Salam i wouldn't say so much that there are many types of salafis (at least in my locality) just that every salafi is his own shaykh and as a result they all do their own thing. for example they all agree that one can wipe over any type of footwear (masah during wudu) however some of them say that the footwear must cover the ankle (as do the madhabs) however others say no it must cover the ankle as well. while others say that one wipe on shoes then take off the shoes and then pray (this really made my hair rise) which is essentially bs, that's analogous to wiping over a leather sock, then removing it before performing salah (which shaykhs they look to in all these matters is a mystery). they usually don't stick to any one shaykh they fluctuate between different opinions sticking on what seems the most sound, or forgive me, the most reasonable/convenient. for example one salafi once told me "why do you think we always support Al'Baani (ra) he is a great scholar but has many mistakes"...and then said that "Al'Baani claims (as do we, people of the madhahib) that salatul tasbeeh is a genuine sunnah/practice. however he is wrong, because the hadith is really weak......x,y,z". the point is that some salafis will hold to a particular shaykh and that usually keeps them doing things that are allright, but many choose what is acceptable and haram on the basis of their own convictions; they will shift through a multitude of opinions and choose what seems right, according to their limited knowledge. in such a scenario i wonder how they are in fact following the salaf, heck i'm more salafi then them since the opinions i follow are definitely from the salaf (i.e. Abu hanifa and co.). another really dumb issue i have noticed is the tendency among the majority of the salafis (in my locality, university) to assume that all chicken in my country is halaal to consume. they don't go with the "say bismillah then eat rule...", rather they base their "opinion" on the fact that the meat of the jews and christians is halaal for you. despite the fact the majority of the ulema (not to mention some salafis) consider that to be a very simplistic understanding of the ayah. even if the meat of the jews and christians was halaal under any and every circumstance as they claim, they still ignore the fact that a growing portion of people in my country do not regard themselves as jews or christians, but as agnostics, if not downright atheists. besides the people are not slaughtering the chickens, they are machine slaughtered....ugh! very frustrating. however some of them have begun to change their beliefs in this matter. previously the MSA website posted that all chicken sold in the restaurants/fast food joints on my campus were halaal (of course they never said why they were halaal or their justifications) thus the majority of new students thought "wow halaal chicken!" (assuming it was slaughtered according to the shariah). one of my friends took up the issue and said how can the chickens here be halaal they (the MSA leadership/board who were all salafis at the time) said that they are halaal (as if their words should be enough). so my friend inquired about the source of the chicken for all these fast food joints and found out that were all machine slaughtered by non-muslims or rather non-muslim machines. of course they were not being slaughtered according to the shariah. he then raised this issue with the MSA who refused to retract their statement about the chicken being halaal, but later relented and retracted the statement. in this way the salafis had been misleading (whether it was their intent or not) many people about the chicken being halaal, unfortunately even now many people still believe the stupid propoganda of some the salafis and keep eating the haram chicken. it's funny though how only chicken was specified as being halaal and not lamb, or beef because technically that could all pass as the meat of the christians and jews according to their flawed logic. again i've had good and bad experiences with salafis this is just an example of the experiences i've had on my campus. they tend to point out some really stupid things as well. for example i always pray wearing a cap (one of the few who does, if not the only one) because of course the hanafi madhab looks on it as being a very emphasized sunnah. one day a friend (salafi) asked me why the indians and co. always wear caps during prayer i told him firstly that wearing a cap is sunnah, and that any sunnah act carried out during prayer multplies the reward of the salah 70 times. he on the other hand argued that both of these points were wrong....seriously, is it necessary for them to resort to such stupid arguments/debates? he went on to say that it's sunnah only to wear a turban, so i said you're clearly wrong as there clear incidents of him (saws) wearing a "syrian style cap" in his home. he also said that the turbans worn in al'azhar or by the "sufis" are different from the one that rasulullah (saws) used to wear and therefore they do not qualify as the sunnah....seriously?!?!? i think somewhere around this point i decided that this "discussion" was pointless as we were not clarifying our positions but debating hadith as if either of us was qualified enough to carry out such a "discussion". now it's always good to well, end with the good stuff. this is some of the positive stuff i've experienced with the salafis the beard, like in all matters the salafis make taqleed of their hearts so every slafi thinks differently regarding the length of the beard, tho the vast majority keep 1mm long ones. but mashallah these guys are not scared to display their beards. once they understand that it is a fardh (those that i've spoken to say the beard is fardh, not sunnah, which is pretty much hanafi [wajib] ruling ) they keep beards (albeit very short ones). they keep the MSA programs separated along hijab/purdah lines which is very admirable. in this day and age maintaining the age-old islamic institutions like hijab/purdah is essential. actually it's funny how a lot of "moderate" self-styled "sunnis" disagree with their stance on this issue. lastly i would like to add that the ulema i've spoken to have said that it is best not start debates or arguments over fiqh or aqeedah differences, by all means keep your madhab but do not engage them in discussion as they usually get heated very fast, and no benefit comes of them. especially when neither side is qualified or learned (a few al'maghrib courses don't count). lastly what was the purpose of labelling this thread sunni vs. salafi?!?!? if it's the aqeedah that is the basis of disagreement, we all agree that Ibn Taaimiyyah (ra) had their aqeedah yet we all agree that he was of ahlesunnah...what's the point holding that they are not part of the sunni fold? i remember one time a friend (salafi) was telling me how in his home country (egypt) the majority of the people are not sufi they are sunni, when i asked how the "sufi" are not sunni he said that they are not salafi, they are not ahlessunah, therefore they are not "sunni". being a deobandi i really felt sad at this statement, really sad. the point i'm making is yes there are differences, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and say that to be salafi means that one is not a sunni. okay i'm done ranting.