read, and has had a strong influence on various Islamist or jihadi movements. Hence these Muslims are sometimes called Qutbis. They are often linked with terrorism. The teacher Abdullah Azzam is also said to be a proponent of violent jihad. 
I think there's a confusion here between Salafism and Qutbism, which happens to be deviation from Salafism. My understanding is that Salafis usually do not support violence. Comments?
: YOU think Qutbism is a deviation. The Qutbis think that they are the only ones truly following the way of the Salaf (who were, indeed, engaged in the violent conquest of the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia). 
: What we really need here is citations instead of generalizations. You need to get quotes from Salafi scholars who say that Qutbis are deviationists (quotes given in original and English translation, with references, so that they can be confirmed). I need to get quotes from the Qutbis proving that they consider themselves the true Salafis. Sigh. More reading for me! 
: I've just finished reading Marc Sageman on Understanding Terror Networks and that actually has a good outline of the development of Salafi thought. Though the end chapter, on "What we need to do", makes me want to say, per Tonto, "What do you mean WE, white man?"  Zora 20:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Salafism vs. Qutbism

message: Assalamu Alaiykom
Alhamdulillah for everything, and peace and blessings be upon the prophets of Allah and their followers and the righteous until the last day, ameen.
Reading over a lot of these responses has influenced me to try to write something that is constructive and informative on this page.  I was hesitant because so many people can change words, and misunderstand what I write.  I will try, and Allah is my witness, to be most honest and to try to convey the message as best as possible.
First of all there have been many attempts to linguistically define Salafi or Salfeeyah, which have been good Alhamdulillah.  I'd like to add an example to that in order to allow all readers to fully understand the meaning. The last letter of the word Salafi in arabic is called a yaay of nasab (ي).  Hopefully that arabic letter shows.  For those who understand the language, they know that this letter is added to words in order to show affiliate/belonging/orgination.  For example, some one who is from America is called American.  This additional n at the end allows for the person to be described to the connection that they have (racially I guess) to the country they are from/born in, etc.  The same for a person from Egypt, we would call them an Egyptian.  The additional ian at the end tells us that they are FROM this area, that is their racial affiliatation.  In arabic the word America would be America and Americi would mean American.  Misr for Egypt and Misri for Egyptian.  That additional "i" or in arabic the yaay (ي) gives that person an affiliation to that country.
Now to investigate the meaning of the word Salafi.  It is the same concept, the last "i", or in arabic (ي), gives the nasab (affiliation) to the Salaf.  Who are the Salaf?  They are the first three generations of Muslims who followed the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.  They are known as the Salafus-Saleeh (Pious Predecessors).  This is a generally understood meaning.  However, the word Salaf itself, outside the religious context, means those before us.  My Dad and Mom are my Salaf, and I am their Khalaf. Allah says in the Qur'an in Surat Al-Baqarah (2) verse 30 
" And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth." They said: "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks (Exalted be You above all that they associate with You as partners) and sanctify You." He (Allâh) said: "I know that which you do not know."
In Arabic the word  خَلِيفَةً which means a creature (creation) that generates offspring.  From that we know that we are the Khalaf of those who came before us, the offspring, those who follow, those who came after.  It is common sense really.  Salaf are those before us, Khalaf are those after us. So our parents are our Salaf, and our kids are our Khalaf.  Now in the Religous context we say Salaf are the first three generations, also known as the Salafus-Saleeh as mentioend previously.  And Salafi, gives affiliation to those three generations, and specifically to the Manhaj (ciriculum) of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and his companions.
A Salafi is not a person who follows a certain group, or anything like that.  Salfeeyah itself is not a group.  Allah sent ONE final messenger and ordered all Mankind to follow this messenger.  Who ever obeys him and worships Allah alone will enter Paradise (may Allah make us all from those in Paradise, ameen) and whoever disobeys him will enter Hell-Fire.  This is indicated in the Hadith by Abu Hurayrah in Sahih Muslim where the Prophet Sallahu Aleeyhi wa salim said, "All of my Ummah will enter paradise except those who refuse." The companions asked, "And who will refuse Oh Messenger of Allah." And so the prophet replied "Who ever obeys me, enters Paradise, and who ever disobeys me... they have refused."  Many people however take this to mean anyone who disobeys a single command of the Prophet Muhammad will enter the Hell Fire forever.  This is not the correct understanding of the Hadith.  There are many people who do not follow the Prophet in many matters which have been obligated.  These people are sinful and will be punished for their sins.  If they are Muslims, they will enter the Paradise after they have been purified of their sins in the Hell-fire (we ask Allah to keep us out of the hell-fire, ameen).  
All Salafis are Muslim, but not all Muslims are Salafi... but they should be.  Every single group in the world has to be looked at carefully and examined.  Everything that adheres to that which the Prophet came with (Qur'aan and Sunnah) is followed, accepted, resepected, even if it comes from the worst of Enemies and greatest of liars and deviants.  An example of this is in the Qur'aan in Surat An-Naml (27) verse 34 
"She said: "Verily! Kings, when they enter a town (country), they despoil it, and make the most honourable amongst its people low. And thus they do."
The Queen of Sheebah (Saba') received a letter from Prophet Soliman inviting them to Islam.  She asked her advisors what to do, and the replied with their advise.  Then she said the verse stated above. The point to focus on is the last sentence "And thus they do."  This woman was not a Muslim, rather she was a kafir and Allah the All-Mighty said "And thus they do."  This is an agreement of Allah the All-Mighty to the words of this woman who had not yet accepted Islam.  Therefore it is proof that that truth is taken from ANYONE, if it is the truth.  There is also a lengthy hadith in which Abu Huraryrah was told by a man that he will teach him the best verse in the Qur'aan.  He taught him ayatul Kursi (Surat Al-Barqarah verse 255) telling him it will protect him (Abu Huraryrah).  He told the prophet of this at the end of the hadith to which the prophet asked him "Do you know who it was?" -- "It was the shaytaan, he told you the truth and he is a liar."  And so the truth may come from any place. Side note: it is always best to stick with the books and scholars that teach the pure truth in order to make sure that your deen is pure.
Everything that conflicts/negates that which the Prophet came with (Qur'aan and Sunnah) is rejected, denied, left alone, even if it comes from the best of Scholars or the best of the Companions of the Prophet even.  As Imam Maalik said, everyone can be taken from and rejected except the man in this grave, and he was by the grave of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.  Ibn Abbas, the great scholar and cousin of the Prophet, one day said to the People "Allah's Messenger said... such and such" and the people replied "We heard Abu Bakr and Umar say."  And so he said to them "I fear that stones will fall from the sky, I say Allah's messenger says and you say ABU BAKR AND UMAR??"  He is not insulting the companions, on the contrary if Abu Bakr or Umar heard these people they would also reject their sayings.  Nothing goes above the word of Allah and his Messenger.  Allah says in Surat Al-Hujurat verse 2 
"O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk as you speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds should be thwarted while you perceive not"
Many of the Scholars and Mufassirin have said this is regarding all matters of religion, not just phsyically standing infront of the Messenger and raising one's voice.  Rather, if a person says that Allah's messenger says such and such, no one should go against this saying, this is like raising the voice.  Of course, one may disagree with the hadith or even the verse from the Qur'an if it has been abrigated.  For example, not visiting the graves, one man may say to another man you cannot visit the graves because the prophet ordered us not to.  If the second man disagrees he is not raising is voice or being defiant, rather, he is following a hadith that has abrogated that hadith.  Many of today's students of knowledge jump to call out people who do not follow hadiths and verses from the quran, even though they may be abrogated or have more than one interpretation by the scholars of the Religion.  For example, someone who goes down to prostrate in the prayer with their knees first.  There is another group of scholars that say this is inncorrect, as Shaykh Nasirud-Deen Al Albani as mentioned in his Propeht's Prayer Described text.  Many students of knowledge will read one book and call out those who put their knees on the ground first before their hands.  However, one of the other great Scholars, Shaykh Ibn Baaz, has mentioned that it should be the knees first, and this is also the understanding of Imam Ahul-Sunnah Ahmed Ibn Hanbal.  However, since they have not studied, they cause trouble and call out those who practice another accepted understanding of the same hadith.  The understanding is based on sure knowledge from the Qur'aan and Sunnah, and so it is accepted as an opinion.  I say this in order to clear myself of any evil people may do saying that they think what they are doing is an acceptable action in Islam, rather any opinion in Islam is only acceptable if it based on clear knowledge from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah.  And it is not for anyone to come out with an opinion except a scholar.  This is due to their indepth knowledge of the Qur'aan and sunnah, for which they have a much broader understanding than someone who knows some hadiths and some verses here and there.  Since opinions and rulings are not based soley on one hadith or one verse of the qur'aan, the scholars are the ones to give their opinions on a matter with their indepth (broad) knowledge of the deen.  Also, to clear myself of any misunderstandings, this does not mean that a ruling or knowledge cannot come from ONE single hadith (ahad) or from one verse in the quran.  On the contrary, as the one of the 4 Imams said, if the hadith is saheeh (authenticated , known to be correctly attributed to the prophet) then it is my mathaab.  The prophet himself sent one companion, Mu'aath ibn Jabal, to Yemen so that he can preach Islam to them.  The fact that he sent only one person indicates that if the hadith is narrated only from one companion, then we take it and love it and follow it. 
Sorry for the tangent but I believe that those important matters should be covered.
Many of the "Salafi" students of knowledge have taken it upon themselves to call many groups that are not completely adherant to the Salafi Manhaj (Manhaj AsSalafeeyah) to be of the 73 Sects mentioned in the Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad.  The hadith itself indicates that there is one saved sect, "those who are upon what I am upon and my companions."  We ask Allah the most high to make us from amongst them, ameen.  Now, every group, every sect, every invented mathaab and manhaaj must be compared and weighed against that which the prophet came with (Manhaaj of the Prophet, Manhaaj of the Salaf, Manhaaj As-Salafi, whatever you want to call it).  Let us call it X for simplicity.  So if group Y says ABC we match it against X (that which the prophet came with), if it adheres to it, then we accept and follow and we have wala (association) with the one who says this from that angle.  However, if it conflicts with it, we reject it, even if it is from the GREATEST scholars in the world.  
Side note: The 4 Imams have some issues that are not in agreement with the Sunnah of the prophet due to ahadeeth that they have not received or ones that they have thought to be authentic and have later been deemed weak.  The prophet said that the scholar who makes ijtihad (makes an opinion based on knowledge) and is right gets two rewards, where as if they are wrong they get one.  So we say about our beloved scholars that if they are right, they get 2 rewards, if they are wrong they get 1 since they make their opinions based on the knowledge from the Qur'aan and sunnah.  This is why we cannot adhere to any specific group, mathaab, etc because EVERYONE makes mistakes in Islam except the prophet since it is revelation from Allah.  And what is better than to follow the one who is perfect in this religion?  What is better than to follow the one who Allah commanded us to copy and follow?  We love all the scholars of the truth, and because of this love we follow that which agrees with what the prophet came with, and reject that which doesn't while asking Allah to reward them and forgive them for any mistakes they may have made.  Imagine if someone had said that there is no Operating System that supports 64-bit processors. They did not get the knowledge that there are operating systems that support it.  So, eventually they recieve sure knowledge that they are wrong.  Should they change their ways and accept the truth? YES of course!  And those who listen to them, and learn from them should also change what they think and make it according to the truth.  Those who follow a mathaab or any group or whatever conflicts with the qur'aan and sunnah should ponder on this example and think... why am I following it when clearly the truth is other than this?
Another important side note: Many people will say, yes we follow this hadith, etc, and this verse and this is what it means.  However, the meaning is other than that.  The meaning must be understood to how the prophet practiced as well as the context for revelation of the verse or hadith.  Also, we go to the understanding of the best generation, the Companions.  This is indicated in the qur'aan surat An-Nisa (4) verse 115
"And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad SAW) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers' way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell - what an evil destination. "
The believers are the companions of the prophet.  In Imam Al-Barbaharee's Explanation of the Creed he goes in depth with this (visit .... for a free download).  It is essential that our understanding is that of the best people, the companions.  The prophet himself said, the best of PEOPLE is my generation, then the one after, then the one after.  He stopped at three generations, and these are the generations considered to the Salafussalih since the prophet himself gave clear indication that they are the best generations.  These generations are that of the Companions - Sahabah (for example, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, Ali, etc), then the Followers of the Companions - Tabeein (for example Sufyan Al-Thawhree, Qatadah, Mujjahid, Al-Hassan Al-Basri, etc), then the Followers of the Followers - Tabeein al-Tabeein (for example, the 4 Imams, Al-Bukhari, Muslim etc).  They are all considered to be from the Salaf.  Those who follow them, are considered to be upon the way of the Salaf (salafi, on the salafi manhaaj, adhering to manhaaj as-salafeeyah).  All of those terms are the same and used intermingled.  However, today we have people who claim to be followers and only show this externally by growing their beards and shortening their pants and thobes.  It is fair and honest to note that these actions are obligatory on the man in Islam; this is derived from many authentic ahadeeth which the prophet commanded leaving the beard grow and trimming the mustache - in fact every single companion of the prophet (more than 100,000 left their beards to grow and only two ever trimmed what ever was more than fist length according to their understanding of a verse in the Quraan).  Also, the prophet warned of the person who out of arrogance drags their pants/thobe (loose clothing in general) below their ankles, that Allah will not look at them.  He also mentioned in other hadiths that if the garment is below the ankles out of arrogance or not, that portion of the body is in hell fire (ie. the foot) and he also mentioned in other sahih hadiths that that action (sibaal) in itself is a form of arrogance.  (Please refer to the text on this matter by Dr. Saleh As-Saleeh at http://www.understand-islam.net). Not to lengthen the discussion, these individuals only take that which is from the external feature and do not change their hearts and actions.  We say to them, to be Salafi is to follow the prophet in EVERYTHING (Beliefs, manners, characters, actions, WORSHIP, Halal/Haram, etc).  So they are not practicing the correct Salafi manners and characters and we advise them sincerely.  The prophet himself said "There is nothing which is heavier upon the balance than the good character" (Reported by Ahmad - Authentic/good Hadith) and also "Two characteristics are not found together in a hypocrite: good manners and understanding of the Religion." (Reported by At-Tirmidhi -Authentic/good hadith).  I would advise for everyone to buy the book "40 Hadith on the Islamic personality" or to download it from ....  I'm sorry I cannot give the best reference to the ahadeeth since I do not have the original book, however all the ahadeeth in the book are authentic or good and Allah knows best.
And so with this said, we must follow and adhere to the quran and sunnah inside and outside (appereance, beliefs, manners, worship).  As the great scholar Ibn Uthaymeen says in his explanation of the first Hadith of RiyadusSaliheen (Deeds are by intentions).  Two people are performing the same exact act of worship (prayer).  They go up and down, etc, but each one is different in intention.  One of their worship is amazing, and will be accepted and loved by Allah while the other is the reverse.  This is even if they are doing the same exact actions!  So the intention makes a huge difference, it can be the difference between sincere worship and shirk (associating partners with Allah). He also goes on to quote the hadith from Sahih Muslim Narrated by Aisha that the prophet said, "Who ever introduces anything in this matter of ours (the religion) then it is rejected" and in a narration "Whoever does an action not recommended (approved) by us then it is rejected."  So with these two hadiths we must see what our actions are like.  Is the intention correct... ok then one of the conditions for the action to be accepted has been achieved.  Now, what about the action itself.  Does it follow the qur'aan and sunnah?  If yes, then it is accepted, if not, then it is rejected.  Allah orders us to worship him in a certain way, that which the prophet came with.  So we must do it according to the texts, otherwise it is REJECTED and considered an innovation, even if the doer has the best intentions in the world.  Can you imagine, if we bring someone who loves humanity, and is a great person.  Can they perform surgery if they do not have the knowledge?  And if they do, they must follow perscribed procedures (anestisia, etc).  If they do not, then they will kill the patient.  Similarly is the actions in the religion, they will kill your worship if you do not do them according to the texts (qur'aan and sunnah).  It is also a form of obidence and worship to Allah to follow the messenger and it is what Allah loves.  This is clear in surat Al-Imran (3) verse 31
"Say (O Muhammad to mankind): "If you (really) love Allah, then follow me (i.e. Muhammad), Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
From the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer "Al-Hasan Al-Basri and several scholars among the Salaf commented, 'Some people claimed that they love Allah. So Allah tested them with this Ayah;'"  It is also known as the verse of exposure, exposing those who think or claim they love Allah.  So if we really love Allah, then we follow his messenger Muhammad over anyone else, and this is the true Salafi way, and this is what Salafis preach, and many other people to in that accord.  The best example is the prophet, so we follow him and adhere to him.  It is clear in the testimony of faith (Shahadatayn) La illah il Allah Muhammad Rasoul Allah.  There is no God worthy of Worship except Allah and Muhammad is his prophet and messenger.  THe last aspect means that, Muhammad is the guide that Allah sent.  To get to the straight path, follow him the one who Allah sent with the truth and guidance.  To follow him is to be on the sirat Al mustaqeem (the straight path) and we are warned of following other paths and groups in the Qur'aan and many many many hadiths.  So one must as themselves... do I love Allah?  Ok, so do I put anyone else in front of the prophet, any Imam, shaykh scholars, my desires, my parents, my wife, etc.  If so, then the love is not pure, and love must be pure for Allah this is a form of tawheed.  No one is in front of Allah and his messenger, and no one knows what is best for us more than Allah and his messenger Muhammad.
And finally I end and say Salafi is not "us", "we", or "our" dawah.  It is the Dawah and way of the Prophet and his companions and no one has the right to claim it or prevent anyone from following it.  It is the straight path Allah has sent down.  It is not the manhaaj of people from Saudi, or anything like that.  It is not the manhaaj of those who adhere to Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymeeyah or his students, or any scholar.  Rather, these great shaykhs adhere to that manhaaj, the way of the prophet and his companions.  The 4 Imams adhere to it and this is verifiable in their books and their teachings.  As they have said many times, if the hadith is sahih than that is my mathaab or if my saying is different than the sunnah, then take the sunnah. Also, if the hadith is correct, then throw my saying against the wall.  And I end with a story of Imam Maalik in which he was giving a fatwa session and made a fatwa based on knowledge.  And so, a good student of knowledge, with great manners spoke to him after the session and said, Oh Shaykh we have a hadith in this matter.  And the humble Imam Maalik asked, What is it.  And so he said on the authority of 1,2,3,4 (naming the chain of narrators) such and such matter.  And so Imam Maalik replied, this hadith is sahih and I did not know of it until now.  And the student goes on to say that the next fatwa session, the Imam went against his OWN saying and told the people to inform everyone that the saying has changed and praised the student saying that he was his teacher.  This is the way of the people who love the sunnah, and those who love the followers of the sunnah and the scholars of the sunnah.  We love the truth more than our selves and our teachers and our parents and everyone in the world.  So to truely show that love we must adhere to that which is revealed in the texts (qur'aan and sunnah) even if it goes against our desires.  As the prophet said, "None of you truely believes until their desires are that which I came with."  So we will not attain the high levels of eeman (faith) until we follow the truth, and go against our own evil desires.
I ask Allah to accept from me.  Anything correct I said is from Allah, and anything in correct is from my self and the Shaytaan.  I seek refuge with Allah from the shaytaan for myself and for everyone out there.  I hope that this has touched the heart.  Wallahi, and Allah is my witness, I do this for the pleasure of Allah not for my own desires or for anyone to follow that which I believe, etc.  Rather I do it so that people can be informed and follow the prophet Muhammad so that Allah can love them and forgive their deeds and admit them to Paradise.  I ask Allah that we are all guided to the truth and admitted to Paradise, ameen.
Assalamu Alaiykom
--Abu Mahdhoorah 01:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Their Da'wah or Their Manhaaj - What is "Salafi" really 

message: MR, it's very clear that you reject the Qutbis and Al-Qaeda and believe that this is not "real" Salafism. But that's your own opinion. Other Salafis don't share it. WP has to be neutral; we give all notable views. That means published views, widespread views, etc. You would do better to find statements about involvement of Salafis in politics by well-known Salafi teachers (presumably the ones you follow) and give us the original statement (in Arabic) and a translation into English. We need the Arabic so that other editors can check your translation. There's a big difference between saying "X is true" and "Sheykh Y said X" and giving a reference. The first says that WP thinks X is true, and it would be hotly contested by the anti-X people. The second version just says "Y believes X" and even the anti-X people would have to accept that as true.
There's also a problem with saying that Bin Baz and other sheykhs "privately" opposed Saudi policies. What is the authority for that? You could be lying or mistaken. We don't know who you are, or what contacts you have, or how reliable they are. If someone has written a book in Arabic on "My years as Bin Baz' secretary and how he actually hated the royals" :) then we could quote that book. Then people who disagreed could attack the veracity of the writer. However, they would have to agree that the writer did, in fact, say those things.
The Salafi article is not all that good, primarily because we don't have enough references, quotes, and citations. You could put your views out there, without breaking any Wikipedia policies, if you just help us give a closer and more detailed view of the currents within contemporary Salafism/Wahhabism. Zora 00:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To MuslimRevivalist 

message: I went through the article and made various copyedits for style. I don't think that any of them will be controversial. However, I did restore one thing that someone had removed: a note on the Salafi style of transliteration. I think this is useful information! 
First of all, I've read a few Muslim web discussion forums where Muslims who take a more traditionalist approach are discussing how to avoid buying Salafi literature. One guy wonders how he can tell which books to buy, which sheikhs to follow, etc., and another advises him to avoid anything published in Saudi, anything that's too fancy (Saudi money), and anything using that system of transliteration. 
Second, I have spent a lot of time googling for Muslim opinions on this, that, and the other thing. I have to figure out just where a particular scholar, or website, fits into the big picture. Most Salafi sites and teachers do not identify themselves as Salafi! It's just, "We're teaching pure Islam, we're just Muslims." You have to read carefully to see the Salafi background. I don't like this! It isn't honest! Though I must say that the craziest thing I've seen lately is an aspiring Shi'a public speaker who doesn't identify himself as Shi'a. I wonder if any Sunni mosques have hired him to speak at a conference, thinking he is a Sunni. 
You have to admit that it's more than a little crazy that so many people are claiming to be "just Muslims" and at the same time takfiring each other right and left, to the point of killing each other as heretics. It would be nicer all round if people stated their preferences honestly AND agreed to disagree. Zora 09:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora's copyedits 

message: That tag has been up for months. I think the editor who added it hasn't been here the whole time. Is there anyone here who feels that it is still needed? If I don't hear any complaints in a day or so, I want to remove the tag. Zora 09:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need for the POV tag, but the article still needs a lot of editing. --Islamic 13:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think before we remove the POV tag, we should sort out the list of who is and is not salafi.  I tried to make some recommendations on the name list including shortening it to only the very selective list. I would hope that could be sorted out before we take off the POV tag.ZaydHammoudeh 04:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your saying: "We get anons adding the name of someone who must be their teacher". There should be no red links, and I also suggest that we move most of the Contemporary Salafis to thier geographical sections, leaving the Notable Salafis list for poeple that shaped the Salfi why. Meaning, some books that made an influance. --Islamic 06:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah there are definitely anonymous edits on both this article as well as the wahhabi one. I noticed for some articles they locked down the articles to prevent edits from those who are not usual editors.  I think this it is worth considering for the Salafi article as well.  I reorganized the list some.  I tried to leave those who have had a lasting influence on the Salafi movement and were scholars.  If I was too selective or particular, please feel free to comment.  I will add descriptions of what those whom I know about, but I don't know anything about Abu Bakr Bashir or Ahl-e-hadith from pakistan beyond the little I heard on TV, so someone else should do that.  Similarly, I think the article would be better served by removing the notable salafi list (as most of the names are duplicates) and just putting the description of each person in the country section.ZaydHammoudeh 21:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok its done.  No one else seems to have been up and arms about it so I hope we can keep it this way.  ZaydHammoudeh 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing POV tag 

message: Many scholars named as "notable Salafis" are simply not Salafis. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, for example, was not a Salafi- although he is respected greatly and regarded as a primary inspiration for their movement, Salafis did not exist at the time of these classical scholars; Taymiyyah is respected by orthodox Sunnis as well as Salafis. The same applies for Ibn al-Qayyim etc. who were all classical Islamic scholars before the inception of the Salafi movement. Most of these classical scholars wre all part of Tariqas and practised Tasawwaf! Salafis claim them as theirs, but so do all other Sunni Muslims! I have removed many of their names from the lists. Tanzeel 16:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a false claim. The topic is discussed over and over until we have reached this page and removed the POV tag. Don't bring the page again under the disputed status. Salafis did exist at the time. The Ash'ari-Salfi dispute has been since the 300 AH. --Islamic 22:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone with a modicum of learning about Islamic history and theology and different Islamic groups would realise the ridiculousness of this ignorant position. According to orthodox Sunni tradition, Ash'ari school of Aqeedah is perfectly valid and the (modern) Salafi ideas did not exist at that time. To claim Imam Bukhari as a Salafi is just ludicrous! I shan't bother to tear apart your arguments because it seems you have a closed mind and you have convinced yourself of these ridiculous claims. I'm not even going to bother tagging it with POV because I know someone will bring it down. It's no use- this ignorant ideas monopoly will continue in this article and, it seems, there is little room for historical and theological accuracy. Tanzeel 16:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Imam Bukhari's book Khalq Af'aal al-Ibad (The Creation of the acts of Servants). It shows the Salaf's creed regarding many issues. The same applies to Imam Ahmad books. --Islamic 17:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Salafis 

message: Just a line added to give a more complete description.
Current: 
:Salafi place great emphasis on ritual not only in prayer but in every activity in life -- three fingers should always be used when eating, water is to be drunk in three pauses with the right hand while sitting [1] -- so as to follow the example of the Prophet (p) and his companions and make religion part of every activity in life. Salafi also discourage many other activities, including music, kite-flying, beard-saving, (The Taliban In Their Own Words) that do not follow the example of early Muslims [2] and that distract people's attention from religion. This has been criticized as overly strict or trivial by some. [3]
Proposed:
:Salafi place great emphasis on ritual not only in prayer but in every activity in life -- three fingers should always be used when eating, water is to be drunk in three pauses with the right hand while sitting [1] -- so as to follow the example of the Prophet (p) and his companions and make religion part of every activity in life. Salafi also discourage many other activities -- including music, kite-flying, beard-saving, (The Taliban In Their Own Words), neckties, laughter, handshakes, applause, and the use of Western forms of salutation -- that do not follow the example of early Muslims [2] and that distract people's attention from religion. This has been criticized as overly strict or trivial by some. [3]
--Leroy65X 16:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  it should be shown that the "salafi" positions on music, beard-shaving and laughter are unique to salafis and not existent within what may be regarded as more "mainstream" by some, as i can confirm that the "sunnis" have very similar positions on all of these things hence some of the listed points do not serve the intended distinguishing between salafi and others. ITAQALLAH 08:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So perhaps we should add a footnote saying some non-Salafi Muslims also oppose music, beard-shaving and laughter, but this opposition is much less common among non-Salafi Muslims? --Leroy65X 19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Changes

message: Which would read:
:Many Salafi perform a specific prayer of supplication dua for every activity of the day: getting up, dressing, eating, going to sleep -- there is even a "supplication when turning over during the night." example from Hisnul Muslim [Forification of the Muslim] --Leroy65X 19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another new line in "Distinctive beliefs and practices"

message: Anons have been turning the article into an example of Salafi piety. It needs a thorough spring-clean. Also, some anons removed the "pro-Salafi" heading in the external links. then removed some links and added others. I haven't had time to check out the changes. I suspect it's one strand of Salafism trying to expunge another. Zora 19:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back Zora. The link section needs some clean up. We have a lot of link-spams. In order to solve the problem, we need to agree on some rules regarding what is valid and what is not. --Islamic 01:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is not dawa 

message: Great article.  It really helps to demystify the topic.  I have three questions:
Are the prohibitions regarding music, kite flying etc., observed by Salafis in general or was/is that just a doctrine of the Taliban?  To what extent were the Taliban representative of Salafism?
Similarly, to what extent was the Taliban's greater regulation of female life than other Muslim authorities' representative of the doctrine of Salafism?
What is Salafism's general position on women's "rights" etc.?
:"To what extent were the Taliban representative of Salafism?"
:I think it is pretty generally accepted that the Taliban belief that music is haram is also a  common salafi belief. 
:from: http://islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=9125&ln=eng&txt=music
::Question: My Muslim brother asks: "At my job site the disbelievers play music over the intercom. I want to know whether I am responsible for this. Insha Allah!"
::Answer: Praise be to Allaah.  If you have the choice and are able to remove this evil, then do so. If the matter is beyond your control, then you will not be held accountable, so long as you do not deliberately listen and enjoy that, because music is haraam (see Question #5011). The same applies to singing, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 
::“And of mankind is he who purchases idle talks (i.e. music, singing) to mislead (men) from the path of Allaah without knowledge…” [Luqmaan 31:6] 
:see also: http://calltoislam.com/downloads/Music%20&%20Singing%20in%20Light%20of%20the%20Qur'aan%20&%20Sunnah.pdf .
:Kite flying is also a bone of contention among salafi and non-salafi Muslim (Barelvi who are Sufi) in Pakistan (source: PAKISTAN : A Modern History by Ian Talbot, New York : St. Martin's Press, 1998, p.251)
:Another Taliban prohibition that Salafi generally seem to favor: beards
::Shaving the beard is haraam because of the saheeh ahaadeeth that clearly state this, and because of the general application of texts that forbid resembling the kuffaar." 
:http://islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=1189&ln=eng&txt=beards
:"What is Salafism's general position on women's 'rights,' etc.?"
:See if these comments help. They are from a couple of the pro-salafi websites listed on this wiki: http://abdurrahman.org/women/theidealmuslimah/Index.htm
::... The true Muslim woman is always obedient to her husband, provided that no sin is involved. She is respectful towards him and is always eager to please him and make him happy. If he is poor, she does not complain about his being unable to spend much. She does not complain about her housework,
::... If the woman .... fears that she may commit the sin of disobeying and opposing this husband whom she does not love, then she may ask for a divorce.
::... The true Muslim woman devotes herself to taking care of her house and husband. She knows her husband's rights over her, and how great they are, as was confirmed by the Prophet's words
:from: http://abdurrahman.org/women/theidealmuslimah/Index.htm
::Abandoning sins and disobedience Allaah the Exalted said: 
::Indeed Allaah does not change the condition of a people until they change what is in their souls. [Soorah Ra'd 13:11] 
::Disobedience is a barrier which stands in front of khushoo' in the prayer Included in this disobedience is clinging to a woman possessing evil manners ... Also included in this is the disobedience the wife shows to her husband and the slave who has run away from his master, ...
:from: http://calltoislam.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=390&Itemid=2
:Even more extreme are fatawa from a Salafi book  (Fatawa min Hayat al-Mar-ah al-Muslimah by Al-Sadiq `Abd al-Rahman al-Ghiryani, Beirut: Dar al-Rayyan, 2001) quoted in Abou el Fadl's The Great Theft (p.258-60). They proclaim
::`because of its seductive powers, the voice of women should not be heard in public, or in a private setting where it might cause sexual enticement,` 
::`Women may not chew gum because it is seductive.` 
:The Algerian GIA, generally described as Radical Safafi, also encouraged women to stay indoors. According to the author of Nadia, femme d'un emir du GIA, (Editions du Seuil, 1998) 
::When girls reached the age of nine, they couldn't go to school anymore and had to cover their heads when they went outside. If they didn't, they would bring shame to the village. They carried within them the seed of fitna, the GIA claimed. My husband even made my little sister wear a headscarf -- and she was only seven." (p.46) 
:I should add that it may be that the prohibitions of the Taliban are more severe than the salafi prohibitions published online. But this could well reflect the natural tendency for those who believe true Islam is not being enforced to be circumspect about beliefs they know to be unpopular until they gain the power (as the Taliban did) to enforce them. --Leroy65X 19:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The Taliban were not Salafis at all. The Taliban were "muqallids" - their theology differed from the Salafis in the most defining theological aspect of belief in Taqleed and Madhahib (schools of thought) and Tasawwaf (sufism). I think a mistake is being made in equating Salafism with extremism. The Taliban were extremist and the Wahhabi-Salafi extremists like Osama Bin Laden got along together because they were both extremist, although of different theology. Many Salafis are moderate Muslims. However, it is also very true that Salafi thought is more likely to bring Muslims to extreme interpretations of Islam. You see, the Salafi spectrum of thought is not a monolith - it is indeed very broad. There are salafis who, to use the vague western terms that we are familiar with, are moderate, and there are those who are fundamentalist (and some even more fanatical, and loads of stations in between). Some Salafis are very lenient - permit music, videos etc.
:I will checkout further the doctrinal differences between Salafi and Taliban. At least they have much in common -- influence from wahhabism, belief that Shia are not Muslims, literal interpretation of texts. I was under the impression that Deobandi and thus Taliban opposed Sufism, but it seems they only opposed barelwi sufi. 
:Agreed the Salafi spectrum of thought is not a monolith and that there are, for example, serious, even lethal, differences between radical salfi or jihadist-salafist and mainstream salafi over the relative importance of jihad and da'wa.  But I have to question the idea that there is not a definite tendency toward strict and traditional interpretation of the Quran and ahadith in Salafism. Doubtless there are Democrats in America who think Bush is a great president and strongly support capital gains tax cuts and the War in Iraq, but does that mean it is incorrect to say "Democrats oppose Bush"?  If we look for every little qualifier it becomings difficult to describe things. Appros "Many Salafis are moderate Muslims," do you have a link to a sheikh or group of same? --Leroy65X 22:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least for the time being I will remove the taliban link and reference to kiteflying as related to deobandiism and not necessarily salafiism. --Leroy65X 19:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taliban were not Salafis 

message: This sentence in "Distinctive beliefs and practices" seems redundant: "All these practices are considered shirk or as bidah (innovation)." Leroy65X 22:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hearing no complaints I inserted it 8-29  --Leroy65X 18:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oops. the insert refers to this phrase: Many Salafi perform a specific prayer of supplication dua for every activity of the day: getting up, dressing, eating, going to sleep -- there is even a "supplication when turning over during the night." [5] --Leroy65X 19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I will also remove "All these practices are considered shirk or as bidah (innovation)."  --Leroy65X 21:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more changes 

message: Now that the article has this at the beginning:
:This article is on the contemporary Islamic movement. For the article on the group of early muslims , see Salaf 
Perhaps we could put in some history about the contemporary salafi movement -- Muhammad Abdah, Muhammad Abduh and Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Rahid Rida -- since it is obvious this is an article about contemporary salafist movement. DOes anyone have any objections to this? -Leroy65X 23:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More proposed changes 

message: Salafis are divided on the question of adherence to the four recognized schools of traditional legal interpretation (madhhabs).
Some Salafis wish to base their jurisprudence directly on the Qu'ran and Sunnah. They believe that literal readings of the Qur'an and the hadith (or oral traditions) are sufficient guidance for the believing Muslim. One scholar who supported this position was Albaanee. 
:WHAT IS THIS. What do you mean that salafis are divided on the topic of adherence to the four schools of thought. This makes no sense. Salafis will differ on stuff related to jurisprudence but they do not THEY DO NOT differ on ideas related to creed and mythology whatsoever. All salafi scholars no matter who he is, if it be Abdullah ibn Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Taymeya, Ibn Katheer, Ibnul Quayem, Mohammad ibn abdulwahhad, Ibn Baz, Al-Albany, Ibn Uthaymeen, Shake Mukbil Bin Hadi Al-Wadiee or anyone els from the past or present say that they love and respect all of them. They are all imams to ahl al-sunnah wa al jama’aa and that we take from them all, not following any of them blindly and that you can adhere to one of them but acknowledge the fact that they all had their own mistakes regarding jurisprudence NOT CREED. And remember the sayings of all four of them, “My mathhab (way, method, school of thought) is any hadith that is sahih (correct) so if any of you find any of my sayings that contradict a sahih hadith then leave if and take the hadith.” Not one or two, but all four said this. So this little part you have under Distinctive beliefs and practices should be removed and replaced with the correct idea.
::With due respect to the person who posted above me, what this person is referring to is whether or not to allow blind allegiance to a specific school of fiqh in some situations.  This is not something unprecedented in fact because sometimes in remote areas or non-Muslim countries, sound Islamic understanding is not always present so they had to do blind following as a last resort.  Similarly, some people were uneducated or disabled so they could not seek out the knowledge to a sufficient extent to be able to judge what the Qur'an and Sunnah says.  However, for the one who is able to understand the evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah fully, then he should strive to find the best opinion.  This is the true opinion of Al-Albani as he explained in many works.  Very few scholars gave freedom for pure taqlid (blind following) or for anyone to just guess the truth.  The way of the People of the Sunnah was the middle.  ZaydHammoudeh 06:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: THINGS THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED FORM Distinctive beliefs and practices

message: The People of Hadeeth (ahl ul-Hadeeth) hold that prayers of al-Jumu’ah, the two Eids and any other prayer can be performed behind every Muslim Imaam irrespective of whether he is righteous or immoral. 
Sayyid Qutub refused to pray Salaatul-Jumu'ah (friday prayer) with the justification that there is no khilaafah at the present time.
Alee Ashmaawee says in his book: "The Secret History of Ikhwaan ul-Muslimeen" (at-Taareekh as-Sirree li-Jamaa'atil-Ikhwaan il-Muslimeen): "And the time for the Jumu'ah prayer arrived so I said to him (Sayyed Qutub): 'Let us leave and pray' and it was a surprise that I came to know - and for the first time - that he did not used to pray Jumu'ah" (p.112)
Imaam as-Saboonee (d. 449H) said, “They also hold that Jihad against the disbelievers is valid with them, even if they are oppressors and tyrants. They agree to make supplication for them, asking to rectify their situation, to be given tawfeeq and to establish justice amongst the subjects. They do not deem permissible rebellion against the leaders by the sward even if they are unjust and tyrannical. They the salaf say that the extremists (transgressive group) should be fought until they return to the obedience of the Imaam.” The Creed of the Pious Predecessors the People of Hadith (p. 93).
Does Sayyid Qutub follow this or did he order Muslims to fight leaders by the sward, killing them and the citizens of these Muslim nations.
Al-Bukhari (d.256H) said, “And the sword is not to raised against (any of) the Ummah of Muhammad salalahu alahi wa salam.” The creed of Imaam al-Bukhari  (p. 41).
This is what the Salaf say. Now tell me what the Khawaarij and then tell me which category Sayyid Qutub falls under.
The Imaam of the Sunnah of his time Imaam al-Barbahaaree (d. 329H) said, “Whoever rebels agenst a Muslim ruler is one of the Khawaarij, has caused dissent within the Muslims, has contradicted the narrations and has died the death of the days of ignorance.” Sharhus-sunnah, (p. 42).
This is the Imaam of the Sunnah of his time saying this. He is loved and respected by all Salafies today and his book "EXPLANATION OF THE CREED" is one of the best works on creed ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama'aa has today.
Imaam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (d. 241H) said, “And the killing of the one in power is not lawful, and nor is it permissible for anyone amongst the people to revolt agenst him. Whoever is an innovator (mubtadei), (and is) upon other than the Sunnah and the (correct) path. Foundation of the Sunnah (p. 30). 
Shaikul-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) said, “There are three sayings. The weakest of them with ahl al-Sunnah is the saying, ‘rejecting everything from his (the Ruler) orders, his rule and the division (of charity etc.) And the most correct of them ahl ul-Hadeeth, the Scholars and the Jurists is the first saying, ‘that he is to be obeyed absolutely, and likewise (he is obeyed) absolutely in whatever he orders from the obedience of Allah and the decision that he makes with respect to the rule and the division (of charity etc.) And this is the case with the ignorant Judge and also the oppressor --- his judgment and (orders for the) division (of charity etc.) when it is just to be carried out in accordance with the saying of the majority of the Fuqahaa (jurists).” Manhaajus-Sunnah, (3/390).  
Does Sayyid Qutub follow this or do I have to explain myself again.
Shaykh ‘Abdul-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, one of the leading Salafi scholars of our time said “It Is not from the mythology of the Salaf to publicize the faults of the Rulers and to mention such things from the pulpit because that leads to confusion/disorder and the absence of hearing and obeying the Ruler in what is good. It also results in (the people) becoming engrossed (with these matters, arguing and debating) which causes harm and produces no benefit. The following path of the Salaf however was to give advice (naseehah) with respect to the matters which are between themselves and the leader, writing to him, or by reaching him through the scholar who keeps in touch with him (to advise him) until the Ruler is directed towards the good.” Al-Ma’loom min Waajibil-‘Ilaaqah bainal-Haakim wal-Mahkoom, (pp. 22-23).
Why would ibn Baaz say this? Is it because he is a Scholar of the Rulers of Saudi Arabia and must say what they order him to say. BY ALLAH NO. He is an honest man who spoke the truth. He rememberd the Hadeeth of the Prophet Muhammad salalahu alahi wa salam of ‘Iyaad ibn Ghunm who said, “The Messenger of Allah salalahu alahi wa salam said, ‘Whoever desires to advise the one with authority then he should not do so openly, rather he should take him by the hand and take him into seclusion (and then advise him). And if he accepts (the advise) from him then (he has achieved his objective) and if not he has fulfilled that which was duty upon him.” Reported by Ahmad (3/403) and Ibn Abee’ Aasim (2/521) with an authentic chin of narration. 
Hudhaifah, radiyallahu ‘anhu, related that the Prophet salalahu alahi wa salam said:
“There will come leaders who will not follow my guidance and will not follow my Sunnah. There will be amongst them men, who will have hearts of devils and bodies of humans.” Hudhaifah asked: ‘What shall I do o messenger of Allah, if I reach that?’ He replied: “You should hear and obey the Ruler, even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth. Then still hear and obey.” Sahih Muslim Hadeeth number (1847). 
Sayyad Qutub was Imprisoned and beaten under the rule of Gamal Abdel Nasser. But from what I know, he did not hear and obay. infact he declared Abdel Nasser an infidel. So now you tell me. Did Sayyad Qutub follow what the salaf said and at the head of them if being the Prophet Muhammad salalahu alahi wa salam.
The ‘Aqeedah (creed) of the Sunnah, ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’aa, ahl ul-hadeeth, ahl ul-athar, as Salaf us-Saalih, as-Salafyoon or whatever you want to call them because they are all same, is that he who says that prayer is to be performed behind every (Imaam), pious or wicked, that Jihaad is to fought along every Khaleefah and he does not hold permissible to oppose the Ruler with the sword and he makes supplication for them to be upright has escaped the saying of the Khawaarij; its beginning and its end. And he who believes in any one of these points is a Kharijee. 
O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. The Nobel Quran chapter 4 verse 59.  
Imaam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (d. 241H) said, “If the aided group is not the People of Hadeeth, than I have no idea who it is.” Ibn Maajah (3993). This Haheeth is Sahih. 
The People of Hadeeth (ahl ul-Hadeeth) who are as-Salaf and the Khawaarij are two different groups with different ideas in obeying the Rulers. In order to be a Salafi you must believe in all of what our Pious Predecessors (as Salaf us-Saalih) believed in with regards to the creed. 
What makes a Salafi is his creed. Not going around saying you must grow your beard or that celebrating the birhtday of the Prophet salalaha alahi wasalam if forbidden even though according to the authentic narration it is.
Islaam is creed. Without the creed there is no islaam. Islaam is built on the ideas of the creed. Sayyad Qutub disbelieved in one of the beliefs in the creed of the Salaf, one of the most important ones. 
All I am asking is that Sayyad Qutub be removed from the Salafi page. I hope you will show respect to what I wrote and to the Salafi page by removeing this man from it. Thank You. 
If anyone would like information regarding the creed of Sayyad Qutub in matters other than in dealing with the Rulers I will be glad to post them, because that wasent his only mistake in the creed of the Salaf but I felt that this topic would be enough.
:Brother, may Allah reward you for transcribing the article.  However as Muslims, we are need to be fair and just.  It has to be noted here for the sake of clarity that someone who makes a mistake in Aqeedah is not discarded inherently.  For instance, Imam an-Nawawi and ibn Hajar al-Asqalani had some of the Ashari traits so mistakes in aqeedah come at different levels.  Clearly for isntance if you pray to the wali in the grave, that is more grave that is clear shirk.  This is a clear part of al-Wala' wal-Bara.  I do notice though that in your article you make assertions about his creed.  However, you did not provide a scholar saying he wasn't salafi; he made mistakes but it takes a scholar to say that those mistakes makes someone not salafi anymore.  It is not a matter for the general Muslim to decide.  His mistakes are refuted and rejected but that is a different issue than saying he is not salafi.  Someone can make mistakes because they were ignorant or had been mislead; to say someone is not salafi requires the hujjah be established.  Could you provide a saying from ibn Baaz, ibn Uthaymeen, al-Albani, or Shaykh Muqbil ibn Hadee' saying he is not salafi?  I don't know a ton about Sayyid Qutb specifically; I admit that.  However, I do know a good deal about what is required to say someone is not salafi totally and what that entails and requires.  I would prefer his name not appear with the likes of ibn Baaz or ibn Uthaymeen as he is not of their level but I don't own wikipedia.  ZaydHammoudeh 00:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SAYYID QUTUB IS NOT SALAFI

message: I don’t know who it is but someone keeps on bringing back Sayyed Qutub and putting next to his name “Disputed” as if he is a Salafi. Sayyed Qutub is not a Salafi, you are misinforming people who come to this page to think he is a Salafi. I gave my evidences about how he is not a Salafi under the title (SAYYED QUTUB IS NOT A SALAFI) above. So the only way Sayyed Qutub is coming back onto this Salafi page Is if you can bring forth evidences that he is a Salafi. By simply putting “Disputed” next to his name does not make it o.k. to put him up. This website is built on facts and evidences and you brought none about.
:Some poeople like you don't consider him a Salafi, but some other people like Dr Salah Khalidi considers him a Salafi. Both views should be represneted here. --Islamic 04:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are either stupid or a blind fool. On the top of this page it says “If you plan on making major edits, please discuss them here first BEFORE you make your changes.” So I take it that you’re both. So don’t come telling me “Some people like you don't consider him a Salafi” when you know damn right that I gave my evidences and proven that he isn’t. Why don’t you try reading above on this discussion page the “SAYYID QUTUB IS NOT SALAFI” section and then you tell me it’s my opinion. But the thing is you can’t because it’s not my opinion. It’s the opinion of the Scholars of the Salaf. And one more thing, who the hell is Dr Salah Khalidi. You can’t just bring names of anyone and say “he said so and so.” This person must be known to the Salafi community as a legitimate source of evidence. It’s not about what we think Salafiya is, it’s about what Salafis say what they believe and whom they follow. So once again you must bring fourth some REAL EVAIDENCE (which I doubt you will) and until then Sayyed Qutub is not staying on this Salafi page. (69.212.63.157 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear anonymous. You are clearly violating Wikipedia's official policy WP:No personal attacks. You are not welcome here if you don’t respect this site’s policies. You need to bring reliable academic sources not poorly translated web quotes. Dr Salah Khalidi is a Ph.D. holder and is a specialized in that field. That is a good example of valid reliable sources. Unlike people like Ibn Baz who never studied at a college. It is funny that you need a current Ph.D. holder to be evaluated by "the Scholars of the Salaf", whom have died by definition before 300 AH. --Islamic 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I need to clear something up.  A Ph.D. is not a sign of being a reliable academic source in Islam.  If this was the criterion, then we must through away all of the sahaba and the four imams.  It is not Dr. Abu Hanifa or Dr. ash-Shafa'i.  They studied Islam at the feet of the people of knowledge exactly like the companions studied at the feet of the Prophet.  This is the Islamic way of seeking knowledge.  To attack ibn Baaz for not having a Ph.D. is an erroneous and specious argument.  You can become an expert in mechanical parts or eletrical components by living a life that trains you in that field just as ibn Baaz did with Islam. ZaydHammoudeh 05:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We have all been polite with you.  It is imperative if you want to discuss things on wikipedia that you also be polite with others.  Name calling is entirely inappropriate and unacceptable here.  You can disagree with people yet still be civil.  Your behavior makes your opinion look bad as unfortunately messages are always tied to their messenger.  If their messenger is unsavory, then people will think the same of the message.  If you want to contribute something, be constructive; tirades do not help you.  When we judge evidence, we base it on the Qur'an, Sunnah, and understand the companions and some of the early generations.  This is the way you weigh the merit of soemthing in Islam. Even if Imam Ahmad or Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah say something that conflicts with what the Prophet said, it is rejected despite them being known to the salafi community.  If you want evidence to back this up, I will gladly provide it.  Also, if you keep reverting his name off the page, you can be blocked from wikipedia even if you are right per the three revert rule.  ZaydHammoudeh 17:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important thing is that you bring your evidence. That’s one thing you and every other person have not done. It angers me when I see how I bring fourth evidences and prove my case and yet no one cares. You place whatever you want causing confusion. When you do bring your evidences its inaccurate illegitimate garbage. And your saying how I’m impolite, how can I be when I typed up a whole article in itself on how Sayyed Qutub is not a Salafi that no one replied to till this day because they couldn’t. With no evidence and no nothing you still put Sayyed Qutub back up as a Salafi and then to top that you threatening to block me. This is not right. I’m willing to work with you as long as you don’t argue with the facts. (69.212.63.157 23:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should clarify that I wasn't threatening that I would block you.  To the best of my knowledge, you must be a wikipedia admin to block someone, which I am not.  However, I was telling you what would most likely given what Wikipedia's policies are and what has happened in the past.  On this particular article, I have contributed little.  I only made small changes here or there.  I do know that this debate of sayyid qutb being salafi or not was something discussed long before I came to wikipedia and may be discussed long after I die even.  In fact if you saw the changes I made to the list a long time ago, you would see it was different from what it is now so I recommend before making accusations, you check the facts.  Similarly, I was not the one who reverts your edits.  It is others.  These are the facts.  If you want to discuss this more, you can email me. ZaydHammoudeh 00:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: THE FACTS ARE CLEAR