why is salafi'ism associated with being anti madhabi

[asharee_salafi]

Assalaam'ualykum

Why is salafi'ism associated with being anti madhabi?

Why did that movement do these things?

And what does it mean when the salafi scholars talk about not 'blind following', as we have seen in Sh Abdurahman Khaliq's article. Why are these terms used, and why don't these salafi scholars ever talk about the correct understanding of taqleed?

JA

[Um Abdullah M.]

wa alaykum assalam

it is false to say that Salafiyyah is la madhhabi \anti madhhabs ..etc.
the ones who have gone somewhat extreme on this are ahl hadith of Pakistan and India.
and it seems because of their extremism in this issue, Salafis in general are accused of being anti madhhab, especially by Sufis who are from Pakistan and India, and that is because of their ignorance about Salafis who live in places other than the sub continent, especially in Arab countries.


Basically, Salafiyyah is middle in this issue.

blind following\taqleed and ta'assub (partisenship) of madhhab is bad and wrong when it comes to scholars, they have the knowledge and tools, so they shouldnt' be blind following, they should be doing ijtihad in choosing their fatwas.

as for laymen, they do taqlid, because they don't have knowledge, whether they go by a madhhab or ask an available trustworthy scholar their questions, regardless of his madhhab.
by they also shouldn't be doing ta'assub to the madhhab, attacking anyone who doesn't go by the opinion of the madhhab, or goes against it.

[Abu_Zahid]

the ones who have gone somewhat extreme on this are ahl hadith of Pakistan and India.
and it seems because of their extremism in this issue, Salafis in general are accused of being anti madhhab, especially by Sufis who are from Pakistan and India, and that is because of their ignorance about Salafis who live in places other than the sub continent, especially in Arab countries.

I've come across this in pakistan aswell...why is it that they are like this?
And who do they ("ahl e hadith" in pak) follow then?

[Um Abdullah M.]

I've come across this in pakistan aswell...why is it that they are like this?
And who do they ("ahl e hadith" in pak) follow then?

actually I really haven't met them personally, it is what I came across on the internet.
they basically have Salafi aqeedah, but it seems to me that they became kind of extreme in the the issue of madhhabs (being anti madhhabs) in response to the extremism of Deobandis and other groups (in subcontinent) in following their fiqh madhhab (mostly or all Hanafi), being muta'assib in following the madhhab.
so then we have 2 extremes, in following madhhab and in being anti madhhab.

wallahu a'lam

this is my analysis, I might be wrong.

maybe if some others can comment on the issue and share what they know about this.

[justabro]

The greatest influence on the Ahle Hadis movement with respect to Fiqh is Imam al-Shawkani. A number of Indian scholars studied under him and his writings gave an important reference point for their movement. In general, he is Salafi in Aqidah and independent of the four schools in Fiqh, with tendencies to the Dhahiri way. Consequently, they are the same. Their extreme opposition to taqleed is also something taken from his influence.

To be fair, al-Shawkani was not alone in this. Many of the Sunnis of Yemen shared these viewpoints, take for example Imam al-San'ani, the author of Subul al-Salam, who was about a generation before al-Shawkani.

Many of them, including al-Shawkani, came from a Zaydi Shi'a background and they were faced with the most extreme forms of taqleed and all sorts of innovations and corruption in Aqidah. It is likely, in great part, as a result of this that they rejected taqleed so vehemently

[Um Abdullah M.]

The greatest influence on the Ahle Hadis movement with respect to Fiqh is Imam al-Shawkani. A number of Indian scholars studied under him and his writings gave an important reference point for their movement. In general, he is Salafi in Aqidah and independent of the four schools in Fiqh, with tendencies to the Dhahiri way. Consequently, they are the same. Their extreme opposition to taqleed is also something taken from his influence.

To be fair, al-Shawkani was not alone in this. Many of the Sunnis of Yemen shared these viewpoints, take for example Imam al-San'ani, the author of Subul al-Salam, who was about a generation before al-Shawkani.

Many of them, including al-Shawkani, came from a Zaydi Shi'a background and they were faced with the most extreme forms of taqleed and all sorts of innovations and corruption in Aqidah. It is likely, in great part, as a result of this that they rejected taqleed so vehemently

very interesting
is there any article or website where I can find more info about this?

[justabro]

here is a biography of Imam al-Shawkani:

http://www.fustat.com/bibliography/shawkani_1.shtml

His work in Fiqh, al-Durar al-Bahiyyah, with his commentary al-Darari al-Mudhiyah, or Sadiq Hasan Khan's revised version of it entitled al-Rawdah al-Nadiyyah (it is essentially the same commentary, he added quotes from ibn al-Qayyim and Shah Waliyullah al-Dehlawi here and there) is typically taught in Ahle Hadis madrasahs to students as their first fiqh text.

This is also the text that Sh. al-Albani used to teach. A version of al-Rawdah al-Nadiyyah with Sh. al-Albani's comments is now available. It was taken from the notes he had written on the margin of his own copy. Al-Halabi obtained permission for him to prepare it for print and to add his own notes.

This text along with Subul al-Salam of al-San'ani and Nayl al-Awtar of al-Shawkani are loved by the Ahle Hadis. Incidentally, they seem to like Taysir al-Allam of Sh. Aal Bassaam now as well as I saw copies of it everywhere in Pakistan. I think its most likely because it focuses on Fiqh al-Hadith from a comparative approach.

I dont know what they typically study in Usul but I would be surprised if Imam al-Shawkani's Irshad al-Fuhul is not prominent in the list.

Now, bear in mind, although I do not agree with their approach necessarily, I have the utmost respect for Imam al-Shawkani. The first book in Fiqh I ever studied was al-Durar al-Bahiyyah with the commentaries of al-Shawkani/Sadiq Hasan Khan/al-Albani. I just simply decided at the end that it was better for me to study a madhhab.

[Expergefactionist]

typically taught in Ahle Hadis madrasahs to students as their first fiqh text.

Thanks for that... I always wondered how exactly they get to learn fiqh... so basically they are Shawkanites, at the end of the day.

[justabro]

Thanks for that... I always wondered how exactly they get to learn fiqh... so basically they are Shawkanites, at the end of the day.

When I last went to pakistan (Feb. 2006), my wife's cousin had just newly joined a madrasah and they had given her al-Darari al-Mudhiyah as one of her first textbooks. She was still working on getting her Arabic down at the time.

[hshad]

assalamu alikum

i truly tell you there is lots of misconception and most people are giving out opinions based on mere observations. i can tell you that in almost all the ahl-e-hadith madaaris in pakistan, they study the hanafi usul and fiqh together with Shawkani's books. yes, hanafi usul. this is a huge misconception that ahl-e-hadith don't study usul or fiqh. And, they even teach usul us-shahi but leave deviated usuls in it. They study hanafi fiqh but leave out odd/wrong usul like making differenitation between faqih and ghayr faqih sahahba. at jamia abi bakr, they follow the curriculum of madinah uni.

wa alaykum assalam

it is false to say that Salafiyyah is la madhhabi \anti madhhabs ..etc.
the ones who have gone somewhat extreme on this are ahl hadith of Pakistan and India.
and it seems because of their extremism in this issue, Salafis in general are accused of being anti madhhab, especially by Sufis who are from Pakistan and India, and that is because of their ignorance about Salafis who live in places other than the sub continent, especially in Arab countries.

No, sister this is not correct. this is using a broad brush to paint all ahl-e-hadith. some of the ahl-e-hadith have and really what you come in contact over the net or in person is laypersons who are just too rived up. Is the extreme (salafitalk) salafism of the west a product of ahl-e-hadith? No, it's from those who deal with scholars in Arab land, right?

Isn't al-Albani from an Arab country (forget about his actual origin)? So, ahl-e-hadith in Pakistan are similar in fiqh views of al-Albani. And, as is quoted on this thread, al-Albani used to teach Shawkani's fiqh books. What curriculum is followed in madinah univ? What "fiqh" both in usul and furu' does it teach? What fiqh is taught at Jordanian salafi places? At markaz al-Albani in Jordan?All these extremem salafism of brother who come from saudi, is it also due to ahl-e-hadith of Pakistan?

Also, Abdur Rahman Abdul Khaliq is not from Pakistan, right! my point is some extremism is equally in Arab lands and in Indo-Pak.

actually I really haven't met them personally, it is what I came across on the internet.
they basically have Salafi aqeedah, but it seems to me that they became kind of extreme in the the issue of madhhabs (being anti madhhabs) in response to the extremism of Deobandis and other groups (in subcontinent) in following their fiqh madhhab (mostly or all Hanafi), being muta'assib in following the madhhab.
so then we have 2 extremes, in following madhhab and in being anti madhhab.

wallahu a'lam

this is my analysis, I might be wrong.

maybe if some others can comment on the issue and share what they know about this.

This is true for the posture and attitude of ahl-e-hadith...extremism breads extremism. but, it is an attitude not methodology problem.

Thanks for that... I always wondered how exactly they get to learn fiqh... so basically they are Shawkanites, at the end of the day.

It's odd, brother Abuz Zubair that you are knowledgeable person but didn't think about checking it out yourself to help clarify this for the readers. did you, like many, thought that ahl-e-hadith don't study fiqh? you've waited until now to find out about them through someone over the net...odd

Now, bear in mind, although I do not agree with their approach necessarily, I have the utmost respect for Imam al-Shawkani. The first book in Fiqh I ever studied was al-Durar al-Bahiyyah with the commentaries of al-Shawkani/Sadiq Hasan Khan/al-Albani. I just simply decided at the end that it was better for me to study a madhhab.

Just curious, what madhhab did you decide to study and where did you study it?