I. Introduction

 A. On Unity

Unity is a part of the fitrah. Like the pure and natural belief in One God, it is simple and satisfying. Yet there are many challenges facing the unification of the Muslim Ummah. Aside from human passions and faults which unintentionally cause it to be rent, there are intentional efforts from those who hold the belief that one ought NOT to unify with certain elements, some advising only a disunity of mind whereas others extend it towards an almost complete and physical disassociation. We know that Islam enjoins us to be one with the Truth, yet so many claim to have the Truth and reject all else, it is difficult to actualize the balance which Islam perfects of reconciling clarity with magnanimity. At some point the balance is off and the Ummah reduced to fragments. It is for the remedy of our current situation, alongside the personal default element of trying to win the pleasure of The Lord, that The Islamic Unification Theory was born. It will most surely take a lifetime, if not more, and will only succeed if Allah Wills…  

B. On Seeking Knowledge

Seeking knowledge of Islam is a necessity for the mandatory tenets of faith, acts of worship, and legal rulings of daily life. Aside from that, it is a most noble pursuit towards enlightenment and education while at the same time being a means of worship in and of itself. Personally, the fire of seeking ‘ilm had died out as life settled and issues became more taken for granted. And although I would still make some efforts towards accruing knowledge, I was less and less driven. Yet now that I find myself in a position of endeavoring to rediscover Islam from the ground up, it has rekindled itself as it once was in my long lost youth. There is now a purpose more intense than the generic ones. I have thus far studied informally for many years and experienced much by way of different ideogologies, methodologies, and Islamic cultures, practices, and trends. I have seen the confusion, disputes, and strife amongst my people, and it seems knowledge, far from simply being an academic exercise, is in fact a practical and necessary tool for the unification I wish to see for our Ummah. It is a blessing that at a time I should be settled for the rest of my life into a rote pattern of thought and practice that I have been given the chance to again feel the curiosity and wonder of youth. It was not deliberate, but now that I face the rebirth I am excited as I once was…

C. On the Process of Establishment

I intend to approach the whole process of the Theory in a scientific manner. I have my hypotheses of course, but they are dependent upon proof and evidence. It is entirely possible I abandon any or all tenets if I find they contradict what Islam maintains. Therefore, I will set up the theory and continue studying to see if and what portions bear fruit bi ithnillaah… 

II. Major Tenets

A. Islam is a Part of Reality

This tenet may or may not seem obvious. To the irreligious, it probably sounds elementary. To the religious, it may sound blasphemous. What I am trying to say is that although Islam is divinely inspired by a perfect deity, its revelation (although miraculous), preservation (although guaranteed), and interpretation (which has guidelines) are all parts of the realities of this universe, which of course was created by Allah to begin with. In fact, Allah utilized our known realities in His revelations to us - sometimes comforting us with the known, sometimes astounding us with the unknown. Yet the reason this tenet is brought forth is that the trend amongst many is to deny the realities surrounding some of these issues and insisting on a dream that their particular understanding is what is infallible and divine.

This is not too controversial unless one contends that a particular group or individual may be in error or may have misunderstandings. Yet how can that be? We know that there are parts of the Quran which are difficult to understand, not simply due to the language factor but due to the fact that the knowledge was simply too advanced. For example, a translator might render the word ” ‘alaq” (96) to mean “blood clot” until someone discovers that actually the clinging leech-like object which the original word connotes is indeed an acurate description of the fertilized egg. Therefore, how can one insist that their translations defy space, time, science, human development? It is foolish. Rather a sensible translator remembers that while the words of the Quran in their original language are divine, the translations and understandings are not.

This is not to say there is not a way of determining the “right” translation versus an erroneous one. We must constantly strive towards the Truth, yet in the end it is as the angels told Allah: “Glory be to You, we have no knowledge except what you have taught us. Truly, You are the All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (2:32) The Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam told us that “When a mufti passes judgment, if he makes his effort (ijtihaad) and rules correctly, he will have two rewards; if he makes his effort (ijtihaad) and rules wrongly, he will have one reward,” (Bukhaari) indicating that it is the sincerity and effort which is primary and the outcome which is secondary.

Contrast this with much of what is common nowadays, for people who claim they have found the Truth, down to its minituae and reject all others who have perfectly reasonable basis from the sources of the religion to hold their opinions. It behooves us to remember that Allah Himself reminds us that on the Last Day He will inform us of what we were differing about. “Say: ‘O Allah! Creator of the heavens and the earth! Knower of all that is hidden and open! It is You Who will judge between Your servants in those matters about which they have differed.” (39:46)

Now to application of this principle - why is it that groups of Muslims, all of whom strive towards religion, all of whom take the Quran as well as the Sunnah of our Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam as authoritative, and who follow the example of the righteous generations in their applications of the religion - why do they remove their brethren from the fold of those who are guided? They of course feel justified in their behavior and will quote the sources back again to demonstrate their right. Yet the people of the Saved Sect etc. have been spoken about in general with some of their descriptions given to indicate who they are, but more importantly, how we can save ourselves. How then do these people feel safe in specifying with 100% surety what was left general even as the other party claims the same loyalties they do?

We know of the famous incident of the Sahaabiyaat who differed in their understanding of the Prophet’s order to pray when they arrived at their destination. Some took his order literally while others regarded the obligation to pray at its fixed time to indicate the Prophet’s order was only if they arrived within the acceptable time. The Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam informed both parties that they had behaved in an acceptable manner and their prayers were accepted. This is not to say there is not a correct answer, but again that as long as a person is true to their desire to do what is right, they are safe.

We are no different from those Sahaabiyaat in the sense that we are trying to follow Allah’s Commands and the orders of our Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam. And like them, we cannot just ask the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam what exactly we are to do at this very moment. We, like them, will only be able to verify who was correct afterwards. And as long as we are sincere and take the reasonable steps to indicate that our outer actions are compliant with our claims, who can remove us from the company of those we love? Indeed, we are brethren who are divided in understanding but united in our strivings.

Allah Himself told us what to do in the event of our differing in Surat An-Nisaa`: “O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those of you who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.” (4:59)Furthermore, the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam told us what to do in his last sermon - he mentioned he was leaving behind him 2 things, the Quran and his Sunnah, and that if we were to follow them, we would never go astray. And yet there is still confusion. A wise person will be able to see that it is not due to a flaw in Islam, but a part of the reality of human nature and understanding that we are forced to deal with. A test from our Lord. And we have seen how our pious predecessors dealt with such differences. The trouble is, most of us nowadays have grown so bold that we do not deem our brethren as the differing party of the Sahaabah. We deem them as the innovators and disbelievers.

A humble heart, afraid of being judged by the Master of the Day of Judgement would tremble to make such pronouncements with such surety. As the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam warned us, “When a person calls his brother a disbeliever, one of them will certainly deserve the title. If the one who was called Kaafir is so, as the one who made Takfeer upon him asserted, the disbelief (of that person) is confirmed, but if it is untrue, then it will revert to him.” (Muslim). ‘Umar radhi’allaahu ‘anhu, known to make the Shaitaan run away from fear, who would have received the prophethood if another besides Muhammad sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam were given it, who was one of the Rightly-Guided Khalifs, when hearing of the hypocrites begged the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam to inform him if he was one of them. Yet we are so sure of ourselves and our guidance.

And now the controversy - in understanding that we Muslims are part of the human race and that we are not of a different species from those around us, we inevitably fall into many of the human trends around us. If we look at the development of other peoples we see some patterns and we, as humans, can fall into them as well. This is not an insulting thing to say, as many Muslims get offended if you even talk of such possibilities, but a reality of our creation, alluded to in both the Quran and the authentic ahadith.

If for example we examine the current rift between the so-called “Salafis” and the so-called “Sufis” we see a similar pattern in what one could observe in Christianity. If one is shallow they will jump and say “Muslims are not Christians!”. If one is capable of understanding analogy they will see that although they are most certainly not the same religion, that is entirely besides the point. The point of similarity is in the trends of human thought.

The dichotomy of Salafi and Sufi parallels the Protestant and Catholic one. Catholicism is the older, more established part of Christianity, with an emphasis on rituals and rites, with a strict hierarchy, with much more formalized paths to piety, with a focus on saints and the past, with a body of tradition and ornamentation and a propensity to be looser in its interpretation of the text. Protestantism was the “protest” against the excesses of the church, with an emphasis on individuality, direct readings and understandings of the sacred texts, an emphasis on belief, on literal interpretations.

Sufism, though the usage of the word here is not specific to Sufis, but represents the more established branch of theology, has also developed over the ages. It has stricter traditions and requires followers to follow more formalized paths towards achieving closeness with the Creator. Salafism, although of course Salafis do not think of their movement as having an origin, came about at a point in time where the heavy reliance on saints and ornately derived rituals were the order of the day and a call towards a back-to-basics approach was deemed the remedy. Salafis tend to be the pared down, literalistic, and individualistic side of Islam.

I am sure I will be attacked by both parties in my discussions of these topics as no one likes to be accused of what is deemed a negative trait. Yet I do not believe these movements are divine, but human, and a part of reality. I was a Sufi once, became a Salafi, and am now open to both parties. I simply see them as two different movements which are trying to achieve the same thing - closeness to the Creator in this life, eternal success in the Afterlife. So I ask my brothers and sisters to forgive me if I have offended any of the sensibilities which I know you all hold dear.

Yet I also ask that we humble ourselves a bit before Allah. We may try our best to find the Truth, but Allah Knows Best if we have indeed arrived at it. We will all see the fruits of our efforts on the Day when nothing is hidden. And in the mean time, we should have some caution towards our fellow brethren in pronouncing that this day have we the final and utter Truth and that their efforts count for naught.

I ask anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day, who tries to live by the Quran, who takes the Sunnah of our Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam as a binding obligation rather than a historical curiosity, who strives towards the people they love, the Sahaabiyaat radhi’allaahu ‘anhum in both belief and practice, and who make their intentions solely for the Almighty to join me in trying to find the Truth whilst being humble enough to realize that the two parties in this dichotomy are actually closer than they realize. They have all the above in common and more. There is enough bloodshed of the Muslims and it is time we perfected our faiths and loved one another. 

B. On Sects, Groups, and Movements

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.   

C. Islamic Theory Unified Through Scholarship and Time      

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!

III. In the Pursuit of Knowledge

A. On Levels of Knowledge

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. 

B. On ManhajThe 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.

IV. Research and Proofs 

V. Conclusions and Practical Application