Spelling Danger & Why I Left Salafism
Some people move on to bigger things; I am moved by smaller ones. Phonetic and logical inaccuracy annoy me to no end. The North American Traditional Muslim™ crowd, mainly populated by second-generation Muslim immigrants and converts to Islam, has a habit of writing shayukh instead of shuyukh (the plural of shaykh). To me, this misspelling undermines the academic level of the person writing. I cannot help but immediately labeling the person as a dilettante, a mere dabbler, or, as they used to call them at the University of Waterloo, a plugger (i.e. someone who plugs in values into formulas and doesn't really understand what's going on). A similar phenomenon is present here in Jordan where the majority of people seem to think that salli is spelled with a ya'. It is not. In fact, the correct spelling is صل not صلي, as is commonly found.
One might find it surprising that someone who left Salafism for Traditional Islam finds such technicalities relevant, let alone annoying enough to blog about. For me, it wasn't the heart-touching speeches of Sufi charlatans or charming nashids that moved me away from Salafism to Traditional Islam. The spirituality and beautiful power of Qur'anic recitation is and always will be more than enough in those regards. Rather, it was that, at the end of the day, Salafism just didn't have much to offer on the intellectual front; it wasn't accurate enough and it lacked depth.
My first breach with Salafism was in the fiqh department, when I found that the logical conclusion of Salafi methodology was for me to become an absolute mujtahid. I seriously attempted this for a while, only to find that I was (obviously) unqualified. If I had to follow someone else's reasoning, it appeared, then why would I follow a modern scholar instead of someone whose scholarship was attested to across history? Without getting into the long back-and-forth arguments and counter-arguments I went through (as the process was long-winded and gradual, spanning years), I eventually decided to follow a school of thought in fiqh matters. Not only did I find the credentials of the scholars of the schools of thought more impressive than those of modern scholars, I also found there to be an aromatic depth to their books that was simply lacking in the books that I was used to. Finally, I found that an honest survey of scholars over the centuries revealed that virtually all of them followed schools of thought. This pattern did not disappear after the spread of academies and libraries, so the argument that people followed schools of thought out of not having the sea of textual evidence before them was unfounded.
My next breach was in the acceptance of Sufism in principle. At the time I was taking classes with Dr. Nazih Hammad from North Vancouver. A great Sufi charlatan came to visit Vancouver and caused a bit of a hoo-la-baloo. Someone asked Dr. Nazih Hammad about Sufism after which he explained the difference between Sunni Sufism and Bid`i (Innovative) Sufism. Once I heard him described Sunni Sufism, I knew that this was it: this was the Real McCoy I had always wanted.
A few moves, timezones, cities, and years later, I had finished studying the basic fiqh of purification and prayer in the Shafi'i school and was in Tampa, Florida, where I read the matn of Ibn Ashir with Sheikh Khatri Ould Beibeh of Mauritania. At first, he didn't want to read the section on aqida in detail as he said it caused some confusion among people in America. I explained to him that this detailed discussion on creed was exactly what I was looking for. He asked me if I was an engineer, and when I told him I was, he said that it was mostly engineers who understood the section. What I found was that Ash'ari creed, far from being the boogie man I grew up believing it to be, was an organized, methodologically-sound medium for presenting and defending Islamic belief. Never before was I better equipped to answer the questioning of faith in general, and Islamic belief in particular, than after I studied aqida with Sheikh Khatri. A door had opened: I could now reason about faith without becoming confused, alhamdulillah. Not only were the Ash'aris not boogie men, they deserved much heartfelt prayer from us for defending the faith against the onslaught of deviant sects by organizing it and presenting it logically.
My final departure with Salafism was upon finding the students of Sheikh Nuh Keller in Silicon Valley. After presenting a number of outstanding questions in my mind about Sufism to his students, I was disappointed with their answers, which didn't quite satisfy me. One of the murids in the Bay Area lent me a set of ten tapes. The tape set presented Sufism practically (and not just in principle) in an incredibly logical manner, from first principles. Where others had waved their hands and stumbled, Sheikh Nuh explained with reason.
May Allah preserve all our shuyukh, and our spelling.
One might find it surprising that someone who left Salafism for Traditional Islam finds such technicalities relevant, let alone annoying enough to blog about. For me, it wasn't the heart-touching speeches of Sufi charlatans or charming nashids that moved me away from Salafism to Traditional Islam. The spirituality and beautiful power of Qur'anic recitation is and always will be more than enough in those regards. Rather, it was that, at the end of the day, Salafism just didn't have much to offer on the intellectual front; it wasn't accurate enough and it lacked depth.
My first breach with Salafism was in the fiqh department, when I found that the logical conclusion of Salafi methodology was for me to become an absolute mujtahid. I seriously attempted this for a while, only to find that I was (obviously) unqualified. If I had to follow someone else's reasoning, it appeared, then why would I follow a modern scholar instead of someone whose scholarship was attested to across history? Without getting into the long back-and-forth arguments and counter-arguments I went through (as the process was long-winded and gradual, spanning years), I eventually decided to follow a school of thought in fiqh matters. Not only did I find the credentials of the scholars of the schools of thought more impressive than those of modern scholars, I also found there to be an aromatic depth to their books that was simply lacking in the books that I was used to. Finally, I found that an honest survey of scholars over the centuries revealed that virtually all of them followed schools of thought. This pattern did not disappear after the spread of academies and libraries, so the argument that people followed schools of thought out of not having the sea of textual evidence before them was unfounded.
My next breach was in the acceptance of Sufism in principle. At the time I was taking classes with Dr. Nazih Hammad from North Vancouver. A great Sufi charlatan came to visit Vancouver and caused a bit of a hoo-la-baloo. Someone asked Dr. Nazih Hammad about Sufism after which he explained the difference between Sunni Sufism and Bid`i (Innovative) Sufism. Once I heard him described Sunni Sufism, I knew that this was it: this was the Real McCoy I had always wanted.
A few moves, timezones, cities, and years later, I had finished studying the basic fiqh of purification and prayer in the Shafi'i school and was in Tampa, Florida, where I read the matn of Ibn Ashir with Sheikh Khatri Ould Beibeh of Mauritania. At first, he didn't want to read the section on aqida in detail as he said it caused some confusion among people in America. I explained to him that this detailed discussion on creed was exactly what I was looking for. He asked me if I was an engineer, and when I told him I was, he said that it was mostly engineers who understood the section. What I found was that Ash'ari creed, far from being the boogie man I grew up believing it to be, was an organized, methodologically-sound medium for presenting and defending Islamic belief. Never before was I better equipped to answer the questioning of faith in general, and Islamic belief in particular, than after I studied aqida with Sheikh Khatri. A door had opened: I could now reason about faith without becoming confused, alhamdulillah. Not only were the Ash'aris not boogie men, they deserved much heartfelt prayer from us for defending the faith against the onslaught of deviant sects by organizing it and presenting it logically.
My final departure with Salafism was upon finding the students of Sheikh Nuh Keller in Silicon Valley. After presenting a number of outstanding questions in my mind about Sufism to his students, I was disappointed with their answers, which didn't quite satisfy me. One of the murids in the Bay Area lent me a set of ten tapes. The tape set presented Sufism practically (and not just in principle) in an incredibly logical manner, from first principles. Where others had waved their hands and stumbled, Sheikh Nuh explained with reason.
May Allah preserve all our shuyukh, and our spelling.
12 Comments:
At 1:53 PM , alajnabiya said...
"an aromatic depth to their books"??? If I assume that's not a spelling mistake, in a post partly about spelling mistakes, then I am afraid I don't get your meaning. But I do understand your point about the logic of the adherents of the Salafi movement. For people who eschew "blind following" of a school of thought, in practice they do seem to demand a blind following of their shuyukh. Do you know if the tapes you mentioned by Sheikh Nuh are available to download someplace online?
At 3:42 PM , Flicken said...
Assalamu alaikum.
Thank you for commenting.
When I used aromatic, I meant it as a metaphor. Just as aromas are subtle and can sometimes intoxicate and gratify in a way that is difficult to explain in words, and just as the base cannot distinguish between a fine, exquisite aroma and Eau de Walmart, similarly the depth of classical Islamic texts intoxicates and gratifies subtly and is highly unappreciated by those who want a diatribe written in fifth grade vocabulary.
Another defense of this use of aromatic is in the definition given in Merriam-Webster: having a distinctive quality.
As for the Salafis, it's not just that they require blind following of their shuyukh, but after the passing of the big-time Salafis last decade, their internal conflicts have multiplied. The Salafis were left without any clear authority, and if you followed the wrong Salafi sheikh, you somehow became a deviant over night.
As for Sheikh Nuh's tapes, they can be found at suhba.org. Go to, "Lessons" followed by, "Virginia Suhba - Jan 1998."
At 9:47 PM , alajnabiya said...
Thanks for the link, and still lol at the aromatic depth. I live and learn.
At 7:28 AM , mujahid7ia said...
"A similar phenomenon is present here in Jordan where the majority of people seem to think that salli is spelled with a ya'. It is not. In fact, the correct spelling is صل not صلي, as is commonly found."
Does this mean the salli commonly seen?
At 8:37 AM , Flicken said...
Yes, the way it should be written is:
اللهم صل على النبي
without a ya'.
At 8:53 AM , UmmFarouq said...
I sincerely appreciate this post.
I never would have pegged you (from your writing) as a former Salafi. SubhanAllah...the power of enlightenment.
At 5:35 PM , Flicken said...
Alhamdulillah; all guidance is from Allah Most High.
At 9:11 PM , Anonymous said...
Thanks for your enlightening post. I do agree with your point about proper spelling and attention to detail.
This is just a friendly reminder that the most correct spelling of the nefarious bad-guy is "bogeyman."
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman
At 9:30 PM , Flicken said...
Anonymous,
Thank you for pointing out the most common spelling. As you probably know, Boogie Man is also valid, though less common, so please don't send me to gaol.
At 12:44 AM , Ibnouzahir said...
asalaamu alaikum,
Can you provide a masjid affiliation for Dr. Nazih Hammad? I would have loved to hear a decent opinion on sufism. I've been making my rounds, exploring the various types (best I can as a mother of 2) of Islam. It has taken me 7 yrs to finally realize how diverse the types of muslims, and their opinions. I'm totally lost. I'm enjoying it, but I'd like to, ahhhh, find a good place for myself, inshallah. After learning that the Imam that I like locally is Shadhili, I went internet surfing (a blessing and a curse to be able to do this) and found total liberal shadhili sufis, and totally strict ones---Sh. Nu Ha Mim... Anyway, each I am sure addresses a need to a certain population I suppose. I am attracted to the level of scholarship with the group you chose, but sheesh, I can't get over the Lecture about Niqab by Sh. Keller. I just can't go there yet. Is niqab no big deal in Jordan?
Strict segregation gives me the willies, no offense, I guess I am just not there yet as well. It is always a challenge to see how far you are willing to go----which is why it is soooo important to find the right guidance/path.
Very interesting blog, Thanks for being open.
Aischa
At 8:57 PM , Anonymous said...
I just discovered your blog and alhamdulillah it is very insightful.
After reading this entry, I couldn't help but feel I was missing something.
Why is it such a concern for the traditional muslims' spelling not to deteriorate? Is their spelling deteriorating an indicator that they do not take their religion seriously? What does a deterioration in spelling lead to in the future?
I do have friends who brush off certain important fiqh points such as the category of alms recipients, fi sabilillah, as a technicality extending the boundaries of the group to beyond people engaged in war. Is your blog entry sort of addressing this group of people.
Looking forward to your response. Insha'Llah.
At 11:04 PM , Flicken said...
Thank you for your comment. The blog entry is basically about why I left Salafism, which had everything to do with accuracy and depth. I just have an aversion to sloppiness, whether it is in spelling or other areas.
I did not intend to directly address people who consider fi sabilillah to be open-ended. However, their argument falls apart in two ways. First of all, they need actual proof for what they're saying. Something as fundamental as a pillar of Islam has been studied to the nth degree over the centuries. If such a position has been adopted by any of the major schools of the thought, then it is acceptable. Otherwise, it is not. Secondly, if fi sabilillah applies to anything that is spent for the Sake of Allah, what is the need for the other seven categories of zakah recipients, as spending on them is certainly for the Sake of Allah, is it not?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home