Hyper-salafism
-
Once you remove sufism all is good, is that what you mean?
Aye, because you gotta follow quran 6159 and 3031-32
Peace,
There are Sufis who are Sufi Submitters and follow the Quran as the only divine text and reject strange superstitions and putting all their trust into one human or sheik. It's arguable that Sufism was a monotheistic religion that later found a home within Islam. Which to me makes sense because Islam (submission) is the most peaceful religion. I just think Sufism like other religions was hijacked by clerics(sheiks) who had their own agendas.
-
Tailor
So what is salafi movement got it right? Do you honestly believe salafis actually ?cleaved? ahadith?
I don?t believe they have. If you live close to an Islamic bookstore, i recommend you to buy ?an introduction to the science of hadith? by Dr. Suhaib Hasan. It?s simple and easy to understand. When you read about how a hadith is derived as sahih and recognise the so called sahih hadith you?d see how messed up the system is.
BTW not everyone here takes everything so literally, if anything they tend to be more metaphorical.
Peace.
-
Peace,
There are Sufis who are Sufi Submitters and follow the Quran as the only divine text and reject strange superstitions and putting all their trust into one human or sheik. It's arguable that Sufism was a monotheistic religion that later found a home within Islam. Which to me makes sense because Islam (submission) is the most peaceful religion. I just think Sufism like other religions was hijacked by clerics(sheiks) who had their own agendas.
There are sufis? Where are there sufis? There should be no sufis on the face of the earth. Sufism is a religion of it's own... you mean like a parasite? Aye it was one that rose to it's height in the 16th century as the muslims declined to the lowest of lows.
-
What aspect of Sufism do you dislike, FAR?
-
Sufis are mostly peaceful and apolitical. They do not tend to focus as much on legalistic issues like Islamist do. There difference with Salafism is based on Tawassul mostly. Salafis difference with Sunnism as a whole is that salafis go to hadith directly while Sunni clerics look at fiqh and the teachings of their madhab. Remember all the madhabs were formed before Bukhari compiled his hadith and most of them kept their teachings of their madhab. Salafis do not seem to understand this and always are surprised that these madhabs do not follow(especially in ritualistic) issues the hadiths of Buhari or Muslims while Sunnis belittle Salafis as not always understanding the difference between hadith and fiqh.
There is a book out by Daniel Brown called the iconization of Bukhari were he talks about how Bukhari's hadith became iconized but the madhabs only took his hadith standard and not always the hadith itself. The Maliki school and Shafi school and Hanafi school were all formulated before Bukhari's hadith. The hanafis in fact were very reluctant to accept hadith and it took them centuries to finally accept Bukhari's hadith as authoritative. But its authority is limited because the schools never wanted to give up their madhabs and they believe in consensus sometimes is more important than individual hadith.
-
Salam
So what is salafi movement got it right? Do you honestly believe salafis actually ?cleaved? ahadith?
I don't believe they are right because most of their theories and their ideology are utter nonsense from a logical point of view.
It's not only about hadith, they just pick and chose whatever they like in order to support their bizarre ideology. They will take a verse of the Qur'an and quote it out of context or interpret it in a very nonsensical way if it suits them. They will take a hadith and ignore clear Qur'anic statements if it suits them too. And if there is no scriptural evidence or hadith to support their claims they will resort to supposedly scientific theories or simply declare their own preconceptions and prejudices to be the truth. Usually, the weaker their argument, the more they will talk about the necessity to follow the scholars, to obey authorities and so on.
yeah
Simple example the debate on whether women can be leaders (of a family, company, nation etc.). They will completely ignore the story of the queen of Shebah and instead refer to the notorious hadith which says that a nation which appoints a woman as their leader will never prosper, thus giving a hadith whose narrator has been flogged for giving false testimony, more importance than the Qur'an. Then they will support their claims with the usual mambo-jambo about the differences between men and women, that women are deficient in intelligence (yet another hadith that has no basis in the Qur'an), too emotional etc. pp., that men are better at making decisions whereas women are infantile, swayed by emotions and so on. It doesn't seem to bother them that history and reality are full of examples that prove the opposite.It doesn't take a genius to see how insincere and illogical this whole approach is.
People know from experience that only men are fit for leadership, because women by nature are more emotional and more easily swayed by their feelings and compassion. These qualities have been created in women to enable them to carry out their most important duty, which is that of motherhood and nurturing children. Men, on the other hand, are not usually swayed by their emotions as women are. Their way is usually one of logic and deliberation, which form the essence of responsibility and leadership.
http//www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/3285
And here's what a recent study says
Research from the elite Harvard Medical School in the U.S. shows the relative sizes of many of the structures inside the female brain are different from those of males.
Parts of the frontal lobe, which houses decision-making and problem-solving, are proportionally larger in women. More space is also devoted to short-term memory and spatial navigation.
http//www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1035731/Mens-brains-really-wired-differently-womens.html
hmm
-
Peace sis,
Thanks for your reply ) I don?t believe they have it right either! I was just trying to challenge a thought about hadith.
Yep a lot of hadith is filled with absurdities and it?s sad. though to be honest not much stuff is said about women in action. I seem to read much about their submissiveness although we do read about their ?rebellion? though it?s derogatory take Aisha for example going on the battle of camel.
Although in some lil snippets you hear some things though nothing really satisfying.
What about men against women working? They seem to totally forget khadija?s existence.
About women and their emotions, science and studies? before, no joke men used to believe ?women should not study because it would burst their uterus?. People had messed up theories claiming it as facts. We don?t need science to prove men and women have emotions, men and women have a brain and can execute their rights using it. Life is living proof, I tell ya there are some men who get more emotional than us girls!
-
Thanks for your reply I don?t believe they have it right either! I was just trying to challenge a thought about hadith.
That's how I understood it.
What about men against women working? They seem to totally forget khadija?s existence.
Exactly. They talk a lot about imitating the prophet, but in reality they just pick and chose what suits them. Polygamy, marrying very young women etc., all those things are being propagated and justified as "following the sunnah", yet you rarely hear Muslims speaking up in favour of marrying an older woman or a successful woman, or one in a higher position than themselves.
It's so obvious, yet I am often wondering why so many people don't see it.
I tell ya there are some men who get more emotional than us girls!
Most definitely! And particularly Arab guys ... they can be such drama queens.
peace