Note: The following transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Bismillahi wassalatu wassalamu ala rasoolillahi salallahu alayhi wasallam amma ba'da salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh brothers and sisters, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you and introduce you to a brand new show and podcast called The Hot Seat. To understand a little bit more about The Hot Seat, we first have to understand the context of the modern-day world we find ourselves living in, in the year 2019. It is a world in which perhaps there are more doubts, misconceptions, and misinterpretations thrown around about the religion of Islam than at any other period of time in the history of mankind.
The internet is the number one source used by people globally to acquire information on any topic, and it is riddled and full of false notions and erroneous ideologies about the deen of Allah. Our kids, ourselves, are being exposed to this kind of information on a daily, and if not daily, then at least weekly, and whether we know it or not, whether we choose to accept it or not, it is having an effect on our hearts, our minds, and ultimately our understanding of this beautiful religion.
To further complicate the problem, many of us find ourselves living in Western societies, where the governments, the social norms, and pressures are constantly trying to redefine what is good and what is bad, what is accepted and what is rejected, what Islam is and is allowed to be, and what Islam is never allowed to be. All of this, my brothers and sisters, ultimately leads to confusion. It leads to ignorance, and if Allah permits, it can lead to misguidance.
The Hot Seat has therefore been designed, with the permission of Allah alone, to counter these modern-day contemporary issues head-on by using the knowledge and guidance of the Muslims of the past—the early generations of Muslims, the best of generations. There is not a single Muslim on the face of the planet today who would doubt the fact that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala completed our religion for us over 1400 years ago, and that completed, holistic, perfect religion is just as applicable now in the year 2019 as it was back then. We truly do have classical solutions for contemporary problems.
However, this isn't your normal, average Islamic lecture series. First of all, it's not a lecture—it's a discussion between two parties, often opposing parties, in an attempt to reach the truth, bi idhnillah. And secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it's a unique, one-of-its-kind interactive podcast where you, from the comfort of your own home, have the opportunity to vote for and choose the topic we'll be discussing on the show. You also have the chance to ask your own questions on these contemporary issues and to grill the speaker if you feel like he hasn't been grilled enough on the show itself.
I'll be releasing details of how you can do both of those things at the end of this episode. But for now, without any further ado, let's get into this episode of The Hot Seat. As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
JazakAllah khair and once again for joining me on The Hot Seat. This was actually the first episode that we released the vote for the public, so they had the opportunity to go on the website, which is www.thehotseatpodcast.com, and they could choose a topic that they wanted us to discuss. So, with a resounding 64%, the topic that we're going to be discussing today is Deconstructing Salafism in the 21st Century. That's really what the public wanted us to talk about today. So I think a good place to start is with some simple definitions. What is Salafism? What is it in the language, and what is it in the religion?
The term Salaf has come in the Qur'an in eight places—no more, no less, eight places in the Qur'an. The meaning that it revolves around in those eight places in the Qur'an is taqaddum min wasaqq. The scholars say: As-seenu wal-laamu wal-fa’u aslun yadullu ala taqaddu min wasaqqin, meaning that the seen, laam, and fa (Salaf) come from ancestors, predecessors. That's what it means in the language. The meaning in all of those two verses that I mentioned and the other remaining verses is ancestor and predecessor. So people who have come before us.
And so, is this a linguistic definition, or is this an Islamic-specific definition? This is the lexical definition, the linguistic definition. Okay, so in the Arabic language, that's what it means. And what does it mean in the religion of Islam then?
In the Shari’a, it means the scholars have said that it means following and being of the methodology of the three noble generations, based on a hadith in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, narrated by Abdullah bin Mas’ud. The Prophet ﷺ said: Khayrun nasi qarni, thumma allatheena yaloonahum, thumma allatheena yaloonahum: "The best of generations is my generation, and the generation that comes after them, and the generation that comes after them." So the Messenger ﷺ mentioned three generations.
And in another ayah, Allah ﷻ says, wa-sabiqun al-awwaloon min al-muhajireena wal-ansari wa-ladhina taba'oohum bi ihsan (Surah At-Tawbah, 9:100). Again, Allah ﷻ mentions here the early generation. So the scholars said that these three noble generations, these golden generations, are the ones that are considered to be the Salaf—the predecessors.
That's why many scholars say Salaf al-Salih (the righteous predecessors). What does that mean? Because we've heard that before as well. It means the pious predecessors.
Okay, they came before us—not just in time but also in piety and virtue. Some people might say, "Well, Abu Jahl came before, and Abu Lahab came before as well, and they were at the time of the Messenger." So what we say is that we're not just looking at those who preceded us in time, but we're looking at those who preceded us in virtue as well. They preceded us not just in time but in virtue—simultaneously.
So, when the scholars refer to the madhhab al-Salih or da’wah al-Salih, they are referring to the methodology or call of those righteous predecessors.
Okay, so that clarifies the term Salaf. I think it's also worth clarifying terms like those that have taken the word Salaf but added things to the end. For example, you often hear the word Salafiyyah or Salafism. What is the relationship of these terms to Salaf?
So the word Salafi is an ascription. You're ascribing yourself now to the early generation. You're saying, "I'm upon their way." You're attributing yourself to them. Because in the hadith that I just mentioned, the Prophet ﷺ said, "They are the best of people." So their virtue is not only in their knowledge but also in their action and their belief.
Their virtue is found in three areas. First, their knowledge was profound because they witnessed the revelation come down and saw what was taking place during the time of the Messenger ﷺ. Secondly, their actions—when they took that knowledge from the Messenger ﷺ—their implementation was also unprecedented. And thirdly, their piety and their belief system, what they believed in and their faith and their aqeedah, was also the best, and no one can compare to them or be like them.
So you're attributing yourself to them when you say Salafi, you're attributing yourself to them in knowledge, in action, and also in belief in their creed. That makes sense, and I don't think I'll disagree with you when you say that they were the most virtuous, the most knowledgeable, and the most pious. I don't think I'll disagree with you, but why do I have to call myself Salafi? Why can't I just call myself Muslim? Allah didn't command me to call myself Salafi, did He?
You see, the question that many scholars have discussed and spoken about is hukmul intima (the ruling of ascription)—is it permissible for you to attribute yourself to Salafiyyah and say "I am a Salafi" and bring that yaa of ascription? Why would one have to do that? Isn't Islam enough?
Yeah, 100%. As you just asked, you see in the early stages of Islam, the early generation, when the time of the Prophet ﷺ was alive, everyone, whatever issue or problem happened, it would be brought back to the Messenger ﷺ. He was the one that would correct the people's mistakes. They would refer back to him. He would solve their problems, he would answer their questions, and any inquiries that they had would be brought back to him. After the Messenger ﷺ had died, as he ﷺ had already prophesized, different groups came. People who swayed away from that path, they left the path of the Messenger ﷺ and the path that he left his companions on. So groups came, like the Khawarij for example, the early group that came. They labeled people disbelievers and caused havoc and corruption on the earth. Then the Rafida came, the Murji'ah came, and then the Mu'tazila came. Different groups came, some of which are still considered Muslims, but they swayed from the straight path.
So, the early generation, the noble generation, the scholars of that time who were still upon the path of the Messenger ﷺ, saw it to be necessary by unanimous agreement that they need to distinguish themselves from these groups. I mean, these groups are considered Muslims, but you saying "I'm a Muslim" doesn’t distinguish one from the other. So, they wanted to say that, since you walked away from the path of the early generation, that which the Messenger ﷺ and his companions followed, we’re going to attribute ourselves to those early generations, to the Prophet ﷺ and the companions, and so we’re going to be called Salafi. We’re going to attribute ourselves to them because if you look at all of these groups, they got attributed to either a leader from the group or a corrupt belief that they held. So, give an example of what you mean.
Like for example, the Khawarij—they were called Khawarij because they rebelled against the Muslim leader, which was a creed problem. So they got called Khawarij—they got attributed to that misguided belief of theirs. So, it’s a way of distinction, basically, to say that I’m not following any kind of innovative ideology. I’m following the ideology of the Salaf as-Saleh (the righteous predecessors).
I would question, however, is that even still relevant in the modern world? It might have been many centuries ago when you say I’m Salafi, people automatically understood what you're saying, but in the 21st century, in the year 2019, we have so many different groups of Salafis. This one’s claiming he’s Salafi, this one’s claiming he’s Salafi, and this one’s claiming he’s Salafi. So, by saying that I’m Salafi, you’re not really distinguishing yourself from anybody. You could be a Salafi jihadi, you could be someone inclined toward politics, or you could be someone involved in teaching and Tarbiyah (Islamic upbringing) and not really concerned with politics. So all of these are Salafis, aren’t they?
You see, one part I do want to mention, which I think is a contention that many people have or a point that many people bring up, is they might even question whether the early generation called themselves Salafis. They will say, "Were there people called Salafis?" Is this even true? Can you give us examples and proofs? So, I think that also needs to be addressed before answering that question.
Before we get to that, was it mentioned in the Qur’an? Not Salaf—like you mentioned, Salaf was mentioned eight times in the Qur’an. But was the term Salafi mentioned in the Qur’an? You see, the term Salafiyyah, as I said to you, became a consensus among the early generations. It became a consensus that you can attribute yourself to Salafi—you could call yourself by that name. It’s permissible, not obligatory, but permissible, and that consensus was transmitted as well. If a person attributes themselves to Salafi, you have to accept it from them.
Let me give you one person who transmitted that consensus: Shaykh-ul-Islam Taymiyyah Rahimahullah Ta'ala. In his Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, he said: "Wa la-'ayba" (there’s no blame) on the person man intasaba ila madhab-e-Salaf (who attributes himself to the madhhab of the Salaf), amma adhara madhab-e-Salaf (or he shows himself to be upon the madhhab of the Salaf), wa intasaba ilay (and he attributes himself to it), wa ataza (and calls the people to it). You know, and then he said, Rahimahullah Ta'ala, he said: wa yajibu qaboola thalika minhum (and it is obligatory to accept that from him) bil-ittifaq (by consensus). Okay, so someone says, "I’m Salafi," it doesn’t matter what they believe, what their actions are—you just agree that he’s Salafi. Beautiful.
So when a person says, "I am a Salafi," just like if a person said, "I’m a Muslim," then we accept it from him. Okay? And then after that, we have the right to see if what he said is in line with what Salafi is. You know, just like the Munafiqeen (hypocrites), the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, some of them were lying, so they came and they showed themselves to be Muslims, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ accepted Islam from them. But as time went on, it became clear from their actions, or that which they brought out apparent, that they were not Muslims.
So how do we know if someone is Salafi or someone is just saying "I’m a Salafi"? If a person is showing us that he’s a Salafi, then we accept it from him, even if he doesn’t believe it in his heart. Because that same statement of Ibn Taymiyyah, that same question, is what he was answering. He said, if someone shows us Salafiyyah, we will accept it from him, just like we would accept somebody’s Islam from them if he says, 'I’m a Muslim' from the apparent because we were not—Shaykh Hussam Taymiyyah says in that same quote, he said, we were not placed as ones to judge people’s intentions. We’re here to just rule and judge people based on their apparent action. So if a person says, "I’m a Salafi," we’ll say, "We’ll take it from him." We wouldn’t say, "But your heart, this is what’s in your heart," or "This is not true," or "That’s not our job."
If after that, he doesn’t show what Salafiyyah is, and he doesn’t hold on to Salafiyyah, he doesn’t come with the simat (characteristics) and usul (foundations) that Salafiyyah stands on—sorry, simat usul—if he doesn’t come with that, then it’s just like somebody claiming Islam and not really being a Muslim. Like if a Qadiani says, "I’m a Muslim," you wouldn’t accept it from him, right? Because he goes against a fundamental issue.
So then, what is the belief of a Salafi? Then, just one quote that would be very nice in this issue is that Al-Imam Zahabi in Siyar A'lam al-Nubala (The Lives of the Noble Scholars) when he spoke about, for example, Dar al-Qutni. Dar al-Qutni is a great imam, a scholar of hadith. He was amazing in hadith; I don’t know how to praise him. This Dar al-Qutni—his name—he came to Baghdad and he said to the people of Baghdad, "Don’t worry, as long as I live amongst you, there’s no one who can lie about the Prophet ﷺ. I will make sure that the hadiths of the Prophet ﷺ are clarified." This is the type of person he was. So look at what Al-Imam Zahabi said in his Siyar A'lam al-Nubala about him. He said that it was authentically transmitted from Dar al-Qutni that he said, there is nothing I hate more than philosophy.
I hate that science. Zahabi then straight away, when he brought that statement of Dar al-Qutni, he commented on it right under it. He said, this man had never spoken nor has he entered into this subject, philosophy. He never went into this sophistry and debate tactics. He didn’t waste his time on all of this, and he didn’t indulge in that, but why? He said, Zahabi was a Salafi. He used the word Salafi. He said, he was a Salafi. He was a Salafi.
So Salafi is known from there, as Dar al-Qutni, when he was talking about Al-Imam Zahabi, that Salafi has the characteristics, things that he’s known for, things he does. It’s not just—it’s not just a mere claim, because the Prophet ﷺ told us in the hadith, if everybody was given what they claimed, a group of people claim the blood and the wealth of a group of people, I would come and say that what you’re wearing and that thobe that you’re wearing is mine. I would claim that you killed my father or you killed my cousin or you killed my uncle, so give me blood money. But the Prophet ﷺ said, the one who claims has to bring evidence for his claim.
So if a person says, "I’m a Salafi," Salafi has foundations, it has principles. If you’re not in line with those principles, it’s not that someone has chosen to take you out of Salafi. It’s not that someone’s out there to take you out of Salafi, but it’s just you haven’t fulfilled the criteria of what Salafi is. You’ve not come with the requirement of Salafi.
Okay, I think one of the most ironic things about Salafis and people who ascribe themselves to Salafi is that they’re always talking about the past, the glory days of the past, that we should return to the early three—the first three generations, like you yourself mentioned just now. Yet, the movement of Salafism or Salafiyyah, it’s a relatively new movement. It really started and it really gained weight and traction from Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab in the 18th century. He passed away in 1792. So we’re talking about the 18th century. And then, more recently, you have the University of Medina established in 1961, and that’s really what propagated a lot of Salafis to go around the globe and spread the Salafi dawah. Really, both of these things are very recent. The 18th century is really not that far long ago when you consider the history of Islam. So why is this contradiction present? People saying we should return to the early generations, yet this is a completely new movement?
That’s not fair to say, and that’s not true. Anyone who makes that claim doesn't have proof for it; it's just a mere claim. Again, the reason it’s a mere claim is because Salafiyyah—in one sentence—Salafiyyah is the pure Islam. That’s all it is. Every group claims that. Salafiyyah doesn’t have a leader; every group has a leader that runs it.
For that reason, I’ll tell you something. Sheikh Al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, Muhammad Nasiruddin Al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote a book called Haqeeqat Al-Tawassul (The Reality of Seeking Intercession), where he discusses whether Tawassul (seeking intercession) is permissible or not. It’s an Aqeedah (creed) book. In it, he mentions that when he was authoring the book, he came across a book written by another Sheikh, a Salafi Sheikh, named Muhammad Nasib Al-Rifa'i.
Sheikh Al-Albani said, "I have stood over the book written by Muhammad Nasib Al-Rifa'i." Sheikh Al-Albani is saying this: "I stood over his book while I was writing my own book, but I have to point something out." He used the words, "for the sake of being a trustworthy person and fair in the academic world, I have to point something out."
Although Muhammad Nasib Al-Rifa'i and Sheikh Al-Albani were calling to the same thing, Sheikh Al-Albani said, "I still have to be honest and say something." He said that when Muhammad Nasib Al-Rifa'i's book came out, at the front of the book, he wrote that he was the establisher of an organization, a Salafi organization. He called himself the "server" of it.
Sheikh Al-Albani said that we do not accept this from the Sheikh and that it is wrong for him to claim this. He said that if anyone claims such a thing, it could also lead to kufr (disbelief) and shirk (associating partners with Allah), because Islam is what Allah brought, it is Allah’s religion. Sheikh Al-Albani went on to say that Salafiyyah is what Allah revealed. The Prophet ﷺ did not bring Salafiyyah—it came from Allah, the Exalted. The Prophet ﷺ took it from Allah, the Exalted. Salafiyyah is the pure essence of Islam; it is the untainted version of Islam. It is what Allah said, what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, and what the early generations (the Sahabah and those who followed them in good) said—nothing more, nothing less.
Now, where was it before the 18th century? Are you talking about the methodology? I’m talking about the Salafi methodology as we know it in the modern world, not necessarily the name (because we already discussed the name). I’m talking about the methodology, the movement. The methodology was always there. I told you that this is the methodology of Nabi Allah (the Prophet of Allah) Muhammad ﷺ.
This is what Nabi Allah (the Prophet of Allah) and Muhammad ﷺ were upon. This is what Abu Bakr was upon, this is what Umar was upon, this is what Uthman was upon, this is what Imam Malik was upon, this is what Imam Shafi'i was upon, and you know, from the Tabi'een (the followers of the companions), Saeed ibn Jubair was upon this, and Mujahid was upon this. You see, they passed this on to each other. It was always there. It was always there. Today, we took it from one person, took it from the other, and so on. Salafi methodology was always there. But if you're asking me about the name, I told you the name. The name was coined when deviated groups came. When those deviated groups appeared, it became necessary for the people of the Sunnah and the people of Aqeedah (Ahlus Sunnah) to distinguish themselves from those ideologies. So, the term Salafi was coined, and Ahlus Sunnah was also a term that was coined at that point. The reason it was coined was to distinguish themselves from those groups and ideologies.
So, saying that Salafi started now is saying that pure Islam started now, and that’s zulm (oppression), that’s wrong. That’s fine. However, in the modern world, in 2019, is it even possible to go back to the way that the 7th-century Arabs lived in the desert? They didn’t drive cars, they didn’t have microphones. So, aren’t you contradicting yourself by saying, “I’m Salafi, I’m Salafi,” yet using all of these modern means?
You see, when we say Salafi, we’re talking about a creed issue. We’re talking about a religious issue, sorry. We’re talking about a religious issue. You know, in the dunya (worldly affairs), Allah Azawajal tells us to innovate. Allah Ta'ala tells us to progress. The Prophet ﷺ told us in a hadith (saying), “In your worldly affairs...” So, the discussion, the dialogue, is not about how people want to live in the dunya, what kind of business they want to make, what kind of cars they want to drive. Do they want to have a Samsung mobile phone or an iPhone? This is not what the discussion is really about. The discussion here is about your knowledge of the deen (religion), who you take it from, the actions you’re doing right now, where you got them from, this belief that you have—who can you attribute it to? How far does it go back to the Prophet ﷺ?
Would you agree that the world we live in, even from a religious aspect, the way of practicing our religion, the different groups, the different ideologies, is different now than it was in the 7th century? Would you agree with that?
What do you mean? As in, like, even the way we practice our religion, and some of the new issues that are coming into our religion? Things that we need rulings on? They are always changing, always new issues that the Salaf (early generations) or the people before us never experienced. And obviously, our religion encompasses the dunya. So, if something new in the dunya comes up, we need to understand the ruling of it. There are new issues coming to light, things that the Salaf never had to deal with before. So, how can we say, then, that we need to return to them, when they never experienced these issues?
This is a very important question that many people have, but they don’t structure it correctly in the way they want to ask. How do you reconcile between following the early generations, meaning the Sahabah (companions) and the Tabi'in (followers of the companions), and the concept of Ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) being open?
Not just Ijtihad being open, but the issues we’re dealing with, for example, let’s take the internet—though I know it’s a dunya (worldly) issue. But we still need to know the religious ruling of using the internet: is it permissible? Is it obligatory? Etc. So, it does affect our religion, but they never had the internet.
Again, we need to distinguish one from the other. The internet itself is a worldly issue, agreed—it’s a worldly issue. So, there’s no objection in that concept, as long as it doesn’t have a Shari’i (Islamic legal) problem in it.
It's a worldly issue. You can use it as you wish, you can utilize it as you wish, as long as it doesn't come with a Shari' (religious) prohibition, okay? And the concept of, you know, our religion—you're right, the Qur'an and the Sunnah don’t give a ruling for the internet and don't mention the internet by name. But, as the poet said: وَلَيْسَ خَيْرٌ قَطٌ إِلَّا قَرَّرَ وَلَمْ يَكُن مِّن شَرٍ إِلَّا حَذَّرَ فَدِينُنَا لَمْ يَخْلُ عَنْ حُكْمٍ عَلَى مَرِّي الزَّمَانِ لَوْ بَدَى مَا عَضَلَ لِأَنَّهُ قَدِحْتَ وَقَوَاعِدَ تُسْتَقْرَجُ الْأَحْكَامَ عَنْهَا رَاشِدًا
Yes, you're right. Meaning, just give me a summary. So, our Qur'an doesn’t talk about IVF per se, it doesn’t speak about smoking per se, and it doesn’t talk about drugs per se, it doesn’t talk about the internet per se, it doesn’t talk about coffee per se. Of course, you're not going to find those things individually mentioned, but you find principles. You can trace all of those back to principles, okay? So, it has principles. Those are the principles that a person needs to study and learn, which the early generations knew of. So, a lot of these things that you're seeing today, happening, that you're seeing as the nawazil (contemporary issues), they all go back to these qawa'id (legal maxims). Hence why we put this podcast together in the first place. We want to show that these contemporary problems have classical solutions.
What do we mean by it having classical solutions? It means that we can trace it back to an ayah (Qur'anic verse) and a hadith. We can take it back to legal maxims that scholars have written. Okay, but I'll give you one example and one story that I've mentioned before.
At the time of Uthman ibn Affan, Ibn Abdulbar mentioned this in his Kitab al-Tamheed. The time of Uthman ibn Affan—a man accused his wife of zina (adultery). He said that she had committed zina and the reason he accused her of that was because she gave birth six months into her pregnancy. He said this woman was pregnant before I got married to her, because when he got married to her, six months after that, she gave birth to a child. So, he accused her of zina and said this woman got this child before me.
So, the hukum (Islamic ruling) was going to be passed on her according to Shari'ah law, and this issue was going to be passed on her. Ali ibn Talib hastened to speak on this issue and he said that this woman, she's not what she’s being accused of. Okay, so the question is: how?
Again, this is a contemporary issue. He said that it's not unusual for a woman to give birth at six months. It can happen, it's possible. The question is, where did he get that from? Ali ibn Talib said that it comes from the ayah where Allah says that the pregnancy and the breastfeeding together last 30 months. The pregnancy and breastfeeding together last 30 months, Allah said. We already know, from another ayah, that breastfeeding is 24 months, because Allah said that the mother would breastfeed her child for two years. Two years is 24 months. So, if you subtract that from the 30 months of pregnancy and breastfeeding combined, you get 6 months. That’s the pregnancy period.
So, the Sahabah (companions) used principles, they used evidence, and they learned how to utilize it. So, any issues that we have, we can always do that. We can always find ahkam (jurisprudence rulings) to respond to them. But it's just when we become distanced from the Qur'an, when we become distanced from the Sunnah, and when we become distanced from the fiqh of the Salaf (early generations), then of course we will…
Okay, perhaps I agree with you on micro issues like pregnancy, internet, and things like this, but we’re also facing large macro issues that we're going through, for example, the allegiance of some Muslim rulers with non-Muslim rulers. We have other things where Islam has really been attacked in the modern world. There’s no doubt about it. Islam is being seen as a scapegoat, and it's really being attacked from all fronts. And now we have certain issues on how to overcome these challenges.
Do you honestly believe, with your hand on your heart, that sitting in a masjid (mosque), reading books, and going back to these classical books are really going to solve these real-life issues that are in front of us right now?
Nabil ibn Hamsa, one day he came into the masjid, he led Salatul Fajr (the Fajr prayer), and then he stood up and gave a khutbah (sermon) after Salatul Fajr. Then he carried on giving a khutbah until Dhuhr. And then he led Dhuhr, and then he did a khutbah after Dhuhr until Asr. Then he led Asr, and then he did a khutbah after Asr until Maghrib. Then he led Maghrib, and then he did a khutbah after Maghrib until Isha. And then he led Isha. All of that, what did he tell them? The narrator said: he told us what was and what is going to happen. Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam (may peace and blessings be upon him) told them about the trials and tribulations that are going to come. The Sahabi (companion), the narrator, he said: the one who memorized it that day memorized it, and the one who was ignorant about it remained ignorant about it.
In other words, Nabila ibn Muhammad told them everything that they need. Your question here is: did Nabila ibn Muhammad leave us with clarity in everything that we need? Of course, I am going to say yes to you. I left you upon clear guidance, I left you upon a white road; the day is like the night, meaning it's a road that's all day, no night. The Qur'an and the Sunnah have all of the guidance we need, even though we are living in a fast-paced, ever-changing world. We don’t need any other guidance outside the Qur'an. Allah says: "This Qur'an will guide you to the best of affairs." Of course, it does. I have left with you something, if you hold on to it, you will never be misguided after me: the book of Allah and the Sunnah. So yes, everything that we will need is right in the book and in the Sunnah.
Ustadh, I hear what you’re saying about Salafiyah and Salafism, but isn’t this just referring to a period of time that happened in the past? I get that it was a very virtuous, amazing period of time, but it’s gone, it’s happened, and it’s gone. We’re now in a different period of time. Why do we still need to keep referring back to there?
That claim is not new. In fact, it’s not a new claim; it’s not something that hasn’t been said before. When was it said before? I mean, Abdullah Yusuf al-Judayyah, who lives in the UK, pushes this idea. He says the same thing, Muhammad al-Sabuni said the same, and many people said that. The scholars of their time responded back to them. Ibn Abbas responded to that, Sheikh al-Albani responded to that, the Permanent Committee (Lajna Daima) responded to that, and Sheikh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymin also responded to that. But the truth is that the Salafi madhhab, as I said before, is a madhhab that early scholars attributed themselves to. Those who came after, including Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah), also attributed themselves to the Salafi dawah.
There is a book written by Muhammad Khalil al-Harras called Al-Salafiyah where he mentions that Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and his students used to call themselves Salafi. They would not call someone else Salafi, but they would call themselves Salafi. Many scholars, including Imam al-Jazzari, also referred to themselves as Salafi. Whether or not he was truly Salafi is another discussion, but he called himself Salafi in his book Al-Hidayah fi Ilm al-Riwayah. In that book, he says: "Ibn al-Jazzari as-Salafi."
For example, Imam al-Sam'ani has a book called Al-Ansab. This book talks about the ascriptions of people to various groups. In that book, he says, “The term Salafi is one of ascribing yourself, attributing yourself to the Salaf.” After him came another Imam, Ibn al-Athir, who summarized the book Al-Ansab in his book Al-Lubab. He pointed out under the statement of al-Sam'ani and said that a group of people were known to be Salafi, and they were known to attribute themselves to the Salaf.
Nasreddin al-Dimashqi, for example, in his book Al-Tawdih al-Mujtaba, says: "And Salafi with the fatha" (Salafi with the Arabic short vowel). He mentions Abu Bakr Abdul Rahman ibn Abdullah ibn Ahmad as-Sarkhasi as-Salafi and says: "Anyone who attributes themselves to the Salaf is included."
This shows that people in the early centuries, even before the time of Ibn Taymiyyah, called themselves Salafi and attributed this identity. This is found in the early books.
So, what is the exact ruling then? Is it obligatory to call yourself Salafi? Is it just permissible?
No, you don't have to call yourself Salafi, but it's something that’s permissible. If a person calls themselves Salafi, we should accept it from them by consensus, as I mentioned in the statement of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, where he says:
"وَلَا عَيْبَ عَلَى مَن أَظْهَرَ الْمَذْهَبَ السَّلَفِيِّ وَانْتَسَبَ إِلَيْهِ وَتَزَاهُوْا" ("There is no blame on a person who shows the madhhab of the Salaf and attributes themselves to it. It is obligatory to accept that from him by consensus. Indeed, the madhhab of the Salaf is nothing except the truth.")
The madhhab of the Salaf is the truth now, and it will be the truth until the Day of Judgment. As I said before, Salafi, the Salafi way, the madhhab of the Salaf — it is pure Islam and will remain so until the Day of Judgment. So, as long as you have the madhhab of the Salaf (like the way of the Salaf) on you, you don’t have to call yourself Salafi if you don’t want to. It's more about the actions, the beliefs, the methodology. Even though Sheikh Ibn Baz (rahimahullah) did say that it is obligatory, really? Yes, a statement like that he did say. Sheikh Ibn Baz (rahimahullah) did say it was obligatory. But really, the majority view is that it is not obligatory upon you, and it's just permissible.
Okay, fine. Why in the 21st century? Because obviously, we're talking about scholars of the past here, but now we're dealing with issues in today’s world, in the 21st century. You see, the Salafis focus on really obscure issues, for example, how do we interpret the names and attributes of Allah? Does Allah have a hand? For example, these aren't going to solve the real-life issues that we’re facing in the real world. We have much bigger fish to fry. We’ve got much bigger issues to deal with. Why are so many Salafis focusing on these small obscure issues?
It’s really wrong for a person to dismiss, undermine, or belittle — to be honest — things that great noble imams died for, and Imam Ahmad was whipped for and imprisoned because of it. It’s very sad that somebody would undermine what Abu Ya'qub al-Buwayti (rahimahullah) was imprisoned for. He was imprisoned, and great scholars like Ahmad al-Khuza'i and others were killed because of it. Some great imams were killed because of the issue of Allah's names and attributes. To undermine those great imams is really a sad reality. Why would you need to undermine it? Why don’t you say, "We also have new contemporary issues that need to be tackled"? Because our time is limited, Ustadh.
Okay, well, don’t undermine the previous issues of Aqeedah (faith). You can't undermine them. They are issues that are really connected. Even if you think about it, Allah's names and attributes are part of the discussion today. It’s actually what's coming up back and forth. Like for example, when people ask, you know, the concept of good and evil — you’re asking about Allah’s actions (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala). So it’s all interconnected, it's all connected to our contemporary problems. Does Allah, you know, do all of this evil when He’s the most merciful, the most kind, the most generous, and He’s watching His slaves being destroyed? These doubts that atheists are pushing forward — it’s all connected to Allah's actions and how Allah does things. The concept of free will goes back again to Allah’s actions (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala), the actions of the creation, or whether Allah created the creation’s actions.
So, okay, but how does the concept of Allah having a hand affect anything in the modern world? I understand we refute atheist claims that are coming forward about free will and divine decree, but no atheist is talking about Allah's hand or whether He has a hand. I mean, it’s a distraction from the real-life issues. It’s not really relevant because these are the concepts that Christians are discussing — whether Jesus is divine and human at the same time. What are the features of that? Can you be divine and human at the same time? You know, these are attributes of Allah (Azza wa Jal) we’re discussing here right now.
You see, these are life issues. I have brothers who are at the forefront of debating and discussing with atheists, and they are at the forefront of discussing with Christians. They call me and ask me questions related to Allah’s names and attributes. I'll give you an example: خَلَقَ اللَّهُ آدَمَ عَلَىٰ صُورَةِ الرَّحْمَنِ (Allah created Adam in the form of Ar-Rahman). What does that hadith actually mean? What’s the correct understanding? I get asked that, and I always have to respond and give explanations for that hadith. Are you with me? Yeah, that’s Allah’s characteristics and attributes here. Ibn Khuzaymah wrote a book and discussed it. You see, Ibn Qayyim mentions it in his book, and Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah mentions it in his عقيدة الواسطية (Aqidah al-Waasitiyyah), and many great scholars talk about it. So, these are not trivial issues that the Salaf spoke about, and now it’s gone; it’s not something that’s taken lightly. No, those issues — if you don’t understand them — your verdicts and answers to these contemporary problems will not be correct.
Okay, fine. Why is there so much harshness that we see amongst the Salafis today? Let’s say that’s a reality that can’t be denied. You see, I’m not here to defend Salafis. They can be right, and they can be wrong. But I’m talking about the madhhab. See, the madhhab is infallible. The madhhab is free from errors and mistakes. Just like a Muslim cannot talk for all Muslims, he can only talk for Islam and the religion. There can’t be Muslims who drink, Muslims who commit زنا (zina - fornication/adultery), Muslims who cheat. You see, this concept of dismantling a case by case situation where I have to talk about every single point in order for my argument to be valid — it’s not correct. It’s not fair. It’s not looking at it in the right way.
I mean, there can be people who attribute themselves to Salafiyyah but do wrong things, who don’t adhere to دعوة (da’wah - call to Islam) and obedience. You see, Salafiyyah isn’t just an عقيدة (aqeedah - creed/faith) issue. Salafiyyah, as I said to you, is the pure essence of Islam. It enters everything. It enters the way you deal with your wife, how you are towards your wife, how you are towards your neighbors. Salafiyyah is that. Salafiyyah is how you are towards your children. Salafiyyah is how you are in terms of your صلاة (salah - prayer) and the جماعة (jama’ah - congregation). Salafiyyah is how you pray. Salafiyyah is how you dress.
And this is the sad reality: some people today saw the Salafi community, saw some people attributing themselves to Salafiyyah, who give so much importance to the outer appearance. They give so much importance to the outer appearance, which is wrong. The person should first of all work on the inner essence of themselves, like their heart. So, they saw people who gave more importance to the outer appearance, while their hearts were more tainted. And so, what do they do? They then undermine the outer appearance. Right? They went to the other extreme. The other extreme. So no, Salafiyyah is that you work on both: your outer appearance is good, and it’s upright, and so is, number one, your inner essence — your heart — without a doubt. One does not eliminate the other.
Allah said about the Jews and the Christians — both parties had truth amongst them. They had elements of truth within themselves. This group had one portion of the truth, and this one had a portion of the truth. Yeah, but each one was saying to the other group, "You’re wrong because you're a Christian, I’m not going to take anything from you." And the Christian was saying to the Jew, "You’re a Jew, I’m not taking anything from you." Meaning, they weren’t taking the truth that was with these people.
Okay, final question before I move on to a topic that I really want to address, which is the different types of Salafis that we see in the modern world. But just before we get onto that, another thing that is very, very common is you often see Salafis having this fanaticism towards Saudi Arabia. Is this part of Salafiyyah, then, to have a fanaticism towards Saudi Arabia, or is it something that just the Salafis do? I mean, again, it brings me back to the point I was mentioning: you can find Salafis do things and say things, you can see Salafis act in a particular way that doesn’t, in any way, shape, or form, have anything to do with Salafiyyah itself, the madhhab (methodology).
Okay, munafiqoon (hypocrites) attributed themselves to Islam. Can we now say this is what Muslims are like? No. You know, yeah, I understand that's the reality; that's a point well-proven. So, whoever you find, when we look at the madhhab Salafi, we look at the methodology of the Salaf (the early generations), and we find that individual not in line with the Qur'an and the Sunnah, he's not in line with how the companions were. Then what we say is: you are not Salafi, however much claims that you put forward, however much you say you are Salafi. Okay, because this is what Salafiyyah stands on; these are the usool (foundations) of Salafiyyah. This is the foundation of Salafiyyah. So, I can’t defend individuals. My job isn’t to defend a particular shaykh (scholar) or I'm not here to defend a particular individual in the dawah (call to Islam) scene or something like that. I can only speak for this madhhab. You know, a person who's alive, no one can give them reassurance. If you're alive, you can make mistakes. Does that mean the madhhab Salafi is wrong? Yeah, okay. No, I understand.
Okay, so I agree with you that just because someone calls themselves a Salafi or ascribes themselves to Salafiyyah, it doesn't mean that they are necessarily following the right path of Salafiyyah, and they could have issues within themselves. It doesn’t mean that the methodology of a Salafi or the methodology of Salafiyyah is free from that. Basically, it's free from those errors and mistakes. But we do see in the modern world different categorizations of Salafis. Whether we look in the Islamic world or more predominantly in the academic Western world, where people like Quentin Wiktorowicz, for example, has separated Salafis into different groups. He comes with three main groups: first, the purist Salafis who are really only concerned with the way they're teaching Islam, the way it used to be, and they're not really involved in politics or anything like that. Then you have the politicos, as he calls them, who are again Salafi, they believe that the early three generations were the best of generations, but they have a different methodology slightly to get to the same goal, which is: let's work with the political system and let's change the system from within in order to reach our goal. And then you have the third group, which is obviously the jihadi (jihadi) group, well-known as ISIS, Osama bin Laden, people like this.
Are all three of these Salafis, like Wiktorowicz's claims, for example? You see academics, Western academics, for example, their way of looking at Salafiyyah is based on anyone who comes from, for example, Saudi Arabia is a Salafi by default. You know, whatever ideology he pushes, whatever belief he has. So, all of these three groups—if you look at who he named for each group: like the jihadi group, he chose Osama bin Laden because he's Saudi; the politicos, for example, he would choose them because they're Saudis; and the purists, for example, for him it’s the Mufti of Saudi Arabia and shaykhs like Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaymeen, Ibn Shaykh Fawzan, and others because they're all Saudis. So, for him, Salafiyyah is Saudi, and that’s incorrect. I told you, Salafiyyah is the pure essence of Islam. Salafiyyah is before Saudi Arabia came into the picture. Okay? This is before even the da’wah (call) of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, way before all of that, way before Ibn Uthaymeen. If Ibn Uthaymeen didn’t follow the madhhab with Salaf, he'd be misguided. You see, this madhhab is not individuals, it's not people. You either follow it, and these are its criteria (principles), or you're out. You’re not in it.
So, what I mean by that is that belief where these are Salafis because they are from a particular land, and that's what brings them to Salafiyyah, is a fallacy. It’s a mistaken belief and an unreasonable argument. But Salafiyyah, as I told you, has usool (foundations), it has principles. Yes, we need to look at all of these three groups, which of those followed it. We need to look at which one of them followed what Salafiyyah considers. And what Salafiyyah is, the usool and the foundations of Salafiyyah. So, we look at Salafiyyah standing on al-ikhlas (sincerity), al-ittiba' (following the Messenger of Allah, ﷺ), and the third thing that Salafiyyah stands on is al-tazkiyah (purification). So we look at Salafiyyah in terms of ikhlas (sincerity). Ikhlas means Salafiyyah is about tawheed (the oneness of Allah). They don’t associate partners with Allah in anything. Okay, just like other Muslims. So far, there’s no difference. No, there are many groups that leave this concept. We have many, like grave worshipers. Okay, fine, who attribute themselves to Islam but don't come with tawheed.
Ikhlas means that you do anything and everything for Allah alone, your intent is for no one other than Allah. This is for Allah. And the scholars, they divide the sincerity into two: ikhlas in the action that you're doing, meaning you distinguish one ibadah (worship) from the other: like Salat Dhuhr is different from the Sunnah of Dhuhr, or Salat Fajr, the Sunnah before Fajr, and the Fajr itself. You separate one from the other. This is called the niyyah (intention) of distinguishing between what is obligatory and what’s voluntary. We're not talking about that one; we’re talking about the second form, which is: who are you doing this action for? Salafism is known for this. They don’t do anything unless they’re seeking the face of Allah, azza wa jalla (the Mighty and Majestic).
If I'm fair, I’d agree that the second foundation Salafism stands on is that they follow the Messenger ﷺ. They follow the Prophet ﷺ in everything—how he lived, the way he did things, how he preached, and what he started with in his dawah (call to Islam). They don't just follow him in a particular part of his life or a segment of his life, but they follow the Messenger in totality. They follow all of his ways. They follow him in his knowledge and the knowledge that he called to; they follow him in that. They follow the process of his actions. They follow the Prophet ﷺ in his dawah.
Now, we look at the politicals he’s talking about. The politicals are activists. Yes, they’re just activists. They don't have a say in the revival of the religion. They’re trying to revive the religion, but they’re doing it through activism. So they have the same end goal. They’re not— that’s my point—they're not reviving the religion. They’re just working towards their position of leadership. That's really what it is. It’s just about how they can get to power. They’re working towards their own dunya (worldly) needs, to be very honest with you, but they’re cloaking it and making it look like they’re using the Sharia (Islamic law). That’s what the politicals are—people who have a political objective and want to gain a seat.
The term that has really gained traction is this term "Salafi jihadi," or "Salafi jihadists." Let me give an example: look at the politicals he’s referring to. We saw what took place in Egypt. Those so-called politicals, when they came into power—was the religion, the Sharia, the Qur'an and the Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet ﷺ), really the guiding principles? Wallahi (I swear by Allah), the Book of Allah was not judged by the deen (religion). That wasn’t what was promised to the people, right? Yeah. No, they don’t really care about that. They have no desire, no raghba (longing) to follow it. To be very honest, once they get into power, the Qur'an or the Sunnah or anything like that—because look, if you don’t study the Qur'an or the Sunnah, you have no knowledge of it. So when you do get into power, what are you going to use? You’re going to use what you know, right?
As for the jihadists, which is the third groupHe refers to them as Salafis. The jihadists are ones who’ve distorted the meaning and concept of jihad. What does jihad actually mean? What did the Prophet ﷺ do in Mecca? When he was in Mecca, Allah commanded the Prophet ﷺ to take your hand back, establish the prayer, give the zakat, and not fight at that time. Allah commanded him, “You are not one who should fight right now.” The Messenger ﷺ was also commanded to “turn away from the ignorant ones.” That’s how he did it. But he was also commanded to fight as well, though that was a time and a context with a specific meaning, etc. That doesn’t mean our religion doesn’t have jihad—la shaka (there is no doubt), it does. But it has its context. The Salafi will follow the Prophet ﷺ in where he did it and how he did it, agreed? And the jihadists won’t do that. Is that not what they’re doing?
The reality in front of us testifies to them not doing that. They’ve killed innocent women and children within Islam. The Prophet ﷺ had covenants with non-Muslims (mawatheek, ruhood) and he stuck to those promises. There’s no promises, no ruhood, no mawatheek, nothing like that from them. There are books written on this. Their figureheads have written about this. For example, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi has written articles and books about this concept. He even said that Palestinians can kill women. Where is he following the Prophet ﷺ in that? Where is the Salafi in that? You see my point?
So when an average Muslim, for example, picks up the newspaper and reads a quote from the Sunday Times in Sri Lanka, it’s about a recent event that happened there. The newspaper states, "More than the immediate ISIS threat, I further the argument that the larger issue seems to be the threat of the ideology of Salafism." What is a Muslim meant to believe when he reads something like that? He’s meant to dismiss this claim because the reality is that these people are not Salafis.
You see, this is my point. The EDL (English Defence League) says the problem is Muslims. You don’t accept that from them, so why should a Salafi accept that? The EDL says the problem is Islam. Yes, they say you're the problem, but you can't say the newspaper is referring to a particular brand of Islam known as Salafism. This is what they call it, and it’s not just them; The Guardian and The Daily Mail have mentioned it too. Why would they say it’s related to Salafism?
The reason is they believe the jihadi fighting methodology is something that existed in the early generations. To be honest with you, I don’t even believe they actually know what the early generations of Islam actually looked like in terms of practicing the religion. But they certainly see this ideology, and perhaps some of the people propagating it are, for example, from Saudi Arabia, or maybe their end goal is the same. Their end goal is to revive the religion of Islam the way it was in the early generations, and this makes them Salafi.
Right now, though, due to this not being the topic we're discussing, if you look at these statements these people bring—like ISIS, for example—most of the things they quoted were from people who had nothing to do with da’wah Salafiyyah. They, for example, quoted Sayyid Qutb (Sayyid al-Imam), who was one of the people they quoted.
They quote these works, and that's who they look up to. They read these works, and these become the milestones for them—written by Sayyid Qutb and others like him. These are the works they use, and they praise them. I mean, don't even go far; Yusuf al-Qaradawi himself said that the last stage of Sayyid Qutb's life was an extreme position of killing and bloodshed. Qaradawi is an Ikhwani (member of the Muslim Brotherhood) himself; he’s their mufti (jurisprudent), admitting to this. But this is what Sayyid Qutb was about. He mentioned that Sayyid Qutb's tafsir (exegesis), when he wrote it first, his Fi Zilal al-Qur'an (In the Shade of the Qur'an), he rewrote it again and added things into it that he saw to be vital to mention.
Look, Sayyid Qutb is not a student of knowledge who studied and gained knowledge from it. His upbringing was not like Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab's upbringing, where he took from a scholar and sought knowledge. It’s not like the upbringing of Al-Albani (rahimahullah), Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaymeen, or others, where you’d read in their lives how they studied. He wasn’t like that. He was an activist. He used to listen to Abbas al-Aqqad, who wasn’t even a Muslim; he was a man who, if you looked at him, was an Ishtiraki (communist) in the beginning. Sayyid Qutb was influenced by this, do you see my point? Then he got oppressed, and he used his emotions and found parts of the Qur'an to serve that.
So, what you're saying is, regardless of what non-Muslim Western academics or the Western newspapers claim, the people they’re calling Salafi, these guys are Salafi. But these people themselves are actually distancing themselves from that label by their actions. Number one, because they are clearly in opposition to Salafiyyah, and secondly, even by some of their statements, they are admitting that they are not Salafis. That is sufficient as proof against the Western academics.
Yes, I'm saying that Salafis have principles and foundations. We need to look at those foundations. When we look at the foundations of what Salafiyyah stands on, we understand what it means. Then we say, “You’re in, you’re out.” But not everyone with different ideologies can be considered Salafi at the same time because it would be contradictory. I mean, if a Qadiani (Ahmadiyya follower) comes and says there was a prophet after Nabi Muhammad ﷺ, people are going to be like, “Sorry, but you’re not a Muslim, Qadiani.”
Is it fair to call him a Muslim just because he claims it? No, otherwise anyone could claim anything.
Okay, to end this particular episode, a final question I have for you is: if someone understands what you're saying—that Salafiyyah or Salafism is the authentic, pure Islam, taking it back to the early generations and understanding the religion the way they understood it.
How does one become a Salafi then? What if, you know, I’m a layman in the religion, but I understand what you’re saying and I agree with you? I want to become a Salafi, how do I go about doing that?
Salafiyyah doesn't need you to go, as I say, and I always mention this. It’s not that you need to go and sign an application, then wait for approval and have a membership card sent to your house, and then you are Salafi. It’s not like that, nor do you have to give a bay'ah (pledge of allegiance) to a leader, nor do you have to be signed up somewhere. No, Salafiyyah in simple terms is the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the teachings and practices of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ), and you understand it the way the early generations understood it. You act upon this religion, you follow this deen (religion) in the way that the early generations understood it. You don't bring anything new. You do not deduct anything from this religion, nor do you add anything to it that they have added or deducted.
Salafiyyah is the pure Islam; it’s not a group like the groups that are out there. It’s not like the Tablighi group, which has a leader, an organization, a system where the permission must come back from the main office, and then they give orders. None of that. It’s not like Ikhwan al-Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood) where the higher you go in the ranks, the more you get into the inner circle and find out what the real target is, but the rest of the people are just supporters, like Hizb ut-Tahrir, who operate in a similar way.
Salafiyyah is not like that. Salafiyyah is anyone who is upon that which I and my companions are upon today. That is Salafi. And Salafis today suffer from two types of people.
Okay, Salafis, we suffer from two types of people, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ mentioned them. The Prophet ﷺ told us that there are three groups: one is the saved group, which are the Salafis. The two remaining groups are the Mukaddila and the Mubtila.
The Mukaddila are those who deceive the Salafis. They pretend to be Salafis and infiltrate them. They are like hypocrites. They try to walk like them, talk like them, and be like them because the Salafi walks in a unique way, the way the Prophet ﷺ walked. The Salafi talks in a unique way, the way the Prophet ﷺ spoke. He carries himself in a unique way because this is what the Prophet ﷺ did. So, they pretend to be like them, pretend to be with them, supporting and aiding them, but they are backstabbing them. The Prophet ﷺ told us they are the Mukaddila.
Then, there’s a third group: the Mubtila, those who try to directly oppose them and fight with them face-to-face. The Prophet ﷺ told us that those who deceive them (the Mukaddila) and the Mubtila will not harm them until the Hour comes. They will always be there and will remain so. Salafiyyah might seem weaker at times and become smaller, but that doesn’t mean it will vanish. The glad tidings of the Prophet ﷺ are that they will remain until the Day of Judgment.
Now, I said I had one more question, but I also have another one to add: You’re saying Salafi or being a Salafi is the truth and is the saved sect. What about when somebody attributes themselves to, for example, being a Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, or Hanbali? Does that mean they’re no longer Salafi?
I mean, these imams (scholars) were all from the Salaf we’re talking about. They are the Salaf that we're attributing ourselves to. But when you tend to say Hanafi and Salafi, you’re basically saying, “I am upon the Salafiyyah that Shafi'i was upon,” right?
So, a person can be both; it’s not dismissing one from the other. You can be Shafi'i and Salafi, you can be Hanbali and Salafi. Meaning, you’re not just following a particular madhhab (school of thought) or sect; you’re following the correct understanding of Islam that aligns with how the early generations understood it.
Once again, thank you for joining me on the hot seat. Until next time, I hope you enjoyed and benefited from that discussion.
Please do share it with your friends and family members if you feel like they might benefit too, and don't forget to hit that subscribe button below so you're notified of any new episodes. Check out www.thehotseatpodcast.com – that's thehotseatpodcast.com. On there, you'll find a little bit more information about the podcast, and you'll also have the chance to vote for which topic you'd like to see discussed on the show. You can also ask questions on the website to the speaker himself about these contemporary modern-day issues.
Until next time, fi iman illahi (in the faith of Allah) and wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh (may peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you).
