﷽
Beneficial to the Salafiyyūn in sha Allah
I was raised as a Salafi, having two practising parents upon this methodology. I was surrounded with good and sincere people and developed a love for the Qur'an and Sunnah from a very young age. In my teenage years I began to seek knowledge more often, and I travelled here and there to seek a good place to continue my pursuit of knowledge.
As I approached my twenties, I began to delve deeper into Fiqh, and especially Usul. It was during this time that I discovered the existence of a fifth so-called Madhab, Dhahiriyyah. At first, I didn't think much of it and began to research the four Madhahib and their Usul.
One thing that I have to note is that I was already against Taqlid at this time, and I opposed Madhabi fanaticism. I considered myself as a follower of the methodology of the Ahl al-Hadith, although admittedly I did not fully understand what this methodology entailed and how my path wasn't really that of the true Ahl al-Hadith. I had not yet grasped Usul, nor had I learned the differences within this methodology. But my intention was to be strict in submitting solely to the Qur'an and Sunnah, and to avoid Taqlid, and to not speak about the religion with Ra'iy.
Unbeknownst to me, these were the very foundations of the methodology of the Ahl al-Dhahir already present in my heart, and I would later build and solidify my Aqidah and Fiqh upon them. Then as my journey progressed, and I delved deeper into Usul, this fifth Madhab began to appear more and more, and when I was briefly informed of its Usul, I began to research it. My first effort was to find out what the Salafi scholars said about this Madhab, their opinions ranged from negative to extremely positive. I then started to read more and more about this methodology, and eventually I found other Dhahiris here and there, some had been Dhahiris for many years whilst others had, just like me, recently discovered this methodology.
As I read more about their Usul, I could not find anything in my heart to reject or doubt it.I had discovered a methodology that had as its foundations the sole submittance to Allah and his Rasul ﷺ, just as the Sahaba were ordered. It taught that the Qur'an and Sunnah were both revelation, and therefore both were fully preserved without any doubt or faults. It taught that the Qur'an and Sunnah were revealed in the clear Arabic language, and that therefore the origin of every text is that it is to be taken upon its apparent meaning as it is pure eloquence and conciseness, void of doubts such as whether it had different interpretations or was metaphoric, except if the text itself, or intellectual necessary judgement, clarified that it is not taken upon its apparent.
It spoke of the abandonment of any principles, rulings, ideologies, and even sects that had formed due to the opinions and mistakes of men. It pointed out how even Rasulallah ﷺ, the infallible, had no authority to speak about the religion out of his own, rather it was all from Allah, and no fallible humans had any say in it. It asserted that Allah had completed his religion, and that the Halal and Haram was clarified, either specifically or generally, the latter of which encompasses matters in any age to come. It spoke of the falsehood of incorporating doubtful matters into the religion of Allah, which is a religion that is built upon nothing but the revelation, and the revelation is pure Yaqin. It taught al-Sam' wa al-Ṭa'a, hearing and obeying to whatever Allah and his Rasul ﷺ command.
It taught an Islam without the additions made by men, the pure religion of Allah as was taught and practised by Rasulallah ﷺ. It emphasized that if Allah said that the Qur'an and Sunnah are a guidance, and that they are Yaqin, and that they are the truth from Allah, preserved, and fully completed, then it suffices us in everything of our religion.
When I understood the Usul of this methodology, I realized that there is no Madhab, and no methodology, that can come anywhere near this pure Manhaj. For indeed, it was the Manhaj that was followed by none other than Rasulallah ﷺ.
"Say (Oh prophet) I am not different from the other messengers, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you. I follow nothing except what is revealed to me, and I am only a clear warner."
[Surah al-Ahqaf Ayah 9]
And it is the Manhaj he taught to his Sahaba, and it has always survived throughout every age and every Fitnah.
"Say, this is my path, I invite to Allah with clearness (and certain knowledge), I and those who follow me. And glorious is Allah, and I am not among the Mushrikīn"
[Surah Yusuf ayah 108]
It is not a Madhab, rather it is a Manhaj, it is a method of thinking that is not dependant upon the Usul of any man unlike the four Madhahib. Rather the Ahl al-Dhāhir solely attribute themselves to Rasulallah ﷺ, without taking any man's opinions after him as Deen. This is what convinced me to follow this path, and I have not found anything to doubt it.
“...And indeed, Dhann avails not against the truth at all.”
[Surah Al-Najm Ayah 28]
The modern Salafi methodology claims to follow the Salaf al-Salih, they are the righteous predecessors, the noble Sahaba and those who followed them, and those who followed them. These were the golden generations of Islam, they were its best people, may Allah be pleased with them.
The Salafi methodology is built upon the idea of following the understanding of these predecessors, but does it really do that? The Salafi Manhaj calls to follow the understanding of the Salaf, but which Salaf? And whose understanding? The Salaf were spread out across the major cities of Islam like Madinah, Makkah, Kufah, Basra, Baghdad, etc. And whilst they were generally united upon the idea of submitting solely to Allah's revelation, they still differed due to varying levels of access to knowledge, having narrations which the other did not have, having mistaken views such as adopting some beliefs of the Qadariyyah, Shi'a, and even the Khawarij, having a certain framework in Fiqh which Salaf of other regions did not follow, and there are many more reasons for their differences, many of which I explained here. Most of their opinions are also not preserved, as explained here.
The question then arises to the Salafiyyūn, whose understanding is authoritative when they differed? They will attempt to reconcile between these differences by appealing to a general understanding of the Salaf. But in reality what they end up doing is handpicking the understanding of a certain group among the Salaf whilst abandoning the others, then they claim this to be a unified understanding of all the Salaf al-Salih, and this is falsehood.
The reality is that this is mostly the products of later scholars' choices rather than an authentic preservation of what all the Salaf al-Salih believed. And thus we say, that the call by the modern Salafiyyah to follow the "understanding of the Salaf" is usually a call to follow a certain group from the Salaf, and we were never ordered by Allah to adopt such a narrow methodology. Moreover, it is a fact that modern Salafiyyah greatly elevate scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim. It is true that these men are men of respect and status, may Allah reward them, but they are fallible, and the moment we rely on their understanding as a criterion rather than the revelation of Allah, then that is when we deviate from the command of Allah to submit solely to his Wahy. The Dhahiri Manhaj differs with the modern Salafiyyah in that they insist on the authority of the Qur'an and Sunnah, it answers the question of "whose understanding of the Salaf is authoritative when they differ" with the words of Allah:
"...And if you disagree in anything, refer back to Allah and the messenger..."
[Surah al-Nisa Ayah 59]
It does not elevate the words of any scholar, whether modern or ancient, to a place where they are used as a separate authority in the religion of Allah. This is because the clear, apparent, proper linguistic meaning of the Qur'an and Sunnah is the highest authority, and not the opinions that go against this meaning except if these opinions have proof from the Qur'an and Sunnah, since the Qur'an and Sunnah can (and did) change linguistic meanings from their original meanings in the Arabic language.
And neither are the rulings that are based upon human reasoning an evidence in the religion of Allah, the modern Salafiyyah will differ with this as well. They accept Ra'iy, Qiyas, Istihsan, and usually all other Usul that the Madhahib have due to their false and inconsistent method of taking from their handpicked group of the Salaf or current scholars. In some issues they may pick what they think is the truth, whereas in other issues (such as the case with Usul) they may accept all the differing the Salaf had and will consider it as valid in the religion of Allah.
The Ahl al-Dhahir reject this method of the modern Salafiyyah, they insist and stand firm upon the fact that the Sharia of Allah cannot be extended by fallible human speculation and mistaken opinions. These differences can never be considered as "valid", rather they are to be judged in light of the Qur'an and Sunnah. There is only one truth among them, and the rest is false and should not be adopted.
What Allah revealed is sufficient, and what he did not reveal is not from the religion, and silence from the revelation is not an invitation for man to insert his judgement.
Another strong difference between the Ahl al-Dhahir and the Salafiyyah is in the issue of Taqlid, many Salafis will claim that they are against Taqlid. But in practice, many simply substitute the four Madhahib for a reliance on modern Salafi scholars, usually from specific institutions or places. They will feel obligated to stand behind the Fatawa of their chosen scholars, not because of a clear independant evidence from Allah and his Rasul ﷺ, but rather because these scholars are "upon the correct Manhaj".
This is none other than Taqlid, and it is no different from blindly following a Madhab, and the Ahl al-Dhahir reject this.
So when I am asked, why did you leave Salafiyyah? I respond, I did not leave the Salaf, by Allah I did not. Rather I left a modern ideology that speaks for them, and I returned to the path of pure submission to the clear words of Allah and his Rasul ﷺ, as the Salaf themselves were commanded to do. And when I am asked if this is truly the correct understanding of the religion of Allah, I answer with the last part of the Ayah I previously mentioned, where Allah said:
“...And if you disagree over anything, refer back to Allāh and the Messenger, if you truly believe in Allah and the last day, that is better and the best interpretation (understanding)...”
[Surah al-Nisa Ayah 59]
والحمد لله رب العالمين