athari and salafi is the same just different names and Ash'aris are ahlul bidca
Are Somali Scandinavians more prone to joining Islamic terror cells
- Thread starter Parailia somalensis
- Start date
Salafism is a bid'ah and not the same as Athari.
how is salafism bidca
It originated from 1930s Egypt.
I don't think you've shown that it's a bid'ah. How is following Islam as understood by the earliest generations bid'ah?
Salafiyyah =/= Salafi sect.
Every sect claims to follow the Salaf, walal. That you guys do too, isn't a surprise.You are a bid'ah because you have no chain of Ulama going back to the Prophet (saws). Your line begins at MIAW.
I agree walal. Ibn Taymiyya (rahimahullah) was a proper Athari. Nowadays, there are only a few.
sxb I can show you that the ash'ari creed is upon kufr if we look at it closely but u can't show that salafism is bidca
That's it???
Why are you writing in fortune cookie style?
This is like expecting me to change my entire theological views based on some vague two words found inside a fortune cookie.
If you have some actual refutation, this is where you bring it out- not vague fortune cookie statements. You don't refute Salafism with two words written in fortune cookie style.
Cyrus
Arabist| Akh-Right Movement|احب الملكات العرب
Salafism is the only hope to save the Ummah. Most of the terrorist are irreligious and then get paid by the west to blow up places to make Islam look bad. You will hardly ever see a devout terrorist.
Indeed, most terrorist are so called liberal Muslims
Indeed, most terrorist are so called liberal Muslims
In March 2014, the Saudi interior ministry issued a royal decree branding all atheists as terrorists, which defines terrorism as "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is basedSalafism is the only hope to save the Ummah. Most of the terrorist are irreligious and then get paid by the west to blow up places to make Islam look bad. You will hardly ever see a devout terrorist.
Indeed, most terrorist are so called liberal Muslims
Cyrus
Arabist| Akh-Right Movement|احب الملكات العرب
Indeed atheism is the impetus to terrorism akhi, may Allah save us from such calamity
Salafism is the only hope to save the Ummah. Most of the terrorist are irreligious and then get paid by the west to blow up places to make Islam look bad. You will hardly ever see a devout terrorist.
Indeed, most terrorist are so called liberal Muslims
I'm glad to see a voice of reason.
If Salafism was to disappear, it would be a win for feminists, homosexuals, atheists, liberals, etc.
It's not Salafis who get invited to the White House. It's Hamza Yusuf who hangs out with US Presidents. The West openly has favored Sufism.
Who Are Sufi Muslims and Why Do Some Extremists Hate Them?
Who Are Sufi Muslims and Why Do Some Extremists Hate Them? (Published 2017)
A terrorist attack in Egypt has focused attention on the mystical school of Islam, which emphasizes the inward search for divinity.
this is clearly a shot at Salafis and an attempt to slander Salafis as "extremists".
Let's be real. The Western media loves Sufism. The West in general loves Sufis.
the Sufis get support from NY Times and Oprah Winfrey.
Whether someone personally agreed with Salafis or not, the danger isn't Salafis. The real danger is liberalism.
The West wants to get rid of Salafism because it is a bulwark against liberalism.
Cyrus
Arabist| Akh-Right Movement|احب الملكات العرب
It's another branch of deception similar to bashing Arabs - you're spot on.I'm glad to see a voice of reason.
If Salafism was to disappear, it would be a win for feminists, homosexuals, atheists, liberals, etc.
It's not Salafis who get invited to the White House. It's Hamza Yusuf who hangs out with US Presidents. The West openly has favored Sufism.
Who Are Sufi Muslims and Why Do Some Extremists Hate Them?
Who Are Sufi Muslims and Why Do Some Extremists Hate Them? (Published 2017)
A terrorist attack in Egypt has focused attention on the mystical school of Islam, which emphasizes the inward search for divinity.www.nytimes.com
this is clearly a shot at Salafis and an attempt to slander Salafis as "extremists".
Let's be real. The Western media loves Sufism. The West in general loves Sufis.
the Sufis get support from NY Times and Oprah Winfrey.
Whether someone personally agreed with Salafis or not, the danger isn't Salafis. The real danger is liberalism.
The West wants to get rid of Salafism because it is a bulwark against liberalism.
"Hey black Muslims, look at how the Arabs enslaved you in the past! Look at these one or two scholars who were derogatory to blacks in their description of them. Islam is not for blacks!"
"Hey natives of -insert country- (MENA, Iranians, etc.), look at your glorious history. Your people's contributed to the best, brightest, and most prosperous empires/kingdoms. Until those Arabs came and destroyed everything! You were brainwashed/forced to convert by the invaders!"
"Hey Muslims, look at those Salafis over there - not conforming to European standards. Look at their oppressive nature, forcing the burka on women, and themselves wearing those weird white robes. They aren't like the REAL exemplary modern Muslims like -insert your local munafiq/jahil- Clearly they're extremists." (Hence conflating the local practicing Muslim to the barbarian at the battlefield).
You can even see the effects on this thread by the way they all froth at the mere mention of the word 'Salafi'. These kids are being held psychologically hostage to this extent. WE as Muslims understand the (intricate) theological issues with Salafism - it's a long (and heated) debate in the Muslim world with varying opinions. The focus is their harshness toward bidah (or what they deem as so), and their amalgamation of all the schools of thought (jurisprudence) in an attempt to streamline it.
Although a lot of Muslims may disagree, these are valid theological points that don't take you out of the religion. The trouble is, your local gaal will not be able to grasp this. To him those headchoppers are Salafi by default - and us Muslims have aided in this dangerous mis-characterisation. The Muslims from the Indian sub-continent in particular (deobandi/berelvis and their crusade against Sh. Ibn Taymiyyah (rA), as well as Persian Muslims for obvious reasons.
Similarly, the term 'Shariah' is quickly becoming a forbidden word too.
It's a catch all term, excessively used to describe the Sunni religious, with the characteristics of Schroedinger's Cat. The ideology that both breeds deep state collaborators, and originators of every resistance group on this globe. The range of characters using this brand should indicate to you its complexity as an ideology.
Your entire argument is ''how are people who follow the Salaf not traditional'' but naming yourself after a good thing doesn't mean you're automatically correct. Shi'ahs call themselves Party of Ali, but that doesn't mean it's correct is it?
The same way Salafiyyah doesn't follow the Salaf, just because they named themselves like that. Names mean nothing. You have to show *how* you follow the Salaf, not just naming yourselves Salafiyyah.
Do you have a refutation of Salafiyyah?
If yes, I'd like you to post it.
If you don't have it, you don't have it.
It’s not. Salafi, Sunni, Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah, As-hābul-Hadeeth and Ahlul-Hadeeth all carry the same meaning.
