What do purist Salafis mean when they say everyone must follow the Qur'ān and Sunna? What level of knowledge must one have in order to do this? In the case of laypeople, are they to follow scripture directly or do they perform taqlīd? In this chapter, I answer these questions in order to shed light on the rhetorical strategies used by Salafis and Traditionalists. Salafis critiques of Traditionalism have brought forward a cluster of issues in which the texts seem to go against the position of the madhhabs. The legal theory of the madhhabs is often inaccessible to lay Muslims and is based on the global demands the positions of Traditionalists scholars have taken on various issues. On the other hand, independent Salafi thinkers like Albānī bring forward simple and easy-to-understand texts. This chapter focuses on how purist Salafis critiqued the madhhabs by portraying Traditionalists as ones that follow scholars instead of the authentic teachings of the Qur'ān and Sunna. I explain how the variant definitions Salafis and Traditionalists have of taqlīd and ijtihād often leads to confusion on their practical application of Islamic law and religious authority.

This chapter introduces Albānī’s life and his relationship with other Muslim groups. It begins with an introduction to Albānī’s formative years and his sour relationship with his father and Ḥanafīs in Syria. Albānī took his iconoclasm with him everywhere he went, even to relatively conservative countries like Saudi Arabia. While in Medina, Albānī and his students engaged in particular practices that distinguished them in the social arena. Most of these practices were based on his fatwas, which contradicted the Wahhabi-Ḥanbalī consensus. Saudi Wahhabis could not tolerate Albānī’s iconoclasm and chose to not renew his teaching appointment. Albānī then moved to Jordan where he clashed with the very powerful Muslim Brotherhood. Finally, the chapter introduces the most prominent Traditionalist figures in the modern Muslim world who viewed Salafism as a threat to Islam.

This chapter begins with a discussion about the debates around Albānī’s scholarship. Albānī being self-taught leads us to explore larger questions about education, technology, and religious authority. More than any other time period, the last hundred years have witnessed a rise in the accessibility of information through books, media, and the Internet. This introduced new ways of learning and sharing Islamic knowledge that were previously unavailable. In this chapter, I analyze how traditional Islamic knowledge and pedagogical techniques are challenged by the growing number of lay Muslims participating in religious discussions through print and internet. I explain why Traditionalist ʿulamā’ perceive self-learning as a threat not only to the “proper” understanding of religion, but also to the redefinition and reinvention of their authority. I argue that print and media caused a shift away from the cruciality of the teacher and facilitated autodidactic learning and claims to authority. Despite their criticism of self-learning, Traditionalists have embraced the Internet in order to remain relevant and compete with nonexperts who speak about Islam.

How does one understand scripture? What role do scholars play in understanding religious texts? What should lay Muslims do when they encounter scripture that conflicts with a scholarly opinion? These questions are often at the center of religious disputes among Muslims in the modern world and have sparked debates among scholars and nonscholars alike. The fierce intellectual debates between Salafis and Traditionalists have been a prominent feature of Islamic intellectual history in the twentieth century. Although they both draw from the same sources, each of these groups considers itself to be the authentic version of Islam. Traditionalism is an institutional understanding of Islam that developed over centuries of scholarship. Traditionalists advocate a deference to precedent (taqlīd) of the madhhabs as a means for Muslims to understand Islam.1 On the other hand, purist Salafis view themselves as a group that is purifying the syncretic practices that crept into the faith over many centuries. Salafis consider the uncritical following of the madhhabs to be the root cause of the Muslim world’s political, economic, and social decline. They advocate for a return to the Qurʾān and Sunna as they were understood by the earliest Muslim generations.

This chapter begins with a discussion of the different reactions toward criticism of ḥadīth found in the Ṣaḥīḥayn. Is there a consensus on the authenticity of the Ṣaḥīḥayn or have they always been open to re-examination? Next, I analyze Albānī’s ḥadīth methodology and the criticism he attracted. One would imagine that Albānī was a very strict and cautious ḥadīth scholar, but much of the criticism he received was due to leniency in his methodology. In particular, he was often criticized for using abridged versions of ḥadīth manuals to make decisions. Finally, the chapter ends by looking at the impact Albānī had on modern ḥadīth studies. In the 1960s it was not common practice for scholars to cite the ḥadīth they quoted or even note their level of authenticity. However, after Albānī we find that many authors, even his critics, started grading each ḥadīth. The most important result was that a generation of university students tried to evaluate any ḥadīth they would use in their dissertations.

Eliminating the use of weak ḥadīth has been a common call of Salafism. Salafis rejected the use of weak ḥadīth because they were incompatible with their core commitment to textual authenticity. Salafis believed weak ḥadīth to be the source of many superstitions, fictitious beliefs, and many erroneous legal verdicts found in the madhhabs. They hold that the use of weak ḥadīth betrays the scholarly responsibility to preserve Islamic teachings in their pure form. On the other hand, Traditionalists allowed the limited use of weak ḥadīth and insisted that they play an important role in Islamic interpretation. The different stances reflect the various priorities of both groups as well as their contrasting conceptions of truth. Their differences also stem from their different perceptions of the social and ideological consequences of using weak ḥadīth. This chapter ends with an analysis of Albānī’s controversial project of dividing the Sunan and the responses it garnered from Traditionalists.

This book traced the origins and manifestation of the tensions between purist Salafis and Traditionalists. Frustrated with the religious, social, and political circumstances of the twentieth century, purist Salafis attempted to purge Islamic tradition in order to secure a pure version of Islam. The fall of the Ottoman Empire played a major role in shifting the religious paradigm that was present in the Muslim world. Traditionalists losing the support of the state and their monopoly over education provided other groups, such as Salafis, the opportunity to rise and challenge Traditionalist institutions. When Traditionalists lost the support of the state, they were uncertain of what would unfold and what their role in society would become. This uncertainty led many of them to rigidly adhere to Traditionalism because it was the only system they knew and trusted. This resulted in a culture of strict madhhabism where some Traditionalists adhered to the madhhabs in an uncompromising and uncritical manner. Furthermore, Traditionalists garnered the reputation of being outdated and unable to provide solutions to the swift changes that were taking place in the Muslim world. Leading Salafis emerged from this environment and they criticized the madhhabs as a source of division in the Muslim community.

This chapter locates the place of Salafism among other vying movements at the time, particularly Islamic Modernism and Traditionalism. By the end of the thirteenth century, Traditionalism had reached its mature, institutional form. At the core of Traditionalism were the four madhhabs that provided systematic interpretations of Islamic law and to which Muslim scholars and their educational systems held guild-like loyalty. Islamic Modernists largely viewed and interpreted the principal Islamic texts, and called for ijtihād, through the prism of modernity. For Modernists, it was essential to reform Islamic teachings in light of modern advancements. They were concerned with making Islam relevant and meaningful to the present. I end this chapter with a discussion of the different types of Salafis.

As with most legal systems, Islamic law leaves many legal questions unresolved and issues are open for jurists to make judgments using their intellectual efforts. This results in multiple approaches and legal opinions (ikhtilāf). This chapter analyzes the opposing approaches toward Islamic law between Salafis and Traditionalists to explain why they differ about the validity of ijmāʿ and acceptance of ikhtilāf. I argue that at the core of their different approaches toward ijmāʿ and ikhtilāf are their divergent attitudes toward certainty in Islamic law. The Salafi belief in the ability to attain definite knowledge (ʿilm) in legal matters impacted their attitude on the validity of ikhtilāf. The Salafi notion of certainty in Islamic law led them to reject the validity of legal pluralism and therefore rebuke Traditionalists for following the madhhabs.