What are the main principles of Wahhabism (Salafism) and what makes it different?

chuuush

Registered Senior Member
As a muslim I keep hearing good and bad things about wahhabism/salafism. Some of my relatives who live in Saudi Arabia are also partly Salafi, but when it comes to discussion, which is quite rare, we never fully agree? So why are they different than other muslim sects? Are they followers of a half-knowledged scholar who was backed by the colonialists to creat a discord in the Islamic world which possibly led to the demolition of the only existing Islamic empire of the time or preachers of a puritarian Islam?
Contributions please...
 
From what I have read on the subject, the Salafis are the ones who claim to emulate the Sahaba. The problem with this is they ignore the fact that it has been 1400 years since the Sahaba lived and Islam is not about getting frozen in time. Most are generally just quietly conservative and fiercely opposed to any change in their society, which they term as bid'a or innovation. In practise though, it is tedious and difficult to avoid change of any sort, so it mostly ends up making them anachronistic and misfits in any society but their own.

Abdul Wahab was the guy who (mistakenly IMO) thought any change would damage Islam and he was instrumental in not only codifying Salafism as a social movement (destruction of several historical structures to avoid deification, etc) but also making it highly evangelical in nature.

IMO, this form of Islam is bid'a and takes away from the inherent message of Islam, which is to "Read! " and gain knowledge and not keep your eyes, hearts and minds closed to what the world is about.

Besides, as the Quran says, even the Prophet was not sent to change anyone's mind, only to remind everyone of the message. That to me implies that everyone should read the message and make up their own minds.
 
The differences, though being considered little by some are from time to time so grave that many islamic scholars in non-arabic countries renounce wahabism as Bid'a itself,That is true with the İslamic Sunni scholars in Iran, Turkey and the like. While Wahabists in return accuse those who reject their way with disbelief. But I dare tell the popularity of salafism in some countries has grown compared to 10 years ago. Example are Afganistan, Pakistan and most Arabic countries. I suppose the idea that killing innocent muslims as acceptable collateral damages in a war against the unbelievers is permittable is a salafi view (or maybe of a very hardliner group of the sect) . This is what shocked many muslims when they first saw suicide bombers in Iraq killing muslim civilians and enemies indiscriminately, a trend which has since spread to countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia, etc. and seems to still have way to go. Replies on this, if any, will be appreciated of course...

But I want to make this discussion over the fundamental differences between the Salafism and the traditional islam (may I call it so?), because I maybe a bit biased against wahabism, but again want to know what it exactly is before jumping into conclusions...
 
The differences, though being considered little by some are from time to time so grave that many islamic scholars in non-arabic countries renounce wahabism as Bid'a itself,That is true with the İslamic Sunni scholars in Iran, Turkey and the like. While Wahabists in return accuse those who reject their way with disbelief. But I dare tell the popularity of salafism in some countries has grown compared to 10 years ago. Example are Afganistan, Pakistan and most Arabic countries. I suppose the idea that killing innocent muslims as acceptable collateral damages in a war against the unbelievers is permittable is a salafi view (or maybe of a very hardliner group of the sect) . This is what shocked many muslims when they first saw suicide bombers in Iraq killing muslim civilians and enemies indiscriminately, a trend which has since spread to countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia, etc. and seems to still have way to go. Replies on this, if any, will be appreciated of course...

But I want to make this discussion over the fundamental differences between the Salafism and the traditional islam (may I call it so?), because I maybe a bit biased against wahabism, but again want to know what it exactly is before jumping into conclusions...


It is not the Salafi view that killing Muslims is fine; what they do is redefine who Muslims are, ie they are takfiris. So for a Wahabbi, collateral damages that lead to casualties of other Muslims is justified by the pronouncement that they are not Muslims anyway as they are practising bid'a.
 
It is not the Salafi view that killing Muslims is fine; what they do is redefine who Muslims are, ie they are takfiris. So for a Wahabbi, collateral damages that lead to casualties of other Muslims is justified by the pronouncement that they are not Muslims anyway as they are practising bid'a.

You mean they reject the people of Iraq as non-muslims? I don't think so...
Anyway, I expect to get information from somebody who is a member of or well-knowledged on Salafism...It maybe that I'm wrong..
 
You mean they reject the people of Iraq as non-muslims? I don't think so...
Anyway, I expect to get information from somebody who is a member of or well-knowledged on Salafism...It maybe that I'm wrong..

You have to realise the difference between Salafism which is a conservative movement of "pure Islam" based on Sahabas and Wahabism which is an extreme version of it.

e.g.
The Wahhabis, by calling themselves Salafis, not only claim to follow the footsteps of the early Muslims, but also use semantics to fool and allure less informed Muslims into accepting Wahhabism. Wahhabis say, “You must follow the Muslims of the Salaf.” (This is undoubtedly true.) Then the Wahhabi semantics: “Therefore you must be a Salafi and nothing else. Following anything else means you’re following a path that is different from the Muslims of the Salaf.” By such deceptive semantics, the less informed Muslims believe that Salafis must truly represent the pristine interpretations of the early Muslims of the Salaf. After all, the word Salafi sounds like Salaf, so it must truly be representative of it. Far from it. When the less informed goes beyond semantics and blind faith and investigates what a Salafi believes, the truth unveiled is that the understanding of Salafis (Wahhabis) is different and contradictory to the understanding and positions of the pious Muslims who lived in the Salaf – and the majority of Muslims who have ever lived (Sunnis).

And this:

it will surprise many to know that the orthodox Sunni Muslims were the first to be slaughtered in waves of Wahhabi massacres in Arabia hundreds of years ago. One only has to read the historical evolution of Saudi Arabia to know the gruesome details of the tragedy – a tragedy in which thousands of Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims perished at the hands of Wahhabi militants.

In this they resemble the Khawarij movement:

The Wahhabis are especially notorious for reviving the ways of the Khawarij (or Kharijites). They originated in the time of the caliphates of Uthman and Ali, among the closest companions to Prophet Muhammad. They were the earliest group of fanatics who separated themselves from the Muslim community. They arose in opposition to Ali – Prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law – because of his willingness to arbitrate with Mu’awiyah, governor of Damascus at that time, over the issue of the caliphate. The Khawarij, meaning “those who exited,” slung accusations of blasphemy against Ali and Mu’awiyah – and those who followed them – saying that the Qur’an, and not them, had the ultimate authority in the matter. Ibn al-Jawzi, an orthodox Sunni scholar, in his book Talbis Iblis (The Devil’s Deception) under the chapter heading “A Mention of the Devil’s Delusion upon the Kharijites,” says that Dhu’l-Khuwaysira al-Tamimi was the first Kharijite in Islam and that “[h]is fault was to be satisfied with his own view; had he paused he would have realized that there is no view superior to that of Allah’s Messenger…” Furthermore, the orthodox Sunni scholar Imam Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi discusses the Kharijite rebellions and their bloody massacres of tens of thousands of Muslims in one of his books. He explicitly mentions the Azariqa, one of the most atrocious Kharijite movements led by Nafi’ ibn al-Azraq from the tribe of Banu Hanifa – the same tribe where the heretic Musaylima the Prevaricator (or Liar) who claimed prophethood alongside Prophet Muhammad came from. Just as the Khawarij threw accusations of blasphemy on Ali and Mu’awiya, Wahhabis throw accusations of blasphemy against Sunnis and Shi’ites.

But:
The orthodox Sunni scholar Jamil Effendi al-Zahawi said that the teachers of Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab, including two teachers he had studied with in Medina – Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Sulayman al-Kurdi and Shaykh Muhammad Hayat al-Sindi – became aware of his anti-Sunni Wahhabi creed and warned Muslims from him. His shaykhs, including the two aforementioned shaykhs, used to say: “God will allow him [to] be led astray; but even unhappier will be the lot of those misled by him.”[3]

Moreover, Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab’s own father had warned Muslims from him, as did his biological brother, Sulayman Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab, an orthodox Sunni scholar who refuted him in a book entitled al-Sawa’iq al-Ilahiyya fi al-radd `ala al-Wahhabiyya [“Divine Lightnings in Refuting the Wahhabis”]. Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab was refuted by the orthodox Sunni scholars for his many ugly innovations. Perhaps his most famous book, Kitab at-Tawheed (Book of Unity of God) is widely circulated amongst Wahhabis worldwide, including the United States. His book is popular in Wahhabi circles, although orthodox Sunni scholars have said that there is nothing scholarly about it, both in terms of its content and its style.

Details:
http://www.sunnah.org/articles/Wahhabiarticleedit.htm


Of course, that is not how you'll see it explained in popular media:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

Unfortunately Abdul Wahab is still popular in some circles:

Takfir motivation for many of these killings may come from Sunni insurgent leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Before his death Zarqawi was want to quote Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, especially his infamous statement urging followers to kill the Shi'a of Iraq,[34] and calling the Shias "snakes".[35] Wahabi suicide bombers continue to attack Iraqi Shia civilians,[36] and the Shia ulema have in response declared suicide bombing as haram:

"حتي كساني كه با انتحار مي*‏آيند و مي*‏زنند عده*‏اي را مي*‏كشند، آن هم به عنوان عمليات انتحاري، اينها در قعر جهنم هستند"
"Even those who kill people with suicide bombing, these shall meet the flames of hell."[37] Some believe the war has strengthened the takfir thinking and may spread Sunni-Shia strife elsewhere. [38]
 
You have to realise the difference between Salafism which is a conservative movement of "pure Islam" based on Sahabas and Wahabism which is an extreme version of it.
..............
Unfortunately Abdul Wahab is still popular in some circles:

That was quite enlightening, thanks a lot! I also understand that real Salafism should be considered something different. Are there any real Salafi groups in our world of today by the way?

More... I want to go down into the differences between wahhabism and traditional islam, so maybe if somebody can give a list, I can study and further it more... thanks
 
That was quite enlightening, thanks a lot! I also understand that real Salafism should be considered something different. Are there any real Salafi groups in our world of today by the way?

More... I want to go down into the differences between wahhabism and traditional islam, so maybe if somebody can give a list, I can study and further it more... thanks

You have to do some research on your own as well. :bugeye:

Here is one difference I can give you:

Difference between Sunni belief and Salafi belief

Regarding the difference between the belief of the Sunnis (Ahl al-Sunna wa’l-Jama‘ah) and the belief of the Salafis ([h: the Salafis] are a group of Muslims who claim ascription to the righteous early Muslims (al-salaf al-salih) in terms of their belief, although in reality, they go against the righteous early Muslims in some of what they claim to agree with them on, as I shall partly explain in what follows), the Salafis go against the Sunnis in some of what I have explained above, such as belief that Allah has a wajh (lit. “face”), ‘ayn (lit. “eye”), yad (lit. “hand”), and qadam (lit. “foot”) in the literal sense of these words. [h: They also go against the Sunnis by believing] that He Most High’s entity is literally above the heaven, adducing as proof certain verses and hadiths, although they are mistaken in their understanding.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=2252&CATE=24

One more resource:
The main difference between Wahhabis and those on the Sunni path is in matters of belief. This is the primary difference. Matters of fiqh are secondary. There is also a fundamental difference in methodological understandings, especially of the concept of innovation (bid`a) and traditional religious authority. The Wahhabis deny traditional Islamic spirituality as well. The articles on Sidi Mas'ud Khan' excellent website, http://www.masud.co.uk , are essential reading for serious Muslims, especially those by Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad and Shaykh Nuh.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=124&CATE=24
 
You have to do some research on your own as well. :bugeye:

Here is one difference I can give you:



http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=2252&CATE=24

One more resource:


http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=124&CATE=24

One of the arguments the followers of wahabism (I will call it wahabism to prevent misunerstanding with real Salafism) make is that this is not a new sect, but only a puritarian approach to an understanding of Islam decayed by superstitions and greedy scholars. As a proof for this they argue that Mohammad İbn Abdul Wahhab didn't write any books on Figh.
 
One of the arguments the followers of wahabism (I will call it wahabism to prevent misunerstanding with real Salafism) make is that this is not a new sect, but only a puritarian approach to an understanding of Islam decayed by superstitions and greedy scholars. As a proof for this they argue that Mohammad İbn Abdul Wahhab didn't write any books on Figh.

Depends on who you ask; I am not very familiar with Wahab's writings; I'll try to correct that in the next year.:)

Perceptions of ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab are varied. To many Muslims of the Salafi persuasion, ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab is a leading luminary in the proud tradition of Islamic scholarship. A great number of lay Sunni Muslims regard him as a pious scholar whose interpretations of the Qur'an and Hadith were nevertheless out of step with the mainstream of Islamic thought, and thus discredited. Many scholars regard him as a pious scholar who called people back to worship of Allah according to the Qur'an and Sunnah. Others regard him as a sadistic individual who stopped at nothing to gain power and manipulate others.
 
Hmm while looking out references for you, I realised that there are many contradictory opinions on the beliefs of Salafis and Wahabis; I suggest you consider my posts as opinions or suggestions rather than facts.

I will see if I can get a better source of information.
 
Wahabis are Salafis. The thing is Wahabis never refer to themselves as Wahabis, they hate that name, they call themselves 'Salafis'.

Wahabis hate that name because of the negative connotations it has picked up however it is still widely used across the Muslim World.

Check this link out:

http://aboutwahhabi.tripod.com/academic.htm
 
Back
Top