Quran and Sunna or The Madhhabs A Salaf-1

Qurʾān And Sunna Islamic
Or The Law
Madhhabs?
and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 211
Islamic Law
and
Society
brill.com/ils
Qurʾān and Sunna or the Madhhabs?: A Salafi

Polemic Against Islamic Legal Tradition
Emad Hamdeh
Embry Riddle University
[email protected]
Abstract
The Albanian scholar Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī (d. 1999) established a unique
type of Salafism, a movement whose adherents follow a puritanical model of Muslim
creed, exegesis, and conduct that is critical of madhhab Traditionalism. In this article I
present an annotated translation of an audio lecture in which Albānī attempted to
defend Salafism against its anti-madhhab image. I shed light on the religious and social
climate that played a critical role in triggering Albānī’s disdain for Traditionalism and
led him to discredit madhhab Traditionalist fiqh and replace it with his own interpreta-
tion of the jurisprudential requirements of Islamic scripture. Among the arguments I
make is that Albānī’s claim to follow only the Qurʾān and Sunna is a rhetorical strategy
designed to present Salafism as the absolute truth and distinguish it from being catego-
rized as another madhhab or religious movement.
Keywords
Madhhabs – Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī – Salafism – Traditionalism – Fiqh – Ḥanafī school

– Taqlīd
* I would like to thank the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) for providing a
short-term research grant that resulted in the production of this article. I would also like to
thank David Powers, Osamah Salhia, Lynnette Porter, and the anonymous reviewers for their
valuable feedback; and Joseph Lowry for his expert assistance with the Arabic text of Albānī’s
lecture.
ISSN 0928-9380 (print version) ISSN 1568-5195 (online version) ILS 3
Islamic
© Law and
koninklijke brillSociety 24 (2017)
nv, leiden, 211-253
2017 | doi 10.1163/15685195-00240A01
%

$ #! &" $
212 Hamdeh
Introduction
Salafism is sometimes compared to Protestantism because it strips interpretive

authority from religious institutions and empowers individual interpretation
of Islamic scripture.1 In the years following the replacement of Islamic law by
secular law in the post-Ottoman Muslim world, the role of the madhhabs in
interpreting religious law has been debated in mosques, coffee shops, online,
and in social gatherings.2 Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī’s (d. 1999) Salafi
movement is critical of the madhhabs and circumvents them in order to inter-
pret the texts anew. Whereas madhhab Traditionalists understand scripture
through the opinions of the legal schools, Salafis hold that scripture is clear
and “speaks for itself.”3 Although some scholars have suggested that Salafism is
symptomatic of the ongoing political turmoil in the Muslim world, they often
overlook the movement’s legal and hermeneutical underpinnings.4 Because
1 Interview with Asma Afsaruddin and Jonathan Brown, “How Islamic is Isis, Really?,” Here &
Now, Boston NPR News Station (Boston, MA: WBUR, November 19, 2015). See Jonathan Brown,
Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legacy
(London: Oneworld, 2014), 161–75. Yasir Qadhi explains that “Salafis are the Protestant reforma-
tion of Sunni Islam. There is no question about it that Salafis view themselves as the Protestant
reformation. They are purifying the syncretic practices that crept into the faith over the many
centuries in the exact same manner that Martin Luther viewed himself as purifying a cultural
corrupted Christianity.” Interview with Yasir Qadhi, “Salafi Muslims: Following the Ancestors
of Islam,” Interfaith Voices (February 21, 2013).
2 See Monique C. Cardinal, “Islamic Legal Theory Curriculum: Are the Classics Taught Today?,”
Islamic Law and Society 12:2 (2005).
3 Kasper Mathiesen uses the term Traditional Islam or Traditionalists to refer to a current within
Islam that claims to follow what is authentically rooted in revelation, has crystallized under
the banners of scholarly consensus (ijmāʿ) and has been transmitted as Islamic knowledge
(ʿilm naqlī) in chains of scholarly authority (isnāds). This movement is didactic and instruc-
tional, unlike Salafism’s autodidactic “do it yourself” Islam. See Kasper Mathiesen, “Anglo-
American ‘Traditional Islam’ and its Discourse of Orthodoxy,” Journal of Arabic and Islamic
Studies 13 (2013), 191–219. Sherman Jackson correctly explains that “tradition is not the result
of the simple act of transmission or handing down but a process of evaluation, amplification,
suppression, refinement, and assessing the polarity between would-be tradition and contem-
porary, indigenous innovations or nonindigenous ideas and practices.” See Sherman Jackson,
Islam and the Problem of Black Suffering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 42.
4 Thomas Hegghammer, “Jihadi-Salafis or Revolutionaries?,” in Global Salafism, ed. Roel Meijer
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2009); Quintan Wiktorowicz, “Anatomy of the Salafi
Movement,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 29 (2006): 207–39; Christopher M. Blanchard, The
Islamic Traditions of Wahhabism and Salafiyya (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research
Service, Library of Congress, 2007).
Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

%

$ #! &" $
Qurʾān And Sunna Or The Madhhabs? 213
Salafis are primarily religious reformers who seek to purify the religion, it is
important to understand Salafism’s religious appeal.5
I analyze Albānī’s defense of Salafism in his lecture Shubah Ḥawl al-Salafiy-
ya (“Misconceptions About Salafism”). In this lecture, as its title indicates,
Albānī seeks to provide a proper understanding of Salafism’s position toward
the madhhabs in light of its anti-madhhab image. Albānī felt compelled to cor-
rect the movement’s prevalent image at the time, for some were antagonized
by it and completely rejected it, while others accepted it and had absolute be-
lief in its authority.6 By clarifying its image, he sought to refute the false beliefs
and practices of non-Salafis. Albānī’s attempt to purge fiqh gave Salafism the
image of being anti-madhhab.
Albānī’s attempt to “clean up” legal tradition was not viewed positively by
Traditionalists. One scholar notes that although there are frequent calls for a
“Muslim Martin Luther,” Traditionalist ʿulamāʾ suggest that much of the tur-
moil and extremism in the Muslim world results precisely from unlearned
Muslims who have broken with tradition and approach their religion Luther-
like, by means of scripture alone.7 Albānī’s critics oppose not only his uncon-
ventional opinions, but also his methodology, which threatens their scholarly
authority and institutions.
A strong anti-madhhab campaign lies at the heart of Albānī’s Salafism. Al-
though Albānī’s anti-madhhabism may have been inspired by the likes of Ibn
Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), Ibn Qayyim (d. 751/1350), and Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-
Wahhāb (d. 1206/1792), his attitude toward the madhhabs is unique. Although
these three scholars were anti-taqlīd to varying degrees, they were not anti-
madhhab. For example, Ibn Taymiyya⁠ʾs primary goal was to purify theology, not
5 On the term Salafism, see Henri Lauziere, “The Construction of Salafiyya: Reconsidering
Salafism from the Perspective of Conceptual History,” International Journal of Middle East
Studies 42 (2010), 368–89; idem, The Making of Salafim: Islamic Reform in the Twentieth Century
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2016). On the Salafi movement from a largely political
perspective, see Roel Meijer, Global Salafism: Islam’s New Religious Movement (London: Hurst
& Co., 2009); Joas Wagemakers, A Quietist Jihadi: The Ideology and Influence of Abu Muhammad
al-Maqdisi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Mohammad Abu Rumman and
Hassan Abu Hanieh, Conservative Salafism: A Strategy for the “Islamization of Society” and an
Ambiguous Relationship with the State (Amman: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2010); Yasir Qadhi,
“On Salafi Islam,” <http://muslimmatters.org/2014/04/22/on-salafi-islam-dr-yasir-qadhi/>
(accessed June 26, 2014); Quintan Wiktorowicz, The Management of Islamic Activism: Salafis,
the Muslim Brotherhood, and State Power in Jordan (Albany: State University of New York Press,
2001).
6 I was unable to establish the exact date on which the lecture was delivered, but it appears to
be from the latter part of Albānī’s career.
7 Brown, Misquoting Muhammad, 7.
Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

$ #! &" $
214 Hamdeh
law. He rarely engaged legal issues without mentioning the four schools, and
he did not prohibit taqlīd for the common man.8 Indeed, many scholars who
are identified with Salafism, such as Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373),
were themselves members of a madhhab. By contrast, Albānī refused to pres-
ent himself as a follower of any individual or madhhab.
This refusal distinguishes Albānī from contemporary Salafi scholars like
ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Ibn Bāz (d. 1999) and Muḥammad b. Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn (d. 2001),
both Ḥanbalīs. Although they acknowledged that a stronger proof-text trumps
the school’s teachings, this concession was largely rhetorical. That is to say,
whereas Albānī was a systematic and principled anti-madhhabist in both rhet-
oric and practice, Ibn Bāz and Ibn ʿUthaymīn were not concerned with per-
suading other Muslims to abandon the madhhabs. The large number of
book-length responses written by Albānī’s madhhab Traditionalist detractors
throughout the Muslim world shows how threatening they found his particu-
lar anti-madhhab polemic.9
8 Bernard Haykel, “On the Nature of Salafi Thought and Action,” in Global Salafism, ed. Roel
Meijer (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 37–45.
9 See ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghudda (d. 1997), Kalimāt fī Kashf Abāṭīl wa Iftirāʿāt (Aleppo: Mak-
tabat al-Maṭbūʿāt al-Islāmiyya, 1990); Ismāʿīl al-Anṣārī (d. 1997), Ibāḥat al-Taḥallī bi’l-Dha-
hab al-Muḥallaq wa’l-Radd ʿalā al-Albānī fī Taḥrīmihi (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Imām
al-Shāfiʿī, 1988); idem, Taṣḥīḥ Ṣalāt al-Tarāwīḥ ʿIshrīn Rakʿa wa’l-radd ʿalā al-Albānī fī
Taḍʿīfi-hi (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 1988); Muḥammad Awwāma, Adab
al-Ikhtilāf fī Masāʾil al-ʿIlm wa’l-Dīn (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyya, 1997); idem, Athar
al-Ḥadīth al-Sharīf fī Ikhitlāf al-‘Aʾimma al-Fuqahā’ raḍiya Allāhu ʿAn-hum (Beirut: Dār
al-Bashā’ir al-Islāmiyya, 1997); Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī (d. 1992), Al-Albānī:
Shudhūdhu-hu wa Akhṭā’u-hu (Kuwait: Maktabat Dār al-ʿUrūba, 1984); Muḥammad
Ramaḍān al-Būṭī, Al-Lā Madhhabiyya Akhṭar Bidʿa Tuhaddid al-Sharīʿa al-Islāmiyya
(Damascus: Dār al-Farābī, 2005); ʿAbd Allāh al-Ghumārī (d. 1993), Al-Radd ʿalā al-Albānī
(Beirut: Dār al-Janān 1991); Gabriel F. Haddad, Al-Albani: A Concise Guide to the Chief Inno-
vator of Our Time [Online]. Available at <http://sunnah.org/history/Innovators/al_albani.
htm>. 12 January 2012 and Albani & His Friends: A Concise Guide to the Salafi Movement
(United Kingdom: Aqsa Publications, 2004); Maḥmūd Mamḍūḥ, Al-Taʿrīf bi-Awhām Man
Qassama al-Sunan ilā Ṣaḥīḥ wa Ḍaʿīf, 6 vols. (Dubai: Dār al-Buḥūth li’l-Dirāsāt al-Islāmiyya
wa Iḥyā’ al-Turāth, 2000); idem, Tanbīh al-Muslim ilā Taʿaddī al-Albānī ʿalā Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim
(Cairo: Maktabat al-Mujallad al-ʿArabī, 2011); idem, Wuṣūl al-Tahānī bi Ithbāt Sunniyyat
al-Subḥa wa’l-Radd ʿalā al-Albānī (Cairo: Dār al-Imām al-Tirmidhī, 1994); Muḥammad
al-Nuʿmānī (d. 1999), Makānat al-Imām Abī Ḥanīfa fī l-Ḥadīth, ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū
Ghudda (Beirut: Maktabat al-Maṭbūʿāt al-Islāmiyya, 2007); Ḥasan Saqqāf, Iḥtijāj al-Khāʼib
bi-ʿIbārat Man Iddaʿá al-Ijmāʿ Fa-huwa Kādhib (Amman: Maktabat al-Imām al-Nawawī,
1990); idem, Qāmūs Shatā’im al-Albānī (Amman: Dār al-Imām al-Nawawī, 1993).

%

$ #! &" $
Albānī’s Life
Albānī was born in 1914 in Shkoder, the capital of Albania, which had become
independent from Ottoman rule two years earlier. Ahmet Zogu (d. 1961), who
envisioned making Albania a secular nation, became its ruler and dictator in
1925.10 Albānī’s father was a Ḥanafī scholar who refused to live in a country that
enforced secular values. He moved his family to Damascus, Syria, which had
come under a French mandate in 1920. Although he completed only his ele-
mentary education, Albānī spent hours reading books in the city’s Ẓāhiriyya
library. He came across an article in al-Manār in which Rashīd Riḍā (d. 1935)
criticized Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111) for his use of weak ḥadīth and his
use of Sufi teachings in his Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn (Revival of the Religious Sciences).
Albānī was inspired by Riḍā’s willingness to challenge tradition, especially
the work of a celebrated scholar like al-Ghazālī. Riḍā’s article introduced
Albānī to a text written by Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿIrāqī (d. 806/1404) in which he high-
lights the weak ḥadīth found in al-Ghazālīʾs Iḥyāʾ. ʿIrāqī’s book prompted
Albānī to suspect that foreign teachings had entered Islam through Sufism and
weak ḥadīth. He dedicated himself to the study of ḥadīth in an effort to purge
Islam and its sciences of all such impurities.11 His opposition to the madhhabs
emerged when he was a teenager and it created tension with his father and
with the predominantly Ḥanafī Albanian community in Syria. His father could
not tolerate his son’s audacious attitude toward the Ḥanafī madhhab and ulti-
mately asked him to move out.
Albānī’s objections to Islamic jurisprudence were so serious that he severed
his ties with his father. When someone suggested that this might be considered
an act of disobedience, Albānī replied by comparing his situation to that of the
Prophet Ibrāhīm and his father. He said: “You might say that [Ibrāhīm’s
situation] is about disbelief (kufr) and the Oneness of God (tawḥīd). I would
reply: Yes, but here it is Sunna and taqlīd.”12 Albānī’s sour relationship with his
Ḥanafī father arguably contributed to his life-long animosity toward the legal
10 Ahmet Zogolli was the President of Albania from 1925–28. In 1928, he declared himself
King of Albania. He gave himself the title of Zog I, King of the Albanians and changed his
name to Ahmet Zogu. He remained in power until 1939. See Miranda Vickers, The Alba-
nians: A Modern History (London: I.B. Tauris, 1995), 117–25; William Miller, The Ottoman
Empire and its Successors, 1801–1927 (New York: Frank Cass, 1966), 561.
11 On Albānī’s ḥadīth method, see Kamaruddin Amin, “Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī On Muslim’s
Ṣaḥīḥ: A Critical Study of His Method,” Islamic Law and Society 11:2 (2004).
12 See Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī, “Sīrat al-Imām al-Albānī 1,” lecture at <http://
www.alalbany.net/?p=4654>, last accessed 1/21/16.

$ #! &" $
216 Hamdeh
schools, especially the Ḥanafī madhhab. In post-Ottoman Syria, Muslims man-

ifested a strong allegiance to the madhhabs, especially the Ḥanafī school.13
During the Ottoman period (1453–1922), Traditionalist scholars were re-
sponsible for the education of the nobility who staffed various levels of judi-
ciary. As the bureaucracies expanded so too did the role of scholars. Leading
members of the scholarly class ranged from those who led the prayers in small
towns to the most prestigious courtiers.14 Through their control of the posts of
judge, mufti, guardian of religious endowments, scribesmen, and market in-
spector, the ʿulamāʾ served as the mouthpiece for Islam. As spokesmen for Is-
lam, they were empowered to interpret scripture and to define the religious
outlook of society.15
The caliphate embodied Muslim unity, not only politically but also in terms
of scholarship. The fall of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of secular govern-
ments in the Muslim world resulted in a decline of Traditionalist ʿulamāʾ au-
thority and pedagogical methods. As Traditionalist scholars lost their powerful
positions, a vacuum in religious authority emerged. These changes took Tradi-
tionalists by surprise and some of them held on to the madhhabs in a very rigid
fashion as a way of rejecting secularism. Albānī grew up in this atmosphere of
unbending madhhabism, which contributed to his disdain for Traditionalists.
According to Albānī, madhhab Traditionalism manifests excessive rever-
ence for scholars and uncritical acceptance of the legal schools, with the result
that members of different madhhabs came to behave as if they belonged to
different religions. He proposed to solve this division among Muslims by re-
turning to the Prophet’s true and pure teachings. Albānī held that legal confu-
sion, innovation in religion, and all other problems facing Islam and Muslims
13 In his Durrar al-Ḥukkām Sharḥ Majallat al-Aḥkām (Riyadh: Dār ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 2003),
9–15, ʿAlī Ḥaydar highlights how Ḥanafī scholars in the latter part of the Ottoman period
were unwilling to include opinions of anyone other than the Ḥanafīs while compiling the
Majalla. See also Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Laknāwī, Al-Fawāʾid al-Bahīyya fī Tarājum
al-Ḥanafīyya (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1975), 1–10. Laknāwī, a Ḥanafī himself, notes that
many followers of the Ḥanafī madhhab have become rigid in their madhhabism. He notes
that some rigid followers of the Ḥanafī school have claimed that when Jesus returns he
will judge according to the Ḥanafī madhhab. I thank Jonathan A.C. Brown for bringing
these sources to my attention. On the Ḥanafization of Sharīʿa courts in the nineteenth
and twentieth century, see Kenneth M. Cuno, Modernizing Marriage: Family, Ideology,
and Law in Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Egypt (Syracuse: Syracuse University
Press, 2015), 123–28.
14 Barabara Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860–1900 (New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2002), 18–20.
15 Suha Farouki and Basheer Nafi, Islamic Thought in the Twentieth Century (London: I.B.
Tauris, 2004), 6.

%

$ #! &" $
are a result of not properly adhering to the science of ḥadīth.16 As a result of his
frustration with madhhab Traditionalists, he became harsh, callous, and con-
frontational.
In the 1950s Albānī began to deliver weekly classes in several mosques. In
addition to attempting to reform Islamic scholarly thought and practice, he
was an activist who traveled across Syria to call people back to the Qurʼān and
Sunna by attacking what he considered to be heresies. As the country’s Muslim
population was predominantly Ḥanafī, Albānī made it a point to invite local
Ḥanafī scholars to reexamine their school’s doctrines, may of which, in his
opinion, were not based on authentic ḥadīth.17
Albānī’s scholarship and activism eventually made him one of the world’s
most prominent Salafi leaders. In the 1950s Albānī became famous in Syria for
his knowledge of ḥadīth and call to Salafism. In 1961 he happily accepted an
invitation to teach at the University of Medina. By 1963 his anti-Ḥanbalī views
had stirred up so much controversy that he was expelled from the university
and asked to not return to the country.18
Albānī’s vision of Salafism crystallized in the early 1980s when he decided to
reside permanently in Jordan. Many young men began flocking around him,
calling themselves “students of the Islamic religious sciences” (ṭalabat al-ʿilm
al-sharʿī) and often taking his opposition to madhhabism further than he in-
tended, increasing Salafism’s anti-madhhab image.19 Albānī was careful not to
attack the madhhabs directly, but rather to attack blind following of the madh-
habs. Other Salafis, as he notes in his lecture, went so far as to declare that
madhhab treatises should be burned. Some Salafis argued that following a
madhhab is a religious innovation, and Albānī was criticized for defending
their position.20
16 Daniel Lav, Radical Islam and the Revival of Medieval Theology (New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2012), 110.
17 On Abū Ḥanīfa’s use of ḥadīth as a source of law, see Sahiron Syamsuddin, “Abū Ḥanīfahʾs
use of the Solitary Ḥadīth as a Source of Islamic Law,” Islamic Studies 40:2 (2001). Syams-
uddin explains that the notion that Abū Ḥanīfa paid little attention to solitary ḥadīths is
incorrect. Rather, he rejected many ḥadīths on the grounds that they did not meet his
criteria of authenticity.
18 On Albānī’s time in Saudi Arabia, see Stephane Lacroix, Awakening Islam: The Politics of
Religious Dissent in Contemporary Saudi Arabia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
2011); idem, “Between Revolution and Apoliticism: Nasir al-Din al-Albani and his Impact
on the Shaping of Contemporary Salafism,” in Global Salafism, ed. Roel Meijer (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2009).
19 Abu Rumman and Abu Hanieh, Conservative Salafism, 45.
20 Muḥammad Sulṭān al-Khujnadī (d. 1380/1960), Hal al-Muslim Mulzam bi-ittibāʿ Madhhab
Muʿayyan Min al-Madhāhib al-Arbaʿa?, ed. Salīm Hilālī (Amman: al-Maktaba al-Islāmīya,

$ #! &" $
218 Hamdeh
Albānīʾs Anti-Madhhab Polemic
Albānī uses historical circumstances connected with the emergence of the

madhhabs to argue that the very concept of a madhhab is foreign to authentic
Islam. He cites a ḥadīth in which the Prophet states that the first three genera-
tions of Muslims are the best. Therefore, the madhhabs are invalid because
they did not exist during the lifetime of the Prophet. To support his argument
he references statements attributed to the eponyms of the four legal schools,
who reportedly said that their true madhhab is the following of authentic
ḥadīths. Albānī understood such statements to mean that the eponyms them-
selves opposed the concept of a madhhab, a strong argument against the posi-
tion that the madhhabs are divinely guided.
By using the Qurʾān and Sunna as his only two sources, Albānī rejected any
kind of speculation in matters related to Islamic law. He emphasizes a strict
adherence to the Qurʾān and Sunna, as understood by the early generations, as
a necessary precondition for understanding Islam. However, he falls short
when it comes to explaining how the Qurʾān and Sunna should be applied in
the real world. He does not explain how changing legal rulings in ritualistic
practices will bring about political, social, or economic justice. His critics ac-
cuse him of understanding scripture without any consideration for historical
context. For instance, he uses a statement attributed to the founders (e.g., “If
the ḥadīth is authentic, it is my madhhab” [idhā ṣaḥḥa al-ḥadīth fa huwa
madhhabī]) to discredit madhhab Traditionalists when he finds a ḥadīth that
contradicts the position of a madhhab.
By using the statements of the eponyms of the madhhabs, Albānī aligns
himself with the founders and portrays their followers as blind adherents who
distanced themselves from the methodology of those they claim to follow. In
his famous Al-Lā Madhhabiyya, Muḥammad Ramaḍān al-Būṭī (d. 2013) chas-
tises Albānī for taking the abovementioned statement out of context (“If the
ḥadīth is authentic, it is my madhhab”), noting that if the merely apparent
meaning of a ḥadīth seems to contradict the founder’s opinion, it is not neces-
sarily a contradiction.21
Al-Būṭī explains that this statement does not mean that every person who
encounters an authentic ḥadīth could then say that this is the madhhab of
1984). Khujnadī argues that Muslims should not follow the madhhabs in any way since the
Qurʾān and Sunna are clear. This work was edited by one of Albānī’s main students, Salīm
al-Hilālī.
21 On the life of Būṭī, see Andreas Christmann, “Islamic scholar and religious leader: A por-
trait of Shaykh Muḥammad Sa⁠ʾīd Ramaḍān al-Būti,” Islam and Christian–Muslim Rela-
tions, 9:2 (1998) 149–69.

%

$ #! &" $
al-Shāfiʿī and act according to its surface meaning. Instead, al-Shāfiʿī’s state-
ment is intended for the scholar who is qualified to exercise independent rea-
soning (a mujtahid) within the madhhab. Furthermore, the person must be
certain that al-Shāfiʿī did not know the particular ḥadīth or its authenticity.
This task requires reviewing all al-Shāfiʿī’s writings and his immediate stu-
dents, which can be accomplished only by scholars.22 Al-Būṭī contextualizes
the abovementioned statement (“If the ḥadīth is authentic, it is my madhhab”)
and argues that a number of considerations must be made before it can be ap-
plied. He argues that the Four Imams may have known a particular ḥadīth but
did not apply it because they may have considered it abrogated or interpreted
it in light of other evidence.
Albānī’s career is full of tug-of-war battles over the specific interpretation of
particular texts. His opinions often contradicted those of the legal schools and
he became famous for his opposition to madhhabism. Albānī defends his un-
conventional opinions by arguing that Salafis follow scripture while madhhab
Traditionalists follow scholars. For Albānī, following scripture dispenses with
the need to unquestioningly conform to the authority of scholars (taqlīd)
which, in his view, is the source of many problems in the Muslim world. He
does acknowledge that the individual who circumvents scholars and ap-
proaches texts directly must be well-grounded in the Islamic sciences and that
most people are not qualified to engage in ijtihād. When seeking religious guid-
ance from scholars, laity must always ask them for scriptural evidence.
Albānī reasons that laypeople will avoid blindly following scholars by asking
a mujtahid to provide a proof-text. According to Albānī’s description of compli-
ance (ittibāʿ), the role of the scholar is limited to passively presenting proof-
texts, and non-scholars need only a text to understand a ruling. This implies
that scripture is clear and can be understood by everyone. In Albānī’s view,
someone who accepts an opinion from a scholar without asking for scriptural
evidence performs taqlīd, but an individual who requests scriptural evidence
(dalīl) is acting in compliance with (ittibāʾ) scripture instead of in compliance
with scholars.23 This is the proverbial distinction without a difference: In the
end the layperson must put his trust in the scholar to provide the correct scrip-
tural evidence. The very act of asking the scholar acknowledges a level of sub-
mission and trust in the scholar’s knowledge and authority. This distinction is
purely semantic because taqlīd is disguised as ittibāʿ.24
22 Būṭī, Al-Lā Madhhabiyya,103. Also see Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Nawawī, Kitāb al-Majmūʾ Sharḥ
al-Muhadhdhab li’l-Shīrāzī (Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 2001), 105.
23 Muḥammad Nāsir al-Din al-Albānī, “Aḥwāl al-Ijtihād wa’l-Ittibāʾ wa’l-Taqlīd,” lecture from
< http://www.islamweb.net> last accessed 1/24/2012.
24 Albānī likely borrowed the idea of camaflouging taqlīd as ittibāʿ from Muḥammad

$ #! &" $
220 Hamdeh
Many scholars fail to grasp the nuances of Albānī’s position on taqlīd and
madhhabs, which is viewed by some as a messy bag of contradictions. Albānī
distinguishes between the learned and the unlearned and insists that laity
must seek knowledge from scholars. In the process of seeking knowledge, how-
ever, he requires laypeople to ask for proof-texts, which assumes they are
learned enough to interpret these texts on their own. At times Albānī insists
that his polemics are not aimed at lay Muslims, but at scholars who should
know better than to uncritically conform to past judgments.25 He also makes it
clear that common Muslims should seek knowledge from scholars while si-
multaneously arguing that Islam is easy to understand. In other cases, as in this
lecture and in his famous Ṣifat Ṣalāt al-Nabī, lay Muslims are given the distinct
impression that the statements of the Four Imams censuring taqlīd apply
equally to themselves as they do to qualified and seasoned jurists.
The tensions in Albānī’s positions cannot be properly understood outside
the context of the battle he was fighting against madhhab Traditionalists. Jona-
than Brown has correctly explained that the Salafi argument that ordinary
Muslims can understand scripture as well as the Companions was an essential
move designed to undermine the rigid authority of the madhhabs. Brown
states, “Arguing that the Muslim masses were innately competent and needed
no guardian class to understand their religion was the most effective means to
neutralize the appeals to authority made by mainstream Sunni scholars, even
if all ulema, even Salafi ones, knew this claim was false.”26 In other words, since
both Albānī and his critics hold that scholars must be followed, the difference
between the two groups is not as stark as it may appear. His criticism of taqlīd
is a rhetorical strategy designed to undermine Traditionalist institutions be-
cause he did not consider tradition to be an essential pre-condition for the
proper understanding of Islam.
The Lecture on Defending Salafism
Although many translations of Albānī’s books are available, his audio record-
ings have not attracted much attention from translators and Western scholars
despite their wide popularity among religiously-oriented Arabic speakers.
al-Shawkānī (d. 1834). See Bernard Haykel, Revival and Reform in Islam: The Legacy of
Muhammad al-Shawkani (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 102.
25 Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī, Al-Ḥadīth Ḥujja Bi Nafsi-hi fī l-ʿAqāʾid wa’l-Aḥkām
(Riyadh: Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 2005), 80–81.
26 Jonathan Brown, “Is Islam Easy to Understand or Not?,” Journal of Islamic Studies (2014),
28.

%

$ #! &" $
Albānī’s attempt to purge Islam of foreign elements was not only a scholarly
pursuit but also an on-the-ground project directed toward all Muslims. The
large number of his audio lectures indicates that he devoted a great deal of
time to both preaching and writing.
In this lecture, Albānī attempts to defend Salafism against an unidentified
author’s claims that it is anti-madhhab.27 Although the time and place of the
lecture are unknown, it was one of a series of five lectures given by Albānī
under the title Mafhūm al-Salafiyya (“The Meaning of Salafism”). The topic of
Salafism and the madhhabs recurs throughout Albānī’s works. Albānī was reg-
ularly in heated confrontation with madhhab Traditionalists over the correct
understanding of Islam from the earliest days of his career to the last moments
of his life. This translation serves as window into his life-long concerns, par-
ticularly his attitude towards taqlīd and the madhhabs.28
Translation of “Misconceptions About Salafism”
We seek refuge with God from our evil deeds and intentions. Anyone who
God guides, there is no one who can misguide him, and anyone He leads
astray, there is no one who can guide him. I bear witness that there is no
one worthy of worship except God, without partner, and that Muḥammad
is His servant and messenger. “You who believe, be mindful of God, as is
His due, and make sure you devote yourselves to Him, to your dying
moment.”29 “People, be mindful of your Lord, who created you from a
single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the pair of them spread
countless men and women far and wide; be mindful of God, in whose
name you make requests of one another. Beware of severing the ties of
kinship: God is always watching over you.” “Believers, be mindful of God,
27 Albānī refers only to “the author,” and I could not identify the source or determine the
author’s identity despite searching through his books and online publications. He was
certainly not referring to Muḥammad Ramaḍān al-Būṭī’s well-known book against those
who invite people not to follow the madhhabs, because, during the lecture, he refers to
al-Būṭī as “another author” who accuses Salafis of being anti-madhhab. Albānī also notes
that the author considers himself to be a Salafi, which may explain his calm and respect-
ful tone. The identity of the author is not as important here because my concern is with
Albānī’s ideas.
28 The audio clips were obtained from www.alalbany.net, a website dedicated to maintain-
ing Albānī’s legacy by spreading his teachings, lectures, and writings. Muḥammad Nāṣir
al-Dīn al-Albānī, “Shubah Ḥawl al-Salafiyya,” lecture at www.alalbany.net/?p=4075, last
accessed 10/14/2013.
29 Q. 3:102. Translations of Qurʾānic verses are from M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, The Qurʾan
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

$ #! &" $
222 Hamdeh
speak in a direct fashion and to good purpose, and He will put your deeds
right for you and forgive you your sins. Whoever obeys God and His Mes-
senger will truly achieve a great triumph.”30
To proceed: The best of all speech is God’s speech, and the best of guid-
ance is that of Muḥammad (ṣ).31 The worst affairs are newly invented re-
ligious matters. Every newly invented religious matter is an innovation,
every religious innovation is a misguidance, and every misguidance leads
to Hellfire.32
In the previous lecture we read a passage from a contemporary Muslim
writer that mentions a specific aspect of the Salafi movement and the
effect it has on Salafis. Those who attended the previous lesson might
clearly remember the words of this particular author when he criticized
Salafis and asked: “Are you Salafis able to instill the proper respect of
scholars in those who follow your methodology?” In the last lesson,
I spoke about the particular phrase “those who follow your methodology”
in a manner sufficient to resolve the issue. I will now address the rest of
his statement: “Their actions actually prove that only a few of them
choose to respect scholars. The majority of Salafis are the opposite; they
consider the madhhabs to be an enemy that must be eliminated. We have
seen and heard some of their senior scholars openly express this opinion.
We have also heard some lay Salafis say that all the books of the madh-
habs must be burned.”
The author attributes these words to some people who follow the Salafi
methodology. He divides them into two categories: senior and junior
30 Q. 33:70–71.
31 I have replaced Albānī’s blessings on the Prophet with (ṣ) in order not to interrupt the
flow of the translation.
32 This is the “Opening Supplication of Necessity,” found at the beginning of all of Albānī’s
speeches and writings. Albānī considered this supplication to be an abandoned Sunna.
He attempted to revive it by insisting that all speeches and books must begin with it. ʿAbd
al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghudda, a strong critic of Albānī, disagreed with him on this point. As a
Traditionalist, Abū Ghudda used the practice of the scholarly community to support his
argument. He explains that this supplication could not possibly be a Sunna because most
early scholars did not begin their books with it. If it were a Sunna it would mean that
the vast majority of early scholars abandoned it, an idea that Abū Ghudda could not
accept. See Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī, Khuṭbat al-Ḥāja (Beirut: al-Maktab
al-Islāmī, 1979). Also see ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghudda, Khuṭbat al-Ḥāja Laysat Sunna fī
Mustahall al-Kutub wa’l-Mu’allafāt (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyya, 2008). On Abū
Ghudda’s differences with Albānī, see Jonathan Brown, The Canonization of al-Bukhārī
and Muslim (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 327–28.

%

$ #! &" $
scholars. This division indicates that the author tries to be objective to-
wards the people he criticizes. I want to comment on two aspects of his
criticism. One is more important than the other, so I will begin with that
which is more important.33 First, what is the position of Salafism with
respect to the madhhabs and their imams? Second, do the followers of
Salafism actually say things like the author claimed, attributing some of
those statements to senior Salafis and some to junior Salafis? Regarding
the first issue, as mentioned in the previous lesson, we insist that Salaf-
ism does not disrespect the madhhabs and the imams, so I do not want
to dwell on this issue.
We consistently say that the call of Salafism is based on knowledge of
the Qurʾān and Sunna. It is also based on following the methodology of
the first three generations, the early predecessors to whose righteousness
the Prophet testified in an authentic and mutawātir ḥadīth34: The best of
people are my generation, then those who follow them, and then those who
follow them.35 The Four Imams and those who lived during their time, or
slightly after them, are also considered part of the early generations. All
of them are considered to be among the great imams of the early prede-
cessors who we imitate and follow in our Salafi calling. Therefore, it is
absolutely inconceivable that a true follower of the Salafi methodology
would defame such reputable figures or wish to burn their books and ruin
their legacy. I spoke about this fact in the introduction to The Nature of
Prophet’s Prayer (Ṣifat Ṣalāt al-Nabī) where I mentioned that the imams,
particularly the Four Imams, have great virtue and will be rewarded be-
cause they guided us to the correct methodology of following the Qurʾān
and Sunna.36
In the introduction to Ṣifat Ṣalāt I compiled the sayings of the Four
Imams that clarify the methodology of following the Qurʾān and Sunna
and not being fixed on unquestioning conformity to the authority of
33 In his speeches, Albānī regularly breaks down his opponents’ arguments into numerous
points and deals with them individually.
34 Mutawātir narrations are a category of ḥadīths that have the highest epistemological
value for jurists and ḥadīth scholars. They are considered to be reports that were transmit-
ted through such a large number of narrators in the first three generations of Muslims
that they are highly unlikely to have been fabricated.
35 See Muslim, b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 261/875), Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (Riyadh: Dār Ṭayba, 2006), kitāb 44,
Faḍāʾil, i. 1178, no. 2535.
36 In the introduction to his Ṣifat Ṣalāt al-Nābī Albānī makes his case against the madhhabs
and madhhabism. See Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī, Ṣifat ṣalāt al-Nabī (Riyadh:
Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 1996).

$ #! &" $
224 Hamdeh
scholars (taqlīd) or following the madhhabs. I already referenced their

statements concerning this so I do not want to dwell on them. However,
it is sufficient to mention something they all said: “If the ḥadīth is authen-
tic, then it is my madhhab.” Accordingly, we believe that Salafism reveres
the imams as they deserve to be revered. Salafism is not to blame if there
are individuals who follow it and say unfair things about the imams, their
efforts and their knowledge. It is not the fault of Salafism if these people
criticize the imams with the examples mentioned by the author since no
one is responsible for the faults of others. Because the principles of Salaf-
ism are built on the Qurʾān and Sunna, we clearly say what God the Most
High said: Has he not been told what was written in the Scriptures of Moses
and of Abraham, who fulfilled his duty: that no soul shall bear the burden of
another.37
It is also mentioned in the authentic Sunna that one of the Compan-
ions came to the Prophet (ṣ) with one of his sons. The Prophet said: Is this
your son? He said: Yes. The Prophet said: Verily, you cannot protect him and
he cannot protect you.38 This is an explanation of the previous verses
[53:36–38] which state that no bearer of burden is responsible for the
burden of another. If these incorrect statements mentioned by the au-
thor come from individuals who follow Salafism, then Salafism is not re-
sponsible for them or for the person who says them, based on the Qurʾānic
verse and authentic ḥadīth I just mentioned.
We regrettably acknowledge that such statements are made by some
zealous Salafis who are particularly harsh or allow their tongues to pre-
cede their minds, and consequently speak without thought. We cannot
be held responsible for such individuals. The Companions of the Mes-
senger (ṣ) were not absolved from having critical verses revealed about
some of them. The Messenger (ṣ) became angry with some of them and
occasionally censured and cursed some of them. In every group there are
individuals who do not discipline themselves according to the etiquette
and manners of the others.
We take two points from the author’s criticism of some of those who
invite others to Salafism and claim to be its followers, one of which is
more important than the other. The first is that everyone knows that
Salafism is not based on diminishing the rights of scholars. How could
that be the case when the Noble Qurʾān says: Do not let hatred of others
37 Q. 53:36–38.
38 See Sulaymān b. al-Ashʿath Abū Dā’ūd al-Sijistānī (d. 275/889), Sunan Abī Dā’ūd (Damas-
cus: Dār al-Risāla al-ʿĀlamīya, 2009), kitāb al-Dīyāt, vi, 546, no. 4495.

%

$ #! &" $
lead you away from justice, but adhere to justice, for that is closer to aware-
ness of God?39 If the Qurʾān commands all Muslims to be just in their
judgments, even with those whom they hate, how would you expect
them to be with those whom they love? Therefore, we maintain what we
said almost twenty years ago about our reverence, emulation, and follow-
ing of our imams. The bottom line is that we differ in a fundamental way
from the majority of Muslims who do not follow Salafism, particularly in
the way we follow, respect, and revere our imams.
This fundamental difference may be the reason behind the resent-
ment of those who do not properly understand the Salafi mission, wheth-
er it be those who follow it [fully] or those who adopt only some of its
ideas and beliefs. We respect and revere the imams because we know that
they are guides and invite to the same thing we do, which is following the
Qurʾān and Sunna. We consider them to be intermediaries between us
and the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣ). We believe that there is only one way of
seeking knowledge, the way that everyone knows, which is that the igno-
rant learn from scholars.
Our way of seeking knowledge is different than the way claimed by
members of some Sufi paths. They claim that a person who is illiterate, or
unable to read or write, can acquire knowledge without learning from
scholars. They call this spiritual inspiration (ilhām). According to many
Sufis, ilhām is almost like revelation. We regrettably mention the bitter
fact that imam al-Ghazālī discusses this path of ilhām in the beginning of
his book, Revival of the Religious Sciences (Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn). He men-
tions that a person who struggles against his desires, holds himself ac-
countable, and calls upon God in his moments of seclusion can acquire
knowledge through ilhām.
Like other Sufis he mentions a specific way of acquiring knowledge
that he was previously unaware of: A person sits in a dark room, puts his
head on his knees, and closes his eyes. He must sit like this in three layers
of darkness: the darkness of the room, the darkness of closing his eyes,
and the darkness of lowering his head on his knees and waiting for some
revelation to come down to him. This is what they call ilhām. This is the
source of the phrase repeated by many early and late Sufis: “My heart has
narrated to me from my Lord”.40 They are not like the scholars of ḥadīth
39 Q. 5:8.
40 In this example, Albānī sets out to demonstrate the “stupidity” of Sufis. Although
al-Ghazālī does speak of ilhām and of being focused while in seclusion, I was unable to
find this specific formulation in the Iḥyāʾ. Like other Sufis, al-Ghazālī did not understand

$ #! &" $
226 Hamdeh
who say: “So-and-so has narrated to me from so-and-so”, or like scholars

of fiqh who say: “So-and-so has said in his book from so-and-so.” Instead
they say: “My heart has narrated to me from my Lord.” This is another
exhaustive area of research and I do not intend to delve into it. I am try-
ing to show the point of difference between Salafis like us and other Mus-
lims. We agree with the majority of Muslims that one should revere and
respect the imams.
What makes us different is that we consider the imams to be mediators
and intermediaries who convey knowledge from God and His Messenger.
We do not follow them for who they are and following them is not one of
our objectives. The only objective is to know what God revealed to the
Messenger of God (ṣ) in His book or what he (ṣ) explained in his Sunna.
We take these great imams as intermediaries who convey the message of
the Qurʾān and Sunna to us. As for the majority of Muslims who agree
with us in revering and respecting these scholars, they have the matter
backwards. They have made following scholars their objective, and it may
thus be accurate for us to describe them as blind followers of these
imams.
It is said that things are known by their opposites. To clarify, everyone
who follows a madhhab has settled for following one imam, accepting all
of his opinions, while abandoning all the opinions of other scholars.
There is no doubt that the sayings of three imams are more than those of
one. Therefore, unquestioning submission is a total loss for a muqallid
even when the Imam is correct. As for us, we acknowledge the scholarly
status of the imams, but we maintain that they are a means and interme-
diaries to knowledge. As I have noted in the introduction of my book Ṣifat
Ṣalāt, the Imams emphasized that they are not meant to be followed for
who they inherently are. They told their followers and students: “Take
from where we took.” This confirms that they are not meant to be fol-
lowed unconditionally.
The one meant to be followed is God and then the Messenger of God
(ṣ) who alone must be followed without anyone else. He is the only
Prophet who God, may He be glorified and exalted, made following him
a sign for attaining His love, as is mentioned in the famous verse: Say, ‘If
ilhām to be intellectual knowledge; rather he considered it to be a spiritual knowledge

that cannot be attained by reading books. It is a product of illumination in the heart, and
knowing God through spiritual experience. Ilhām is a special understanding of the divine
that is given to those near to God.

%

$ #! &" $
you love God, follow me, and God will love you.41 The difference between
Salafis and followers of the madhhabs can be summarized in a few short
words: Our mission is limited to exclusive compliance (ittibāʿ) with the
Prophet (ṣ). For us, there is no one equal to him, and he has no partner in
compliance (ittibāʿ). We do not follow any person at all in the unrestrict-
ed and absolute sense except the Messenger (ṣ).
As for others, it is well known that they follow many people other than
the Prophet. Would that the matter of compliance (ittibāʿ) for them was
restricted to the Four Imams! If only it was restricted to following the
students of these imams! If only, if only! There is absolutely no benefit
from wishing “if only.” However, following other than the Prophet shows
that the issue is very dangerous. With the succession of days and the pass-
ing of years, it has reached a point where those who claim to follow the
Four Imams actually follow thousands of others instead.
If you approach a person who is learned in a certain madhhab and use
a book of the imam he follows, like Abū Ḥanifa or al-Shāfiʿī, for example,
as evidence against him, bringing him the text from the book of the
imam, he will say: “We do not follow these texts”. If you say: “But you are
a Ḥanafī or Shāfiʿī,” he will say: “We cannot use the text of the imam.”
Consequently, he acquires knowledge from the one who acquired, from
the one who acquired, from the one who acquired, from the one who
acquired, until he reaches the imam. This shows that they acquire knowl-
edge from contemporary imams rather than from the early imams.
In fact, the problem is restricted to our mission of following the Qurʾān
and Sunna and following only the Messenger (ṣ) rather than the Four
Imams, the four true leading personalities in knowledge. The problem is
even greater than that because they also refuse to limit themselves to fol-
lowing only the imams. They do not have enough knowledge, under-
standing, and intelligence in either the foundations of the religion or its
branches to find the ability to follow the imams directly. Instead, they fol-
low a person, who follows a person, who follows a person until they reach
a jurist in the contemporary era. We have a great deal of evidence and
examples of this from our debates before the spread of the Salafi mission.
I clearly remember the reaction of one scholar, who passed to God’s
mercy, when he heard about my statement that it is not permitted to con-
duct multiple congregational prayers in a single mosque that has a desig-
nated imam and a designated person who calls to prayer (muʾadhdhin).
This issue is known to our brothers, so those who do not know the issue
41 Q. 3:31.

$ #! &" $
228 Hamdeh
with its evidence ask those who know. I met him in front of the mosque,
and he said: “Do you say such-and-such?” I said: “Yes.” He said: “How so?”
I said: “What did the imams say?” I brought al-Shāfiʿī’s Kitāb al-Umm be-
cause this scholar was in fact a follower of the Shāfiʿī madhhab. When
I read the statement to him, he said: “We do not use the words of the
imam.” He does not use the words of the imam! I said to him: “Why?” He
said: “Because many scholars came after imam al-Shāfiʿī and studied his
opinions.42
They discovered that some of al-Shāfiʿī’s statements are preponderant
(rājiḥ) and others are non-preponderant (marjūḥ), and we use the opin-
ions to which they gave more precedence. Seeking to turn his attention to
one of their accusations against us, I said to him: “So some of al-Shāfiʿī’s
views have the status of preponderant (rājiḥ) and others are non-prepon-
derant (marjūḥ), meaning that his statements include both correct and
incorrect views, and that some people came after him and distinguished
his correct opinions from the incorrect ones?” He was so taken aback by
this surprising point that he changed the topic and said: “We are not
Shāfiʿīs, we are Bājūrīs.” 43
This is the actual state of everyone who blindly follows the opinions
of others. The Ḥanafī does not unquestioningly conform to Abū Ḥanīfa,
nor does the Shāfiʿī unquestioningly conform to al-Shāfiʿī. This is the
case with others who unquestioningly conform to the opinions of others.
Therefore, since you must eventually end up following someone, the one
we choose to follow is Muḥammad (ṣ). This does not mean that we do not
revere the sayings of the imams, but we do not follow the imams for who
they inherently are. As for the Messenger, we follow him because of who
he inherently is. We do not question him if he says something. However, if
an imam of the Muslims says something, let alone a shaykh from among
the later shaykhs, then we do not follow the way of the shaykhs who say:
“Whoever says ‘why’ to his shaykh will never be successful.” We say to
him: “Why?” To any scholar who says something, we ask “Why? What is
42 The history of the madhhabs is not as simple as Albānī makes it out to be. Madhhabs are
schools based on principles of understanding the Qurʾān and Sunna. The methodology of
the eponyms of these schools was clarified by their students. The Four Imams did not
write much themselves. Most of what is available are narrations of their positions. If there
are more than one narration from the same eponym on a particular topic, his students
attempt to determine which is more consistent with his principles.
43 Ibrāhīm al-Bājūrī (d. 1276/1860), Shāfiʿī rector of al-Azhar University from 1847–1860. On
him see Khaled El-Rouayheb, “Sunni Muslim Scholars on the Status of Logic, 1500–1800,”
Islamic Law and Society 11:2 (2004), 230.

%

$ #! &" $
the evidence and proof from the Qurʾān and Sunna?” We question him
because we are commanded to follow the Qurʾān and Sunna.
This is the fundamental difference between Salafis and followers of
the madhhabs. It is an important distinction between Salafis like us, who
revere the imams, and those who unquestioningly conform to them, who
also join us in revering them. However, in our view, we do not give them
the status that God, may He be glorified and exalted, gave exclusively to
Muḥammad (ṣ). Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that some Salafis
directly or indirectly criticize one of the madhhabs.44 This is not permit-
ted in our religion and understanding because scholars who are quali-
fied to exercise independent reasoning (mujtahids), as we always affirm,
are rewarded whether they are correct or mistaken. This is proven by the
Prophet’s (ṣ) saying: If a judge makes a judgment and makes an effort and
he is correct, he gets two rewards. If he is mistaken, he gets one reward.45
Therefore, we believe that the jurist is rewarded by God whether he is
correct or incorrect. This is in addition to what we know about the Four
Imams’ efforts, their fear of God, asceticism, and openly professing the
truth in what they believed. This means that we are not permitted to take
any of that away from them. By saying this I am not introducing anything
new that the author has not already pointed to [viz., that some Salafis
disrespect the imams]. However, the criticisms of the imams are to be
attributed to the one who says them and not to Salafism.
Then the author says, and we agree with this, that lay Muslims who are
not recognized as “seekers of knowledge or researchers”, are not respon-
sible for the same task as advanced researchers. In the previous lecture
I explained that a feature of Salafism is that Salafis call to the Qurʾān and
Sunna and study the four madhhabs, while they also question and debate
the [legal] opinions and evidence of the madhhabs. He described this
method of study as a pursuit of truth. Now he wants to demonstrate that
laypeople are not capable of taking on the task of discovering the truth
because it requires academic research. These words are true, but what he
understood from them is not correct, as you will hear. He says: “There is
no disagreement between us that the terms ‘seekers of knowledge’ and
‘researchers’ do not apply to lay Muslims. They are not responsible for the
same task as advanced researchers.”
44 Albānī is distancing himself here from directly or indirectly criticizing the madhhabs
even though he criticized them many times elsewhere.
45 Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870), Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Beirut: Dār Ibn Kathīr,
2004), kitāb 96, Iʿtiṣām, 1814, no. 7352.

$ #! &" $
230 Hamdeh
Here is the main point that shows the danger of his words: “Their call
to disband the madhhabs actually leads them to doubt the religion itself,
and that suffices to demonstrate their misguidance and to push them col-
lectively into the abyss of misguidance.” It is according to this statement
that we interpret the position of [Muḥammad Ramaḍān] al-Būṭī and
Ḥamīd, may God have mercy on him, about non-madhhabism as a threat
that destroys Islamic law.46 The beginning of the author’s statement is in
complete agreement with Salafism. Unfortunately, the last part of his
statement is in complete disagreement with Salafism. The reason for this
can be reduced to one thing: Since Salafism is naturally the correct un-
derstanding of Islam, and Islam is actually a comprehensive religion for
all people at all times and places, then naturally Salafism is also not spe-
cific to one group of Muslims to the exclusion of another.
Salafism is Islam in its correct understanding and it invites Muslims to
closely adhere to their original Islamic beliefs. Salafism does not single
out one group over another. In its call to follow the Qurʾān and Sunna
Salafism does not differentiate between the learned person and the
illiterate or between the educated and uneducated. Rather, it calls all
groups and individuals to worship God sincerely and to follow their
Prophet respectfully. All Muslims have this in common. Now we hear a
new tone. This author is also one of the problems that impacts the Salafi
mission because he associates himself with Salafism even though here he
clearly separates himself from it.
The reason for this separation goes back to the fact that there are peo-
ple who, before becoming Salafis, belonged to another movement or
group that did not have the same methodology as Salafism. Before adopt-
ing Salafism they followed a group and educated themselves accordingly.
The purpose of most of these groups, as we discussed in detail in our
commentary on the previous statement in the last lecture, is to gather,
unite, and increase the numbers of their followers. Their purpose is not to
spread education and understanding of religion. When some individuals
from this group are exposed to Salafism, they are attracted to its purity,
clarity, and strong arguments, with the result that they adopt part of it.
However, because they were part of another group that focuses on
46 Albānī is most likely referring to Muḥammad al-Ḥamīd. On him, see Itzchak Weismann,
“The Politics of Popular Religion: Sufis, Salafis, and Muslim Brothers in 20th Century
Hamah,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 37:1 (2005), 39–58, at 51–53. Also see
idem, “Sufi Brotherhoods in Syria and Israel: A Contemporary Overview,” History of Reli-
gions, 43:4 (2004), 315.

%

$ #! &" $
increasing numbers and partisanship, their earlier beliefs do not actually

allow the Salafi mission to enter the depths of their heart and govern all
of their senses and actions.
You will find these people Salafi in one respect and against Salafism in
another. This is an example that we used to discuss before we saw people
write about it as we are doing now. We used to see this in the actions of
some people who claimed to be members of the Salafi mission, although
none of those around them benefitted from their claim or adoption of
Salafism except in an insignificant way that is not worth mentioning.
Why? Because they adopted it only in their personal life and did not call
others to Salafism. They are determined and hard working when inviting
to their movement, which seeks to increase the number of their followers
and unite them. They do this according to general Islamic concepts that
do not clarify the correct understanding of Islam. The correct under-
standing is found in the Qurʾān and Sunna for anyone who wishes to em-
brace it.
This idea of increasing the number of followers and uniting them does
not allow the Salafi mission to spread among all the classes and individu-
als of the umma because Salafism opposes the increasing of numbers and
uniting. When we say: “Salafism is the truth, not that which is concealed.”
[Inaudible] … people will naturally be separated from one another and
brothers will separate; this is the opposite of trying to increase numbers.47
Therefore, there are people who are partially Salafi and partially belong
to other groups. They are Salafi in their personal lives and on an indi-
vidual level, but belong to another group at the societal level. In other
words, they are not Salafis at a societal level. They wants us to allow the
general public, which naturally represents the overwhelming majority of
Muslims, to follow the madhhabs. They do not want us to invite them
to the Qurʾān and Sunna.48 The author claims that calling them to the
Qurʾān and Sunna will lead to complexity, misguidance, and detachment
47 For Albānī, Salafism is not about increasing numbers or compromising on the truth in
order to win people’s hearts. However, as Bernard Haykel notes, Albānī and Salafis are
often mocked by their detractors for speaking out about secondary issues such as ritual
purity and menstruation, while overlooking more important matters such as political
injustice. Members of this group are sometimes referred to as scholars of menstruation
and puerperium (ʿulamāʾ al-ḥayḍ wa’l-nifās). See Haykel, Salafi Thought, 49.
48 If a madhhab is understood to be a legal school, then the general Muslim population does
not follow the madhhabs because they lack legal training. Instead they follow their local
imams. Albānī’s criticism of the madhhabs is usually based on actions of the general pub-
lic, not that of scholars.

$ #! &" $
232 Hamdeh
from the religion. God forbid. Here we want to show the difference be-
tween what Salafism is really like compared to the limited understand-
ing of some people from other Islamic groups who also [claim to] follow
Salafism.
We agree with all the Islamic groups on one fact but differ in the de-
tails of how to call to this fact and the means of achieving it. We all agree
that Muslims must return to an Islamic lifestyle. We all say that we must
return to an Islamic lifestyle, but I wonder in light of what we see in their
communities and what we are currently reading, just who represents the
Muslim community? Is it a limited minority of people in each country or
each province? Or is it all Muslims, including the scholar, student, and
the illiterate? There is no doubt that the last answer is what represents
the Muslim community.
If we really want to cooperate on returning to an Islamic lifestyle, does
this require that we divide people into two groups, one group that is edu-
cated with the correct understanding, which is Salafism, as this author
acknowledges, and another large group that should be allowed to remain
in their ignorance? Are only members of the first group to be called to the
truth – following the Qurʾān and Sunna – because they are considered to
be elite and distinguished Muslims? Should we not also call the majority
of Muslims to the truth? Otherwise it would mean that we are to leave
them in their ignorance, mistakes, nay, even their misguidance. Not only
this, but we also leave them in their differences and severe conflicts, the
effects of which have led many of them to prevent one Muslim from pray-
ing behind his Muslim brother under the pretext that the latter’s madh-
hab is contrary to his madhhab.
We still see the followers, nay those who unquestioningly conform to
the madhhabs, not praying behind other Muslims when they pray with
those who invite to the following of the Qurʾān and Sunna. When they are
asked: “Are the Salafis disbelievers?” They say: “No, but they are innova-
tors.” Okay, is prayer behind an innovator permitted by the madhhab or
not? It is permitted. They cite as evidence a ḥadīth that we consider weak
because of its narration (riwāya), but authenticate in terms of its mean-
ing, namely: “Pray behind every righteous and evil person.”49 They nar-
rate this ḥadīth and then go against it and do not act upon it while all the
madhhabs accept it.
The point is that the author wants us to leave the majority of Muslims
in their ignorance, mistakes, and division. Is this the Islam that says: Do
49 ʿAlī b. ʿUmar al-Dāraquṭnī (d. 385/995), Sunan al-Dāraquṭnī, 3 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa,
2001), kitāb 6,ʿĪdayn, 2:194, no. 1741.

%

$ #! &" $
not join those who ascribe partners to God, those who divide their religion
into sects, with each party rejoicing in their own.50 Does Islam, which calls
all groups to unite, collaborate, and not separate, differentiate between
the minority of Muslims, who are the only ones called to follow the cor-
rect understanding, and the majority of the Muslims, who are to be left as
they are? No Muslim who properly understands anything from the mes-
sage of the Qurʾān and Sunna would say this. Here we clarify the issue of
dividing in groups a little bit by saying, why do we say “Salafis” and “Salaf-
ism”? We repeatedly mentioned that all Muslims call others to follow the
Qurʾān and Sunna. This call is restricted to a particular subject or meth-
odology that is manifest and clear. We saw that the mission of the Qurʾān
and Sunna must be defined according to what the righteous predecessors
followed. Who were the righteous predecessors? Were they all scholars?
Were they all educated and scholars? Or were the minority of them schol-
ars and the majority of them not scholars?51
This author presented us with the distinction that scholars are com-
manded to follow the Qurʾān and Sunna but that the majority must fol-
low a specific madhhab. Does this distinction exist? Every Muslim
certainly knows that the concept of belonging to a specific madhhab did
not exist in the greatest generations. We all know that there is no differ-
ence between a scholar, a student, and an ignorant person because in the
time of the Righteous Predecessors there was not a madhhab called the
madhhab of Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq that some people could follow and say:
“I am a Bakrī.” There was noʿUmarī, ʿUthmānī, or ʿAlawī madhhab.52
50 Q. 30:31–32.
51 Albānī’s interlocutors criticize him for claiming that the first three generations of Mus-
lims had a single methodology. In his book, Al-Salafiyya Marḥala Zamaniyya Mubāraka
Lā Madhhab Islāmī (Salafism is a Blessed Temporary Phase, not an Islamic Madhhab),
al-Būṭī argues that these three generations never had a single methodology; instead, they
had different methodologies such as that of the ahl al-ḥadīth and ahl al-ra⁠ʾy. Hence,
the claim of modern Salafis that they possess the exact methodology of the earliest gen-
erations is historically inaccurate. See Muḥammad Ramaḍān al-Būṭī, Al-Salafiyya Marḥala
Zamaniyya Mubāraka Lā Madhhab Islāmī (Damascus: Dār al-Fikr, 1988).
52 This is an example of Albānī’s contradicting himself as to whether laity should follow
texts directly or rely on scholars. Earlier in the lecture Albānī noted that laymen are not
held to the standards of scholars. Since they are laymen and cannot be expected to distin-
guish between a sound and false interpretation, they must follow a scholar. The madh-
habs are made up of a scholarly class that interprets Islamic scripture according to the
methodology and principles of that school. Albānī also included the Four Imams among
the blessed generations. It was this generation that considered al-Shāfiʿī a reviver of the
religion (mujaddid) for introducing the principles of jurisprudence.

$ #! &" $
234 Hamdeh
Therefore, what were the common people in those golden centuries

whose greatness has been affirmed like? Does the author want to impose
the stagnation of the madhhabs upon the golden centuries? What were
the common people in these golden centuries like? I ask, in general, and
the details are known, what were they like? What were they not like? The
general Muslim population today and in the future must be like the gen-
eral Muslim population of those three great centuries. While we strive to
return to the true Islamic lifestyle, history must repeat itself. Modern
Muslim scholars must become like the scholars of the first three centu-
ries. Their pupils, as well as the common Muslims today, must become
like those in the golden centuries.53 If we say: “No! We should call the
educated and scholarly class to follow the Qurʾān and Sunna and leave
the majority of Muslims in their madhhabs, out of fear that common
Muslims would stray and supposedly be misguided,” then that means
that we would not be honest when we call for returning to the Islamic
lifestyle.54
Therefore, what is our position concerning laity who the author fears
will be misguided because of our call to the following of the Qurʾān and
Sunna? The reality, which gives me comfort, is that the author refers to
what we hear many times from some people who do not understand or
comprehend the Salafi mission. They do not understand it either directly
from those who call to it or from their publications. Instead, they under-
stand Salafism from its opponents and enemies, namely, the ones who
cause tribulation due to their misunderstanding of this mission. Many
people narrate from us, some phone us, and some secretly fight and at-
tack us by accusing us of inviting all Muslims, even the general popula-
53 This statement suggests that scholarship should remain identical to the way it was in the
first three centuries of Islam. Any scholarship that ventures away from the literal opinions
of the first three centuries is considered to be inauthentic. In his understanding of what
it means to follow the early generations, Albānī remains loyal to the literal opinions of the
earliest Muslims. This is what makes Salafism unappealing to Muslims who seek a more
intellectually engaging form of Islam. See Qadhi, Salafi Muslims.
54 Albānī’s uncompromising positions highlight how important it was for him to be consis-
tent. In his view, Islam is for everyone, the educated and uneducated. Everyone is required
to follow all aspects of Islam. There is no elitism or elect class in Albānī’s understanding
of Salafism; scholars and non-scholars are equally required to adjust their lives to follow
the teachings of Islam. On Albānī’s uncompromising positions, see Emad Hamdeh, “The
Formative Years of an Iconoclastic Salafi Scholar,” The Muslim World 106, no. 3 (2016),
411–32.

%

$ #! &" $
tion, to understand the Qurʾān and Sunna directly without going back to
the scholars.
The statements of this author and of the opponents of Salafism would
clearly be correct if there really were people who encouraged the igno-
rant and illiterate to interpret fiqh, creed, and religion directly from the
Qurʾān and Sunna, although they cannot properly read a verse or ḥadīth
narration.55 However, is Salafism really like this? Do we invite a person
who does not have any knowledge to approach the Qurʾān and Sunna and
impose his ignorant, lay, and illiterate interpretation on them? And then
say: “I understand like this and I am commanded to follow the Qurʾān and
Sunna?” There is no Muslim, however you wish to describe him, either a
Salafi or a khalafī,56 who makes such statements. This is what we have
always said and will continue to say forever. Yesterday a few individuals
from Aleppo visited me. Among them was a young man who had little
education. He was familiar with the famous book Al-Lā Madhhabiyya and
similar books referenced by the author. These books claim that we invite
all people to follow the Qurʾān and Sunna, that is to say, that an ignorant
person should understand the Qurʾān and Sunna according to his igno-
rance.
As a result, I explained the issue to him in detail. In summary, I said to
him: “The text of the Qurʾān places people, in terms of knowledge and
ignorance, into two groups: scholars are those who understand the
Qurʾān and Sunna, and non-scholars are ignorant people who do not un-
derstand the Qurʾān and Sunna.” Each of these two groups has a respon-
sibility according to the text of the Glorious Qurʾān, where the Most
Exalted states: You [people] can ask those who have knowledge if you do not
know.57 God is addressing the entire umma, both its scholars and its igno-
rant, educated and unlettered, saying: “You are two groups: scholars and
non-scholars. The non-scholars must ask the scholars.” You [people] can
ask those who have knowledge if you do not know.58 This is what we invite
to, but we might differ with those who unquestioningly conform to the
madhhabs about the definition of knowledge and scholars.
55 Albānī’s critics accuse him of encouraging laity to interpret texts on their own because he
forbids them from following the madhhabs and requires them to ask for proof-texts with-
out possessing the tools to properly interpret them.
56 Literally, someone who comes later. Salafis use the term to refer to those who follow later
scholars. This means that the khalafī version of Islam is not authentic. The term khalafī is
sometimes used to imply that non-Salafis are innovators in religion.
57 Q. 16:43.
58 Q. 16:43.

$ #! &" $
236 Hamdeh
What is considered knowledge, and who is considered a scholar? We

already responded to this question more than once with quotes from our
scholars that the true scholar is the scholar of the Qurʾān and Sunna.
Even if a person acquires all the knowledge found in the secondary litera-
ture of the madhhabs, he is not a scholar. Instead, he is like a collector
who has gathered everything that the scholars have said in their books,
which include many differences of opinions. If you ask him: “What is the
saying of God and what is the saying of the Messenger of God in all that
you have compiled?” he will openly admit: “I do not know.” Hence, he
acknowledges that he does not know because, as Ibn Qayyim [al-Jawziy-
ya] mentioned, true knowledge is based on “God said and His Messenger
said etc.” When God said: “Ask the people of remembrance if you do not
know,” it means ask the people of knowledge if you do not know.
Who are the people of remembrance? Are they those who dance while
remembering God as some claim?59 Certainly not! The people of remem-
brance are, as the Most High said: We have sent down the Qurʾan Ourself,
and We Ourself will guard it.60 The people of remembrance are the people
of the Qurʾān. Therefore ask the people who know the Qurʾān. A scholar
is not a scholar of the Qurʾān unless he is a scholar of the Sunna because
the Qurʾān says: We have sent down the message to you too [Prophet], so
that you can explain to people what was sent for them.61 A scholar is a
scholar of the clear Qurʾān and the clear Sunna, the one who has knowl-
edge of the clear Qurʾān and the clear ḥadīth, as mentioned in the words
of the Messenger (ṣ): We have sent down the message to you too [Prophet],
so that you can explain to people what was sent for them.62
The true scholar is the one who says, “God said and God’s Messenger
said” in all matters of religion and in all that he refers to concerning Is-
lam. No one else is a scholar. The verse divides people into two groups:
the scholar who receives a question from an ignorant person, and the ig-
norant person whose responsibility is to ask the scholar. They attribute to
us the assertion that it is the responsibility of an ignorant person to un-
derstand the same thing as a scholar, which is impossible. This lie about
us is then leaked, spread, and publicized. It might sound persuasive to
some who hear about Salafism from a person who adopted only part of it.
However, he missed the fact that Salafism does not allow an ignorant per-
son to claim scholarship. In fact, there is no difference on this point be-
59 Referring to Sufis who dance in remembrance of God.

60 Q. 15:9.
61 Q.16:44.
62 Q. 16:44.

%

$ #! &" $
tween Salafism and all other groups. An ignorant person is ignorant

regardless of what he claims.
I mention this fact in order to give a better understanding of Salafism.
And yet I find myself compelled to acknowledge that I am unable to deny
the allegations of people who accuse Salafism and its followers of pro-
fessing that which is not part of it. This is my admonishment to my broth-
ers. Some people accepted the Salafi mission, studied it, and became
people of knowledge. They are able to understand issues first from the
Qurʾān and Sunna, and second from seeking assistance from the state-
ments of early scholars who studied the Qurʾān and Sunna. I say with re-
gret that I am unable to make it clearer to my brothers who are zealous
for the Salafi mission that they can be a source of misunderstanding and
doubt for the likes of those who attack Salafism and its advocates.
It is because of them that the author who ultimately agrees with madh-
hab fanatics states that inviting people who have no way of following the
Qurʾān and Sunna directly is a way of misguiding them and causing them
to leave the religion. Therefore, there are two issues, only one of which is
related to some of our brothers. I advise them not to prematurely claim to
have reached the status and level of understanding the texts of the Qurʾān
and Sunna independently without assistance and without paying atten-
tion to this massive heritage that we inherited from our scholars. We
pointed to the efforts and virtues of these scholars in our introduction to
this lecture. On the other hand, those who attribute things to Salafism
that are not part of it will not benefit because Salafism does not allow an
ignorant person to understand the Qurʾān and Sunna directly. At the
same time I want to say that the Salafi mission includes all Muslims in its
command to follow the Qurʾān and Sunna, according to the details previ-
ously mentioned. However, a scholar does so independently and a non-
scholar does so by following a scholar.
The obvious difference between Salafism and the madhhabs is that the
unlettered Salafi does not say, “This is my madhhab and I seek a fatwa ac-
cording to my madhhab.” As for the [unlettered] non-Salafi, he says, “This
is my madhhab, so what is the ruling?” This is one of the clearest differ-
ences between the Salafi mission and the khalafī mission.63 The phrase
that was mentioned here means that the general Muslim population will
remain in their madhhabs. Thus, when one is challenged about an issue,
he asks about his madhhab, and when a person from a different madhhab
is challenged, he asks about his madhhab. As a result, Islamic society will
63 See note 56 for an explanation of the term khalafī.

$ #! &" $
238 Hamdeh
remain like this to the point that a child will inherit the stagnant opinions
of the madhhab from his father. Eventually, living in accordance with the
Qurʾān and Sunna will be forgotten. Therefore, those who fear that the
general Muslim public will be misguided because of Salafism have this
fear only because of their ignorance of the Salafi mission. I hope all of us
are in agreement that we must revive the early Islamic lifestyle when the
concept of adhering to madhhabs did not exist even though there were
scholars and non-scholars. Whatever the non-scholars of the time did is
what must be done at all times and in all places.
Conclusion
The crux of the Albānī’s polemic against madhhab Traditionalists is their un-
willingness to reexamine the positions of their schools in light of proof-texts.
He launched his polemic against madhhab Traditionalists by discrediting their
fiqh methodology and accused them of preferring the opinions of the madhabs
over the teachings of the Prophet. Concurrently, he put forward his own scrip-
ture-based fiqh by removing himself from the interpretative process and pre-
senting his conclusions as the direct teachings of the Qurʾān and Sunna.
Albānī’s disagreements with his madhhab Traditionalist critics stem from his
conviction that his own understanding of proof-texts is the absolute truth.
Albānī had to remain uncompromising in his positions in order to maintain
his image as a scholar who was not involved in the interpretive process, but
rather one who passively understood the direct meaning of scripture. Had he
compromised on his positions he would have been forced to acknowledge that
his conclusions were based on a fallible interpretive process rather than the
direct meaning of infallible texts. Had he conceded that his conclusions in-
volved an interpretive process he would not have been able to claim to depend
only on scripture. In other words, instead of Salafism being based on the abso-
lute truth it would just be another madhhab trying to understand texts.
Albānī’s presentation of the madhhabs as fallible human institutions and
Salafism as being based only on the Qurʾān and Sunna was crucial to the sur-
vival of his claim to possess the absolute truth. His unbending attitude, contra-
dicting positions on taqlīd, along with his iconoclasm, contributed to his
reputation as irreverent toward both scholars and madhhabs. He attempted to
change this image by denouncing overzealous Salafis and positioning himself
as being detached from anything but the truth, just like the founders of the
madhhabs. By doing so he positioned himself as their true follower rather than
a critic.

%

$ #! &" $
        
            
y@ c W7/ Y Z W/ c hq I: Y @9@8m t@; Y @94m {K Y h@ z[2
[9l YJq @:m @" Z[{ I qI8 m I:m Z VK b I hq bo Zo b m I:m Z
Y X657 Jq X6{ q[5q }@9q @:m @" "[87 Xm bo Y[* b Z@5 U hq q[5q
Z [k@ Jq hq q[5q k@ qK; b@{ @8:9 D @:| @:9 U7 sIq M4
X6 G7. qII b[ q[[ hq q[5q q[9l YJq @:m @" "@;{ X6;7 @ hq o @{Fq
... I2 @m "@8;1 q|[ |@ I5 Z[{ hq S0 Y X6[z X6 K43 X6@8m
{[Fq K X7 Zl Z;7 hq \7a I8 I I:q K; hq c c6q K; ?
.{@9q ] Bc` W Bc` BI W BI BI W @:@I
X76 K`@!q K.2q ] );ceq r@6q P2 Y sK5 X6;7 @9;7 i]`@#q }{Iq ] @97
qK/ YJq W2 @:;o )89#q ] @K;= I B;47q s[Iq Aq[ Y A@ Y Z;
W Y6" :Z[5 @q{Iq Zn@ ] Z;o {@-#q A@6q [ qI; KJ U@q }{Iq
Y C876 "X65K \o )9#q }[4 ] G;.q [:4#q qJ qLK [m] [2;0
I5 @:;5 Y X76= ]`@#q }{Iq ] y@5q ] ]4- ]46 @& tqJ@ B78 q J
b Vz Y I/q \72 YKFq @m E:9#q qJ: Z4 Jm I X:9 c;7 m I> Sq[q" :@
mKq qJ: K@ Y X{@ Y @928 @9m{ I Z;7 k@/5q A qI bo AqJ#q ] K
A@6q L2 c6q qJ i"@2;8 AqJ#q A qKo Y bm I b [5 Y X:0m Y
X;5q qJ W2 iq{@3a q{@ )8 X:72 [ B;47q s[Iq \o )9#q P2 \o
J \7 U;72q Y ]98: Jq qI5 X:; X76 YJq @.o \o WKq B@ \o K;-
T[ @ [ :Fq iZy @& X XF@ mI97 Kgq Y Xm @8Im i@9q qKm [ @%o K0Fq
:Kgq KFq i@Kz @8 XFq Fq KFq [ qJ i@:8_m AqJ87 Z9@ B;47q s[Iq

$ #! &" $
240 Hamdeh
@ K qL A@6q Kz Jq c6q qJ W& X76 Y B;47q s[Iq \o A9 Y ] W
.X:0m \o Z9 Kl @ K X{@ \o Z9
I{m c U@q }{Iq ] Vz Y k]-q \7 @9876 qIm @8_qy II Y9 Fq KFq @m
B9q r@6q X: \7 [5 @I9 B;47q s[Iq is[Iq J m qIm @8_qy [5 B@ eq
] BK;"@ X: y[:-#q Bcq K5q ] q[@ YJq X YJq G@.q T7q E:9 \7
". X:[7 YJq X X:[7 YJq X ]K }@9q K;" Kq[#q W G;.q DI!q
Y kb> W c;7 @; X:9 K= m X:9 I5 m XKa@ Y( XK; B2{Fq B8_Fq
m @c o {[. c VJ7 J @9[y ] S X@o I5 X: Y9 G@.q T7q B8_m
m m )87#q B8_m Y @o ] qJ W [5 q {[.m b AJ#q rK-#q ] 47 W{ J
A@ Y CI C9 I5 i@: sy@4eq I B8_Fq kb> A K \98 m m X:J
Ba@ B8_Fq m tKz X7 Zl Z;7 hq \7a ] 9q sca B4a BI5 ] B5;5!q J Y
I B9q r@6q @q ] G;.q E:9#q qJ @9:;[ ] Fq W/4q X: B2{Fq B8_Fq
@q ] E:9#q qJ: G;`[ @:; ]q B2{Fq B8_Fq q[m sc.q B4a BI5 ] C28
b @9 X:q[m tKz iAqJ#q @q \7 y[8 I;75q \7 y[8 q I B9q r@6q
.@Kz ] B@ eq I{m
qzo" X:[ [ bm @#q qJ: R47q \7 @2;8 q[54q D; @Kz ] Iq @ ]
U B8_Fq KI5 \7 B8_@ B;47q s[Iq m I52 Y9 VJ "]J [: DI!q G a
]q t@876q P2 X:9 {I. Y6 B;47q s[Iq \o [89 }@m @9 I ? X{I

%

$ #! &" $
A@6q @Kz ]q t@876q J W& X: @z W X:[72 Xy[: B8_d @87
K2
\7 B8_@ @:m \7 k@9 B;47q s[Iq @:;7 C@ ]q py@#q Y o BqK. [5 Y9
X m" \@2 @ @8 Im {| Im W8 b Zm I> @ B9q r@6q ]4 B9q r@6q
B9q ] tk@ "Km {| s{|q {L bm \ Jq X;qKo \[ Ta ] @& =9
qJ" :@5 Z c Z2 X7 Zl Z;7 hq \7a ] 9q \m B@.q Y c{ m B;.q
{L bm" B5@q B^ K;4 qJ "V;7 ]9 b Z;7 ]9 b Vo @m :@ iX2 :@ V9q
iB;47q s[Iq \o [89 Y P2 Y t@876q J W t{Ia qz? "Km {| s{|q
iG;.q DI!q Bgq Y X28 Jq qJ: @:;7_@ Y b Z9 B> C; s[I@
Y );47q Y )8#q P2 Y t@876q J W {I. I Zm )4l K2 Y
W Z@ Z@ kq{ Z75 [6 m Vz Y sI!q Vz Y ~ @ S m U7 X: YJq
.K6 4 m W [5 [: iZ75
tq[7a [Kq r@am kb>: tq[Iq Y s[y Z@m Y Z7 Y {K m S;0 b qJ
Z;7 hq \7a [Kq Z9 A/ Y t@gq P2 Z; CL Y X:; q[7 X Z;7 Zc hq
ry= X Y B@8 W ] B4_@ W ] F Vz iZ92 m Z8 m Z @&{ @@;m X7
P2 A@6q qJ I5 ] {[q J Y J= Y9 i@:c= q[57 X s[Iq ry=
m :\F@ :Kgq Y Xm @8qIo C7 )9q );@ J= iB;47q \o )89#q s@Iq
[5 $K6q lK5q T; ik@872q [5 X/ \7 [5 b B;47q s[Iq m S;8 q K2
K= $K6q lK5q @ qz? "\57 rKm [ [Iq q[I2 b m \7 [ <9 X69K b"
X:= [6 T;6 X:[/3 YJq ] \ X:@6m {qIao ] q[I2 = @2;8 )87#q
@98_F @9qKq Y B9 YK- BqK J9 @Kz @9 @ \7 Y9 VJ X:[ Y8;
)87#q K;@8 Y T7 @9o @5 @8 I;.5q C; Y qJ Y6 X@o @9@q @9_qIq

$ #! &" $
242 Hamdeh
@98_F @K;[ @98;12 ] @9@q ] X:9 T7 B;47q [Iq \o [89 b YJq
@{L @ cq
Y( kq[ qI; B;47q s[Iq X:4 X Y P2 B1;4! q{@ @ [6 cbq qJ W2
B8_Fq K[ @89; Y i@:_q{l @{@6 m P2 \9 Z96 @:;o ]89 b Y( m @:;o ]89
K1 Y B9q r@6q Y Z;o [I Y Jq qJ \o s@y sqI X:= @9872 X:812
A70 @5K @9 m I52 b @9? X7 Zl Z;7 hq \7a I8 @9; ) @99; Q_@ X:=
@9I M;7 iX@2q Y X72q W@ q \57 m [ }@9q W Z K2 Jq UK0q [ X72q
b mK5 b @;m @ [ @eq Y6' Zm B; [.q K0q P2 \o )9#q P2 Z;I UK
I9 @:eq i@:e@ Z[8 @ [ X72q ]57 ] S#q UK0q qJ K;3 X72q \57 m A6
]qL3q @eq m ] sK#q B5;5!q J KJ m T>#q Y ][q Z- y@6 B; [.q Y K;
S @eq m KJ; iYIq [7 k@;o Z@ m ] ] @:eq UK0q qJ Y @; KJ
X @ X7 @:eq Y \57 m Y6' Zq[7 ] @o Z@@9 ZK ZqK Z49 ZI@
m Z;{ \7 Zm{ S/ m B871 B K ] M7 m Ba @ B5K K; [ KJ iX72
rK-#q B87
)2q P8 B87
B K3q B87
uc t@87
] qJ6 M7 Z;9; P83
][q Y k] Z;7 L9 m AK; iX72q ]57 c \7 Z; Z Jq @bq Z4
.@:eq Z[8 Jq
]9I X:[ ] YK=#q X:9 )I5#q B; [.q Y K; @yyK s{@ tk@ @9 Y
[5 b ic Y c ]9I DI!q B8_m [5 @8 XIm [5 b i]{ Y ]7
i]{ Y ]7 ]9I [5 q{[ @%o c Y Z@ ] c @ Z54q k@87 [5 @8 XIm
@99; cbq Z05 @; yIa ] ]9F Z; [m m I{m b W[ Dq @ qJ @/m

%

$ #! &" $
J ] K4 iX:qKq B8_Fq KI5 ] )87#q K;@8 S K- YJq );47q Y
X:qJ X:2 b Y9 Z[{ hq Y X72q @[37; k@0 W_@ B8_Fq K2 Y iB059q
\7a hq [{ Z;7 @ @ K2 m ] sI;[q Z@3q F @9@@ Y B@ X:@q W2 b
kb>: iB9 ] cq sc.q Z;7 [ Z9; m Z@ ] Z;7 Z{ ZLm @( X7 Zl Z;7 hq
YJq Y K;@8 q @m iB9q r@6q s[y @[37; Q_@ XJ Y kcFq k@872q
a o k@872q @q q[72 B5;5!q J q[7 X: X:qKq k@872q KI5 ] @92 [K-
G
Y; @I/" W;Iq iB@3q ] B8_Fq kb>: XI;75 q[72 iX:; B147q J @9c o
B8_Fq q[m Y k]- V 8 b Zq[m W6 V * @? ]`{ X:9 W m W;Iq "k@;Fq
iIq @o q[m Y Km Km V c ] Bc B8_m q[m F Km Km ] YKgq
Jq X5q ] iI;75 Y G{ @ Y Km K@ [: B8_Fq kb> Y @e I75 W VJ7
.I75#q qJ I75 Jq qz ] U!q @eq r@am
q[; Q_@ W_@ X:m @9 K B: Y X:87 ] B8_Fq BL9 @9 K I5 Y @m
] @:;q @Km ]q q[Fq V7 ] w[`[ Vz q[9; X @8 i@bq ] tqJ@ Yy[.5
i"@Jm D; Y qJ" X:@am X:@F c [[5 X: isc.q B4a @9@ BI5
y[.5#q @%o i@bq ] Yy[.5 q[; X:m i[5 Jq qJ: qI;= @Jm D; Y qJ
}@9q K_@ y Z@q A Jq I;[q cq sc.q Z;7 [ hq [{ X hq [ @b@
Bgq ] @8 W L hq B \7 W;Iq Z@q W L hq W2 Jq I;[q ]
9q [
B876 |@o Y6' @ K4q qz? "hq X6 ][2@ hq [ X9 o W" {[:-#q
Z W; b @I9 [: @bq ] X7 Zl Z;7 hq \7a ]
9q yqK o ] K.9 @9[y isK;.
@K; @o cq sc.q Z;7 [Kq bo @c o K-q Y qIq S b i@bq ] Z VK b
B8_Fq @q ] K.q XI9 @bq ] KFq m C; K2 [ @8 K XI9 [[#@
Y sI_@ b... C; C; B8_Fq kb> sJc @q ] K.q XI9 KFq C; Z2{Fq

$ #! &" $
244 Hamdeh
)9q ] / @Fq ]q[ KFq o iqI K;0 KFq m @; W;.4q qJ Y6 i@570 C;
C qzo Vo iB4=#q [F@ XK. Y6' b B2{Fq B8_d @bq )I#q I9 [[#q {@a
[ @eq qJ @ B8_Fq kb> Y @o r@6 Z;7 Cq @ AJ ] Z54 W{ \o
b @ i@eq r@ Y O9@ C c ] 2 @-q ]
49!@ Z;q ]89 Jq @eq qJ @o
!!!! ~[.9q J S b Y
J= [ qzo i@eq M4 Y J= m S;0 b Y [5 i] 2 @ m ]

49 W{ Cm A;
B8_Fq Y J= b YK=#q Y J= X qzo i@eq \o W. \ Jm Y( Jm Y(
@q ] @9[y ) s{[. ( B`q K; B87) B5;5!q ] B76-#q C@ i)I5#q
r@0Fq iB2{Fq B8_Fq y @bq ] cq sc.q Z;7 [Kq I;[ B9q r@6q
)2 q[71 m @/m @9;7 [= X:? Vz Y Km B76-#q J iX72q ] U B2{Fq
s{I5q X:4m ] qI m @K b[am ][q B @5q Y X72q Y XI9 M;7 B8_d
\o ]= m \o ...Y ..Y ..Y.. Y [2 @%o X:4m B8_Fq @q ] B@0bq
{@-q W B'I5q @9-@9 ] qI qK; Iq[ Bym @I9 Y iK`@!q K.2q ] Z;54q
I2 [m ]m ihq B8{ \o ] [ H@-#q Im m W5 sK qI; Kzm @m iB;47q s[Iq
@: K2 B=#q J iAq{ z> Aq{ @o Z Jq Iq[q I#q ] B@8 q yI2 B;K-
.X72 Jq =;7 X72 X Y @9q[o
@:" C7 i"j qJ T;" :@ i"X2" :C7 i"qJ qJ C7 Cm" @5 I#q @o Z;57
Z;7 tmK @87 ic2 AJ#q ]
2 @ [ ]
2 @-q @f Fq r@6 C;m "B8_Fq @
F" :@ "jqz@#" :Z C7 !@eq c6 J= b "@eq c6 J= b Y" :@ is{@2q

%

$ #! &" $
@& J= Y9 w[K#q GqKq @:; qI Zq[m q[{y B8_m ]
2 @-q @eq I2 k@
".[{
m iw[K Gq{ ]
2 @-q c ] qzo" :C7 iZ @9[8: @ \o K1 C4m m Cm @m
".Z0 Y Zq[a Y; I2 Y k@ i=0 rq[a ]
. [;2 @ @9 [{[@ Y :@ [`[#q T

X is=@4#q J: WKq C:
K_@ qJ6 B;2 @-q I75 ]

2 @-q b B4;9 @m I75 [;q ]
49!q c iYI75#q W Sq qJ:
Z;7 Zc hq tq[7a I8 @9[ Y9 [ \o [Kq Y I b qy @ qzo iYI75#q
iX:a@m X:qJ B8_Fq S b @9m qJ ]92 Y6 B8_Fq t@87 {I5 b m qJ ]92 b
)87#q B8_m Y @o @ qzo @m i@c o @:; Z2qK b B87 @ qz? ZqJ Z29 [Kq @m
H@-#q Y [5 Y AJ \7 @9 Y9 ib[ @ qzo YK=#q H@- Y H; Y c/
jX Z [5 Y b[ @ qzo X@
m ijX Z [5 Y iqIm G74 b jX Z;- @ Y
B{@ J: iB9q r@6q @@ {[= @9F Vz jB9q r@6q Y B
!q @ W;Iq @
] @9[{@- @/m YJq X:I75 ) B8_Fq {I5 YJq );47q Y @99; @ Wa@
I8, bo K-q Y IF W L hq @@0m @ BL X: [02 @y@5q ] Y6 iB8_Fq KI5
)89#q Y yqK Fq P2 @9 m [ Z K2 m A ]@q k]-q iX7 Z;7 hq \7a
[6 s{@ AqJ#q ] Y20q ] BKa [6 s{@ t@87 X:9 {I. B;47q s[Iq \o

$ #! &" $
246 Hamdeh
qIm @8_qy {K5 @8 YI:+q k@872q F i@y@5q ] @99y ] |[ b qJ [59 i@;87
I:@ X@!q X6 qzo" cq sc.q Z;7 Z[ W;I q[0m m q[@am {[= X
."Iq Kq Z7 =0m o qKm Z7 r@a=
Y B8_Fq kb> Y @9 K @ S i@ W \7 W L hq I9 {[= Zm I52 J@ VJ
W iZ [9> q[@ Jq U!@ X:Ia @;Iq Y X:`qKo X:{ Y X:;- XI|
{@m II k]- X6;l c6q qJ: C iX:9 @9 m [[q Y Z[ @9 G8 b Vz
b qJ [5 X s[Iq \o @: |[ b @:7_@ \7 syyK t@876q J iA@6q @:;q
K; U;5q m X72q A7 ] Ta[q X:;7 U09 b @( )87#q yq[ m \7 @99; c
X:m B;47q s[I7 @4a U@q }{Iq ] Kz @ iYL;8#q Vm B;> W& )476
J Ta X:ym [-@9 B2{Fq AqJ#q W [{I B9q r@6q @q \o [I
b] 872q U;5q Z;/5 Jq W82q qJ m Y; m IK gq Y6 U s[y @:m s[Iq
i[28 @8 G;a K; qJ Z;7 @9 @ Y6 G;a c [ i}@9q B@ Z; Ta[
m X72q A70 Ta[q X:;7 U09 b )87#q yq[ m \7 @99; c b" [5 VJ
Zc s{[0 ] I@-q @9 "YL;8#q Vm B;> W& )476 K; X: U;5q
qJ: \4 Z4 YIq ] V -q \o X: {qKq [ @%o AqJ#q Y W7q \o X:[I "
Z8{ I@!q ] [q T[ K 4 qJ \72 i"@;/q B@ \o X:[8& @2 y X: c;7/
. B;ceq B2K-q yI: qK0 {[19#q qJ ] @{@q \7 B;Jcq \7 hq
Kl ] iQ"q [ \7 );47q S ]57 Zc m ] II-q TFq S A@6q qJ
s[Iq m [ Iq k] \o y[2 qJ ] Aq iQ
"q [ \7 X:9 vK Zc
]9 W6 c@ @9y Z2q[ ceq @ cf G;.q [:4#q @!q B2;0 C@ @# B;47q

%

$ #! &" $
Y B4_@0 O b @/q B;47q s[Iq @!q B2;0 @ i@6 @| W ] @eq
] B;47q s[Iq F iceq [I @8 i@2;8 }@9q q[I ] @%o iYKgq y )87#q
b iX:c? q[6
O 8 = @2;8 )87#q [I ]: iG;.q @:[:4& ceq
T5 ) B9q r@6q @q \o s[Iq D; Y K4 b iKm y B4_@ B;47q s[Iq
L h q[.7 m \o yqK Fq W t@4q W [I ]: iX72 K; X72 ) T5 K;
B83 S8 gq iqJ ] q[K- m A )87#q W iZ@q ] X:;9 Zy@ ] W
qzo iB;47q s[Iq \o ]89 Zm B;47q s[I@ Q; ]q W@-#q Y A@6q qJ sII
.UK4q \o [I gq Z
m rL \o k@8b@ B;47q s[Iq q[5 i@@m @9 m \o y[2 UK4q qJ ] Aq
\o q[8@ B;47q s[Iq q[5 i@:9 @J X: B;47q s[Iq \9 b iKm B@8
\7 @95;72 ] W;.4q Y k]- @9876 @8 rqLFq J Km Z @5 q[45 rL
T;5q \7 M; yq[q K;6 W;6q S;8q \7 B8_@ ]`@#q }{I@ B5@q B876q
@:@.9 A2; kb> Y yqK m \o B;47q s[Iq ]= U4 K; J@ iYIq ] Z54q
B8_@ Km s[I ]9q Y Z;o U @ @ Y6 B78 @ @@9; @: s[ @:[`
B;47q s[I7 b@ Sq[q D; Y rLq qJ W6q qJ G4 b rLq W6q \7
B;@ Y [ I iZ@ K. W \7 Zq[ W \7 K0; m Z7 @3 \o WI m
mK5 m W Z9 uI @9 Y @ qJ iB;47q I` [ W ] 47 M; B;@ Y ] 47
XIm N;2 XI }@9q kb> P2 t@ K. ] mK5 @9 igq I@-q [ @8 q{[0
b @; bo @; Z[ Y( B;47q s[I7 Z;9 Y I;4 Im b Y6 B;47q ]I [
k]-q @m Q5 Z.- Z49 @:78 [: B;47q s[I7 q[I b [ j qz@# iKJ y@6
X;@4 \7 rLq qJ W6q qJ [ Z;o s[Iq ] I: OK [: Z;o [I Jq
qJ iB9q r@6@ k@ @8 G;.q Z: \7 ceq ]9# G`[ b B@ B;co

$ #! &" $
248 Hamdeh
@yqK m BFq t@5 S;8 ) B;47q s[Iq {@-b @+q G.4 b rLq qJ W6q
[ qJ m [5 ) @9F i]`@#q }{Iq ] qJ @9K @8 irL q W6q ] @9 qJ F
] @9 qJ Z;q Y xFq ]@q Y Iq W.49 [ [B`q K;] k@4 Z @ M; U!q
Z.- U72 @8; Fq T.9q [ i] L Z4. ] 47 Z4. [ }@ I VJ W6q
VJ @;47 M; Z28 ] [: iZ; N;2 Jq Z28& U72 @8; Kgq T.9q Z4
\7 )87#@ B5@q BKFq [7' }@9q B@ X28 @8 }@9q B@ I m IK [
qJ F Z9q r@6q \o X[I b X:qJ& )6 8 X:I m IK i@!q B2;
@9 @ i\@2 h@ z@;2q YIq Y vK"q yKq \o c` \o B@ \o X: s[y Z8L
Z78 @ yI ] B;47q s[Iq ) @:5;5 ] B;47q s[Iq ) K4q Y; q IK
. B;ceq q[Fq Y @:;o )9#q P2
@:;o B;7;.4q s[Iq B5K ] T7 X sIq B5;5 ] rqLFq W S ]57 Y
iB;ceq s@;!q q[4= m )87#q \7 A Zm \7 @2;8 ]57 i@:5;5 W_@[q
W_@m gq @m Y6 B;ceq s@;!q T= m A [5 @97 X:9; @99; kq[ B87 J
i@9Im ) ]q {[0q J ] qI gq mK5 @ X:@28 ] mK5 @9 @ yI ]
kb> m jK. W m K0 W ] yI2 yqK m Q5 Xm j] ceq S8+q W' Jq Y
jA6 b mK5 b ] m X72 X@ ) @ [87#q
\7 @2 m B5;5 @y{m qz? i]

ceq S8+q W' Jq [ K;Fq rq[ q m V
b
B @5@ T5 X i)8 }@9q X5 m ]/5 qJ W: B;ceq s@;!q @9q
.A@6q qJ qK@ B;47q s[Iq \o ] M; B;.q

%

$ #! &" $
B4_@0q qy@ F W: q \7 bm X:I m qJ \92 i[ @8 ZI KFq [ Kgq X5q
b B9q r@6q m U!q @b X[I )87#q Y s|@8#q B9q B4_@0q ] \Fq
M; X X:c` \7 W X:0 \7 X:7: \7 kb> I m Vz \928 {[:8 q q[I
m X:9 YK; vK {@l Y Jq II-q X:|@9 \7 X: cq \7 X:I W Q5 qJ
qK@
KFq I [;q \ i]J# T@ ZJ qJ Zm B X7#q Z;q kq{ X7#q ]7.
J iB9q r@6q @q \o [I Y( AqJ#q I75 Y W ]2 Y K; sca k@8q ]
X:96 ib :@ j{@4 [;47q W: kb>: W; qzo iqI sK; t@@9 ] @qK sK@
Y DI [ X isL_@ ib m AJ#@ sL_@ BI#q kq{ sc.@ A; . BI
K X: "K@ K W kq{ q[7a" [ Bq{Iq D; Y Z . BqKq D; Y Z42/
. Z;7 B8_@ @:7 AqJ#q Z [782 b Z[4@ X DI!q qJ
\7 X:0 \7 X:7: \7 )87#q K;@8 I m @IK @9 A@6q qJ: :I@-q
@2; q[@ X:9y q[K YJq )K-#q Y q[[6 b [5 Jq ceq [ qJ W: iX:K4
.[K X:I @& rL W
W;75q ) K4 K4q I I`@2q \o T@6q \o K4q S;8 [I Jq ceq W
X7 Z[5 b qJ j X @8 [K )87#q Y {[:8 Q5 [I kb>: )87#q Y
Y [5 k]-q P2 KFq G` [ @9 X i@;a @8: B9q r@6q s[y Y @; X:
@q \o [I )87#q W q{qK6 q{qK X6 @Kz @9 j B;47q s[Iq [;47 [5 qz@#
Zm Y @9mK iG`q Y; yI E:9& m [`[& I;5 K; @bq qJ Y6 B9q r@6q

$ #! &" $
250 Hamdeh
j @ T; G@.q T7@ iG@.q T7q Z;7 @ @& B9q r@6q s[y I;;5 Y I b
X@2q X:9 W;75q @ m j k@87 )45 @2;8 q[@ W jk@87 @2;8 q[@ W
j X@2 M; XK;@8
B9q r@6q @@ {[= k@872q iA@6q Z[ II Jq X;5q qJ @9 @ W:
X BK;"@ X: y[:-#q K5q ] Zm s{K/@ X72 X7 W i@9;2 @J q[2 {[:8 q @m
Y| ] Y6 X ZF iW@ X72 X@ ) K b X72 @97 i@ AJ& A:J @9 Y6
i
K6 @m [5; }@9q P2 Z;q ]89; iUI.q K6 [m AJ Z8q AJ G@.q T7q
X: y[:-#q Bcq K5q J qzo i [7 b ]
@8 b K8 @/m AJ @9 M;
] }@9q B@ iB;J#q \7 y[8 q X:;7 K4 m A@6q IK YJq }@9q B@ iBK;"@
@ T; j q[@ T; iK2 W;.4q b@8o [m j q[@ T; B;Jq K5q V7
X: y[:-#q K5q ] )87#q B@ @ @ T; iVJ q[[6 m [;q Aj q[@
B;ceq s@;!q @9q \o \2 Y [;q I2 [;q )87#q B@ @/m A BK;"@
y[2 m iXk@87 q[@ @8 Xk@87 [87#q y[2 m iZ4 H{@q I;2 m A iB5!q
b @97 qz? i)87#q B@ k@872q @q @9 @ @8 )87#q B@ k@872q @q [87#q
B;- X:qJ \7 )87#q {[:8 ]5 B9q r@6q @q \o k@872q )45#q [I
@9q \o [I @89; )y@a [6 b @9m Vz \928 i[L#q c/q B;- yK-q
q[7/ m A@6q \- YJq B@2q kb> \o B9@ Y @94[ @ qzo iB;ceq s@;!q
. B9q r@6q @q \o @9[y A
X YJq }@9q P2 Y qI qK; qK; Z28 @ \o K;- A@6q m ]9K Jq Sq[q
@%o X:@4> Y b sK@ @:;o s@Iq ~@Fq Y b B;47q s[Iq q[8:4 X [:54

%

$ #! &" $
k[ Y kcq qJ: [= YJq X kb> iX:_qIm X:[. Y B;47q s[Iq q[8:
] @9920 @9{@ X:/2 @9 [7. X:/2 @9 [759 }@9q Y K; is[I7 X:4q
[m @m isK@ B9q r@6q X: \o X:@ \ @2;8 )87#q q[I @9o [5 ik@4"q
qJ= m \o [6 b nK5 b YJq );Fq @: q [I }@ c
2 @9 @ [ BqKa
Bq{ b Bgq skqK [9 b X sK@ B9q r@6q Y Z7 YIq sI;52q Z54q
. kqIFq Vm c G a qJ c G a DI
r@6q \7 U7 m X72q Y k] Z54 b Y [I Y j qJ6 s[Iq ] W Y6

@m iqJ6 X: m @m [5 X jB9q r@6q \7 Z;m Z;@ Z7: K4 m B9q
X7 I[ b i] 47 m ]
47 C @ Z4a X7 I[ b qJ iB9q r@6q @@ {[=
~@m ]k@ w{@o ]92 AK5q MFq ] qIm @8_qy @97 Y ic6q qJ: [5 qIm
qJ Z;o K;- @ @[ B K2#q B;Jcq Y Z37 k]-q P2 T5 r @ X:; O8 Y
r@6q q[8:4 @: q m ]92 B9q r@6q @q ] @2;8 }@9q [I Y m A@6q
W2 $K6q lK5q O :Z C7 |@o iW;.4q Y k]- B=#q Z CK- iX:7: B9q
B9q r@6q [8:4 YJq X k@87 X:72 )8 W: q X72q D; Y }@9q
Y W67 )8 iB9q r@6q [8:4b YJq @: q ]92 X:;8 k@872q K; X:7@5
[ qzo "[872 b X9 o KJq Wm q[=@ " \@2 @ i$K6q lK5q O 9 Zq )85q
.Z;;m @:;45 ] @:@: @:_@87 ] @:[8 ] BFq A @
KJq Wm q[=@ " k@872q q[= m X:;7 k@872q K; ik@87 K; k@87 @4_@ Xm [5
[:4 ] YI75#q S T7 I Y6 Z;o }@9q [I Jq qJ Y "[872 b X9 o
X@2q m @9_@87 Y c5 @/m sK Y Km @Kz I j X@2q [ Y X72q [ @ iX@2q X72q

$ #! &" $
252 Hamdeh
@#@ M; qJ i@87 B;J#q K4q A W6 @m [ X@2 M; B9q r@6@ X@2q [
Y q[Fq J ) @ \7 X: ] k@872q Z@ @ W S8 [6- [ @%o B2 [ @%o
]q q[Fq J W ] hq [{ [ [ @ hq [ [ @ Z= qz? isK; t@ cq
@ X;5q Yq @ @8 X72q = X72 b Z= K2 [ qzo iX7m b @m :BqK. V @ @:28
Wm [=q @92 "[872 b X9 o KJq Wm q[=@ " hq @ ) i Ho .. Z[{ @ hq
KJq Wm ib @2 [L#q KJq ] OKq Wm jKJq Wm X Y i[872 b X9 o X72q
q[=@ m ilK5q Wm X KJq Wm "[1 @! Z @o KJq @9L Y @o" \@2 @ @8 [
@9Lm" lK5q ] @( F iB9@ X@ @ qzo bo lK5@ X@ X@2q [6 b lK5@ X72q Wm
X@2q iB9;#q B9q )#q lK5@ X@2q [ X@2@ "X:;o L @ }@97 Y; KJq V;o
Y; KJq V;o @9Lm" icq sc.q Z;7 [Kq c [ Y;#q DI!q Y;#q lK5@
W ] YIq {[m W ] Z;q AJ @ ] [5 Jq [ X@2q qzo Y9 "X:;o L @ }@97
C72 Bgq qz? iX@2 M; q[ @ hq [{ @ hq @ [5 ceq [ qJ Z[5 @
@9m @9;o [9 X: X@2q = m Z4;
J W@ q W@ Z= X@2q )8 }@9q
rK @9 Y iW; Km qJ k@872q Z8: @ q[8:4 m @: q kb> B4;
m [5
Y A@ ] B;47q s[I@ S8 Y P2 W52 J= @&{ BK4q J @- qJ
.@@9 @:7;a@4
] K b iX@2 = W@7 G8 b B;47q s[Iq m ] iB5;5!q J Z@ Z96
@m Y6 i\yq @8: W@ W@ @ iKFq tq[Iq W ) B;47q s[Iq ) B059q J
YJq kb> W m \o qK0/ ]4 Im C9 o B;47q s[Iq X:4 B5;5!q J [m
]9 B1[ J K6m m S;0m b Z9 [K X @& s@Iq @:; M; @& s[Iq [8:
X72q Wm Y q[. m Y q[96 8 @# B;47q s[I7 r@q Y( }@ @9 m ]q[e
B@2b@ X bm B9q r@6q ~[. Y X:q{I B=#q X: Y [96 8 YJq Y

%

$ #! &" $
b ]9m @4l [m @;@ B9q r@6q Y ~[.9q J q[{y Jq )I5#q k@872q q[=
YJq Vm @F B: [[6 I X:m s[I7 )8#q ]q[o P2 Y;m m S;0m
m B;J87 ).
2#q S qK;m U4q Jq A@6q qJ: B: @:@y ] s[Iq ] [920
Y X:qKo X: W;7/ [ B9q r@6q @q \o X: W; b YJq }@9q kb> s[y
.YIq
] q[am X:m k@y@ q[K b = X:.m @= @9q[o P2 U72 B;/ @;/ @9 qzo
X:qJ bc5q B9q r@6q ~[. q[8:4 m Y @:; [96 8 B@6 ] BL9
YJq @9_@87 Y @9{ Jq X/q uqKq qJ \o t@4bq y B@2bq y X:a@m
kb> I;4 Km B: Y i@9;7 X:7/ \o Xy[: \o J @987 BI5 ] @Km
lK5q q[8:4 m @:7 b@ ]02 b s[Iq m @:9 M; @ s[Iq \o [9 YJq
W;.4q \7 @:[y ] W8- s[Iq m [m m I{m Z4 C[q ] Y6 sK@ B9q
Y6 iB9q r@6q @@ {[= X:7 Xk@87 K; Xk@87 @2;8 )87#q U@q
[5 b ] Fq ]
47q B;47q s[Iq ] G`q K4q iX@27 @@q X@2q K; bc5o X@2q
UK4q qJ j X6!q [ @8 qJ ]J @m [5; ] 47q K; @m ]J& ] = qJ ]J @m
]92 @9 ty{ ]q B876q B;47"q s[Iq B;47q s[Iq ) sK@1q BK[ q K4q [
) qz ZJ Y = B= ] \7 @ ) qJ iX:qJ \7 )87#q B@ k@5o
AJ#q \7 y[8 q Iq Y I[q uK qJ6 ] ceq S8+q W1 ZJ Y = \7
)87#q K;@8 W/ m [- YJq kb> qzo i@;9 @; B9q r@6q \7 K4
)54 @9 Y iB;47q s[Iq ] X:7: bo B;-"q J X:k@ @ B;47q s[Iq A
\Fq B;ceq s@;!@ i\Fq B;ceq s@;!q I;2 m Aq[q Y m )54 [6 m [{m
kb> Z782 @ J@ ik@872q K; @:; @ k@87 @:; @ Zm S AJ* @:; Y6 X
.@6 W ] @| W ] Z782 m A Jq [ k@872 q[; Jq

$ #! &" $

Quran and Sunna or The Madhhabs A Salaf-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quran and Sunna or The Madhhabs A Salaf-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quran and Sunna or The Madhhabs A Salaf-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qurʾān And Sunna Islamic

Qurʾān and Sunna or the Madhhabs?: A Salafi

Madhhabs – Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī – Salafism – Traditionalism – Fiqh – Ḥanafī school

ISSN 0928-9380 (print version) ISSN 1568-5195 (online version) ILS 3

Salafism is sometimes compared to Protestantism because it strips interpretive

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

schools, especially the Ḥanafī madhhab. In post-Ottoman Syria, Muslims man-

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

Albānīʾs Anti-Madhhab Polemic

Albānī uses historical circumstances connected with the emergence of the

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

The Lecture on Defending Salafism

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Translation of “Misconceptions About Salafism”

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

scholars (taqlīd) or following the madhhabs. I already referenced their

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

who say: “So-and-so has narrated to me from so-and-so”, or like scholars

ilhām to be intellectual knowledge; rather he considered it to be a spiritual knowledge

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

increasing numbers and partisanship, their earlier beliefs do not actually

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

Therefore, what were the common people in those golden centuries

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

What is considered knowledge, and who is considered a scholar? We

59 Referring to Sufis who dance in remembrance of God.

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

tween Salafism and all other groups. An ignorant person is ignorant

63 See note 56 for an explanation of the term khalafī.

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

J= [ qzo i@eq M4 Y J= m S;0 b Y [5 i]  2 @ m ]

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

. [;2 @ @9 [{[@ Y :@ [`[#q T

K_@ qJ6 B;2 @-q I75 ]

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %   

\7 @2 m B5;5 @y{m qz? i]

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

J= [ qzo i@eq M4 Y J= m S;0 b Y [5 i] 2 @ m ]

. [;2 @ @9 [{[@ Y :@ [`[#q T

K_@ qJ6 B;2 @-q I75 ]

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

\7 @2 m B5;5 @y{m qz? i]

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

r@6q \7 U7 m X72q Y k] Z54 b Y [I Y j qJ6 s[Iq ] W Y6

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %

Islamic Law and Society 24 (2017) 211-253 %