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

  • I thought I would re-post this here due to its relevance:

    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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

      This could also be replaced with "Salafis have a black and white approach towards truth and falsehood." Meaning, the Salafis are more prone to blindly accepting everything from a group/individual or rejecting everything from them. We see this esspecially with the super-Salafis and followers of Shaykh Rabee.

      Anyways, I realize that most people enjoy the comfort having a convenient structure. I'm of the view that none of the modern day Da'wah groups possess the truth in totality. In other words, none of them are worthy of being blindly submitted to in every aspect of Aqeedah and Manhaj. 'Higher levels of truth' requires spiritual integrity and some form of independence.

      May Allah guide us and help distinguish truth from falsehood.
      I think so.. I had typed this earlier but didn't respond yet. I think it may fit in to the description you're giving now:

      When I viewed Salafiyyah to be the truth, I viewed the scholars upon it also upon the truth. Whether I disagreed with them on some matters or not, it was the Manhaj and Aqeedah that we had in common and why I took knowledge from them. So that's what I meant with that I currently don't have that with others. I know you don't view that quite the same because I've noticed you take from people from various backgrounds. I'm just not comfortable doing that because I want to take from people that I ought to be trustworthy since I don't think I'm able to take the good and leave the bad in such general ways. I can't start listening to everyone and be sure I'll notice when they slip their falsehood unto me.

      ------

      Anyway, I understand where you're coming from. I'm just not sure whether I agree. Will there not always be a group upon the truth? How come according to you there's no such "group" any longer?


      لا تزال طائفة من أمتي قائمة بأمر الله لا يضرهم من خذلهم أو خالفهم حتى يأتي أمر الله وهم ظاهرون على الناس

      “There will never cease to be a taa’ifah (a small band of people) from my Ummah upon the Truth, aided (by Allaah). Those who desert and abandon them will not harm them until the command of Allah arrives.” (Reported by Bukhaari and Muslim).

      Comment


      • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

        Regarding the issue of "modernism" then much it might have to do with your Salafi background and lack of understanding in Fiqh. The Salafis have a black and white approach to Bid'ah and Sunnah. If someone is within the framework of the Shari'ah (i.e. it is a valid position), then I don't believe it is fair to condemn it is "modernism" even if it is slightly more liberal. Also, the Haqq doesn't exist in totality within any particular individual. Naturally we would have to take the good and leave the bad (i.e. what we may disagree with) with regards to any person or man-made group.
        Typo. The above should read "If something is within the framework of the Shari'ah (i.e. it is a valid position), then I don't believe it is fair to condemn it as "modernism" even if it is slightly more liberal."

        What I'm referring to are things like the length of the beard or wearing "Western clothing". These are valid positions within the 4 Madhahib and just because a scholar doesn't have a long beard wouldn't render him a deviant.

        Not to sound like a fanboy (Wallahi I disagree with YQ on certain issues), but what Yasir Qadhi is doing in the West is extremely commendable and a tough act to follow. I have nothing personally against the "Azhari Hanbalis", but I can guarantee that they would never be able fill the shoes of YQ in the West. I mean, they do live-chats on Facebook and give Da'wah out of their cars for a reason. Shaykh Yasir(h) has studied Aqeedah at both Yale and Medinah and is one of the leading academics in the Ummah.


        Comment


        • aMuslimForLife جزاكم الله خيرا I appreciate your efforts.
          I'm not sure whether it's strictness I'm seeking or rather people that come across as 'righteous' and firmly upon the religion. The people I'm surrounded with are mostly really good and I've never found that elsewhere, not with other Salafis either. When I mention them being strict, I also mean a certain kind of pureness and sincerity in combination with firmness upon the religion. Though I know I might not be able to judge that correctly. Like I said earlier on, I'm the bad one of the bunch. Appearance is just one superficial thing I mentioned and photography was more to say I feel strange by the change all of a sudden that I haven't found anything but that I'm exposed to it now. I do know there are valid differences of opinion that's why I said that before giving the examples. I'm not sure whether I'm making sense in regards to the strictness/conservatism I'm seeking.. Anyway, I also realise this is something new so I haven't gotten the chance to actually see what's out there besides "hardcore" Salafism. These are just the doubts that I have currently.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post

            I think so.. I had typed this earlier but didn't respond yet. I think it may fit in to the description you're giving now:

            When I viewed Salafiyyah to be the truth, I viewed the scholars upon it also upon the truth. Whether I disagreed with them on some matters or not, it was the Manhaj and Aqeedah that we had in common and why I took knowledge from them. So that's what I meant with that I currently don't have that with others. I know you don't view that quite the same because I've noticed you take from people from various backgrounds. I'm just not comfortable doing that because I want to take from people that I ought to be trustworthy since I don't think I'm able to take the good and leave the bad in such general ways. I can't start listening to everyone and be sure I'll notice when they slip their falsehood unto me.
            This is the problem with the Salafiyyah you adopted. They filtered your sources of knowledge and prevented you from becoming a critical thinker. I'm also surprised by how shaky and indecisive you sound considering the amount of Imaan it must have took to make Hijrah. Did you not study Allah's Names & Attributes in depth while accompanying the super-Salafis? Or did you fall for their Da'wah because you thought everyone else was upon Bid'ah and Shirk?

            I guess Allah blessed me by placing me in an area with mostly Ash'aris and Maturidi Masjuds. This allowed me the opportunity to see both sides of the picture and expunge the elements of Salafiyyah that aren't built on solid foundations.

            Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post
            Anyway, I understand where you're coming from. I'm just not sure whether I agree. Will there not always be a group upon the truth? How come according to you there's no such "group" any longer?


            لا تزال طائفة من أمتي قائمة بأمر الله لا يضرهم من خذلهم أو خالفهم حتى يأتي أمر الله وهم ظاهرون على الناس

            “There will never cease to be a taa’ifah (a small band of people) from my Ummah upon the Truth, aided (by Allaah). Those who desert and abandon them will not harm them until the command of Allah arrives.” (Reported by Bukhaari and Muslim).
            The saved sect is Ahl al-Sunnah. Ahl al-Sunnah is not a modern Hizb or blameworthy sect. It is what the Prophet(saws) and his companions(ra) were upon -- primarily in Allah's Names & Attributes and the fundamentals of the religion. The companions(ra) were not influenced by Ilm al-Kalam and therefore believed in what Allah and His Messenger(saws) described their Lord with in a manner that is naturally conceived by the Dhahir. "Laysa Ki Mithlihi Shay" is to be understood cohesively with the Quran & Sunnah not contradictory. If it was otherwise then the Prophet(saws) would have explicitly stated that.

            What the Shaykh describes here is the saved sect and Ahl al-Sunnah:

            https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/is...he-term-salafi

            WaAllahu A'lam

            Comment


            • Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post

              I think so.. I had typed this earlier but didn't respond yet. I think it may fit in to the description you're giving now:

              When I viewed Salafiyyah to be the truth, I viewed the scholars upon it also upon the truth. Whether I disagreed with them on some matters or not, it was the Manhaj and Aqeedah that we had in common and why I took knowledge from them. So that's what I meant with that I currently don't have that with others. I know you don't view that quite the same because I've noticed you take from people from various backgrounds. I'm just not comfortable doing that because I want to take from people that I ought to be trustworthy since I don't think I'm able to take the good and leave the bad in such general ways. I can't start listening to everyone and be sure I'll notice when they slip their falsehood unto me.
              Now that I'm re-reading this I'm stuck on what you meant when you said I take from people of various background. Are you referring to different types of Salafis (Manhaj-wise) or Sufis as well? I'm actually quite selective in who I take from despite listening to a variety of speakers. I believe the Salafis are rightly guided in Allah's Names & Attributes but mistaken on Najdi Tawhid. They are also intolerant in their methodology in Fiqh and some are unorthodox in their conception of Manhaj (making Tabd'i of Khuruj, etc). However, listening to a lecture or taking a Fiqhi ruling is fine as long as you recognize Adab al-Ikhtilaf with other viewpoints that contradict your set of evidences. For example, if a Salafi scholar teaches you that celebrating Mawlid is Bid'ah, then it is fine to hold that view while acknowledging it to be Mustahab according to the Shafi'i Madhhab. The problem with most Salafis (not necessarily all) is that they have this black and white approach and intolerant towards Fiqhi difference of opinions.

              TazkiyyatunNafs

              I technically agree with everything the Azhari Hanbalis are upon except for certain technicalities regarding Allah's Names & Attributes. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah referred to the (blameworthy) Mufawwid Hanaabilah as the least from Ahl al-Bid'ah.

              Let's say you investigated this issue and arrived at the conclusion that the Azhari Hanbalis have been affected by the Ash'aaira and Ibn Taymiyyah's Aqeedah is the most consistent representation of the pure creed of the Salaf; how would you navigate this situation given your current circumstances? If it's difficult for you to "mix and match" and take certain things but not others, then how could you ever make an honest assessment if you're dependent on a "convenient structure"? In that case the Salafis are already off the list for you. But does that automatically render Ibn Taymiyyah's Aqeedah false just because there aren't many scholars available for you to make complete Taqlid of in Aqeedah and Manhaj?
              .

              Comment


              • AmantuBillahi To be honest, I'm not really interested in furthering this conversation. If anything, your comments made me realise I do not wish to come with my concerns and doubts on here. It's true that I have doubts and come across as "shaky and indecisive". However, I have no idea what this has to do with me making Hijrah and the supposed amount of Imaan it must have took. My doubts stem from the fact that for years Salafiyyah has been all I've known, I'm having a hard time letting go of that despite not seeing eye to eye anymore. My reason to find others I agree with is also due to my living conditions. I don't have family and I'm abroad, this community was my family. It's not an easy decision to up and leave all of a sudden and it comes with many consequences for me. I came on here with my doubts because it's actually the only place I have as outsource currently, but I regret it.

                I have not answered many points and questions you made to me, but I do wish to quickly reply on some. One being YQ and his modernism. For it has nothing to do with trimmed beards and western clothing. I've seen another thread between you and other posters where you defended YQ against these issues in, and I have no desire to open up a new one. I disagree with you on many issues regarding YQ. I will say though that I made a poor comment in the past on here about the things you're referring to and that was wrong of me. I know it's allowed to trim your beard etc. And you're right that Salafis tend to be intolerant towards differences of opinion, so was I. I'm remorseful of my comment regarding this issue. I have distanced myself from that and am trying to get away from this intolerant mindset. However, this has nothing to do with what I meant by mentioning YQ's modernism.

                As for the Azhari Hanbalis, then I haven't been able to read or listen to them yet. But if the Aqeedah that Abu Sulayman has posted on here respresents them accurately, then I don't see much difference between theirs and mine. I believe the current Salafis (Ibn Uthaymeen etc) have mistaken when it comes to the Attributes.

                As for Ibn Taymiyyah then I have only read his works through the explanations of Salafis whom I disagree with. If they accurately represent his intended stances on the Attributes then I don't agree with that, but as for now I'll make no judgment on this and feel neutral regarding most of Ibn Taymiyyah's own words regarding the Attributes because it comes across as mostly semantics to me. When I mentioned Taymiyyans on the other thread I did not mean the "Super-Salafis", but rather the differences between true Taymiyyans and Traditional Hanbalis. If Salafis are the true Taymiyyans then again, I don't agree with them. And of course it wouldn't render Ibn Taymiyyah's Aqeedah automatically false if I don't find other scholars to make complete Taqlid of, something which I'm not in search of to begin with. I'm in search of scholars I find common ground with and trust to take knowledge of.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post
                  AmantuBillahi And of course it wouldn't render Ibn Taymiyyah's Aqeedah automatically false if I don't find other scholars to make complete Taqlid of, something which I'm not in search of to begin with. I'm in search of scholars I find common ground with and trust to take knowledge of.
                  Knowledge from*

                  I realise I've missed the point you were trying to make and had written another reply addressing it, but I lost it and don't have the time to re-type it now. Maybe I'll do it once I have time later on inshaaAllaah.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post
                    AmantuBillahi To be honest, I'm not really interested in furthering this conversation. If anything, your comments made me realise I do not wish to come with my concerns and doubts on here. It's true that I have doubts and come across as "shaky and indecisive". However, I have no idea what this has to do with me making Hijrah and the supposed amount of Imaan it must have took. My doubts stem from the fact that for years Salafiyyah has been all I've known, I'm having a hard time letting go of that despite not seeing eye to eye anymore. My reason to find others I agree with is also due to my living conditions. I don't have family and I'm abroad, this community was my family. It's not an easy decision to up and leave all of a sudden and it comes with many consequences for me. I came on here with my doubts because it's actually the only place I have as outsource currently, but I regret it.
                    That's fine. Pardon me if I offended you because that wasn't my intention. I guess the optics of seeing someone that made Hijrah come on the forum and leave Salafism in totality overnight (due to AS's thread and my words of encouragement) is difficult to comprehend. Aqeedah is generally not something you lose at the flip of a switch unless it wasn't internalized properly to begin with.

                    Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post
                    I have not answered many points and questions you made to me, but I do wish to quickly reply on some. One being YQ and his modernism. For it has nothing to do with trimmed beards and western clothing. I've seen another thread between you and other posters where you defended YQ against these issues in, and I have no desire to open up a new one. I disagree with you on many issues regarding YQ. I will say though that I made a poor comment in the past on here about the things you're referring to and that was wrong of me. I know it's allowed to trim your beard etc. And you're right that Salafis tend to be intolerant towards differences of opinion, so was I. I'm remorseful of my comment regarding this issue. I have distanced myself from that and am trying to get away from this intolerant mindset. However, this has nothing to do with what I meant by mentioning YQ's modernism.
                    So you're not going to say exactly what it was? The defense I made for YQ was prior to him releasing this video:



                    Not to brag or boast, but everything I defended him on was completely accurate. There is no modernism here. Please find the time to watch the video when you have Wi-Fi inshaAllah.


                    As for the Azhari Hanbalis, then I haven't been able to read or listen to them yet. But if the Aqeedah that Abu Sulayman has posted on here respresents them accurately, then I don't see much difference between theirs and mine. I believe the current Salafis (Ibn Uthaymeen etc) have mistaken when it comes to the Attributes.
                    There isn't much of a difference on the surface level. I have explained a few pages back that the issue is with the level of Tafwid and the negation of A'radh (incidental attributes). Anyways, this is something you would have to research yourself instead of believing our statements. I would be interested in knowing what exactly you disagree with on Ibn Uthaymeen besides that one quote regarding Allah's Eyes?

                    As for Ibn Taymiyyah then I have only read his works through the explanations of Salafis whom I disagree with. If they accurately represent his intended stances on the Attributes then I don't agree with that, but as for now I'll make no judgment on this and feel neutral regarding most of Ibn Taymiyyah's own words regarding the Attributes because it comes across as mostly semantics to me. When I mentioned Taymiyyans on the other thread I did not mean the "Super-Salafis", but rather the differences between true Taymiyyans and Traditional Hanbalis. If Salafis are the true Taymiyyans then again, I don't agree with them. And of course it wouldn't render Ibn Taymiyyah's Aqeedah automatically false if I don't find other scholars to make complete Taqlid of, something which I'm not in search of to begin with. I'm in search of scholars I find common ground with and trust to take knowledge of.
                    What exactly do you disagree with Salafis about that would make you doubt they are Taymiyyan? Does a few statements from Ibn Uthaymeen which may be taken out of context, have an explanation, or be rejected, represent the entire group? Things like this can be rectified.

                    WaAllahu A'lam

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post

                      Knowledge from*

                      I realise I've missed the point you were trying to make and had written another reply addressing it, but I lost it and don't have the time to re-type it now. Maybe I'll do it once I have time later on inshaaAllaah.
                      Yes you misunderstood me. Perhaps I didn't do well explaining what I meant, especially when I said "complete Taqlid of in Aqeedah and Manhaj."

                      What I'm posing to you is a logical scenario. I'm curious because this is something that I'm actually dealing with to some extent myself. You are looking for a group that you agree with in Aqeedah and Manhaj so you could take your knowledge from them in totality like you're usually accustomed to. My question is what will you do if you hypothetically realize that the Azhari Hanbalis have been affected by the Ashaa'ira on certain issues and therefore are not perfect? Would you then not have to "mix and match" to some extent depending on the circumstance? Ibn Taymiyyah's Aqeedah isn't false just because the overwhelming majority of Taymiyyans are currently Wahhabis.

                      Comment


                      • TazkiyyatunNafs

                        I believe you are misunderstanding what is meant by Taymiyyan. In reality, what we are claiming is that we are Atharis who sympathize with the methodology of Ibn Taymiyyah concerning Allah's Names & Attributes. Ibn Taymiyyah is not a prophet or someone who we are obliged to follow in all matters of religion. Likewise the scholars who came after may have made statements on certain issues that we might not necessarily agree with. Also, there were scholars before Ibn Taymiyyah who were consistent with what people would later refer to as "Taymiyyan".

                        On post #496 the Shaykh referenced Ibn Khuzaymah ash-Shafi'i (d. 311) and said "Was Ibn Khazaymah, al-Darimi, Ibn Surayj Taymiyyan?" I'm assuming you haven't finished reading the sources I sent you earlier, but the story of Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311) and his students was mentioned in this document:

                        https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...mENWrEXE3e6HsJ
                        Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 04-12-20, 03:56 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                          That's fine. Pardon me if I offended you because that wasn't my intention. I guess the optics of seeing someone that made Hijrah come on the forum and leave Salafism in totality overnight (due to AS's thread and my words of encouragement) is difficult to comprehend. Aqeedah is generally not something you lose at the flip of a switch unless it wasn't internalized properly to begin with.
                          There's nothing to pardon as I'm not offended. It just doesn't make sense to me. I'm not offended and maybe seemed that way because I said I regret coming here with my doubts, and I do. Your comment made me just realise it better. This is not the place to seek counsel, which is why I hoped to be able to get referred to knowledgeable sisters outside of my Salafi bubble, but Qadr Allaah.

                          I had already told you before that I've been a Salafi misfit for the past year. As for the Da3wah, then I actually had already started doubting the Da3wah. There was another sister I had spoken to and we had discussed this topic briefly maybe two months before I read Abu Sulayman's thread. I guess this is what actually made me read it this time. I remember saying to the sister "Ibn Abdul Wahhab is not the make or break it of Salafiyyah". Because there were things I started doubting. And I guess I came back with a slightly more open attitude. Two months is still not a very long time, but then again, the Da3wah is really not that solid and once you start puzzling the pieces together it's not that hard to say you disagree with it.

                          Aqeedah wise I went to read Aqeedah al-Wasatiyyah with the Sharh of Ibn Uthaymeen again. I then went to a more knowledgeable person at my Masjid and asked about my concerns, like I have already said in my retraction. I just didn't see things the same. So I came back on here went to read this thread and retracted my defense of Ibn Uthaymeen. Anyways, things start adding up and as you've noticed I'm still doubtful and I still feel connected to Salafiyyah in ways. I also said in one of my comments that I regret not staying silent and posting my opinions. There's no harm in remaining silent, but I regret the times I've spoken. So I really don't care to say much on these topics anymore to be honest. No one is in need of my opinions on these matters and I'm definitely in need of safeguarding myself. Obviously there's even more to the story but this is a public forum and I don't wish to say more than I already did. I have every intention to stay away once I've saved references and taken some notes inshaaAllaah. And then I'll continue this offline inshaaAllaah.

                          السلام عليكم

                          Comment


                          • .
                            Last edited by TazkiyyatunNafs; 04-12-20, 04:40 PM.

                            Comment


                            • ppl need to take it easy and not insult ppl first of all. Also ppl need to learn what the arabic word athar even means before saying something related to what they think is "athari" aqeeda.

                              athar means auenthentic texts such as hadiths or somethings like that. athari aqeeda and ashari aqeeda are the same thing. ashari aqeeda also follow the athar and they both believe the same things. Only problem is some people read only one book of aqeeda or not even that maybe a article or not even tht maybe even only heard some lectures about it from one book and after that they go and try to argue with ppl and also insult ppl who follow what they think is a certain type of aqeeda.
                              even though every scholar from the past whos books we read all follow the same aqeeda. It takes a while to learn details of the science of aqeeda but please while learning and until having gone thought atleast 3-5 books of aqeeda from begining to end then please dont insult ppl based on anything related to aqeeda.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post
                                aMuslimForLife جزاكم الله خيرا I appreciate your efforts.
                                I'm not sure whether it's strictness I'm seeking or rather people that come across as 'righteous' and firmly upon the religion. The people I'm surrounded with are mostly really good and I've never found that elsewhere, not with other Salafis either. When I mention them being strict, I also mean a certain kind of pureness and sincerity in combination with firmness upon the religion. Though I know I might not be able to judge that correctly. Like I said earlier on, I'm the bad one of the bunch. Appearance is just one superficial thing I mentioned and photography was more to say I feel strange by the change all of a sudden that I haven't found anything but that I'm exposed to it now. I do know there are valid differences of opinion that's why I said that before giving the examples. I'm not sure whether I'm making sense in regards to the strictness/conservatism I'm seeking.. Anyway, I also realise this is something new so I haven't gotten the chance to actually see what's out there besides "hardcore" Salafism. These are just the doubts that I have currently.
                                You seem to have a good head on your shoulders. You need to seek knowledge, study the scholars, make dhikr daily, recite the Quran daily and do a lot of reflections.

                                The Messenger of Allah, (sallahu alayhi was salam) said the Lord said, "Whoever is engaged in reading the Quran or engaged in My remembrance and is too busy to supplicate to me on account of that, I shall give him the best of what is given to the supplicants." (Tirmidhi, al Darimi, and al Bayhaqi)

                                A little doubt is healthy because we are all sinners. Allah created us sinners. You can doubt the scholars, but don't doubt the Quran and Sunnah. Don't doubt that Allah is guiding you. The scholars of tasawwuf say, the path to Allah is with two wings fear and hope. Fear that you aren't doing it right, and hope that Allah will forgive you. I'm always reading and studying things I've already read and studied before. And I'm always taking into consideration what others say. It is not about what I think the truth is, it is about, what is the truth. Yes I am Ashari, but I am not fixed on any particular Ashari text or belief.

                                Hanbalis say, Allah speak with letters and sounds. Asharis say, Allah speaks without letters and sounds. Imam Tahawi said, "The Quran is the Speech of Allah that emanated from HIm without how in its expression." (Aqida Tahawi).

                                In my opinion, Imam Tahawi is most correct, because we don't know how Allah's Speaks. The Salaf didn't delve into the howness of Allah's Speech. Sometimes there are investigations that the khalaf did, where they went too far, on both sides whether it is the Asharis or Hanbalis.


                                Allah says, Say: The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are….and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge. (7:33)

                                Definitive knowledge concerning Allah and His Attributes can only come from two sources, the Quran and Sunnah. There is proof in ijma. And general acceptance in following the majority concerning an issue. But if doubt emerges concerning an issue, return to the Quran and Sunnah, especially in matters of aqida..


                                For me, I am Muslim before I am Ashari, meaning, the Ashari school is only means. It is only a general guide to follow the Quran and Sunnah in matters of Aqida. If there is something one of the scholars of Aqida says, that goes against the Quran and Sunnah, I always pick the Quran and Sunnah over the statements of the scholars of Aqida, if I disagree.

                                One is only obligated to follow Allah and His Messenger, sallahu alayhi was salam, in matters of aqida.

                                The great Ashari Muhadith and Faqih, Shaykh al Islam, Imam al Nawawi said, “As for the basic obligation of Islam, and what relates to tenets of faith (Aqida), it is adequate for one to believe in everything brought by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and to credit it with absolute conviction free of any doubt. Whoever does this is not obliged to learn the evidence of the scholastic theologians. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) did not require of anyone anything but what we have just mentioned, nor did the first four caliphs, the other prophetic Companions, nor others of the early Muslim community who came after them.” (Al Majmoo)

                                A breath of fresh air from a great Ashari scholar and Muhadith, a contemporary of Ibn Uthaymeen and Bin Baz:

                                Shaykh Muhammad ibn Alawi al Maliki al Hasani said, "An example (of facts that are lost in research) is that which takes place among the scholars in their research concerning the reality of Allah's Speech and the major difference that revolves around this. Some say that the Speech of Allah is inner speech (kalam nafsi), and some say that His Speech is with both letter and sound. I am of the belief that both of these groups seek the reality of Divine transcendence for Allah and that both are far from idolatry in all of its forms. the issue of Speech is real and affirmed and there is no room to deny it, for denial of t contradicts Divine Perfection - this is from one angle. From another angle, Belief in His Attributes and affirmation of that which appears in the Quran is obligatory, for no one knows Allah but Allah. The view that I hold and call to is that of affirming (the Speech of Allah) without going into details of the "howness" and quiddity. So we affirm speech for Allah and say that this is speech of Allah and that He speaks Beyond that, we give no glance the falsehood of it being inner speech or not, or whether it is with sounds or letters or not. All of this is extremism that was not articulated by the one who brought tawhid, the chosen one (Rasullah), sallahu alayhi was salam, so why should we make this addition to what he came with? Is this not the ugliest of innovations. Glory be to You (Allah), this is but a manifest slander! Indeed, the Shall speak to us on that day that we shall gather with him in front of Allah. We are calling for our discussions to always be about this reality and its likes, being far removed from delving into its quiddity, image and appearance." (Notions that must be corrected)

                                Something to ponder.


                                Abu Nu’aym reported: Al-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, said, “I never debated anyone but that I would love for him to be guided, directed, helped, and for him to be under the care of Allah and his protection. And I never debated with anyone but that I did not mind whether Allah clarified the truth on my tongue or his tongue.” Source: Ḥilyat al-Awliyā’ 13717

                                And Allah knows best.
                                Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 05-12-20, 10:32 AM.
                                My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X