Dr. Hatem al-Haj on the term "Salafi"

[Muhammad Hasan]

I haven't actually read the book myself. I'm expecting it to arrive in the mail on December 11. Perhaps we can discuss its content after I have finished reading it.

Sorry I went on ahead and started talking about it. In summary, I think you should educate yourself on what the Ash'ari teach. Go YouTube "Aqeedah Sanusiyyah", there is a good series by Shaykh Asrar Rashid.

I hope the differences between us are semantical and that I am wrong about most Taymiyyans being closet Physicallists (people who believe anything that exists must be physical/dimensioned/measurable/corporeal).

As an "Ash'ari" who affirms the Sifat al-Khabariyyah in the manner of the Athari/Hanbali such as Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Hamdan, Imam as-Saffarini etc. you should note that pretty much nothing he discusses on that is relevant to me. I strongly object to teaching laypeople Aqeedah purposefully in such a way that it can be misinterpreted.

Also I should say, I have more issues with Ibn Taymiyyah than just apparent Tajsim/Tasbih. These issues extend into the fact that he/his student adopts the doctrines of the Mu'tazilah and Karramiyyah in matters of Qadar and divine justice too. Then you have the issue of Jahannam not ending, which Sh. Yasir Qadhi even defends(!)

In summary I think in these threads we have made progress towards the truth, but I feel now that I have come as far as I possibly can. I cannot ever accept affirmation of the word Jism, I could care less the intended meaning. We both hold the same views on the Sifat al-Khabariyyah although I do not like any examples of Tamthil you may have done in the past.

I see the man above as evidence of the truth of Ahlus Sunnah. Ahlus Sunnah (the Ash'ari, Maturidi, Athari, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali), remain united despite their differences. The "Mufawwid" Hanbalis you criticise literally believe the same thing as you except they feel comfortable negating contingencies and use terminology like "bi la kayf wa la ma'na" and confidently negate Hadd etc.

It really shows that there is miseducation amongst your group on what (Athari) Tafwid is. I watched a video of AbdulRahman Hassan (Salafi), and confirmed this - I even watched Dawah Man, and have read a lot of what your group writes. Stop relying on your scholars to tell you how are scholars are. Watch this. Its about a scholar explaining how to groups misrepresent each other.

I can see you are gradually coming towards traditional Sunni Islam.

I hope Allah guides us both on that path.

[Muhammad Hasan]

how to groups misrepresent each other.

*two.

I've likely made many typos/spelling errors etc. please excuse me. I intended to leave discussing these topics.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Stop relying on your scholars to tell you how are scholars are.

*our scholar are

[Muhammad Hasan]

In summary I think in these threads we have made progress towards the truth, but I feel now that I have come as far as I possibly can.

I.e. I believe confidently that I have arrived at the truth and am certain of that.

I know if I don't clarify these thinks Abu 'Abdullah is going to come on this thread and start causing havok misquoting me...

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

...Abu 'Abdullah is going to come on this thread and start causing havok misquoting me...

Have I misquoted you before?

[Muhammad Hasan]

*our scholar are

*scholars

I've managed to make a spelling mistake whilst trying to correct a spelling mistake...

[Muhammad Hasan]

Have I misquoted you before?

Yes.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

Yes.

Where? I don't remember...

[TheHaqq]

No actually Imam Abu Hassan al-Ash'ari's point works against you, and as Imam Ibn Asakir and others state, he negated place etc. for Allah, which is our main problem with your group (you struggle to negate such a thing).

Imam al-Ash'ari is saying that in the mind of the innovators, Yad is either a limb or a favor. Rather Yad is his Attribute.

This is like a Taymiyyan refusing the idea that Allah is neither up, nor down, nor to the left, nor to the right, nor in front of us nor behind us. He says "But I can't imagine that! Surely Allah must be in one direction!" Imam al-Ash'ari would ask why are you judging by your empirical experience of things that exist? You assume something has to be in a place because all things you see are like that. Rather we affirm that Allah is above the creation unlike all other things!

This is interesting, even when I thought I was following salafi aqeedah, I held these exact views.

[AmantuBillahi]

Hatem al-Haj on the life of the Prophet(saws) in Barzakh

Question:

"does the Prophet spend time with his wives in the grave? Qastalani said “Imam as-Subki narrates from Ibn Furaak in his Tabaqat that Prophet is alive in his grave and HE IS A PROPHET FOREVER and this is based on REALITY not on “MAJAAZ” Zarqani commented: “The Prophet is a Haqiqi Nabi because he has “LIFE IN HIS GRAVE” and he offers prayer with Adhaan and Iqamah. Ibn Aqil Hanbli said The Prophet (Peace be upon him) spends time with his wives and he combines with them in such a way which is better than worldly relation. “IBN AQEEL SAID THIS BY TAKING AN OATH AND THIS IS SOMETHING OBVIOUS AND THERE IS NOTHING ABSTAINING FROM IT [Sharh al Zarqani Mawahib al-Laduniya V 8 Pg 358] If this is not true then what is the fatwa on ibn aqil and zarqani?"

Answer:


All praise be to Allah, and may His blessings and peace be on His last messenger, Muhammad,

The Prophets and the shuhada’ (martyrs) are alive in al-Barzakh (the stage between this life and the day of resurrection) as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:

“الأنبياء أحياء في قبورهم يصلون .”

“The Prophets are alive and they pray in their graves.”

The hadeeth was narrated by al-Bazzar from Anas and al-Bayhaqi, who authenticated it, as well as al-Albani, and it has some basis in reports in the two authentic collections.

That life in the grave, however, does not mean they didn’t die. Allah said to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him),

” إِنَّكَ مَيِّتٌ وَإِنَّهُم مَّيِّتُونَ.”

“Verily, you (O Muhammad) will die, and verily, they (too) will die” [al-Zumar 39:30].

This means they die, but they have a different state in the grave, a state in which they have a life befitting the stage of al-Barzakh (partition, meaning transition between the two lives), with a greater experience of the joys of this stage (for the believers) than the rest of us.

The fact that it is not like the life of this world should not be anything other than a certainty. They get inherited (for the Prophets, their estate is distributed as charity) and that would have not been permissible had it not been that they die. Also, for the martyrs, who are also alive in al-Barzakh, their women can get married after them. That would have not been permissible had their life been like that of this world.

As for what they do in their graves, this is of the strict ghayb (unseen), of which we speak only upon certain knowledge from the revelation. We know they pray. We also know that the Prophet is given the ability to return the salam of those who greet him with it. We don’t have a shred of evidence on the claimed conjugal relations between the Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) and his wives in the grave. Therefore, we must desist from making such claims.

The reason why some Ash‘ari scholars (may Allah bestow mercy on them) felt the need to make the Prophet’s life in the grave akin to the life of this world is to avoid the concomitant (lâzim) of their doctrine that one quality does not last in two different times, so the prophethood would not be attributable to the Prophet in this life and the life of the grave if they were different lives, so they made them one life. Atharis (scripturalist theologians) don’t believe in that doctrine in the first place. The Prophet (pbuh) is the epicenter of the creation and the final prophet and messenger of God before and after his death.

Allah knows best.

[AmantuBillahi]

In suluk (spirituality/ tazkiyyah/ taṣawwuf), our emulation of the first community will ensure our adherence to the sunnah and rejection of bid’ah (innovation) in matters of the deen, particularly spirituality, both in conceptions and practices. While we benefit from the mentorship of the mashayekh and we may try their anecdotal advice, we ascribe no value to any worship, modality, time, place, number of repetitions except that which we learn from the only infallible medium between us and God: the Messenger of Allah (pbuh). The way of the Prophet r and his companions in purifying the soul was the most perfect way. They subsisted by Allah, for Allah, with Allah. They favored clarity over mysticism and symbolism. They were always sober, even during their most intense spiritual experiences, and that is because of their establishment (tamakkun) in their maqâmât (spiritual stations). They were not nihilistic determinists, but they exceled in engaging the causes while having perfect reliance on Allah. They resisted qadar by qadar. They were monks during the night and knights during the day. They never created dichotomous contradictions or any tension between the text of revelation or sharia on one side and the realizations of the heart or haqiqah on the other. They were deepest in knowledge, purest at heart, and least pretentious; they were not ceremonial or stuck to formalities, but most devoted to the Creator and kindest to the creation. The greatest of the salikeen (travelers on the path to God) and masters of Sunni Tasawwuf, such as Ibrahim ibn al-Adham, Ma’ruf al-Karkhi, Sari as-Saqati, Abi Sulayman ad-Darani, al-Junayd, Abdul Qadir Jilani, and many others followed the first community on this path, which is steep, but clear and balanced, and to which no one has exclusive keys.

"Stations of the Travelers: Manazil as-Sa'ireen" by Hatem al-Haj:

https://www.amazon.ca/STATIONS-TRAVE...aj-ebook/dp/B0

Description:

This book, Manâzil as-Sâ’ireen, is a masterpiece of taṣawwuf written by Imam Abu Ismâ‘eel ‘Abdullâh ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Anṣâri al-Harawi, one of the greatest Sufi masters of all times. The sheikh was Hanbali in his fiqh and Athari (scripturalist) in his creed. This makes it easier to decipher the symbolism of his statements: a result of the book’s brevity and the sheikh’s inclination toward linguistic finesse. I provide detailed footnotes for clarification. While I consulted many commentaries on Manâzil, including the rather brief commentaries by Imams al-Lakhmi and al-Munâwi, I owe most of my understanding of it to the instruction of my teachers and to Madârij as-Sâlikeen, another masterpiece written by Imam Ibn al-Qayyim, the erudite scholar who embodied the loving yet critical approach to the great legacy of Islamic spirituality. For a more detailed explanation of the book, please refer to the following website: https://stationsofthetravelers.com

Introduction to Manazil as-Sa'ireen:

Full playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...F7aQswoxcdPUI2

[AmantuBillahi]

"Stations of the Travelers: Manazil as-Sa'ireen" by Hatem al-Haj:

https://www.amazon.ca/STATIONS-TRAVE...aj-ebook/dp/B0

Description:

This book, Manâzil as-Sâ’ireen, is a masterpiece of taṣawwuf written by Imam Abu Ismâ‘eel ‘Abdullâh ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Anṣâri al-Harawi, one of the greatest Sufi masters of all times. The sheikh was Hanbali in his fiqh and Athari (scripturalist) in his creed. This makes it easier to decipher the symbolism of his statements: a result of the book’s brevity and the sheikh’s inclination toward linguistic finesse. I provide detailed footnotes for clarification. While I consulted many commentaries on Manâzil, including the rather brief commentaries by Imams al-Lakhmi and al-Munâwi, I owe most of my understanding of it to the instruction of my teachers and to Madârij as-Sâlikeen, another masterpiece written by Imam Ibn al-Qayyim, the erudite scholar who embodied the loving yet critical approach to the great legacy of Islamic spirituality. For a more detailed explanation of the book, please refer to the following website: https://stationsofthetravelers.com

Introduction to Manazil as-Sa'ireen:

Full playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...F7aQswoxcdPUI2

The link I posted for the book is unavailable for some reason. You could find it here if you're interested:

https://www.amazon.ca/STATIONS-TRAVE.../dp/B08BLTMR72

[AmantuBillahi]

Dr. Hatem al-Haj's Facebook post on June 28:

Alhamdulillah,

The Athari/ Ash‘ari divide is one of the oldest divides in our intellectual history. If we are unable to deal with it in a beautiful manner, we will only have ourselves to blame for the many ills that result from this failure. Hostilities from both sides have been a recurrent theme in our history. However, there were always shining examples of people on both sides who knew how to handle this disagreement, without dismissing it as superfluous or showing hostility to their opponents, but rather fairness and ample recognition of the greats on both sides.
The late scholar Muhammad al-Musayyar (rA) is one of those examples. He was not a fire-brand speaker. In fact, he was a frequent guest of mainstream media in Egypt. Despite that, he would never shy away from “shocking” his hosts with the plain truth in any matter of any size, whether it challenged the state or public opinion. Anyone can do that on Facebook or on the minbar of their masjid. Very few people would do it when they risk losing the recognition of the establishment or worse yet, earn its wrath.
Sh. Muhammad al-Musayyar was busy defending Islam. He was inclined to the Ash‘ari school. Interestingly, some of his children were Athari and some Ash‘ari. He would not force his convictions on them. When they argued about doctrine, he would only ask them to be honest and methodical.

Please visit his page to learn more about him.
https://www.facebook.com/DrAlmosayar/

One of the later posts on his page has links to more than 20 of his books. Those who can read Arabic, please avail yourselves of these great resources.

A brother by the name of Ahmad Sabbahi commented:

There is an Athari v Ash’ari divide no doubt but there is also an Athari+Ash’ari v Salafi divide and we should not conflate the two. Ash’aris don’t have much of a problem with the mainstream Hanbali creed but they do have a problem with most of Ibn Taymiyah’s positions that deviated away from mainstream Hanbalism and was later supported by Muhammed bin Abd elWahab.

Hatem al-Haj replied:

Ahmad Sabbahi Jazaka Allah Khayran for the comment. I disagree. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah supported the Athari creed by kalam so that is what made him seem different. You will find my answer to this notion in this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Between-God-P.../dp/B085KHLL6C

Dr. Hatem continued:

Ahmad Sabbahi Hanbali is not the same thing like Athari. Ibn Abd al-Barr was Athari not Hanbali. Ibn al-Jawzy was Hanbali not Athari. Hanbalis don’t always agree among themselves on fiqh or creed. There are more than 110 positions in one book by Ibn Qudamah that later Hanbalis didn’t consider “authorized.”
The book has a detailed discussion about tafweed almaana. It is the least philosophically coherent out of the three: ithbat, ta’weel and tafweed almaana. It presumes that the prophet didn’t know the meaning of what he was preaching and/or the companions didn’t know the meanings of what he was saying. Anyway, part of the difference between the two types of tafweed has to do with one’s concept of language, and whether one is realist, nominalist or conceptualist. There is a kindle version of the book for 1 dollar. You can also email me for a copy at [email protected]. Boorikt.

Dr. Hatem continues:

Ahmad Sabbahi Ahsana Allah ilayk. وما يعلم تأويله إلا الله if you stop there, it refers to the ontological reality or حقيقة الشيء وكنهه not the simple meaning. It is impossible that whole phrases were meaningless in the mubeen speech of God and His messenger. It is impossible that they were like disjointed letters when they were in complete harmony with the surrounding text.
Ibn ‘Arabi (rA) was not Taymiyyan. Here is what he says about tafweed al-maana:
"One group said, “We believe in this wording as it came, without comprehending its meaning, until we become in this belief like one who did not hear [it], and we hold on to the indicants of reason that precluded the primary meaning of this statement.” This group is also stubborn, but uses refined rhetoric, and they rejected what came to them from Allah with that rhetoric. They made themselves like those who had not heard this [Divine] speech. Another group said, “We believe in the wording according to what Allah knows about it and [what] His Messenger [knows about it].” Those said [in effect] that Allah spoke to us in vain because He addressed us with that which we do not comprehend, whereas [on the contrary] Allah says, “And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them.” [Ibrâheem 14:4] He (pbuh) brought this, and he made it clear as Allah said, but those denied that it was clear." End of Ibn ‘Arabi's quote.
Some Hanbalis made tafweed and even ta'weel, but that is not the position of the madhhab. Any one who reads al-Khallal's reports from the imam will know his positions.
Did al-Hafiz Ibn Asakir defend Imam al-Ash'ari against Ibn Taymiyyah. Was Ibn Khazaymah, al-Darimi, Ibn Surayj Taymiyyan? Wasn’t Ibn Khuzaymah’s book al-Tawheed called al-Shirk by some Ash’aris? Was fitnat alqushayri because of Ibn Taymiyyah? Was the prosecution of Imam al-Harawai because of Ibn Taymiyyah? Wasn’t Ibn Taymiyyah himself working to calm down the fitan between the Asharis and Hanbalis of Damascus? This narrative is just indefensible. It takes a man that reached the pinnacle of knowledge, jihad and piety according to scores of the most distinguished scholars of our history and demonizes him to wage an ad hominem attack on a position that is as old as Islam is.

More can be found on the Facebook post:

https://m.facebook.com/drhatemalhaj/...0764738?locale

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

Dr. Hatem al-Haj's Facebook post on June 28:



A brother by the name of Ahmad Sabbahi commented:



Hatem al-Haj replied:



Dr. Hatem continued:



Dr. Hatem continues:



More can be found on the Facebook post:

https://m.facebook.com/drhatemalhaj/...0764738?locale

Interesting. I've never heard of Dr. Hatem before. Sahieh.nl also posted a discussion between a "Traditional Hanbali" and an "Athari/Salafi". They discuss some of the same points made on here.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Interesting. I've never heard of Dr. Hatem before. Sahieh.nl also posted a discussion between a "Traditional Hanbali" and an "Athari/Salafi". They discuss some of the same points made on here.

I implore you sister to not blindly follow any individual. Listen to the different sides before coming to a decision and defending something that turns out to be heretical.

Please listen to the other side your scholars prevented you from listening to before. If you listen to them and do not find their evidences and reasoning to give you certainty, then you have already learnt what you would consider correct Aqeedah. You cannot lose by listening to the other side. The other side are the Ash'ari and Maturidi. Do not be like the man of Ahlul Biddah.

Dr Hatem is not a traditional Hanbali, and he misrepresents the Ash'ari. There are differences between Taymiyyan "Atharism" and mainstream Atharism that I will detail below - they are not what Dr Hatem thinks nor what brother AmantuBillahi thinks - they attack semantic differences. The mainstream Athari do respect Ibn Taymiyyah and call him Shaykh al-Islam as an authority of their Madhab.

Here is an Athari explaining Aqeedah, belief on the Sifat Filiyyah known as Nuzul:

(I don't like the style of reasoning he uses because he appeals to ignorance of the people who cannot understand something not being in a place, but nonetheless he is a true Athari.)

Note that he quotes from Ibn Abdul Barr who Dr Hatem al-Hajj reportedly considers to be an Athari. Also I nor any of the people defending the "Mufawwid" Athari do not say Ibn Jawzi is an Athari, he really isn't. But believe it or not he is similar to Ibn Taymiyyah in that they selectively quote from him in creed. They were much more harsher on Ibn al-Jawzi than Ibn Taymiyyah.

The people like Hatem al-Hajj misrepresent even the affirmers of Tafwid al-Ma'na. No Taymiyyan can give anyone a definition for Yad, this is what it means to consign the meaning. You yourselves must accept this if you accept Ibn Qudamah's quoting of Imam Ahlus Sunnah "Bi La Kayf Wa La Ma'na".

Other such scholars of the Athari today: Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Wahid, Shaykh Yusuf bin Sadiq al-Hanbali, Shaykh Abu Jafar al-Hanbali. As for the true Authorities in our times, those would be the traditional Hanbali Athari scholars of Douma such as Shaykh Isma'il ibn Badran al-Doumi etc. Some allege the above have been affected by al-Azhar, if that is the case then go learn Athari aqeedah from the likes of Shaykh Isma'il. The scholars of Douma in Syria have been Hanbali for centuries past and e.g. Shaykh Yusuf bin Sadiq al-Hanbali's chain in Lum'ah al-I'tiqad after a single Azhari scholar, goes through the scholars of Douma.

But the differences between the Athari and Salafi/Taymiyyans in Sifat al-Khabariyyah and in "Tafwid" etc. are merely semantical.

The issues we have with the Taymiyyans are their misrepresentation of the Ash'ari, misrepresentation of the Athari, their unwillingness to negate contingencies etc. for Allah, their unwillingness to negate specifics in general, a fear that they are closet physicallists by the Ash'ari, distortion of Hadith with Ta'til instead of accepting them showing hypocrisy, Tamthil, their defending of heretical terminology and using philosophy taught by the Kuffar.

Regarding semantical differences between them and the Athari:

What the Salafis call Tahdid is what the Athari/Ash'ari/Maturidi call Ma'na. The differences between the Athari Tafwid al-Ma'na and the Salafi/Minority Athari Tafwid al-Kayfiyyah are semantical. Also no Athari scholar today to my knowledge encourages learning of Ilm al-Kalam, unlike these woke "Athari" like Hatim al-Hajj. It is true that the Athari do not consider Ibn Taymiyyah a heretic or innovator. They only selectively quote from his works however e.g. to prove Uluww etc. against the later Ash'ari.

My main sticking point against the majority of Taymiyyans is that they refuse to negate place etc. for Allah, ignoring the Qur'an and authentic Hadith. They also refuse to negate spatial direction No, negation of either of these is not Ta'til of his Sifat of Uluww. He is above the creation with an absolute aboveness.

The true Athari have their criticisms of the Ash'ari but recognise them as members of Ahlus Sunnah alongside the Maturidi who are barely mentioned in these discussions.

I recommend the following book: Hashiyah al-Muwaffaq 'Ala Lum'ah al-Muwaffaq by Shaykh Yusuf bin Sadiq al-Hanbali, a commentary on Imam Ibn Qudamah's Lum'ah. Do not believe he is distorting things until you actually read things for yourself. "Tafwid is an insult because it is saying Allah revealed things that cannot be known" Go read his work before making your judgement. His Tafwid and you Ithbat are practically the same. He has many differences with the Ash'ari and consider the later school to have erred in their Tawil Tafsili (Ta'til) of the Sifat al-Khabariyyah.

AmantuBillahi Stop quoting scholars who give opinions on other groups and go sit with and learn what those groups said. I have actually read the things you suggest people read and I have learnt to appreciate (and voice more legitimate disagreements) with your mindset. I am as fair as I possibly can be with Ibn Taymiyyah, the man benefitted the Muslims immensely, including in Usul al-Aqeedah, yet he had serious errors too. So listen to what the other side say and stop searching for people to blindly follow. Stop taking information on one side from the other.

Start with this: Shaykh Asrar Rashid's Series on Aqeedah Tahawiyyah. Then he has a series on the Sanusi Creed, which will be important for you to realise that you have made a lot of assumptions about what Ash'ari Kalam is, it is little more than the repeated use of the law of non-contradiction and the rational judgements.

Stop posting these things and stop blindly following one scholar and group. Go and actually listen to what the other side say.

In the above video the scholar Yasir Qadhi defends what he admits is Ibn Taymiyyah arguing for/softly suggesting that Jahannam will end. That goes against a recorded Ijma, recorded by the likes of Ibn Hazm (the same Ibn Hazm that negates place, dimension etc. for Allah).

I respect Shaykh Yasir Qadhi and benefit from him but the above is proof that you need to stop listening to one scholar or two scholars or one small narrow minded movement in matters of creed. Go and learn what the others say. Go and learn Ilm al-Kalam, it is literally nothing more than what Hatim al-Hajj explains - the three sources of knowledge Aql, Adi and Naql. If they are teaching you greek heresy that does not conform to reason then you with your rational mind will be able to refute it.

Why should we be so afraid of learning what the other side says?

Because if you keep doing this and not listening you will keep misrepresenting the other side. Your scholar has not gone and studied with a teacher from the other side. He was educated and instilled with hatred for the other and Subhanallah he has gone a long way to removing that. But he has not been able to undo the conditioning that the other side must be wrong. Go and learn from an Ash'ari what the Ash'ari teach. Learn Ilm al-Kalam according to the Ash'ari not according to the Taymiyyans.

When the Salaf talked of not sitting with Ahlul Biddah this is the Ahlul Biddah who taught Kufr - the Qadariyyah and Jahmiyyah. No the Ash'ari did not develop from Jahm bin Safwan, this is revisionist history.

Please brothers and sisters stop doing this and stop misrepresenting the other group.

Finally please do research into Muqatil bin Sulayman and the Muqatiliyyah. You have only been taught half of Islamic History with regards to the major heresies and on purpose they did not teach you about the opposite extreme to the Jahmiyyah. Go learn about him and his group and learn what all scholars have said. You will insha'Allah understand these issues much better.

When I call Ibn Taymiyyah a Karrami, to be honest if you actually read what the Karramiyyah write you would want to call yourself a Karrami - because Ibn Taymiyyah teaches the same things. He was not an Athari who simply delved into Kalam to defend the Athari position - and Ibn Asakir was an Ash'ari by his own admission (and negates place for Allah). How or why Hatem al-Hajj quotes him is beyond me.

The last thing I will say is that these issues of dispute take up far too much time. There are far more valuable things we can be doing and/or discussing, even in the subject of theology. For example, answering the brother on the other thread who has problems accepting certain Hadith relating to Sihr etc.

I recommend the sister finds a traditional teacher of one of the four schools and starts learning. Learn the opposing side and you will gain perspective at the least or find the truth at the best. And only Allah guides to the truth. Consider praying Istikhara.

I will be taking a break from the forum for a while.

May Allah increase us in our actions and make us die upon Iman.

There is no god, no deity worthy of worship but Him, the Living, the Eternal.