Hello & Welcome to our community. Is this your first visit? Register
Ads by Muslim Ad Network


Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021
Results 801 to 818 of 818
  1. #1
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    147
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Quoted
    122 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15

    Exclamation The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than ISIS

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. And may the peace and blessings be upon the Master of all Messengers - our Prophet Muhammad - and upon his family and companions and those who followed them in goodness until the day of judgement.

    To proceed:

    Al-Salamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah,

    I've read some threads on this forum and saw that there are people here who dislike the crimes of IS / ISIS against the Muslims and other innocent people, but at the same time they admire Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and the original Najdi movement. This shows that there is huge amount of lack of information regarding the original Najdi movement and the level of their fanaticism.
    Know that IS / ISIS has not even committed 10 % of that which the original Najdi / Wahhabi movement committed against the Muslims in the time of the first Saudi state.

    The reason why it's important to know about the history of the original Wahhabiyyah is because it's necessary in order to understand the roots of fanaticism of an organization like ISIS and also in order not to be fooled by the deception, lies and propaganda of the Mashayikh of so called "Salafi" movement, who are exploiting the thirst of young people - especially those living in the West - to learn the religion. The reason why young people in the West are easily fooled by these so called "Salafis" is because of the ignorance regarding the [true] religion (i.e. Islam) that is unfortunately prevelant in the West.

    In this thread I'll insha`Allah try to lessen this lack of information concerning the original Najdi movement.

    Before I begin I would like to make an important note: This thread is NOT for the sake of dicussion and argumentation, but rather in order to inform those brother and sisters who don't know the reality of this movement and to warn them from being influenced by them or their descendants (i.e. the "Salafis"). I would also like to request that no one starts blindly defending Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his original followers in time of the first Saudi state, because I'm quite sure that you haven't read some of the Hardcore-Takfiri books of the original Najdis. All the informations that I will mention are from those books. If you want a proof for anything that I'll mention, then please write a comment here and I'll bring you the relevant qoutes in Arabic [from Najdi books] (and summarize its content).


    These are the most important Najdi sources in order to know the reality of this movement:

    - Tarikh Najd by the Wahhabi historian Hussayn bin Ghannam (d. 1225 AH): It's a history book and the author is a supporter and direct student of Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab.
    - 'Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd by the Wahhabi historian 'Uthman bin Bishr (d. 1288 AH): It's also a history book and the author lived during the time of the first and the second Saudi state. Similar to the book of Ibn Ghannam it's full of shocking passages where the author proudly reports how they attacked the cities of the Arabian peninsula and the surrounding areas and how "the Muslims" (while refering to themselves, i.e. the Najdis) killed the "Mushrikin" and "Murtadin" (while refering to the Muslims of the whole region!).
    - Mufid al-Mustafid fi Kufri Tarik al-Tawhid by Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH): He wrote this book after he had made Takfir upon a whole town in Najd (i.e. Huraymila`) and tried to justify it. The reason for his Takfir was first and foremost that the people of the city didn't support his unjustified Takfir and call to bloodshed anymore.
    - Al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyyah: These are the personal letters that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab sent to the scholars, people of authority and other imporant people. In these letters you'll see him making all kind of crazy statements like making Takfir upon the scholars of his time and claiming that he alone has understood Tawhid.
    - Al-Durar al-Saniyyah: A compilation of statements from Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his [blind] followers (whom the "Salafis" refer to as "scholars of Najd"). It was meant as a defence of their creed.

    So let's now begin with the important part:


    Who are the Wahhabiyyah and who is their leader?

    The Wahhabiyyah are the followers of Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH).
    He was the son of a Hanbali scholar and was born in al-'Uyayynah, a village in Najd. He started to study Islam and to become a student of knowledge (Talib al-'Ilm), but somehow he developed strange and extreme views.

    He became obsessed with graves:
    He regarded the wrong actions concerning the graves, which according to classical understanding are either forbidden (haram) or disliked (makruh), as Shirk akbar (polytheism). He did not stop here: He even regarded actions which are allowed according to all 4 accepted Madhahib of the Ahl al-Sunnah (like for example the seeking of intercession through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - (i.e. Tashaffu')) as "Shirk akbar" and regarded it as a nullifier of one's Islam.

    When his father saw that his son had developed these strange views and had deviated from the way of the Ahl al-Sunnah, he disallowed him to spread his wrong views. He feared however that his son would be the cause of great tribulations after his demise and he was indeed right with this feeling.

    When his father died, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab started to try to spread his new call.
    Before I proceed I would like to show you what this person thought about himself, so that you do not have any doubts regarding his deviance from the way of the Ahl al-Sunnah and the Sawad al-A'dham of this Ummah.


    Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab: "No one knows Tawhid except me"

    He said in one of his letters:

    وأنا أخبركم عن نفسي والله الذي لا إله إلا هو لقد طلبت العلم واعتقد من عرفني أن لي معرفة وأنا ذلك الوقت لا أعرف معنى لا إله إلا الله، ولا أعرف دين الإسلام قبل هذا الخير الذي من الله به. وكذلك مشايخي ما منهم رجل عرف ذلك، فمن زعم من علماء العارض أنه عرف معنى لا إله إلا الله أو عرف معنى الإسلام قبل هذا الوقت أو زعم عن مشايخه أن أحداً عرف ذلك فقد كذب وافترى ولبس على الناس ومدح نفسه بما ليس فيه

    "And I inform you about myself - I swear by Allah whom there is none worthy to worship except Him - I have sought knowledge and those who knew me believed that I had knowledge while I did not know the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah at that time and did not know the religion of Islam before this grace that Allah favored. As well as my teachers (Mashayikh) no one among them knew that. And if someone from the scholars of al-'Aridh (the lands of Najd and surrounding areas) claims that he knew the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah or knew the meaning of Islam before this time, or claims on behalf of his teachers that someone from them knew that, then he has lied and said falsehood and deceived the people and praised himself with something he does not possess."

    Source: al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyyah and al-Durar al-Saniyyah 10/51

    Just look at the arrogance and narcissm of this person and how he claims that he alone knows Tawhid while accusing the scholars (!) of the whole region of not knowing it. And where did this "knowledge" come from if no one teached it him?
    And you'll be surprised how many times he makes such crazy statements in his letters and how he sometimes lies (like for example by accusing anyone who critises him of "Sabb al-Din"/"cursing the religion") in a very clear way without having any shame whatsoever! May Allah ta'ala give him what he deserves!


    What was his connection to the first Saudi state?

    After he was thrown out of his hometown he met the Amir of al-Dir'iyyah (which is a town in Najd), Muhammad bin Sa'ud (d. 1179 AH), in the year 1157 AH. Ibn Sa'ud accepted his call after Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had told him that the people of Najd and the surrounding were upon "polytheism" and "ignorance" and after he explained to him his new religion. (Ibn Bishr has mentioned the incident.) Ibn Sa'ud and Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab made an alliance and agreed that the polical power shall be for Ibn Sa'ud (and his sons after him) and that the religious power shall be for Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his new ideas. This was the birth of the first Saudi state and he was the "Mufti" of this [accursed] state.


    The first Saudi state: The worst and most bloodthirsty Khawarij in the history!

    After the alliance was made Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab started throwing around with Fatawa of Takfir and to claim that most people of his time were are upon "Shirk akbar" (polytheism), so that the soldiers of the new born Saudi state could take this as a justifcation to fight the surrounding areas and occupy these regions. The Najdis first started with the towns and villages of Najd and attacked them one after the other.

    But they did not stop with Najd. Soon they started to attack the whole Arabian peninsula. They also attacked all surrounding areas like 'Iraq, Sham, Yemen, 'Oman, etc.
    They did no even shy away from making Takfir against the people of Makkah al-mukarramah and Madinah al-munawwarah and harming them and occupying these blessed cities!!

    If you read how the two Wahhabi historians Ibn Ghannam and Ibn Bishr proudly and without any shame reported these incidents you'll be shocked. They reported how they made Takfir upon whole towns and villages, attacked them and killed them on the streets, the markets and even in their houses. They even killed the Amir of al-'Uyayynah inside the mosque (!!!) after he had prayed the Salat al-Jum'ah. (Not even the houses of Allah had any sanctity for them!)
    They also reported how they burned and destroyed the fields of Muslims (while referring to them as "polytheists" and "apostates"), robbed and stole from them whatever they could take!
    They even reported what a great fear their attacks caused in the heart of the people (this was during their attack on al-Sham) or how the people - innocent Muslim men and women!!! - ran away from them and died from hunger and thirst in the desert (this is what happened to the people of al-Riyadh) or how the people fled to the ocean and drowned in the water (this happened to the people of al-Basrah). They also reported how they made an embargo against different cities which caused the people to die from hunger (this happened to the people Makkah al-mukarramah!).


    And as if all of these crimes are not enough: When they occupied Makkah al-mukarramah they stopped the people from the other Muslim lands from making Hajj for several years, because they regarded all of them to be "polytheists" and "apostates". The first time this happened in the year 1221 AH.

    When their tyranny and bloodshed had reached its peak, the Ottomans - who were the biggest "Mushrikin" (polytheists) upon this earth according the Najdis - decided to stop these criminal Mariqin and Khawarij and to retake every single city that they had occupied. The Ottomans crushed their Khariji state and the first Saudi state ceased to exist by the help of Allah and his permission.


    What is build upon deviation does not lead to anything except more deviation:

    After the first state they had a second state, but the second state was only in Najd and was weak compared to their first state. As for the third state: It's the current Saudi state and it was build upon treason against the whole Ummah of Islam.

    In the time of their first State the Wahhabiyyah were hated by all Muslims of the region (because everyone saw and knew of their crimes) and the people did not accept their views. However when time passed by the people started to forget about them.

    During the third state (i.e. the actual one) the government started to spread the so called "Salafi" Da'wah with huge amounts of money (because there is still an alliance between the Saudi rulers and the Wahhabi Al al-Shaykhs, who are the descendents of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab). This and the widespread ignorance regarding the religion in our times are the main reason why the "Salafis" have spread. It should be noted that the so called "Salafi" Da'wah has nothing to do with the Salaf al-salih or the Ahl al-Sunnah. It's the result of a mix of the ideas of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and some other controversial personalities.

    So beware from whom you take religion and do not let these deceivers influence you.

    And our last call is that all praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. And may the peace and blessings be upon our Master Muhammad - the seal of the Prophets and Messengers - and upon all of his familiy and companions.

  2. #801
    Odan ZeeshanParvez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    10,327
    Mentioned
    308 Post(s)
    Quoted
    2748 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    330

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    Ohh, so you defend Ibn Taymiyyah and blindly qoute him without knowing his actual position? How great! As long as you don't know what Sifat 'Ayniyyah are (which Ibn Taymiyyah mention in his books and affirms) you don't have any right to defend him. What is so difficult about understanding that speaking without knowledge is not allowed?
    The irony.

  3. #802
    Odan ZeeshanParvez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    10,327
    Mentioned
    308 Post(s)
    Quoted
    2748 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    330

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    Let me remind you that this is not the topic of this thread. I tried quite often now to come back to the actual issue of this thread, but you and some others are always changing the topic and start speaking down upon the Asha'irah.
    By the way: Unlike the Wahhabiyyah we've nothing to hide.
    Please return to the topic of this thread which is Muhamamd Ibn Abd al-Wahhaab. I have already got here what I needed. Have fun!

  4. #803
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    147
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Quoted
    122 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
    And the part that He does what He Wills as He Wills, which is in conformity with the Qur'aanic Verses. The Ashaa'irah will tell you that taking these Verses on face value will lead to kufr. Imagine Allaah sending down a Book in the Arabic language and saying it is clearly explained and you ending up in kufr for believing what the Book says!


    "As for your claim that the tafsiir of the world al-Qayyuum is the one who does not cease being at His place and He does not move, then it is not accepted unless you have an authentic narration to back up your claim. One which comes from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam), his Companions, or the Taabi'uun because al-Hayy al-Qayyuum does what He Wills, and He moves when He Wills, He descends and ascends when He Wills...."


    The only reason the Ashaa'irah have problems is because they have tried to encompass Allaah within their limited "logic." They have set up rules. They are called "logical" rules. If some Attribute of Allaah does not fit that rule they say it can't be.

    Imagine trying to fit Allaah into your logic knowing your logic as a human is limited and flawed. The hallmark of deviance. Nothing can encompass Allaah.

    That is why you do not rely on your flawed and twisted logic. You reject aQl and accept NaQl.
    Look at this Christian "logic" that you're using here! "God can move when he wants, because he can do everything".... So what's next? He may settle upon the back of a mosquito? Ohh wait, that is actually mentioned in that book of disbelief of yours:

    إن الله أعظم من كل شيء وأكبر من كل خلق ولم يحتمله العرش عظما ولا قوة، ولا حملة العرش احتملوه بقوتهم ولا استقلوا بعرشه بشدة أسرهم ولكنهم حملوه بقدرته ومشيئته وإرادته وتأييده لولا ذلك ما أطاقوا حمله. وقد بلغنا أنهم حين حملوا العرش وفوقه الجبار في عزته وبهائه ضعفوا عن حمله واستكانوا وجثوا على ركبهم حتى لقنوا لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله فاستقلوا به بقدرة الله وإرادته لولا ذلك ما استقل به العرش ولا الحملة ولا السموات والأرض ولا من فيهن ولو قد شاء لاستقر على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلت به بقدرته ولطف ربوبيته فكيف على عرش عظيم أكبر من السموات السبع والأرضين السبع

    Source:
    al-Naqdh

    In that case even believing that God has a son is not a problem anymore after the above statement of disbelief!

    Ironicaly you're saying that "Nothing can encompass Allah" (which is true), but at the same time you're praising a book where Allah ta'ala is described with limits! Do you see your contradiction?

    By the way: What your're saying is NOWHERE found in the Book of Allah ta'ala or in the authentic reports, so this again is the way of the Jews and the Christians that you're using.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
    The irony.
    The irony is that you didn't respond to a question where I used the same expressions that Ibn Taymiyyah (the one you're defending!) used.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
    Please return to the topic of this thread which is Muhamamd Ibn Abd al-Wahhaab. I have already got here what I needed. Have fun!
    What did you need? Getting on one's nerves and praising a book where it said that God has a weight?

  5. #804
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,382
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1756 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    126

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    Look at this Christian "logic" that you're using here! "God can move when he wants, because he can do everything".... So what's next? He may settle upon the back of a mosquito? Ohh wait, that is actually mentioned in that book of disbelief of yours:

    إن الله أعظم من كل شيء وأكبر من كل خلق ولم يحتمله العرش عظما ولا قوة، ولا حملة العرش احتملوه بقوتهم ولا استقلوا بعرشه بشدة أسرهم ولكنهم حملوه بقدرته ومشيئته وإرادته وتأييده لولا ذلك ما أطاقوا حمله. وقد بلغنا أنهم حين حملوا العرش وفوقه الجبار في عزته وبهائه ضعفوا عن حمله واستكانوا وجثوا على ركبهم حتى لقنوا لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله فاستقلوا به بقدرة الله وإرادته لولا ذلك ما استقل به العرش ولا الحملة ولا السموات والأرض ولا من فيهن ولو قد شاء لاستقر على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلت به بقدرته ولطف ربوبيته فكيف على عرش عظيم أكبر من السموات السبع والأرضين السبع

    Source:
    al-Naqdh

    In that case even believing that God has a son is not a problem anymore after the above statement of disbelief!

    Ironicaly you're saying that "Nothing can encompass Allah" (which is true), but at the same time you're praising a book where Allah ta'ala is described with limits! Do you see your contradiction?

    By the way: What your're saying is NOWHERE found in the Book of Allah ta'ala or in the authentic reports, so this again is the way of the Jews and the Christians that you're using.



    The irony is that you didn't respond to a question where I used the same expressions that Ibn Taymiyyah (the one you're defending!) used.



    What did you need? Getting on one's nerves and praising a that book where it said that God has a weight?
    Assalamu alaykom

    I am certain that you have not studied logic because your method of argumentation is actually fallacious. Are you aware of what a False Dichotomy is ? If so , do you believe you are engaging in such with us?

    Curious to witness your logic.
    Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 06-10-17 at 06:46 PM.

  6. #805
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    147
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Quoted
    122 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    Assalamu alaykom

    I am certain that you have not studied logic because your method of argumentation is actually fallacious. Are you aware of what a False Dichotomy is ? If so , do you believe you are engaging in such with us?

    Curious to witness your logic.
    Wa ‘alaykum al-salam,

    what’s your point brother? My point is that this way of argumentation (“god can do everthing and this means he can move when he wants and he can rest upon the back of a mosquito”) is not the way of Muslims, but rather that of Christians and other disbelievers.
    Allah ta’ala is high above what the oppressors say.

  7. #806
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,382
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1756 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    126

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    Wa ‘alaykum al-salam,

    what’s your point brother? My point is that this way of argumentation (“god can do everthing and this means he can move when he wants and he can rest upon the back of a mosquito”) is not the way of Muslims, but rather that of Christians and other disbelievers.
    Allah ta’ala is high above what the oppressors say.
    Firstly , before moving to that , my point is this.

    It is incorrect to argue with us through the following method , because this is not even our default.

    1) Force us to engage in Kalam
    2) Force us to adopt the Kalam positions of Ibn Taymiyyah

    Because your argument will proceed as ..

    1) No one has preceeded him in these Kalam positions ..

    (Which we do not necessarily deny , that's what makes Ibn Taymiyyah such an elevated and contraversial scholar)

    2) Since he is alone in these Kalam positions and all your "classical scholars" i.e Ashari scholars - disagree with him , then surely he is ..

    a) illogical
    b) mubtadee

    Obviously no Ashari scholar agrees with him , his attempt was to support a claim in favour of the dhahir ( Which is the Madhhab of the Salaf ) , by engaging ilm al Kalam ( Which is not the Madhhab of the Salaf )

    Ibn Taymiyyah is one of a kind in this regard.

    It is not our asl to engage in Kalaam in the first place. Your attempt to force the situation is invalid and an unnecessary argument.

    I would like to address the issue furthermore but not at the moment. I apologise for that , and hope to continue in the future.

    Jazak Allahu khayron
    Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 06-10-17 at 08:28 PM.

  8. #807
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    147
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Quoted
    122 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    Obviously no Ashari scholar agrees with him , his attempt was to support a claim in favour of the dhahir ( Which is the Madhhab of the Salaf ) , by engaging ilm al Kalam ( Which is not the Madhhab of the Salaf )
    Brother, when I get time I’ll answer your comment.
    But I would like you to read this older comment of mine:



    ______________


    Wa 'alaykum al-Salam,


    I think that it is important to clarify what exactly one intends while making statements like "we accept the apparent", "the apparent [meaning] that comes to the mind of the Mushabbihah is rejected", " we consign the kayfiyyah and ma'na to Allah", "without kayfiyyah" and so on, especially in our times when there is so much confusion regarding these issues.
    Through this way many misunderstandings can be prevented and it becomes much easier to understand where exactly the difference lies between the different groups.


    Abu Hawwa said:
    "accepting the thahir"


    The statement "we accept the apparent (Dhahir) of the Ayat and Ahadith regarding the divine attributes" can be used with more than one intention/meaning. There is a meaning which is correct and in line with the understanding of the Atharis and Ash'aris, and another meaning that is Tashbih and in line with the understanding of the Mushabbihah and Mujassimah.


    1) The correct usage:
    What is intended here by "accepting the apparent" or "leaving it on the apparent" is to believe in these Ayat and Ahadith as they have reached us without adding something to it or subtracting from it, while consigning the knowledge of the real interpretation/meaning to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and being sure that the Creator is not similar to his creation in any way.
    This is Tafwidh and the Madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah. Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) for example uses "Dhahir" with this meaning in his "Ma'alim al-Sunan".


    2) The false usage:
    What is intended here by saying "accepting the apparent" is to believe in the literal sensory meaning (i.e. al-Dhahir al-hissi). Some examples for this would be to understand Yad as a limb (Jarihah) or Nuzul and Ityan/Maji` as a movement (Harakah) and Istiwa` as [literal] sitting (Julus) and settlement (Istiqrar) and as transition from one state to another one (Intiqal min Hal ila Hal) and so on.
    This is Tashbih and Kufr.


    When Ash'ari scholars say "the apparent in not intended", they mean the Dhahir al-hissi.


    What is interesting is that even Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) (who is a staunch enemy of Tafwidh and believes in the false usage) admits that there are many scholars who say "we pass it upon it's apparent", but are Mufawwidhah:


    ثم كثير من هؤلاء يقولون : تجري على ظاهرها فظاهرها مراد مع قولهم : إن لها تأويلا بهذا المعنى لا يعلمه إلا الله . وهذا تناقض وقع فيه كثير من هؤلاء المنتسبين إلى السنة : من أصحاب " الأئمة الأربعة " وغيرهم


    "Then many of them (the Mufawwidhah) say "it's passed upon it's apparent (dhahir)" - so the apparent is intended - while at the same time they say: "It has a interpretation with this meaning that no one knows except Allah".
    This is a contradiction in which many of the people who ascribe themselves to the Sunnah have fallen into, from among the companions of the four Imams (i.e. scholars of the 4 Madhahib) and other than them."


    Source: "Majmu' al-Fatawa" 5/35


    (Note: This being a contradiction is his personal opinion.)


    Abu Hawwa said:
    "accepting the thahir" I always expected that to mean that we accept the text and leave its kaifiyya and its meaning to Allah.


    This is the correct usage, so you're insha`Allah on the safe side.


    However it should be noted that the statement "leaving the kayfiyyah" can also be used in more than one way.


    1) The correct usage:
    That one leaves the reality (Haqiqah, Kunh) of the divine attributes to Allah ta'ala. (That is because it is not possible for the creation to understand the reality of the Bari subhanahu wa ta'ala.)


    2) The false usage:
    That one leaves the knowledge regaring the modality of the divine attributes to Allah ta'ala, this would mean for example that Yad is a literal hand, but one doesn't know how big that hand is and which colour it has and so on.
    This is Tashbih and Kufr.


    In this context many of the early scholars of Islam would say "bila kayf" and that was in order to declare Allah ta'ala exalted from Kayfiyyah with the second meaning and also so that no one asks "how?" (because that would mean that one would apply Kayfiyyah with the false meaning to Allah ta'ala).


    Conclusion:
    Two people may say similar things [in their wording] while intending completely different meanings. That's why what is important is to understand what is intended. Hope that helps for a better understanding.


    Wallahu ta'ala a'lam.
    ______________

  9. #808
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,382
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1756 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    126

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    Brother, when I get time I’ll answer your comment.
    But I would like you to read this older comment of mine:



    ______________


    Wa 'alaykum al-Salam,


    I think that it is important to clarify what exactly one intends while making statements like "we accept the apparent", "the apparent [meaning] that comes to the mind of the Mushabbihah is rejected", " we consign the kayfiyyah and ma'na to Allah", "without kayfiyyah" and so on, especially in our times when there is so much confusion regarding these issues.
    Through this way many misunderstandings can be prevented and it becomes much easier to understand where exactly the difference lies between the different groups.


    Abu Hawwa said:
    "accepting the thahir"


    The statement "we accept the apparent (Dhahir) of the Ayat and Ahadith regarding the divine attributes" can be used with more than one intention/meaning. There is a meaning which is correct and in line with the understanding of the Atharis and Ash'aris, and another meaning that is Tashbih and in line with the understanding of the Mushabbihah and Mujassimah.


    1) The correct usage:
    What is intended here by "accepting the apparent" or "leaving it on the apparent" is to believe in these Ayat and Ahadith as they have reached us without adding something to it or subtracting from it, while consigning the knowledge of the real interpretation/meaning to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and being sure that the Creator is not similar to his creation in any way.
    This is Tafwidh and the Madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah. Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) for example uses "Dhahir" with this meaning in his "Ma'alim al-Sunan".


    2) The false usage:
    What is intended here by saying "accepting the apparent" is to believe in the literal sensory meaning (i.e. al-Dhahir al-hissi). Some examples for this would be to understand Yad as a limb (Jarihah) or Nuzul and Ityan/Maji` as a movement (Harakah) and Istiwa` as [literal] sitting (Julus) and settlement (Istiqrar) and as transition from one state to another one (Intiqal min Hal ila Hal) and so on.
    This is Tashbih and Kufr.


    When Ash'ari scholars say "the apparent in not intended", they mean the Dhahir al-hissi.


    What is interesting is that even Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) (who is a staunch enemy of Tafwidh and believes in the false usage) admits that there are many scholars who say "we pass it upon it's apparent", but are Mufawwidhah:


    ثم كثير من هؤلاء يقولون : تجري على ظاهرها فظاهرها مراد مع قولهم : إن لها تأويلا بهذا المعنى لا يعلمه إلا الله . وهذا تناقض وقع فيه كثير من هؤلاء المنتسبين إلى السنة : من أصحاب " الأئمة الأربعة " وغيرهم


    "Then many of them (the Mufawwidhah) say "it's passed upon it's apparent (dhahir)" - so the apparent is intended - while at the same time they say: "It has a interpretation with this meaning that no one knows except Allah".
    This is a contradiction in which many of the people who ascribe themselves to the Sunnah have fallen into, from among the companions of the four Imams (i.e. scholars of the 4 Madhahib) and other than them."


    Source: "Majmu' al-Fatawa" 5/35


    (Note: This being a contradiction is his personal opinion.)


    Abu Hawwa said:
    "accepting the thahir" I always expected that to mean that we accept the text and leave its kaifiyya and its meaning to Allah.


    This is the correct usage, so you're insha`Allah on the safe side.


    However it should be noted that the statement "leaving the kayfiyyah" can also be used in more than one way.


    1) The correct usage:
    That one leaves the reality (Haqiqah, Kunh) of the divine attributes to Allah ta'ala. (That is because it is not possible for the creation to understand the reality of the Bari subhanahu wa ta'ala.)


    2) The false usage:
    That one leaves the knowledge regaring the modality of the divine attributes to Allah ta'ala, this would mean for example that Yad is a literal hand, but one doesn't know how big that hand is and which colour it has and so on.
    This is Tashbih and Kufr.


    In this context many of the early scholars of Islam would say "bila kayf" and that was in order to declare Allah ta'ala exalted from Kayfiyyah with the second meaning and also so that no one asks "how?" (because that would mean that one would apply Kayfiyyah with the false meaning to Allah ta'ala).


    Conclusion:
    Two people may say similar things [in their wording] while intending completely different meanings. That's why what is important is to understand what is intended. Hope that helps for a better understanding.


    Wallahu ta'ala a'lam.
    ______________
    Assalamu alaykom

    I would argue that the route by which you attempt to argue is fruitless and will ultimately lead us to an unnecessary conversation.

    Offering your sectarian understanding of Dhahir , bi la kayf , tafwid , etc - is of no use because the conversation will lead to spiral inconsistencies.

    1) The reason why you interpret these scholarly terms in the manner that you do is ultimately do to the fact that you believe that the mere affirmation of the texts is illogical and therefore Kufr.

    So you will interpret "dhahir" as an affirmation of the text without physically distorting it's wording - and you will interpret "bi la kayf" as " There is no how " i.e Ta'teel.

    While I would interpret accepting the narrations upon the dhahir , as an affirmation of what the text is conveying - and I would interpret " bi la kayf " to mean " Without asking 'how?' " i.e Without concerning yourself of how they are possible or how they are in reality. ( This is certain from the use of the individual who questioned Imaam Maalik)

    Why do we differ?

    I believe the Prophet Muhammad (saws) came with the truth. The revelations he received and conveyed regarding Allah Subhaanahu wa Ta'ala are the truth , by definition. Meaning , the revelations and teachings of the Prophet (saws) , which are expressed in the Quran and the Ahadith are the absolute truths regarding Allah.

    You believe that the Prophet Muhammad (saws) came with the truth. The truthfulness of his Prophethood is dependant upon the fact that he can not be logically inconsistent. The Prophet Muhammad (saws) teachings are upon the truth , by definition , and therefore it is unfamothable that his teachings lead to incoherence.

    Firstly , from an Imaan perspective , it is obvious as to which side is upon the truth. One can argue that the Ashari position is a position of Imaan and love for the Prophet (saws). We need to free the Prophet from logical absurdities by interpreting certain passages or relogating their true meanings back to Allah - but in reality , this was not a position in which your 'logic' was invited to in the first place.

    Islaam is submission.

    Part of that submission is Imaan bil-ghayb ( Belief in the unseen ). Allah is an unseen and immeasurable through the limited human intellect. Knowledge which is related via Revelation is superior to that which appears to be true through the intellect.

    I believe that Allah is Above His Throne. I am not being metaphorical in my language when I say that. I believe , as the scriptures convey , and our scholars exclaim , that there are over 1000 Proofs for Allah being Above.

    The Ashari will say that "this belief is illogical. You can not literally believe that Allah is Above."

    Me :"Why? My logic doesn't say that , and besides , the Naql is suggesting that."

    Ashari :" You are illogical. You cannot believe that Allah is literally above due to what definitively known via the Aql."

    Me : "The Aql that Allah naturally created me with ( Common sense ) , does not naturally say that though."

    Ashari : " You have not studied logic and metaphysics."

    Me : " Explain."

    Ashari : " It is absurd to affirm that Allah is literally Above us due to it's implications. To affirm Allah Above the Throne would necessarily imply that he is in a 'place' , which would necessarily imply that he has a limit , and furthermore necessitate that he is a body (jism).

    All bodies are created by definition, from what is decisvely reasoned through Huduth al Ajsaam ( Arugment of Occurences and Bodies ). It is necessary for an 'incorperal agent' to bring about all other bodies which consist of occurrences , in order to escape the logical absurdity of the 'infinite regress'.

    Therefore , it is illogical to affirm that Allah is literally Above the Throne. Rather , all your '1000 proofs' are to be interpreted or relogated back to Allah , because it is impossible to suggest that the Prophet(saws) was being literal - lest we ascribe incoherence to our beloved Messenger (asws)"

    ----------

    I would argue that this reasoning is ultimately fallacious. I am not calling it fallacious due to me having a strong stance against the argument of huduth al ajsam .. Wallahi I don't. I believe this position is inconsistent with scripture and therefore it is false.

    A man who is receiving authentic revelation from God i.e a Prophet , becomes axiomatically true in matters pertaining to the unseen. Hence the term " bi la kayf " , " Without asking 'how?'

    The 'logic' you presuppose as ultimate truths are dhannee ( Speculative ) when you attempt to apply it to Allah. It is not true like empirical science , upon which all humans have a consensus upon. The aql of the Ashaa'ira differs with that of the Maturidi , which differs from the Muta'zila , and within each camp , the theoligians disagree with eachother.

    Ultimately it contradicts the Naql (The Quran , The Sunnah , Statements of the Sahabah and respected Scholars from the Salaf) and It forces us interpret and negate, affirmative statements from the sacred sources , based on presuppositonal knowledge not legislated by the Prophet (saws) himself , and therefore it is bid'ah and misguidance.

    ( Apologise for my typos , I am using a phone to deliver these messages )

    May Allah grant us Submission to the teachings of Muhammad (saws)
    Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 07-10-17 at 03:44 PM.

  10. #809
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,382
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1756 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    126

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Assalamu alaykom akhi

    The reason why I said that I believe your method of arguing will lead us to inconsistencies is due to the fact that our standards differ. I strongly believe your Madhhab is inconsistent with what is authoritative , and it is for that reason I reject it as deviance. Though , if you present me the truth , I would hope Allah guides me to it.

    Allow me to ask you some questions regarding certain things which trouble me , maybe you can clarify them , if you have time.

    1) Do you agree that the Asl of language and human communication is to judge a speakers intent by what is apparent in his use of ; language , expressions , metaphors , etc?

    If not , then how do you distinguish the intention of the speaker? Do you take my current speech literally or do you think I am being sarcastic?

    2) Why would Allah speak regarding Himself in a manner which is Kufr , in a language and context which is universally considered affirmative? What is the wisdom behind the repetitive mentioning of "Istawa" , if actually believing in what the affirmative text implies is kufr?

    i.e " Allah said the Most Merciful Istawa His Throne. Therefore , Allah actually Istiwa His Throne."

    If this logic is flawed , then can you provide any reason why Allah even said these words?

    3) If Allah does not actually nu'zool every last third of the night , then why did the Prophet convey it in a manner which is affirmative by nature? Why didn't he say that it is His bounty? Why didn't he say that nu'zool can not apply to Allah , and this necessitates ta'weel / tafwid? I want to know what is the Hikmah in his language , from your perspective?

    4) If tafwid and ta'weel are necessary in the case of certain ayat/ahadith , then why was this teaching not clearly explained in detail by the Prophet(saws) to his early companions?

    It is historically impossible to suggest that the companions understood the philosophical terms and concepts which confused later generations.

    If they were not aware of your logic , then by what standard did they accept or reject potential sifaat? Basic human aql ( Common sense ) does not conclude that it is illogical to believe that Allah is literally Above His Throne or that Allah actually created Adam with His Two Hands ( Which are sifat that befit Allah's reality )

    I am not sure if you only accept mutawaatir ahadith with regards to these matters - but there are even Ahadith where the Prophet conveys what Allah creates or does with His Hands. Why would I deny a concept called "Hands" for Allah when I have reasons via Quran , Sunnah , speaking about them in an affirmative , and non metaphorical manner? Isn't that illogical ?

    If it is false to simply say ,
    " The Prophet said He created Adam with his Two Hands , therefore Allah actually created Adam with His Two Hands "

    If this statement is false , then what was the use in delivering the Aqidah in such a strange way? This is not an effective method of Da'wah , in fact , naturally it would lead a sincere individual astray.

    I really would like to address other obvious issues which are relative , but inshaAllah at another time.

    Salamo alaykom
    Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 08-10-17 at 07:57 PM.

  11. #810

    Account Disabled

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    8,215
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Quoted
    6164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Rumaysah~ View Post
    I don't agree with spicen or those attacking MIAW/salafiyyah in general but i'm open to hearing what they have to say. And if there is some small amount of truth in something they say then I acknowledge that. There are things that happen within the salafi community and a way some salafis carry themselves that I don't like or agree with. That doesn't make mean I've deviated.
    Just going to reply to the relevant part of this post.

    Why do you disagree -barring the whole mass-ignoring the evidences shown. But maybe since you won't hear the opinion of non-salafis then atleast hear from salafis themselves.

    Former Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Adel Kalbani: Daesh ISIS have the same beliefs as we dohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWORE6OBfhc

    At the end of the day, ISIS practice Salafism, pure and applied. Those who disagree with ISIS have deviated from the path of salafism. There is a reason why knowledgable salafists refer to isis as mujahideen. Only ignorant salafis dislike ISIS.

    I'm not sure what more is there to prove.

  12. #811
    Umm Kulthoom Rumaysah~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Gender
    Girl Female
    Posts
    4,713
    Mentioned
    170 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3713 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    353

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Spicen View Post
    Just going to reply to the relevant part of this post.

    Why do you disagree -barring the whole mass-ignoring the evidences shown. But maybe since you won't hear the opinion of non-salafis then atleast hear from salafis themselves.

    Former Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Adel Kalbani: Daesh ISIS have the same beliefs as we dohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWORE6OBfhc

    At the end of the day, ISIS practice Salafism, pure and applied. Those who disagree with ISIS have deviated from the path of salafism. There is a reason why knowledgable salafists refer to isis as mujahideen. Only ignorant salafis dislike ISIS.

    I'm not sure what more is there to prove.
    The thing is I don't understand what point you guys are making with this because the reality is there are sub groups within the salafi methodology or at least who claim to be salafi and non of them agree on anything. You can have one salafi masjid on a road and another on the other side and they could be enemies and not even give the salaams to each other. In some places they may even be killing each other. It happens, and not only amongst salafis but amongst many muslims.

    At the end of the day I have to separate people from the truth, people will use bits of the truth and twist it to fit their own agenda. I am convinced that this is the right methodology or closest to the truth because it makes the most sense. One individual or a few individual's mistakes, misunderstandings or deviance from the correct islam and the correct way of following the salaf can't change that.
    شَكَوْتُ إلَى وَكِيعٍ سُوءَ حِفْظِي
    فَأرْشَدَنِي إلَى تَرْكِ المعَاصي
    وَأخْبَرَنِي بأَنَّ العِلْمَ نُورٌ
    ونورُ الله لا يهدى لعاصي

  13. #812
    Its fine, take a 38mm noobz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    47,724
    Mentioned
    354 Post(s)
    Quoted
    8089 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    729

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Muslim First View Post
    I thought this was about the extremism of the najdi dawah? lol every time op starts this topic it delves into aqeedah wars.
    thats what makes it quite obvious.

    you show from the books of what MIAW did and the thread is changed into the ashari's belief system.

    just shows how bad salafi's are in their strawman arguments.




  14. #813
    Odan ZeeshanParvez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    10,327
    Mentioned
    308 Post(s)
    Quoted
    2748 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    330

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by noobz View Post
    thats what makes it quite obvious.

    you show from the books of what MIAW did and the thread is changed into the ashari's belief system.

    just shows how bad salafi's are in their strawman arguments.
    At least you are consistent.

    Quote Originally Posted by noobz View Post
    and that is why i don't go into depth of these issues.

    This is the same issue which has plagued pakistan and other areas where people have called each other kaffir and people have been going from masjid to masjid....

    same with the halala issue or the sahabi who said mutah is halal or when they say nikah misyar is halal , everybody is doing takfir on each other.

  15. #814
    Its fine, take a 38mm noobz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    47,724
    Mentioned
    354 Post(s)
    Quoted
    8089 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    729

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
    At least you are consistent.
    well of course i am , its not like i change a thread from the genocide MIAW committed to a thread about ashari beliefs cause i couldn't defend my mass murdering scholar.

    no wonder abu bakr baghdadi and isis are always claiming they're following the sunnah when they're reaching for all MIAW material for their jihad.




  16. #815
    Odan ZeeshanParvez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    10,327
    Mentioned
    308 Post(s)
    Quoted
    2748 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    330

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by noobz View Post
    well of course i am , its not like i change a thread from the genocide MIAW committed to a thread about ashari beliefs cause i couldn't defend my mass murdering scholar.

    no wonder abu bakr baghdadi and isis are always claiming they're following the sunnah when they're reaching for all MIAW material for their jihad.




    Do you think that part of the problem is the personality worship which plagues this Ummah?

    Regardless of which faction, everyone seems to suffer seizures when their loved scholar is put under the microscope. Even those who claim to not follow any scholar succumb to it.

    But then on the other side, you have a few individuals who live up to what they say.

    They do not follow any one person. They will point out the mistakes.

    But many of them end up loving their own verdicts and beliefs so much that they begin to pretty much worship themselves.

    What a difficult situation.....

  17. #816
    Odan imran1976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    21,659
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Quoted
    870 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    176

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by noobz View Post
    thats what makes it quite obvious.

    you show from the books of what MIAW did and the thread is changed into the ashari's belief system.

    just shows how bad salafi's are in their strawman arguments.
    obviously they will try to change the subject - kis mun sey defend karein
    "Europe died in Bosnia and was buried in Syria. Bodies of innocent children washing ashore are the
    western civilization's tombstones"


    Rajab Tayyab Erdogan

  18. #817
    Odan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    3,158
    Mentioned
    66 Post(s)
    Quoted
    936 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    This quote itself is problematic , due to the fact that it can be interpreted in different ways , based on the readers preconception. In one sense it is correct , and in another sense it is incorrect ..

    It's very recitation is it's explanation. Our dictionaries do not have an "Allah Chapter". The Mushabbihah is the one approaches the text preconceiving tashbih.

    1) It is essential to acknowledge that these attributes are relevant to Allah , and not created beings.
    2) It is essential to acknowledge the context in which the attributes are being described.

    The quote above would have it seem that the people who affirm the Dhahir of Yad , intend by it a created hand , or a door hand , or the hand of a clock- because there is no "Uncreated Perfect Hands of Allah" in the language of people. Our language is relevant to our day to day discourse.

    The wordings of the Attributes of Allah , although the same , are ultimately relative to Allah's Existence.

    They are similar only in concept , but not in reality. Had they not been similar in concepts , we would have absolutely no idea what they meant , and this also includes Life, Power, Will, Knowledge, Hearing, Sight, Speech. We affirm them as concepts , relative to Allah's nature , which is a Nature / Essence / Existence separate and unlike the creation.

    The onus of proof is upon you to prove that Yad , by definition , can not apply to Allah. If you respond with "But what is a Yad" , then please re-read what I have typed. But just for clarity sake.

    1) Yad is a Sifat mentioned clearly in both the Qur'an and the Hadeeth.
    2) Allah's attributes are not created.
    3) Allah Created Adam and performed other tasks with his Yadayn.

    Allah did not say , "Why did you not bow down to that which I have created with Alif Lam Meem." ..

    It is only tashbih if one says "Hand like my hand , or Hand similar to."

    I really can not see why anyone would find this problematic as far as definitions are concerned. In fact , early Ashari's affirmed Sifat Dhatiyyah , and they are actually acceptable within your Madhhab , and Allah knows best.
    The problem with it, is Allah and His Messenger, didn't explain it as such. Thus, your explanation is your TAWIL of the said verse or verses. No different then a person saying Hand means power. In both situations, Allah and His Messenger have not confirmed your belief nor the belief of the person who says Hand means power.

    And Allah knows best.
    My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

  19. #818
    Odan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    3,158
    Mentioned
    66 Post(s)
    Quoted
    936 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    This quote itself is problematic , due to the fact that it can be interpreted in different ways , based on the readers preconception. In one sense it is correct , and in another sense it is incorrect ..

    It's very recitation is it's explanation. Our dictionaries do not have an "Allah Chapter". The Mushabbihah is the one approaches the text preconceiving tashbih.

    1) It is essential to acknowledge that these attributes are relevant to Allah , and not created beings.
    2) It is essential to acknowledge the context in which the attributes are being described.

    The quote above would have it seem that the people who affirm the Dhahir of Yad , intend by it a created hand , or a door hand , or the hand of a clock- because there is no "Uncreated Perfect Hands of Allah" in the language of people. Our language is relevant to our day to day discourse.

    The wordings of the Attributes of Allah , although the same , are ultimately relative to Allah's Existence.

    They are similar only in concept , but not in reality. Had they not been similar in concepts , we would have absolutely no idea what they meant , and this also includes Life, Power, Will, Knowledge, Hearing, Sight, Speech. We affirm them as concepts , relative to Allah's nature , which is a Nature / Essence / Existence separate and unlike the creation.

    The onus of proof is upon you to prove that Yad , by definition , can not apply to Allah. If you respond with "But what is a Yad" , then please re-read what I have typed. But just for clarity sake.

    1) Yad is a Sifat mentioned clearly in both the Qur'an and the Hadeeth.
    2) Allah's attributes are not created.
    3) Allah Created Adam and performed other tasks with his Yadayn.

    Allah did not say , "Why did you not bow down to that which I have created with Alif Lam Meem." ..

    It is only tashbih if one says "Hand like my hand , or Hand similar to."

    I really can not see why anyone would find this problematic as far as definitions are concerned. In fact , early Ashari's affirmed Sifat Dhatiyyah , and they are actually acceptable within your Madhhab , and Allah knows best.
    As Salam Alaykum,

    I don't have a problem with referring to Yad as a Sifat, in a general sense. As the Salafus Saleh affirmed such as a Sifat.

    Al-Walid ibn Muslim (d. 194H) said, “I asked Malik, al-Awza’i, Laytb ibn Sa’d and Sufyan al-Thawri, may Allah have mercy upon them, concerning the reports related about the Attributes, so they all said, ‘Leave them as they are without asking ‘How?” (Reported by al-Aajurri in Ash-Sha’ri’ah, p. 314, al-Bayhaqi in Al-Asma was-Sifat, p. 453 and also al-I’tiqad, p. 118 and the chain of narration is hasan.)

    If you want to be Hanbali and follow the Salafus Saleh, stop where they stopped.

    Ibn Jawzi al Hanbali, said, “Companions! Brothers! You are the People who adhere to the texts and follow them. This was the example of your Imam, the greatest Imam, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, May Allah Exalthed be He, have mercy on him, who under pain of torture, proclaimed, ‘How can I say what was not been said before?’ So, take care not to introduce into his madhab what does not belong in it.”
    ( Daf Shubah al Tashbih - Rebuttal of the Insinuations of Anthropomorphism)

    At the same time, I do not consider it obligatory for a Muslim to believe they are Attributes, as Allah and His Messenger did not confirm such wording, and a Muslim is only obligated to believe in what Allah and His Messenger brought.

    As for the specifics that some Salafis delve into, such as saying Allah's Yad is to be taken literally (Haqiqataan), this to me is an innovation, and anthropomorphism.

    Like the words of Ibn Uthaymeen, “ The Prophet’s words, “Adam was created in His image” means that Allaah created Adam in His image, “FOR HE HAS A FACE, AN EYE, A HAND, AND A FOOT, and Adam had a face, an eye, a hand, and a foot… but that does not mean that these things are exactly the same. “THERE IS SOME SIMILARITY, BUT IT IS NOT EXACTLY THE SAME” (Sharh al-‘Aqeedah al-Waasitah by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 1/107, 293. Fatwa No: 20652)

    I also dislike the emphasizes that Salafis make when coming across such verses and hadith, Salafis tend to focus unclear, instead of the clear aspect of the verse which seems the point of the text.

    Allah says, It is He Who has sent down to you the Book (this Quran). In it are Verses that are clear, they are the foundations of the Book and others unclear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation they follow that which is unclear thereof, seeking dissension and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, except Allah.. And those firmly rooted in knowledge say, 'We believe in it; all is from our Lord'; yet none remembers, but men possessed of minds. (Quran 3:7)


    None, knows it explanation except Allah.
    A position confirmed by Ibn Abbas and Ibn Masud. If Allah says none knows it explanation except Allah, why the focus on it. And then Allah says, deviated hearts focus on the unclear.

    Wouldn't it be wise to remain silent concerning these verses? To make tafwid.

    Abu Hurairah reports that the Messenger of Allah said: “Our Lord Descends to the lowest heaven during the last third of the night, inquiring: `Who will call on Me so that I may respond to him? Who is asking something of Me so I may give it to him? Who is asking for My forgiveness so I may forgive him?”[ Bukhari and Muslim.]

    The point of the hadith isn’t how Allah descends (literally or metaphorically), the point of hadith is to get Muslims to pray tahajjah.

    Salafis act as if these unclear aspects of text are the most important aspects of Tawhid. I don't think so.

    As for the wisdom behind mentioning these unclear point, perhaps its part of the eloquence of the language. In the beginning I was more inclined to your way of thinking. But the more I started to learn the Arabic language, the more vast Quran became. Metaphors is part of the beauty of language.

    As for the proof of tafwid, in the sunnah... The Prophet rarely detailed anything. His speech is described as ‘jawami al-kalim’ – "speech that is concise, yet vast in meaning."

    The Messenger of Allah said, ” “He for whom Allâh desires great good, He grants him (superlative) understanding in the Religion (yufaqqihhu/yufqihhu fî al-dîn). I only distribute (ie The Quran and Sunnah) and it is Allâh Who gives (ie understanding). That group shall remain in charge of the Order of Allâh, unharmed by those who oppose them, until the coming of the Order of Allâh.” (Bukhari)

    The Messenger of Allah said, “May Allah make radiant someone who hears something from us, and then conveys it as he heard it (Quran and Hadith), for it might be that someone who it is conveyed to understands better than the one who heard (it first). (Sahih-Tirmidhi 2657)

    In both of these hadiths are a proof for tafwid and tawil, if you just reflect.. In all fairness, you could argue, that tawil also includes the Salafi approach of the dhahir.


    As far as Salafi claim, that Ashari Aqida is all about AQL and prefers AQL (ie Ilm Kalam over NQL), it is completely baseless.

    Shaykh Zaid Shakir of Zaytuna said, "As far as the basic principles that unite Ash’aris, two have primacy. The first is that revelation can be affirmed by intellect, but when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two, revelation has to be given primacy. This is a conclusion substantiated by the Qur’an and Hadith and has provided the basis for the Ash’aris both beating back the intellectual challenge of various sects such as the Mu’tazila, the Isma’ilis and others, while affirming the integrity of divine revelation. The second is that Allah is transcendent above any likeness. This principle is also rooted in the text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. That transcendence has been articulated with the aid of two processes. One is by deputing unto Allah the knowledge of any text whose superficial understanding might imply drawing a likeness between Allah and His creation. This is known as Tafwid. The second is interpreting such a text in a way that is supported by its linguistic meaning, while warding off the ability to draw any likeness unto Allah. This is known as Ta’wil."


    This is confirmed by both early and late Asharis.


    Imam Ibn Khafif who took kalam from Imam al Ashari said, "Imagination cannot perceive Him, nor knowledge encompass Him, nor reason (al Aql) describe Him." He also said, Reason alone (al aql) cannot determine right and wrong. It is the Law (Shariah - Quran and Sunnah) that holds sway over reason (in determining the licit and the unlawful)." (Al Aqida al Sahiha)

    The place of Kalam

    Imam al Ghazali said, "As for its benefit, it might be supposed that it is to reveal truths and know them as they truly are. and how farfetched! kalam theology is simply unable to fulfill this noble aim, and it probably founders and misguides more than it discovers or reveals. If you had heard these words from a hadith scholar or literalist, you might think, "People are enemies of what they are ignorant of." So hear them instead from someone steeped in kalam theology, who left it after mastering it in depth and penetrating into it as far as any scholar can, and who then went on to specialize in closely related fields, before realizing that access to the realities of true knowledge was barred from this path. By my life, theology is not bereft of revealing and defining the truth and clarifying some issues, but it does so rarely, and about things that are already clear and almost plain before learning its details. (Ihya Ulum al Din)

    Ihya Ulum al Din is studied by all modern Asharis.

    As far as Abu Ammar dissertation, and Ibn Taymiyyah's Dar al Ta'arud, which is a refutation of Fakr al Din al Razi's work. It was a misplaced emphasizes on Ibn Taymiyyah's part. Fakr al Din al Raz's work was a refutation against the philosophers, not a refutation against Hanbalis or Ahlul Hadith. So what he wrote has to be understood in that context, "a refutation of philosophers." The Universal Principle, is Tafwid and Tawil, which has a basis in the Quran and Sunnah. Fakr al Din al Razi, was telling the philosophers, that logic dictates their methodology is illogical and thus one has to return to the Quran and Sunnah.

    And Allah knows best.
    Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 17-10-17 at 02:17 PM.
    My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.2.7 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com

MPADC.com Islamic Web Hosting | Muslim Ad Network | Islamic Nasheeds | Islamic Mobile App Developement Android & iPhone | Islamic Web Hosting : Muslim Designers : Labbayk Nasheeds : silk route jilbab: Hijab: : Web Islamic Newsletter: Islamic Web Hosting

Students of Arabic Forum | Hijab Shop