Thread by @mnizami_uk

Im asked abt Hanbali school of law - if everything is like Wahhabism. Erm nope. In fact on many issues it's most liberal school! Our perceptions of the Hanbalis come via ppl from desert w/ propensity for brashness, oversimplification & reductive literalism.

We should differentiate bw intellectual and populist approaches (Ibn Aqil, Al Tufi, Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Muflih, Ibn Qayyim etc)

And yes great Hanbalis differed on doctrinal points, even on divinity between ta'wil (Ibn Jawzi), tafwidh (Ibn Qudamah) and tahqiq (Ibn Taymiyyah).

Re Ibn Taymiyyah - a great polemicist & critical thinker bt today taken as a prophet by some rather than another sagacious scholar. Taking his polemics as a norm/basis means ur narrative becomes argumentative & reactionary. He wouldn't approve & there was a context to his writing

One beauty of the Hanbali school is that it's not as institutionalised as the others, some say it's not even a school but an eclectic grouping of scholars loosely reflecting the traditions of the old vanguard of ahlul-hadith. I sympathise w/ that view.

Another is that it incorporated godliness (rabbaniyyah) into its structural thinking to the extent most Hanbalis had an integrated approach to spirituality in all matters that meant Sufism wasn't required as a supporting mechanism.

As a scholarly tradition, salafism is very modern, & manifests as a mix of a bit of Hanbalism w/ Dhahirism, a massive dollop of Taymiyyan polemics, a very reductive (non-usul) approach to scriptural interpretation, couched with the outlook of largely Najdi bedouin culture.

Of course, salafism certainly has positives as well, such as bringing revelation back to the table & undermining folk religion. Bt it can't seem to distinguish bw interpretation claims & core doctrinal ones, a pillar of Ahlus-sunnah.