/lit/ - Literature

>>22514265
>What are you trying to imply here?
The "Salafi" position is the original position, it was Ash'arism that was a reaction towards the Mu'tazila

>What do you think about the modern Salafism in particular?
I think only they take Islam seriously. A certain sect of them are anti-intellectual and muqallids, but most of them are alright

>following only the Salafi scholars
This cannot be done. To study hadith, one must read Ibn Hajar, to study Qur'anic Grammar, one must read Al-Zamakhshari. We must benefit from even the Mu'tazila.

Some promote the books of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, claiming they are essential. These people are anti-intellectual. One must only read the Qur'an and Sunnah to reach the conclusions of the Salaf

>those who oppose some of the stricter dogmas lost
They did lose. Not in a physical sense, as every muslim is losing right now, even the Taliban. But, when people convert, they convert with the Salafi aqeedah, because Salafis take Islam more seriously than the blind followers of Asharism and such.

From among the Ash'aris, there is only Dr Ali Ataie and Abdal Hakim Murad who are worth benefitting from, while the voices of Salafi scholars live on through their many followers, the Asha'ris of Al-Azhar are forgotten

>>22448623
I should also mention this: In understanding Islam, no one person or organisation has a monopoly on the truth. you should not follow a scholar who does not provide evidence and reasoning. Failing to do this and only blindly following, especially in theological matters, is sinful. Seeking knowledge is obligatory