Originally posted by AbuNajm
View Post
The "Salafis" invented this dichotomy in order to make the people believe that one has either to be with them or with some cultist wannabe "Sufis".
The truth however is with those who transmitted this religion to us and through whom Allah ta'ala has protected this religion. The first people to be mentioned here are the scholars of the 4 Madhahib and this without any doubt!
ALL 4 Madhahib and not just the Hanabila, nor a tiny a faction among them as "Salafis" want us to believe (because in their logic most Hanabila had also "deviated from the correct way")!
Originally posted by AbuNajm
View Post
First of all: Tasawwuf is an Islamic science that both Hanabila and Asha'ira have studied, practiced and taught! The major scholars of the Hanabila were Sufiyya! This a known issue and there is no way to deny this!
Then: This complete disconnection between 'Aqida and Fiqh exists only in the "Salafi" mind, but as for the rest of the Muslims, then we believe that those who correctly transmitted the jurisprudence, also correctly transmitted the creed! This is also explicitly stated by the classical Hanabila!
Note that "Salafis" in reality do not even agree with the Fiqh of the 4 Madhahib in the very first place and just want to [mis]use the Hanbali Madhhab in order not be viewed as the new group that they are!
Historically speaking there existed the Ahl al-Hadith and the Ahl al-Ra`i and they would criticize each other and this with the knowledge that the heads of both groups were Sunni scholars! They then basically came to an agreement that their differences were just Ijtihadi in nature and not a reason to view each other as deviant (even though some of their earlier scholars may have regarded each other as such).
Likewise is the issue between Ash'aris and Hanbalis! And likewise the issue between Ash'aris and Maturidis! These people would all study from each other and benefit from each other and it's a form of evilness and deception to mention only those times and instances were they would criticize each other without those where they would be united and benefit from each other!
Then: Imam Abu Hanifa's (d. 150 AH) creed and that of Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) is not 100 % the same, even if their differences are not big! Rather the creed of the Maturidiyya is actually much more representative of that of Imam Abu Hanifa than that of any other group! And the creed of classical Hanabila is representative of that of Imam Ahmad!
There are more than enough indications and proofs for this and the scholars of Islam were not idiots in order to be upon misguidance until a sect appeared in the end of times and "enlightened" us with that which those before us did not seem to know!
You acting as if Ash'aris and Maturidis are not Sunnis leads actually to the invalidation of the divine law, because the majority of the scholars of these 4 Madhahib (other than the Hanabila) are in creed in agreement with them! And even the Hanabila: The majority of them were not Taymiyyan in creed! Even Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) is understood differently by classical Hanabila than how you people understand him!
So what remains of Sunni Islam then using your mindset and acting as if the scholars were all a bunch of ignorant deviants and maybe even heretics?!
Note also that these very scholars that you try to accuse of deviancy had access to works that none of us has access today! To think that today we know Islam better than them is simply a prove for great ignorance!
Originally posted by AbuNajm
View Post
This does not justify to use that which you misunderstand (!) from his works to accuse Muslims of "Shirk akbar"! Even when he called Istighatha as Shirk, then he only regarded specific and rare types accompanied with CLEAR polytheists beliefs to be greater polytheism!
(And we AGREE with him with these cases being Shirk akbar!)
And you people exaggerate way too much regarding him as if he's your prophet! Why is that you or not able to take the words of other scholars into consideration?
You people even can't take into consideration the explanation of his words by other Hanabila as if your own understanding is somehow divinely inspired?! Allahul musta'an!
Originally posted by AbuNajm
View Post
His position regarding the visitation of the grave of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is a clear and quite grave mistake!
And his claims above have been shown to be incorrect one by one by Imam al-Subki (d. 756 AH) in his Shifa` al-Siqam fi Ziyarat Khayr al-Anam! And Imam Ibn Taymiyya did not even respond to this work and this is quite unlike his style (because he loved writing refutations). It really seems he actually liked the reply by Imam al-Subki!
As for Shifa` al-Siqam being a great work on this issue (meaning the visitation!), then this is attested by major scholars and I quoted some of them like Imam al-'Iraqi (d. 826 AH), Imam al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH) and Imam al-Haytami (d. 974 AH) HERE.
One of the people of knowledge (i.e. al-Safadi (d. 764 AH)), who was a student of both Ibn Taymiyya and al-Subki, even stated the following poetry (also quoted in the above link with source) in praise of Shifa` al-Siqam of Imam al-Subki:
لقول ابن تيمية زخرف … أتى في زيارة خير الأنام
فجاءت نفوس الورى تشتكي … إلى خير حبر وأزكى إمام
فصنف هذا وداواهم … فكان يقيناً شفاء السقام
“Ibn Taymiyya gilded his statement … Concerning the visit to the Best of Creation,
Whereupon souls came in droves to complain … To the best of scholars and purest of Imâms
Who compiled this book, providing them with a cure … And so it was indeed The Healing of Sickness.”
- end of quote -
Did you people ever care to read this book and see for yourself the proofs?! I seriously doubt it!
Yet you'll blindly adhere to a position of Ibn Taymiyya on an issue, where he was clearly mistaken!
Originally posted by AbuNajm
View Post
Whatever the case may be, his position on the visitation is clearly abnormal.
Even if we for the sake of argument say "it's not abnormal", then how is it allowed for you to disregard the RELIED UPON view of all 4 Madhahib for the view of ONE scholar? Is this how justice works? Is this how you show respect to those who have transmitted the law?
By thinking of them as people who added to the law things out of nowhere?
Originally posted by AbuNajm
View Post
قَالَ الْبِرْزَالِيُّ: وَفِي شَوَّالٍ مِنْهَا شَكَى الصُّوفِيَّةُ بِالْقَاهِرَةِ عَلَى الشَّيْخِ تَقِيِّ الدِّينِ وَكَلَامِهِ فِي ابْنِ عَرَبِيٍّ وَغَيْرِهِ إِلَى الدَّوْلَةِ، فَرَدُّوا الْأَمْرَ فِي ذَلِكَ إِلَى الْقَاضِي الشَّافِعِيِّ، فَعُقِدَ لَهُ مَجْلِسٌ، وَادَّعَى عَلَيْهِ ابْنُ عَطَاءٍ بِأَشْيَاءَ، فَلَمْ يَثْبُتْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْهَا شَيْءٌ، لَكِنَّهُ قَالَ: لَا يُسْتَغَاثُ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ، وَلَا يُسْتَغَاثُ بِالنَّبِيِّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - اسْتِغَاثَةً بِمَعْنَى الْعِبَادَةِ، وَلَكِنْ يُتَوَسَّلُ بِهِ، وَيُتَشَفَّعُ بِهِ إِلَى اللَّهِ
- end of quote -
Similar to this can be seen mentioned in other sources. Note how he clearly only rejects Istighatha here and says that Tawassul and Tashaffu' is correct!
This can be even found in the works of Imam Ibn Taymiyya himself, because we find the following in Majmu' al-Fatawa:
وَكَذَلِكَ مِمَّا يُشْرَعُ التَّوَسُّلُ بِهِ فِي الدُّعَاءِ كَمَا فِي الْحَدِيثِ الَّذِي رَوَاهُ التِّرْمِذِيُّ وَصَحَّحَهُ أَنَّ {النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَّمَ شَخْصًا أَنْ يَقُولَ: اللَّهُمَّ إنِّي أَسْأَلُك وَأَتَوَسَّلُ إلَيْك بِنَبِيِّك مُحَمَّدٍ نَبِيِّ الرَّحْمَةِ يَا مُحَمَّدُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إنِّي أَتَوَسَّلُ بِك إلَى رَبِّي فِي حَاجَتِي لِيَقْضِيَهَا اللَّهُمَّ فَشَفِّعْهُ فِي} " فَهَذَا التَّوَسُّلُ بِهِ حَسَنٌ . وَأَمَّا دُعَاؤُهُ وَالِاسْتِغَاثَةُ بِهِ: فَحَرَامٌ. وَالْفَرْقُ بَيْنَ هَذَيْنِ مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْهِ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ. الْمُتَوَسِّلُ إنَّمَا يَدْعُو اللَّهَ وَيُخَاطِبُهُ وَيَطْلُبُ مِنْهُ لَا يَدْعُو غَيْرَهُ إلَّا عَلَى سَبِيلِ اسْتِحْضَارِهِ، لَا عَلَى سَبِيلِ الطَّلَبِ مِنْهُ وَأَمَّا الدَّاعِي وَالْمُسْتَغِيثُ فَهُوَ الَّذِي يَسْأَلُ الْمَدْعُوَّ وَيَطْلُبُ مِنْهُ وَيَسْتَغِيثُهُ وَيَتَوَكَّلُ عَلَيْهِ وَاَللَّهُ هُوَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ
- end of quote -
Imam al-Subki even indicated towards this in his Shifa` al-Siqam when he stated (as already posted HERE):
فإن قال المُخَالف : أنا لا أمنع التوسل والتشفع لما قَدَّمتُم من الآثار والأدلة ، وإنما أمنع إطلاق التَّجوُهِ والاستغاثة ، لأنَّ فيهما إيهام أنَّ المُتَجوَّهَ به ، والمُستغاثَ به ؛ أعلى من المُتجَّوهِ عليه والمُستغاثِ عليه . قُلْنَا : هذا لا يَعتقده مُسلمٌ ، ولا يدل لفظ التَّجَوهُ والاستغاثة عليه ، فإنَّ التَّجُوهَ من الجَاهِ والوجَاهةِ ، ومعناه : علو القدر والمنزلة ، وقد يُتوسّل بذي الجاه إلى من هو أعلى جاهاً منه ، والاستغاثة طلب الغوث . فالمستغيث يطلب من المستغاث به أن يحصل له الغوث من غيره ، وإن كان أعلى منه ، فالتوسل والتَّشفعُ والتَّجوُه والاستغاثة بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وسائر الأنبياء والصالحين ؛ ليس لها معنى في قلوب المسلمين غير ذلك ، ولا يقصدُ بها أحدٌ منهم سواه . فمن لم ينشرح صدره لذلك ؛ فَليبك على نفسه ، نسأل العافية
“Now if the opponent says: I’m not disallowing Tawassul and Tashaffu’ (seeking intercession) because of the reports and proofs that you’ve mentioned, but rather I disallow the usage of Tajawwuh and Istighathah, because they create the impression that the one by whom aid is sought is higher than the One whose aid is sought [in reality].
We say [to him]: No Muslim believes this nor does the expression of Tajawwuh and Istighathah indicate this. That is because Tajawwuh comes from [the word] Jah and Wajahah and its meaning is high worth and status. Tawassul could be sought from a possessor of rank (Jah) unto one who possesses a higher rank than him. Istighathah is seeking aid, and the one who is seeking aid is asking from one by whom aid is sought in order to obtain aid from other than him, even if that other is greater than him. So Tawassul, Tashaffu’, Tajawwuh and Istighathah with the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – and the rest of the Prophets (Anbiya`) and righteous people (Salihin) has no meaning in the heart of the Muslims other than this and no one from them intends by [performing] these other than this [meaning].
So whoever’s breast is not opened with this, then let him cry over himself. We ask Allah for well-being.”
- end of quote -
Originally posted by AbuNajm
View Post
Tawassul and Tashaffu' is allowed by both and this is a known issue. And the visitation is also regarded as good by both groups!
These issues have literally no connection to 'Ilm al-Kalam, so I don't even know how you can make these type of comments here! This by the way proves that you're a revisionist and a not looking at the whole issue from a classical perspective.
I'll continue answering in the next post insha`Allah.
Comment