Abstract
In modern studies, the opposition to Sufism is often emphasized among the characteristic features of Salafis. However, in most studies, the boundaries of this contrast are not clearly drawn. At the point of understanding the Qur’ān, this contrast is embodied in the subject of zāhir (obvious)-bātin (hidden), while the discussions of zāhir-bātin are mainly carried out around the story of Khidr-Moses. In this study, the Sufi analysis of Salafis will be discussed first. Then, in the centre of the story of Khidr-Moses, the views on the distinction between zāhir and bātin will be given. Salafism is a modern phenomenon. In the background of this phenomenon, there are Ashāb al-hadīth and Hanbali heritage. The views expressed by Salafis today are attributed to Ahmad b. Hanbal, the leading name of Ashāb al-hadīth, and his followers. In this respect, the opinions of some people who represent the Ashāb al-hadīth mentality in different periods, especially Ahmad b. Hanbal will be included in the study. Salafists give the impression that they express the ultimate truth in almost every subject they deal with. However, the scholars that the Salafis refer to as their ideas have put forward quite different views on many issues they deal with. These differences of opinion show that no one has the ultimate truth after the prophet's time. Demonstrating these differences of opinion with evidence on almost every issue can be considered a step towards getting rid of the monotony based on ideas and thoughts. Therefore, this study it is aimed to present the views of Ashāb al-hadīth and its intellectual heirs on the distinction between Sufism and zāhir-bātin in a panoramic way. At the same time, it has been tried to prove that the personalities that Salafists attribute themselves are not against mysticism and esoteric knowledge in the absolute sense. The primary method we follow in our research is the depiction method. Primary sources were first scanned for an accurate description, and the data obtained were transferred to the article by considering their internal consistency. Again, the chronology was followed to see the change in thought. Among the scholars who are the subject of our research, the first criticisms of mystics were expressed by Ibn Batta. Along with Ibn Aqīl and Ibn al-Jawzī, the focus of criticisms directed at Sufi circles is the bid'ahs (innovations) seen in Sufis. The main complaints directed at Sufism and often reaching the dimensions of takfir (ex-communication) coincide with the post-Ibn Taymiyya period. Ibn Taymiyya denounces Sufis, especially Ibn al-Arabi, who brought a philosophical aspect to Sufism. After Muhammad ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, material and moral violence were applied to the Sufis by using the excuse of the honour they showed to the sheikhs or the tombs. On the other hand, none of the authors whose views we discussed was ultimately against Sufism. Both Ashāb al-hadīth and Salafis appreciate the early Sufis and welcome a spiritual experience to be lived in the centre of asceticism. In this respect, it can be said that the purpose of Sufi criticism is to draw the Sufis to the borders drawn with the literal indication of the Qur’ān and Sunnah. From the earliest times, mystics saw kashf (intuition/insight) and ilhām (inspiration) as exceptional doors to the knowledge of truth and identified themselves with Khidr. Although Hanbali and Salafis disagreed about the identity of Khidr, they accepted that the information given to him was privileged. However, they argued that the knowledge given to Moses is superior to that given to Khidr. Therefore, they accept cash and ilhām as a source of knowledge, but they insistently emphasize that exploratory knowledge should be by the shari'a's outward appearance (zahir).