Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Intra-Sunni Divide: A history of the schools of Aqeedah wrt Sifat

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
    Now some of you might ask, who are you? Are you a scholar, or even a student of knowledge? No, I am not. I am a layperson, however the layperson does not and cannot ever do Taqlid in Aqeedah - it is dangerous and can lead to shirk if for example the scholars you follow allow such a thing. Whilst I believe people can loosely adhere to a school/s of Aqeedah, saying that whatever the scholars in a certain school say is always fact can lead to deviation.
    Taqlid in beliefs is a major problem in our times!
    You'll find a lot of people making Taqlid in major issues of beliefs and even making Taqlid regarding Islamic history, yet ironically they will attack Taqlid in Fiqh! This while making Taqlid of 1 of the 4 Madhahib 100% is correct and not wrong, while Taqlid in major issues of beliefs is sinful at least and may even lead to eternal damnation!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by eesa the kiwi View Post
      I've yet to meet a Muslim who had a problem with ibn taymiyyah that didn't have issues in his aqeedah or other practices of Islam
      Itโ€™s really strange when a convert wants to teach us what we should believe and what not and this with the knowledge that our ancestors have been upon Islam since the time of the Sahabat al-kiram - radhiallahu 'anhum - and have not changed in beliefs since then.

      Maybe itโ€˜s you who has issues and not your opponent? Ever thought about that?

      As for the Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH): He was a very knowledgeable scholar, but he had some abnormal views. One should not follow abnormal views (no matter by whom these views were supported).
      What is wrong with saying that?
      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 28-05-20, 04:36 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

        Itโ€™s really strange when a convert wants to teach us what we should believe and what not and this with the knowledge that our ancestors have been upon Islam since the time of the Sahabat al-kiram - radhiallahu 'anhum - and have not changed in beliefs since then.

        Maybe itโ€˜s you who has issues and not your opponent? Ever thought about that?

        As for the Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH): He was a very knowledgeable scholar, but he had some abnormal views. One should not follow abnormal views (no matter by whom these views were supported).
        What is wrong with saying that?
        I would argue that most of companions were converts. So being a convert isn't necessarily a bad thing.
        My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post

          I would argue that most of companions were converts. So being a convert isn't necessarily a bad thing.
          Being a convert is obviously not a bad thing, rather the opposite.
          But what is expected from a convert is the same as that which is expected from any Muslim:
          To follow the truth as it has reached us and not to support a new sect or group!

          Comment


          • #35
            Allah ta'ala says:

            { ุฅูู†ูŽู‘ ูฑู„ูŽู‘ุฐููŠู†ูŽ ูŠูุจูŽุงูŠูุนููˆู†ูŽูƒูŽ ุฅูู†ูŽู‘ู…ูŽุง ูŠูุจูŽุงูŠูุนููˆู†ูŽ ูฑู„ู„ูŽู‘ู‡ูŽ ูŠูŽุฏู ูฑู„ู„ูŽู‘ู‡ู ููŽูˆู’ู‚ูŽ ุฃูŽูŠู’ุฏููŠู‡ูู…ู’ ููŽู…ูŽู† ู†ูŽู‘ูƒูŽุซูŽ ููŽุฅูู†ูŽู‘ู…ูŽุง ูŠูŽู†ูƒูุซู ุนูŽู„ูŽู‰ูฐ ู†ูŽูู’ุณูู‡ู ูˆูŽู…ูŽู†ู’ ุฃูŽูˆู’ููŽู‰ูฐ ุจูู…ูŽุง ุนูŽุงู‡ูŽุฏูŽ ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ูฑู„ู„ูŽู‘ู‡ูŽ ููŽุณูŽูŠูุคู’ุชููŠู‡ู ุฃูŽุฌู’ุฑุงู‹ ุนูŽุธููŠู…ุงู‹ }

            [48:10]

            Let us see the Tafsir of the highlighted part according to a classical scholar like Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH):

            ูˆููŠ ู‚ูˆู„ู‡: { ูŠูŽุฏู ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ููŽูˆู’ู‚ูŽ ุฃูŠู’ุฏููŠู‡ูู…ู’ } ูˆุฌู‡ุงู† ู…ู† ุงู„ุชุฃูˆูŠู„: ุฃุญุฏู‡ู…ุง: ูŠุฏ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ููˆู‚ ุฃูŠุฏูŠู‡ู… ุนู†ุฏ ุงู„ุจูŠุนุฉุŒ ู„ุฃู†ู‡ู… ูƒุงู†ูˆุง ูŠุจุงูŠุนูˆู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุจุจูŠุนุชู‡ู… ู†ุจูŠู‡ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… ูˆุงู„ุขุฎุฑ: ู‚ูˆู‘ุฉ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ููˆู‚ ู‚ูˆู‘ุชู‡ู… ููŠ ู†ูุตุฑุฉ ุฑุณูˆู„ู‡ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู…ุŒ ู„ุฃู†ู‡ู… ุฅู†ู…ุง ุจุงูŠุนูˆุง ุฑุณูˆู„ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… ุนู„ู‰ ู†ูุตุฑุชู‡ ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุนุฏูˆู‘

            Regarding His statement { the Yad of Allah is above their hands } there are two ways of interpretation:
            The first one: The Hand of Allah is above their hands in their swearing of allegiance, because they were swearing allegiance to Allah by swearing allegiance to His Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.
            The other one: The Power of Allah is above their powers in support for His Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, because they have in fact sweared allegiance to the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - upon supporting him against the enemy.

            - end of quote -

            Based upon the above Aya and other Ayat, we can say the following:
            Allah ta'ala is described with Yad and we believe in these Ayat and relegate the reality of this divine attribute to Allah taโ€™ala while being sure that there is nothing like or similar to Allah taโ€™ala.


            Now the question:
            Why are some people stubbornly insisting that with Yad a REAL and LITERAL hand is intended?! From where did they get this information (other than blind Taqlid!)?
            What is even a REAL and LITERAL hand?

            Why is it wrong to leave the issue as mentioned above and not to go beyond this limit?
            Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 28-05-20, 06:59 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              ...we believe in these Ayat and relegate the reality of this divine attribute to Allah taโ€™ala while being sure that there is nothing like or similar to Allah taโ€™ala...
              Do you do that with all attributes of Allah ?

              Comment


              • #37
                And I agree with this.

                See here: https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/li...2#post12704622

                Within Islam who do we consider Sunni (upon the way of the Prophet Alayhis Salatu Was Salam and the Sahabah Radiyallahu Anhum)?

                Ahlus Sunnah is very broad and accepting. We accept the Atharis (who only do Tafweed), the Asharis and the Maturidis (who now do Tafweed and sometimes figurative Tawil), we accept the Hanafi and Malikis (e.g. who do not do Rafa ul Yadain), and we accept the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis (e.g. who do Rafa ul Yadain). We accept the numerous Sufi tariqah, so long as they do not fall into deviation and innovation. We accept the vast majority of the Muslim Scholars historically who we know about and still talk about today to be Sunnis. A good proportion of Ahlus Sunnah are found in the Ummah today throughout various Muslim countries, in West Africa, the Magreb, Egypt, Turkey and the Middle East, India, the Swahili coast and South East Asia.

                As for the Muslims:

                We accept the vast majority of those calling themselves Muslims today to be Muslims.

                In fact, I would consider every single person who has posted on this topic to be a Muslim, without exception - Abu Abdullah is a Muslim, Eesa the Kiwi is a Muslim, TazkiyyatunNafs is a Muslim.

                But the Problematic Scholars and the Problematic Views

                There have been scholars in Islamic history who have had problematic views. Those within Islam, we treat their Awwam (laypeople) with kindness and our scholars treat their scholars in differing ways depending upon the problematic views.

                We say good things of Taqi-ud-Din Ahmed Bin Taymiyyah al-Hanbali Rahimullah, we say good things of his student Ibnul Qayyim al-Jawziyyah Rahimullah. No one can deny their knowledge and asceticism, but it precisely because of their mistakes that we point out these mistakes, which are serious mistakes in Aqeedah, so that the Awwam of the later generations do not follow them in their mistakes. This is similar to how the early Mutazila like Wasil ibn Ata etc. were treated.

                But then there are those scholars who become more extreme and we must recognise that their innovations have become serious as now they hold the problematic views of the previous scholars but they go further, they may justify killing the Muslims or nullifying necessary beliefs to be a Muslim. We say of them that they are certain innovators (mubtadi), and our scholars warn against them. We cannot except them, for unity requires holding onto the rope of Allah and they are letting go of the rope.

                In summary brother, what you are calling to is a good thing and it shows you have a good heart. No one who is upon the truth or has sound iman wants any of these problematic sectarian differences, everyone of sound iman wishes for the Muslims to be one, but we must not go to extremes and say that Jahm bin Safwan was a Sunni - for it is not the truth, and would lead to corruption of the religion as happened with the Jews and Christians (and even one could argue Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism etc.). And this is my position of Ibn Abdul Wahhab too. I still think of both as Muslims and affirm their belief as this matter (of Takfir when the matter is unclear) is not for me.
                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


                • #38
                  Abu Sulayman This will be my first and last time addressing you in shaa Allaah. I'll not go in to a discussion with you. You and I hold very different beliefs and I see absolutely no benefit in discussing any of it with you, contrary actually which is why I totally refrain. I haven't replied your comments in the past, and won't in the future in shaa Allaah.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                    Do you do that with all attributes of Allah ?
                    Yes, obviously.
                    It is established by absolute proofs that the Creator is described with absolute perfection and completely dissimilar to the creation.

                    Whatever Allah taโ€™ala is described with in the Qur`an al-karim is to be accepted while denying any similarity and relegating the knowledge of the reality of the divine attributes to Allah ta'ala, because the divine Self is beyond the creation and therefore beyond our imagination and comprehension.

                    Just because youโ€™re able to translate Basar - which is from the divine attributes - with Seeing (which is what follows from the attribute and not the attribute itself!) it does not mean that you've comprehended the real meaning of this attribute. The real meaning is connected to the reality of Allah ta'ala, and the reality of the Creator is beyond our imagination and comprehension as already mentioned.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                      Yes, obviously.
                      It is established by absolute proofs that the Creator is described with absolute perfection and completely dissimilar to the creation.

                      Whatever Allah taโ€™ala is described with in the Qur`an al-karim is to be accepted while denying any similarity and relegating the knowledge of the reality of the divine attributes to Allah ta'ala, because the divine Self is beyond the creation and therefore beyond our imagination and comprehension.

                      Just because youโ€™re able to translate Basar - which is from the divine attributes - with Seeing (which is what follows from the attribute and not the attribute itself!) it does not mean that you've comprehended the real meaning of this attribute. The real meaning is connected to the reality of Allah ta'ala, and the reality of the Creator is beyond our imagination and comprehension as already mentioned.
                      So you don't 'believe in' interpreting/translating things like 'ุฑุถูŠ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡' to 'May Allah be pleased with him' as you you don''t know the real meaning?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                        Itโ€™s really strange when a convert wants to teach us what we should believe and what not and this with the knowledge that our ancestors have been upon Islam since the time of the Sahabat al-kiram - radhiallahu 'anhum - and have not changed in beliefs since then.

                        Maybe itโ€˜s you who has issues and not your opponent? Ever thought about that?

                        As for the Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH): He was a very knowledgeable scholar, but he had some abnormal views. One should not follow abnormal views (no matter by whom these views were supported).
                        What is wrong with saying that?
                        so your beliefs haven't changed since the time of the sahabah radiallaho anhum. Does that mean the sahabah held the asharriyah position
                        "My servants, you who have transgressed against yourselves, do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Truly Allah forgives all wrong actions. He is the Ever-Forgiving, the Most Merciful." (Surat az-Zumar: 53)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by eesa the kiwi View Post

                          so your beliefs haven't changed since the time of the sahabah radiallaho anhum. Does that mean the sahabah held the asharriyah position
                          Ibn Abbas Radiyallahu An made figurative Tawil if that is what you are asking:

                          Al -Tabari relates from Muhammad ibn โ€˜Ubayd al-Muharibi, who relates from Ibn al-Mubarak, from Usama ibn Zayd, from โ€˜Ikrima, from Ibn โ€˜Abbas that shin in the above verse means "a day of war and direness (harbin wa shidda)"

                          - Related by Imam at-Tabari Rahimullah in his Tafsir, related and declared Sahih by Imam Hakim Rahimullah in his Mustadrak (Vol 2, pp. 499-500), and ad-Dhahabi concurs in Talkhis al-Mustadrak (Vol 2, p. 500), and the narration is also found in Imam Bayhaqi Rahimullah's Kitab al-Asma wal Sifat, Hadith 746.
                          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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post
                            Abu Sulayman This will be my first and last time addressing you in shaa Allaah. I'll not go in to a discussion with you. You and I hold very different beliefs and I see absolutely no benefit in discussing any of it with you, contrary actually which is why I totally refrain. I haven't replied your comments in the past, and won't in the future in shaa Allaah.
                            This is fine, because Iโ€™m also not interested in discussing with you.
                            It just pains me that you and others show so much respect to a person like IAW - who was openly calling to killing other Muslims and was not even a scholar (he did not even know 'Ilm al-Balagha as proudly admitted by the Najdi Ibn Sahman (d. 1349 AH)) - and are ready to defend him blindly no matter what, but you do not show any Ghira for the actual scholars of Islam.
                            You do not even care about the fact that the scholars in general in the time of IAW (d. 1206 AH) rejected his extremism and are ready to accuse them of lying, instead of accepting the fact that IAW was the liar.

                            You mentioned the Shaykh Sulayman bin Suhaym (d. 1184 AH) and did not even call him Shaykh (this with the knowledge that he was a Hanbali scholar and knew 'Ilm al-Balagha and many other 'Ulum), while you call IAW (who did not even know a basic science of the Arabic language like 'Ilm al-Balagha let alone other sciences!) as Shaykh and maybe even as Imam and Mujaddid.
                            Is this justice?

                            Then: You claimed that the Shaykh was "accusing" Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab of Takfir. Itโ€™s not an accusation, but rather a matter of fact.

                            The followings quotes are all from the Najdi [Takfiri] work al-Durar al-Saniyya:

                            IAW's open Takfir against the Shaykh Ibn Suhaym and his father

                            ูˆู‚ุจู„ ุงู„ุฌูˆุงุจุŒ ู†ุฐูƒุฑ ู„ูƒ ุฃู†ูƒ ุฃู†ุช ูˆุฃุจุงูƒุŒ ู…ุตุฑุญูˆู† ุจุงู„ูƒูุฑุŒ ูˆุงู„ุดุฑูƒุŒ ูˆุงู„ู†ูุงู‚ุŒ ูˆู„ูƒู† ุตุงุฆุฑ ู„ูƒู… ุนู†ุฏ "ุฎู…ุงู…ุฉ" ููŠ ู…ุนูƒุงู„ุŒ ู‚ุตุงุตูŠุจ ูˆุฃุดุจุงู‡ู‡ู…ุŒ ูŠุนุชู‚ุฏูˆู† ุฃู†ูƒู… ุนู„ู…ุงุกุ› ูˆู†ุฏุงุฑูŠูƒู… ู†ูˆุฏ ุฃู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ูŠู‡ุฏูŠูƒู… ูˆูŠู‡ุฏูŠู‡ู…; ูˆุฃู†ุช ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ุขู† ุฃู†ุช ูˆุฃุจูˆูƒุŒ ู„ุง ุชูู‡ู…ูˆู† ุดู‡ุงุฏุฉ ุฃู† ู„ุง ุฅู„ู‡ ุฅู„ุง ุงู„ู„ู‡ุŒ ุฃู†ุง ุฃุดู‡ุฏ ุจู‡ุฐุง ุดู‡ุงุฏุฉ ูŠุณุฃู„ู†ูŠ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง ูŠูˆู… ุงู„ู‚ูŠุงู…ุฉุŒ ุฃู†ูƒ ู„ุง ุชุนุฑูู‡ุง ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ุขู†ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ุฃุจูˆูƒ. ูˆู†ูƒุดู ู„ูƒ ู‡ุฐุง ูƒุดูุง ุจูŠู†ุงุŒ ู„ุนู„ูƒ ุชุชูˆุจ ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ุŒ ูˆุชุฏุฎู„ ููŠ ุฏูŠู† ุงู„ุฅุณู„ุงู…ุŒ ุฅู† ู‡ุฏุงูƒ ุงู„ู„ู‡ุŒ ูˆุฅู„ุง ุชุจูŠู† ู„ูƒู„ ู…ู† ูŠุคู…ู† ุจุงู„ู„ู‡ ูˆุงู„ูŠูˆู… ุงู„ุขุฎุฑุŒ ุญุงู„ูƒู…ุงุŒ ูˆุงู„ุตู„ุงุฉ ูˆุฑุงุกูƒู…ุงุŒ ูˆู‚ุจูˆู„ ุดู‡ุงุฏุชูƒู…ุงุŒ ูˆุฎุทุคูƒู…ุงุŒ ูˆูˆุฌูˆุจ ุนุฏุงูˆุชูƒู…ุงุŒ ูƒู…ุง ู‚ุงู„ ุชุนุงู„ู‰: {ู„ุง ุชูŽุฌูุฏู ู‚ูŽูˆู’ู…ุงู‹ ูŠูุคู’ู…ูู†ููˆู†ูŽ ุจูุงู„ู„ูŽู‘ู‡ู ูˆูŽุงู„ู’ูŠูŽูˆู’ู…ู ุงู„ู’ุขุฎูุฑู ูŠููˆูŽุงุฏูู‘ูˆู†ูŽ ู…ูŽู†ู’ ุญูŽุงุฏูŽู‘ ุงู„ู„ูŽู‘ู‡ูŽ ูˆูŽุฑูŽุณููˆู„ูŽู‡ู
                            - end of quote -

                            Just read the above and maybe you can tell us what this is? He is accusing them of every ugly thing possible and asks them to enter into Islam!

                            Takfir against the father of the Shaykh Ibn Suhaym alongside with people from Dir'iyya and 'Uyayyna

                            ูˆุฅู† ูƒุงู† ู…ุฑุงุฏูƒ ุฃู†ูŠ ุฃุณูƒุช ุนู…ู† ุฃุธู‡ุฑ ุงู„ูƒูุฑ ูˆุงู„ู†ูุงู‚ุŒ ูˆุณู„ ุณูŠู ุงู„ุจุบูŠ ุนู„ู‰ ุฏูŠู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ูˆูƒุชุงุจู‡ ูˆุฑุณูˆู„ู‡ุŒ ู…ุซู„ ูˆู„ุฏ ุงุจู† ุณุญูŠู…ุŒ ูˆู…ู† ุฃุธู‡ุฑ ุงู„ุนุฏุงูˆุฉ ู„ู„ู‡ ูˆุฑุณูˆู„ู‡ุŒ ู…ู† ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุนูŠูŠู†ุฉ ุฃูˆ ุงู„ุฏุฑุนูŠุฉ ุฃูˆ ุบูŠุฑู‡ู…ุŒ ูู‡ุฐุง ู„ุง ูŠู†ุจุบูŠ ู…ู†ูƒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุทุงุน ุฃุญุฏ ููŠ ู…ุนุตูŠุฉ ุงู„ู„ู‡. ูุฅู† ูˆุงูู‚ุชู…ูˆู†ุง ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุฌู‡ุงุฏ ููŠ ุณุจูŠู„ ุงู„ู„ู‡ุŒ ูˆุฅุนู„ุงุก ูƒู„ู…ุฉ ุงู„ู„ู‡ุŒ ูู„ูƒู… ุงู„ุญุธ ุงู„ุฃูˆูุฑุŒ ูˆุฅู„ุง ู„ู† ุชุถุฑูˆุง ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุดูŠุฆุงู‹
                            - end of quote -

                            Imagine: Those who criticized IAW where accused of "fighting against the religion of Allah" and "showing enemity towards the religion of Allah" and of "Kufr" and "Shirk" and "Nifaq" and more!
                            Is this enough? No, letโ€™s rather make Takfir upon a whole tribe (the Shaykh Ibn Suhaym was from the 'Aniza tribe)!


                            Takfir against the 'Aniza tribe (to whom the Shaykh Ibn Suhaym also belonged to) alongside others

                            ูู†ู‚ูˆู„: ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ุนู„ูˆู… ุนู†ุฏ ุงู„ุฎุงุต ูˆุงู„ุนุงู…ุŒ ู…ุง ุนู„ูŠู‡ ุงู„ุจูˆุงุฏูŠ ุฃูˆ ุฃูƒุซุฑู‡ู…ุŒ ูุฅู† ูƒุงุจุฑ ู…ุนุงู†ุฏ ู„ู… ูŠู‚ุฏุฑ ุนู„ู‰ ุฃู† ูŠู‚ูˆู„: ุฅู† ุนู†ุฒุฉ ูˆุขู„ ุธููŠุฑ ูˆุฃู…ุซุงู„ู‡ู… ูƒู„ู‡ู…ุŒ ู…ุดุงู‡ูŠุฑู‡ู… ูˆุงู„ุฃุชุจุงุนุŒ ุฅู†ู‡ู… ู…ู‚ุฑูˆู† ุจุงู„ุจุนุซุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุดูƒูˆู† ููŠู‡; ูˆู„ุง ูŠู‚ุฏุฑ ุฃู† ูŠู‚ูˆู„: ุฅู†ู‡ู… ูŠู‚ูˆู„ูˆู†: ุฅู† ูƒุชุงุจ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ุฏ ุงู„ุญุถุฑุŒ ูˆุฅู†ู‡ู… ุนุงุฆููˆู‡ุŒ ูˆู…ุชุจุนูˆ ู…ุง ุฃุญุฏุซ ุขุจุงุคู‡ู…ุŒ ู…ู…ุง ูŠุณู…ูˆู†ู‡ ุงู„ุญู‚ุŒ ูˆูŠูุถู„ูˆู†ู‡ ุนู„ู‰ ุดุฑูŠุนุฉ ุงู„ู„ู‡ุŒ ูุฅู† ูƒุงู† ู„ู„ูˆุถูˆุก ุซู…ุงู†ูŠุฉ ู†ูˆุงู‚ุถุŒ ูููŠู‡ู… ู…ู† ู†ูˆุงู‚ุถ ุงู„ุฅุณู„ุงู… ุฃูƒุซุฑ ู…ู† ู…ุงุฆุฉ ู†ุงู‚ุถ
                            - end of quote -

                            He openly lied against whole tribes and families in the above quote and accused them with the ugliest of accusations, yet you want us to respect him!

                            These are just one of the few quotes. He and his followers did not leave anyone in the region - especially scholars! - except that they accused them of all kinds of disbelief and actively attacked Muslims and killed them!
                            Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 28-05-20, 09:31 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
                              Here is what Abu Hashim Rahimullah has translated it as (do not trust him, read the arabic for yourself - page 314):
                              I have the Arabic printed version at home. I have read the page you're referring to, I think however that you're misunderstanding. These types of shirk that occurred in these places puts one out of the folds of Islaam, na3am. However, the Shaykh didn't make mass takfir on the ummah. Rather he had a clear principle he worked by which was that he doesn't make takfir on individuals as long as the proof was not established on them and they were eligible for the excuse of ignorance. This is a very important matter and precisely why the Shaykh keeps saying that he doesn't make takfir on the masses. This is just slander that his enemies used against him. In the same volume he says this:

                              โ€œAnd as for takfฤซr: Then I make takfฤซr of the one who knew (the reality) of the religion of the Messenger, and then after he came to know it, he reviled it, prohibited the people from it and showed enmity to the one who implemented it. This is the one I declare a disbeliever and most of the ummah, and all praise is due to Allฤh, is not like that. As for fighting, then we did not fight anyone till this day except to protect our lives and honour. They are the ones who came to our lands, and they left no [other] possibility [for us]. However, we may sometimes fight some of them from the angle of reprisal [i.e. for their unjust attack against us], and the reward for evil is [an evil] of its like.โ€Al-Durar al-Saniyyah (1/73)


                              Shaykh Muแธฅammad bin สฟAbd al-Wahhฤb also said: โ€œAs for what occurred of soliciting intercession from the Prophets and Righteous after their death, venerating their graves, building domes over them, praying next to them, taking them as places of celebration, and putting keepers [guards] over them and making oaths to them, all of these are newly arisen affairs which the Prophet (๏ˆ) informed about and warned against... This is what has necessitated the differing between us and people until the affair led them to make takfฤซr of us, fight us and declare the spilling of our blood and taking of our wealth lawful, until Allฤh aided us against them and granted us victory over them. This is what we call the people to and we fight them [in their aggression against us] over this, after we have established the proof against them from the Book of Allฤh, the Sunnah of His Messenger and the consensus of the Righteous Salaf.โ€ Majmลซสพ Muสฟallafฤt al-Shaykh Muแธฅammad bin สฟAbd al-Waแธฅแธฅฤb (7/110-115).


                              "And when it is the case that we do not make takfฤซr of the one who worships the idol (tomb) which is on the grave of สฟAbd al-Qฤdir, and the idol which is on the grave of Aแธฅmad al-Badawฤซ and their likes, due to their ignorance, and the absence of the one to notify them (of their opposition), then how could we make takfฤซr of the one who does not associate partners with Allฤh, when he does not emigrate to us and who does not make takfฤซr and does not fight (against us)? โ€œGlory be to you (O Lord), this is a mighty slander.โ€ (24:16). Fatawa wa Masฤสพil in Majmลซสฟ Muสพallafฤt (4/11)

                              Having said that, I don't wish to discuss this topic with you any further for the same reason I mentioned to Abu Sulayman and some additional ones. Wa Allaahu a3lam.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                                So you don't 'believe in' interpreting/translating things like 'ุฑุถูŠ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡' to 'May Allah be pleased with him' as you you don''t know the real meaning?
                                It can be translated, if there is no fear of misunderstandings (as in the above case).

                                This however does not change the fact that the real meaning of the divine attributes is only known to Allah ta'ala, because it is connected to the reality of the divine Self and this is beyond our comprehension.
                                (This is something that Athari scholars have vehemently defended.)

                                On a different note:
                                The time to edit posts is really very short. The death date of the above mentioned Hanbali scholar is 1181 AH and not 1184 AH as accidentally written.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X