Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis"

[TheHaqq]

The Hanbalis are not a monolith. I sympathize with Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah's methodology concerning Allah's Names & Attributes because it is what is naturally conceived by the Dhahir of the Quran & Sunnah without being influenced by Ilm al-Kalam. This is what we would presume to be the understanding of the Sahabah(ra) who were not familiar with the contentions of the Mutakalimoon that came later. The Salaf have also never stated that the Dhahir of the Quran/Sunnah implies Kufr and Tashbih(Tajsim).

This is what I'm trying to get to, what exactly are the differences between Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qudamah? I've seen what the Hanblis/Asharis (non salafis) have to say on this, but what about yourself or the scholars? Do you agree with Ibn Uthaymeen saying that Lum'ah Al I'tiqaad is the madhab of the (deviant) Mufawwidah?

Look we need to get past the semantics, what the Asharis mean by the Zahir implying kufr is that the real meaning, that a person would describe or that which is found in a dictionary, is kufr if you were to affirm that for Allah. For example a hand is a limb made of flesh, bone ect, obviously if you affirm this for Allah it is kufr. What the Hanbalis and Salafis mean by Zahir is different, this is why even today they falsely accuse each other of tajseem and ta'teel. Let's leave out the strawmans, we should know better than this.

Some of the descriptions in the Quran and Sunnah imply what the Mutakalimoon refer to as A'radh (incidental attributes). For example, there is a famous Hadith which states that on the Day of Judgement Allah(swt) will become Angry unlike ever being angry before. Anyone who claims that we cannot believe in what is apparent from this Hadith and other similiar evidences because it entails a "change" or "''Aradh" has deviated from the clear theology of the religion. Mind you, the negation of "change" in the general sense is not necessarily the same as someone explicitly making Tafwid of the Dhahir because it implies an 'Aradh.

Based on what I said above, what the mutakalimoon are trying to do is negate what we can all agree is tashbeeh, if we were to understand their point of view. Now here's my question to you, if you are going to outline the differences then you should be able to explain it.

So you say that there is a difference between what I have highlighted, could you explain how somehow who makes tafweed of the Zahir would have a different view to someone who affirms the Zahir but negates change in the general sense? Please outline the differences that would result from this, because this is really what I'm trying to understand.

Ibn Qudamah(ra) in his book prohibiting the study of Kalam:

This is also an informative lecture explaining the reality of Ilm al-Kalam and its philosophical influences over the schools of Aqeedah:

I think I've seen that video, there's no doubt that Hanabalis were against kalaam simply because the Prophet did not tell us to learn such sciences......the problem is, the Hanbalis themselves do not stop where the Quran and Hadith stop, they add words, gather the 'attributes' together, explain the speech of Allah ect, this is a whole different discussion, but neither side stops where the Quran and Hadith stop, this is an argument against them.

[TheHaqq]

I personally believe the whole idea that AH was a murji is retarded.

In fact, in general I believe the term was retarded and misused a lot.

Explain.

[AmantuBillahi]

This is what I'm trying to get to, what exactly are the differences between Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qudamah? I've seen what the Hanblis/Asharis (non salafis) have to say on this, but what about yourself or the scholars? Do you agree with Ibn Uthaymeen saying that Lum'ah Al I'tiqaad is the madhab of the (deviant) Mufawwidah?

I disagree with the Mashayikh who held that Ibn Qudama was a (blameworthy) Mufawwid. There are different levels of Tafwid and each scholar needs to be examined case by case with justice.

This article attempts to display the nuance in his terminology:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/aqeedah...on-tafwid/amp/

...

I'm satisfied with what I have presented on the last page. Answering TazkiyyatunNafs's question was not intended to open up a can of worms. You can take this framework and apply it to your own investigations if you find them to be relevant.

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

There is nothing problematic about traditional Hanabila - or "al-Hanabila al-Judud" ("the new Hanbalis") as "Salafis" call them - and they are upon the same 'Aqida and Fiqh as the Hanabila of the past. They teach the very books that Hanabila used to teach with the very explanations they used to give and with chains going back to the very authors!

The only "problematic" thing about them is that our brother AmantuBillahi and his Ustadh YQ do not agree with them. Note that according to these Taymiyyans MOST classical scholars of the 4 Madhahib had left the correct understanding in creed and somehow only they and al-Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) - who by the way had left the understanding of his Hanbali forefathers ACCORDING TO HIMSELF - understand everything correctly. This is the very mindset that led IAW (d. 1206 AH) - together with his ignorance and extremism - to all types of mistakes.
Note that AmantuBillahi tried to attack the Maliki Madhhab by acting as if the early Malikiyya had a different creed than the Ash'aris and "went astray afterwards" - based upon the claims of YQ of course - and it was shown to him that the very early leading authorities right after the time of Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) were Pro-Ash'ari (see HERE and HERE). So I wouldn't trust YQ resource skills, because there is still some "Salafism" left in him and he seems to lack broad reading.

As for claiming that Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) and Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) had a different creed, then this is quite rich and COMPLETELY baseless and I dare whosoever claims this to show us that they disagreed on the speech of Allah ta'ala as an example!
The Hanabila used to teach Lum'at al-I'tiqad [by Imam Ibn Qudama] alongside Qala`id al-'Iqyan and al-'Ayn wal Athar, which are both based upon the Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan. In fact most of the major points found in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in are based upon the very EXPLICIT STATEMENTS of Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) himself.

As for the claims against "later Hanabila": I seriously didn't know that Hanabila like al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH), Imam Ibn al-Banna` (d. 471 AH), Imam Kalwadhani (d. 510 AH) and others are regarded as LATE Hanabila.
I guess 95 % of the Hanabila or more had misunderstood Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) in the logic of these people.

JazakumAllaahu khayran for answering as well.

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

I'm satisfied with what I have presented on the last page. Answering TazkiyyatunNafs's question was not intended to open up a can of worms. You can take this framework and apply it to your own investigations if you find them to be relevant.

I'm sorry, I was afraid I would be opening up a can of worms. I do find the discussion very interesting and TheHaqq is bringing up some points that have also crossed my mind, but I understand if you don't wish to explain any further.

[TheHaqq]

I disagree with the Mashayikh who held that Ibn Qudama was a (blameworthy) Mufawwid. There are different levels of Tafwid and each scholar needs to be examined case by case with justice.

This article attempts to display the nuance in his terminology:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/aqeedah...on-tafwid/amp/



I'm satisfied with what I have presented on the last page. Answering TazkiyyatunNafs's question was not intended to open up a can of worms. You can take this framework and apply it to your own investigations if you find them to be relevant.

It's really not sufficient at all. It's as if you are contradicting yourself and arguing over sematics and then going around in circles. Your belief in reality seems to be in line with the hanbali aqeedah that Abu Sulaymaan posted at the start (including the slight difference in uluw).

Also what you have linked there is in agreement with what Abu Sulaymaan is saying, what I'm asking is, how does that differ with what Ibn Taymiyyah believed?

Anyway if you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, I'm just trying to figure out the exact differences.

[TheHaqq]

I'm sorry, I was afraid I would be opening up a can of worms. I do find the discussion very interesting and TheHaqq is bringing up some points that have also crossed my mind, but I understand if you don't wish to explain any further.

"The problem however is that many "proper" "Salafis" will run away from answering such questions, so you don't know what they actually believe. It's as if they're hiding something really shocking in their hearts and do not want you to know what it is.
If it's so shocking and ugly to the degree that they are ashamed of stating it openly, then why do they believe in it? Reminds me of Zanadiqa." - Abu Sulayman

Either this or it's semantics........or they mean Allah uses words that make sense in the given context (which we all agree with anyway)

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

"The problem however is that many "proper" "Salafis" will run away from answering such questions, so you don't know what they actually believe. It's as if they're hiding something really shocking in their hearts and do not want you to know what it is.
If it's so shocking and ugly to the degree that they are ashamed of stating it openly, then why do they believe in it? Reminds me of Zanadiqa." - Abu Sulayman

Either this or it's semantics........or they mean Allah uses words that make sense in the given context (which we all agree with anyway)

I know I came in to this thread quite heated as a staunch Salafi, but since I've had a change of heart I don't really wish to respond to these things anymore to be honest. I just want to be Switzerland at the moment and learn.. I feel awkward being caught in the middle. May Allaah guide us all.

[Muhammad Hasan]

If only there scholars had not lied to them about us and taught them the truth.

[Muhammad Hasan]

I disagree with the Mashayikh who held that Ibn Qudama was a (blameworthy) Mufawwid. There are different levels of Tafwid and each scholar needs to be examined case by case with justice.

This article attempts to display the nuance in his terminology:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/aqeedah...on-tafwid/amp/



I'm satisfied with what I have presented on the last page. Answering TazkiyyatunNafs's question was not intended to open up a can of worms. You can take this framework and apply it to your own investigations if you find them to be relevant.

From this we deduce, a) If he had negated the dhahir of the texts, he would not have affirmed the Face and Hands of Allah as His Attributes, and b) his objection to any ta’wil which opposes the dhahir of the texts clearly shows that he does not negate the dhahir, rather he affirms it, and therefore, he is not a mufawwidh.

I have read through some this website you've linked.

Now, as an "Ash'ari" for a long time I've affirmed Allah's Yad ("the divine Hand") in which are all things, and he spends with it as he wishes, and nothing decreases from it as he spends.

I am also a Mufawwid. I also engage in Kalam, and respectfully, Shaykh Yasir Qadhi's history of how Kalam developed is inaccurate. Kalam developed inside Islam as a response to the Qadariyya by early scholars like Hasan al-Basri and Abu Hanifa, and is traceable to a simple statement of RasulAllah Alayhis Salam where he used a rational argument to negate a false belief with regards to Qadar.

'Ibn Mas'ud narrated:

"The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) stood among us and said: 'One thing does not infect another.' So a Bedouin said: 'O Messenger of Allah! If a camel gets mangy glands and we leave it at the resting place of camels, then all of the camels get mange?' The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) said: 'Who caused the first to get manage? There is no 'Adwa nor safar. Allah created every soul, so he wrote its life, its provision, and its afflictions.'"

- Jami'at-Tirmidhi Vol. 4, Book 6, Hadith 2143, Kitab al-Qadar

Allah is the one who with his will decrees disease for all of the camels. He has pre-determined all things, having chosen whatever he willed. He is the only cause. That is Qadar.

Reading these articles it makes me realise that the followers of Ibn Taymiyyah are more concerned with the terminology of affirming the "Zahir". Let me tell you something - I affirm according to your understanding the Zahir. As in I affirm Yad Bi La Tahdid. I mean to be honest that quite literally is Tafwid al-Ma'na but I digress.

Yet I also deny that Allah has a limb, has dimensions, is in a place (or all places) or spatial direction (or all directions) etc. To deny these things in one's mind and heart is mandatory - otherwise you liken Allah to the creation. I affirm Allah is above all things with an absolute unqualified aboveness with the Sifat of Uluww, but I do not say he is physically above i.e. in the way my foot is above the ground - from another perspective my foot is below the ground.

Purpose of the Ash'ari negating Similarities from the Creator

Allah is not a creation, he is the Creator.

All these negations are an affirmation of his fundamental nature of Tanzih (transcendence) - he is the Divine King above and beyond all things and - the uncomprehendible God as he mentioned in the Qur'an and as the Sahabah believed.

Ibn al-Jawzi and the later Ash'ari faultered only because they had the righteous intention of affirming the Tanzih of Allah. You do not realise that Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi gave up what Ibn Taymiyyah accused him of in later works (and Imam as-Sanusi also criticised him).

Kalam

But he didn't give up Kalam. Rather pure Kalam and rationality is what leads one to give up figurative interpretations that negate the attributes (Tawil Tafsili i.e. Ta'til).

I myself find the same thinking in adopting the method of the Salaf when I reflect on the fact that we will see Allah without place, direction or him being a body etc. in the next world. The Mu'tazila denied it because they assumed one must be looking in a direction at a body etc. They made those assumptions on the nature of seeing, that contradict reason (rationally nothing says any of these are necessary for seeing - these are all habitual, possible and incidental). Like seeing all white swans and assuming all swans must be white.

Ibn Taymiyyah

Ibn Taymiyyah has very problematic things in his works (and yes I believe some of that is Tasbih and Tajsim, amongst other things like his views against Qadar, views on temporality of Jahannam etc.) which is why I think they should not be read or a learned Sunni scholar who is objective should seperate the good criticisms he made of al-Razi, and some of his categorisations, from some of his anthropomorphic statements like his defending of Hadd, contingency, the Karramiyyah, Muqatil bin Sulayman etc.

I cannot accept him as a Sunni scholar, but I love him for the sake of Allah for I feel he did correct and speak out against some areas where al-Razi adopted the views of the Mu'tazilah, faltering rationally. Unfortunately Ibn Taymiyyah makes the same mistakes himself and was influenced by the Falasifa, Mu'tazila and especially the Karramiyyah and early anthropomorphists which is why his followers are so hell belt on defending terminology like Jism when it is intended in x way according to some silly aristotelian definition that no one uses.

I sympathise with what Imam ad-Dhahabi said regarding him after he left his way.

Leave Interpreting the Problematic Verses

Really the best way in these issues is to simply leave interpretation and say we believe in them according to whatever Allah intended. Allah knows best. We should pass over them as they came, not interpret them nor imagine them and we must confirm that there is not anything like Allah. We should stop discussing these issues and focus on his signs. This just causes division and hatred at a time we need to be united.

We all agree that these Sifat al-Khabariyyah are from the Ayat al-Mutashabihat - so why are we ignoring what Allah has said in the Qur'an? Isn't it better to follow that?

Do we make Takfir or Tabdi of the layperson who says they do not understand things and says Allah knows what the things he doesn't understand mean? How can such a person be an innovator? These statements are a minority of the Qur'an - is it not unfathomable that he gave us statements which only he knows the interpetation of? So to test us to see who is arrogant in wanting to understand everything even when is told he cannot understand.

Insha'Allah I think I will leave discussing these things now. There are much better things to discuss like the situation of western muslims, proofs for Islam in previous scripture and history, our approach to the Isra'iliyyat (which I promised someone I'd discuss some day) etc. I make dua that we all turn to him and that he guides us on the correct path.

[Muhammad Hasan]

I know I came in to this thread quite heated as a staunch Salafi, but since I've had a change of heart I don't really wish to respond to these things anymore to be honest. I just want to be Switzerland at the moment and learn.. I feel awkward being caught in the middle. May Allaah guide us all.

Advice from a scholar who learnt and studied both Taymiyyan and Ash'ari thought, on some considerations when leaving the Salafi movement or maybe just leaving that sort of Madkhali strand. It is quite balanced, and of course I do not agree with some of the things he says but nonetheless it should give you some advice:

As growing numbers of young practicing Muslims (especially students of knowledge or enthusiasts of scholarly discussions) make the decision to abandon Salafism due to either finding it or it’s conclusions intellectually inferior or practically problematic, there are a number of important things to take note of:

1) Do not belittle your reasons for finding Salafism enticing in the first place. There are positive and negative reasons.
As a positive: Salafism is a logical first step for many Muslims with taqwa. It promises an attachment to the Qur’an & Sunnah above all else, a freedom from associating partners with the Creator in all its forms, and purity in understanding. Are these not all the first steps of a Muslim yearning to have taqwa in their understanding and practice of Islam? Don’t let the fire of taqwa die inside you. Many Salafis when they ‘burnout’ one of the first things they also jettison is their taqwa.
As a negative: All these promises were in fact oversimplified exaggerations of more complex realities that could only be uncovered by knowledge. The Qur’an and Sunnah could only be accessed by humans: scholars and their intellectual edifices in the form of madhhabs, sciences, ideas and deductions. The concept of ‘associating partners with the divine’ is not as immediately black and white as Najdi Salafi polemic proposes it to be in theory and practicality. Purity in understanding is very subjective: it is possible to be following the salaf but be practicing a version of Islam that is quite different in some of it’s outwardly aspects to what the salaf were doing. The realization of all of this comes with knowledge, learning and understanding. Many ‘burnouts’ after Salafism don’t realize this and don’t put enough attention on learning and education to further enlighten their perspectives.

2) Do not lose the importance of principles. Even if some of the principles are wrong, Salafism still has principles. And principles are still pivotal to being a pious servant of the Creator. Many ‘burnouts’, disenfranchised with Salafism and what they perceive to be it’s distortion of Islam and ensuing choke-hold over their lives, abandon Salafism only for an understanding of Islam without principles, instead adopting whatever understanding of Islam is popular or culturally prevalent. That should not be the case. Fiqh, it’s general principles (qawā’id) and foundations (usĆ«l) still exist. There is still such a thing as a ‘normative Islam’ which you cannot let go of and still claim to call yourself a religious Muslim. The Sunnah of the Prophet Ű”Ù„Ù‰ Ű§Ù„Ù„Ù‡ Űčليه ÙˆŰłÙ„Ù… is still important.

3) Understand the sovereignty of the popular and culturally prevalent in informing your decision of what is true and normative. Salafism and Madkhalism was a big thing in the 90s because Saudi da’wah was at it’s peak. Moderate diluted Salafism was a big thing in the 2000s because moderate Salafism was at it’s peak – yet struggling to keep itself together after the Madkhali disaster(s) of the 90s. Today abandoning Salafism for outright modernism is the new thing, due to the effect of ISIS and growing Islamophobia. Instead our notions of what is true and normative should be based on sound knowledge via qualified and relevant scholarship.

4) The importance of qualified scholarship. One of the main reasons you became a Salafi is because you were inspired by someone you believed to be a pious and qualified scholar. Except that even if they were pious, they probably weren’t qualified enough. The casualty list when it comes to Salafi scholars is unfortunately high. Without giving names, there are famous and reputable Salafi scholars (all real first or second hand examples coming up) who have given fatwas saying that learning tajwid is bid’ah, or that learning usul-ul-fiqh is the work of misguidance, or are claimed to be experts in tafsir but can’t grammatically parse a sentence in Arabic, or have studied only Hadith but not fiqh, or are self-studied, have not studied one of the four schools of Islamic law etc. This is not even counting the many Salafi speakers out there whose average Islamic Education is a 4 year bachelors degree from KSA where the most eventful thing they learned was Kitab al-Tawhid and Bulugh al-Maram. Have a high standard for scholarship. If the teacher has not mastered the sciences of the Arabic language, usul, one of the four schools, the sciences of Hadith and tafsir, knows their history, and is aware of the diverse needs of their local communities, then it’s not worth it.

5) Not joining the other side of the sectarian riot. Being a Salafi ‘burnout’ is no excuse to join the extremes on the other side of the pond. The Athari school is still a valid theological school. And the Hanbali school is still a valid legal school. And even though his application was technically Kharijite in character, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab was not the only scholar to strongly dislike the permissiveness or excessiveness of some traditionalists when it comes to taqlid and interaction with the dead/graves. The Imams Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, Shah Waliullah, and al-Shawkani, al-San’āni and others all also had their own reservations about these trends. Im not saying I agree with these ideas or wish to propagate them, but we must admit that when we look at history they do constitute a significant bulk of inter-Sunni discourse and can’t be brushes away as innovation or misguidance so easily. Don’t re-enact your past from the opposite direction.

6) Consider traditionalism. No I’m not asking you to go full Hanafi/Sufi and join the cliques etc. But what traditionalism offers (although some traditionalists themselves unfortunately end up obfuscating this) is an opportunity to graduate your understanding and practice of Islam in a time-tested, thoroughly developed way. Don’t want to become a scholar and want to continue focus on your practical life? There are texts, study patterns and spiritual guidance for that. Want to be a student of knowledge? There’s a system and pedagogy for that. Want to be a scholar? This is the best and most well-rounded way to go about it, as the traditions will give you the necessary tools to become an independent thinker yet still remain faithful to the 1400 years of cumulative Islamic thought.

(I do not agree with his conception that the Athari school - which I agree is acceptable - is the doctrines of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah.)

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

Advice from a scholar who learnt and studied both Taymiyyan and Ash'ari thought, on some considerations when leaving the Salafi movement or maybe just leaving that sort of Madkhali strand. It is quite balanced, and of course I do not agree with some of the things he says but nonetheless it should give you some advice:
(I do not agree with his conception that the Athari school - which I agree is acceptable - is the doctrines of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah.)

I really appreciate that, jazakumAllaahu khayran.

My problem now is not really having a burn out, I've been conservative before Salafism and I'm still conservative. I don't wish to leave that for modernism or other kinds of deviant ideologies. It's more that I just feel uncertain where to take my knowledge from now. And my whole understanding of Islaam is so deeply rooted in Salafism, it makes me feel a bit lost at the moment. I've not read any books without explanations of Salafi scholars. And of course doubt my understanding about everything now. I don't tend to listen to Yasir Qadhi and other western students I've seen posted on here. And now that I've distanced myself from Salafi scholars - for the moment at least - it seems there are not many if any scholars I know of that I agree with. Besides that I need to work on leaving my community and probably saying goodbye to most people I've known. I've told one sister so far, one that I know probably has the mildest reaction since I've known her for years and she wasn't quite as staunch as me. Anyways, she probably thinks I've gone proper mad and hasn't responded me in days. Obviously when I do move away from this place I need to figure out where to go to next.. and I'm just not sure about it. Allahul musta3aan. I'm sorry, I know I'm rambling now.

As for my comment to TheHaqq, then I meant more that if there's anything I've learned from my past mistakes: it's to not post my opinions as truth and call towards it prematurely. It's better to be deviant while staying silent, than being deviant and being the cause for others to deviate. I regret calling towards something I now see as false. So this has been something weighing heavy on my shoulders. Imagine just how many may have read my comments and I have led astray. That's a scary thought. I feel regretful not staying silent. So naturally besides that regret, I don't want to be caught in the middle as it's the last thing I want to bother myself with.

[TheHaqq]

I know I came in to this thread quite heated as a staunch Salafi, but since I've had a change of heart I don't really wish to respond to these things anymore to be honest. I just want to be Switzerland at the moment and learn.. I feel awkward being caught in the middle. May Allaah guide us all.

There's nothing wrong with that, it just shows that you want the truth rather than blindly following what you know is wrong. The best way is to read the Quran itself as tafseer without adding anything and without explaining anything unless it is explicitly stated. This means to read the verses where Allah describes himself while keeping in mind Surah Al Ikhlaas and the verse in Surah Ash Shura negating likeness to Allah.

So even statements such as "Allah has two hands, a face...." ect are not found in the Quran and Sunnah, nor did the sahabah make a list of Allah's attributes in such a way.

Every Muslim can agree on this.

[TheHaqq]

I really appreciate that, jazakumAllaahu khayran.

My problem now is not really having a burn out, I've been conservative before Salafism and I'm still conservative. I don't wish to leave that for modernism or other kinds of deviant ideologies. It's more that I just feel uncertain where to take my knowledge from now. And my whole understanding of Islaam is so deeply rooted in Salafism, it makes me feel a bit lost at the moment. I've not read any books without explanations of Salafi scholars. And of course doubt my understanding about everything now. I don't tend to listen to Yasir Qadhi and other western students I've seen posted on here. And now that I've distanced myself from Salafi scholars - for the moment at least - it seems there are not many if any scholars I know of that I agree with. Besides that I need to work on leaving my community and probably saying goodbye to most people I've known. I've told one sister so far, one that I know probably has the mildest reaction since I've known her for years and she wasn't quite as staunch as me. Anyways, she probably thinks I've gone proper mad and hasn't responded me in days. Obviously when I do move away from this place I need to figure out where to go to next.. and I'm just not sure about it. Allahul musta3aan. I'm sorry, I know I'm rambling now.

As for my comment to TheHaqq, then I meant more that if there's anything I've learned from my past mistakes: it's to not post my opinions as truth and call towards it prematurely. It's better to be deviant while staying silent, than being deviant and being the cause for others to deviate. I regret calling towards something I now see as false. So this has been something weighing heavy on my shoulders. Imagine just how many may have read my comments and I have led astray. That's a scary thought. I feel regretful not staying silent. So naturally besides that regret, I don't want to be caught in the middle as it's the last thing I want to bother myself with.

Why do you need to leave them? You can still study with them and be amongst them, they are not a misguided sect. You know the mistakes that they make so you can just learn everything else from them.

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

Why do you need to leave them? You can still study with them and be amongst them, they are not a misguided sect. You know the mistakes that they make so you can just learn everything else from them.

I'm not sure they would let me stay even if I wanted to. There's always the option of keeping my new findings to myself, but I'm not that kind of person and this is an intimate and close-knit community to begin with. I just don't see a future here if I don't see eye to eye. They treat the books of Ibn Abdul-Wahhab frequently and one of the ongoing lessons is from ad-Durar like I said. As for staying amongst them, then Salafis are not exactly known for sitting with Ahlul-Bid3ah, right?