Global Intifada

It seems that within the past few years, the battles between Salafis and Traditionalists has reached epic proportions. Perhaps this is due with more sources of knowledge being available on the internet or perhaps this has to do with the development of Islamic institutions of learning, whatever the cause, the effects have become apparent.

Virtually no Islamic forum, Masjid, or MSA can function without the paralyzing fragmentation of sectarian issues. However, the difference between previous manifestations of sectarianism in the Ummah and today is that today the differences are not between ahl us sunnah and others, but within ahl us sunnah itself.

It would be a lie to claim that such differences haven’t happened in the past. The debates between Asharis and Hanbalis was well known to the point of inquisitions. Although, alhumdillah, no one was killed over such issues, a lot of bickering and in-fighting did occur.

The question becomes: what is the solution to these problems? Where is the middle course? Is a synthesis possible? Do we change our ideas to resolve sectarian disputes or do we stick with a particular methodology in approaching our deen?

Their may be many solutions out there or their may be no solutions out there. However, until we explore our alternatives, then Muslim unity will never manifest itself.

Most of the people who depict the Salafi - Ashari/Madhabi divide to be absolutely seperate and impossible to conjoin. However, it is important to note that the “Salafi” movement itself originated out of Traditionalist understanding of Islam.

It should be noted that the teacher of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab was Shaykh Muhammad Haya al Sindi who was both an Ashari Shafi’i Naqshbandi who was a student of Shaykh Ibrahim al Kurrani who was an Athari/Ashari (yes, its possible) Shafi’i who was not only a Naqshbandi Sufi, but a defender of Ibn Arabi’s concept of wahdat al wujood.

“How is this possible?”, you are probably wondering. The founder of the Salafi dawah having his religious learning rooted in purportedly deviant aqidah, fiqh, Sufism!

In reality, the biography of Ibrahim al Kurrani and his ideas provides our generation of Muslims for a possible resolution of the Salafi and Traditionalist conflicts.

Ibrahim al-Kurrani was:

• An Athari/Ashari. He accepted certain aspects of the Ashari aqidah, but he imitated Ibn Taymiyyah’s understanding of certain verses of the Qur’an. Verses which the Asharis would consider “anthropomorphic”. In reality, Ibn Taymiyyah’s understanding of certain attributes of Allah (swt) are not anthropomorphic. Some Salafis get carried away with his ideas and make statements which outwardly seem anthropomorphic, but most Salafis do not intend for their statements to come off that way. Keep in mind that the Sahabah (ra) never discussed these types of issues. Hence, to make an affirmation of these attributes would be as equal an innovation as interpreting them metaphorically. (By the way, not all Asharis interpreted the verses metaphorically). This is probably the greatest divide between the Asharis. I’ve observed several Salafi-Ashari debates and I’ve come to the conclusion that a good deal of misunderstanding between the two methodologies is that people open up classical books that don’t accurately portray the views of the other methodology. Since individuals cannot come up with arguments of their own, they look to the ‘Ulema or thinkers of the past. This is a common habit of our generation, Shaykh Google, unfortunately, has become the real Shaykh ul Islam. However, some of these works that contain refutations do not accurately depict the opposing methodology or they were written in regards to a particular scholar whose ideas were not truly representative of the entire school. As is the case, there are differences within the theological methodologies. What often happens is a gross generalization that is derived from the ideas of a smaller group of people and is applied to the entire methodology. If both interpretations of the attributes are acceptable, then these debates over them become meaningless. What about Kurrani’s reformulation of the Ashari aqidah? Is that acceptable? As Asharis themselves would say “There is no taqlid in aqidah” (this statement itself has degrees of explanation. There is taqlid in aqidah, but only if it is unconditional). The Ashari aqidah is largely a rational defense of the beliefs of the community that have been encapsulated in the textual sources. Unlike the textual sources, adherence to a rational methodology is not binding upon Muslims. As Ibn Rushd pointed out, the Ashari “proofs” are not really conclusive nor are they beneficial because they confuse the lay people. If the rational components of the Ashari aqidah are not beneficial, then is it necessary for a scholar to follow it? Is it necessary to believe in the proofs for the existence of the creator, which is derived largely from a causal argument? Imam Ghazzali and Imam Razi didn’t think so, so why should we? It is important to note that the proof for the existence of the Creator, as I discussed in my other post regarding the Ashari aqidah, results in a three prong formulation: the necessary acts, the possible, and the impossible. These three formulations define the different concepts that are embodied in the Ashari aqidah. If causality is disproven, a good portion of the Ashari aqidah is thrown out the window. Today, theoretical physics has shown that the understanding of causal relationships between objects is far more complex than the Medieval Muslim theologians had concieved. Thus, it is conceivable that the rational components of the Ashari aqidah may no longer be tenable. Hence, Kurrani’s reformulation of the aqidah may be somewhat justified.
• Kurrani Shafi’i who invoked Ijtehad - The Salafis follow madhabs. It is a great misconception that they do not follow a madhab. However, the question becomes whether the ‘Ulema must follow a madhab in each and every aspect. The answer is no. The question becomes this: are the fatawa of previous ‘Ulema binding upon the Ummah? The answer is no, unless their is ijmaa. Differences exist within schools of thought and later ‘Ulema have amended the rulings of previous ‘Ulema. There is no ijmaa on ijmaa. The Hanbalis have a different conception of ijmaa than the Hanafis, Shafi’is, Malikis and they each have different conceptions from one another. What is consensus? Is the consensus of a particular generation of the ‘Ulema or the Ummah binding upon all Muslims? Or is it just the ijmaa of the Sahabah (ra)? These are all valid questions. I’m not going to say that Kurrani was correct in adopting the Hanbali position since he was a Hanbali. However, keep in mind that that seeking dispensations in following a madhab is restricted for the laymen. The ‘Alim has a slightly different set of restraints. The only person who is capable of weighing opinions between a madhab is a mujtahid. This is why the laymen is excluded from picking and choosing between a madhab. Since they lack both a juristic methodology and a sound grasp of the textual sources, they will inevitably resolve fiqh issues based on arbitrary standards. In other words, the ‘Usool of the laymen will inevitably be following his desires; he will impulsively resolve his legal issues instead of seeking consistency. An ‘Alim, or rather, a mujtahid, on the other hand, possesses both a sound legal methodology and mastery of the texts, amongst other qualifications. This qualifies him to weigh opinions. Now, back to Kurrani. If he was indeed a mujtahid, then his infusing of the Hanbali principle of ijtehad into his Shafi’i understanding may not necessarily be prohibited. Ibrahim al Kurrani isn’t truly mixing between madhab, but rather, simply confirming a juristic principle within another madhab that he has concluded through his personal ijtehad. This is not something new. The four madhaib occassionally developed similar methodologies, although under different semantics. If Kurrani was a mujtahid, and his ijtehad was that consensus of previous generations was not binding except for the ijma of the Sahabah (ra), then he obviously would agree that contemporary circumstances can give rise to new rulings. This is something that is not new. There are pros and cons with Kurranis understanding of ijtehad. The good thing is that it results in a more updated version of fiqh as contemporary issues are addressed in light of novel circumstances. This might become a bad thing because it may lead to innovations and it might create chaos by resulting in too many opinions, in essence, resulting in the dissolution of the madhab as a guild. In all honesty, I am in no position to go any further into this discussion so I am going to leave it at that. I am not defending Kurranis position, but merely describing it. What does this have to do with Salafis and Traditionalists? If Kurranis position is adopted, it might resolve many fiqh issues that seperate the two. After all, there are a lot of things that the Deobandis and Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio and the Salafis have in common, such as their reference to Bida and Shirk.
• Kurrani was also a Naqshbandi ‘reformist’ Sufi. He adopted the same line of reasoning that Junayd (r) and Imam Ghazzali (r) had about deviant forms of Sufism. There are many Sufi claimers even today, and there were plenty in Islamic history, who innovated in many practices. Kurrani called for reform amongst the Sufi claimers. He did not reject tasawwuf like some Salafis do.

So in summary, possible resolution of Salafi-Traditionalist differences:
1. Aqidah - The Salafis need to accept the validity of the Ashari aqidah and vice versa so long as neither goes in excess (resulting in anthropomorphism or negating the attributes of Allah ). However, this doesnt happen anyway. If people started talking to each other instead of at each other and listened to what the other party was saying, they would notice that a lot of these differences are really taken out of context.

2. Fiqh - Revival of ijtehad by those qualified to do so. Most Salafis, in my opinion, are correct in their conclusion but wrong in their application. In order to engage in ijtehad, one has to be a mujtahid. With all due respect to Salafi scholars, but they aren’t mujtahid.

3. Tasawwuf - Salafis need to calm down about declaring Sufism heretical and look at the substance which has always been obedience to the Shar’iah. Traditional Sufis need to speak out more against Sufi-Claimers.

If such a program is adopted, it is possible that the Salafi-Traditionalist disputes may be resolved.

Then Muslims can go back to bickering about whether we should become Western or not.

And I really shoul’ve been typing up my notes for class. I have ADD.

Share This