Sufism/Salafism and Jihad

In modern Islamic polemics, the term ‘Sufi’ and ‘Salafi’ are some of the most common words used. At times it may be used with pride, and other times a tool to place people into a ‘deviant’ sect. Although every person would have in their mind some abstract definition of these terms to whom they associate people with, but there is far from any agreement on its actual meaning. So before any study can be carried out on their understandings of Jihād, we must define who we mean when we use these two terms.

The term ‘Salafi’ is an ambiguous ascription and difficult to define[1] but it is unavoidable nonetheless.[2] Historically, it is difficult to prove that it was ascribed to a substantive group, despite many Salafis claiming otherwise. For example, ‘Alā’ Bakaw tries to explain the origin of the term Salafi. He explains that the ‘true Muslims’ were initially called Ahl al-Sunnah in opposition to the Shia. With the rise of speculative theological groups like the Mu’tazilah and Jahmiyyah, the Ahl al-Sunnah became known as Ahl al-Ĥadith and Aĥmad Ibn Ĥanbal their leader. Some Muslim scholars embraced Kalām (speculative theology) to defend the ‘orthodox’ creed, who became known as the Ash’aris (followers of Abū al-Ĥasan al-Ash’arī [d.324/936]) and called themselves ‘Khalafis’ (followers of the latter scholars). In reaction the term Salafi was formed.[3] This is clearly an over simplified and anachronistic reading of history, as a brief look at the evidence supplied by the Salafis, one would notice that whenever the term was used historically (rarely as that was), it was never used to describe a formal school with adherents.[4]

Muhammad Abduh (d.1905) and Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī (d.1897) have generally been credited with coining and setting the foundations of Salafiyyah. Lauziěre challenges this stance and argues that when one sieves through the writings of these scholars, the term ‘Salafiyyah’ is hardly used, except when describing a group which opposes the Kalām of the Ash’aris.[5] This is supported by that fact that Rashīd Riđā (d.1935) describes his teacher, Muhammad ‘Abduh, as being ‘Salafī al-‘Aqīdah’ (Salafi in creed) in the end of his life.[6] This would narrow the term to something merely theological. It was Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsmī (d.1914) and Maĥmūd Shukrī al-Ᾱlūsī (d.1924) that began using the term substantively and applying it as a revivalist approach to even jurisprudence[7] (famous for rejecting Taqlīd).

Maĥmud Shukrī was a follower of the Wahhabi movement and was famous for his work detailing the history of the area of Najd (the home of Wahhabi Islam)[8]. It was because of his attachment to Wahhabi Islam that he was banished from Mosul.[9] He was also, like his close associate al-Qāsmī, a strong admirer of Ibn Taymiyyah. Nāşir al-Dīn al-Albānī (d.1999) was heavily influenced by these two figures (and an admirer of Rashīd Riđā in his youth) which can be seen by his editing and publishing many of their works.[10] He was an opponent of Taqlīd and a follower and supporter of Ibn Taymiyyah in creed.[11] Celebrated for his contribution to the Ĥadīth sciences, he had great influence on his Wahhabi contemporaries, Ibn ‘Uthaymīn (d.2001) and Ibn Bāz (d.1999). These three can be considered as the father figures of the modern Salafi movement.[12]

Although all these figures mentioned, who had an influence on the term ‘Salafi’, differed with each other quite significantly, we can see a general common trend between them. That is, a rejection of rigid following of an authority other than the Prophet, a rejection of theosophical Sufism (and other Sufi practices) and a rejection of Kalām.[13] So despite Salafiyyah, as a substantive group, having no historical precedence, the general themes can be traced back to earlier authorities.

The term Sufi is much better attested to historically and can be found in numerous sources. The origin of the term is highly debated. Ibn Taymiyyah presents various possibilities such as the Ahl al-Şuffah (poor companions of the Prophet), the ‘front row’ (al-Şaff al-Muqaddam) on the Day of Judgment, a pre-Islamic tribe and others. He ends with the possibility of it deriving from wool (şūf) which the early ascetics would wear and agrees with this.[14] Christopher Melchert also regards its origins as coming from şūf. He states that the earliest ascription of the term to a person was Abū Hāshim (d.150/767-768). After that the ascription became more common. He further states that Sufism was initially a movement in opposition to the irreligious ruling elite, so became known for their ‘commanding the good and forbidding the evil’. It was only under the tutelage of Junayd (d.297/910) that the Sufis became focused on ‘inner-worldly mysticism’.[15] We can see then that Sufism is in essence a distancing of oneself from the materialistic world and actively working towards a connection with the transcendent through the means of a silsilah (chain of Shaykhs going back to a grandmaster) and ţarīqah (a path set by the grandmaster).[16]

With the definitions covered, we can work towards answering the question ‘Is the Sufi and Salafi conception of Jihād different?’ The main problem that arises is that neither group has one single authority nor work to explain their views, rather there is a great fluidity of stances cross the spectrum. Furthermore, various proto-Salafis like Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim[17] and other Ĥanbalis[18] have also been classified as Sufis, which further obscures the line between them and proves that affiliation to one does not necessitate opposition to the other. We will stay clear from this confusion (as it is outside the scope of our discussion) and have a look at some famous authorities from these two groups and their views on Jihād.

The status of Jihād amongst the early Muslim community was of the highest significance. It was a chance for men (and to a lesser degree, women) to show their bravery to their fellow man and sincerity onto God. It was recognized as the ultimate sacrifice. The concept of waging war for a noble cause and the heroic nature of martyrdom was not something indigenous to Islam. In the New Testament, Jesus is recorded to have said ‘Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends’ (John 15:14). John the Baptist is martyred by the King for speaking out against the actions of the tyrant (Matthew 14:1-12). This is echoed in the Prophet Muhammad’s statement ‘The greatest Jihād is a just word in front of a tyrant ruler.’[19]

It was also understood in the early Muslim community that the term Jihād was not restricted to armed struggle. The term from a linguistic perspective merely means ‘to strive’ and ‘to struggle’ and the Quran uses the term many a time in the meaning of armed struggle (qitāl) and sometimes in its linguistic meaning.[20] This then would mean that any sort of religious struggle, whether a struggle against oneself or some external evil, would be classified as Jihād.

An interesting early figure to analyse would be the traditionalist and ascetic, ‘Abdullah Ibn Mubārak (d.181/797). His high status as a narrator of Ĥadīth and being from amongst the Salaf (the first three generations after the Prophet) makes him an authority for the Salafis. On the other hand, because of his famous book on asceticism, the Kitāb al-Zuhd, Sufis also look up to him as one of their guides. That which makes his case peculiar is that despite his expertise in Ĥadīth and his asceticism, he was famous for his participation in armed Jihād. Al-Dhahabī gives him the title of ‘the warrior’ (al-Ghāzī) amongst other titles.[21] ‘Abdullah Ibn Mubārak never saw a contradiction between his asceticism and struggling on his self, with armed Jihād. The very concept of asceticism was best displayed through Jihād as it is a manifestation of the ascetic’s distance from materialism.[22] This is why Ibn Mubārak himself, originally from Eastern Iran, immigrated to Syria to wage Jihād against the ‘dangerous’ Byzantines.[23]

If this is the practice of one of the early ascetics, is there evidence to suggest that later Sufis belittled the concept of armed Jihād and turned the Muslim public’s focus away from the external enemy (the infidels) to the enemy within? Reading some of the works of the Sufis may seem to indicate to such an occurrence, as the concept of ‘lesser Jihād’ (armed warfare) and greater Jihād (fighting the enemy within) began to creep in and establish itself in their thought. The basis of this division of Jihād is a Ĥadīth where the Prophet is supposed to have said to some fighters returning from armed Jihād, ‘you have come from the lesser Jihād to the greater Jihād’[24] and then defines what the two are. From a strictly traditionalist perspective, the tradition is defected,[25] but it has not prevented scholars using this division in their works.[26]

Abū Ĥāmid al-Ghazālī (d.504/1111) was one of the most influential and well known Sufis in history. He almost single handily brought Sufism to the mainstream.[27] Al-Ghazālī used this tradition in his magnum opus ‘Reviving the Foundations of the Religion’ (Iĥyā Ulūm al-Dīn).[28] Furthermore, despite the length of this book which dealt with all major issues concerning Muslims, he failed to dedicate a chapter to Jihād. Some modern Salafi writers have picked up on this and have made claim that al-Ghazālī’s effort was to steer the Muslims away from Jihād (despite him writing during the crusades).[29] Cook disagrees with any such claim as al-Ghazālī ‘nowhere indicates that he sees the Jihād against the soul as a substitute for militant Jihād.’[30] He further gives evidence from al-Ghazālī’s very same book where he speaks in favour of armed Jihād.[31]

Although many Sufis classified armed Jihād as the ‘lesser Jihād’, there is no evidence to suggest that they were against the notion. Rather an ascetic life, similar to Ibn Mubārak, made Jihād much easier for the Sufis. History bears witness to this where we find great warriors throughout the Islamic centuries being open Sufis.[32] An example which I would like to focus upon is that of Sayyid Aĥmad Shahīd (d.1831). He set out to wage Jihād against ‘heresy’[33] and sought to establish an Islamic State in the Asian Sub-continent region. He led Jihād against the Sikhs in the Pushtun in 1826-31.[34] This all began when Sayyid Aĥmad decided to enter the Pushtun (which at the time was under the rule of the Sikhs) and declared himself the ‘Caliph-King.’[35] This obviously did not sit well with the ruling Sikhs and resulted in a string of conflicts which led to the martyrdom of Sayyid Aĥmad in the Battle of Balakot.[36] Based upon these facts many classified him and his movement, Țarīqah Muĥammadiyyah, as Wahhabi.[37] This is despite the fact that he was a Sufi who had pledged his allegiance (Bay’ah) and become the spiritual student of Shāh ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Dehlawī (d.1823), son of the famous Traditionalist-Sufi, Shāh Walīullāh al-Dehlawī (d.1176/1762). Upon his Shaykh’s hand did he receive initiation into the Qādiriyyah, Naqshbāndiyyah and Mujaddidiyyah ţarīqahs.[38] It was this same Sufi Shaykh that inspired him to wage Jihād against the infidels and work to establish an Islamic state.

What this shows is that despite the emphasis Sufis had placed in battling the inner enemy and had even gone to the lengths of classifying armed Jihād as the ‘lesser Jihād’, it never considered their Sufi practices as a substitute for armed Jihād and its abolition. Rather for many such Sufis it was their asceticism which enforced their zeal to attain martyrdom as seen in the example of Sayyid Aĥmad.

When analysing the thought of the proto-Salafis[39] and Salafis, there is a slight difference. The Ĥadīth of the ‘lesser Jihād’ and the ‘greater Jihād’ can be found in some of their texts but the authors are quick to point out its defectiveness.[40] The first real criticism of this Ĥadīth because of its content came from Ibn Taymiyyah. He classifies the Ĥadīth as having no basis (lā aşl lahu) and states that it in fact contradicts the Quran which gives armed Jihād the highest virtue.[41] This was approvingly quoted by al-Albānī[42] and other modern Salafis.[43] The Salafi Jihadist, ‘Abdullah ‘Azzām (d.1989), classified the Ĥadīth to be a fabrication and despite it being established as the statement of a successor (al-Tābi’ī) he quotes Ibn Taymiyyah to show it goes against the Quran.[44] It can be seen the themes of the Salafi thought are being manifested as there is a rejection of the statements of authorities (Taqlīd) because of its apparent confliction with the Quran.

This difference in classification did not have a practical impact on the lives of the Sufis and Salafis. There is no evidence to suggest that because many Salafis considered armed Jihād as the ‘greater Jihād’ that they participated anymore in Jihād than did the Sufis. Ibn Taymiyyah is known for his inciting people (and participating himself) in Jihād against the Mongols.[45] Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb had announced Jihād on whom he classified as ‘apostates.’[46] ‘Abdullah ‘Azzām led the Jihād in Afghanistan until he was ‘martyred’ in 1989.

On the other hand, al-Albānī considered armed Jihād in the modern world to be near enough impossible. This is because the Muslims have left Jihād al-Nafs (struggling against their desires) which has made the Muslims in the weak state they are in. The solution is then to rectify oneself and teach people the ‘true’ Islam. He does not utilize the ‘greater Jihād’ Ĥadīth for obvious reasons but rather basis it on his knowledge of failed Jihād attempts in recent history. Similar conclusions have been reached by certain Sufi groups. The Madrasah of Deoband, whose founders originally participated in the 1857 failed mutiny against the British, noticed that the Muslims were not strong enough physically nor spiritually for Jihād. They decided that the solution was to educate the Muslims masses the ‘true’ Islam[47] and to work on their spiritual conditions.[48] Although these Sufi Deobandi institutes gave birth to the Jihādist group, the Taliban, in the 90s. Supposedly the need for Jihād had returned.[49]

This is a brief glimpse of the views of some Sufis and Salafis in regards to Jihād. From the cases we have studied we noticed that both groups affirmed its upmost importance. Many Sufis did classify armed Jihād as the ‘lesser Jihād’ but this was not to belittle the act or steer people away from it, it was rather to show the importance of self-rectification. The Salafis generally disagreed with any such classification, but there is no evidence that they were any more eager to wage Jihād than the Sufis. In modern times we have seen some Salafis sticking to the concept of armed Jihād as the solution like ‘Abdullah ‘Azzām and we have also seen the opposing view held by the Salafi, al-Albānī. Likewise, we have seen in the Sufi Madrasah of Deoband a move away from armed Jihād.

In conclusion, we would state that there is no such divide as a Sufi Jihād and Salafi Jihād. Both groups historically participated in Jihād and being a Sufi or Salafi had minimal effect on their conception of it. Similarly the conception of Jihād in modern times has been moulded by the political conditions rather than Sufism or Salafiyyah pushing them to such a view.

---

[1] Literally it would just mean following those who have preceded.

[2] Brown, Jonathan A C (2014) Is Islam Easy to Understand or Not? Salafis, The Democratization of Interpretation and the Need for the Ulema, Journal of Islamic Studies (2014) pp. 1-28, p. 2.

[3] Bakaw, ‘Alā’ (2011) ‘Malāmiĥu Ra’īsiyyah li al-Manhaj al-Salafiyyah’, Alexandria: al-Dār al-Salafiyyah li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzī’, p. 22-37.

[4] Lauziěre, Henri (2010) ‘The Construction of Salafiyya: Reconsidering Salafism from the Perspective of Conceptual History, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 42, No. 3 (August 2010), p. 369-389, p. 372-373.

[5] Ibid, p. 373-375.

[6] Riđā, Rashīd (1990) ‘Tafsīr al-Manār’, Egypt: al-Hai’at al-Mişriyyah al-‘Ᾱmmah li al-Kitāb, (12 vol), 3/300

[7] Lauziěre, Henri, ‘The Construction of Salafiyya’, p. 375.

[8] Al-Ᾱlūsī, Maĥmūd Shukrī (1994) ‘Tārīkh Najd’ (Publishers not mentioned), Ed. Muhammad Bahjat al-Atharī.

[9] Weismann, Itzchak (2009) ‘Genealogies of Fundamentalism: Salafi Discourse in Nineteenth Century Baghdad’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, August 2009, 36(2), p. 267–280, p. 279.

[10] Al-Albānī had edited and published al-Qāsmī’s work on the controversial issue of wiping over normal socks in ablution, Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsmī (1979) ‘Al-Masaĥ ‘alā al-Jawrabayn’, Beirut: al-Maktabat al-Islāmī, Ed. Nāşir al-Dīn al-Albānī. I located two works which al-Albānī had worked on of Shukrī’s, Al-Ᾱlūsī, Maĥmūd Shukrī (1971) ‘Mā Dalla ‘alaihi al-Quran mimmā Ya’đidu al-Hai’at al-Jadīdah al-Qawmiyyah bi al-Burhān’, Lebenon: al-Maktabat al-Islāmī, Ed. Nāşir al-Dīn al-Albānī and Zuhair Shawīsh, Ᾱlūsī, Maĥmūd Shukrī (1978) ‘al-Ᾱyāt al-Bayyināt fī ‘Adam Samā’ al-Amwāt ‘alā Madhhab al-Ĥanafiyyah al-Sādāt’, Lebenon: al-Maktabat al-Islāmī, Ed. Nāşir al-Dīn al-Albānī.

[11] This can be seen by his editing and publishing books which represented Ibn Taymiyyah’s creed, Ibn Abī al-‘Izz al-Ĥanafī’s explanation of the classic text of al-Țaĥāwī and al-Dhahabī’s epistle on establishing God’s literal highness over the creation. See al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn (1991) ‘Mukhtaşar al-‘Uluw li al-‘Alī al-‘Adhīm’, al-Maktabat al-12) Islāmī, Ed. Nāşir al-Dīn al-Albānī and Ibn Abī al-‘Izz, Şadr al-Dīn (1984) ‘Sharĥ al-‘Aqīdat al-Țaĥāwiyyah’, Beirut: al-Maktabat al-Islāmī, Ed. Nāşir al-Dīn al-Albānī.

[12] Al-Barīk, S’ad Ibn ‘Abdullah (2009) ‘al-Ījāz fī Ba’đ mā Ikhtalafa fīhi al-Albānī wa Ibn ‘Uthaymīn wa Ibn Bāz’, (Publishers not mentioned), p. 26.

[13] Brown, ‘Is Islam Easy to Understand’, p. 2.

[14] Ibn Taymiyyah, Taqī al-Dīn (1995) ‘Majmū’ al-Fatāwā’, Riyadh: Majma’ al-Malik Fahd, Ed. ‘Abd al-Raĥmān Ibn Muhammad, (25 vol), 11/1-2.

[15] Melchert, Christopher (2001) ‘The Ĥanābila and the Early Sufis’, Arabica, T. 48, Fasc. 3 (2001), pp. 352-367, p. 353-355.

[16] For a history of the silsilah/ţarīqah, see Qamber, Akhtar (1992) ‘The Sufi Pir-o-murshid ("Make thy Sheikh thy Qiblah'')’, India International Centre Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4 (WINTER 1992), p. 14-27.

[17] Anjum, Ovamir (2010) ‘Sufism Without Mysticism? Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah’s Objectives in “Madārij al-Sālikīn”, Oriente Moderno, Nuova serie, Anno 90, Nr. 1, A SCHOLAR IN THE SHADOW: ESSAYS IN THE LEGAL AND THEOLOGICAL THOUGHT OF IBN QAYYIM AL-ǦAWZIYYAH (2010), p. 161-188.

[18] Melchert, Christopher, ‘The Ĥanābila and the Early Sufis’, p. 352-353, also see Makdisi, George (1974) ‘The Ĥanbalī School and Sufism’, Huminora Islamica 2 (1974), p. 61-72.

[19] al-Tirmiđi, Muhammad Ibn ‘īsa (1975) ‘Sunan al-Tirmiđi’, Egypt: Shirkatun Maktabtun wa Maktabat Musţafā al-Bābi Ed. Aĥmad Shākir (vol 1 and 2) Muhammad Fuād ‘Abd al-Bāqī (vol 3) and Ibrāhīm ‘Aţawa (vol 4 and 5), no.2174.

[20] See Cook, David (2005) ‘Understanding Jihād’, California: University of California Press, p. 32.

[21] Al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn (1985) ‘Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risālah, Ed. Under the guidance of Shu’ayb al-Arnā’ūţ, (25 vol), 8/279.

[22] Ibn Mubārak, ‘Abdullah (1972) ‘al-Jihād’, Tunisia: al-Dār al-Tūnasiyyah, p. 35.

[23] Cook, ‘Understanding Jihād’, p. 33.

[24] Bayhaqī, Abū Bakr (1996) ‘Kitāb al-Zuhd al-Kabīr’, Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Kutub al-Thiqāfiyyah, no.373.

[25] See al-Albānī, Nāşir al-Dīn (1992) ‘Silsilat al-Aĥādīth al-Đa’īfah wa al-Mawđū’ah wa Athruhā al-Sayyi’ fī al-Ummah, (14 vol), 5/478-481, no.2460.

[26] See Ibn Baţţāl, Abū al-Ĥasan (2003) ‘Sharĥ Şaĥīĥ al-Bukhārī’, Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd, Ed. Abū Tamīm Yāsir, (10 vol), 10/210, Ibn Daqīq al-‘Īd, Taqī al-Dīn (2003) ‘Sharĥ Arba’īn al-Nawawiyyah fī al-Aĥādīth al-Şaĥīĥah al-Nabawiyyah, Lebenon: Maktabat al-Rayyān, p.101, al-Munāwī, Zayn al-Dīn (1937) ‘Fayđ al-Qadīr Sharĥ al-Jāmi’ al-Şaghīr’, Egypt: al-Maktabat al-Tijāriyyah al-Kubrā, (6 vol), 1/523.

[27] Makdisi, ‘The Ĥanbalī School and Sufism’, p. 61.

[28] Cook, ‘Understanding Jihād’, p. 37.

[29] Al-Saqqāf, ‘Abd al-Qādir (N/A) ‘Mawsū’ah al-Firaq al-Muntasibah ilā al-Islām’, online book, www.dorar.net/enc/firq/2417 (last accessed 02/01/2015)

[30] Cook, ‘Understanding Jihād’, p. 37.

[31] Ibid, p. 37-38.

[32] Ibid, p. 44-45.

[33] Haroon, Sana (2011) ‘Reformism and Orthodox Practice in Early Nineteenth- Century Muslim North India: Sayyid Ahmed Shaheed Reconsidered’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society / Volume 21 / Issue 02 / April 2011, p. 177-198, p. 177.

[34] Ibid, p. 178.

[35] Ibid, p. 179.

[36] Ibid, p. 177.

[37] Khan, Muin-ud-Din Ahmad (1967) ‘ṬARĪQAH-I-MUḤAMMADĪYAH MOVEMENT: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY’, Islamic Studies, Vol. 6, No. 4 (DECEMBER 1967), p. 375-388, p. 375.

[38] Haroon, ‘Reformism and Orthodox’, p. 180.

[39] We have already explained the difficulty with the proto-Salafis because many of them were Sufis.

[40] See for example, Ibn Rajab, Zayn al-Dīn (2001) ‘Jāmi’ al-‘Ulūm wa al-Ĥikam’, Beirut: Muassasat al-Risālah, Ed. Shu’ayb al-Arnā’ūţ, (2 vol), 1/489.

[41] Ibn Taymiyyah, ‘Majmū’ al-Fatāwā’, 11/197.

[42] al-Albānī, ‘Silsilat al-Aĥādīth’, 5/478-481, no.2460.

[43] See the Fatwa of the contemporary Salafi scholar Şāliĥ al-Munajjid where he quotes Ibn Bāz agreeing with Ibn Taymiyyah, islamqa.info/ar/127009 (last accessed 03/01/2015)

[44] The original Arabic book I could not locate, but I found an online translation ebooks.worldofislam.info/ebooks/Jihad/Join%20the%20Caravan.pdf , p. 26-27 (last accessed 03/01/2015)

[45] Jansen, Johannas J.G (1988) ‘Ibn Taymiyyah and the Thriteenth Century: A Formative Period of Modern Muslim Radicalism, Quaderni di Studi Arabi, Vol. 5/6, Gli Arabi nella Storia: Tanti Popoli una Sola Civiltà (1987-1988), p. 391-396, p .394.

[46] Cook, ‘Understanding Jihād’, p. 74-75.

[47] From a transcription of an audio Q/A www.fatawa-alalbany.com/fatawa_moutanaouia/hn%2808_02.rm%29.html (last accessed 03/01/2015)

[48] Metcalf, Barbara D (1993) ‘Living Hadith in the Tablighi Jama`at’ The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Aug., 1993), p. 584-608, p. 584-585.

[49] Zaman, Muhammad Qasim (2002) ‘The Ulama in Contemporary Islam: Custodians of Change’, Princeton: Princeton University Press, p.137-138.

---

Bibliography


Books

al-Albānī, Nāşir al-Dīn (1992) ‘Silsilat al-Aĥādīth al-Đa’īfah wa al-Mawđū’ah wa Athruhā al-Sayyi’ fī al-Ummah, (14 vol)

Al-Ᾱlūsī, Maĥmūd Shukrī (1971) ‘Mā Dalla ‘alaihi al-Quran mimmā Ya’đidu al-Hai’at al-Jadīdah al-Qawmiyyah bi al-Burhān’, Lebenon: al-Maktabat al-Islāmī, Ed. Nāşir al-Dīn al-Albānī and Zuhair Shawīsh

Ᾱlūsī, Maĥmūd Shukrī (1978) ‘al-Ᾱyāt al-Bayyināt fī ‘Adam Samā’ al-Amwāt ‘alā Madhhab al-Ĥanafiyyah al-Sādāt’, Lebenon: al-Maktabat al-Islāmī, Ed. Nāşir al-Dīn al-Albānī

Al-Ᾱlūsī, Maĥmūd Shukrī (1994) ‘Tārīkh Najd’ (Publishers not mentioned), Ed. Muhammad Bahjat al-Atharī

Bakaw, ‘Alā’ (2011) ‘Malāmiĥu Ra’īsiyyah li al-Manhaj al-Salafiyyah’, Alexandria: al-Dār al-Salafiyyah li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzī’,

Al-Barīk, S’ad Ibn ‘Abdullah (2009) ‘al-Ījāz fī Ba’đ mā Ikhtalafa fīhi al-Albānī wa Ibn ‘Uthaymīn wa Ibn Bāz’, (Publishers not mentioned)

Bayhaqī, Abū Bakr (1996) ‘Kitāb al-Zuhd al-Kabīr’, Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Kutub al-Thiqāfiyyah

Cook, David (2005) ‘Understanding Jihād’, California: University of California Press

al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn (1991) ‘Mukhtaşar al-‘Uluw li al-‘Alī al-‘Adhīm’, al-Maktabat al-Islāmī, Ed. Nāşir al-Dīn al-Albānī

Al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn (1985) ‘Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risālah, Ed. Under the guidance of Shu’ayb al-Arnā’ūţ, (25 vol)

Ibn Abī al-‘Izz, Şadr al-Dīn (1984) ‘Sharĥ al-‘Aqīdat al-Țaĥāwiyyah’, Beirut: al-Maktabat al-Islāmī, Ed. Nāşir al-Dīn al-Albānī

Ibn Baţţāl, Abū al-Ĥasan (2003) ‘Sharĥ Şaĥīĥ al-Bukhārī’, Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd, Ed. Abū Tamīm Yāsir, (10 vol)

Ibn Daqīq al-‘Īd, Taqī al-Dīn (2003) ‘Sharĥ Arba’īn al-Nawawiyyah fī al-Aĥādīth al-Şaĥīĥah al-Nabawiyyah, Lebenon: Maktabat al-Rayyān

Ibn Mubārak, ‘Abdullah (1972) ‘al-Jihād’, Tunisia: al-Dār al-Tūnasiyyah

Ibn Rajab, Zayn al-Dīn (2001) ‘Jāmi’ al-‘Ulūm wa al-Ĥikam’, Beirut: Muassasat al-Risālah, Ed. Shu’ayb al-Arnā’ūţ, (2 vol)

Ibn Taymiyyah, Taqī al-Dīn (1995) ‘Majmū’ al-Fatāwā’, Riyadh: Majma’ al-Malik Fahd, Ed. ‘Abd al-Raĥmān Ibn Muhammad, (25 vol)

Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsmī (1979) ‘Al-Masaĥ ‘alā al-Jawrabayn’, Beirut: al-Maktabat al-Islāmī, Ed. Nāşir al-Dīn al-Albānī

al-Munāwī, Zayn al-Dīn (1937) ‘Fayđ al-Qadīr Sharĥ al-Jāmi’ al-Şaghīr’, Egypt: al-Maktabat al-Tijāriyyah al-Kubrā, (6 vol), 1/523

Riđā, Rashīd (1990) ‘Tafsīr al-Manār’, Egypt: al-Hai’at al-Mişriyyah al-‘Ᾱmmah li al-Kitāb, (12 vol),

al-Tirmidhi, Muhammad Ibn ‘īsa (1975) ‘Sunan al-Tirmidhi’, Egypt: Shirkatun Maktabtun wa Maktabat Musţafā al-Bābi Ed. Aĥmad Shākir (vol 1 and 2) Muhammad Fuād ‘Abd al-Bāqī (vol 3) and Ibrāhīm ‘Aţawa (vol 4 and 5)

Zaman, Muhammad Qasim (2002) ‘The Ulama in Contemporary Islam: Custodians of Change’, Princeton: Princeton University Press


Articles

Anjum, Ovamir (2010) ‘Sufism Without Mysticism? Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah’s Objectives in “Madārij al-Sālikīn”, Oriente Moderno, Nuova serie, Anno 90, Nr. 1, A SCHOLAR IN THE SHADOW: ESSAYS IN THE LEGAL AND THEOLOGICAL THOUGHT OF IBN QAYYIM AL-ǦAWZIYYAH (2010), pp.161-188

Brown, Jonathan A C (2014) Is Islam Easy to Understand or Not? Salafis, The Democratization of Interpretation and the Need for the Ulema, Journal of Islamic Studies (2014) pp. 1-28

Haroon, Sana (2011) ‘Reformism and Orthodox Practice in Early Nineteenth- Century Muslim North India: Sayyid Ahmed Shaheed Reconsidered’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society / Volume 21 / Issue 02 / April 2011, pp 177 – 198

Jansen, Johannas J.G (1988) ‘Ibn Taymiyyah and the Thriteenth Century: A Formative Period of Modern Muslim Radicalism, Quaderni di Studi Arabi, Vol. 5/6, Gli Arabi nella Storia: Tanti Popoli una Sola Civiltà (1987-1988), pp. 391-396

Khan, Muin-ud-Din Ahmad (1967) ‘ṬARĪQAH-I-MUḤAMMADĪYAH MOVEMENT: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY’, Islamic Studies, Vol. 6, No. 4 (DECEMBER 1967), pp. 375-388

Lauziěre, Henri (2010) ‘The Construction of Salafiyya: Reconsidering Salafism from the Perspective of Conceptual History, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 42, No. 3 (August 2010), pp. 369-389

Makdisi, George (1974) ‘The Ĥanbalī School and Sufism’, Huminora Islamica 2 (1974), pp.61-72

Melchert, Christopher (2001) ‘The Ĥanābila and the Early Sufis’, Arabica, T. 48, Fasc. 3 (2001), pp. 352-367

Metcalf, Barbara D (1993) ‘Living Hadith in the Tablighi Jama`at’ The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Aug., 1993), pp. 584-608

Qamber, Akhtar (1992) ‘The Sufi Pir-o-murshid ("Make thy Sheikh thy Qiblah'')’, India International Centre Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4 (WINTER 1992), pp. 14-27


Online resources

Al-Saqqāf, ‘Abd al-Qādir (N/A) ‘Mawsū’ah al-Firaq al-Muntasibah ilā al-Islām’, online book, www.dorar.net/enc/firq/2417 (last accessed 02/01/2015)

www.fatawa-alalbany.com/fatawa_moutanaouia/hn%2808_02.rm%29.html (last accessed 03/01/2015)

ebooks.worldofislam.info/ebooks/Jihad/Join%20the%20Caravan.pdf (last accessed 03/01/2015)

---

Download full article HERE