On Salafism in Syria
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
The reformist Salafī movement spearheaded by Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb had trouble spreading in many regions where the scholarly scene (and the populace) strictly adhered to orthodox Sunnism. The Najdīs did not keep for themselves, they wanted to spread their wings. Some of their heads sent the biggest Syrian Hanbalī scholar of the time, Hasan al-Shattī, a letter outlining their beliefs, requesting his support. al-Shattī, bedridden at the time, simply
responded: “May Allāh's curse be upon he who believes in this”
al-Shattī's sentiment was unanimously shared by the major scholars of the region. The Hanbalī Muftī Muhammad Jamīl al-Shattī
said: "In these lands (Syria) the Wahhābīs are very few, while the (Sunnī) scholars are the vast majority". The Syrian Salafī "Muhaddith" al-Albānī
said: “The Hanbalīs we have in Syria are Hanbalī in Fiqh yet ‘Ash‘arī’ in creed”!
But there were outliers that Salafīs love to abuse, the likes of Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsimī, Bahjat al-Baytār, ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Arnā’ūt, al-Albānī, Zuhayr al-Shāwīsh, and some others
It is important to classify these names into two groups: Those who fully adopted Salafism, and those who didn't
In the first group goes al-Albānī, al-Shāwīsh, and other lesser known names like al-‘Ar‘ūr, who were (and are) wholely rejected by the scholarly class. al-Albānī, who unlike the others in this group stayed in Syria for some time, was reprimanded and
banned from passing Fatwā from the Muftī of Syria, Abu al-Yusr ‘Abidīn (among other things, like his problems with
his own father)
The second group is those who did not fully adopt Salafism. These handful of scholars appear to have been affected by Salafism as a movement, but they did not adopt its major troublesome tenets. They were affected in issues like emphasis on following the Salaf, being strict with some actions they deem a Bid‘ah, revering Ibn Taymiyyah, and having ties with Salafī scholars. As you might notice, none of these issues are inherently troublesome nor are they where we majorly diverge with Salafīs. So when al-Qāsimī insists on publishing books by Ibn Taymiyyah, or when al-Arnā’ūt praises al-Albānī, this does not mean they are now Salafīs in a literal sense
Syrian Salafism can be described as being “watered-down”. Salafism could not survive in Syria at all. Ahl al-Sunnah were so strong that even opposing some Fiqhī practices would cast doubt on you. Being against the Mawlid or Istighātha would have you labeled a Wahhābī in an instant by the laity, even if that's an exaggeration. I like to compare it to how if a Muslim state bans the Adhān they would be fought as if they committed Riddah, even if it's not itself Riddah, since it became from the Sha‘ā’ir
The “Salafīs” of Syria were not actual Salafīs, they were only affected by them in some issues.
al-Qāsimī defended Ibn al-‘Arabī and would call him “al-Shaykh al-Akbar”, he called al-Ghazālī “Hujjat al-Islām”, and he was from Shaykh Badr al-Dīn al-Hasanī's close circle of students. Ibn Badrān had a room in Dār al-Hadīth, and was also from that close circle, along with Bahjat al-Baytār. This is important because Shaykh Badr al-Dīn was a staunch Ash‘arī and would never have allowed fully fledged Salafī reformists in his tight circle. ‘Alī al-Tantāwī wrote a book on creed in which he completely contradicted everything Salafism stands for, while he is supposedly a "Salafī" because he praised some of their figures. And I can go on forever
In summary, Syrian Salafism is not real Salafism, and only some influence on a few scholars. This did not affect those scholars' orthodoxy, and they remained within the fabric of Syrian scholarship without getting rejected or shunned, which wouldn't have been possible had they been actual Salafīs
I can summarize it in this one picture: Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Arnā’ūt sitting next to Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Shāghūrī, who were very close friends (may Allāh have mercy on them both)