Modern day Secular Salaafism is another face of Secularism and inevitable aithism

[Nomadic]

Bismillah
First define secularim. I have intentionaly used the term with the modern day salaafi movment. Secularisim as far as I understand it to be in the relegious context is to seperate out relegion from the daily lives. This is exactly what most Secular Salaafist do, by focusing on some hand picked topics i.e Aqaid, concept of school of thought , usual salaat releated topics. By doing this the the relegion is inadvertantly grouped into a area disconnected from the broader aspect of life. Is this not what the irrelegious secularist want. By extenstion this Secular Salaafism is just that an 'ism' - seemingly relegious. Scholar saying this is not halal and this is haram is not a rebuttle against secularism. Imam Ashari, Matrudi, Nafasi didn't just state the creed they defended and attacked the batil. The Salaafi movment as it stands today can not stand up intelectually. What are they going to do - Quote Bukhari and Muslim as a defence or cite Imam Ibn Taimiyah (RAH) when the arguements by intelectual secularist using more sophisticated view points. Hence relying on Salaafi to defend ahle sunnah wal Jammah is miss placed as they by their very literalist tendancy is averse to philosopy, logic and metaphysics. Should they decide to otherwise they are delving into school of thought and perhaps carry out their theft of thoughts from Muqalid scholars and spiritual master.
In addition, I also want when one is confronted with this new breed of relgious secularism, the next generation of intelectually driven muslim will have only following recourse 1. Get dissillusioned and become Aithistic due to lack of appropriate rebuttle 2. Ignore it and be in a state dissconnected from the happening by adopting an insular approach to life 3. Opt for tradtion with sound reasoning and tool available as to intiate a rebuttle.
From the list above one can assume most educated atleast the intelecually driven will opt for either 1 or 3.
In conclusion modern day Salaafism or Secular Salaafism gives rise to Secularism, Aithism and as a reaction revive Mutazilte trend.
May Allah protect us from the fitan of these ism in all shapes and form. Surely it is Allah who guides.

Masalam
Allhualam

[muminah]

No offence (personally), but what a load of nonsense!

[Baatin]

To a certain extend i agree with the brother the modern day Salafis especially the Madkhalis undermine the Shariah and even defend secular governments they even go as far as calling Husni Mubarak a (hardcore secularist) a ''muslim ruler''.

[al-Kankohi]

Very poorly constructed argument.

So what's the connection between Salafism and Secularism again?

I agree with sr. Muminah. The whole argument is a load of nonsense because it fails to make a point. It's more like a rant and a desperate attempt to smear.

[Abbe]

If secularism is defined as: "a process by wich sectors of society and culture are removed from the domination of religious institutions and symbols" then i think that the salafi movement indeed is having a secular impact on Islam. Just think about the aversion against miracles (of course there are some salafis that dont oppose miracles, but i dont think that any one can deny that the movements minhaj is very anti miracle), and their trust on secular science. Of course im generalising, but this trend is more obvious among salafis than among traditionalists. I think there are many examples of this.

[sawaaiq]

Nomadic, you continue to parrot your nonsense about "Salafi secularism" which proves that you don't have a clue about current affairs and it is the Salafi shuyookh who are the forefront of confronting the secularists and liberals in the Arab world:

http://www.tawhed.ws/c?i=90
http://saaid.net/mktarat/almani/index.htm
www.lebraly.com
http://www.islamlight.net/index.php?...1940&Itemid=48
http://www.islamlight.net/index.php?...d=19&Itemid=25

and why many "Muslim" secularists and liberals hate the Salafi da'wah and use "Wahabism" as a scapegoat to attack the fundamentals of Islaam. It is why many secularist tawagheet in the Arab world are fighting the Salafi da'wah. Can you name any Salafi shaykh who would fit your definition of "Salafi secularism"?! Do you even understand and read Arabic to understand whats going on in the Arab world?

To a certain extend i agree with the brother the modern day Salafis especially the Madkhalis undermine the Shariah

The Madkhalis aren't represantative of the Salafis and their defeatist manhaj has been refuted by many Salafi shuyookh.

and even defend secular governments they even go as far as calling Husni Mubarak a (hardcore secularist) a ''muslim ruler''.

What does Ali Jum'ah consider Mubarak then and while these governments are defended by the Madkhalis, they also have many Ash'ari and Sufi defenders and many of these governments sponsor Sufis as a bulwark against the Salafis.

I am not ranting about it but simply stating the trend.

Then why don't you apply the same principles to the UAE which is officially a "traditional" country. Why haven't we seen the "traditional" shuyookh spoken up against the corruption there?

As salafi movement relies on zeal alone, it is a matter of time this runs out of steam. They equate love with zeal and focus generally on external observation.

This is your own very biased observation and many Salafis do focus on the internal.

Once they reach this state, like many other ism it losses its shine as in Iran most iranian are fed up with the regime and there is slow rise of secularism. Similar is now being witness in the KSA. Please point out why my observation is incorrect!!

Explain UAE, Tunisia, Morocco, etc.? If it is the fault of the Salafi shuyookh that the common people choose the wrong path, then why aren't you faulting the "traditional" shuyookh for this too?

Of course im generalising, but this trend is more obvious among salafis than among traditionalists. I think there are many examples of this.

Then why are so many "traditionalists" supporters of these governments or statements like Ali Jum'ah that liberalism is compatible with Islaam or the Syrian "Mufti", Ahmad Hassoun that secularism is compatible with Islaam?

[Nomadic]

Bismillah
We know there are people of su in all areas. To group all the sufi with the psudo sufis is comparable to grouping all Salafi trend with Madkhali. If you have ever bothered to study Muslim uprising against the Kufr / colonialist it was headed by the Sufiyas. Strangely it was the wahabyte aided by the British against ramnant of Khilafat.
The term wahabia was also labelled against them by the imperialist wrongly in other parts of the world by the Britisher. However the wahabyte of Saudi are distinguishable easily and any muslim with grasp of hisotry and relegion can tell you that. The likes of Hosn Mubarak are the tyrant just like Hajaj bin Yusuf. Even in his time scholar awaited with patient not with a fatalist attitude. Unless one clearly commits shirk, then even the tyrant ruler has to be tolarated to an extent.
As for UAE, after more then 2 years of stay, there is no clear dominant madhab but salafi tint. Most of the argument against secularisation was put forwared by Taba Foundation - a traditionalist institute. The shaikh regularly contributes and writes against the growing trend and intelectually stance against the secularisation.
Your statment about corruption in UAE is strange since most of the Gulf region is looking to UAE. Afterall many actually travels to UAE from the Saudi inspired land. Morrco and Tunisa relegious body has been pushed aside a long ago as the colonialist killed off many of the orthodox traditional scholars and damaged the relegious institute. Algeria and Morroco are highly Salaafied!
So your statment about them is not correct.
I never said The scholar of Salaafism are promoting secularism but the outcome of such in the long term is secularisation of a disseffected salaafied mass in the face of secular argument. My whole argument is based on salaafism is anti intelect based by its vary nature. It requires literal view like Chrisitian Evengelican movement and as such is not suited for modern world let alone take on modern thinker. We muslim may have stopped progressing after the fall of golden age where traditonal thought flourished along with philospy and arts.
If stating due process and holding people accoutable is a feature of secularism then there is no different. Infact many of the modern secular features are in complete harmony. So yes some are in compliant. This does not make it haram just because kuffar are saying so.
Anyway, the reality the modern day Salaafi in its last throw. So one in love with Salaafism in the west can shout all the slogan. We will see the long term effect after 2 generations for the reason stated in my earlier posting.
Anyway, please read your history and obeserve the trend. You will see many similarities.
Masalam
Allhualam

[sawaaiq]

We know there are people of su in all areas. To group all the sufi with the psudo sufis is comparable to grouping all Salafi trend with Madkhali.

It is you and Baatin who are doing this and I am not grouping all Sufis and Ash'aris as the same as there are good people from them and the Madkhalis have been harshly refuted by many Salafis while many of the sellout Sufis haven't been condemned by other Sufis.

If you have ever bothered to study Muslim uprising against the Kufr / colonialist it was headed by the Sufiyas.

I don't deny this just as there were also many Sufis who were and still are stooges for the Western imperialists.

Strangely it was the wahabyte aided by the British against ramnant of Khilafat.

If you are referring King Abdul-Aziz al-Saud, then yes he was a traitor, but he was condemned by the "Wahabis" of his time like the Bani Rasheed(who were "Wahabi", but political enemies of Al-Saud) who were allies of the Ottomans and fought against King Abdul-Aziz, Sultan al-Bajjad and Faysal ad-Duwaysh(leaders of the "Wahabi" Ikhwan group) who made takfeer of King Abdul-Aziz for his colloboration with the British and fought him. Also, the Qawasim tribe(also "Wahabi") fought the British in what is now in the UAE. So the "Wahabis" weren't silent on the traitors among them while the same anti-"Wahabi" Sufis and Ash'aris who use this issue for sectarian purposes are totally silent on Sufi traitors like Sharif Hussein, who fought with the British against the Ottomans, or his descendants like King Faysal of Iraq, King Abdullah I of Jordan whose colloboration with the British and Zionists played a large part in the loss of Palestine, King Hussein(who was also a Western stooge and the payroll of the CIA) and his son King Abdullah II who continues the path of treachery. There is also Ahmad Ridha Khan who issued a fatwa to please the Britiish imperialists. Why don't you mention the Sufi shuyookh who are colloborating with the British government to promote a "moderate" Islaam through the Radical Middle Way? Why are you anti-Wahabi Sufis so hypocritical on this point and why don't you condemn the traitors and sellouts among you?

The term wahabia was also labelled against them by the imperialist wrongly in other parts of the world by the Britisher.

True.

However the wahabyte of Saudi are distinguishable easily and any muslim with grasp of hisotry and relegion can tell you that.

How about the Sufi traitors and sellouts?

The likes of Hosn Mubarak are the tyrant just like Hajaj bin Yusuf.

Whatever the faults of al-Hajjaj(or the other rulers of Bani Umayyah), at least they weren't sellouts for the kuffar and they strongly defended the Muslim lands. Did Hajjaj totally cancel the Shar'iah, allow the media and secularists to attack and ridicule Islaam, colloborate with the kuffar, etc. as the tawagheet of our time have done? The tawagheet aren't just oppressors, but enemies of Islaam.

Even in his time scholar awaited with patient not with a fatalist attitude.

Though I am not calling for khurooj against the leaders, even in Hajjaj's times, many Muslims rebelled against him and some ulama made takfeer of him so imagine what they would say about the rulers of the Muslims today.

Unless one clearly commits shirk, then even the tyrant ruler has to be tolarated to an extent.

Many of the leaders have openly committed kufr.

As for UAE, after more then 2 years of stay, there is no clear dominant madhab but salafi tint.

Dubai is officially Maliki and "traditional".

Most of the argument against secularisation was put forwared by Taba Foundation - a traditionalist institute. The shaikh regularly contributes and writes against the growing trend and intelectually stance against the secularisation.

What is the name of the shaykh? Still, the majority of the "traditional" shuyookh in the UAE haven't spoken up against the corruption there. Take Ahmad al-Kubaisi for example and his attacks on the Salafis and his total silence on the corruption there.

Your statment about corruption in UAE is strange since most of the Gulf region is looking to UAE. Afterall many actually travels to UAE from the Saudi inspired land.

So what and you're the one who brought up UAE.

Morrco and Tunisa relegious body has been pushed aside a long ago as the colonialist killed off many of the orthodox traditional scholars and damaged the relegious institute. Algeria and Morroco are highly Salaafied!
So your statment about them is not correct.

You don't have a clue about what you're talking about. In Tunisia, it is the secularist government, not the colonialists, who have oppressed the ulama and Muslims there. Using your logic, since Tunisia is one of the most secularist countries in the Muslim world, then the "traditional" ulama are responsible for the way things turned out. As for Morocco, then Salafis are a minority, and there are many "traditional" ulama(many of whom have spoken up against the government there), and many Moroccan Salafi shuyookh have spoken up against the secularists. You would also be interested to know that the secularist Algerian government has recently sponsored Sufis as a bulwark against the Salafis.

I never said The scholar of Salaafism are promoting secularism but the outcome of such in the long term is secularisation of a disseffected salaafied mass in the face of secular argument.

Why use the ridiculous misnomer "Salafi secularism" then?! Why don't you apply the same standard to the "traditionals" and Sufis? Are Salafis responsible for the actions of the masses?!

My whole argument is based on salaafism is anti intelect based by its vary nature.

Your incoherent ramblings are very intellectual.

It requires literal view like Chrisitian Evengelican movement and as such is not suited for modern world let alone take on modern thinker.

You talk about "Salafi secularism", yet you parrot the arguments of the secularists against Salafis.

We muslim may have stopped progressing after the fall of golden age where traditonal thought flourished along with philospy and arts.
If stating due process and holding people accoutable is a feature of secularism then there is no different. Infact many of the modern secular features are in complete harmony. So yes some are in compliant. This does not make it haram just because kuffar are saying so.
Anyway, the reality the modern day Salaafi in its last throw. So one in love with Salaafism in the west can shout all the slogan. We will see the long term effect after 2 generations for the reason stated in my earlier posting.
Anyway, please read your history and obeserve the trend. You will see many similarities.

How many contradictions can you fit into a paragraph?

The whole argument is a load of nonsense because it fails to make a point. It's more like a rant and a desperate attempt to smear.

Thats exactly what it is.

[Nomadic]

sawaaiq
You really have not understood my statment. When I talked about morroco and algeria, it was about the colonialist legacy, they haven't come out of it yet! So your comparison using moroco is misplaced. A many thing can be in writing officially but reality is another. I have been many masjids in UAE and rarely came across a malaki practice. Calling Awqaf hot lines reveals that. Scholars statment mean very little here in UAE. It is for all intensive purpose a secular with plenty of burn out running around.
In my last paragraph, how did you manage to find contridiction. it seems you are miss reading, strange seems this is the lest i expacted from a literalist. Never mind. I wish you peace and request you to do Dua so that all of us are guided to haq.

[sawaaiq]

You really have not understood my statment.

Because it is incoherent and contradictory.

When I talked about morroco and algeria, it was about the colonialist legacy, they haven't come out of it yet! So your comparison using moroco is misplaced.

No, it's not and you can't respond so you have brought the issue of colonialist legacy.

A many thing can be in writing officially but reality is another. I have been many masjids in UAE and rarely came across a malaki practice. Calling Awqaf hot lines reveals that. Scholars statment mean very little here in UAE. It is for all intensive purpose a secular with plenty of burn out running around.

The government is offically "traditional", whether that is evident or not, and most "traditional" shuyookh(Haddad, Jifri, Kubaisi,,etc) there haven't spoken up against the corruption there and you fail to apply the same standards to them that you apply to Salafis.

In my last paragraph, how did you manage to find contridiction. it seems you are miss reading, strange seems this is the lest i expacted from a literalist.

Read it yourself. One minute you're talking about "Salafi secularism", the next you're parroting the secularists line against the "Salafis".