Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

    Very weird people. How do they read books without understanding them in any way or form?

    According to al-Durar al-Saniyya those who apply al-'Udhr bil Jahl to these issues that they claim to be "greater polytheism" (Shirk akbar; while they're not, but that's another story) or say that it's Shirk asghar (lesser polytheism) [or Shirk 'amali] are DISBELIEVERS! Their blood is allowed to be spilled! In fact it's even stated that even if one agrees with the Najdi Da'wa, but does not perform Takfir upon one's [Muslim] non-Najdi parents, then one is again a DISBELIEVER! In fact loving to be under Ottoman rule also makes one a DISBELIEVER! A number of leading Najdis also stated in it that anyone following other than the way of MIAW and his followers will be from the PEOPLE OF HELLFIRE!

    IAW (d. 1206 AH) SOLELY wrote Mufid al-Mustafid in order to argue this very point and he explicitly calls those who say that it's Shirk asghar [or that 'Udhr bil Jahl applies] - intending his own brother and other Najdi scholars - as ATHEISTS. The very township that he wrote this work against - i.e Huraymila - was then attacked by his followers and many of their people were slaughtered.
    This is why you have Hazimis and some SJs calling mainstream salafis (especially scholars) munafiqs/apostates for hiding knowledge and twisting Islam.
    Not to mention Hazimis make takfeer on SJs.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

      This is why you have Hazimis and some SJs calling mainstream salafis (especially scholars) munafiqs/apostates for hiding knowledge and twisting Islam.
      Not to mention Hazimis make takfeer on SJs.
      Yes, and that's why some Da'ishis (ISIS members) slaughtered each other.
      May Allah ta'ala protect us from all this crazy Takfir and bloodshed.

      Comment


      • TazkiyyatunNafs

        I didn't want to break my word by posting in Muhammad Hassan's thread when I said that I no longer wouldn't, but Yasir Qadhi just released a Dutch translation of his video on Sharh as-Sunnah:



        Perhaps you could share this with your Dutch Salafi friends if they would be willing to listen.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
          TazkiyyatunNafs

          I didn't want to break my word by posting in Muhammad Hassan's thread when I said that I no longer wouldn't, but Yasir Qadhi just released a Dutch translation of his video on Sharh as-Sunnah:



          Perhaps you could share this with your Dutch Salafi friends if they would be willing to listen.
          جزاكم الله خيرا
          I appreciate that, but I don't think anyone I know would be willing to be honest. Admittedly, even I haven't watched the video of YQ that has been shared over and over again yet. I realise I need to learn everything about everyone from start since Salafiyyah has basically been all I've known since I started practicing. I'm having a hard time judging who to take from now and who not. I'll try taking from classical scholars to build a foundation first and then go from there inshaaAllaah. Which also means I really need to make it a priority to work on my Arabic since it's very weak. Maybe I'm doing it all wrong, I'm just a bit lost as to where to start and get my knowledge from now. Allahul musta3aan.

          Anyways, ​​I've been meaning to ask you if that's ok. If I remember correctly you've said on here that you find these 'new Hanaabila' (forgot the exact term you used) equally(?) problematic. I don't wish to open up a can of worms, but if you don't mind, could you tell me why?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post
            Admittedly, even I haven't watched the video of YQ that has been shared over and over again yet.
            Which video is that? Are you referring to his criticism of MIAW and the stages of the Najdi Da'wah?


            Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post
            Anyways, ​​I've been meaning to ask you if that's ok. If I remember correctly you've said on here that you find these 'new Hanaabila' (forgot the exact term you used) equally(?) problematic. I don't wish to open up a can of worms, but if you don't mind, could you tell me why?
            I disagree with them on many points:

            1. The later Hanbali Madhhab was gradually infiltrated by Kalam influences due to the political/theological dominance of the Ashaa'ira in the latter portion of Islamic history.

            2. The scholars who are revered as "traditionalist Hanaabilah" did not always preach the exact same theology, despite later attempts to codify the Madhhab and package them all as one (Ibn Qudamah's Aqeedah is not literally identical to Ibn Hamdan and Ibn Balban).

            3. Their conception of Tafwid (and other theological issues) mysteriously conforms with Ash'ari Aqeedah which contradicts the theological rivalry between Hanbalis and Ash'aris throughout Islamic history.

            Lastly, Allah did not reveal the Hanbali Madhhab. Even if we were to concede that these Hanaabilah are accurately representing the "traditionalist Hanbali school", then this would not make their interpretations authoritative and trump the general concensus of the Salaf. I personally feel much more confident with the Athari methodology of Ibn Taymiyyah(ra) with regards to the affirmation of Allah's Names & Attributes.

            Comment


            • TazkiyyatunNafs

              I think you would enjoy reading the section of Yasir Qadhi's dissertation dealing with the political rise of the Ash'ari school and their confrontations with the Hanaabilah:

              https://archive.org/details/YasirQad...ge/n2/mode/1up

              This is also a much shorter read explaining the genesis of the Salafi/Ash'ari divide:

              https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...mENWrEXE3e6HsJ

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                TazkiyyatunNafs

                I think you would enjoy reading the section of Yasir Qadhi's dissertation dealing with the political rise of the Ash'ari school and their confrontations with the Hanaabilah:

                https://archive.org/details/YasirQad...ge/n2/mode/1up

                This is also a much shorter read explaining the genesis of the Salafi/Ash'ari divide:

                https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...mENWrEXE3e6HsJ
                I was in the middle of replying your other comment and went in to the matter of watching videos a bit. Salafism is in many ways still ingrained in me and I don't think everything has to be wrong per se. Anyways I feel much more comfortable reading so this is really appreciated actually. JazakumAllaahu khayran.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                  Which video is that? Are you referring to his criticism of MIAW and the stages of the Najdi Da'wah?




                  I disagree with them on many points:

                  1. The later Hanbali Madhhab was gradually infiltrated by Kalam influences due to the political/theological dominance of the Ashaa'ira in the latter portion of Islamic history.

                  2. The scholars who are revered as "traditionalist Hanaabilah" did not always preach the exact same theology, despite later attempts to codify the Madhhab and package them all as one (Ibn Qudamah's Aqeedah is not literally identical to Ibn Hamdan and Ibn Balban).

                  3. Their conception of Tafwid (and other theological issues) mysteriously conforms with Ash'ari Aqeedah which contradicts the theological rivalry between Hanbalis and Ash'aris throughout Islamic history.

                  Lastly, Allah did not reveal the Hanbali Madhhab. Even if we were to concede that these Hanaabilah are accurately representing the "traditionalist Hanbali school", then this would not make their interpretations authoritative and trump the general concensus of the Salaf. I personally feel much more confident with the Athari methodology of Ibn Taymiyyah(ra) with regards to the affirmation of Allah's Names & Attributes.
                  Why do you follow ibn Taymiyyah over the other hanbalis?

                  What exactly are the differences between ibn Taymiyyah and other hanbalis?

                  Have you got anything to read on this, I read that short book by Qadhi, but it doesn't seem to go into much depth regarding the issus. I still think the hanbalis and asharis argued mainly over sematics with the exception of Allah's Uluw....but even on that issue they agreed much more than they disagreed. It's almost as if they were saying the same thing, with one side being more kalaam influenced so they avoided using certain words in order to avoid tashbeeh.
                  Last edited by TheHaqq; 24-11-20, 10:06 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post
                    Anyways, ​​I've been meaning to ask you if that's ok. If I remember correctly you've said on here that you find these 'new Hanaabila' (forgot the exact term you used) equally(?) problematic. I don't wish to open up a can of worms, but if you don't mind, could you tell me why?
                    There is nothing problematic about traditional Hanabila - or "al-Hanabila al-Judud" ("the new Hanbalis") as "Salafis" call them - and they are upon the same 'Aqida and Fiqh as the Hanabila of the past. They teach the very books that Hanabila used to teach with the very explanations they used to give and with chains going back to the very authors!

                    The only "problematic" thing about them is that our brother AmantuBillahi and his Ustadh YQ do not agree with them. Note that according to these Taymiyyans MOST classical scholars of the 4 Madhahib had left the correct understanding in creed and somehow only they and al-Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) - who by the way had left the understanding of his Hanbali forefathers ACCORDING TO HIMSELF - understand everything correctly. This is the very mindset that led IAW (d. 1206 AH) - together with his ignorance and extremism - to all types of mistakes.
                    Note that AmantuBillahi tried to attack the Maliki Madhhab by acting as if the early Malikiyya had a different creed than the Ash'aris and "went astray afterwards" - based upon the claims of YQ of course - and it was shown to him that the very early leading authorities right after the time of Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) were Pro-Ash'ari (see HERE and HERE). So I wouldn't trust YQ resource skills, because there is still some "Salafism" left in him and he seems to lack broad reading.

                    As for claiming that Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) and Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) had a different creed, then this is quite rich and COMPLETELY baseless and I dare whosoever claims this to show us that they disagreed on the speech of Allah ta'ala as an example!
                    The Hanabila used to teach Lum'at al-I'tiqad [by Imam Ibn Qudama] alongside Qala`id al-'Iqyan and al-'Ayn wal Athar, which are both based upon the Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan. In fact most of the major points found in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in are based upon the very EXPLICIT STATEMENTS of Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) himself.

                    As for the claims against "later Hanabila": I seriously didn't know that Hanabila like al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH), Imam Ibn al-Banna` (d. 471 AH), Imam Kalwadhani (d. 510 AH) and others are regarded as LATE Hanabila.
                    I guess 95 % of the Hanabila or more had misunderstood Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) in the logic of these people.
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 24-11-20, 10:15 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

                      Why do you follow ibn Taymiyyah over the other hanbalis?

                      What exactly are the differences between ibn Taymiyyah and other hanbalis?

                      Have you got anything to read on this, I read that short book by Qadhi, but it doesn't seem to go into much depth regarding the issus. I still think the hanbalis and asharis argued mainly over sematics with the exception of Allah's Uluw....but even on that issue they agreed much more than they disagreed. It's almost as if they were saying the same thing, with one side being more kalaam influenced so they avoided using certain words in order to avoid tashbeeh.
                      The Hanbalis are not a monolith. I sympathize with Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah's methodology concerning Allah's Names & Attributes because it is what is naturally conceived by the Dhahir of the Quran & Sunnah without being influenced by Ilm al-Kalam. This is what we would presume to be the understanding of the Sahabah(ra) who were not familiar with the contentions of the Mutakalimoon that came later. The Salaf have also never stated that the Dhahir of the Quran/Sunnah implies Kufr and Tashbih(Tajsim).

                      Some of the descriptions in the Quran and Sunnah imply what the Mutakalimoon refer to as A'radh (incidental attributes). For example, there is a famous Hadith which states that on the Day of Judgement Allah(swt) will become Angry unlike ever being angry before. Anyone who claims that we cannot believe in what is apparent from this Hadith and other similiar evidences because it entails a "change" or "''Aradh" has deviated from the clear theology of the religion. Mind you, the negation of "change" in the general sense is not necessarily the same as someone explicitly making Tafwid of the Dhahir because it implies an 'Aradh.

                      Ibn Qudamah(ra) in his book prohibiting the study of Kalam:

                      "Do you suppose that the Prophet be wrong in accepting that from them and being contented with their pure and simple submission to God, rather than they should study the science of speculative theology (Kalam) and examine the "accident" ('Aradh), the "substance" (Jawahar), and the body (Jism); and on the other hand, that the speculative theologians (Mutakalimun) be right with regards to the transgressions of him who has not studied those things? If this be so, then let them claim for themselves a law and a system of worship other than that of Islam, and leave the religion of Muhammad alone" (Pg. 21)

                      "First, it entails accusing the Apostle of God of a fault of omission; for the Prophet did not order any one of his community to learn speculative theology (Kalam), and to examine the rational proofs, that one might thereby know the soundness of his creed" (Pg. 21)
                      This is also an informative lecture explaining the reality of Ilm al-Kalam and its philosophical influences over the schools of Aqeedah:

                      Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 25-11-20, 01:24 AM. Reason: Spelling

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                        The Hanbalis are not a monolith. I sympathize with Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah's methodology concerning Allah's Names & Attributes because it is what is naturally conceived by the Dhahir of the Quran & Sunnah without being influenced by Ilm al-Kalam. This is what we would presume to be the understanding of the Sahabah(ra) who were not familiar with the contentions of the Mutakalimoon that came later. The Salaf have also never stated that the Dhahir of the Quran/Sunnah implies Kufr and Tashbih(Tajsim).

                        Some of the descriptions in the Quran and Sunnah imply what the Mutakalimoon refer to as an A'radh (incidental attributes). For example, there is a famous Hadith which states that on the Day of Judgement Allah(swt) will become Angry unlike ever being angry before. Anyone who claims that we cannot believe in what is apparent from this Hadith and other similiar evidences because it entails a "change" or "A'radh" has deviated from the clear theology of the religion. Mind you, the negation of "change" in the general sense is not necessarily the same as someone explicitly making Tafwid of the Dhahir because it implies an A'radh.

                        Ibn Qudamah(ra) in his book prohibiting the studying of Kalam:



                        This is also an informative lecture explaining the reality of Ilm al-Kalam and its philosophical influences over the schools of Aqeedah:

                        I affirm the anger of Allah, his love, his laughter, his Uluww etc. as his attributes bi la kayf in the manner I affirm any other attribute. I also reject that Allah is an Arad or that Arad subsist in him. I affirm Yad Allah is the Sifat of Allah whose divine reality is known to him and yet his Yad is not a Jariha, and his Dhat is not a Jism, and the Jinn have Jism.

                        He is Fawq ala al-Arsh, Ba'in min Khalqihi and Muqatil rejected it like Jahm. Imam Ibn Kullab established the proof against them - either he is Fawq or he is Taht. His being Taht is impossible, as established by Aql for all that is Taht is Hawadith. Allah is Mukhalafa lil-Hawadith and therefore is Fawq. Therefore it is established by reason that he is Fawq ala al-Arsh.

                        Allah is Fawq ala al-Arsh no matter how I am.

                        Comment


                        • Jahm

                          Jahm believed it is impossible for something to be Fawq ala al-Arsh for he said that what is Fawq as opposed to Taht is impossible as he affirmed the doctrine of Aristotle that Dhat is Jism i.e. Dhat necessitates either Jiha or divisibility or generally being Hawadith. Therefore as Allah is either Fawq or Taht, Fawq being impossible to him, he said he is Taht - but he is not a Jism rather that which the Jism is contained in which he thinks is Mukhalafa lil-Hawadith, saying he is that without end surrounding everything and being in every place without being a Jism - i.e. he is nothingness - an empty void and place in which all things are located.

                          Thus Jahm will point to you and say "Allah is there", he will point to the toilet and say "Allah is there". I am not sure if he actually believes the Throne exists, but if he did he would point to it and also say, "Allah is there"

                          Jahm is a disbeliever.

                          Comment



                          • Muqatil

                            Muqatil did not learn the doctrines of the Aristotelians and was ignorant of reason. He was a mufassir and storyteller who in reality was a liar and Hadith fabricator. His Tafsir received praise and is even quoted by his enemies (the Ash'ari and Maturidi). He heard the doctrine of Jahm and became extremely repulsed so he said "Allah is not everywhere rather Allah is in one place at any time and is generally atop the throne"

                            Thus Muqatil also denied Allah is Fawq, not comprehending that which is Fawq was even an option for him to consider. He thus believes Allah is Taht. If you took Muqatil and place him upside down between the legs of the throne he would say "Allah is below me".

                            Muqatil basically believes the same thing as Jahm without realising it.

                            Muqatil is a disbeliever.

                            (A better question is - who exactly called him a disbeliever and who defends him).

                            Comment


                            • The Middle Path - Aqeedah Imam Abu Hanifah

                              Imam Abu Hanifah said, "Jahm went overboard in negation until he said: He is nothing, and Muqatil went overboard in affirmation until He deemed Allah to be like His creation."

                              Imam Abu Hanifah was a Tabi'i and a Mutakallim. Both Imam al-Maturidi and at-Tahawi amongst others preserved his creed. He said you can recite the Qur'an in Salah in Farsi, though this position of his is not adopted by the Maddhab. The Early scholars of the Kullabiyyah and Athari held that he was a Murji' as he says Iman itself does not increase or decrease - rather Taqwa is what increases. He praised the Qira'ah of Hamza, whilst Imam Ahmad regarded it as a Bid'ah (innovation).

                              Ahlus Sunnah is according to him, and his teacher and al-Hasan al-Basri.and the view of the Sahabah. The scholars of Hadith would show affiliation to Ahlus Sunnah through his students.

                              Imam Shafi'i was indebted to him, as was Imam Ahmad.
                              Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 25-11-20, 02:19 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
                                [B]The Early scholars of the Kullabiyyah and Athari held that he was a Murji' as he says Iman itself does not increase or decrease - rather Taqwa is what increases. He praised the Qira'ah of Hamza, whilst Imam Ahmad regarded it as a Bid'ah (innovation).
                                I personally believe the whole idea that AH was a murji is retarded.

                                In fact, in general I believe the term was retarded and misused a lot.
                                You think you know more than my scholar's qiyās? He was more learned than you and all other scholars combined. Yeah, the devil was the greatest scholar too and look where his qiyās of fire being better than tīn got him. Sorry.

                                You follow your scholar's qiyās, and I will follow the Qur'ān and Sunnah.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X