There are differences on the validity of the linguistic stem of the word Sufi, and what it entails. The preferred, is linking it to Safa' (purity) through metaphor or practice of the early Sufi's. The best meaning is that Sufism is a synonym for the Prophetic term: Ihsan, and bound by it. It is alleged that "Salafi or Salafism's" foundation comes from the known authentic Hadith, which means: (The best of people are my century, then those who follow, then those who follow). This is a portion of a long Hadith, and as such, the meaning of the Hadith is incomplete. Not to discuss the whole complete narration and its actual full contextual meaning and implication, nor the meaning of "qarni = which maybe translated as century", but regardless of the result, this Hadith cannot be used as a substantiation of a Prophetic command to follow the "Salaf" (people/scholars) who lived in the first 300 years. The partial point of this fragment of the Hadith is to praise some of the people who happened to live in those centuries. For even his century, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, had the best of creation and some of the worst examples of humanity ever, such as Abu Jahl, and Abu Lahab, Ummayah bin Khalaf, and the likes. There were/are some serious criminals present in all centuries, including in his own century, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, and the Prophetic Hadith does not mean to include any and all (people/scholars) in any given time or place exclusively. This is the beginning.
At the time of the Tabi'in (generation after the honorable companions, may Allah be pleased with them all) the various schools of thought and Islamic theology started developing, from the extreme literalists to the radical rationalists and everything in between. Obviously the crystallization of the "Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'a" theological schools with all of its shades and variety: (Puritan Hanbali*, Athari non-Hanbali, Ash'ari, Maturidi) and other sects' theological schools such as the Mu'tazilites, Shia sects, and the "Khariji" sects whose remnant is the "very modified" present day Ibaadi's, was ongoing and developing. At the end of the 5th century most of the sects were developed, and each of them had their own "Salaf = pious predecessors". The Sufi movement started also crystallizing as a distinguished movement by the 2nd century, whereby it necessitated key founding figures like Al-Junayd Al-Baghdadi to state that: "our Sufism is bound by the Book and Sunnah", and similar statements were repeated later by other Sufi figures like Sayyidi Abdul Qader Al-Jaylani, an era which marked the formal establishment of Turuq (schools of Tasawuff) and "Turuqism" within the concept of Sufism. Every group in the Ummah had their own set of people/scholars whom they considered as "As-Salaf As-Saaleh," despite the obvious overlapping at times.
Theologically (when pertaining to secondary issues*), what each group means by "As-Salaf As-Saaleh" when trying to substantiate a detailed secondary Tawhid issue/Kalami/Asm'a & Sifaat, etc.. is a (small) group of scholarly figures that happened to live during the 3rd century. I say small, because the Hanbali's cannot establish recorded authentic evidence in their views to more than a handful of figures, despite the claims that makes it sound as if the whole Muslim world at that time was one way or another, but they since they call those handful figures: "salaf as-saaleh", the impression nowadays, is that the whole world was like that back then. Also mostly; the term "Salaf As-Saaleh" when used in secondary detailed theological debates and arguments refers mostly to the 3rd century more than the 1st or 2nd, for no one has an issue with the first generation which constitutes the Sahaba (Allah Ta'ala be pleased with them all). The differences start from the second century and were established and crystallized in the 3rd. Hence, most of use of such terms refer back to the second and third century, in general.
Furthermore, there are some serious disagreements among Muslim groups and sects on who should belong to this group of "Salaf As-Saaleh", within the same ideological group itself sometimes, let alone the various groups that proclaimed belonging to or claim to exclusively represent "Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'a". For the 'Salaf As-Saaleh" of the Sufi's is not necessarily the same as that of the nowadays Salafi's, and so on. Or there could be an acceptance of inclusion conditioned with an insistence that so and so is more qualified and more "Saaleh" than so and so from the other ideological group, even within groups having minor differences. Al-Hafidh Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote his famous book Talbis Iblis "tricks of Shaytan" to simply refute the Sufi's of his time and their effect including such as Imam Al-Ghazzali. May Allah have mercy on both of them.
The fact is; scholars who happened to live in the 3rd or 4th century did not have one unified school of theology or Fiqh, and did not have an agreement about (almost) anything EXCEPT that which is Mutawater (definitive) in its transmission, or "known by necessity". For ALMOST every other issue, was discussed, debated and argued and you will find disagreements and agreements about almost anything in that blessed era. So, to say that the "Salaf As-Saaleh" had "a Math'hab" (unified school in matters of "secondary detailed = non-definitive" theology and/or Jurisprudence), or this is "the Madh'hab" of the Salaf, is simply non-factual. Hence, even among those who proclaimed "Ahlus Sunnah" as their mainframe school, we find differences in main issues of theology, needless to talk about jurisprudence.
- If you take the Hanbali' theology as stated by Al-Qadi Abu Ya'la in his book (Ibtaal'u'Ta'weelaat), you will find that Ash'ari's and Maturidi's and even the Athari' non-Hanbali's call it flat out Kufr or very close to, on the basis of anthropomorphism. Not to mention the habit of many Hanbali's past and present to rely on weak or less-than-Sahih-in-its-Baab narrations in matters of Tawhid and theology, while demanding absolute authenticity in Fiqhi and Ibadaat matters. It is derived from their approach, which is largely based on an apparent method reflecting: Taqlid (of the "salaf") in Tawhid but Ijtihad in Fiqh, and Allah knows best.
- Though both schools consider each other Ahlus Sunnah wal Jam'ah, but there are differences between the Ash'ari's and Maturidi's. Those differences are not many, but a few of them are real differences and not just semantics, such as the capacity and effect of the power of the creation, and matters of Sifaat, such as al-Wujud, and so on. And those differences were expressed in harsh language in the early days. Though -alhamdulillah- this faded away in the past few centuries, largely because the Kalami debate has subsided a lot, and the Ash'ari school has expanded into the 'usual' Maturidi constituency, despite the titles or remnants.
Nevertheless, all and every sect and group claim to have their own "Salaf-Saleh" through whom they got their information and affirmed practice. The reality is, it is because of an extreme sectarian view lately-bordering a cult-driven dogma and preaching, the idea of what "As-Salaf As-Saaleh" did and believed, became prevalent, and almost made to be the benchmark of Sunnah versus non-Sunnah or Bid'ah (evil innovation). The danger in such a notion, is establishing a new standard other than the Book and Sunnah, or worse yet; rendering the Qur'an and Sunnah texts valid contingent only on a "Salah or Khalaf''s view or understanding, in practice even if theory says otherwise. The current notion to follow "As-Salaf As-Saaleh" makes sense to those who limit (the need to find recorded authentic evidence of) the Salaf As-Saaleh to a group of 5-6 people who lived in the 3rd century, and 2-3 people who came in the 8th, simply because individual documentation is not there, and contradictory testimonies by other "Salaf"s are equally widely available. This is pertaining to the secondary detailed issues of Asma' and Sifaat and Kalam, in particular. Some people consider the use of "secondary and primary Deeni issues as Bid'ah itself, as a Bid'i division. For those; what I meant by secondary detailed issues are the issues that are based on non-Qat'i (non-definitive) transmission. Those who believe that Qat'i and non-Qat'i is also a Bid'ah, then it is the issues that have weak transmissions to the Prophet-sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, or when an non-sahih-in-the-Baab transmission is used in lieu of such to substantiate a binding issue in belief. It is important, however, to say that the notion to make the texts of the Book and Sunnah conditional on the understanding of "some people in the Khalaf or Salaf" is not limited to one group or sect. i.e. stipulating conditions on revelations to be accepted and practiced directly is not native to one group versus another.
The reality is that Allah Ta'ala did not command us to follow the "Salaf As-Saaleh" as a standard, nor did He command us to imitate anyone other than the one and only Truthful Infallible Messenger of this Last Ummah, Sayyiduna Muhammad bin Abdillah sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam. The whole Salaf and the rest of the Ummah, starting with the Sahaba (may Allah Ta'ala be pleased with them all) were commanded to follow the Book and the Prophetic Sunnah. For this is the "golden" standard for all. No other standard can be interjected. To that, the Hadith of our mother Ummul Mu'minin Aisha (radiya Allahu Ta'ala anha) in Sahih Muslim said, which means: "whoever interjects in this Deen that which is not from it, is rejected."
Had the term "As-Salaf As-Saaleh" been limited to the "Sabiqin Awwalin", it would have had a share of the truth in its nomenclature, to say the least. As "As-Sabiqin Al-Awwalin" is a known group of the Sahaba, mentioned in the Qur'an explicitly as a pious and righteous group with an indication to the rest of the Sahaba that if they -and all those who came after- follow them, contingent that this "following" MUST be conditioned by IHSAN (righteously), they will attain the pleasure of Allah Ta'ala. One can argue that "righteously" means adhering to the standard of the Book and Sunnah and not prioritize anything before them. i.e. When some Salafi's require the understanding of "men" of the Salaf time for a Tawhid-text to be understood, the Ash'ari notion of prohibiting Taqlid in Tawhid seems to be simply more Salafi than the the nowadays Salafi's. I believe there is a need to actually go the Qur'an and Sunnah directly in these issues, and beyond stipulating any fallible understandings as a condition for the Qur'anic and infallible texts.
Obviously this is not an issue with the "Far'iyyat" or secondary detailed issues in Fiqh, for all the non-Mutawater (non-Definitive transmissions) issues contain a space for disagreement about understanding such texts, span of their application, and even differences about the very process of authentication of such narrations. Jurisprudencial (secondary Fiqhi) differences rarely led to a "cult" culture or a claim of a mutually exclusive ownership of the truth. So the issues remain at secondary theological issues such as anthropomorphism, the issues of Asm'a and Sifaat, Tawassul, and other minor issues. I believe if there is no confiscation of the right of the opponent to go to the Book and Sunnah directly, no stipulations for accessing the Qur'an and Sunnah, and no misrepresentation of the other, full disclosure of each groups Daleel (evidence) from exclusively the Book and Sunnah will bring some closure to many outstanding issues, where ambiguity is purposely made the rule now. At the end people will take whatever they want, but an honest and full disclosure is seriously lacking and needed.
As for the "Salaf As-Saaleh", if they are Sahabi's, then they have a different handling due to their lofty honor. If they are in the 2nd and 3rd century, then they were human beings. Yes, they were honorable human beings because of their piety. The scholars among them were learnt people, and some of those learnt ones were key figures in groups that were established then or later. People can love whomever they want, but it may even infringe on the faith system itself to condition the Book of Allah to an understanding of a group of fallible people, regardless how great or knowledgeable they were. The Book was not revealed onto/to be useful to a group of few scholars in the first 3 centuries only, and inaccessible to the rest of the Ummah, and the whole Ummah becomes obliged to blindly imitate and adopt that specific group's understanding, views, and written texts. Revealed Texts (Qur'an and Sunnah) are the standard, not human-written texts. The Ta'sis (foundation) is only for the Book and Authentic Sunnah in this Deen. Yes there is a Fiqh of the Hadith and Sunnah, and thats what our scholarship from the time of the pious predecessors until the day of judgment attempts to explain and shed light on. One needs to delve into that, and master it as part of the "Ulum-ul-Aaalah= tools" necessary to understand the possible multiple dimensions of the texts. But the Imams of the Salaf and the Ulama of the Salaf and Khalaf's contribution and academic work is for Isti'naas (elucidation and expansion) not substantiation and foundation. May Allah Ta'ala accept from all of them their efforts, and be pleased with them all. This is not to mean like what extreme anti-Madh'habi's went to, such as calling to burn the books of Shafi'i, Abu Hanifah, Ahmad, Malek, and the like..and considering them as idols, or considering those Madha'heb a "new Deen"!. Na'udhu Billah. But it is to put things in its right perspective; relying on the efforts of our pious predecessors in our gradual approach to knowledge, but at the same time not replacing the Book and Sunnah (in studying, memorization, direct practice, prioritization, analysis, teaching, explaining) by books and/or statements of the Salaf or Khalaf. The works of our great Imams and Madha'heb (schools of Fiqh) are there to lead us and push us towards the Book and Sunnah, and that's the context here. After all, we are mandated in the Qur'an to ask those of Ilm (knowledge), and refer to them. One should realize, however, that acquiring knowledge is a process that normally requires a gradual approach = Tadarruj, and Allah knows best.
Love whoever you want to love, but do not interject a new standard to the Ummah. Even this irrelevant "mental tennis" of favoring one group of the Salaf scholars over the other, is useless. Allah Ta'ala commanded us to ask forgiveness for those who passed before us, and improve our own selves and situation so we can attain our own salvation, for the Salaf and the Khalaf cannot help if our Iman and Deeds are not there. People may disagree about who is and who is not among the "Salaf As-Saaleh", but they won't disagree about the Qur'an and Authentic Sunnah. The call to go "back to basics", is a call for unity, knowing that; unity does not mean conformity.
This is not to point out faults within one group to make another a standard. The only standard out there is the Book and authentic Sunnah, which must be taught, presented, explained, prioritized and practiced. But it is time to go beyond labels and examine the evidenced facts. The best way to advance the academic situation of the Ummah is to go back and heavily invest in prioritizing the Qur'an and Authentic Sunnah. They are the illumination and illuminating, and they can eradicate ignorance, merchants of the Deen, and opportunists. The Deen cannot be based on halo's given to figures, popular myths, marketing, or detachment from the original revelation no matter how these attempts are sugarcoated.
A sign of an alarming emergence of a "cult" culture within the Ummah, is an ignorant in the Deeni scholarship who just joins a current movement, becomes a judge over other Salaf and Khalaf scholarly figures, and goes further to award Jannah to those seniors of his own group and Jahannam to the others, thus becoming a judge and sometimes an executioner if possible. This is despite clear, unambiguous and direct Qur'anic commands along with Prophetic instructions affording rights, dignity and worth to every human soul, let along a scholar of the Deen. But to a cultist, the Qur'anic and Sunnah texts are inapplicable or contingent on a "Salaf's or Khalaf's" endorsement or understanding, for the latter becomes the standard. What starts wrong mostly ends wrong.
While there are pious people today who are Salafi's and Sufi's, there are also not so good examples in both. Constructive criticism ensures that one doesn't see his own group's good, and other people's faults. But that we recognize that while some of the so called Sufi's gave Sufism (which is supposed to reflect the state of Ihsan) a very bad reputation (as Ibn Arabi himself stated), Salafi's also have good and learned figures who love Allah Ta'ala, His Messenger-sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam-, and this Deen, and vice versa.
The fact is that some shades of the current Salafi's, which professes following of the early Puritan Hanbali's have -like many of their ideological ancestors-institutionalized -to a lesser degree- labeling, slander, hate, narrow-mindedness, verbal, intellectual, and even physical violence at certain times in their books, ideology, and teachings against their fellow Muslims who differ with them on certain issues. This is not limited to certain shades of Salafi's, or even Salafi's in general however. There are some ideologically extreme Sufi's today who put the radical Salafi's to shame when it comes to the level of misrepresenting the other, misquoting the other, hate, slander, verbal violence, and "conditioning this WIDE Faith to a few people's understandings and statements", though this is not usually the norm in Sufism. More importantly the "cult" kind of Sufi's today do not have a "Salaf Saaleh" from the 2nd, or 3rd century institutionalizing such steps and codes in Tasawuff, something that you would not have a hard time finding in some early Puritan Hanbali texts.To me this is a Rabbani indication to all, that the only inclusive, unconditionally compassionate, and standard; is the Book of our Creator Ta'ala and the authentic Sunnah of our Beloved Messenger,sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam. For the scholars, whether Puritan Hanbali's or others across the spectrum of the Ummah of La Ilaha Illa Allah, we agree on the common, and pray that Allah Ta'ala guides all, forgives all, and grants all Jannah.
Hwne examining an issue, it is very important to look at the Book and authentic Sunnah as a whole, not just a segment, but in an encompassing and comprehensive approahc, and not disengage the revealed texts based on a stipulated conditioning by a contested human text. I will -Insha'Allah- in the future talk about this pattern of religious tyranny, and list evidences from printed early Puritan Hanbali' books the measures they employed to terrorize their opponents verbally, intellectually, and physically. Again, this is not how all the"Puritan Hanbali's" were, let alone the Ash'ari/Maturidi Hanbali's, let alone the Sufi' Hanbali's. But this seems to be a pattern that keeps occurring when a combination of might, God-fearlessness, and ignorance prevail. Also, it isn't native to a certain religious group, be it a "Puritan Hanbali's or others, or even a certain faith system. This can be seen as a human trend. But I will focus more on the early Puritan Hanbali's, if I may say so, simply because I think and can substantiate with evidence that they led the flagship of such ideology and even institutionalized it, and because their present day ideological offspring still employ the same understanding. Again, that's not to say that other groups did not follow suit and employed the same ugly practices including some Sufi's. Misrepresentation of the opponent paves the way for demonization , which -in the mind of a cultist/ignorant- lays the legal foundation necessary to violate all rights Allah Ta'ala granted every human being and every Muslim. I remember my late father (rahimahu Allahu Ta'ala) words -during his teachings of Monotheism and sects- which are still ringing in my ears: "if you can't articulate your opponent's points as well as you articulate your own, then you haven't even started". In another words, you cannot begin to be a scholar if you misrepresent your opponent and make an easy case for yourself in front of your cheering crowds. Lots of outstanding issues among Muslim groups are based on misinterpretation and/or misrepresentations of the other. That's not to say that there aren't real differences. There are. In fact, some of those differences are simply irreconcilable. But that should not prevent us from being transparent and just, as ordered by the authentic Prophetic narrations, and avoid "Dhulm" of others.
I have heard some of my Shuyukh (Rahimahumu'Allahu Ta'ala) calling themselves a "Salafi Sufi" or as Ibn Taymiyya himself identified and praised: "The Suffiyya of Ahlul Hadith"!!-- something that one may see as a contradiction. But the fact is; it isn't, not in Ibn Taymiyya's harsh and oftentimes unfair anti-Sufi prospective, but in the essential meaning of the labels. We often read in the books of Salafi's that a true Salafi is one who follows the Book and Sunnah. Similarly, this statement is all over the books of Sufi's. If this is what it is, then the equation becomes clear: A true Salafi is a true Sufi and vice versa.
I believe the Salafi-Sufi argument gets us no where, especially at the hands of new recruits, and when it turns into a "mental tennis" and seems to be more like a fashion-club, or supporting a group over the other, or developing a cult culture, rather than seeking the truth with full and honest disclosure of evidence and an open heart and mind for a truth-seeking dialogue by people who are experts on both sides. Oftentimes emotional debates with people who are not qualified bring no real results and ends up in back and forth slanders and accusations, where sometimes Takfir instead of Tafkir becomes the end of debates and dialogues. May Allah Ta'ala help us all.
With ignorance the way it is, and the emerging cult culture, oftentimes saying the word Sufi or Salafi is enough to demonize the person without knowing anything, or the extent, meanings, implications, of that person's salafism or sufism. We are poisoning our youth's minds with such a cult-ish rhetoric of hate. Had we spent the same amount of time, efforts, and resources teaching our youth love and unconditional compassion (core Sunnah values) instead of how evil everyone else is, we would have advanced more on all fronts, as this should be the rule not the exception. Since both terms or labels of Sufism and Salafism are not defined by the Book and Sunnah, hence must be defined, and they could mean different things to different groups, therefore we need to always go beyond the label, and see how that individual defines his Sufism or his Salafism before making mass judgments and "blanket Takfir or Tafsiq. For now, how about we call ourselves Muslims, just like Allah Ta'ala Himself named us in the Qur'an. Then when asked about our methodology of authenticating the Prophetic Sunnah, we cite the methodology of Ahlus Sunnah, and rid ourselves of this headache of the technical terminologies and its true application! After all, didn't the Sufi's always teach us that: Tasawuff used to be a reality without a name, and it became a name without reality! Regardless of the label; Sufi or Salafi..., its not good enough because of itself, rather the standard is how closely they attached to the Book and Sunnah in belief, utterance, and practice. But the Sufi's stipulate a step more. It is not just the genuine attachment to the Book and Sunnah, but also the attachment (in heart, not just words and action) to the Lord of the Book, and the Messenger of the Sunna, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam. This attachment is called LOVE. i.e. not just love the Book and Sunnah, but be in love with The One who gave us the Book and the one who gave us the Sunnah. Obviously I believe, that the approach of the Qu'ran and authentic Sunnah-based-Sufi's, whether they call themselves Sufi's or not, is a closer approach to the soul of the Qur'an and Sunnah. This is because they focus on the spiritual and not just ritual/technical aspect of the faith. They also deal with the concept of Tazkiyah (purification of the heart) in a way that the Salafi's have not dealt as adequately with, as evidenced by books and training manuals from over a 1000 years ago. No addition is needed to the Qur'an and Sunnah texts, just actualization to reach the spiritual aspect rather than stopping at the technical implication. This was the theme of many Sufi' compilations from past and present, yet infallibility remains only to the Prophets of Allah Ta'ala, alayhem assalam. Living and expressing love and unconditional compassion is key in Sufi's training, and is needed more than ever in nowadays time, intra and inter-islamically. This may rid us from misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and misquotations, make us live unconditional compassion and only then, true change is possible. Well, the early Sufi's figured that spending time to improve your own self and make it eligible to enter Paradise (Jannah), is much more beneficial than spending it proving that others will enter Hellfire (Jahannam). Compassion in action, or embodied compassion is whats needed, not talks about compassion and mercy. All this, is found in the most beautiful way in the Book and Sunnah. But with a growing "cultish" culture, this very reality maybe threatened. Hence the need for all to realize that mere affiliation to a group regardless of label does not mean automatic salvation necessarily. Affiliation, affirmation, and confirmation in belief, words and practice to the Book and Authentic Sunnah does. Check-reference-and-balance must be an ongoing process in all groups in addition to a practical and effective constructive criticism. Therefore, let's call people back to the basics: Back to Allah Ta'ala and His Beloved Messenger, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam. Allah Ta'ala is The Compassoinate. His Beloved Messenger is unconditionally compassionate and loving....is there anything else missing? or anything else needed?
And Allah Ta'ala knows best.
Footnotes:
1- The 'Book' in the above always refers to the Noble Quran.
2- Puritan Hanbali's: I added "Puritan" to distinguish a certain streak with the Hanbali school for a lack of a better word. My intention with that is not derogatory, but to indicate the fact that Hanbali's are not one unified school in matters of Tawhid/Aqeedah/Sifaat. In my opinion they are divided into three main groups (more or less):
a- The Ash'ari Hanbali's.
b- The Atha'ri Hanbali's: such as al-Hafidh Ibn Al-Jawzi
c- The Puritan Hanbali's: such as al-Qadi Abu Ya'ala.
This has precedence in the early Hanbali literature itself. al-Hafidh Ibn al-Jawzi (grandson of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, born 510 H-d.597 H) said in his book " Daf'u Shubahi-Tashbih = Refuting the arguments of anthropomorphists" :
فلو أنكم قلتم: نقرأ الأحاديث ونسكت، ما أنكر عليكم أحد، إنما حملكم إياها على الظاهر قبيح، فلا تدخلوا في مذهب هذا الرجل الصالح السلفي ما ليس منه. ولقد كسيتم هذا المذهب شينا قبيحا حتى صار لا يقال حنبلي إلا مجسم، ثم زينتم مذهبكم أيضا بالعصبية ليزيد بن معاوية ولقد علمتم أن صاحب المذهب أجاز لعنته، وقد كان أبو محمد التميمي يقول في بعض أئمتكم: لقد شان المذهب شينا قبيحا لا يغسل إلى يوم القيامة
Ibn al-Jazwi is addressing some Hanbali's of his time saying: which means: (Had you said: we read the Hadiths and remain silent (do not attempt to assign a specific interpretation) nobody would have objected on you. But when you take a literal approach in interpreting such texts, this becomes ugly. Do not interject in this pious Salafi man's (Ahmad bin Hanbal) school something that's not from it. You have cloaked this Madh'hab (school of Ahmad bin Hanbal) with something ugly, so that it is not said Hanbali, but a Mujassim (anthropomorphist= likening Allah to His creation= believing Allah Ta'ala resembles a human being in the general lines such as being composed of limbs/organs and residing in or above 7th heaven, etc.. but with superpowers). Then you decorated your Madh'had (school of Ahmad bin Hanbal) with narrow-minded affection to Yazid bin Muawiyah, knowing that the founder of the Madh'hab (Ahmad bin Hanbal) permitted cursing him. Abu Muhammad at-Tamimi (Rizqa'Allah at-Tamimi al-Hanbali, one of the early Hanbali scholars) said (about al-Qadi Abu Ya'ala, another early Hanbali scholar): he has disfigured this Madh'hab in an ugly way that cannot be purified until the day of judgment).
From that one can deduce that some Hanbali's established a line within the Madh'hab that has clear pattern of anthropomorphism and Nasb (anti-Ahlul Bayt stands), this is what I referred to as "puritan Hanbali's" and Allah Ta'ala knows best. Labeling the groups with "puritan, etc.." is not meant to be derogatory to any group of Muslims -May Allah Ta'ala have mercy on all-, it is just my attempt to sort them out based on precedence and academic differences. Similarly when I mention any Muslim group and disagree with their academic stands, I mean no disrespect to that school or its figures, may Allah Ta'ala guide all, bless all, and grant all Jannah. Some, like the Shafi'i scholar As-Subki (638 H- 736 H) used the term: Fudala'u-Hanbali's in his book "al-Mu'id". The Fudala' of Hanbalis' to Imam As-Subki mean -as he stated- the Ash'ari's among them, and he cited that some non-Fudala' Hanbali's adopted a belief of anthropomorphism. The pattern of anthropomorphism and Nasb in a defined Hanbali's line, is clear in old writings of many "puritan" Hanbali's, but this isn't our topic here.
- Secondary issues: or Far'iyyat, or non-definitive issues. I use that to mean issues that are not based on a text that is Qat'i in Thubut and Dalalah. (definitive in transmission and meaning), from an Usuli point of view. Or from a Hadithi point of view, is the issue that is based on a less than Sahih (authentic) narration, or based on a narration that is not sahih-in-its-Baab.
