Epistemological Comparison of the Discourse of Modernity and Traditional Salafism; ‎Convergences and Divergences

Epistemology or epistemology is a science that studies cognition, its sources and tools, and its methods and validity. Salafism (in general) is a social and religious thought and movement among the Sunnis, which gives intellectual authority to the Salaf (advanced Muslims). They believe in addition to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, following the way of the righteous Salaf is the way to happiness and the solution to the problems of the Islamic world. According to them, the first three Islamic centuries are the best Islamic periods. One of the main founders and theoreticians of this movement is Ahmed bin Abdul Halim bin Taymiyyah Harrani Hanbali (died 728) known as Ibn Taymiyyah.Modernity is used in the word to mean renewing or modernizing and giving originality to what is modern and contemporary. But the term refers to the thought, culture, and lifestyle ruling the new era, in the West, especially from the 18th century onwards. The indicators and components of modernity can be identified in two dimensions: ‘appearance and superstructure’ and ‘intellectual and infrastructure’. The external dimension includes aspects such as new knowledge and technology, modern architecture, new economic, and political and administrative structures. The intellectual aspect encompasses scientism and empiricism, belief in instrumental rationality and self-foundation, humanism, individualism, secularism and so on.Although in the primitive view, modernist modernity and fundamentalist Salafism seem to diverge from each other in the end, with a little research and scrutiny, the intellectual commonalities of these two discourses could change that initial perception to some extent. In this regard, the present comparative study seeks to investigate the nature of the epistemology of these two discourses and show their common and differential aspects using a documentary-analytical method.There could be some questions about the epistemological comparison of the discourse of modernity and traditional Salafism: Why are Salafist ideas (compared to the discourse of the Islamic Revolution) more aligned and cooperative with the modern West? Regardless of the political and profit purposes, does the modern western political support of some governments and Salafist movements and groups have anything to do with their common foundations? What are the reverse and direct influences of Salafist fundamentalists in the spread of ‘modern materialist and sensuous discourse’ in the Islamic world?There are some similarities between the  discourses of modernity and traditional Salafism (in the dominant reading). They both accept empirical and sensory epistemology. Besides, they both deny holistic reason and metaphysical wisdom and reduce the dignity of reason to instrumental and partial rationality. They both deny intuitive and mystical epistemology. Sensory epistemology has led to ontology and materialistic anthropology in both discourses. With a nasut-oriented approach, they have emptied human life of spirituality and esoteric approaches. Ignoring or disbelieving supernatural powers and denying miracles and human virtues are common aspects of both discourses. Moreover, both discourses present a materialistic ontology. Therefore, de-sanctification, de-mystification, de-introspection and de-spiritualization of the world and man is the common aspect of the ontology of both intellectual systems. In the thought of traditional Salafists, God, reason, unseen worlds, angels, spirit, revelation, etc., are considered materials.But the most important divergences and differences between Salafists and modernists are as follows: textualism and epistemology of narrative and revelation against rationality and science; believing tradition and retrospect against innovation and innovation; emotional theology and thought experience against Shariat theology; extreme bigotry and rites against tolerance and radical immorality; religious dogmatism and exclusivism against religious pluralism.