Ulamah of Saudii Arabia???

[ftp]

Can anybody shed clarity upon the scholars of Saudi Arabia. I have the following questions:

1. Are the majority of them Hanbali or Salafi?

2. Are the influential scholars Hanbali or Salafi? (influential towards the authorities as well as the masses)

3. Shaykh Bin Baz and Uthaymeen (rahimuhullah) - were they salafi or hanbali?

4. Do the salafis have a system of ijaazah before graduating as a scholar or can one become a scholar by self study? Do sunni ulamah recognise the scholarship of the salafis and respect them as such?

5. What is the difference between the salafi scholars, madkhalee scholars Qutubi scholars, Suroori and the Haddadi scholars?

Jazakallahu khairan in advance.

[Abdul-Hadi]

1. As far as my knowledge the majority that you see are pseudo-Salafi.

2. Pseudo-Salafi

3. Ibn Uthaymeen was a Hanbali in fiqh, though representing many minority opinions. As far as Ibn Baz i am not too sure, some say that he claimed to be a mujtahid mutlaq. Some say that he followed Hanbali usul and deviated in furu. I really can't tell because of my ignorance in the Hanbali mathhab. They both pseudo-Salafi in their aqidah, which also leave stains on their fiqh, and one should beware of them.

4. There is no ijma on this issue, because pseudo-Salafism is a recent phenomena, therefore such a things as a traditional or stronger opinion does not exist. Shaykh Nasruddin al-Albani was self taught in the science of hadith for example. There is a difference within Ahlul Sunnah as to how their scholarship should be viewed. One can not deny that there have been and still are some of them with knowledge, but they are deviant and we should beware of them.

5. Madkhalis love the king of Saudi Arabia, and they will defend him to the fullest. They are followers of Rabi al-Madkhali. He spoke ill of Saudi scholar Ibn Baz (or was it Ibn Uthaymin?). They will call themselves Salafis while naming those of the pseudo-Salafis who go out for jihad as Khawarij. And the ones who go out for jihad and those who are terrorists will call the madkhalis something slick. They are very divided within themselves, a reason why i believe that they will fall at the end of the day. I find that madkhalis are those who like to label others the most, and Qutubis are the ones who admire Syed Qutb.

[Oscar-Mike]

There are multiple levels of "ulama" in Saudi Arabia. There are the real ulama, although they wouldn't consider themselves as such, who are Hanbalis, but well versed in comparative fiqh, supervise the judicial system, law-making bodies and advisers, etc. Most of the "pseudo Salafis" are not scholars, they are popular promoters of religion that appear on TV, radio, Internet, etc. and who either deduce fatwas on their own or take them from higher ups. Most of the people who formulate laws have undergone years of upper-level study and many have Master's and PhD's from universities where they specialized in Islam and other forms of law. There is a difference between these types of people and the average "scholar" who has worked his way through strictly religious institutions.

[godilali]

Being salafi and being hanbali are not mutually exclusive.

[chitownmuslim]

There are also a good number of traditional scholars (hanbalis and others) in Saudi, especially in the Hijaz region

[MohammadMufti]

3. Shaykh Bin Baz and Uthaymeen (rahimuhullah) - were they salafi or hanbali?

Yes

4. Do the salafis have a system of ijaazah before graduating as a scholar or can one become a scholar by self study? Do sunni ulamah recognise the scholarship of the salafis and respect them as such?

Yes, scholars of the Salafiyuwn are not random self-taught individuals, though I know of many cases where there was preliminary ("self-taught") and than formal studies. And if you look even on the sites of their opponents, than our ulema, unlike some anonymous internet personalities that feign to represent Islaam and knowledge, are always respectful. Sheikh Gibrael Haddad references the works of Sheikh Al Albani here and there, and I rarely hear (from the scholars) deliberate omission of proper titles (sheikh).

5. What is the difference between the salafi scholars, madkhalee scholars Qutubi scholars, Suroori and the Haddadi scholars?

The ones people call madkhalis are the extremists that judge people, even scholars, based on what you say about so-and-so. If they don't like it, you're a deviant (general formula). Salafi is (generally) used as an umbrella term and Sheikh Salih ibn Uthaymeen (rah) discouraged it. I don't know what the last groups are but I'd assume those are just degrading terms invented by others (I've never heard a "Madkhalee" call himself "Madkhalee" either :P).

[abulayl]

(I've never heard a "Madkhalee" call himself "Madkhalee" either :P).

well, have you ever seen a mad is calling himself mad?

[chitownmuslim]

Yes



Yes, scholars of the Salafiyuwn are not random self-taught individuals, though I know of many cases where there was preliminary ("self-taught") and than formal studies. And if you look even on the sites of their opponents, than our ulema, unlike some anonymous internet personalities that feign to represent Islaam and knowledge, are always respectful. Sheikh Gibrael Haddad references the works of Sheikh Al Albani here and there, and I rarely hear (from the scholars) deliberate omission of proper titles (sheikh).

Yes some salafi scholars have ijazas and sat with ulama'a to learn.. however this is not the case for everyone, actually many of them are self learned and have only attended the darses of some shaikhs and read books.. for example a well known Egyptian Salafi Shaykh "Abu Dharr Al-Qalamuni" became a "scholar" after he spent years selling products outside the masjids, so he would hear the darses inside on the loud speakers and memorize them! Then u have Shaikh Albani (ra) who as everyone knows never sat with scholars and learned everything himself from the Thahiriyyah Library... ive heard Salafi scholars with my own ears tell students that Ijazas are not that important anymore and that reading books is sufficient for one to become knowledgable

As far as Salafi scholars being always respectful, then that i disagree with.. The attacks and harsh criticism by Shaikh Albani (ra) against many contemporary scholars serves as a evidence for this.. Shaikh Albani (ra) attacked Shaykh Hafidh Abdullah Ghumari, Shaykh Abdul Aziz Ghumari, Abdul Hamid Kishk, Sayyid Qutb.. Ive heard his darses where he severely criticized Imam Sha'arawi, the great muffassir, and called him a "jahil".. he even attacked Shaykh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah, and spoke of his "Ash'ari bid'ah aqidah"..

[abulayl]

As far as Salafi scholars being always respectful, then that i disagree with.. The attacks and harsh criticism by Shaikh Albani (ra) against many contemporary scholars serves as a evidence for this.. Shaikh Albani (ra) attacked Shaykh Hafidh Abdullah Ghumari, Shaykh Abdul Aziz Ghumari, Abdul Hamid Kishk, Sayyid Qutb.. Ive heard his darses where he severely criticized Imam Sha'arawi, the great muffassir, and called him a "jahil".. he even attacked Shaykh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah, and spoke of his "Ash'ari bid'ah aqidah"..

It would be better if you could quote exact quote and sources for all.
and speaking against ashari aqidah isn´t new from any salafi scholar.

And i will not doubt , if any salafi says: to asking for ijazah of any schoalr is bidah. (its not obligatory or neccesary to have ijazah of any schoalr to learn)