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
    If only I knew how taking words and descriptions found in the noble Qur`an and the Prophetic Sunna out of their actual context and ignoring the language of the Arabs and putting them together in a completely new context can be regarded as knowledge or a science from among the Islamic sciences?!

    What is even stranger is when weak or fabricated narrations are used in this context and thereafter Muslims are condemned for not being like Christians and Jews in accepting non-established text.


    Historically the people who inclined towards anthropomorphism or even fell into it started doing so based upon relying on utterly weak and fabricated narrations (most from the imagination of disbelieving Jews and their likes and from following their way in thinking).
    You will see that these people had authored so called "Hadith collections" in the matter of creed (see some so called "Kitab al-Sunna"s for this!) and these collections were literally filled with so many weak and outright fabricated narrations that one really has to wonder what was going through the heads of these people, when they would try to spread these ideas among the Muslims.

    When the weakness of these narrations was established by the scholars of Islam, the followers of these people did not learn from this and still kept on adhering to the same ideas, but now tried to avoid mentioning all the ridiculous narrations of their forefathers (with some exceptions here and there).

    Their problem however is that without these narrations these ideas do not have any basis anymore and therefore their whole creed becomes without any true foundations.
    ​​​​


    ​​​​​​Do not forget one important point when speaking about creed:
    Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala has sent His noble Prophet Muhammad al-Mustafa (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) as the Last of Messengers and Prophets and as their Seal.
    Our noble Prophet (may endless peace and blessings be upon him) has clarified what is important in creed in a clear manner and has not left any ambiguity regarding the major issues of belief.


    Based upon the above we say:
    Anyone who wants Muslims to believe in something as a major issue of creed - be it under the pretext of "following the Ahl al-Bayt" or "following the Salaf" or whatever other claim - WITHOUT the issue being clearly established in transmission and meaning from our noble Prophet (peace be upon him) will get his claim REJECTED.
    Full stop.

    ​​​​​​
    It is interesting though how innovations are inherantly similar

    On one side you have the Muqatiliyyah, Mushabihah etc. assimilating the divine attributes. In a sense they use a false form of Naql, let's call it Naql Bid'i

    On the other side you have the Jahmiyyah, Mu'atillah etc. rejecting the divine attributes. They classically use a false form of Aql, we can call it Aql Bid'i.

    The negationists resorted to philosophies and other nonsense that make a mockery of the rational realm, whereas the assimilationists themselves resorted to fabricated stories and reports that make a mockery of the textual ream.

    Sunni belief has always been evidenced by what I call Naql Shar'i: The Qur'an and Sunnah. Additionally, for those who wish to entertain it, correct rational thought can be used to justify our beliefs. Aql Shar'i.

    Why do I mention all this?

    In the middle verse of Surah al-Baqarah, Allah mentions we are a middle nation. I found a report too that talks about how the Prophet Alayhis Salam encouraged us to be moderate too, the wahhabi hadith scholar Zubair Ali Zai says it is weak but even if it was nonetheless it is suitable to quote as supplementary evidence. It was in Sunnan Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Muqaddimah (book at the very beginning).

    Jabir bin 'Abdullah said that:

    We were with the Prophet (ﷺ), and he drew a line (in the sand), then he drew two lines to its right and two to its left. Then he put his hand on the middle line and said : 'This is the path of Allah. Then he recited the Verse: And verily, this (i.e. Allah's Commandments) is My straight path, so follow it and follow not (other) paths, for they will separate you from His path..."

    - Sunan Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Muqaddimah
    In fact this is a general teaching:

    It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

    “Be moderate and adhere to moderation, for there is no one among you who will be saved by his deeds.” They said: “Not even you, O Messenger of Allah?” He said: “Not even me. Unless Allah encompasses me with mercy and grace from Him.”

    - Sunan Ibn Majah, Kitab az-Zuhd
    What I have always found about Sunni belief, all Sunni belief, regardless of Madhhab in Furu' or Usul ad-Din, is that it is moderate, always seemingly between two extremes. This is true for Muslim belief in general - are not the two extremes of the overly-legalistic Jews on one hand contrasted with the anti-legal overly spiritualist Christians on the other hand? One followed their minds with no room for their hearts and another followed their hearts with no room for their minds. As for us, our mind is in our heart: when we recite Fatihah, at the end we are asking to be saved from these two extremes.

    Observe other extremes in Aqeedah

    - One firqah sided with those who killed Imam Uthman and they also opposed Imam Ali, they were the Nawasib. They loved the first two Khulafah, respected the first half of Imam Uthman's reign and detested the rest and detested Imam Ali and the Alids - though they respected the bulk of the Muhajirun. Another firqah went to the opposite extreme and sided with Imam Ali, hating all of the first three Khulafah (though the early ones simply said Imam Ali was superior to them all rather than hating), they fanatically loved the Ahlul Bayt, they were the Shi'ah. Ahlus Sunnah was between those two extremes: We love all the Sahabah, including the senior Muhajirun, and we love Ahlul Bayt. We respect all four Khulafah.

    - Some disputed Qadar. One firqah said, Qadar is not that all things are by divine decree and that Allah wills what we do, rather we create our own actions - they weakened belief in Qadar, they were the Qadariyyah. Another firqah went to the opposite extreme. They said, such is it that Allah wills all things and what we do, then how can we have any free will? So we have none they said. They were the Jabariyyah. Ahlus Sunnah is between the extremes: We affirm Qadar in whole and we affirm free will in whole.

    - On the issue of Takfir, they fell into extremes, one group practically forbade it saying who are we to cast judgement on the sinners, they were the Murjiah, another group stooped deep into it accusing everyone else of Kufr, including the mere sinner and condemning them to eternity in hell, they are the Khawarij (their descendants the Ibadiyyah are still with us). Ahlus Sunnah again took the moderate and wholistic path: We recognise Takfir is necessary but we do not call the sinner a Kafir.

    What is the pattern here? That innovators come in pairs? That Ahlus Sunnah always takes the middle path, which generally involves affirming all necessary beliefs, not picking some and rejecting others.

    Innovations come in Pairs as they are created. Read verse 36:36:
    سُبْحَـٰنَ ٱلَّذِى خَلَقَ ٱلْأَزْوَٰجَ كُلَّهَا مِمَّا تُنۢبِتُ ٱلْأَرْضُ وَمِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَمِمَّا لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
    Why do innovations come in pairs? Because they are created! And created things come in pairs! It is meant to be a sign to make us reflect on the next world, how can we not believe in a pair to this world, when we see so many pairs in nature and even in human belief!

    But Truth is not created, it is uncreated, it does not come in pairs. It stands alone, complete.

    Yes true, the constituent groups of our Ummah do frequently form pairs or even more groups, from the beginning Ahlus Sunnah were two: The Muhajirun and Ansar (then added to them all the other groups). In the time of the Sahabah, they used to follow some of them in Furu, some would follow one, others would follow others (the beginning of the Madhahib). Why? Because whilst, Truth, the doctrine itself, is uncreated, the humans upon the truth are created, they come in various diverse groups, from their practice, minor differences in Aqa'id (such things existed even in the time of the Sahabah of course), to even the mundane and obvious things: we have different languages and are of different colours!

    The key to resolving issues of belief

    [QUOTE]هُوَ ٱلَّذِىٓ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ مِنْهُ ءَايَـٰتٌ مُّحْكَمَـٰتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ ٱلْكِتَـٰبِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَـٰبِهَـٰتٌ ۖ فَأَمَّا ٱلَّذِينَ فِى قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَـٰبَهَ مِنْهُ ٱبْتِغَآءَ ٱلْفِتْنَةِ وَٱبْتِغَآءَ تَأْوِيلِهِۦ ۗ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُۥٓ إِلَّا ٱللَّهُ ۗ وَٱلرَّٰسِخُونَ فِى ٱلْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ ءَامَنَّا بِهِۦ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا ۗ وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّآ أُو۟لُوا۟ ٱلْأَلْبَـٰبِ

    (Al-Qur'an, Surah Ali-Imran, Ayah 7)[/QUOTE]

    Accept all beliefs found in the Qur'an and Sunnah, don't accept some and reject others. Do not in extremeness of wanting to accept some, find it necessary to accept others: No to love the Ahlul Bayt we do not need to hate the Sahabah, to affirm Qadar we do not need to reject free will, to make Takfir does not necessitate the non-recognition of sinners and on this issue that has been discussed so many times: You do not need to deny Allah's transcendence to affirm his attributes!

    Accept both beliefs wholly and without reservation: Isn't that exactly what is said in the oft-quoted verses: Laysa ka-mithlihi shay-un wa Huwa As-Samiul Baseer: Meaning there is absolutely nothing like Him but don't reject his attributes! Simple!

    And after that if you still have doubt as to the nature of these differences and these sects, then put aside what knowledge you know and read on from Qur'an 42:11. Ask yourself who is being talked about there.

    After all of this, look at these two groups that claim to be Sunni today: The so-called Salafis and the so-called Sufis.

    What do you think they are?
    Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
    "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
    Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

    Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
    1/116

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

      It is interesting though how innovations are inherantly similar

      On one side you have the Muqatiliyyah, Mushabihah etc. assimilating the divine attributes. In a sense they use a false form of Naql, let's call it Naql Bid'i

      On the other side you have the Jahmiyyah, Mu'atillah etc. rejecting the divine attributes. They classically use a false form of Aql, we can call it Aql Bid'i.

      The negationists resorted to philosophies and other nonsense that make a mockery of the rational realm, whereas the assimilationists themselves resorted to fabricated stories and reports that make a mockery of the textual ream.

      Sunni belief has always been evidenced by what I call Naql Shar'i: The Qur'an and Sunnah. Additionally, for those who wish to entertain it, correct rational thought can be used to justify our beliefs. Aql Shar'i.

      Why do I mention all this?

      In the middle verse of Surah al-Baqarah, Allah mentions we are a middle nation. I found a report too that talks about how the Prophet Alayhis Salam encouraged us to be moderate too, the wahhabi hadith scholar Zubair Ali Zai says it is weak but even if it was nonetheless it is suitable to quote as supplementary evidence. It was in Sunnan Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Muqaddimah (book at the very beginning).



      In fact this is a general teaching:



      What I have always found about Sunni belief, all Sunni belief, regardless of Madhhab in Furu' or Usul ad-Din, is that it is moderate, always seemingly between two extremes. This is true for Muslim belief in general - are not the two extremes of the overly-legalistic Jews on one hand contrasted with the anti-legal overly spiritualist Christians on the other hand? One followed their minds with no room for their hearts and another followed their hearts with no room for their minds. As for us, our mind is in our heart: when we recite Fatihah, at the end we are asking to be saved from these two extremes.

      Observe other extremes in Aqeedah

      - One firqah sided with those who killed Imam Uthman and they also opposed Imam Ali, they were the Nawasib. They loved the first two Khulafah, respected the first half of Imam Uthman's reign and detested the rest and detested Imam Ali and the Alids - though they respected the bulk of the Muhajirun. Another firqah went to the opposite extreme and sided with Imam Ali, hating all of the first three Khulafah (though the early ones simply said Imam Ali was superior to them all rather than hating), they fanatically loved the Ahlul Bayt, they were the Shi'ah. Ahlus Sunnah was between those two extremes: We love all the Sahabah, including the senior Muhajirun, and we love Ahlul Bayt. We respect all four Khulafah.

      - Some disputed Qadar. One firqah said, Qadar is not that all things are by divine decree and that Allah wills what we do, rather we create our own actions - they weakened belief in Qadar, they were the Qadariyyah. Another firqah went to the opposite extreme. They said, such is it that Allah wills all things and what we do, then how can we have any free will? So we have none they said. They were the Jabariyyah. Ahlus Sunnah is between the extremes: We affirm Qadar in whole and we affirm free will in whole.

      - On the issue of Takfir, they fell into extremes, one group practically forbade it saying who are we to cast judgement on the sinners, they were the Murjiah, another group stooped deep into it accusing everyone else of Kufr, including the mere sinner and condemning them to eternity in hell, they are the Khawarij (their descendants the Ibadiyyah are still with us). Ahlus Sunnah again took the moderate and wholistic path: We recognise Takfir is necessary but we do not call the sinner a Kafir.

      What is the pattern here? That innovators come in pairs? That Ahlus Sunnah always takes the middle path, which generally involves affirming all necessary beliefs, not picking some and rejecting others.

      Innovations come in Pairs as they are created. Read verse 36:36: [RIGHT]

      Why do innovations come in pairs? Because they are created! And created things come in pairs! It is meant to be a sign to make us reflect on the next world, how can we not believe in a pair to this world, when we see so many pairs in nature and even in human belief!

      But Truth is not created, it is uncreated, it does not come in pairs. It stands alone, complete.

      Yes true, the constituent groups of our Ummah do frequently form pairs or even more groups, from the beginning Ahlus Sunnah were two: The Muhajirun and Ansar (then added to them all the other groups). In the time of the Sahabah, they used to follow some of them in Furu, some would follow one, others would follow others (the beginning of the Madhahib). Why? Because whilst, Truth, the doctrine itself, is uncreated, the humans upon the truth are created, they come in various diverse groups, from their practice, minor differences in Aqa'id (such things existed even in the time of the Sahabah of course), to even the mundane and obvious things: we have different languages and are of different colours!

      The key to resolving issues of belief

      [QUOTE]هُوَ ٱلَّذِىٓ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ مِنْهُ ءَايَـٰتٌ مُّحْكَمَـٰتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ ٱلْكِتَـٰبِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَـٰبِهَـٰتٌ ۖ فَأَمَّا ٱلَّذِينَ فِى قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَـٰبَهَ مِنْهُ ٱبْتِغَآءَ ٱلْفِتْنَةِ وَٱبْتِغَآءَ تَأْوِيلِهِۦ ۗ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُۥٓ إِلَّا ٱللَّهُ ۗ وَٱلرَّٰسِخُونَ فِى ٱلْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ ءَامَنَّا بِهِۦ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا ۗ وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّآ أُو۟لُوا۟ ٱلْأَلْبَـٰبِ

      (Al-Qur'an, Surah Ali-Imran, Ayah 7)

      Accept all beliefs found in the Qur'an and Sunnah, don't accept some and reject others. Do not in extremeness of wanting to accept some, find it necessary to accept others: No to love the Ahlul Bayt we do not need to hate the Sahabah, to affirm Qadar we do not need to reject free will, to make Takfir does not necessitate the non-recognition of sinners and on this issue that has been discussed so many times: You do not need to deny Allah's transcendence to affirm his attributes!

      Accept both beliefs wholly and without reservation: Isn't that exactly what is said in the oft-quoted verses: Laysa ka-mithlihi shay-un wa Huwa As-Samiul Baseer: Meaning there is absolutely nothing like Him but don't reject his attributes! Simple!

      And after that if you still have doubt as to the nature of these differences and these sects, then put aside what knowledge you know and read on from Qur'an 42:11. Ask yourself who is being talked about there.

      After all of this, look at these two groups that claim to be Sunni today: The so-called Salafis and the so-called Sufis.

      What do you think they are?

      Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah from a fiqh perspective is Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali. From an Aqida perspective it is Maturidi, Ashari and Athari.

      Hanafis are traditionally Maturidi... And the deviants from Hanafis were Mutazila.
      Malikis are traditionally Ashari... And the deviants from the Malikis were Mushabbihah (Anthropomorphist).
      Shafis are traditionally Ashari... And the deviants from the Shafis were Mushabbihah (Anthropomorphist)
      Hanbalis are traditionally Athari... And the deviants from the Hanbalis were Mushabbihah (Anthropomorphist)

      Of course there are exception to the above....


      Salafis emerged from the deviant Hanbalis. And in regards to tasawwuf... All four madhabs embraced tasawwuf as a valid science of the religion.... And there is no tasawwuf in Salafism.

      Your argument doesn't make sense in regards to Salafis and traditional Muslims being exact opposite of each other is not very accurate. There have been many deviant Muslims who have emerged from Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah, not just the Salafis. You have the perennial Muslim, who see all religions as equal... which emerged from Sunni Sufism... You have the Muslim brotherhood, which seems to be an in between place between traditional Sunni Islam and Salafism... And many different variants of this strand.

      Salafis are just the largest deviant group because of Saudi oil.




      My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
        Wow these debates still continue on here.

        I went onto this discord chat once and made friends with this Shafi'i-Wahhabi guy, cool guy actually. He never knew my views in Aqa'id until I revealed them when I left the server and he seemed cool with them thereafter despite being very much against normative Sunnism and even attacking it and its adherants on the server.

        It goes to show there is a bizarre mentality going on here where if our brothers who follow Muhammad bin Wahhab think you are like them, they will treat you like family whereas if they realise you are not, they almost treat you worse than non-Muslims.

        I have never understood that mindset. Aren't we all Muslims in the end of the day? Shouldn't we love each other as brothers? I can guarantee those on the Wahhabi side, you would treat me so well if I just pretended to have the same theology as you, but you treat so poorly if I reveal my true views, views which even you would admit are not Kufr - they are still views firmly within the fold of Islam.

        Look ya ikhwa, the disbelievers work together even when one is an atheist and the other is hindu, how can we as Muslims not even give Salam to our brothers anymore? He may be a Wahhabi, a Zaidi, an innovatory Sufi or whatever, but is he not a Muslim? When did you stop loving Muslims? Why do you not value Muslims?

        These debates in Aqa'id are useless because the people who come into the debate have already made their mind up, for better or for worse. So why don't we put our differences aside and come together and agree upon what we agree upon.

        Everyone here believes in one Allah and everyone here believes in his messenger salallahu alayhi wa salam.

        Let us agree on that and love one another as brothers.
        One can't implement the above upon all groups.

        The Zaidiyya and Ibadhiyya (both non-Sunni groups) have respectable people among their ranks and they have also respectable Mashayikh and this with the knowledge that we do not agree with some of their views, where they have erred in our view.
        ​​​​​

        This is unlike the Rafidha (Imamiyya) and the Najdis (who call themselves as "Salafiyya" and in our day and age and are famously known as Wahhabiyya), who are two venomous and evil cults and are nothing but internal enemies of this Umma and callers to disbelief and heresy.
        The only respectable people among them are those, who do not really adhere to the major heresies of these two groups.
        These two cults regard the Muslims as their major opponents and are at the forefront in causing Fitna in the lands of the people of Islam.



        Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
        Your argument doesn't make sense in regards to Salafis and traditional Muslims being exact opposite of each other is not very accurate.
        I doubt that he intends traditional Muslims. What he's saying is that the so called "Salafis" and the fake "Sufi" cultists (who are not real Sufiyya anyways) are the exact opposite of each other, while traditional Muslims are people of moderation.
        (This is at least how I understood his post.)
        ​​​​​
        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 17-08-22, 02:44 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
          It's amazing to watch people who pretend to "defend" religion calling scholars of Islam "criminal", "worthless coward", "mob", etc.

          Add to it the lurkers waiting for their chance to pepper threads with their own nonsensical claims about scholars.

          People really have too much time on their hands combined with an extremely biased and weak understanding of the sciences of Islam, especially Aqidah.

          What's more useless than a 73 page thread about "Hanbalis/Atharis" without a single participant having anything to do with the Madh'hab?
          You participated in this thread.... I am glad you see yourself as someone who has nothing to do with the Athari madhab of Aqida. Mission Complete.
          My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

            One can't implement the above upon all groups.

            The Zaidiyya and Ibadhiyya (both non-Sunni groups) have respectable people among their ranks and they have also respectable Mashayikh and this with the knowledge that we do not agree with some of their views, where they have erred in our view.
            ​​​​​

            This is unlike the Rafidha (Imamiyya) and the Najdis (who call themselves as "Salafiyya" and in our day and age and are famously known as Wahhabiyya), who are two venomous and evil cults and are nothing but internal enemies of this Umma and callers to disbelief and heresy.
            The only respectable people among them are those, who do not really adhere to the major heresies of these two groups.
            These two cults regard the Muslims as their major opponents and are at the forefront in causing Fitna in the lands of the people of Islam.





            I doubt that he intends traditional Muslims. What he's saying is that the so called "Salafis" and the fake "Sufi" cultists (who are not real Sufiyya anyways) are the exact opposite of each other, while traditional Muslims are people of moderation.
            (This is at least how I understood his post.)
            ​​​​​
            Understood Akhi, though I don't know if I would call them (the Wahhabis) all venomous evil - many are good brothers at heart - they will just prefer not to show us that side. And yes there are plenty with good hearts who do follow their innovations, I have definitely seen such people myself.

            May Allah guide us and them.

            On my part I leave these disputes.

            We are living in a time where the Kuffar have made men into women and women into men, when men marry men per the prophecy and when disease spread due to immorality, monkeypox being the latest specimen. The disbelievers are spreading these doctrines of theirs in our lands too. The issue I have with most Wahhabis is issues of Sunnah vs Bid'ah rather than Iman vs Kufr - I know you will object and we both have shared personal experiences of ignoramuses making it into an issue of Iman vs Kufr but I argue those few are exceptions not the rule. The kuffar meanwhile are spreading Kufr in our lands - go onto Reddit and see the Arab subreddit - full of Israel-loving mulhidin! Look at the "Progressive Islam" subreddit - full of kufr and fahisha! Outside of the internet, I am hearing of community members and relatives openly accepting such things! Look at the KDP even - secular feminists! This is what is taking root - we must fight this!

            I see those as greater threats to myself and my future generations, not these disputes. I would rather have a Wahhabi or even a Rafidhi for a son than a son who says Liwat is halal! If he was a Wahhabi I would still love him, but if he turned to such Kufr I would certainly disown him. As traditional Sunnis, of whatever schools, we stand with the Wahhabis, Rawafidh and any other Muslims against such corruption.

            And such corruption is taking a hold, even in Muslim lands!
            Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
            "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
            Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

            Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
            1/116

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

              Understood Akhi, though I don't know if I would call them (the Wahhabis) all venomous evil - many are good brothers at heart - they will just prefer not to show us that side. And yes there are plenty with good hearts who do follow their innovations, I have definitely seen such people myself.

              May Allah guide us and them.

              On my part I leave these disputes.

              We are living in a time where the Kuffar have made men into women and women into men, when men marry men per the prophecy and when disease spread due to immorality, monkeypox being the latest specimen. The disbelievers are spreading these doctrines of theirs in our lands too. The issue I have with most Wahhabis is issues of Sunnah vs Bid'ah rather than Iman vs Kufr - I know you will object and we both have shared personal experiences of ignoramuses making it into an issue of Iman vs Kufr but I argue those few are exceptions not the rule. The kuffar meanwhile are spreading Kufr in our lands - go onto Reddit and see the Arab subreddit - full of Israel-loving mulhidin! Look at the "Progressive Islam" subreddit - full of kufr and fahisha! Outside of the internet, I am hearing of community members and relatives openly accepting such things! Look at the KDP even - secular feminists! This is what is taking root - we must fight this!

              I see those as greater threats to myself and my future generations, not these disputes. I would rather have a Wahhabi or even a Rafidhi for a son than a son who says Liwat is halal! If he was a Wahhabi I would still love him, but if he turned to such Kufr I would certainly disown him. As traditional Sunnis, of whatever schools, we stand with the Wahhabis, Rawafidh and any other Muslims against such corruption.

              And such corruption is taking a hold, even in Muslim lands!
              Amin.

              Your position is basically in line with that of the Shaykh Abu Bakr al-Mashhur (rahimahullah).

              When I said venemous and evil I was first and foremost intending their heads and leaders and not those who have been influenced by them without knowing their reality.


              There are actually some people among "Salafi" inclined individuals, whom I respect for their positive contributions:
              There is for example Ustadh Ahmad Sbay', who is an expert regarding comparative religion and has some really strong lectures in refutation of Christians and Jews.
              Then there is Dr. Iyyad Qunaybi, who has a series of lectures regarding the proofs for the existence of the Creator and also in refutation of the atheist materialist thought, where he uses very good reasoning and strong arguments (pretty much in line with the arguments by the Sada al-Asha'ira).

              My major problem with "Salafi" leaders is their belief in anthropomorphism (their followers may deny that due to ignorance and having a good opinion of them, but if one has studied the creed of their leaders more in detail then one knows with certainity that they are callers to pagan anthropomorphism) and their lack of real love for our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam).
              Some of their Mashayikh today openly describe Allah ta'ala with a weight and other such pagan descriptions.


              As for the Rafidha, then their leaders are evil callers to disbelief and heresy and their followers are mindless and utterly ignorant and it will be difficult to see any positive contribution by them in general.

              In our day and age their Mashayikh openly teach that the A`imma are greater than the major Prophets of Allah ta'ala and this is nothing less than disbelief.
              And their hate against the absolute majority of the companions - the very companions through whom their forefathers accepted Islam and learnt about the Qur`an and learnt about the noble Prophetic family in the first place - is likewise disbelief and rejection of what is mentioned regarding them in the Book of Allah ta'ala.
              And the "Salafis" have actually a point when they say that they are lacking in Tawhid (putting aside the fact that "Salafi" leaders are also guilty of this due to their anthropomorphism), because these people are relying upon the A`imma for everything and have almost forgotten Allah ta'ala. And their claim that this is Tawassul is rejected, because they belief in some sort of real influence by the A`imma given to them by Allah ta'ala and they call this heretical belief as al-Wilaya al-Takwiniyya. Some of them openly state things like the A`imma controlling every single atom in the universe or even worse than that.
              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 28-09-22, 09:34 PM.

              Comment


              • The Theology with respect to Tafwid and Taqi Ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah affirming the Generations standing upon it


                Click image for larger version  Name:	cover.jpg Views:	0 Size:	32.2 KB ID:	12823324


                Al-Musawwadah, an Usul ul-Fiqh text containing the rulings on the topic from Imams Majd ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.653), Shihab ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.682) and Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728), may Allah be pleased with all of them.

                [تقي الدين يثبت أن الاستواء عند الحنابلة من الصفات الخبرية ]

                Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that Istiwa’ according to the Hanbalis is from the Sifat Khabariyyah

                وهننا يثبت أيضا أن الموفق مفوض بصريح العبارة .

                And it is at this point it can be established that Muwaffaq ud-Din Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy upon him, made tafwid according to the explicit statement of Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah.

                قال :

                Imam Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah[1] said the following:

                ومن أثبت العلو بالعقل وجعله من الصفات العقلية: كأبي محمد بن كلاب وأبي الحسن بن الزاغوني ومن وافقه وكالقاضي أبي يعلى في آخر قوليه وأبي محمد: أثبتوا العلو وجعلوا الاستواء من الصفات الخبرية التي يقولون لا يعلم معناها إلا الله “.

                المجموع ( 17 / 361).


                “Abu Muhammad ibn Kullab, Abul Hasan ibn Az-Zaghuni and those who agree with him affirm with the intellect that loftiness and highness (Ar.`uluww) is an attribute and declare it from the sifat that are known by the intellect. And then there are Abu Ya`la Al-Baghdadi [2] in the last of his two statements and Abu Muhammad (Ibn Qudamah)[3] that affirm loftiness and highness as an attribute and declare istiwa to be from the sifat khabariyyah in which they say that none knows their meaning except Allah”.[4]

                قلت : لذلك ننصح السلفية المعاصرة سابقًا ولاحقًا أن لا ينسبوا أنفسهم لمذهب الحنابلة وينسبون أنفسهم لتقي الدين فيكونوا بذلك تيمية .

                I would like to mention at this point that we then advise people in the Salafi group – previously and those attaching themselves to it today – that they don’t attribute themselves to the madhhab of the Hanbalis but rather attribute themselves to Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah as in that area they indeed follow Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah.

                كتبه الشيخ فارس بن فالح الخزرجي

                As said by the Shaikh, Faaris ibn Faalih Al-Khazraji

                [1] 661-728 (AD1263-1328). He is Abul `Abbas Taqi ud-Din Ahmad ibn `Abdul Halim ibn `Abdus-Salam ibn Taymiyyah. Born in Harran to a family of scholars, he learned from his father, Imam Shihab ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.682 (AD1283) and read the books of his grandfather, Imam Abul Barakat Majd ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.653 (AD1256), who is the second highest authority in the school and was the chief judge in Iraq. At a young age, Imam Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah showed promise and studied with various scholars until he was given the title of Mujtahid Murajjih. A vast pillar of knowledge, he made restricted juridical reasoning in the creed and some areas of Consensus and was opposed by scholars from the schools. A quiet man who was known for his referencing, he was often pardoned due to his retraction of some of his positions that were divergent. Some of his more novel rulings include prophets committing sin, three pronouncements of divorce in one sitting being counted as one, the three categories of Tawhid as well as rulings he passed against scholars of the Ash`aris and Maturidis, two groups within Muslim Orthodoxy. Scholars of the school sifted through his works and corrected the things in them, i.e. in books such as Al-Ikhtiyarat ul-Fiqhiyyah, Kitab ul-Furu`, Tashih ul-Furu` and others. It is in the best interest of the wise man to read these documents first, to know what can be kept or discarded from the works of Imam Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah. Please see Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali’s Adh-Dhail, vol.3, pp.320-335;Al-Makki’s As-Suhub, vol.2, pp.675-680 (Bakr Abu Zaid interpolations)

                [2] d.458 (AD1063). He is Abu Ya`la Muhammad ibn Al-Hussain ibn Muhammad ibn Khalaf ibn Ahmad ibn Al-Farra’ Al-Baghdadi. Grand marja` and spiritual father to 40 other grand maraji`, he was the first to catalogue the rise of the Ash`ari jama`ah. The Imam’s extensive teaching record and written legacy gave us a number of classics. Please see Abul Hussain’s Tabaqat ul-Hanabilah, vol.2, pp.166-198

                [3] 541-620 (AD1146-1223). He is Muwaffaq ud-Din Abu Muhammad `Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Qudamah. One of the Revivers of Islam in his time, scholar of fiqh, hadith, ihsan, math and many other disciplines, he is one of the highest voices of authority in the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Please see Ibn Rajab’s Adh-Dhail, vol.4, pp.105-119

                [4] Majmu`a Fatawa, vol.17, pp.360-361



                https://jurjis.wordpress.com/2022/10...on-it/#respond
                Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 11-10-22, 11:05 AM.
                My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                Comment


                • Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
                  [CENTER]The Theology with respect to Tafwid and Taqi Ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah affirming the Generations standing upon it

                  Al-Musawwadah, an Usul ul-Fiqh text containing the rulings on the topic from Imams Majd ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.653), Shihab ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.682) and Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728), may Allah be pleased with all of them.

                  [تقي الدين يثبت أن الاستواء عند الحنابلة من الصفات الخبرية ]

                  Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that Istiwa’ according to the Hanbalis is from the Sifat Khabariyyah

                  وهننا يثبت أيضا أن الموفق مفوض بصريح العبارة .

                  And it is at this point it can be established that Muwaffaq ud-Din Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy upon him, made tafwid according to the explicit statement of Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah.

                  قال :
                  What is clear at this point is that both the person who wrote the article and the person who shared it have no idea what they're talking about or are intentionally distorting the meaning of Ibn Taymiyyah's words.

                  Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
                  Imam Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah[1] said the following:

                  ومن أثبت العلو بالعقل وجعله من الصفات العقلية: كأبي محمد بن كلاب وأبي الحسن بن الزاغوني ومن وافقه وكالقاضي أبي يعلى في آخر قوليه وأبي محمد: أثبتوا العلو وجعلوا الاستواء من الصفات الخبرية التي يقولون لا يعلم معناها إلا الله “.

                  المجموع ( 17 / 361).


                  “Abu Muhammad ibn Kullab, Abul Hasan ibn Az-Zaghuni and those who agree with him affirm with the intellect that loftiness and highness (Ar.`uluww) is an attribute and declare it from the sifat that are known by the intellect. And then there are Abu Ya`la Al-Baghdadi [2] in the last of his two statements and Abu Muhammad (Ibn Qudamah)[3] that affirm loftiness and highness as an attribute and declare istiwa to be from the sifat khabariyyah in which they say that none knows their meaning except Allah”.[4]
                  The link between some Hanabilah considering "Istawa" as being among the Sifat al-Khabariyyah and making Tafwid of "Istawa" is an extremely loose and untenable connection. To claim that Ibn Taymiyyah establishes this connection as "Generations standing upon it" is true- however, he clearly mentions the LATER GENERATIONS among the KULLABIYYAH.

                  Ash'aris have been trying to lay claim to the creed of Ibn Qudamah for some time now, unsuccessfully.

                  How can they make these false claims and imply that Ibn Qudamah was in any way "Ash'ari" when he authored books like "Ithbat Sifat il-Uluw"?

                  In his book, Ibn Qudamah compiled narrations and reports which clearly contradict the notion that he employed "Tafwid" as a matter of creed. For example, he quotes the following POETRY about Allah AWJ:

                  تَعَالَى عُلُوًّا فَوْقَ (عَرْشِ) إِلَهِنَا … وَكَانَ مَكَانُ اللَّهِ أَعْلَى وَأَعْظَمَا
                  "Exalted may He be, elevated above a Throne, our Deity ... The PLACE of Allah is greatest in highness and superiority"

                  And, in case you think that is easy to explain away, then what about Ibn Qudamah's including the following alleged quote about Allah AWJ under the category of "Aboveness":

                  وَهُوَ قَائِمٌ عَلَى عَرْشِهِ

                  "While He [Allah] is firmly set on His Throne..."


                  The word "Qa'im" is used to refer to Allah AWJ and it is a synonym or addition to the narration based on the MEANING.

                  Here is a one last quote of many that proves Ibn Qudamah does not make "Tafwid" of the Divine Attributes. On the contrary, he affirms conveying the wording of Hadith which mentions the Attributes with synonyms- if Ibn Qudamah adopted "Tafwid", then why would he "transmit and believe" in reports where words referring to Attributes are replaced with synonyms?

                  عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ فِي الأَحَادِيثِ: "إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَهْبِطُ إِلَى سَمَاءِ الدُّنْيَا" وَنَحْوَ هَذَا مِنَ الأَحَادِيثِ، إِنَّ هَذِهِ الأَحَادِيثَ قَدْ رَوَتْهَا الثِّقَاتُ، فَنَحْنُ نَرْوِيهَا، وَنُؤْمِنُ بِهَا، وَلَا نُفَسِّرُهَا

                  On authority of Muhammad bin al-Hasan, in the narration: "Truly, Allah descends [Yahbitu instead of Yanzilu] to the heaven of the earth..."- and similar narrations: surely, these narrations were transmitted by trustworthy individuals, so, we transmit and believe in them and do not interpret them..."

                  How can Ibn Qudamah be a representative for Tafwidh when he clearly accepts statements about the Divine Attributes with words referring to them being exchanged for other words with a similar meaning?

                  On to this alleged claim that Ibn Taymiyyah somehow acknowledges Tafwid as a long-standing practice in the sense that he affirms and accepts it as legitimate:

                  The chapter to which belongs the quote in question by Ibn Taymiyyah is adequately entitled after the following opening statement to the Section:

                  وَثُمَّ طَائِفَةٌ ثَالِثَةٌ كَثُرَتْ فِي الْمُتَأَخِّرِينَ الْمُنْتَسِبِينَ إلَى السُّنَّةِ يَقُولُونَ: مَا يَتَضَمَّنُ أَنَّ الرَّسُولَ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَمْ يَكُنْ يَعْرِفُ مَعَانِيَ مَا أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ كَآيَاتِ الصِّفَاتِ؛ بَلْ لَازِمُ قَوْلِهِمْ أَيْضًا أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَتَكَلَّمُ بِأَحَادِيثِ الصِّفَاتِ وَلَا يَعْرِفُ مَعَانِيَهَا

                  "And then a third group of an increasing number among the later generations attributing themselves to the Sunnah imply that: "The Messenger of Allah SAWS did not understand what was revealed to him from the Quran, like the verses of the Divine Attributes". Rather, their statement necessitates that he SAWS would utter narrations of Divine Attributes and not understand their meaning..."

                  When Ibn Taymiyyah and others use the term "attribute themselves to the Sunnah" [Muntasibeen 'ilas-Sunnah], it means people who claim they are from Ahl as-Sunnah regarding a matter, but they are NOT.

                  This is how Ibn Taymiyyah refers to those who claim that no one knows the meaning of the verses and reports about the Divine Attributes, in general. He specifies some of them for taking a particular route in denying the meaning with some denying only some categories of Attributes and giving a false Ta'weel for others and different variations of denial and Ta'weel. All of these people fall under the general category of "those who attribute themselves to the Sunnah" in this matter, while not actually being from them.

                  فَإِنَّ عَامَّةَ الطَّوَائِفِ مِنْهُمْ مَنْ يَتَأَوَّلُ مَا يُخَالِفُ قَوْلَهُ وَمِنْهُمْ مِنْ لَا يَتَأَوَّلُهُ وَإِنْ كَانُوا مِنْ الصفاتية الْمُثْبِتِينَ لِلصِّفَاتِ الَّتِي زَعَمُوا أَنَّهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَهَا بِالْعَقْلِ دُونَ الصِّفَاتِ الْخَبَرِيَّةِ مِثْلَ كَثِيرٍ مِنْ مُتَأَخَّرِي الْكُلَّابِيَة كَأَبِي الْمَعَالِي فِي آخِرِ عُمْرِهِ وَابْنِ عَقِيلٍ فِي كَثِيرٍ مِنْ كَلَامِهِ

                  "For truly, the masses of the various groups among them give interpretations for what contradicts their views. While among them are those who do not do so [i.e., give interpretations for what contradicts their views], even if they claimed to know [the meaning] of the well-established Divine Attributes by means of the intellect/reason with the exception of the Divine Attributes which are "khabariyyah" such as a great number of the later generations of the Kullabiyyah like Abu Ma'alee during the last years of his life and Ibn Aqeel in the majority of his discourse..."

                  And what does Ibn Taymiyyah say directly after the quote in question?

                  وَإِنْ كَانُوا مِمَّنْ يَرَى أَنَّ الْفَوْقِيَّةَ وَالْعُلُوَّ أَيْضًا مِنْ الصِّفَاتِ الْخَبَرِيَّةِ كَقَوْلِ الْقَاضِي أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَأَكْثَرِ الْأَشْعَرِيَّةِ وَقَوْلِ الْقَاضِي أَبِي يَعْلَى فِي أَوَّلِ قَوْلَيْهِ وَابْنِ عَقِيلٍ فِي كَثِيرٍ مِنْ كَلَامِهِ وَأَبِي بَكْرٍ البيهقي وَأَبِي الْمَعَالِي وَغَيْرِهِمْ وَمَنْ سَلَكَ مَسْلَكَ أُولَئِكَ. وَهَذِهِ الْأُمُورُ مَبْسُوطَةٌ فِي مَوْضِعِهَا. (وَالْمَقْصُودُ هُنَا أَنَّ كُلَّ طَائِفَةٍ تَعْتَقِدُ مِنْ الْآرَاءِ مَا يُنَاقِضُ مَا دَلَّ عَلَيْهِ الْقُرْآنُ يَجْعَلُونَ تِلْكَ النُّصُوصَ مِنْ الْمُتَشَابِهِ ثُمَّ إنْ كَانُوا مِمَّنْ يَرَى الْوَقْفَ عِنْدَ قَوْلِهِ: {وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إلَّا اللَّهُ} قَالُوا لَا يَعْلَمُ مَعْنَاهَا إلَّا اللَّهُ فَيَلْزَمُ أَنْ لَا يَكُونَ مُحَمَّدٌ وَجِبْرِيلُ وَلَا أَحَدٌ عَلِمَ مَعَانِيَ تِلْكَ الْآيَاتِ وَالْأَخْبَارِ وَإِنْ رَأَوْا أَنَّ الْوَقْفَ عَلَى قَوْلِهِ: {وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ} جَعَلُوا الرَّاسِخِينَ يَعْلَمُونَ مَا يُسَمُّونَهُ هُمْ تَأْوِيلًا

                  "[They say 'we don't know the meaning'] Even if they are among those who hold that "Aboveness" and "Elevation" are also from the Divine Attributes which are "khabariyyah" [and clearly, they know the meaning for these Attributes], like in the view of Abu Bakr and the majority of Ash'aris; the view of al-Qadi Abu Ya'laa in the first of his two views; Ibn Aqeel in the majority of his discourse; Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi, Abu Ma'alee and others who traversed the path of these figures. These matters are expanded upon in their proper place [not here]. The point here is that every group holding views that oppose what the Quran establishes- making those texts out to be "unclear" [Mutashabih]- then, if they are among those who adopt the pause upon His AWJ statement: {...and none knows its Ta'weel except Allah}, they say: "None knows its meaning except Allah"- it necessitates that neither Muhammad SAWS, nor Jibreel AS- no one knows the meaning of those verses and reports. And if they hold that the pause should be upon His statement: { AND those well-versed in knowledge}, they make what "the well-versed in knowledge" know is a "Ta'weel"..."

                  And what is the mistake that these Ash'ari brothers keep making, time and again?

                  They keep misinterpreting the statements of some Hanabilah and mixing up the distorting meaning of those statements with the statements of other Hanabilah who were actually inclined towards theological rhetoric and Ash'arism.

                  This gives the false impression that one Hanbali scholar who is clearly NOT Ash'ari nor does he ascribe to their views that he has statements which appear otherwise. They then attempt to "support" this false interpretation with the statements of non-Athari Hanabilah.

                  Look at what Ibn Taymiyyah says in the next section in his book which discusses the false attribution of statements to Imam Ahmad by al-Ghazali and his false allegations against the Hanabilah based on falsely attributed statements:

                  مِثْلَ قَوْلِ أَحْمَد فِي رِوَايَةِ حَنْبَلٍ وَلَا كَيْفَ وَلَا مَعْنَى ظَنُّوا أَنَّ مُرَادَهُ. أَنَّا لَا نَعْرِفُ مَعْنَاهَا. وَكَلَامُ أَحْمَد صَرِيحٌ بِخِلَافِ هَذَا فِي غَيْرِ مَوْضِعٍ وَقَدْ بَيَّنَ أَنَّهُ إنَّمَا يُنْكِرُ تَأْوِيلَاتِ الْجَهْمِيَّة وَنَحْوِهِمْ الَّذِينَ يَتَأَوَّلُونَ الْقُرْآنَ عَلَى غَيْرِ تَأْوِيلِهِ

                  "For example, the statement of Imam Ahmad in a transmission of Hanbal: "Without 'how' and without 'meaning'." They thought that he meant: "I do not know their meaning". While the words of Ahmad are clear in opposition to this elsewhere; and he clarified that he was only rejecting the false interpretations of the Jahmiyyah and others who interpreted the Quran based on something other than its actual interpretation..."

                  No one should trust aMuslimForLife or any of these tricksters and ignorant lay people parading around as if they are knowledgeable simply because they have well-designed websites or posts.

                  Ash'aris in creed posing as Hanbalis in Fiqh and Usul are a dime a dozen these days. They are only wasting their time compiling quotes and distorting their meaning to English-speaking crowds because Arabic-speaking Muslims have long since ended Ash'ari attempts at infiltrating the Hanbali school.

                  As long as Ash'aris can scoop up ignorant English-speaking Muslims, then it's all worthwhile for them...

                  Comment


                  • Salam everyone,

                    Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                    intentionally distorting the meaning of Ibn Taymiyyah's words.
                    I don't even know why Ibn Taymiyya's words are needed for any issue regarding the religion of Allah ta'ala. It's not like Ibn Taymiyya was a very reliable person in the first place.

                    IF this man died upon the clear defense of Tashbih and Tajsim that is found throughout his Bayyan Talbis al-Jahmiyya and also the statements of clear atheism that can be found towards the end of al-Radd 'ala man qala bi Fana` al-Janna wal Nar (where he strangely defends the belief in Fana` al-Nar alone and this with words that no Muslim would take into his mouth!), then he died upon disbelief and heresy.
                    We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being and protection.



                    ​​​​​
                    Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                    Ash'aris have been trying to lay claim to the creed of Ibn Qudamah for some time now, unsuccessfully.
                    Not correct! The Asha'ira only say that he was upon Tafwid like most Hanabila and this is something that only an ignorant person would deny.

                    As for Imam Ibn Qudama being different to Asha'ira in some detailed issues of creed, then this is well known.
                    Shaykh Sa'id Fouda - who is an staunch Ash'ari scholar and an expert regarding creedal issues - even has a rather negative view of him alongside his negative view of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (while both are the heads of mainstream Hanabila).

                    Then:
                    It's not like the Asha'ira are in need of Imam Ibn Qudama - despite his vast knowledge - and this simply because they themselves have leading scholars in all Islamic sciences.
                    While Imam Ibn Qudama himself NEEDED the Asha'ira - despite attacking them left and right - and this is why he based his Rawdhat al-Nadhir upon al-Mustasfa by Imam al-Ghazali, who is one of the absolute top scholars of the Ash'aris.

                    This is enough to know the greatness of the Sada al-Asha'ira such that the whole Umma - those who like them AND those who dislike them! - are in need of them!



                    Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                    How can they make these false claims and imply that Ibn Qudamah was in any way "Ash'ari" when he authored books like "Ithbat Sifat il-Uluw"?

                    In his book, Ibn Qudamah compiled narrations and reports which clearly contradict the notion that he employed "Tafwid" as a matter of creed.
                    Again: No one regards him an Ash'ari!

                    Then: It seems that you "Salafi" inclined people really have no idea about the difference between Hanbali Tafwid and the Ash'ari one! It's basically as if even your Mashayikh are on the level of laymen and unable to understand any advanced issue.

                    The Asha'ira still allow Ta`wil alongside Tafwid and this is a significant difference to the mainstream Hanabila, who only accept Tafwid. Do you people even understand what this point means?

                    There is another difference, which follows from the above: The Hanabila accept any description found in the noble Qur`an or in those narrations that they [correctly and sometimes incorrectly] regarded as authentic to be from the divine attributes, while the Ash'ari Tafwid does not believe in such a necessity due to the possibility of the description going back to another divine attribute.

                    And the Ash'ari position makes much more sense, if one thinks about it from the perspective of the Arabic language. Even Imam Ibn al-Jawzi sided with the Asha'ira on this issue, because this "every description is an attribute"-mindset is something artificial and not supported by language.


                    By the way: I know that you "Salafi" inclined people love to boast with the above book, but it's filled with weak narrations!
                    Is this how you want to establish your creed?!



                    Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                    How can Ibn Qudamah be a representative for Tafwidh when he clearly accepts statements about the Divine Attributes with words referring to them being exchanged for other words with a similar meaning?
                    I don't understand why you're unable to rely upon the clear statements of a scholar and instead cling to whatever can be understood in more than one way.

                    The reason why we say that Imam Ibn Qudama believed in Tafwid is because he defended the belief in it in a clear and straightforward manner again and again in many of his works and even brought all kinds of arguments why it's the ONLY correct way in his understanding.


                    As for any statement that goes beyond Tafwid, then the Hanabila have ALSO clarified the reason for it: They said that we make Tafwid and ONLY EXPLAIN as much as is found in the narrations (at least in their understanding).
                    ​​​​​​

                    As for Istiwa`, then even the mainstream Hanabila (like Imam Ibn Qudama) do disagree to a certain degree with the Asha'ira on this issue and I had already quoted al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la regarding the exact differences.



                    Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                    When Ibn Taymiyyah and others use the term "attribute themselves to the Sunnah" [Muntasibeen 'ilas-Sunnah], it means people who claim they are from Ahl as-Sunnah regarding a matter, but they are NOT.
                    As if Ibn Taymiyya is any position to decide who is from the people of the Sunna after his Kufri (!) statements in his Bayyan [of his own] Talbis and his book regarding Fana` al-Nar, where he tries to reject clear-cut Ayat under the pretext of defending the divine mercy!



                    Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                    Ash'aris in creed posing as Hanbalis in Fiqh and Usul are a dime a dozen these days. They are only wasting their time compiling quotes and distorting their meaning to English-speaking crowds because Arabic-speaking Muslims have long since ended Ash'ari attempts at infiltrating the Hanbali school.

                    As long as Ash'aris can scoop up ignorant English-speaking Muslims, then it's all worthwhile for them...
                    You "Salafis" are famous for trying to exploit the ignorance of people and call them to the creed of anthropomorphist Jews and pagans under the guise of "following the Salaf".

                    As for "Ash'aris in creed posing as Hanbalis" then you claimed that regarding all Hanbalis that I mentioned in this thread, despite having no idea who they are and who not.

                    If the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali for example would be an Ash'ari in reality, he would have NOT attacked the Shaykh Sa'id Fouda for his criticism of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la.
                    (Difference of opinion is okay, but I was disappointed when I saw the insulting language that Shaykh Muhammad first used against the Shaykh Sa'id, but I guess we can't expect much better from Hanbalis, who always had an unhealthy partisanship towards their colleagues.)


                    And by the way: If it were not for the Ash'aris, the Muslims would be using all kinds of absolutely weak and even ridiculous narrations in issues of creed as a good portion of the Hanabila - even some mainstream and leading ones! - would do (with Ibtal al-Ta`wilat being a prime example!).
                    It's thanks to the Asha'ira that Hanabila stopped using these narrations and that "Salafi" leaders today - despite being anthropomorphists - are unable to openly and clearly invite people to Tajsim, but only do so in a more subtle way and only get more open, when alone with their close students (where they make pagan claims like "god has a weight").
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 12-10-22, 02:36 PM.

                    Comment


                    • I will give an example in order for these technical definitions to be understood more easily and in order to understand the difference between the groups when it comes to the texts that are related to the divine attributes:

                      Saq (literally: shin) is a description found in the Qur`an (it's found in the Aya 68:42, which literally translated states { The Day that the shin shall be laid bare }) and also in Sahih al-Bukhari, where the uncovering of the Saq is also mentioned regarding Allah ta'ala.


                      Understanding of the different groups regarding Saq:

                      Asha'ira:
                      This description is to be accepted without ascring likeness or similarity to Allah ta'ala and we relegate its exact meaning to Allah ta'ala while we may also mention that in accordance to the language of the Arabs it may mean Allah ta'ala uncovering His absolute power by which direness shall manifest (because it's related to the day of judgment) as is the position of Ibn 'Abbas (radhiallahu 'anhuma) and others.

                      Hanabila:
                      This description is to be accepted as a divine attribute and this without ascribing likeness or similarity to Allah ta'ala and it's not allowed to find any figurative interpretation for it. We relegate its exact meaning to Allah ta'ala.


                      "Salafis":
                      This description is to be accepted as a divine attribute and this without ascribing likeness to Allah ta'ala. As for similarity, then affirming absolute dissimilarity is wrong, because there is a certain degree of commanality in meaning and We KNOW its meaning and any interpretation not in line with this meaning is disallowed.


                      To make it easy:
                      The Ash'aris leave it open whether the description is a divine attribute or going back to any other attribute or simply a figurative statement and are sure that Allah ta'ala is not corporeal or in any way similar to the creation.
                      The Hanbalis accept the description as a divine attribute and reject any interpretation while also being sure that Allah ta'ala is transcendent from corporeality.
                      The "Salafis" however are NOT sure whether Allah ta'ala is transcendent over corporeality and claim to KNOW the meaning with certainity regarding to Allah ta'ala.



                      Now when we ask any "Salafi" - including their leaders - to tell us this meaning of Saq in Arabic (let us imagine we don't understand any language other than Arabic), they suddenly go mute and do not answer.

                      So let's uncover what they're hiding in their hearts from their followers and also from the Muslims in general:
                      They literally believe that Allah ta'ala has an eternal unseparable part (so many contradictions!) called Saq and that it's not made from bones and flesh, but still has a form and volume, but we don't know its exact form, colour and so on.
                      And this is disbelief and paganism. Full stop.



                      ​​​​​​
                      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 12-10-22, 10:03 PM.

                      Comment


                      • The way of the noble companions (radhiallahu 'anhum) concerning these texts:

                        When they would read the statement of Allah ta'ala in 48:10, which literally translated states { Allah's Hand is above their hands }, they would indeed understand a general meaning, which in accordance to the language of the Arabs here would be Allah's support or protection or bounty over them.
                        As for the exact meaning, then they did not delve into it, nor did Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) speak concerning it, so we also do not need to delve into it and we're sure that Allah ta'ala is completely dissimilar to the creation as is established by the noble Qur`an.

                        Likewise when our beloved Prophet (may endless peace and blessings be upon him) informed them regarding the last third of the night and that Allah ta'ala descends to the lowest heaven in it and that it's therefore a time where supplications are answered, they understood that this a special time where Allah ta'ala is nearer to His slave (similar to when one is being in prostration) such that one should try to do supplications in that time period. They did not delve into any details thereafter.
                        We also accept what they accepted and stop where they stopped.

                        The above approach is a natural one and based upon normal understanding of the language and also in line with the general context of the Islamic creed.


                        Compare this to the "Salafi" understanding:
                        "God has two real hands and also real fingers" (while thinking: "it has a form, but we don't know it, but it's not made of flesh and bones") and "He is described with a real descent, which is a movement from a higher place to a lower place, but He still is High during this real descent and is not literally inside the lowest heaven" (welcome to the mindset that makes trinity acceptable!).

                        The "Salafi" understanding is simply an unnatural one and based upon lack of normal understanding and disregard for Ayat and Ahadith that are clear-cut in meaning and that establish complete dissimilarity.
                        ​​​​​
                        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 12-10-22, 11:15 PM.

                        Comment


                        • AbuNajm compare Atharis and Salaf with Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers about how they understood Surat ul-Anbiya', Ayah 2, the word "muhdath" (emergent) and "sukut" (silence)

                          https://www.pingthread.com/thread/1497589624969084928

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rauf View Post
                            AbuNajm compare Atharis and Salaf with Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers about how they understood Surat ul-Anbiya', Ayah 2, the word "muhdath" (emergent) and "sukut" (silence)

                            https://www.pingthread.com/thread/1497589624969084928
                            When you figure out why the Salaf said that Allah AWJ has two eyes and not zero, then we can move on to something like this, maybe...
                            Last edited by AbuNajm; 23-10-22, 05:39 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                              The way of the noble companions (radhiallahu 'anhum) concerning these texts:

                              When they would read the statement of Allah ta'ala in 48:10, which literally translated states { Allah's Hand is above their hands }, they would indeed understand a general meaning, which in accordance to the language of the Arabs here would be Allah's support or protection or bounty over them.
                              As for the exact meaning, then they did not delve into it, nor did Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) speak concerning it, so we also do not need to delve into it and we're sure that Allah ta'ala is completely dissimilar to the creation as is established by the noble Qur`an.

                              Likewise when our beloved Prophet (may endless peace and blessings be upon him) informed them regarding the last third of the night and that Allah ta'ala descends to the lowest heaven in it and that it's therefore a time where supplications are answered, they understood that this a special time where Allah ta'ala is nearer to His slave (similar to when one is being in prostration) such that one should try to do supplications in that time period. They did not delve into any details thereafter.
                              We also accept what they accepted and stop where they stopped.

                              The above approach is a natural one and based upon normal understanding of the language and also in line with the general context of the Islamic creed.


                              Compare this to the "Salafi" understanding:
                              "God has two real hands and also real fingers" (while thinking: "it has a form, but we don't know it, but it's not made of flesh and bones") and "He is described with a real descent, which is a movement from a higher place to a lower place, but He still is High during this real descent and is not literally inside the lowest heaven" (welcome to the mindset that makes trinity acceptable!).

                              The "Salafi" understanding is simply an unnatural one and based upon lack of normal understanding and disregard for Ayat and Ahadith that are clear-cut in meaning and that establish complete dissimilarity.
                              ​​​​​
                              How do you decide which ayah to metaphorize?

                              If the literal interpretation of ayat talking about Allah's attributes conflicts with the ayat that say that Allah is dissimilar from His creations, why do you metaphorize the former ayat instead of the latter, especially given it is much less work and hermeneutical burden for you to metaphorize the latter ayat because there are less "problematic" texts for you to deal with?

                              It seems completely arbitrary that you choose to metaphorize the former instead of the latter when either would resolve the "apparent contradiction" for you.

                              (welcome to the mindset that makes trinity acceptable!).
                              Guess what else Christians use to resolve problems in their texts? Arbitrary metaphorization and appeal to allegory.
                              Last edited by notEVOLVED; 23-10-22, 08:04 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Salamun 'alaykum,

                                Originally posted by notEVOLVED View Post
                                How do you decide which ayah to metaphorize?

                                If the literal interpretation of ayat talking about Allah's attributes conflicts with the ayat that say that Allah is dissimilar from His creations, why do you metaphorize the former ayat instead of the latter, especially given it is much less work and hermeneutical burden for you to metaphorize the latter ayat because there are less "problematic" texts for you to deal with?

                                It seems completely arbitrary that you choose to metaphorize the former instead of the latter when either would resolve the "apparent contradiction" for you.
                                I understand the Ayat and Ahadith in accordance to the language that they were revealed or stated in and do not make up an artificial understanding that has no basis in language or goes against clear established Islamic creed.

                                In addition to that I follow what Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala stated in the Aya 3:7 regarding the Muhkamat and Mutashabihat and understand the Mutashabihat in the context of the Muhkamat and not the other way around.

                                ​​​​​​When our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) for example mentioned the descent of Allah ta'ala in the last third of the night, was it to establish His nearness to us and that this time period is a time where supplication is answered or was it to establish a literal descent, which is a movement from a higher position to a lower one (some "Salafi" Mashayikh even mention this very definition in this context!)?

                                Obviously the former. Even you yourself don't establish a literal descent as it would mean indwelling, which every Muslim rejects.

                                ​​​​​​The companions (radhiallahu 'anhum) would likewise only understand the former meaning (which is a general one) and they did not get into the exact meaning nor did our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) speak regarding it.
                                So we stop where they stopped and believe in what they believed.

                                Why should we go beyond this point and get into issues that may let us fall into serious mistakes?



                                Originally posted by notEVOLVED View Post
                                Guess what else Christians use to resolve problems in their texts? Arbitrary metaphorization and appeal to allegory.
                                The Christians ignore the clear-cut texts and understand them in the context of unclear ones.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X