WHo have been the Salafi Islamic thinkers of our era

[asharee_salafi]

Assalaam'ualykum,

I have read some books recently for a non Muslim audience, they mention Islamic thinkers like jamal al din afgani, Muhammed abduh, hassan al banna, I dont know much about them, but why is their an absense of Salafi thinkers?

In fact, who are the salafi thinkers?

WS

[Abuz Zubair]

Asharee_salafi (inshaa Allah ;)

I can think of Shaykh Safar al-Hawali and Shaykh Ja'far Idrees

[asharee_salafi]

lol ahaha, I can tell my name bothers you bro,

What change it to, hmm, wahabi_salafi?

okay safar al hawali? what has he done? has he dealt with khilafah etc?

what about in the past? the early 20th century

[miskeen]

salaam

correct me if i'm wrong, but I had thought people like al banna, qutb and other popular ikhwani bothers were salafi in aqeedah but not necc. in other aspects. For example, I'm sure shaykh madkhali and shaykh al awdah have the same aqeedah, but thier worldviews are completely different.

[Break The Cross]

jamal al din afgani, Muhammed abduh

WS

I read Jamal ud Deen Afghani (who wasnt really afghani lol) was a freemason and his fellow Muhammad Abdah was one of those people who called for the unification of all religions, I read it in Shaykh Hammood's fatwa on "Respecting Other Faiths". So I wouldn't really call them Salafis.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Assalaam'ualykum,

I have read some books recently for a non Muslim audience, they mention Islamic thinkers like jamal al din afgani, Muhammed abduh, hassan al banna, I dont know much about them, but why is their an absense of Salafi thinkers?

In fact, who are the salafi thinkers?

WS

Jamaal ud-Din al-Afghani was a Persian Raafid'ee that masqueraded as a Sunni to inflitrate his teachings into al-Azhar of the Trojan horse of Sunni-Shi'ite unity. As for Muhammad Abduh, he was a rationalist and a modernist. Neither of these personalities are "thinkers", but misguided individuals.

As for Hasan al-Banna, we respect his struggle, but I don't think he was much of a thinker. Rather he was an organizer. I think Sayyid Qutb was a much deeper and more profound thinker.

I would agree with Abuz-Zubayr about Shaykh Safar al-Hawali. The Shaykh has an impressive intellect and sharp mind, truely an asset to the ummah. From what I've seen of Shaykh Ja'afar Idris, he is also as Abuz-Zubayr described him.

[AbuAhmad]

Jamaal ud-Din was Shia??? No... Can you provide evidence please?

[defenderofbusharraf]

Qutb was no deep profound thinker. he certainly wasnt a scholar of islam by any accepted criteria or standard.....hence why his "deep" thoughts have failed.

[abusufyaan]

ِAbuz Zubair, what is the response of those people of knowledge who use the phrase "Islamic thinkers" and "Islamic thought" to those who oppose this term, such as Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd (hafidhahullah) in his Mu'jam al-Manaahi al-Lafdhiyyah under 'Aalimiyyat al-Islaam, al-Fikr al-Islaami and al-Fikr ad-Deeni?

[knowrass]

ِAbuz Zubair, what is the response of those people of knowledge who use the phrase "Islamic thinkers" and "Islamic thought" to those who oppose this term, such as Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd (hafidhahullah) in his Mu'jam al-Manaahi al-Lafdhiyyah under 'Aalimiyyat al-Islaam, al-Fikr al-Islaami and al-Fikr ad-Deeni?

akhi do you know if the book is available online in shaa Allah? also if you know of other works regarding al-manaahi al-lafdhiyyah. i think ibn uthaymeen (RAH) has done one as well?

[Brother_Mujahid]

I forgot to also make mention of Muhammad Qutb, the brother of Sayyid Qutb. Muhammad Qutb, interestingly enough, had influence on both Shaykh Safar al-Hawali and Usamah bin Ladin.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Qutb was no deep profound thinker. he certainly wasnt a scholar of islam by any accepted criteria or standard.....hence why his "deep" thoughts have failed.

I never claimed he was a scholar, at least not in the sense that someone like Shaykh ibn Jibreen or Shaykh Hamoud bin al-Uqlaa are\were scholars. As for Sayyid Qutb, he was a profound thinker and his influence endures to this day. One can disagree with his views, but only someone ignorant of modern Islamic history can deny his influence.

[miskeen]

Qutb was no deep profound thinker. he certainly wasnt a scholar of islam by any accepted criteria or standard.....hence why his "deep" thoughts have failed.

salaam

I don't know if we can say he 'failed' because he has had a profound impact on a lot of active Islamic movements, such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas.

[abusufyaan]

akhi do you know if the book is available online in shaa Allah? also if you know of other works regarding al-manaahi al-lafdhiyyah. i think ibn uthaymeen (RAH) has done one as well?

You can download the Mu'jam by Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd here (http://www.saaid.net/book/open.php?cat=82&book=1464). It is a very interesting book and if you begin to read it you may find yourself spending hours wanting to read each word he lists. I cannot recall any writing by Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymaan (rahimahullah) but I will look for it or from other people of knowledge in shaa' Allah. And Allah knows best.

[knowrass]

jazaakAllaah for the link akhi.

[Um Abdullah M.]

I heard that al-banna had some sufi beliefs

is that correct?

[abusufyaan]

The short answer is yes.

[Brother_Mujahid]

I heard that al-banna had some sufi beliefs

is that correct?

Yes, he did. The Madkhalee groups though, exaggerate the extent of his involvement in Soofism. In Egypt at the time many of the common people had Soofi beliefs.

[abusufyaan]

Is it exaggerated? If so, please explain how. The situation of the majority does not reduce the reality of his own situation, may Allah forgive him and have mercy on him.

[Abuz Zubair]

You can download the Mu'jam by Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd here (http://www.saaid.net/book/open.php?cat=82&book=1464). It is a very interesting book and if you begin to read it you may find yourself spending hours wanting to read each word he lists. I cannot recall any writing by Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymaan (rahimahullah) but I will look for it or from other people of knowledge in shaa' Allah. And Allah knows best. Yes, Shaykh Bakr is right that it is not accurate to call Islam an ideology, because it is a revelation, and not an ideology like capitalism or communism.

In that sense, it is - at least linguistically - inaccurate to call someone an Islamic ideologue, or a thinker.

But common usage of the term does not actually imply that Islam is merely an ideology, even if it be linguistically inaccurate. What it implies is that Islam shapes people's outlook on life, society, politics, economics, etc.

Similarly, an ideologue, or an Islamic thinker only implies that someone philosophises/codifies Islamic ideals and concept in an intellectually presentable fashion.

For instance, Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddima makes him an Islamic thinker.

al-Shatibi's philosophy on Islamic Objectives as presented in Mawaqif makes him a great thinker, and likewise Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim.

So long as this is what is implied by the term 'Islamic thinker', then there is no problem with mere terminologies.

Another person to mention is Muhammad Qutb. I didn't think much of him until I was made to study his work: Madhahib Fikriyya Mu'asira - Contemporary Ideological Schools, in which he discusses Democracy, Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Humanism, etc, and goes into the history of all these movements, how they emerged, and compares them to Islam.

It was a great experience studying it for it gives one real insight into how and why these modern ideologies developed, how they evolved, and how imperfect they are when compared to Islam. It equips the 'Islamist' with the needed intellectual weaponry to reply back to these people. Very valuable contribution.

Although, how much of a Salafi he is, not quite sure.

[miskeen]

salaam

Speaking of ibn Khaldun, is anyone aware of is beliefs? I have his muqaddimah, albeit the abridged version, I haven't read it yet but was curious as to his aqidah.

[abusufyaan]

Jazakallahu khayran Abuz Zubair for the clarification. Out of curiosity, would you happen to know the earliest usage of the term?

[Suhaib Jobst]

I heard that al-banna had some sufi beliefs

Hasan al-Banna wrote a number of works outlining the creed of the Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen (from which they have unfortunately strayed). The following are some excerpts from his book, "The Message of the Teachings", which should demonstrate whether he called to Sufism or not:

"Talismans, incantations, placing of shells around the neck, fortune telling whether by drawing lines on sand or astrology, sorcery and claiming to have knowledge of the unseen and similar practices are all evils that must be fought, except what is mentioned in the Qur'an or transmitted to us as an authentic narrations of the Prophet (peace be upon him)."

"Love of pious people, respecting them, and honouring their righteous achievements brings one closer to Allah (may He be exalted). These (the ones who are close to Allah) have been mentioned by Allah in the Qur'anic verse: ‘Those who believed and were fearful of Allah.’. Honour and prestige are due to them with the conditions prescribed by the Islamic Law, but we must firmly believe that they (may Allah be pleased with them) had no power over their own fates and, thereby, cannot avail or harm anyone after their death.

"Visiting grave sites and tombs is an authentic Sunnah if done in the manner prescribed by the Prophet (peace be upon him) But seeking the help of the dead, whomever they may be, appealing to them, asking them to fulfil certain requests, vowing to them, and swearing with their names instead of the name of Allah, building high tombs, covering them with curtains, illuminating them, are evil innovations that are equally prohibited. We do not need to interpret such actions giving them excuses."

http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/tmott/

Hasan al-Banna fought the existing imperialist, Jahili order of his day. The Muslims were at a lowpoint in history and he sought to remedy the situation. And he died the death of a shaheed, as several scholars have testified. I ask, why do people like the Madkhaliah hate him so much and fabricated such lies? What is behind their agenda?

I would certainly agree with those brothers who said Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb weren't Muslim scholars. But they were great Muslim thinkers, who saw injustice and fought it according to Islamic methods. They wrote excellent books and made great efforts in spreading the Islamic Call, and should be remembered for such.

[Suhaib Jobst]

If I may elaborate on the subject of Muhammad Abduh, I did some research and here are some of his deviated ideas, which reach the level of riddah:

Hanna Abu Rashid, chief of the masonic lodge in Beirut, wrote: "Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani was the chief of the masonic lodge in Egypt, which had about three hundred members, mostly scholars and state officials. After him, the leading master Muhammad Abduh became the chief. Abduh was a leading freemason. No one can deny that he has spread the masonic spirit in Arab countries." (Da'irat al-Ma'arif al-Masoniyya, Beirut: 1961, p. 197).

Indeed, Abduh used his position as Rector of Al-Azhar to spread heretical ideas drawn from the European Enlightenment - which had been influenced by Freemasonry - in the guise of an "Islamic reformation". Among other things, he was an extreme Murji'ee, an advocate of the Unity of Religions (Wahdat ul-Adyaan), and a modernist when it came to interpreting the Qur'an and seeking to change Islamic laws.

1. He believed that Christianity and Judaism were acceptable routes to Jannah, and claimed these religions were the same as Islam, save for a few minor differences (Abduh, Islam and Christianity). He wrote in his tafseer of Surah az-Zalzalah (verse 7): "Whether a Muslim or an unbeliever, everybody who does good deeds will enter Paradise."

In a letter to a priest in London, he wrote: "I expect that the two great religions, Islam and Christianity, will shake hands and embrace each other. Then, by supporting one another the Torah, the Bible and the Qur'an will be read everywhere and will be revered by every nation."

2. He linked Islamic revivalism with the acceptance of "science". He ridiculed Islamic scholars and institutions, as "backward" since they rejected "knowledge, science and logic." He also believed Hikmah (wisdom) was separate from the Deen and referred to the secular sciences.

3. He was also an extreme Murji'ee who wrote: "If a person is heard to say a statement which shows his unbelief in a hundred respects and his belief in one respect, that person will be accepted as a believer. It is idiocy to think that any philosopher or man of idea would say a statement which does not show belief even in one respect versus unbelief in a hundred respects. Then, they all should be acknowledged as believers. The word 'zindeeq' does not exist in Islam. It has been invented afterwards." (Abduh, Islam and Christianity).

4. He helped spread the seeds of Shi'ism in Egypt and the lands of the Sunnah, when he wrote a commentary on Nahjal-Balaghah which praised Shi'ite ideology. He was also ignorant of the true nature of Baha'ism, as a dialogue with his student Rashid Rida (who nevertheless rejected many of his ideas) showed.
http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/articles/A-E/cole/abduh/abduh.htm

5. He called for interpreting the Holy Qur'an through rational, as he wrote in his tafseer of Surah al-Asr: "Iman does not mean an imitative belief in the things which mind and conscience cannot grasp. It is not iman to memorize and say some words which one has heard from his parents. Islam is against imitation. It is of no value to have come before, so everything must be solved by one's investigation through reason."

6. He obviously denied many hadeeths and certainly rejected itibah. He also denied that the Sahabah were any better in status than the rest of humanity and rejected their tafseer of the Qur'an, as he wrote in his explanation of Surah al-Fatihah: "The Qur'an addressed the people living in that time and it addressed them not because they were superior, but because they were human beings."

7. He claimed there were allegorical descriptions in the Qur'an, which should be viewed according to modern scientific knowledge. He wrote in his tafseer of Surah al-Fil: "The birds of Ababil may be mosquitoes, so the soldiers possibly died of smallpox or measles."

Likewise, Abduh wrote in his tafseer of Surah an-Nas: "There is a devil in every person. But this means a power which bears the evil desires in man. It is an effect which is likened to genies."

8. He denied numerous aspects of Islamic Shari'ah, such as the stoning of the adulterers and murtadeen. In an official paper written in 1880 (1297H), he rejected polygamy as not compatible with the current times.

9. Likewise, Abduh was one of those individuals who made great excuses for the acceptance of Ribaa. He issued a fatwa on December 5th, 1903, which state: "Interest in saving funds is allowed. The stipulated usury is not permissible in any case; whereas since the Post Office invests monies taken from the people, which are not taken as loans based on need, it would be possible to apply the investment of such monies on the rules of a partnership in commenden." (Al-Manar, vol. VI, Part 18, p. 717).

So this man who combined within his character some of the worst heresies, anticipated the thinking of several groups who currently inject their poison into this blessed ummah. This includes the Modernists, from the likes of Qaradawi, who make all sorts of excuses to make halal what is haram and make haram what is halal, and who want the Muslims to abandon any sense of Al-Walaa wal-Baraa. And the Rafidah, who seek to spread their ideology in the guise of "unity" and "brotherhood".

And it includes the Perennialists, who attempt to claim that Islam does not make takfeer of the other religions, but that it accepts them as brothers and regards them as legitimate routes to Paradise. And it includes the Murji'ah, who claim all that is necessary is to have the smallest amount of Iman in the heart, and you are a Believer. And I seek refuge in Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) from the evil contained within these groups and may He protect the Muslims from their poison. Ameen.

So there are things to be found in the writings of Abduh, which please these groups - something for everyone....except the true Muslim, who is repulsed by what he/she reads from Abduh and the bitter legacy he reaped with his efforts.

On a final note, the Madkhalee attempt to link Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb to Muhammad Abduh. But this is false....Hasan's father Ahmad was indeed a student of Abduh, but this does not mean a tacit acceptance of everything Abduh (who often was two-faced and taught according to his audience) believed. One has only to read the works of Hasan al-Banna to know that he rejected the deviance of Abduh. Likewise, Sayyid Qutb was strong in his criticism of Abduh, particularly his belief in Unity of Religions.

[knowrass]

Another person to mention is Muhammad Qutb. I didn't think much of him until I was made to study his work: Madhahib Fikriyya Mu'asira - Contemporary Ideological Schools, in which he discusses Democracy, Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Humanism, etc, and goes into the history of all these movements, how they emerged, and compares them to Islam.

It was a great experience studying it for it gives one real insight into how and why these modern ideologies developed, how they evolved, and how imperfect they are when compared to Islam. It equips the 'Islamist' with the needed intellectual weaponry to reply back to these people. Very valuable contribution.

Although, how much of a Salafi he is, not quite sure.

akhi, is the book by Muhammad Qutb available online?

[Abuz Zubair]

Unfortunately, I haven't come across his book online.

[abuzakarya]

As-salamu alayku. So brother Abuz Zubair, have you decided to become a Salafi againhttp://www.smileypad.com/v224/Happy/Grin-Nod.gif?