Sufis say that spirituality is a specific science while Salafis say it is a general one. The latter say that spirituality is a built-in part of Islam, and the highest practitioner would only be doing what was specified in the Quran or Sunnah. The former say that sprituality, while a basic amount is built-in to the religion, there are higher levels one can attain, just as in the case of knowledge. Thus not everyone is a “Sufi” (and here I use the term not to speak of the Traditional methodology in approaching Islam but as the specific practitioner of spirituality) just like not everyone is an ‘aalim. Therefore, I already try my best to implement what is naturally found in Islam - the ad’iyah and the adhkaar, etc. but look forward inshallah perhaps to also follow a specific tareeqah (which by the way, traces its lineage just like a person who traces their ijaazah in the Quran does back to the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam.) I did go to a hadhrah, but don’t think I will go regularly until I am ready to study spiritual development as its own science inshallah.

I did a bit of research about which madhab I felt was most rational based upon the scant knowledge I currently have. Off the bat, although I admire Abu Haneefah rahimahullaah greatly, I know that ahadith were not well established in his day and although this should not affect latter-day development of his school, I was a bit uncomfortable (although it is instinctive) with ‘illah and traditions as part of the approach. The Maliki school I never quite considered due only to the principle of taking from the people of Madinah (which I understand is not absolute). The Hanbali school at first seemed the obvious choice, but I was a bit uncomfortable with some principles such as masaalih mursala and sadd-ud-dhiraa’ah. Thus I decided to become a Shafi’ee if I do end up choosing a madhab as his usul seems the most basic. I am in no way judging any of these great scholars, rahimahullaahu ta’aala, but these were my basic reasons (although I feel it is acceptable to follow any of them).

When it comes to the 4 schools of fiqh, it is agreed any one will do. I know there is no such agreement on ‘aqeedah. Also I do not know if the Traditionalists who insist on one school in fiqh necessarily ask you correlate this with a particular school in ‘aqeedah (although I did see some trends for example the Maturidis with the Hanafi school). But since the manhaj issue is one that is even more wide than this that I do not know of others even considering as an acceptable dichotomy, I felt I could only make the best decision that I could in this regard.

I already mentioned in the development of schools discussion the various positions I came across regarding ‘aqeedah. In summary, they are Athari, Ash’ari, Maturidi, and Salafi. As a philosophical person and rationalist who sees religion as its own distinct entity, I believe the Athari school is the most logical and precise, safe, and even righteous. Again, I am only explaining my personal motivations for these choices - I believe they are all acceptable.

I had the privilege of meeting the wife of a prominent Shaikh recently (she herself is quite learned as well) who shocked me by saying that I was not a “Sunni” Muslim because I did not follow a madhab. I had simply never heard this distinction before. I thought to myself, “What am I, Shi’a?” I do not believe Ahl-us-Sunnah were characterized by following a madhab (and by the way, she gave me 2 choices when it came to ‘aqeedah). It might be a mistake not to follow one, but I do not see the basis for expelling someone from the fold of Sunni Islam over it.

Regardless, that coupled with my general quest to re-learn everything in light of what I was learning led me to reconsider the issue of madhabs. Salafis are not necessarily opposed to having madhabs, but do generally oppose the “blind” following mentality which seems to divide the Ummah into strict compartments. At the same time they do not deem it necessary to follow one.

It is clear that the layperson is not bound to follow one, and can follow any person who is a mufti. However, it is often considered better for the sake of cohesion (and some say to control the nafs) to go with one school so there is no doubt about picking and choosing in the Deen. Now the first thing is often it is hard for us to come into contact with scholars, let alone a mufti for consistent guidance. In older times, you could just go to the masjid and learn all the basics you needed. Now with knowledge on the decline it is harder to make sure you are following “followable” opinions etc. Also the question of the net opens up a venue - you could find a mufti you trusted from a distance. So still the question of scholarship is a bit fragmentary in this day I believe. That is another benefit of a madhab.

In light of the 3 levels of knowledge, and knowing that I am a layperson, I felt that I ought to follow one. Not just that I could or that it would be beneficial or just arbitrary, but philosophically, the schools of thought have approaches to deriving Islam. If I as a layperson follow one opinion here or a scholar who follows another one there, although the conclusions may in fact be correct, it is inconsistent from a methodological point of view to do this.

However, the challenge comes up because I have already learned all my basic fiqh (the hard way). Am I to abandon all that, start with a madhab and follow some opinions which I am sure will be less authentic or less in terms of goodness for myself? I am still struggling with this question…

The next issue was manhaj. OK, I am a follower, but a follower of what and whom? Again, I feel that Salafis and Sufis were the only 2 viable groups that I could follow as a serious practitioner of religion. And honestly, the major difference I see from them is their approach to religion, their manhaj, their methdology. And this can almost entirely be summed up in one word: innovation.

Both Salafis and Sufis agree that innovation in the religion is abhorrent and blasphemous. However, they take opposite approaches in this matter. Salafis basically believe each and every act which is religious must be specifically mentioned in the Quran or the Sunnah. Anything other than this, even if it was small, even if it was beneficial, is the result of human thought, which is subject to error. Thus they are very strict in this regard. Sufis believe that Islam established certain general principles, and based upon these principles, religious acts can develop. So for example, a Salafi would look at the Mawlid and say - the Prophet nor the Companions participated in this, and therefore, even if there are some benefits, in reality it is a gross innovation and an addition to the religion. Sufis, however, would say that this practice is sanctified by the fact that we are told to revere our Prophet, remember him, learn about him, and follow him, and so the Mawlid is not only a good act, but a sound one with basis in the Deen.

In examining this matter, although I felt more comfortable and safe with the Sufi approach, I found that the Salafi approach is not in reality followed to the letter. There are acts done with no specific basis which people may even think are a part of the religion, but in reality simply developed. An example is the saying “radhi’allaahu ‘anhum” for the Companions.

Therefore, I had to accept overall the Sufi manhaj in the religion although I find the Salafi approach to be acceptable, and even admirable. But I still had some confusion. I recently attended a hadhra, a Sufi circle of dhikr, and to be honest, it was quite shocking. It seemed very strange to me and I was totally not used to it. The whole time I felt awkward and wondered if this was our religion or not. However, when one thinks of the fact that tawheed is divided into 3 categories or that one who studies the rules of tajweed is really studying a derived science regarding our sacred text.

After much deliberation, I found a way to reconcile the valid points that I felt both parties had. On the one hand, there is no denial that many of the acts which the Sufis do, and which are considered innovated have a basis in the religion and have been approved by scholars of the past whom both sides respect. However, they are general bases and not specifically sanctioned. Thus, if a dhikr formula was simply deemed by great scholars to be effective in spiritual training, this should be seen as no different from a scholar’s methods in teaching or training his students in a purely academic setting. There is no doubt that a student of knowledge, if she is sitting and studying the rules of tajweed, is being rewarded by Allah (as long as the intention is pure) and engaging in mustahabb behavior the same way that someone following the spiritual program of his shaikh is being rewarded by Allah (as long as the intention is pure) and engaging in mustahabb behavior since it is based on a general principle such as remembering Allah “standing, sitting, and on your sides” just as the student of knowledge is doing something based on the general merits of seeking knowledge.

The problem comes when the act itself, which was not specifically mentioned in the Quran or Sunnah, takes on divine dimensions. For example, if the 3 categories of tawheed were themselves seen as divinely inspired or something which is direct from the religion, this would be as problematic as someone thinking the mawlid is a divinely revealed act or something which the religion demands. These “innovated” acts are perfectly permissible because they have a general basis, but their specific status is not one of being immutable such as the prayer, etc. When I was a little girl, I remember fasting without speaking because I had read in the Quran about Maryam ‘alaihaas-salaam but I was “corrected” and told this was wrong. However, if one sees that something generally good is allowed but not divine in itself nor an official part of the religion, then the religion is vast and human expression acommodated. 

Thus, “good” innovations are not truly innovations (as Sufis will tell you) but Sunnah, based upon general precepts. However, it must be kept in mind that the specific developed acts are not divine in nature and not belonging to the religion itself - in adherence to the numerous ahadeeth mentioning the warnings against adding to the religion. This was the way in which I reconciled both sides of a seemingly opposite situation and inshallah may Allah make it a reconciliation that allows the Muslims to understand and respect one another.    

I began, as most human beings do, by following my parents. In my adolescence, as most human beings do, I questioned, and discovered what I believed for myself. I grew up Tablighi, so as a Traditionalist (or keeping in line with the dichotomy I typically used, “Sufi”) I followed the Hanafi madhab (I am from Bangladesh) and didn’t really hear about a school in ‘aqeedah, but do remember believing Allah was everywhere. My idea of knowledge then was that Islam is something passed down, without too much controversy or conflict, so it seemed safe to read any religious book and just try to be the best Muslim I could be. When I started college, I became exposed to the Salafi Da’wah. It sounded good, as it is quite intuitive - this is what the Quran says, this is what the Sunnah says. So I was Salafi for a while. I felt I had to be careful from where I took knowledge, and make sure it was “authentic” since it seemed most Muslims did not know from whence they got the details of their religion. Eventually I found out that although my parents had never taught me why I should be “Hanafi” or what the proofs were for everything we believed, there were in fact proofs and evidences behind it. When I would speak with my Sufi friends, I found they were not ignorant, they very much loved the Sunnah, and did feel the religion was something which should be properly transmitted and taught. So I guess you could say I have had a bit of a “rebirth” in terms of knowledge. I thought I knew what I was doing and, as most human beings do, I found out I didn’t know half the story.

So here I am, having informally learned a lot of the religion, but from different groups, with no methodology, etc. Thus the question of knowledge and scholarship has occured to me. I first of all do believe I can learn from both Salafis and Sufis. However, I was confused about how exactly I ought to approach learning from scratch from two groups who often seem diametrically opposed in terms of methodology. It is confusing being open to the Truth from anyone, and I felt my life was falling apart in incoherency, so I had to sit and decide upon many of the major issues which would shape my life.

So I thought about it a while and reflected on the standard 3 level tier of knowledge, which I knew about but felt more urgently interested in due to my situation.

There are 3 stations in regards to knowledge:

1. The Layman - this is most of the Ummah (this is where I am right now)
2. The Scholar - this is the rank of those who studied Islam formally and methodically (this is what I hope to be as I study)
3. The Independent - this is I do not know if I can attain this level, but I know it exists

With these 3 stations comes 3 approaches to gaining knowledge appropriate to the status:

1. Taqleed - (blind) following 
2. Ittiba’ah - following with discrimination
3. Ijtihaad - independent derivation

Now, the first is following and I know that there is some controversy in “blind” following. The reality is, even Salafis engage in blind following at times, despite their warnings against it. It is not only not practically possible to at all times know the exact proof (and furthermore to be convinced of it) for every minute issue, but it is academically not sound either. Therefore, I believe the distinction made between “following” and “blind following” is a moot one. If you are a follower, you are a follower. Yes, it is good to know the proofs and be informed, but it is not necessary. That is why we are laymen. We do not have the necessary knowledge or skills to even be convinced of an argument let alone to analyze one presented to us. So for now, shockingly enough, I have opted to “blind” follow scholarship. Following does not mean you give up your brain, just that you know your own limits. It is acceptable for me or any layperson, to follow scholarship without asking for details. This is a blessing upon us from our Lord, to trust our scholars and follow what the glean from the religion. As it says, “ask those who know”.

As for the scholar, then he or she is someone who does have the knowledge and ability to analyze religious issues and verdicts. He or she is not independent to the level that they research every issue or derive it themselves, but if they strongly believe the evidence for something is stronger such that it behooves them to follow it, they cannot in good conscience do otherwise. (By the way, some make only 2 distinctions and say that taqleed and ittibaa’ah are one and the same; you are either a muqallid or a mujtahid.)

As for the mujtahid, he is not allowed to follow because he has the ability and responsibility to derive in that issue directly from the sources of religion.

The first thing we ought to establish is that this theory does not seek “unity for unity’s sake”. Yes, there is a level of unity which all Muslims ought to have simply because we are all Muslims. However, this does not mean we do not try to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Therefore, even though this theory is one which may sound elementary (many individuals and groups already preach a message of Muslim unity) it is a bit more profound than that because I believe that unity amongst the two major groups (Salafis/Sufis) is something we can philosophically and academically establish.

One thing to keep in mind is the developoment of Islamic scholarship through time. Often when we study Islam, it is presented to us with a defined thesis. It can often be startling to realize that people did not always agree. Ijtihaad started with the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, and there were schools of thought even among the Companions radhi’allaahu ‘anhum. The fact is that Islam, although divine, did not go into details of every single conceivable situation which may arise in daily life. This is the challenge of human beings - to live by the principles outlined in the Quran, taught to us by our Prophet, implemented by the Companions. Yet human reasoning being what it is, it is possible to look at the same pieces of evidence and derive different conclusions. Therefore, if we take the example of the 4 schools of thought in fiqh, we know that there is nothing divine about them. They are merely scholastic approaches used in deriving jurisprudence. Moreover, there were more schools of thought than these 4, but there was a general agreement that over time, these 4 have developed into distinct schools which have stood the test of time.

Thus, it is philosophically conceivable that as the 4 “acceptable” schools developed, others can too. It may or may not happen practically, but in theory, it is certainly possible. What I am proposing is not that we develop a new school of thought in terms of fiqh, but that when the Ummah finds there are 2 different approaches in an issue (’aqeedah seems to an area of serious dispute) then it is possible that although they do not agree, they are both correct. Again, this is not a “feel-good” sentiment, saying it is immaterial what anyone says about Allah and that it’s “all good”, but that when two sides continually bring their evidences from the same sources, holding similar methodology and only differing in their conclusions, it is possible they are both correct, both from Ahl-us-Sunnah. This is not currently acceptable to either Salafis or Sufis. Each side believes that their approach in this issue is the correct one, the other side at most not even Muslim, at least misguided. 

I myself have heard some who say acceptable schools of ‘aqeedah are 2. Others have said it is 3. I personally see 4 distinct schools (2 having a similar approach), all of whom bring their evidence. I personally lean towards one, but it does not mean someone else who brings Allah’s Book and evidence from the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam himself, as well as the context of the beliefs/actions of the Sahaabiyaat, just because we did not arrive at the same conclusion, is “off the path”.

Therefore, we currently seem to agree that there are 4 major “acceptable” schools of fiqh: Hanafi, Shafi’ee, Maliki, and Hanbali. We do not agree on schools of ‘aqeedah, but here are the 4 actual positions I have heard of:

1. Athari - those who affirm what Allah affirmed and deny what Allah denied and go no further (make tafweedh)
2. Ash’ari - those who give a metaphorical meaning to the attributes of Allah which are physical in nature (similar to 3)
3. Maturidi - those who give a metaphorical meaning to the attributs of Allah which are physical in nature (similar to 2)
4. Salafi - those who take the apparent meaning of Allah’s attributes (as opposed to the metaphorical)

So actually, if you look at these schools in general, you have a continuum: Atharis being minimalistic, the Ash’aris and Maturidis combatting the philosophical infiltrations of the Mu’tazilah and their like at their time, and the Salafis, who then came and reacted to the middle generation. Make no mistake, none of these groups actually differs from the others in what they are trying to achieve. Alhamdulillaah, belief in Allah is something the Muslims are united upon and it is ludicrous if we can’t even unite upon this first tenet of our faith. Unfortunately, too many people cannot see that they are in reality all doing the same thing!

1. The Atharis take the safe approach. You simply cannot go wrong affirming what Allah affirmed and denying what He denied without elaborating. This was the position of most of the salaf and early generations.

If Allah says He has a Hand, he does. No further comment. We do not know the exact nature of the Hand.

2. The Ash’aris and Maturidis (who have minor points of difference based upon rational principles within their schools) actually developed as the defense of orthodox Islam at the time when the Mu’tazila and others came, influenced by Greek logic, etc. in deriving the religion. These 2 groups took a stand and affirmed much of what was dismissed as “irrational” by the groups who thought rationality alone could deduce all of Islam, or what was deemed irrational by their logic alone should be expunged or re-interpreted to fit their ideas. Inevitably, the Ash’aris and Maturidis had to delve into rhetoric themselves and would explain rationally why Islam takes certain positions regarding Allah. Human development is inevitable, and the Muslim community will be exposed to different philosophies in this world, and can choose as the Atharis to desist from such discussions completely, or choose as these 2 groups to join the discussion. And while mistakes and misunderstandings may come about, just as in fiqh, the target is the same for those who are sincere and seek to uphold orthodox Islam.

If Allah says He has a Hand, we must believe this because of His revelation to us, but Hand could mean Power as Allah is unlike His creation, which He mentions elsewhere. We do not know the exact nature of the Hand.

3. The Salafis undeniably (although many of their followers in fact do deny it) came as a reaction to the 2 intermediate groups. They felt that deciding that something was dangerously physical in nature, and using metaphorical or symbolic interpretations in order to solve the problem was uncalled for and had no basis from the Quran or the prophetic tradition. Thus, although many people believe they are proponents of “literalism” (and harmfully even anthropromorphism) a more accurate term would be “apparent” in the sense that it negates metaphorical or symbolic re-interpretation without an explicit evidence.

If Allah says He has a Hand, we must believe this because of His revelation to us, but it is definitely NOT another meaning such as Power, because if He meant Power, He would have said Power. We do not know the exact nature of the Hand.  

Look how they all agree in the principles! And these people are all expelling each other from the religion or the fold of the guided! Why do we not take a similar position to the 4 schools of thought - arriving at different conclusions, but internally consistent? I am not alone in this - historically, there were no “schools” of thought in aqeedah, as it was a relatively sparse and undefined area. Gradually, the scholars (whom both sides respect) would designate 2 schools and later 3 schools as all acceptable approaches. And now we have 3 distinct schools (although still only 3 approaches, 1 neutral, 2 reactionary on either side). And in our time, we have scholars accepting this development.

I respect all these schools which are essentially all trying to arrive at what the Muslims as an Ummah agree upon with our Lord. I pray that we can all see that orthodox Islam has many defenders, even ones who may differ with us in some things, but that we are all on the same side. May Allah unite the Muslims who are all trying to know Him!

Sects are most definitely forbidden in Islam. The Quran says, “And hold onto the Rope of Allah, all of you, and do not become divided.” (Surah Aal ‘Imraan) The Ummah is one body and both the Quran and Sunnah clearly call against such divisions in the religion so I will merely gloss over this point as it is relatively uncontroversial. By sects I mean groups which branch off from the mainstream of Islam and claim some special knowledge which was not given to the majority. An example of this is the “Shi’atu ‘Alee”, or “Party of ‘Alee” radhi’allaahu ‘anhu who claim many things contrary to the ijmaa’ah of the entire Ummah and who claim even that the wives and Companions of the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, radhi’allaahu ‘anhum ajma’een, the majority of the Muslims who were actually sanctioned by both the Quran and numerous authentic ahadith, that they betrayed the religion and that only a few knew of the truth faithfully kept it and passed it on until this day. Indeed, one cannot see any evidence from ‘Alee radhi’allaahu ‘anhu himself that he sanctioned their beliefs. The most radical among them claim that the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam was not even the originally planned recipient of revelation, but that the Angel Gabriel ‘alaihis salaam mistakenly gave it to him instead of, as you may well guess, ‘Alee radhi’allaahu ‘anhu, thus nullifying their faith entirely and rendering them disbelievers. In any event, there are numerous sects besides the Shi’ah, but their claims are sketchy and their numbers scant. The Muslim Ummah is most certainly not in confusion on its basic tenets, and it is not difficult to trace them if one wishes.

As for groups, this is another matter altogether. Groups are not actual sects in that they have virtually distinct religions and ideologies, but rather they are the different methodologies and approaches towards Islam. I have already given the example of Salafis and Sufis to demonstrate this. Although I do not actually see that belonging to a group or following an ideology within Islam is wrong, and may even be a natural consequence of human nature, as mentioned before it can lead to wrong things, namely the group itself becoming sacred. When the group methodology becomes so overpowering that it is then considered THE way to Islam and when other approaches, although being faithful to the sources yet arriving at different conclusions, are criticised to the point of exclusion from salvation. This is when the group has taken more right than it has due.

I have yet to see the Quran or the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam ever mention that a specific group is on guidance by name and location. Rather, aside from the numerous, numerous injunctions and emphases on unity and cohesion, it is mentioned in general that guidance is for an unnamed group of people who have certain characteristics. Therefore, if one were to fulfill the characteristics, would they not satisfy the conditions divinely laid down? This would seem sensible. But no, the groups argue, he or she must come to the same specific conclusions about religion that they have come with in order to fulfill the more general criteria laid down in the Quran and ahadeeth. The question is where they have received the right to stipulate such when it was not stipulated in the sources of Islam. Their arguments are construed, but not definitive.

It is not a requirement to call oneself “Salafi” although many insist on distinguishing themselves as upon the way of the previous generations in terms of religious methodology, and it is not a requirement to call oneself “Sufi” although many insist on distinguishing themselves as the disciples of spiritual and traditional approaches to Islam. If you look at it, they are both striving towards and claiming to the same thing - knowledge of Islam in its pristine form. I am not saying they may not criticise specific acts or beliefs which they disagree upon, but do they not see that their goals are the same? And that even if there are mistakes or disagreements, they do not actually render their opponents from outside of those who are trying to be faithful to the religion? Ultimately, the only title that is mandatory on a Muslim is that of “Muslim” and to be of those who follow the Sunnah, “ahl-us-sunnah” and be with the majority of the Ummah - “wal jamaa’ah”.

It is ironic that in essence every group claims in name to be that group referred to by the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam. Yet the point of the ahadith seem not to be to pinpoint an easy ticket to salvation, rather to warn the people so that they have the characteristics necessary for success. It is time that people realized that groups are useful but not necessary. That the ideologies of their shuyookh are not binding upon them any more than the religion of our forefathers is binding upon us. That no group has yet encompassed the totality of Islam. Rather, they are faithful variations of the attempt. So in practical terms, belonging to a group may be beneficial to ease the way for a person to cohesively practice their religion. Yet there is no actual religious reason to criticise the other groups which are basically the same as them. 

And finally, there are movements. These differ from groups in that there is no claim on sacredness. They are merely attempts to revive Islam and spread its message and practice. Movements, I believe, do have much in the way of benefit. They educate and motivate the masses. Yet being man-made movements, they do tend to focus on specific points and do not encompass all of the religion. In fact, bring forth any movement and you can easily see the emphasis on some key points while other points are left. This is sometimes acceptable and other times not. For example, Jamaa’aat at-Tableegh is a very beneficial movement which spread and revived the practice of Islam in many of our countries, particularly in the Indian subcontinent. The focus is most clearly on da’wah, and a system is put in place to ensure the beliefs and rituals are efficiently transmitted. Yet the problem becomes when some of its followers start deeming the methods as sacred, when the entire religion of Islam is seen through the focus of da’wah. If a Tablighi sees an aayah about jihaad in the Quran, it is often thought to mean da’wah. This becomes a detriment when the movement reshapes what Islam actually means.

There are a few movements that are definitely problematic from the core itself. One of them is the “Quraniyyoon”, those who claim the Quran is the only source of revelation in Islam. This contradicts the Quran itself in numerous places. Allah says in the Quran to “obey Allah and obey the Messenger”, He mentions that the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam’s role in receiving revelation is to clarify the meanings and instruct us in the practice ( 16:64). It makes no sense that they are rejecting what the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, the one they are relying upon for the Quran in the first place, said in ahadith which were received in the exact same fashion as the Quran - tawaatur format (such a large number of transmitters in each link of the chain that falsification is impossible) - that he was given the Sunnah along with the Quran and that it is a key to our guidance and sound religious methodology. The methodology of this movement may come from good intentions such as a paranoia on what is authentic and it may come from the fact that the Quran is more general than the Sunnah, and eliminating the latter as a source simply lessens the requirements of the religion. In fact, people who claim to follow the Quran only in reality do not, but only use some portions of the Sunnah for rituals etc. and discard the rulings and injunctions contained therein.

Another movement that is completely discounted and rejected on a religious level, yet definitely has influence on masses of people, specifically the youth, is Modernism. Modernism is simply a methodology where everything in religion is subject to “rationality” and philosophy. It is true that religion is compatible, nay behooves a rational person to follow it, and that there is a natural human philosophy which is unavoidable in human beings. The problem is when a divine religion is subject to the finite passions of men and women at a particular place and time. Another name for Modernism could simply be Secularism, since everything sacred or passed down is discarded and the Quran is looked at as merely a book of philosophical or political thought, at most a nice read. I believe this movement has no credibility at all in a religious sense, but if people want to study the Quran as a piece of literature at at university like Shakespeare or Dickens, that is their choice. It certainly gives no direction to the lives of its practitioners, except what they like, and what they dislike can be dismissed. In short, it has no bearing on religion.

Therefore, if we sift things down a bit, discounting the sects on the fringe of Islam, the Ummah of Muhammad sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam consists of some large groups of Muslims, in particular the Salafis and the Sufis which represent the main dichotomy, and several movements as well. Out of the movements the Quraaniyyoon and Modernists receive no serious consideration when we are discussing actual religious theology and practice which has some basis from text and practice of the early generations. Not just a blind theory which could be right or wrong, but some actual practical proof of understanding and derivation that can be pointed to as a basis.

So aside from movements, which are continual, bringing specific and limited benefits, I believe the the Salafis and Sufis (and again, these two represents many subgroups which follow the trends specific to the opposite approaches) have a lot in common and a lot to be pleased with from each other. No one among these ranks is selling out the religion nor discarding what is sacred. No one from these groups is trying to appease the disbelievers nor ensuring they can live an indulgent materialistic life. Both groups see religion for what it is, are trying to obey Allah and obey their Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, take both the Quran and the Sunnah as their sources, revere the Companions radhi’allaahu ‘anhum and strive to be righteous in the model of the earliest generations of Muslims. Both are trying to live pious lives in the hopes of nearness to Allah and entrance into the Garden.

Unfortunately, the obsession with these ahadith and the desire to be “right” has caused much in the way of division in the Ummah. Many, many Salafis and Sufis not only call against one another, argue with each other, and go so far as to label the other side with misguidance, sometimes even kufr, most stick to their circles of comfort and there is indeed even a physical separation in communities, at masaajid, and universities. Clearly the group mentality has gone too far when one is nervous or outright hostile about associating with other Muslims.

I have belonged to and spoken with my friends on both sides. Many of them cannot let go of the idea that they are from the Saved Sect and those that disagree with them are not. Indeed, this idea gives them the feeling that not only have they the right, but the duty in fact, to call against their brethren, to criticise them, to disassociate from them. They feel their group indeed encompasses all of Islam, and insist on it. This is how the group hias taken hold of the mind, has come to them to represent Islam in toto.

If I speak the Truth about these groups, that there is good here and good there, it is almost blasphemous. Several times if I dare to either party to suggest another group has a benefit, scarcely one of them can be just and acknowledge it. Indeed, my primary reasoning for abandoning groups is that I do not find any of them encompassing the religion entirely, nor giving each thing the proper emphasis it deserves, nor able to credit others with good. For example, it is a well known fact that the advantages of Salafis are that they have a strong idea of tawheed and the tenets of faith. At the same time it is a well known fact that the Sufis do attain a spiritual depth and detachment to this dunya that others simply do not. Both are very important points in Islam, and yet only an independent person could benefit from them both. It is sad to say, but there are ranks of Sufis who do fall into ignorance and shirk. There is an emphasis on ritual and the hierarchy prevents many commoners from education or independence. And the Salafi da’wah is not very effective at all in calling away from a materialistic lifestyle and enriching the soul. There is an emphasis on the key to faith and an emptiness of the soul. Of course, this is not true for every individual within the group, but when talking of the group, the mass effects are to be considered. Not only can many in these groups not honestly look at their own shortcomings they can scarcely give credit to others when there is some benefit. In their eyes, they are right in all and everyone else wrong in all. This is the height of injustice and detrimental to Islam. A Muslim ought to be interested in sitting with and learning from anyone who speaks the Truth and brings benefit. Yes, due to the dichotomy in theory and practice, it may be challenging and seem haphazard. And I am not calling for everyone to leave the ranks of what gives them cohesion and stability ie belonging to a group. Rather, I am asking that we simply put to practice some of the ahadith of the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam such as that the believers are one body, that each Muslim’s blood, wealth, and even honor are sacred, and that we finally end the nonsense dividing us.

As you all know, at this time, we Muslims are great in number, small in effect with our splintered ranks. Therefore, I ask all of you sincere Muslims to recognize the Truth from Islam whoever speaks it. To strive sincerely towards the Quran and the Sunnah, in the image of our beloved Sahaabiyaat. To have love for your brothers and sisters in faith and practice. To realize Islam is too big to be contained in a package and that although you personally may go towards a specific methodology or association, even one which you believe is right and superior to other ways, that we are all the Ummah of Muhammad sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, united and raised together before Allah on the Day of Judgment.   

“It’s easy to pride yourself on not being a hypocrite when you don’t believe in anything.”
 

“A leader plagued with laziness will either always say ‘Yes’ or always say ‘No’.”