Shaykh Muhammad Rafiq Tahir (hafidhahullah) said:
It is strange that some declare us to be blasphemers and rejectors of the Prophet, only because we refuse to elevate the Prophet to the rank of a god. We believe that Allah and His Prophet aren’t equal because one is the Creator while the other is created. one bestows Prophethood and the other recieves Prophethood.
And some declare us to be blasphemers of the Awliya, only because we refuse to attribute Allah’s attributes towards them and elevate them to a level of being worshipped. We believe they are humans, and helpless in front of Allah. Their righteousness does not make them a god. Anyone who is a devout worshipper of Allah can attain Allah’s closeness, but cannot become a god.
And some declare us blasphemers and rejectors of the noble Imams, only because we do not deem their words to have the final say in the Deen. We only believe Revelation (Qur’an and Sunnah) to have the final say in Allah’s Deen, and we weigh every fallible’s speech on the scales of Revelation. They want to elevate the Imams to the level of the Prophet, despite none being qualified to become one. We believe that any Imam – irrespective of his status – is the Prophet’s follower, not a prophet himself. And a follower’s speech is not evidence, for evidence only includes the Prophet’s speech.
And today, some blind-following Salafis spread this belief by replacing the word ‘Imam’ with ‘The Salaf’. They accuse us of being rejectors of the Salaf, the Manhaj of the Salaf, and being blasphemers of the Salaf, only because we do not accept the Salaf as evidence in Allah’s Deen. We believe that the legislated Manhaj of the Salaf conforms to the Prophetic Manhaj, but we will never believe that the Salaf’s statements equate with the Prophet’s statements. We believe that whoever is from the Prophet’s Ummah – be it the great Imams or others – only that speech which is in accordance with Allah’s Revelation will be accepted. The Salaf were humans. They were prone to mistakes. We are prone to mistakes. The Salaf and the Khalaf are also prone to forgetfulness. So identifying the reliable and unreliable and the good and bad will be done using the scales of Revelation.
Now anyone can say to us whatever they like. Call us disbeliever, blasphemer, whatever you like.
Previously, we used to hear the statement: ‘Whatever conclusion you have reached regarding an issue using the principles of the Manhaj of the Salaf, as long as it is not related to a modern affair, you will find someone from the Salaf concurring with you in your conclusion.’
Now people keep on claiming this, but with a small twist. They say: ‘If the Salaf had a stance on an issue, you cannot have another stance regarding it.’
The outcome of both statements is the same. The only difference is that the first statement has some room for interpretation in the sense that you can interpret it to only keep Revelation and the principles of derivation in front of you to come to conclusions.
Whereas the second involves first looking at an issue, then searching the stances of the Salaf, then searching the evidence for the stances.
So when an issue arises, they deem it obligatory to first look at the stance of the Salaf regarding that issue, then look at the evidence for the stance, then choose from them whatever you like.
I believe that the first approach – based on the interpretation mentioned above – is more decisive, and this was the way of the Salaf, that we derive conclusions by restricting ourselves to look at Revelation and the principles of derivation.