Lovely discussion, May Allah reward you for your contributions to this discussion. I am a brother from London who is very exposed to the divisions between the Salafi and Sufi Muslims in the UK. One question I have always been confronted with when discussing this particular division with my Salafi brothers is the categorisation between the difference in Aqeedah and the difference in Fiqh. The basic premise of the Salafi's (I only use this example as I am familiar with it) is that a difference in Fiqh is tolerable but a difference in Aqeedah is unforgivable. Categorizing issues as being under the umbrella of Aqeedah, such as the Mawlid, interacting with the ruler and unity come to mind specifically, lends itself to conflict/intolerance when differences in these matters arise. You touched on the topic but how can we fairly categorise these contentious issues in Fiqh or Aqeedah without favouring one side over the other? And if we can do this, can there be a tolerable difference in Aqeedah when these issues are presented in a black-and-white manner?
I haven't finished listening to the entire 2 hour discussion yet. Your question touches on what the first speaker, Ovamir, said early on about a tradition of tolerance, a doctrinal requirement often implemented in practice by Muslim states and societies of various description. He extends this to a discussion of Madhhab, or Schools of Thought: Hanafi, Shafi'i, etc. One core argument of the Salafis is that these schools of thought disrup the "unity" of the Muslims - seemingly ignoring 1400 years of history before the advent of Salafism in the late 19th century CE. Schools of Thought did not set out to be legal traditions though eventually evolved into such. The practice of Muslim states was often to identify one or another school to inform it's core legal doctrine while leaving individuals to their own personal practice. Salafis, being modernists, adopted from modern Western political thought the notion that a ruler must impose one law and that that law must apply to all equally - this brought them into conflict with traditional practice. There were some attempts to create a unified law from the various Sunni schools. The Tanzimaat in the last days of the Ottoman State is one, and King Abdul Aziz b. Saud, founder of the third Saudi state, attempted the same in the 1930s. Both attempts failed but the failure of the Saudi one is instructive: the Saudi ulema were unable to difine a unitary law because they had all been trained in Hanbali fiqh. They eneded up designating one Hanafi legal manual for use by the Saudi state and left it at that - and since this was the taditional school in the Gulf region, that worked fine. Both attempts to restructure a "modern Sharia law" reflect contemporary political concerns about how a modern state should be legally structured. This is quite different from core doctrinal questions, or Aqeedah.
@@MCJSA interesting points thank you. I wanted to know more about whether we can manage differences in Aqeedah without either ignoring the division or flinging insults. Is it even worth engaging with either of these groups on these issues? It becomes so bleak and frustrating when they resort to their mode of tribal thinking when there are much bigger issues at stake
@@Muhsin117 With respect to managing doctrinal differences, the experience of others is, perhaps, instructive. As only a casual observer, one notices that endemic violence abates among Christians once the political power of religious factions wanes. Doctrinal distinctions remain but most people either don't understand them or don't care. It is their exploitation for political gain that incites and perpetuates division. Ovamir does mention this toward the end of hour 2 in this convo, addressing a comment about the lack of "safe spaces" for Muslims to discuss doctrinal difference. He says that he found this space in academic conferences, and that generally this is easier in non-Muslim countries. I suspect that this is because in these places, the old-country politicians have little interest or influence - not always, but often. So, perhaps the focus should not be on ironing out doctrinal differences but rather on eroding the power of parochial political actors. This is difficult in the traditional Muslim world, where they still have virtually unchallenged power. Elsewhere, though, it can be done. The important first step, however, is to understand the problem.
Disagreement about "Mawlid" celebrations @ ~m 10: is described as marginal yet explosive on social media and embedded in a general discussion of divisiveness having identified protagonists as either Salafi or Sufi. The Salafi faction tends to view the world through a political lens and subordinates doctrine and practice to inherently political motivations. The Sufi groups take the opposite view and focus on doctrine as distinct from politics. This is an important distinction that needs to be considered in more depth.
I don't think we can overcome sectarianism by drafting in sectarians to "solve" the problem. Salafi vs Sufi football matches are fine and fun, but most Muslims are neither Salafis nor Sufis, and I'll venture a guess that the vast majority don't give a toss about Asharii, not Asharii or whichever of the 57 flavors rando prefers. Another contention is that many of these "divisions" are in fact tribal - especially in the traditional Muslim world - and have nothing at all to do with argument or position or understanding... it's just, "Are you with us or against us". Arguing with tribals is like arguing with MAGA. It's a waste of time and a waste of resources. The US is interesting, I think, because here these things tend to melt away - excepting rancor deiberately nurtured - as people find distance from the cynical cult leaders who exploit tribal loyalties for personal power, influence, and wealth.
Lovely discussion, May Allah reward you for your contributions to this discussion. I am a brother from London who is very exposed to the divisions between the Salafi and Sufi Muslims in the UK. One question I have always been confronted with when discussing this particular division with my Salafi brothers is the categorisation between the difference in Aqeedah and the difference in Fiqh. The basic premise of the Salafi's (I only use this example as I am familiar with it) is that a difference in Fiqh is tolerable but a difference in Aqeedah is unforgivable. Categorizing issues as being under the umbrella of Aqeedah, such as the Mawlid, interacting with the ruler and unity come to mind specifically, lends itself to conflict/intolerance when differences in these matters arise. You touched on the topic but how can we fairly categorise these contentious issues in Fiqh or Aqeedah without favouring one side over the other? And if we can do this, can there be a tolerable difference in Aqeedah when these issues are presented in a black-and-white manner?
I haven't finished listening to the entire 2 hour discussion yet. Your question touches on what the first speaker, Ovamir, said early on about a tradition of tolerance, a doctrinal requirement often implemented in practice by Muslim states and societies of various description. He extends this to a discussion of Madhhab, or Schools of Thought: Hanafi, Shafi'i, etc. One core argument of the Salafis is that these schools of thought disrup the "unity" of the Muslims - seemingly ignoring 1400 years of history before the advent of Salafism in the late 19th century CE. Schools of Thought did not set out to be legal traditions though eventually evolved into such. The practice of Muslim states was often to identify one or another school to inform it's core legal doctrine while leaving individuals to their own personal practice. Salafis, being modernists, adopted from modern Western political thought the notion that a ruler must impose one law and that that law must apply to all equally - this brought them into conflict with traditional practice. There were some attempts to create a unified law from the various Sunni schools. The Tanzimaat in the last days of the Ottoman State is one, and King Abdul Aziz b. Saud, founder of the third Saudi state, attempted the same in the 1930s. Both attempts failed but the failure of the Saudi one is instructive: the Saudi ulema were unable to difine a unitary law because they had all been trained in Hanbali fiqh. They eneded up designating one Hanafi legal manual for use by the Saudi state and left it at that - and since this was the taditional school in the Gulf region, that worked fine. Both attempts to restructure a "modern Sharia law" reflect contemporary political concerns about how a modern state should be legally structured. This is quite different from core doctrinal questions, or Aqeedah.
@@MCJSA interesting points thank you. I wanted to know more about whether we can manage differences in Aqeedah without either ignoring the division or flinging insults. Is it even worth engaging with either of these groups on these issues? It becomes so bleak and frustrating when they resort to their mode of tribal thinking when there are much bigger issues at stake
@@Muhsin117 With respect to managing doctrinal differences, the experience of others is, perhaps, instructive. As only a casual observer, one notices that endemic violence abates among Christians once the political power of religious factions wanes. Doctrinal distinctions remain but most people either don't understand them or don't care. It is their exploitation for political gain that incites and perpetuates division. Ovamir does mention this toward the end of hour 2 in this convo, addressing a comment about the lack of "safe spaces" for Muslims to discuss doctrinal difference. He says that he found this space in academic conferences, and that generally this is easier in non-Muslim countries. I suspect that this is because in these places, the old-country politicians have little interest or influence - not always, but often. So, perhaps the focus should not be on ironing out doctrinal differences but rather on eroding the power of parochial political actors. This is difficult in the traditional Muslim world, where they still have virtually unchallenged power. Elsewhere, though, it can be done. The important first step, however, is to understand the problem.
Disagreement about "Mawlid" celebrations @ ~m 10: is described as marginal yet explosive on social media and embedded in a general discussion of divisiveness having identified protagonists as either Salafi or Sufi. The Salafi faction tends to view the world through a political lens and subordinates doctrine and practice to inherently political motivations. The Sufi groups take the opposite view and focus on doctrine as distinct from politics. This is an important distinction that needs to be considered in more depth.
Be happy be peaceful
🇳🇵Nepal kathmandu koteshwor from watching
The sister from Yemen came here before me 😭😭😭😭
I don't think we can overcome sectarianism by drafting in sectarians to "solve" the problem. Salafi vs Sufi football matches are fine and fun, but most Muslims are neither Salafis nor Sufis, and I'll venture a guess that the vast majority don't give a toss about Asharii, not Asharii or whichever of the 57 flavors rando prefers. Another contention is that many of these "divisions" are in fact tribal - especially in the traditional Muslim world - and have nothing at all to do with argument or position or understanding... it's just, "Are you with us or against us". Arguing with tribals is like arguing with MAGA. It's a waste of time and a waste of resources. The US is interesting, I think, because here these things tend to melt away - excepting rancor deiberately nurtured - as people find distance from the cynical cult leaders who exploit tribal loyalties for personal power, influence, and wealth.