I am a revert and a Salafi. you are so selfless, reasonable and your analysis is always based on evidence. Thank you sir.

Paul I am salafi and so impressed with your research and hard work. Infact going to make dua for you.

You are like a machine! Your posting rate is incredible!! wow

Hmm, thank you. Keep blogging. Love to hear from u.

I stopped labelling people the moment I learned more about my own deen. We always have a yardstick; The Quran and the Sunnah. So I learned to listen to the evidence first. I'm well aware of the huge sin of takfir and dividing the ummah. May Allah guide us all the haqq.

What I love about your bloggings, vloggings & podcasts is they are all on academic evidence-based understanding of the topics presented.

nice upload Paul. Looking forward to your next ones.

Each time I watch a video on this channel I feel more appreciation and love for Paul. I have been following Dr. Yasir Qadhi for a few years now and I watched hundreds of hours of content, including methodical lectures, interviews, and series like the excellent ~150 hours Seerah series in English. I come from a traditional training in Asha’ri creed and I find him to be fair in a lot of how he addresses controversial topics, but I’m not academically trained rigorously enough for my view to have much weight. Just wanted to share. Also, it would be great if we can get an interview with Dr. Yasir and Paul and I believe it can be very beneficial to learn more and see the two amazingly genuine brothers together. Thank you, Paul. You work is amazing, your energy is inspiring, and this channel is such a gem. ❤

I just defended you because Muslims shouldn't say things without evidence, anyway I would love to see you have a podcast where Christians can phone in and debate or ask questions, we need as many Dawah channels as possible. May Allah bless you and reward you for the work you are doing. My Salaams

Interesting work, and the channel has very high quality content. I would like to point out however that Yale should not really be taken as a reference when it comes to validating Islamic Theology :-)

thanks brother for sharing your academic research into these topics.

Great work! Always an interesting listen

Brilliant episode. I love it. Jazakallah khairan.

You never fail to amaze me. You are the proof that Allah guides anyone He wills.

Thanks for this and your other posts... Now I have much better knowledge about other faiths..

Very nice indeed! I appreciate how your focus is not stained.

Hey Paul! I think it’s very important to distinguish between salafi (a 19th century movement) and atahari creed. Salafis adopt the Athari creed while Athari creed doesnt automatically entail salafi. Squares and rectangles kinda thing. Thank you Paul!

Brother Paul, I am a Salafi, and I love you in the sake of Allah for your fairness and objectivity. May Allah show us the truth as it is, and help us to pursue it.

assalamo alaikum paul . thanks for including Brother Abu Khadeejah and SPUBS. i believe their POV needs to heard as well.

surprised you would comment on internal matters within the islamic diaspora :) i've been catching up with your videos on youtube. very nice content.

We as Muslims do not view Yale University as the criteria to decide which Islamic school of Aqeeda is correct and which is new.

If the Salfi creed is the origional creed why we should not follow it?

Your angle is correct taken as well possible in this forum

thx u brother paul I learned a lot from you💚✅🤲

Mr Paul, you are indeed one of those who contemplate...a truly smart and intelligent man! Mashallah!

Paul, You really impress me on how your critical mind finds its way through very complex, controversial and delicate issues. Many Muslims who read Quran and study religion identify themselves as following the original faith when they are actually following a version that came later in history and does not capture the pure Aqieda and the way of the prophet. I guess Allah knew that, if he leaves religion preservation to man, the man will eventually alter it. Preservation of pure religion requires divine intervention, IMHO.

asalamu-alaykum. this is an interesting video.

Great video!

Mr. Williams I would very much appreciate, as I believe many others would, a list of books that you endorse or recommend reading. If this exists already, my apologies.

Very true and interesting conclusion

Well that’s great. I agree 100 % with your description you just made about the “meaning” of Salafi. The only thing I disagree with you about is that I do not consider it a “movement” or a “group” but it’s an approach or a way of understanding to protect the earliest “pure” theology of islam from the impurities of later Greek philosophy and other deviations in creed.

Paul what's it exactly in you that you always manage to get interesting topics up for discussions??

Paul can you please do an informative video about the Kharijites and their descendants the Ibadis ?

Great video sir as usual. May I suggest you read a book called 'Najhul Balagha'which means Peak of Eloquence. I'm very sure you will find it a very interesting read. It's a compilation of lectures and sermons one of the prophet Mohammed's( peace be upon him) close companions . Right at the beginning of Islam.

you are absolutely right. الله يفتح عليك.

Asharism is salifism. Asharism is another way of looking the early creed or looking salafism from another angle. Asharism has more interpretation of the sifat than the early salafism and the need for that was avoiding misconception of the sifat, not rejecting the sifat. That is all. The interpretation has also base in the early salaf.

Thank you for the video, what is interesting is that a period of popular Salafism also emerged in 16th century Ottoman Istanbul as well. they were popularized by Qadizade Mehmet and his followers were known as Kadizades. So the sudden emergence of 'salafism' isn't a new thing.

I think the main problem with the Islam today is the over-analysis and the over-indulgence of the Islamic scholars of the main tenants of Islam which are in reality very simple and should not be made complicated by opinions of different scholars. This results in the formation of different sects despite their basic beliefs being same. Islam is not that complicated. You just have to believe in the absolute authority of Allah, all the prophets, their scriptures and the judgement day. Thats it. This much is enough. No need of different sects in Islam. Sorry for my bad English.

The term Calam was referring to greek philosophy influence during the early days of the mu3tazila. However, after it has been purged from the ideas that lead to contradictions and inconsistencies, it started referring to the science that defends the creed of Islam using reasoning proofs. The salaf in their negative comments about Calam were not talking about the work of Al Ashari or Al Baqillani or Al Juwayni or Al Ghazali. They were talking about the mu3tazila.

We have to distinguish between the (salaf) and (salafis) (Salaf) means the early generations of muslims while the modern term (salafi) means those who follow Ibn Taymiyyah. the modern salafis who follow Ibn Taymiyyah have different creed from the earliest creed of salaf. The earliest creed was to believe in the text without explaining it (تفويض) while Ibn Taymiyyah believe in it literally giving it anthropomorphic (تجسيم) meanings.

YOU ARE SMART MY BROTHER ...I AM SOOOO PROUD ABOUT YOU ....

Ended up liking before watching 😅 but am gonna hear completely ~After hearing completely~ Somehow your British accent felt more nuanced this time 😅 I had originally felt that Salafism is the right thing, because of their premise that following the religion of the first three generations is following Islam. As of last or last to last year, I have just washed my hands off anything that ends in an -ism or is anything like that, because by their very nature they are limited. I have also listened to Dr Yasir Qadhi a lot, and in one of these sessions where he was forced to discuss creed, he said in the end something similar to that this discussion is not too fruitful because whether athari or ashari, people still do not show any major differences in righteousness, closeness to religion etc. i.e. the outcome is not very different for being ashari or athari 😅

I love you for the sake of Allah (swt) , brother Paul , keep up the good work 👍

Hi Paul, would you make a video on the Maturidi school which is the main competition of Ashari. Comparison of Salafi, Ashari, and Maturidi is another good idea. Thanks,

It's important to note that the mantle of being 'salafi' is claimed by multiple groups that have their differences and by people who don't follow any particular group. I feel being 'salafi' has been hijacked by groups like SPUBs and the followers of Rabee' Almadkhali who claim it for themselves while spending almost all their time criticizing people sometimes justly and a lot of the time unjustly. A lot of people who call themselves salafi and adopt the salafi creed don't like SPUBs at all. What is common between those who call themselves salafis is their creed and I think it's inaccurate to criticize salafis in general for something only a small part of salafis do. At the end of the day, what matters is not the label but the belief and actions. We are called Muslims in the Quran and that's sufficient as a label as long as we have the correct creed and follow Allah's law to the best of our ability and knowledge.

Salafi means: Following Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of Salaf (the prophet and the companions).

Im not very sharp so forgive me for some stupid questions lol. Was Asari Creed a dominant creed before Ashari and Maturidi Creed? What was status of Asari Creed during the dominance of Mutazilla?

You are very brave for objectively seeking out truth as it is.

I have always found that history always sides with the truth.

There are details that Yasir Qadhi brushes over in his paper. What some have already mentioned in the comments is that the original athari creed accepted the attributes of Allah as is, leaving the meaning to Allah as He Himself knew best what He meant by them. One of them being ibn taymiyyah being representative of the athari creed "in general". but either one is or isn't the same as the other. The issue with the salafi approach is the literalist approach of the siffaat (attributive names). And you clearly see in the earlier works of the Atharis that no meaning was ascribed what so ever and even Imam Ahmad who the athari methodology of deriving theology comes from stated negation of meanings or negations of possible logical conclusions i.e. "He is not a body". Where as the taymiyyan/salafi creed does have the issue of anthropomorphism or at least that their statements logically follow to that extent, and no negation is made, and if one is made or superimposed on to their creed, they say that it is a negation of the attribute. Where as the original athari creed specifically did have negations of such. More over ibn taymiyyah delved even deeper philosophically (even though he was opposed to Kalam as a method) and had greater creedal issues. I do agree with the athari creed being the earliest however in meaning none of the 3 schools differ on the meaning in key creedal issues, they only differ on the method. You can check out Shaykh Yusuf bin Sadiq al-Hanbali al-Athari who holds to the athari creed and has an ijazah (permission to teach) from the Islamic University of al-Azhar. And he affirms this as well that the ash'arites preserved the meaning of beliefs of the atharis even though as an athari he disagrees with the methods. I think that would be a more assessement to measure academic honesty, since islamically we would go by chains of transmission and the chains of transmission of al-Azhar go back to the original scholars.

Alhamdulillah sir you have looked into the matter quite well mashallah but I wanted to say something for me how I see this matter as a "salafi" myself that Islam is vast in understanding but only in fiqhi (jurisprudential) matters not aqeeda (creedal) matter but we should not deny evidences from the Qur'an and the sunnah which is unambiguous or apparent if Allah Sub'hanauatala says something unambiguous then it is what it is we shouldn't interject our ideas in it but in matters which is broader which is not clear either from the Qur'an or the sunnah then it is about understanding and it is the "salafi" methodology that the rulling must be nearer to the understanding of the Qur'an the way the prophet pbuh and his companions understood it. And this is a humungous discussion cannot right in one comment. May Allah Sub'hanauatala bless you sir JazakumAllahu khairan

very good job Paul ! i have some comments if salaf creed is the one unic authentic creed , is it not an oblifation to follow it and reject achaa'ria and suffism and all other groups? how and where can we found the salafi creed early books? did you read why yasser alkadhi was refuted by salafi students? are they right or wrong ? is it part of salafi creed to refute the errors in order to protect people? isnt logic? did you talk to shamsi in speakers corner?

The Athari creed definitely predates Asharism/Maturudism. Also Asharism has changed a lot. The early Asharis have beliefs that would be unpalatable by modern Asharis. To be fair the Athari creed also developed over time. But it is more or less the same. The statements of some of the early Asharis would scare most Asharis today - maybe they might even consider some of it blatant disbelief. I don't know alot about the Maturidi school - if it went through changes like the Ashari school or not?? What i do know is that they consider each other sister schools now; whereas historically they used to refute each other. They kind of ganged up on the Atharis now. Great video by the way.

The Athary school is the most authentic and it is the established methodology of the companions and early Imams, however when the Mu'tazilites appeared the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah felt duty bound to respond in the language of the Mu'tazilites which is logic and ilmul Kalam! These schools developed and became part of Ahlus Sunnah! The Athary Aqeedah is the Aqeedah of the Hanbali school I know this because it's my school and in all the accademic catalogues of lineagesأثبات for the Fiqh and Aqeedah and the classical works and their various unbroken chains I find that these 2 other schools were eventually accepted as part of Ahlus Sunnah! One Imam who I have a quite short chain to him and his works is Imam Assafaareeni and in his own explanation of his poem of Aqeedah he clearly states that Ahlus Sunnah is three: The Athariyya, and the asharis and matureedis. However with the advent of modern salafis they went against the Hanabila and started to attack these other 2 schools! This is why I do not subscribe to the salafis though I love Naasir Uddin Al-Albaani and Ibn Uthaymeen who is Hanbali but still very critical of the 2 other schools. Abu khadeeja is not a scholar or an accademic infact he left Madinah half way through because he couldn't keep up. I lived in Birmingham and know the disunity these lot cause they are very extreme indeed in terms of shunning other Muslims. And so the scholars and Imams had matured in their understanding and had accepted each other and then ibn Abdul Wahaab came- who is in many of my chains- and from him the modern salafi movement and regressed which in turn caused a chain reaction with Al-Azhar- who I also carry their accademic chains via my Sheikh one of Ali Gommas top students- and hence old rifts were reignited and now today there is disunity!! I accept Ahlus Sunnah as these 3 schools and I pray in any Masjid whether Sufi or salafi or in between and I advise every Muslim to do the same! Is the Athariyya Aqeedah the most authentic? Yes! Is it the only viewpoint? No! But Islam is a vast tradition and mature enough to accept these differences and it's only the immature who contradict this. The salafis of wright street spubs write many books despite not being qualified to speak about religion at all and my own teachers in Saudi do not very much like these over the top people as they are Hanbali and identify with the 4 sunni schools of fiqh.

Paul kind sir, in one of your videos after observing your wisdom, I said you're already a source of guidance to many people. As such, people might start rendering to your videos for reference. May I suggest that you simply make these presentations without such declarations as you made here, good sir? I'm not sure how to direct this message to only you and not display it publicly. My point is you confirmed the earliest creed, the way of the Companions, the purest Islaam against the radical advent of ilm kalaam and then said we don't have to follow it and rather use the same ilm kalaam? Isn't that incoherent and ironic? With kind request

"Obey Allah and obey His messenger" and also "today I (Allah) have perfected your religion for you" ...are two verses of the Holy Quran as many know. So obeying the messenger in what he said and did while alive (including what he didn't say or do) naturally becomes the creed (and Rasulilah (saw)) practically lived it for the ummah to witness and follow. And if the deen ( way of life) was perfected and completed as a favour from God to His subjects then surely there can be no other creed that is right besides the one the messenger and his companions lived upon. If the creed they were upon is called salafism (in present day fitan) then surely that is the way. The emergence of all the other creeds has led to contamination of the pure creed. Diversity of views between the companions of the prophet existed but the creed remained pure. These days new creeds come up as views differ.

I am a salafi Alhamdulillahi and it's well clear I am from Sierra Leone 🇸🇱

Paul! I feel there is a very subtle nuance that is lacking and that you might appreciate. We have to differentiate salafism from atharism. For traditionnal scholars, Salafism began in the 18th century and wrongly interpreted athari creeds by introducing anthropomorphist understanding to it. Asharis don't have any problems with the Athari creed. On the contrary, they all agree on the creed of Imam At-Tahawi for example. They only say that the Asharis expanded the Athari creed to make the Sunni creed a relevant response against there contemporary anthropomorphists and Mu'tazili rationalists of their time. The same with sufism. The majority of sufi masters are Asharis-maturidis. Yet they all recognized Sh.Abd el Qadir Al Jilani as one of the greatest Imam ever even though he was a hanbali-athari scholar. The critic of the traditional sunnis today against salafism (and you find the same critic in the past centuries against some extreme-deviant Athari who were accused of anthropomorphism) is that 1-Some salafis deformed the original Athari creed. They took it as a way of justifying an anthropomorphic vision of God saying the like of "God have a hand which is a body but different than the kind of hand we know". 2- Salafis rejected the madhabs methodology which impose the following of one of the four school of law as long as someone is not a complete Mujtahid (Independent legal Scholar of the divine law who reached the highest level). Because of that, they claimed that almost anyone could interpret the law as long as he have evidence from the Qu'ran or the Sunnah. For traditional scholars, this is the greatest way of destroying the religion. Why? Because I can't use the Qu'ran as an evidence for legal rulings since I didn't master the highest the level of it's arabic language like did Imam Shafii who traveled 15 years to acquire it and I didn't master all the tools of legal methodology that Imam Malik inherited from the salaf who took them from the Sahabas. The same way I can't use an authentic Hadith as I didn't master the whole corpus so that there might be another one that say the exact contrary which might be explained by a specific context, etc. The results of their legal methodology was a complete disaster as it justified any ignorant one (who taught he wasn't ignorant because he had memorize texts) to make his own legal understanding which resulted in the propagation of takfir (accusing muslim of rejecting islam) and accusations of shirk (accusing muslim of associating other to God). All of this caused huge disasters since the very beginning of there movement until our very days, the greatest of which was the emergence of islamic terrorism justifying the killing of innocents, muslim and non-muslims alike, on that basis. Even if we agree that salafis in general don't preach terrorism, we have to acknowledge that all contemporary islamic terrorist movements emerged from the Salafi methodology. From Boko Haram, to Daesh, to Al Qaeda, you can't find one single terrorist movements who emerged from the traditional sunni understanding: "Research has shown how apolitical Saudi-backed schools in Somalia in the early 1990s, known as Ittihad schools, mutated very suddenly into nurseries for the movement that became known as Shabab. Similarly, Boko Haram founder Muhammad Yusuf began his preaching at the Ibn Taymiyya mosque in Maiduguri having been instructed in Madkhalism by graduates of Madina University, but converted to a Nawaqidi interpretation. Abd el Rahman Abd el Khaliq, one of the most newsworthy Egyptian radicals, also studied in Saudi universities; as did Turki Bin' Ali, the "senior scholar" of Daesh" (Travelling Home, Abdel Hakim Murad, p230). And we can continue applying this to all the other movements... How weird would it be than that the revivers of the true creed brought the greatest calamity to the muslim world which is division, violence, intolerance and the shedding of blood in the name of the message of our beloved Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) For us, when you associate the Athari creed (which all Asharis respect) with salafism, you are confounding the noble athari creed with the critics of anthropomorphism made by the Asharites against some extreme-deviant hanbalis who misinterpreted atharism. As well, you are associating the noble Athari creed with the dangerous legal mind set built by the Salafis school that open the doors for takfir and accusations of shirk which then open the doors for violence and the spread the shedding blood. With all love and respect Paul, the reason why we love your channel is because you are mastering the christian theology and you're able to make us reflet on great islamic response to it in the contemporary time. This bring us all together. But if you start to deal into the most dividing subject that divides muslims nowadays before having really master the islamic tradition, it will brake this great harmony that we feel on your channel. I would recommend you (applying this to myself first as I'm in Egypt stydying): try to really study seriously the sunni tradition for the next years and than see after a while what kind of subject like that you feel to share as your opinion. You will be doing it with a far deeper consciousnees of the issues you're dealing which will avoid any possible confusion like the one I felt on this video. Please forgive me if I did say anything wrong. We love you! Ma Salam from Cairo!

Thank you br. Paul for being objective and not biased.

Alhamdulillah,Im salafi and happy you do your research,Quran and authentic hadiths.

Salam...from philippines

Aaaaaahh.. I just discovered your channel today (thanks YT recommendation) and after watching a couple of videos, this is THE ONE I was waiting for !!! I'm not sure I caught all the words and names you used (English is not my 1st foreign language).. but I'd love to say that I (as average person) believe that neither Allah swt nor His Messenger have called us sunni, or salafi or ashaari or whatever.. they just called us Muslims. As simple as it is. If one goes through complications such as philosophy, sufism, kalam, weird ideologies, etc. then they're deviating from the simplicity of the message of Islam which must be accessible to the kid as to the adult, to the illiterate as to the educated, etc. *The message is cristal clear. Allah swt is our Creator, we are in this life with a purpose to worship Him and only Him and He sent prophets and messengers to show us the way to worship Him.* So, as long as one sticks to Quran and Sunnah according to the way it was related and interpreted by Muhammad pbuh and his Companions.. we are on the Right Path. *Muhammad (pbuh) said, "The best people are those of my generation (Companions), and then those who will come after them (the next generation : Tabiin : followers), and then those who will come after them (the next generation : tabii attabiin : following the followers), and then after them, there will come people whose witness will precede their oaths, and whose oaths will precede their witness."* So the _Aqida_ Creed is related in Quran and authentic Ahadiths. As simple as it is and as it must be. When Allah swt (or His Messenger) says something about Himself, His Names and His Attributes, we just take it the way it is without complications. He states Nothing compares to Him so why try to understand what goes beyond their limited brain ?! The early trustful scholars (such as Ibn Taymiya) who were following Kitab and Sunnah have written volumes to quench one's thirst (for advanced learners). And they never claim being a part of a group or naming a group by their name. Though, as they are human beings, and they might be mistaken, we took what goes with *evidences* and we leave which doesn't. I (as average person) believe any "new" name or designation of a parti or group or sect or ideology or or.. created after the Messenger is nothing but deviation from Truth (with levels). PS : If my beliefs and thoughts go in line with a name or designation.. Alhamdulillah I still call myself *Muslim* . And Allah knows best,

What is the difference between the salafi aqeeda and the majority of sunni's aqeedah? Maybe a video on various theological differences between the major Muslim creeds?

Good work 👌👍

I still remember whilst studying at Medina University Saudi Arabia in the 80s we met an Algerian Shaykh in the Haram of Medina (Sidi Alawi Bendi Murad from the city of Oran). One of the students asked him why did Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyya reject Ibn Arabi (Shaykhul Akbar)? meaning, there had to be a reason, and the Shaykh gave the following reason saying; "Ibn Taymiyya was a great master of the exoteric sciences, whereas Ibn Arabi had not only knowledge of the exoteric sciences but also excelled in esoteric knowledge, even though they both took from the same ocean, with a difference that Ibn Ibn Taymiyya was like an angler standing outside the ocean and catching all different kinds of fish from the ocean. Ibn Arabi is like the diver with the oxygen-tank and mask and goes to the bottom of the ocean and brings back pearls and shows it to Ibn Taymiyya who says that it's not possible that these pearls could have come from this ocean because for all the years he's been at this ocean. And Ibn Arabi tells Ibn Taymiyya, "The only way that you can get to the pearls is when you dive to the bottom of the ocean. What a brilliant explanation indeed!

There 3 creeds but it's not really creeds they're just different methodologies. And ibn Abbas made the methodology of asharism when he interpreted that the hand of Allah means with strength. He was a salaf also. I advise you to go watch the video of Cheikh dedew that explain the 3 creeds in Islam and they're all accepted and part of authentic sunni Islam

I am sorry there is a debate on a athari Theologian named Muhammad ibn Karram from Sijistan whose creed is taken by Imam Darimi the Younger or the Second Imam Ad Darimi(he and Imam Ad Darimi senior actually has a name but i forgot both. The Imam Darimi i mean is the late Darimi) then Imam Ibn Taimiyyah took Imam Darimi creed, maybe you can look on Dr Arrazy disertation , Arrazy Hasyim is an Indonesian scholar who break away from Salafism and he wrote a desertation about the genealogy of creed of the salaf

As-salaamu wa 'alaykum brother. Ibn Taymiyya ascribed fawqiyyah to Allah, read the book "man qala bil jiha". Good book that deals with debate between Asharis and followers of ibn Taymiyya. Greetings from Denmark. Wa As-salaamu wa' alaykum.

This stuff is all interesting and some people will really study this but it is simply academic. Or water under the bridge, when you hear the Azan and get up, face the Qibla, straighten the rows, and pray together before Allah swt.... Perhaps take a step back.... I'm a PhD, don't over-hype a PhD in-and-of-itself... 😄 ..still credit to Yasir Qadri for doing a PhD in religion in a materialistic world!

The real problem is that most muslims don't differentiate between the Athery creed , also known as Hanbaly creed ,and Ibn Taimeia opinions. Yes, Ibn Taimeia creed is build upon the Hanbaly one , but he has certain main differences which most people don't know. We must distinguish between the Hanbaly creed ,Ibn Taymia opinion and Salafi (Wahhabi) creed.

Blogging theology what do think of sheikh imran hosein have you read his books ?

pls do a series on this. i am tired of namecalling between Hijb and SPUBS

I am Muslim. I am Salafi because I follow Al *Salaf* Al Saleh (The Pious Predecessors)

Salam brother Paul. I just want to comment on the very last sentence in which you state that "Yale wouldn't have given him[Yassir Qadi] a PhD if he was wrong". In fact, Yale and any other respected institution assists a PhD thesis based on whether it follows the scientific method of research and therefore meets their academic stander. In other words, you as a PhD candidate has the opportunity to claim whatever as long as you represent your case in a scientific method and language. So, the same institution, let us say Yale, might approve a PhD that reputes Yassir Qadi's thesis. thanks

A lot of people don't recognize that the athri creed is split into two parties. Ibn taymiya represents a historically smaller section of the athri creed who were not accepted in the earlier hanabile and subsequent hanabile until today. For any details of what I say I can refer you to ibn rajabs fadl ilm Al salaf. You would need to read between the lines slightly if you do not have prior knowledge but it is detailed in a section about ibn muqatil.

Very brave of you to talk about islam. The takeaway here i feel is that theologians debate ideas and definitions in all creeds. Its what they do.....but its mostly not important to lay members of the faith.

May Allah guide you to Islam. Thank you for making Muslims aware of this topic "Creed of the salafi" may Allah be pleased with them. First, I believe we need to know & understand the term "salaf", linguistically and technically. The term salaf was not invented by Imam Ahmad or Ibn Taimiyah, but it started at the time of the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him, when he used the term talking to his daughter on his sick bed saying to her "verily I'm your best predecessor" you can check the hadith in Bukhari & Muslim (وَإنِّي لا أُرَى الأجَلَ إلَّا قدِ اقْتَرَب، فاتَّقِي اللَّه واصْبِرِي، فَإنَّهُ نِعْم السَّلَف أَنَا لكِ). So, Muslims shouldn't be strangers to this term because term is also mentioned in the Qur'an and they need to have proper understanding & the correct knowledge because knowledge is based upon trust. (Knowledge is Trust). From Prophet Adam to Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon them, they are our pious predecessors. Their creed was the same, which was to Worship Allah alone & what is upon us is to affirm like how the Prophets & Messengers affirmed the existence of Allah etc, without addition or subtraction. From Abu Hanif, Malik, Shafi'i & Ahmad, all of them their creed was the creed of the salafi & they are our salaf. Whoever follows the Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him according to how his companions understood him then that person is amongst the followers of the methodology of the pious predecessors (salafi creed). The Qur'an & the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him were revealed in the time of the sahabas (companions) & the sahabas taught the ones who saw them, but never saw the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him, & the ones saw the sahabas taught the ones who never saw the sahabas. Those are the best three generations, like it comes in a hadith collected by Bukhari and Muslim, "The best people are my generation..." These generations where taught to affirm like how the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him affirmed & that the creed of Islam is not based on logic, but on evidence, which is the Qur'an & the teachings of the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him. Meaning Islamic takes the evidence first then logic follows. Why? so that we cannot change anything in the Islamic creed & Islam in general. Even if the evidence goes against our logic, it is a must to accept it because Allah is the All Wise. The saying of Ali may Allah be pleased with him that if the religion (Islam) was based upon logic we would've whipped under our leather sock. In conclusion, the salafi creed is the Islamic creed. The creed that teaches us to Worship Allah alone. The creed that teaches us to be dutiful to our parents. The creed that teaches us to be kind to our neighbors. The creed that teaches us to show mercy to the creation & spread peace & love. Hence, when we meet & depart we say: "Asalaam alaikum (Peace be upon, actual meaning is No harm will befall you from me) warahmatullahi (& the mercy of Allah be with you in this life & hereafter) wabarakatuh (and may He bless you).

Thanks for sharing it Sir but most importantly The book ( Quran) is still the same and one only ..

It’s interesting you mentioned Ibn Taymiyah never came up with anything new. While not everything he said was wrong, he did believe in things which none of the authorities of the Salaf ever said. The belief of Ibn Taymiyah does not absolutely equal the belief of the Salaf.

Well, Allah said many times in the Quran than no one will be pleased till you follow their religion. This applies to other groups who think they are muslims unfortunately they believe in corrupt versions of Islam. I'm a descendent of the first Muslims as I'm a Saudi. I have a video of one of the biggest Imams in Sufism in Egypt where his son talks of his father doing Hazra with Djins, common Egyptians don't know much so they believe what those magicians tell them. I want to translate it or if you trust a native speaker of Arabic to translate it then you post it in your channel it would be the biggest blow to Sufism. Get back to me here, I'm new to you channel just subbed.

I always wondered, were the Ummah from Abu al-Hassan until ibn Taymiyah in Dalall? And after him until Abdulwahab again? That makes no sense to me... and calibers like Salah ad-Din, without him Egypt would be Shia, or an-Nawawi, al-Qurtubi, al-Asqalani have been on the wrong Creed? Subḥān Allāh.

I used to watch you at speakers corner and you are a very nice man but I have heard on a Dawah channel that you have left Islam and are not a Muslim. I pray that this is not the case and if you have left; Why? You look very gaunt and look as if you've lost weight. I pray that you're in good health and I would plead with you to not leave Islam. Death is around the corner. Take care and my prayers are with you

I think, one information that is always left out when discussing creed is the basic difference between both Kalam based and athari based is just outwardly. Both have different methodology and approach as the Kalam based creed derived from the Kalam logic or 'aql, while athari derived from Understanding of Nas from Quran and Sunnah. The one missing point here is that both methodology have the same conclusions of which to acknowledge the existence of god, his attributes, prophethood of Saydina Muhammad and the prophet criterias. Ashaari does not negate any of the sifat, but rather group it in the specific category such as sifat Arrahman and Arrahim of which falls under category Sifat Qudrah. Similarly with athari creed, when the aimmah(imams) talk about ayah on Nuzul, of Yad or Wajh, those aimmah never put anthropomorphic meaning but just believe in this lafz and return the intended meaning to Allah. And this is one of the Ashaari popular stand which is tafweedh.

Could you make a video on Ibadi Islam?

Every legitimate Muslim is to follow the way of the prophet and the three pious generations. Abu Hanfia is known for his maturidiyyah aqeedah (although not names that then) and he was from Tabi'un (the second generation). What salafis are calling to is what every Muslim is calling to.

Hey there, how are you doing? Really good topic. I just want to maybe clarify some stuff around As-Salafiyyah. Basically everything a muslim should is based on the Quran, Sunnah and with the comprehension of the salaf us salih(righteous predecessors). After the death of The Prophet, some people tried to bring innovation to Islam through fabricated hadith. So people started asking for chain of narration of hadiths to differentiate the truth from falsehood. Thus the appellation Ahlus Sunnah Wa Jama'ah to differentiate who were on the right path on those on falsehood. Also it is said the muslims will divide into 73 sects, 1 sect on the right path and the 72 will be in the hellfire. Those adhering to the Quran, Sunnah and with the comprehension of the salaf us salih(righteous predecessors) being the right one. Ahlus Sunnah Wa Jama'ah, Al-Athari and As-Salafiyyah(there were some other appellation as well but they all adhered to the same principle) is the 1 sect on the straight path. I will try to give a famous question: Where is Allah? Answer: Allah is above his throne and that is what the Quran and the sunnah says. However some muslims believe that Allah is everywhere and thus create their own sect out of the Quran and the sunnah thus becoming part of one of the 72 sect. As for Yasir Qadhi, may Allah guide him back to the straight path, was a salafi at a point after his passage through the University of Madinah. However now you will see he deviated from that( you can find it on KZfaq itself, Yasir Qadhi refutes Yasir Qadhi) A blatant example is belief in the unseen. Yajuj and Majuj. You will find that he says that google map has identified everywhere on earth so there cannot be a creature that is there waiting to come out. ( I am paraphrasing here, you will find it more easily in the video) Scholars that are known for following Ahlus Sunnah: Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam Al-Ajuri( There are a lot more like the four Imams). In our times, Shaykh Al-Albani, Shaykh Uthaymeen, Shaykh Bin Baz, Shaykh Fawzaan, Shaykh Rabee, Shaykh Ruhayli( Also a lot more) Conclusion: Adhere to the Quran, to the authentic hadith( as soon as you find an authentic hadith that goes against what you were doing in the past, stop doing it and follow the sunnah of the Prophet) and the with comprehension of the salaf us salih(righteous predecessors). Example, if you read of the Quran and you start interpreting by yourself, everyone is going to have their own conclusion however if we follow how the Prophet taught the Sahabas everyone will be on the same understanding. A famous example is the understanding of the verse Surah 2:187 where the sahaba thought he needed to use a thread to know the time for sehri but the Prophet explained it was about the darkness of the night and the whiteness of the dawn. Hope that helps

Even if it's the earliest, it's still over a century removed, and we would have to completely reject nahj albalagha which contradicts it, but even if we reject its authenticity, there are contemporaries of them that completely rejected them like Al-Jahiz and his teacher, both in the 2nd century as well. As for yale and Islamic scholarship phDs in the US, they hand them over to anyone that can speak a little Arabic. Most Islam scholars lack rigor. John Burton is one of the few that tackled hadith and actually done original research in Islam (regarding doctrine of naskh). He has a book called The Collection of the Quran and other books on fiqh and hadith.

Paul have you studied about understanding of madarsa farahi. How do they understand the quraan

This video is short and to the point. Yasir Qadi left Salafiyah but confirmed it to be the oldest manhaj or creed and that’s interesting. I’ve heard all kind of attacks on Salafis but never any real proof or evidence that salafiyah is not the correct path. There’s an interview on KZfaq with Yasir Qadi saying he left salafiyah because it’s not intellectually challenging enough for him. Wow! What a weak excuse. The only legitimate reason to leave the salafy path is, if it’s proven to not be the correct path.

If u want the truth only follow quran and hadith . We dont follow people we have the greatest one is mohamad his teaching is clear and if u look more details you can look for scholars and one with evidence you can follow as i say in previous video comments there are people who say we are the truth and this is the interpretation. People like paul in Christianity and make people think that they are the truth in islam u will find sufi shei and salafi all the they clam thay have the truth and truth is clear in book . In the quran and hadith. I hope i shared with you ideas about this and thanks again .

Every muslims have to follow Al-Quran and As-Sunnah, but there is ways to approach the texts. Some would stick to the literal context of the texts while others would delve deeper and to intrepret the text based on the cosmology, science and other fields of knowledge etc. As the Al-Quran clearly states that it is sent down to define all things.

I would advice you to check out Shaykh Abu Suhaib Bassam and Shaykh Abu Usamah at Thahabi in the UK. They are very knowledgeable of the Deen and are upon the manhaj of the Salaf. Abu Suhaib was Shaykh Albani's student (the great Muhaddith). Abu Khadeejah has caused a lot of division in the Ummah and even some Saudi Arabian scholars have advised people to stay away/ not take knowledge from him. He (Abu Khadeejah) is the head of the neo-Salafi movement here in the UK and his hizb has caused a lot of animosity between other muslims.

Slm3lkm Paul. Please read and listen to sheikh Alalbany to know the difference between true salafis and those who falsely pretend to be ones.

Knowing that al-Ashʿarī died in 936 which is 324 H, and he is the founder of the Ashʿarism, and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal died 855 which is 241 H the one known as Imam Ahel Assunnah and as the "Defender of Orthodoxy", you will know for sure that the Asha'ri creed is not the first creed for Sunni Islam, nor was it the way of Imam Ahmad and every Imam before him since the Sahabah of the Prophet PBUH. Good video Paul! 👍🏻

Abu Khadeeja from Birmingham. Brother Paul your weigh above this. True Salafis and the Athari, Asharis and Maaturidis. They have semantical differences but in reality are the same.

Assalaamu alaykum Paul I love you for the sake of Allaah. The prophet صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ pointed to above on several occasions while doing dua, the Hadith of the good word ascending, the Angels coming down, the slave girl who pointed to above where upon the prophet صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ said she is a believer. It is actually most obvious. Kalaam, or philosophy, is used to doubt anything, even the existing of oneself. I hope I can soon make some time to respond more broadly. Your brother from Holland.

Good video paul. The term "salafi" isn't as exclusive as many would like to hive off. The term "salafi" describes someone who is on the athari aqeedah (creed) as it is seen as the cred of the pious predecessors. The asharis or maturidis do not see themselves as not being "salafi" that is, not being upon the beliefs and actions of the 3 earliest generations. All Muslims do. What is now seen as salafi proper is one who is hanbali in fiqh (jurisprudence) and athari in aqeedah (creed) but anyone who is athari can be called salafi in the general sense. So I would technically he seen as salafi in that I follow the maliki school of though and the athari aqeedah. I do not claim the title because it seems rather presumptuous. I see following the salaf as a constant life goal. Not some title one slaps on themselves then starts declaring themselves righteous and on the right path and other deviants. People like abu khadijah is a well known ignoramus which many prominent scholars in Saudi arabia have warned against and stated he doesnt have the knowledge to teach Islam. The problem with modern day salafis is that the modern rendition of this group is more reactionary and exclusive. They are hyper focused on declaring everyone heretics and deviants even within their own ranks to the point they end up eating each other alive. This mindset is absolutely against the mindset and teachings of the salaf they are attempting to emulate. Also, there is politics involved. They are funded by gulf states and Saudi arabia and are influenced in teaching people to be bootlickers of the tyrants and claiming this is the consensus or at least unanimous agreement of the salaf which, is wrong. Everyone from as suyuti (ashari sufi giant in islamic schoalsticism) and other scholars who are of the other 2 creedal schools amd sufi chains all have it being their goals to follow and appeal to the salaf. The muslim world is much bigger then this hyper partisan group who does far more harm then benefit. So long as a muslim follows quran and the sunnah within the acceptable range of interpretation of mainstream orthodox sunni islam it in my humble opinion would be fitting to call them being upon the path of the salaf. Thats my two cents, have a nice day and looking forward to many more benefital videos from you Paul 😊😊😊

Complicated subject. Yasser Kadi is seen by salafis to be like a Catholic cardinal with a PhD from Alazhar. Having a Westernised understanding of Islam.

Asalmaleykum Paul I found this topic interesting because as I see it now with the advent and easy access and f the internet we are seeing more and more muslims attacking one another and I have to say the Salafis are harsh in their treatment of non salafis. Please shed more light on this subject. JazakAllah

Dear sir. Please note that salafism is not a homogenous group and is a very wide spectrum. Abu khadeejah for example is in no way a spokesman for all salafism and is only representative of a particular strand of salafism which is criticised by other salafis. When it comes to athari and ashari creed, all argue that their position is closest to the truth and it’s development needs to be understood in its particular historical context. And one can be athari in belief but not Salafi as the two are not synonymous.