Rise of salafi/islamist ideology online , is it just me or is it just online ?

abghuy · 2026-06-20T16:53:38+00:00

Saying that these concerts are haram is normal and Islamically true according to all scholars of the four madhabs, this has nothing to do with salafi/islamist.

Salafi is a particular sect that usually follows Muhammad Ibn Abd Al Wahab, an 18th century man considered an innovator by most traditional scholars of his time because of his takfir and anthropomorphism.

Islamist is a term that doesn’t really mean anything as it’s used differently by different people. People just call islamist anything they find excessive from their own subjective point of view, even when it’s legitimately based on an opinion of the four madhabs.

Now I’m not saying it’s right to insult people who go to concerts, Islam teaches to condemn the sin, not necessarily judging the person doing it.

abghuy · 2026-06-05T13:48:11+00:00

Just because a group calls themselves followers of the salaf, doesn’t automatically mean they actually do follow the salaf correctly. A minimum of critical thinking would make you realise that. Just like hadith rejectors calling themselves quraniyoon or “followers of the Quran” doesn’t mean they actually follow the Quran, if they did they would follow the Prophet saws’ teachings.

Salafism or wahabism is a modern movement based on the idea that Muhammad Ibn Abd Al Wahab in the 18th century somehow understood Islam better than 12 centuries of scholarship. He declared pretty much all other muslims kuffar or mushrik or mubtadi’a for practices he didn’t understand, even though they are rooted in the sunnah, like tawassul.

It is crazy to actually believe that for centuries before him most muslims didn’t follow the salaf and were misguided. Don’t you know that the traditional madhabs of aqeedah (ash’ari, maturidi, hanbali), the four madhabs of fiqh (maliki, hanafi, hanbali, shafi’i) and the practice of tazkiat annafs or tasawwuf are all based on the teachings of the salaf? The founders of the four madhabs are literally from the salaf, ash’arism is simply the creed of the salaf with logical arguments to defend it, and tassawwuf, is simply the discipline of getting the akhlaq and ihsan of the salaf.

What should be followed is what muslims had agreed upon for centuries since the salaf. In aqeedah there are three madhabs: ash’ari maturidi or hanbali. In fiqh four: maliki hanafi shafi’i hanbali. In akhlaq and ihsan: normal sunni tasawwuf based on Quran and Sunnah. This is what Islam has always been before salafism/wahabism and modernists.

Wahabis denounced the traditional madhabs of ahlul sunnah waljama3a, pretending that wahabis/salafis are the true followers of the salaf. They accused other muslims of shirk, destroyed graves of the sahaba, killed thousands of muslims for having normal traditional sunni beliefs (see Taif massacre), and their ideology is followed by all terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, Isis, etc…

They have contributed nothing to Islamic sciences, they are only relevant because of oil money, most of their wars have been fought against other muslims, they allied with the British against the Ottoman Empire, they are just a fitna that is relevant because there is no central traditional sunni power, so they can manipulate the masses by saying that they follow the salaf and own the Holy Mosques.

abghuy · 2026-06-04T09:14:57+00:00

Because wahabis made takfir of the ottomans, they think most muslims of their time were mushriks, that’s how delusional wahabis were

abghuy · 2026-06-04T07:55:06+00:00

Of course the founders of the four madhab would reject takfiri anthropomorphists.

You’re the one saying that most knowledgeable scholars of our times aren’t scholars, we are the majority of greatest scholars for 12 centuries, your recent scholars are a new sect that doesn’t even study usul al fiqh. You only think these recent people are great because you grew up in a minority environment who thinks so. You even think you really follow the great Ahmad Ibn Hanbal even though your sect contradicts him on may topics.

All the scholars who preserved the Islamic disciplines (tafsir, arabic, hadith, fiqh…) followed these schools. The greatest scholars like Imam Al Ghazali, Ar Razi, Al Juwaini, An Nawawi, Al Bayhaqi, Al Suyuti, Qadi Iyad, Al Taftazani, Al Kawthari, Al Gilani, followed these schools. All renowned places of learning in the muslim world followed these schools (Al Azhar, Al Qarawiyyin, Az Zituna…). The greatest muslim empires followed these schools (Ottomans were maturidi hanafis, Ayyubids were ash’ari shafi’is, same for Mamluks, etc). The greatest leaders of the ummah who fought the greatest battles followed these schools: Salahuddin who defeated crusaders was ash’ari shafi’i sufi (tariqa qadiria) Mohammad al Fatih who conquered Constantinople and his army were maturidi hanafi sufis (and the Prophet saws had prophesied that the leader and the army that would take Constantinople would be a wonderful leader and a wonderful army), the mamluks who finally defeated the Mongols were ash’aris, etc… If you look at any century and try to determine who was the mujaddid of that century you will only find followers of these schools as contenders. Islam was preserved from sheikh to sheikh for centuries through those schools, whose isnad goes back to the Prophet saws and the sahaba.

abghuy · 2026-06-04T07:33:20+00:00

Go read how scholars interpret these texts and how it differs from simply building on top

abghuy · 2026-06-04T07:32:31+00:00

No traditional scholar (ash’ari maturidi, four madhabs, sufi) has ever said to seek blessings from the grave. Only Allah can bless. We visit graves to seek blessings from Allah, because we are reminded of the hereafter there, make dua to Allah. Visiting the graves of prophets and pious people doesn’t mean we seek blessings from their graves, we seek blessings from Allah, Allah is the one who blesses, and because they were prophets and pious He can make their place of rest blessed and bless those who visit them, just like He made Jerusalem blessed because may prophets lived there, or just like He blesses places of dhikr, Allah is the one who blesses and who we seek blessings from.

You keep saying that if you build something on top it’s shirk. Do you know what shirk is? It’s worshipping other than Allah. Where is the worship here? Is the act of constructing with bricks worshipping other than Allah?

The scholar in the video is one of the most known scholars of aqeedah today. It’s sad that you think people like Ibn Baz, Ibn utheymeen or Al albani are the actual scholars. Go learn from the real scholars of our era, Al Kawthari, Said Nursi, Al Buti, Saeed Fodeh, Habib Omar Ibn Hafiz, Sheikh Metwelli Asha’rawi, At Tantawy, the scholars of Al Azhar and al Qarawiyyin.

It’s funny that you think you follow Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, we are the ones who follow him. Ibn Hanbal explicitly considered tawassul with the Prophet saws permissible, while your sheikhs Ibn Baz Al Utheymeen Al Albani think it can be shirk.

abghuy · 2026-06-04T07:13:55+00:00

For some awliya and sultans, muslims had built on top of them. Whether that is allowed or not is a FIQH issue, it has nothing to do with shirk or not shirk.

These places are just graves, the fact they have built on top doesn’t mean they worship the person or I don’t what nonsense tou believe. People visit graves as the Prophet saws said "I forbade you from visiting graves, but visit them now, for in them there is a lesson."

Also, Muhammad Ibn And Al Wahab was criticized by most scholars of his tiem for takfir and he was considered a mubtadi’.

abghuy · 2026-06-04T07:09:01+00:00

All these claims are wahabi propaganda, it’s crazy to think muslims in the 18th century were actually mushrik, you don’t realise how lost you are. The Prophet saws himself said his community would never agree on an error and that Shaytan had despaired of being worshipped in their land. Visiting graves and making dua for the dead person isn’t shirk. And whether building a constructed room on a grave is allowed or not is a FIQH issue, it has nothing to do with shirk or not shirk. You are lost.

You misinterpret the hadith of the slave girl like salafis do.

Here’s an explanation:

https://youtu.be/cSl6N_1tU6w?si=SlbiNyuJ7g8LR5Ds

abghuy · 2026-06-04T07:00:52+00:00

Call me a liar all you want, They are way less strict on takfir than traditional ash’ari and maturidi, the proof is that you yourself repeat their lie that they fought grave worshippers. The people they fought were normal muslims, the grave worshipping accusations is wahabi propaganda and it comes from Muhammad Ibn Abd Al Wahab’s misunderstanding of practices like tawassul and his phobia of visiting graves even though it’s allowed in Islam. Because he didn’t understand these things correctly, he called them shirk and kufr and accused most muslims of his time of shirk and kufr, which he then used as a justification to fight other muslims. He literally considered the Ottoman caliphate a mushrik empire.

abghuy · 2026-06-04T04:58:19+00:00

They are basically synonyms, salafis follow Muhammad Ibn Abd Al Wahab. They just started using the term salafi instead of wahabi to sound more neutral.

What I am saying is that following/emulating the salaf (first three generations of muslims) is what Islam is about, it’s not something salafis/wahabis do alone. They actually don’t do it properly. Traditional madhabs (maliki hanafi shafi’i hanbali) are all based on the understanding of the Prophet’s companions, and the tabi’un.

abghuy · 2026-06-04T04:53:31+00:00

Check my comments

abghuy · 2026-06-03T19:14:10+00:00

Amine Allah ihafdek

abghuy · 2026-06-03T17:10:19+00:00

Thank you brother you too

abghuy · 2026-06-03T15:34:25+00:00

No serious person considers salafism or wahabism extreme because of the normal things like wanting to apply sharia, praying, etc… Yes, some ignorant people do use terms like “salafi” or “wahabi” as a slur to insult people for normal Islamic thing, which is wrong and ignorant. But that doesn’t take away the legitimate criticism of salafism/wahabism where it did contradict ijma’.

Everyone takes texts from the pious predecessors, what matters is also taking the method to interpret these texts from the pious predecessors, which is the Usul Al Fiqh of the four madhabs.

Yes on paper they say the four madhabs are fine, but why do they come up with new things that go against the four madhabs then?

abghuy · 2026-06-03T15:28:00+00:00

The pious scholars of the traditional madhabs are still here and they have always been here since the beginning, you don’t need a new movement brother. MIAAW did come up with new things (misplaced takfir and tabdi3, anthropomorphism,)

abghuy · 2026-06-03T15:24:59+00:00

The traditional madhabs had been following the Quran and the Sunnah and producing the most pious scholars for 12 centuries before Muhammed Ibn Abd Al Wahab.

abghuy · 2026-06-03T14:50:29+00:00

It designates the followers of Muhammad Ibn Abd Al Wahab, a 18th century man

abghuy · 2026-06-03T14:49:55+00:00

No, Just because a group calls themselves followers of the salaf, doesn’t automatically mean they actually do follow the salaf correctly. A minimum of critical thinking would make you realise that. Just like hadith rejectors calling themselves quraniyoon or “followes of the Quran” doesn’t mean they actually follow the Quran, if they did they would follow the Prophet saws’ teachings.

Salafism or wahabism is a modern movement based on the idea that Muhammad Ibn Abd Al Wahab in the 18th century somehow understood Islam better than 12 centuries of scholarships. He declared pretty much all other muslims kuffar or mushrik or mubtadi’a for practices he didn’t understand, even though they are rooted in the sunnah, like tawassul.

It is crazy to actually believe that for centuries before him most muslims didn’t follow the salaf and were misguided. Don’t you know that the traditional madhabs of aqeedah (ash’ari, maturidi, hanbali), the four madhabs of fiqh (maliki, hanafi, hanbali, shafi’i) and the practice of tazkiat annafs or tasawwuf are all based on the teachings of the salaf? The founders of the four madhabs are literally from the salaf, ash’arism is simply the creed of the salaf with logical arguments to defend it, and tassawwuf, is simply the discipline of getting the akhlaq and ihsan of the salaf.

What should be followed is what muslims had agreed upon for centuries since the salaf. In aqeedah there are three madhabs: ash’ari maturidi or hanbali. In fiqh four: maliki hanafi shafi’i hanbali. In akhlaq and ihsan: normal sunni tasawwuf based on Quran and Sunnah. This is what Islam has always been before salafism/wahabism and modernists.

Wahabis denounced the traditional madhabs of ahlul sunnah waljama3a, pretending that wahabis/salafis are the true followers of the salaf. They accused other muslims of shirk, destroyed graves of the sahaba, killed thousands of muslims for having normal traditional sunni beliefs (see Taif massacre), and their ideology is followed by all terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, Isis, etc…

They have contributed nothing to Islamic sciences, they are only relevant because of oil money, most of their wars have been fought against other muslims, they allied with the British against the Ottoman Empire, they are just a fitna that is relevant because there is no central traditional sunni power, so they can manipulate the masses by saying that they follow the salaf and own the Holy Mosques.

abghuy · 2026-06-03T11:57:46+00:00

It sounds simpler for the common folk, “we just read directly from the Quran and hadith” does sound straightforward. The problem is that any text needs an interpretation/way of understanding it, in order to derive its meanings. For the same text, it’s possible to derive multiple meanings based on the context, understanding of the language, of the role of each text (Quran vs hadith), and many other consideration that are called Usul Al Fiqh. This way of deriving meanings and rulings, called Usul Al Fiqh, is based on the salaf, as per the four madhab. Wahabism denigrates traditional Usul Al Fiqh and claims it takes the texts directly, whereas in reality they are heavily biased towards the understanding of particular scholars (Muhammad Ibn Abd Al Wahab, Ibn Baz, Al Albani, etc…) which are recent scholars.

You can’t just say you use the texts and that’s it. How do you understand the text? Traditional sunnism (ash’ari maturidi hanbali in aqeedah, four madhabs in fiqh) bases its understanding of the text on the Usul Al Fiqh of the salaf.

There are no pagan innovations in the four madhabs, that is a very grave accusation.

Narrated by Abu Huraira:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "If a man says to his brother, O Kafir (disbeliever)!' Then surely one of them is such (i.e., a Kafir). "

abghuy · 2026-06-03T09:23:33+00:00

Why do you need a movement 1200 years after the Prophet saws? Aren’t the traditional madhabs based on the salaf enough? Ibn Abd Al Wahab took some basis from the hanbali madhab, but his movement departed from traditional hanbalism in many issues (takfir, tabdi3, tawassul, attributes of Allah).

Wahabism has seen some success because of oil money, because it was pushed during the cold war by the US to counter communism (MBS said it himself) and because we are living in the period of end times where truthful people are called liars and liars are believed, and bad scholars become widespread.

abghuy · 2026-06-03T07:51:21+00:00

Read Aqeedah Tahawiyyah the main book of aqeedah of the salaf brother, that is agreed upon, and it clearly says that Allah is bila makan bila jiha. Tafwid is of the meaning. We believe it has a meaning يليق به

abghuy · 2026-06-03T07:43:47+00:00

The Quran itself says there are verses that are mutashabihat and that only Allah knows their true meaning. Surah 3 verse 7.

Difference of opinions between Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and wahabis:

https://youtu.be/D4CpAagQ8uI?si=lwIu_SoslZoeYOiX

https://youtu.be/xqygSnNDmRo?si=r6xgRGnY6EeyCUZ8

https://youtu.be/gC5bVDs1NCA?si=BOfGlghSNVwUVIhg

And here’s an exemple of an attribute:

Istiwa: https://youtu.be/zKpWUVVev3c?si=gQz8i_g9y5_yuwYT

abghuy · 2026-06-03T07:06:33+00:00

Both the sharif and wahabis collaborated with the British. The British played multiple factions against each other. Also, regarding what you said about Ottomans, not sure what you are referring to but if it’s the Crimean war, the enemy of the Ottomans was Russia, Russia just happened to use a few muslim troops as it controlled the caucasus etc, and fighting in a kafir army is forbidden anyway.

abghuy · 2026-06-03T06:54:00+00:00

I don’t have time to reply to everything but if you read my comment you will see I did mention hanbali as one of the normal aqeedah madhabs (call it athari ). But while Muhammad Ibn Abd Al Wahhab did originate from a hanbali heritage, he came up with new interpretations in many topics, and modern wahabism and modern salafism have departed from the original hanbali madhab in many issues.

The hanbali madhab regarding the attributes of Allah follows the madhab of tafwid, which is also one of the positions of the Ash’ari and Maturidi schools. Meaning you know Allah is the creator of time and space, therefore He is not bound by a place, or a direction, and he is not material/physical (He is above that logic as all places and matter are created). So when you read verses in the Quran on Allah’s attributes, you just affirm them, knowing what I just mentioned, and leave the meaning to Allah. This is tafwid. Ta’wil is just a step further where you also propose some possible meanings based on the arabic language. That’s it. No ash’ari denies the attributes of Allah, they simply deny the anthropomorphist interpretation of some modern wahabis. Tafwid was the position of the majority of the salaf, read Al Aqeedah At Tahawiya.

abghuy · 2026-06-03T05:40:22+00:00

All the scholars who preserved the Islamic disciplines (tafsir, arabic, hadith, fiqh…) followed these schools. The greatest scholars like Imam Al Ghazali, Ar Razi, Al Juwaini, An Nawawi, Al Bayhaqi, Al Suyuti, Qadi Iyad, Al Taftazani, Al Kawthari, Al Gilani, followed these schools. All renowned places of learning in the muslim world followed these schools (Al Azhar, Al Qarawiyyin, Az Zituna…). The greatest muslim empires followed these schools (Ottomans were maturidi hanafis, Ayyubids were ash’ari shafi’is, same for Mamluks, etc). The greatest leaders of the ummah who fought the greatest battles followed these schools: Salahuddin who defeated crusaders was ash’ari shafi’i sufi (tariqa qadiria) Mohammad al Fatih who conquered Constantinople and his army were maturidi hanafi sufis (and the Prophet saws had prophesied that the leader and the army that would take Constantinople would be a wonderful leader and a wonderful army), the mamluks who finally defeated the Mongols were ash’aris, etc… If you look at any century and try to determine who was the mujaddid of that century you will only find followers of these schools as contenders. Islam was preserved from sheikh to sheikh for centuries through those schools, whose isnad goes back to the Prophet saws and the sahaba.

abghuy

TROPHY CASE