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

[Abu Sulayman]

32 dead. Inna Lillahi Wa Inna Ilayhi Raji'un.

And yet you notice the western media will lose their minds and publish copious amounts of articles when some Kafir who insults the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam is killed, but they virtually don't care when 32 Muslims are murdered by Ashab ad-Dawlah.

Well, that is because the so called "Dawla" (meaning: ISIS) [and lot of governments in our region] are a tool in their hands to reach their geo-stratetgic and -political goals in our region.
Many people have seen the Americans sending weapons for the Da'ishis and they even ADMITTED this, but claimed it to be "accidental". There are a lot of eyewitness from our region and some other regions, who have seen this with their own eyes.

Add to this: When we as Muslims have become mindless and have started to kill each other like crazy (as seen throughout our countries), then it's expected that no one will give any worth to our blood, because we ourselves are not respecting our own blood! Wallahul musta'an!

It's most likely the time of al-Harj (senseless killing of each other) as the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - prophesied.

[Abu Sulayman]

Another defense of al-Azhar al-sharif and their Hanabila

First- I don't trust ANY "Hanbalis" from al-Azhar. They tend to be crypto-Ash'aris/Mutakallimeen.

This objection is not accepted and this for several reasons and among them:

- Al-Azhar al-sharif is one of the oldest Sunni institutions of learning and has been established as such by no one less than Sultan Salah al-din al-Ayyubi (d. 589 AH). If one would just name the major and leading classical scholars that have studied and / or teached there, then anyone who attacks al-Azhar would be put to shame!
You yourself (and anyone who read Islamic literature) have read works from the Azhari scholars - whom you seem to dislike for no justified reason - and have benefited from their works without sometimes even knowing them to be Azharis or connected to them!

- Among the scholars who have studied there and / or teached there were also major Hanabila like Imam Mar'i bin Yusuf al-Karmi (d. 1033 AH) - the author of many many works among them the 'Aqida work Aqawil al-Thiqat [fi Ta`wil al-Asma` wal Sifat...] (which clearly is not Ash'ari) and the famous Fiqh work Ghayat al-Muntaha [fil Jam' bayna al-Iqna' wal Muntaha] - and Imam 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH) - the author of the Aqida work Al-'Ayn wal Athar [fi 'Aqa`id Ahl al-Athar] (again: clearly not Ash'ari creed and teached by the Hanabila after him to their students!) - and others.

- Al-Azhar al-sharif teaches classical texts and the texts used have been studied for hundreds of years and they teach things step by step (unlike "Salafi" institutions, who want to teach comparative Fiqh to people who have not mastered any of the 4 Madhahib fully!), so their Manhaj in teaching is tried and tested and makes it possible for the serious student of knowledge to attain a good understanding of the religion and its sciences.
(This obviously does not mean that everyone who studies at al-Azhar will be a good person upon the correct creed and jurisprudence, but the Manhaj of teaching itself is correct and good without any doubt.)

- Al-Azhar al-sharif teaches all 4 Madhahib in Fiqh, while it teaches first and foremost the Ash'ari way in 'Aqida. The Hanabila of the past and the present teached Hanbali Fiqh at al-Azhar al-sharif and Hanbali creed outside of it and this goes on until today. The Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid Mustafa - who is the Shaykh of the Hanabila at al-Azhar - teaches also Hanbali creed outside of al-Azhar.

- All three contemporary Hanbali Azharis that I've mentioned (i.e. Muhammad al-Sayyid Mustafa, Yusuf Sadiq, Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid) believe in things like the divine speech to be with Harf wa Sawt. Have you ever in your enter life heard an Ash'ari to believe this? I mean seriously why are you judging people whom you don't know based upon a label like "Azhari" (which by the way is a positive label due to what has been already stated!)?! Broaden your perspective and don't be a prisoner to that which the "Salafis" dictate upon you!

- The Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid was himself a "Salafi" in the past and had also "Salafi" teachers and among them even someone like the "Salafi" Hanbali Shaykh 'Abdullah al-'Aqil.
The Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid Mustafa also studied under the Shaykh 'Abdullah al-'Aqil, if I remember correctly. And the Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq is a student of the Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid Mustafa.
But additionally to that they have also studied and / or benefited from the Hanabila of Sham (those who were connected to the Hanbali Shatti family and their likes) and the Hanabila of Egypt (connected to the very important scholars of the Madhhab).
Are the "Salafis" able to claim this for themselves?



Then: What makes these "Salafis" so reliable regarding the Hanbali Madhhab? When it comes to Fiqh, then they are not Hanabila - even if they claim otherwise - with the exception of very very few. Most of them have Dhahiri tendencies and don't have clear principles, which is something unscholarly.
And when it comes to 'Aqida they blindly follow whatever they understood or misunderstood from the Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) without even caring - and a lot of times even knowing! - what the majority of the Hanbali scholars stated. When they print any classical Hanbali work, they fill it with footnotes to refute the classical Hanbali authors on almost every page (I can give you so many examples and even outright shameless and insulting ones!). And when they write a so called "Sharh" ("commentary") upon any classical work, then usually only in order to refute the author on major points! This is called dishonesty.

Add to that all: The chain of knowledge of "Salafis" goes back to the chainless Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH), who hadn't even mastered 'Ilm al-Balagha! Did the Hanbali scholars of Najd or the surrounding areas regard him as a scholar or did they rather regard him as some sort of ignorant mass-murdering Dajjal? What about the Hanabila of Sham? What about those of Egypt? None accepted him and most of the scholars that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab made Takfir of by name were Hanabila (!) - who by the way all respected the Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya - and among them was even a top scholar like the 'Allama Ibn Fayruz (d. 1216 AH).
(For those interested: "Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's lack of qualifications and the disasters that resulted from it!" with its [not fully up-to-date] table of contents)

And as if the above is not enough the early Najdi followers of IAW in the time of their first state would ACTIVELY try to kill and persecute the scholars - especially Hanbali ones! - and later on in the beginning of the current state they closed down the schools of the 4 Madhahib one after the other and replaced them with institutions like the IUM, which has misguided many people who misguided others (including you).

Anyways refer back to my comment: "Note on al-Azhar and the closing down of the schools of the 4 Madhahib on the Arabian peninsula by Najdis and "Salafis""


We ask Allah ta'ala to protect al-Azhar al-sharif and to keep it a Sunni institution and far away from modernism and "Salafism". Amin!

[Abu Sulayman]

Second- the quotes of Ibn Qudaamah are taken from a book on Usul al-Fiqh, not Aqidah. And I object to the list of books you claim represent "Hanbali Aqidah".

This is again an unacceptable objection, because the creed of Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) throughout all of his books are the same and I can even prove his position [regarding the issue of Mutashabih] from other books as well. And I mentioned also other Hanabila and many more could be quoted.
(By the way: Even his position regarding the divine speech (which is a classical Hanbali one) - which "Salafis" love to quote without understanding because he attacks the Asha'ira - is quite different from "Salafis", because he doesn't believe in the following of each other (Ta'aqub) of the letters in the actual divine speech and he regards the divine speech to be eternal and not emergent.)
Start researching and you will see that what I stated is correct and the majority position among them.

As for your objection to the list of books: It holds no weight when the major Hanabila would clearly not agree with you and teach these very books mentioned to their students! Are you or they a higher authority regarding the Madhhab?
Why did 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) - the author of the al-'Aqida al-Saffariniyya! - teach for example Lum'at al-I'tiqad and the Ikhtisar of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in (meaning: Qala`id al-'Iqyan) and al-'Ayn wal Athar (also based upon Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in) to his students?

Then: If you look into Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in of Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) you'll see him easily quoting from all the major Hanabila before him and he explicitly states towards the end of the book that all that is found in his book is taken from the books of the Ashab (he intends the major Hanbali scholars before him) and that most of it is explicitly stated by Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) and many [other] issues are indicated towards it by him.
I dare any "Salafi" to be able to deny this, when none of the Hanabila denied this, rather quoted from this work as a reliable one and even wrote several creedal works (at least three) based upon its very wording!

See also these two posts:

- The reliability and general acceptance of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in of Imam Ibn Hamdan by the Hanabila
- Imam Ibn Rajab's praise for Imam Ibn Hamdan


Then: Imam Ibn Hamdan was upon the way of the Hanabila before the Hafidh [Taqi al-din] Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and a DIRECT student of one of the top scholars of the Hanabila of all times - the Imam Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 652 AH), while Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya had not met his grandfather and even OPENLY admitted to have left the way of his [Hanbali] forefathers in the foundations of the religion and that of jurisprudence. See here:

- How Ibn Taymiyya left the way of his mainstream Hanbali forefathers

The Hanabila respect Ibn Taymiyya, but they don't turn him into the "judge upon everything" - as "Salafis" do - and they don't agree with his abnormal positions.

To understand the technical terms used by Hanabilah in Aqidah, you have to first understand their roots. Here's what al-Imam Ahmad had to say in his "Refutation of the Followers of Jahm & Atheists":

The quote doesn't actually prove that what Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) stated was wrong, but anyways I don't want to make the comments longer and longer otherwise I could explain it more in detail.

By the way: If you want others to accept the above work as that of Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) (it maybe his work or that of one of his students), then you will also have to accept al-Fiqh al-akbar as the work of Imam Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) (which also is his own work or that of his students). Or will you accept and reject based upon what "Salafis" dictate again?

And al-Fiqh al-Akbar is even supported to be the creed of Imam Abu Hanifa (even if it were to be written by his students), because al-Fiqh al-absat and al-Wasiyya basically support the same creed. And the creed of Imam al-Tahawi (d. 324 AH) also is in line with the al-Fiqh al-akbar. So what now? Take this as food for thought and not in order to further discuss this here.


But you still didn't respond to my actual question: What is the ruling upon the the belief that the Creator is a 3-dimensional being or let's say a being with height, width and breadth?
1) Correct?
2) Possible?
3) Minor mistake?
4 Major mistake?

[Abu Sulayman]

I want to repeat my recommandation:

@AbuNajm I seriously recommend you to listen to the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali and his videos regarding "Salafis" and also regarding the issue of the Sifat and then recheck his statemens for yourself in the books of the Hanabila. Then you'll insha`Allah understand what is wrong with "Salafis" and that they're not related to the Hanabila in any way or form.

You'll see that he's presenting the Madhhab of the Hanabila - in Fiqh and in 'Aqida! - as their scholars presented them.

The interesting thing about him is that there are also "Salafis" among his teachers and that he used to be "Salafi" himself and even respected among their circles in Egypt and would even appear on their television channels.


Just for anyone who wonders why some of his speeches are inside a car: He does live sessions and his internet-connection is quite weak at home, so he does them inside the car sometimes. Yes, we third-world people have these type of unthinkable problems :-)

[Muhammad Hasan]

Well, that is because the so called "Dawla" (meaning: ISIS) [and lot of governments in our region] are a tool in their hands to reach their geo-stratetgic and -political goals in our region.
Many people have seen the Americans sending weapons for the Da'ishis and they even ADMITTED this, but claimed it to be "accidental". There are a lot of eyewitness from our region and some other regions, who have seen this with their own eyes.

Add to this: When we as Muslims have become mindless and have started to kill each other like crazy (as seen throughout our countries), then it's expected that no one will give any worth to our blood, because we ourselves are not respecting our own blood! Wallahul musta'an!

It's most likely the time of al-Harj (senseless killing of each other) as the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - prophesied.

It is quite clever actually.

Get a group to poision the idea of Khilafah in our minds so we Muslims are desuaded from working towards that.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

It is quite clever actually.

Get a group to poision the idea of Khilafah in our minds so we Muslims are desuaded from working towards that.

Good joke. Who is working towards a khilafah?

[AbuNajm]

Just curious brother do you believe that when it comes to tahajjud time the last third of the night Allah swt actually physically moves to the first heaven?

If you can tell me the word for "physically" in Arabic, then I can respond, In Sha' Allah.

None of these matters should be solely understood in English, as the English language is insufficient for discussing Islamic concepts and terms.

If by "physical" you mean "بدني", "فِيزيَائِي", "جسدي", then, my answer is, no.

If by "physical" you mean "حقيقي", or "بالظاهر معنى النزول", then, my answer is, yes.

Allah's descent is "real" and "actual" as Ahl as-Sunnah maintains. It is not "metaphorical" or "figurative" as the Ash'aris and Jahmis believe.

[AbuNajm]

I want to repeat my recommandation:

You mean they guy scared to say he's an Ash'ari for fear of losing his "Hanbali" membership status?

[AbuNajm]

Well, that is because the so called "Dawla" (meaning: ISIS) [and lot of governments in our region] are a tool in their hands to reach their geo-stratetgic and -political goals in our region.
Many people have seen the Americans sending weapons for the Da'ishis and they even ADMITTED this, but claimed it to be "accidental". There are a lot of eyewitness from our region and some other regions, who have seen this with their own eyes.

Add to this: When we as Muslims have become mindless and have started to kill each other like crazy (as seen throughout our countries), then it's expected that no one will give any worth to our blood, because we ourselves are not respecting our own blood! Wallahul musta'an!

It's most likely the time of al-Harj (senseless killing of each other) as the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - prophesied.

The majority of killing in Syria is done by Assad and his Shi'ah henchmen from Iran. That is well-known and well-established FACT. He beats out any other group by a factor of 100's.

That killing is not "senseless" as described in the Hadith. Rather, it is extremely strategic and full of purpose. Again, everyone that doesn't have a bone to pick with Islamic groups fighting in Syria is more than capable of acknowledging the agenda of Assad and his responsibility for the great majority of killing going on with the help of Russia and Iran.

As for Iraq, then the majority of killing was done by Shi'ah militias and the US, even years after their invasions.

Nice try though...

[AbuNajm]

Ibn Uthaymeen said, “To negate Tashbih (resemblance) in its entirety is not correct, because there are no two things among entities or attributes, except that they share something together between them. This commonality is a type of resemblance. If you, therefore, negate Tashbih absolutely, you are (by that) negating everything wherein there is a form of resemblance between the Creator and the creature. For example, existence: Both the Creator and the creature primarily share this together.” (Ibn Uthaymeen -Sharh Aqida Wasatiyyah. pg 144-145 Darussalam, Authorized by the Charitable Foundation of Shaikh Muhammad bin Salih Al Uthaimin)

If the translation is incorrect, how would you translate it?

It is definitely a "good" translation, however, I would have worded it differently and the meaning would have been slightly different, though not significantly.

The translator incorrectly translates "yashtariku" as "resemblance". That is definitely a mistake since the verb in Arabic denotes "sharing" and not "resemblance". The translator should not have used the same word in English for both "Tashbih" and "Ishtirak" when they clearly indicate separate ideas in the context.

That said- the above is also the opinion of 'Ibn Taymiyyah and not just 'Ibn Uthaymeen.

In practice, this is also the path of the Prophets, alayhum us-Salaam, al-Imam Ahmad, and the other Imams of Aqidah of Ahl as-Sunnah.

There are examples in the Sunnah and in the works of Aqidah authored by the A'immah in which they provide analogies [Aqeesah] for the Attributes in order to illustrate their meaning.

Are they also guilty of "Tashbeeh"?

I do not recommend you or anyone else on this forum who does not know the Arabic language to indulge in these subjects. Learning the Arabic language is of a higher priority and you will not understand the discussions properly except through the Arabic language. Translations can be adequate for capturing an aspect of the meaning, however the discipline and experience that comes from reading all the relevant discussions and their context in the original references is indispensable to formulating a correct perspective on the entirety of the discussions.

[BintFulaan]

First- I don't trust ANY "Hanbalis" from al-Azhar. They tend to be crypto-Ash'aris/Mutakallimeen.

What about Salafis that studied at al-Azhar? Because reality is that any Salafi "scholar" in Egypt has most likely studied at al-Azhar. That doesn't automatically make them Asharis, which I assume you would agree with.

[BintFulaan]

The majority of killing in Syria is done by Assad and his Shi'ah henchmen from Iran. That is well-known and well-established FACT. He beats out any other group by a factor of 100's.

That killing is not "senseless" as described in the Hadith. Rather, it is extremely strategic and full of purpose. Again, everyone that doesn't have a bone to pick with Islamic groups fighting in Syria is more than capable of acknowledging the agenda of Assad and his responsibility for the great majority of killing going on with the help of Russia and Iran.

As for Iraq, then the majority of killing was done by Shi'ah militias and the US, even years after their invasions.

Nice try though...

I find it a bit ironic it's always the ones in the West or non Middle Eastern countries trying to lecture us about what's happening over here and how we should respond to these issues. Doesn't surprise me in the least it's mostly them promoting these detrimental ideologies since they're far removed from living the consequences of it all..

[Abu Sulayman]

The majority of killing in Syria is done by Assad and his Shi'ah henchmen from Iran. That is well-known and well-established FACT. He beats out any other group by a factor of 100's.

That killing is not "senseless" as described in the Hadith. Rather, it is extremely strategic and full of purpose. Again, everyone that doesn't have a bone to pick with Islamic groups fighting in Syria is more than capable of acknowledging the agenda of Assad and his responsibility for the great majority of killing going on with the help of Russia and Iran.

As for Iraq, then the majority of killing was done by Shi'ah militias and the US, even years after their invasions.

Nice try though...

Did you see me defending the criminal Bashar? I don't think so.

Then: Spilling the blood that Allah ta'ala has forbidden is a crime, no matter whether done by the USA or Russia or Bashar or Shi'a militias or ISIS or anyone else.
So saying "but Fulan also kills people" is NOT an acceptable defense for ISIS's killing of innocent people!

As for Iraq: The ones who started the sectarian war were Zarqawi's group and I dare to find me any group before them to have killed based upon sectarian reasons! And AQI / ISI / ISIS have killed HUGE numbers of people and you can ask the people of Iraq and no one here will deny this.

And by the way: Since the defeat of ISIS sectarian killings have stopped completely, which just proves that they were the main culprit in the sectarian war!


A relevant quote:

Instead of waiting for my response, you could have simply informed yourself.
Being ignorant of the pain of other Muslims is an indication for not caring about them.
Whenever a Muslim brother or sister is oppressed and in pain, then it is our own brother and own sister that is in pain.
It does not make any difference whether these Muslims are from Palestine, Kashmir Afghanistan, East Turkestan, Iraq, Syria, Burma, Yemen, Libya or any other place upon this globe!


As for what happened in Iraq:

In 2003 the United States of America - a country that was built upon killing off the native population of North America! - decided to occupy Iraq. Their justification for this was their claim that Iraq possessed WMDs and had links to 9/11, which was both nothing but a big lie.
And this lie was coming from a country that is the only one upon this globe to have used nuclear weapons in combat!

Soon after the occupation and their oppression against the Iraqi population, resistance groups were formed and got stronger day by day to the degree that in some regions the American occupation troops could not pass through without getting attacked.
The resistance was first and foremost by the local people of those regions.
Some "Salafi Jihadi" foreigners also had arrived claiming to help in the resistance against the Americans.
These foreign "Salafi" fighters almost all joined what was known as "al-Qa'ida in Iraq“ under the leadership of al-Zarqawi. Al-Zarqawi himself was very extreme in his beliefs and was similar to the early Najdis!

America was very worried, because they were loosing more and more of their [accursed] soldiers, but then they saw a chance to regain control of Iraq:
While the local groups were busy attacking the Americans, Zarqawi‘s group with their extreme and sectarian mindset started attacking the Shi‘a population and their clerics.

America understood that if they would be successful in implementing the "divide-and-conquer"-strategy, they could regain control again. So what they did after seeing that Zarqawi‘s group was attacking other Iraqis based upon sectarian reasons, they started to over-emphasize the role of al-Qa‘ida in Iraq.

The "Salafi" fighters started thinking more and more of themselves (especially with this new American media coverage) and started to act as if they have the right to rule over Iraqis and as if they knew Islam better than our Sunni Mashayikh and 'Ulama`.
They concentrated more and more upon controlling Sunni areas and started implementing their fake version of "Islamic law". Note that they consisted of young fighters without any education in Islamic law and their ranks were filled with corrupt people.

The local Iraqi resistance groups started to get annoyed by their ugly behavior and the Sunni Mashayikh started to criticize their way.
As a response these foreign "Salafi“ fighters started to attack local resistance fighters and also Sunni scholars.
They even attacked the only local "Salafi" resistance group (i.e. Ansar al-Islam).

At the same time Shi‘a groups were formed to respond to the attacks that were perpetrated by Zarqawi‘s groups. These groups however also attacked normal Sunni groups and the Sunni population.

In 2005 the "Awakening councils" were formed in the Sunni regions to drive out the foreign fighters. They got also funded by America, but not because America liked them (some of their fighters had also faught against Americans), but rather because it would lead to even greater division.

In 2006 - after all local resistance groups turned completely against Zarqawi's group (due to their criminal behavior!) - AQI proclaimed the fake "Islamic State of Iraq" (ISI) and this after a fake Shura where the only present were they themselves!

Their Chief Judge back then was Abu Sulayman al-'Utaybi, who was from "Saudi" Arabia and only 26 years old. Just imagine that these people had no one with any knowledge of Islamic law that they even accepted a 26 year old extreme "Salafi" "student of knowledge" as their Chief Judge!
Back then there was a video where he was burning some Iraqi Sunnis alive, whom he accused of apostasy. (I guess one can still find this video on the net.)

And even with all this extremism, he still complained from the high level of corruption that could be found in their group (he even reported how they would steal from Sunnis!) and clarified that this Shura was a fake one and at the end he left them in 2007.

What happened afterwards is that the "divide-and-conquer"-strategy completely worked out and everyone started to fight with everyone!

All of this was first started by Zarqawi’s group, who were the first to attack and kill based upon sectarian reasons.

ISI attacked markets, funerals, busy streets and got completely out of control.
A lot of these attacks had been claimed by them with proud!
I still remember an incident were an ied that they had planted on the road against the Iraqi soldiers and police (who back then also committed a lot of oppression) exploded while a group of cars (who were celebrating a wedding) passed and the groom was killed. The video with the bride sitting in the middle of the street (being wounded) and crying (while a car is burning in the back) is still available.
There was another similar incident, where a lot of people had been killed.
There were many incidents were they would kill someone from the Awakening councils just to blow up and kill huge numbers of people in their funerals.

The Iraqi news websites were full of these incidents back then and a lot of videos were uploaded. In many of these cases ISI openly claimed responsibility.

Since many people were traumatized, some Iraqi youngsters who had suffered a lot during the war (by the Americans and the Iraqi soldiers back then) had developed psychological problems and started joining ISI as a sort of revenge against the whole society.

This means that ISI with time going on became more and more Iraqi in its members.

And it is this criminal ISI organization that turned into ISIS in 2014 and killed a lot of people.
In 2014 they even blew up the Nabi Yunus Mosque. This action clearly indicates disbelief!

Anyways, there are hundreds of incidents and attacks. Inform yourself.

Some examples of the crimes of AQI / ISI:

The Shaykh Harith al-Dhari mentioned in an interview that AQI killed a huge number of his relatives. Obviously they would have also killed him, if there would be a opportunity to do so.
And this just one example.

The number of people killed by AQI / ISI / ISIS is very huge. You demanding a proof for that just shows how much you [don't] care for Iraq!

What do you want me to do now? Post graphic videos for you?

Here is the aftermath of the explosion of the bridge in Rawa (2014), were a group of people celebrating a wedding were killed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ej04AI6O6U

Here a famous mosque in Mosul is blown up (2014):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja4gU7bDzFc

And here is the explosion of a wedding ceremony of in 'Amriyya al-Falluja (2016):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh83cUgr4Sg

Are you happy now?
I can post a lot more videos of funerals, markets and other places, but they are too graphic and I don't want to share them here. As for the videos uploaded by ISI back then, then they included all types of crimes (including burning people alive!).

Some famous examples of their killing of Sunni Mashayikh and Khutaba`:

And I add to what I've already mentioned the following examples:

- In 2007 AQI / ISI blew up a car next to the al-Sahaba Mosque in al-Habbaniyya (which lies between Falluja and Ramadi) right after the 'Asr prayer, which lead to the death of a huge number of people (including women and children!) and the destruction of the mosque. Among the men who were killed was the Imam of the mosque - the Shaykh Muhammad al-Ma'rawi -, who had praised the Iraqi resistance groups while at the same time criticized AQI.
(Source for recheck:
https://www.alquds.co.uk/%D9%85%D9%8...%D9%8A-%D8%AD/)

- In 2005 they killed the Shaykh Hamza al-'Isawi - the Mufti of Falluja! - after the 'Isha` prayer after he had left the al-Wahda mosque in Falluja.

- In 2005 they also killed the Shaykh Ayad al-Izzi when he was returning back from a Khutba in 'Amriyya al-Falluja.

- In 2006 they killed the Shaykh Muhannad al-Ghurayri while he was on his way to Ibrahim al-Khalil Mosque in a village of al-Karma (which lies in al-Anbar) with 30 gunshots all over his body.

- In 2007 they killed the Shaykh 'Ali al-Zind - the Khatib of al-Siddiq Mosque - in Baghdad.

(Click on their names to see more informations about them and how they were killed - wikipedia in Arabic.)

Note that these are only SOME of the examples of known Mashayikh that were killed by these criminals. The list of Mashayikh, 'Ulama` and Khutaba` that were killed by them in the Sunni regions is quite long and this is common knowledge in the Sunni regions!

[Abu Sulayman]

I find it a bit ironic it's always the ones in the West or non Middle Eastern countries trying to lecture us about what's happening over here and how we should respond to these issues. Doesn't surprise me in the least it's mostly them promoting these detrimental ideologies since they're far removed from living the consequences of it all..

If he would have lost some people dear to him - may Allah ta'ala protect him from this - at the hand of these people, then he would have a completely other opinion regarding them.

[Abu Sulayman]

What about Salafis that studied at al-Azhar? Because reality is that any Salafi "scholar" in Egypt has most likely studied at al-Azhar. That doesn't automatically make them Asharis, which I assume you would agree with.

Even some famous Najdis have studied at the hands of Azhari Mashayikh and among them 'Abd al-Latif bin 'Abd al-Rahman Al al-Shaykh (d. 1293 AH)! He had studied under the Azhari 'Allama al-Bajuri (d. 1276 AH).

Note that while he was in Egypt he would do full Taqiyya - like a worthless Rafidhi or Batini - in order to study under Azhari scholars (because he knew that they were 100 times more knowledgeable in the different Islamic sciences than them) whom he himself regarded as "polytheists" and then when he was back home proved beyond any doubt that he was a hardcore Takfiri (see some of his ugly statements HERE).

These are the people that "Salafis" look up to!