Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Seeking intercession with the Prophet (s): Its ruling according to classical scholars

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

    Ameen.

    There may not have been a historical dichotomy between "Salafi" and "Sufi", but there definitely is one today. No point in trying to wish it away.
    You said it yourself: It's a modern thing. You don't expect me to believe that the truth is either with the followers of IAW (d. 1206 AH) and those who are influenced by him (i.e. "Salafis") or some cultist and fake "Sufis".

    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
    Classically there has existed Ahl as-Sunnah and Ahl al-Kalaam and Sufis tended to belong to the latter along with Ash'aris and Maturidis. Ahl al-Kalaam do not belong to Ahl as-Sunnah when comparing apples to apples. However, compared to Shi'ah, Mu'tazilah, the Qaramitah, and others, then Ahl al-Kalaam are closer to Ahl as-Sunnah than them.

    Just because many of the individual Fuqahaa' who adhered to a Madh'hab inclined towards Kalaam and the Ash'ari creed, does not require that their Aqidah and philosophical inclinations come to define "Ahl as-Sunnah" in Aqidah, Manhaj, and Mantiq.

    Ahl as-Sunnah are defined not only by their following the Fiqh of the four schools, but the Aqidah of the A'immat al-Arba'ah as well. None of the four Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah were Ash'ari or Maturidi. So, to say that either of those two scholars constitute a part of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqidah is simply not possible.

    Any attempts at making the Ash'ari or Maturidi creeds representative of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqidah is destined to fail because what makes them separate creeds is precisely their difference with the four Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah. If Ash'aris and Maturidis did not differ with the four Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah, there would have been no need to create a separate creed in the first place.

    Yes, a Sufi can be Hanbali and Ash'ari or even Athari. That doesn't mean Sufism can then be considered a part of Hanbalism or Atharism.
    Sorry, but the above shows really ignorance regarding the reality and is nothing but "Salafi" propaganda.

    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
    I don't think this is the whole story. Ibn Taymiyyah divided Tawassul into at least 3 categories- legislated, differed over, and Shirk.
    He is a scholar among others and not infallible.
    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
    What Ibn Taymiyyah said about this is very clear:

    ูˆู…ุง ุฐูƒุฑู‡ ุงู„ุณุงุฆู„ ู…ู† ุงู„ุฃุญุงุฏูŠุซ ููŠ ุฒูŠุงุฑุฉ ู‚ุจุฑ ุงู„ู†ุจูŠ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู… ููƒู„ู‡ุง ุถุนูŠูุฉ ุจุงุชูุงู‚ ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุนู„ู… ุจุงู„ุญุฏูŠุซุŒ ุจู„ ู‡ูŠ ู…ูˆุถูˆุนุฉ ู„ู… ูŠุฎุฑุฌ ุฃุญุฏ ู…ู† ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุณู†ู† ุงู„ู…ุนุชู…ุฏุฉ ุดูŠุฆุง ู…ู†ู‡ุงุŒ ูˆู„ู… ูŠุญุชุฌ ุฃุญุฏ ู…ู† ุงู„ุฃุฆู…ุฉ ุจุดูŠุก ู…ู†ู‡ุงุŒ ุจู„ ู…ุงู„ูƒ ุฅู…ุงู… ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ู…ุฏูŠู†ุฉ ุงู„ู†ุจูˆูŠุฉ ุงู„ุฐูŠู† ู‡ู… ุฃุนู„ู… ุงู„ู†ุงุณ ุจุญูƒู… ู‡ุฐู‡ ุงู„ู…ุณุฃู„ุฉ ูƒุฑู‡ ุฃู† ูŠู‚ูˆู„ ุงู„ุฑุฌู„ ุฒุฑุช ู‚ุจุฑ ุงู„ู†ุจูŠ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…. ูˆู„ูˆ ูƒุงู† ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ู„ูุธ ู…ุนุฑูˆูุง ุนู†ุฏู‡ู… ุฃูˆ ู…ุดุฑูˆุนุง ุฃูˆ ู…ุฃุซูˆุฑุง ุนู† ุงู„ู†ุจูŠ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู… ู„ู… ูŠูƒุฑู‡ู‡ ุนุงู„ู… ุงู„ู…ุฏูŠู†ุฉ.
    ูˆุงู„ุฅู…ุงู… ุฃุญู…ุฏ ุฃุนู„ู… ุงู„ู†ุงุณ ููŠ ุฒู…ุงู†ู‡ ุจุงู„ุณู†ุฉ ู„ู…ุง ุณุฆู„ ุนู† ุฐู„ูƒ ู„ู… ูŠูƒู† ุนู†ุฏู‡ ู…ุง ูŠุนุชู…ุฏ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ููŠ ุฐู„ูƒ ู…ู† ุงู„ุฃุญุงุฏูŠุซ ุฅู„ุง ุญุฏูŠุซ ุฃุจูŠ ู‡ุฑูŠุฑุฉ ุฃู† ุงู„ู†ุจูŠ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู… ู‚ุงู„: ยซู…ุง ู…ู† ุฑุฌู„ ูŠุณู„ู… ุนู„ูŠู‘ ุฅู„ุง ุฑุฏู‘ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‘ ุฑูˆุญูŠ ุญุชู‰ ุฃุฑุฏู‘ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ุงู„ุณู„ุงู…ยป ยซ1ยป. ูˆุนู„ู‰ ู‡ุฐุง ุงุนุชู…ุฏ ุฃุจูˆ ุฏุงูˆุฏ ููŠ ุณู†ู†ู‡.
    ูˆูƒุฐู„ูƒ ู…ุงู„ูƒ ููŠ ุงู„ู…ูˆุทุฃ ุฑูˆู‰ ุนู† ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุจู† ุนู…ุฑ ุฃู†ู‡ ูƒุงู† ุฅุฐุง ุฏุฎู„ ุงู„ู…ุณุฌุฏ ู‚ุงู„:
    ยซุงู„ุณู„ุงู… ุนู„ูŠูƒ ูŠุง ุฑุณูˆู„ ุงู„ู„ู‡ุŒ ุงู„ุณู„ุงู… ุนู„ูŠูƒ ูŠุง ุฃุจุง ุจูƒุฑุŒ ุงู„ุณู„ุงู… ุนู„ูŠูƒ ูŠุง ุฃุจุชยป ุซู… ูŠู†ุตุฑู ยซ2

    All the Ahadith about visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS are weak and fabricated by agreement of Ahl al-Ilm bil-Hadith. None of Ahl as-Sunan related any of those narrations and none of the Imams relied on any of them. Imam Malik, the Imam of Ahl al-Madinah, who were the most knowledgeable of people about the ruling on this issue, disliked that a person say "I will visit the grave of the Prophet SAWS". If this pronouncement had been known to them, legislated, or transmitted from the Prophet SAWS, the scholar of al-Madinah would not have disapproved of it.

    And then Imam Ahmad, the most knowledgeable of people of the Sunnah in his time, when asked about that, there were no reliable Ahadith about that according to him except the Hadith of Abu Hurayrah RA that the Prophet SAWS said: "There is no man that sends Salaam to me except that Allah returns my soul to me so that I may return to him the Salaam". Abu Dawud also relied on this in his Sunan.

    Likewise Imam Malik in his al-Muwata' transmitted from Abd Allah bin Umar, that when he would enter the Masjid he would say: "as-Salam Alayka, Oh Messenger of Allah; as-Salam Alayka, Oh Aba Bakr; as-Salam Alayka Oh father", then he would turn away.

    These are facts and not opinions. No one has had a response to the above for over 700 years except to say- "well, so-and-so has a different opinion".

    Without authentic proof, opinions don't matter when it comes to worship and Tawheed.
    Look, this is your problem! You read something from Ibn Taymiyya and then accept it like it's revelation! Note that he has a style where he exaggerates sometimes (even regarding some really trivial issues), but you people don't even go and research whether he's right on this issue or not, but BLINDLY accept what he stated without any further investigation!

    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:

    ู„ู‚ูˆู„ ุงุจู† ุชูŠู…ูŠุฉ ุฒุฎุฑู โ€ฆ ุฃุชู‰ ููŠ ุฒูŠุงุฑุฉ ุฎูŠุฑ ุงู„ุฃู†ุงู…
    ูุฌุงุกุช ู†ููˆุณ ุงู„ูˆุฑู‰ ุชุดุชูƒูŠ โ€ฆ ุฅู„ู‰ ุฎูŠุฑ ุญุจุฑ ูˆุฃุฒูƒู‰ ุฅู…ุงู…
    ูุตู†ู ู‡ุฐุง ูˆุฏุงูˆุงู‡ู… โ€ฆ ููƒุงู† ูŠู‚ูŠู†ุงู‹ ุดูุงุก ุงู„ุณู‚ุงู…


    โ€œIbn Taymiyya gilded his statement โ€ฆ Concerning the visit to the Best of Creation,
    Whereupon souls came in droves to complain โ€ฆ To the best of scholars and purest of Imรขms
    Who compiled this book, providing them with a cure โ€ฆ And so it was indeed The Healing of Sickness.
    โ€
    - 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
    Ibn Taymiyyah was a Mujtahid Mutlaq. To say that "his Hanbali colleagues disagreed with him" is not saying much. Yes, Ibn Taymiyyah had isolated views in which he differed with the Hanbali school. However, that was not simply due to whims, that was because of his Ijtihaad that he was entitled to due to his high rank in knowledge and mastery of the sciences.

    It may be that he was correct in an isolated view while the relied-upon position in the school, although a valid view, is not correct.

    It is not necessarily true that a Mujtahid's isolated view is "abnormal" or that it is incorrect.
    I know that the view that he was a Mujtahid Mutlaq exists. The other view (which seems to be the majority view) is that he was a Mujtahid inside the Madhhab.
    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
    Let's have a look at the statement and the accounts you mentioned above.
    An example is what Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH) (who is one of his students) stated in his al-Bidaya wal Nihaya:

    ู‚ูŽุงู„ูŽ ุงู„ู’ุจูุฑู’ุฒูŽุงู„ููŠู‘ู: ูˆูŽูููŠ ุดูŽูˆู‘ูŽุงู„ู ู…ูู†ู’ู‡ูŽุง ุดูŽูƒูŽู‰ ุงู„ุตู‘ููˆูููŠู‘ูŽุฉู ุจูุงู„ู’ู‚ูŽุงู‡ูุฑูŽุฉู ุนูŽู„ูŽู‰ ุงู„ุดู‘ูŽูŠู’ุฎู ุชูŽู‚ููŠู‘ู ุงู„ุฏู‘ููŠู†ู ูˆูŽูƒูŽู„ูŽุงู…ูู‡ู ูููŠ ุงุจู’ู†ู ุนูŽุฑูŽุจููŠู‘ู ูˆูŽุบูŽูŠู’ุฑูู‡ู ุฅูู„ูŽู‰ ุงู„ุฏู‘ูŽูˆู’ู„ูŽุฉูุŒ ููŽุฑูŽุฏู‘ููˆุง ุงู„ู’ุฃูŽู…ู’ุฑูŽ ูููŠ ุฐูŽู„ููƒูŽ ุฅูู„ูŽู‰ ุงู„ู’ู‚ูŽุงุถููŠ ุงู„ุดู‘ูŽุงููุนููŠู‘ูุŒ ููŽุนูู‚ูุฏูŽ ู„ูŽู‡ู ู…ูŽุฌู’ู„ูุณูŒุŒ ูˆูŽุงุฏู‘ูŽุนูŽู‰ ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ุงุจู’ู†ู ุนูŽุทูŽุงุกู ุจูุฃูŽุดู’ูŠูŽุงุกูŽุŒ ููŽู„ูŽู…ู’ ูŠูŽุซู’ุจูุชู’ ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ู…ูู†ู’ู‡ูŽุง ุดูŽูŠู’ุกูŒุŒ ู„ูŽูƒูู†ู‘ูŽู‡ู ู‚ูŽุงู„ูŽ: ู„ูŽุง ูŠูุณู’ุชูŽุบูŽุงุซู ุฅูู„ู‘ูŽุง ุจูุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ูุŒ ูˆูŽู„ูŽุง ูŠูุณู’ุชูŽุบูŽุงุซู ุจูุงู„ู†ู‘ูŽุจููŠู‘ู - ุตูŽู„ู‘ูŽู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ูˆูŽุณูŽู„ู‘ูŽู…ูŽ - ุงุณู’ุชูุบูŽุงุซูŽุฉู‹ ุจูู…ูŽุนู’ู†ูŽู‰ ุงู„ู’ุนูุจูŽุงุฏูŽุฉูุŒ ูˆูŽู„ูŽูƒูู†ู’ ูŠูุชูŽูˆูŽุณู‘ูŽู„ู ุจูู‡ูุŒ ูˆูŽูŠูุชูŽุดูŽูู‘ูŽุนู ุจูู‡ู ุฅูู„ูŽู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู
    - 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:

    ูˆูŽูƒูŽุฐูŽู„ููƒูŽ ู…ูู…ู‘ูŽุง ูŠูุดู’ุฑูŽุนู ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽูˆูŽุณู‘ูู„ู ุจูู‡ู ูููŠ ุงู„ุฏู‘ูุนูŽุงุกู ูƒูŽู…ูŽุง ูููŠ ุงู„ู’ุญูŽุฏููŠุซู ุงู„ู‘ูŽุฐููŠ ุฑูŽูˆูŽุงู‡ู ุงู„ุชู‘ูุฑู’ู…ูุฐููŠู‘ู ูˆูŽุตูŽุญู‘ูŽุญูŽู‡ู ุฃูŽู†ู‘ูŽ {ุงู„ู†ู‘ูŽุจููŠู‘ูŽ ุตูŽู„ู‘ูŽู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ูˆูŽุณูŽู„ู‘ูŽู…ูŽ ุนูŽู„ู‘ูŽู…ูŽ ุดูŽุฎู’ุตู‹ุง ุฃูŽู†ู’ ูŠูŽู‚ููˆู„ูŽ: ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ูู…ู‘ูŽ ุฅู†ู‘ููŠ ุฃูŽุณู’ุฃูŽู„ููƒ ูˆูŽุฃูŽุชูŽูˆูŽุณู‘ูŽู„ู ุฅู„ูŽูŠู’ูƒ ุจูู†ูŽุจููŠู‘ููƒ ู…ูุญูŽู…ู‘ูŽุฏู ู†ูŽุจููŠู‘ู ุงู„ุฑู‘ูŽุญู’ู…ูŽุฉู ูŠูŽุง ู…ูุญูŽู…ู‘ูŽุฏู ูŠูŽุง ุฑูŽุณููˆู„ูŽ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุฅู†ู‘ููŠ ุฃูŽุชูŽูˆูŽุณู‘ูŽู„ู ุจููƒ ุฅู„ูŽู‰ ุฑูŽุจู‘ููŠ ูููŠ ุญูŽุงุฌูŽุชููŠ ู„ููŠูŽู‚ู’ุถููŠูŽู‡ูŽุง ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ูู…ู‘ูŽ ููŽุดูŽูู‘ูุนู’ู‡ู ูููŠ} " ููŽู‡ูŽุฐูŽุง ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽูˆูŽุณู‘ูู„ู ุจูู‡ู ุญูŽุณูŽู†ูŒ . ูˆูŽุฃูŽู…ู‘ูŽุง ุฏูุนูŽุงุคูู‡ู ูˆูŽุงู„ูุงุณู’ุชูุบูŽุงุซูŽุฉู ุจูู‡ู: ููŽุญูŽุฑูŽุงู…ูŒ. ูˆูŽุงู„ู’ููŽุฑู’ู‚ู ุจูŽูŠู’ู†ูŽ ู‡ูŽุฐูŽูŠู’ู†ู ู…ูุชู‘ูŽููŽู‚ูŒ ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ุจูŽูŠู’ู†ูŽ ุงู„ู’ู…ูุณู’ู„ูู…ููŠู†ูŽ. ุงู„ู’ู…ูุชูŽูˆูŽุณู‘ูู„ู ุฅู†ู‘ูŽู…ูŽุง ูŠูŽุฏู’ุนููˆ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ูŽ ูˆูŽูŠูุฎูŽุงุทูุจูู‡ู ูˆูŽูŠูŽุทู’ู„ูุจู ู…ูู†ู’ู‡ู ู„ูŽุง ูŠูŽุฏู’ุนููˆ ุบูŽูŠู’ุฑูŽู‡ู ุฅู„ู‘ูŽุง ุนูŽู„ูŽู‰ ุณูŽุจููŠู„ู ุงุณู’ุชูุญู’ุถูŽุงุฑูู‡ูุŒ ู„ูŽุง ุนูŽู„ูŽู‰ ุณูŽุจููŠู„ู ุงู„ุทู‘ูŽู„ูŽุจู ู…ูู†ู’ู‡ู ูˆูŽุฃูŽู…ู‘ูŽุง ุงู„ุฏู‘ูŽุงุนููŠ ูˆูŽุงู„ู’ู…ูุณู’ุชูŽุบููŠุซู ููŽู‡ููˆูŽ ุงู„ู‘ูŽุฐููŠ ูŠูŽุณู’ุฃูŽู„ู ุงู„ู’ู…ูŽุฏู’ุนููˆู‘ูŽ ูˆูŽูŠูŽุทู’ู„ูุจู ู…ูู†ู’ู‡ู ูˆูŽูŠูŽุณู’ุชูŽุบููŠุซูู‡ู ูˆูŽูŠูŽุชูŽูˆูŽูƒู‘ูŽู„ู ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ูˆูŽุงูŽู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ู‡ููˆูŽ ุฑูŽุจู‘ู ุงู„ู’ุนูŽุงู„ูŽู…ููŠู†ูŽ
    - end of quote -

    Imam al-Subki even indicated towards this in his Shifa` al-Siqam when he stated (as already posted HERE):

    ูุฅู† ู‚ุงู„ ุงู„ู…ูุฎูŽุงู„ู : ุฃู†ุง ู„ุง ุฃู…ู†ุน ุงู„ุชูˆุณู„ ูˆุงู„ุชุดูุน ู„ู…ุง ู‚ูŽุฏู‘ูŽู…ุชูู… ู…ู† ุงู„ุขุซุงุฑ ูˆุงู„ุฃุฏู„ุฉ ุŒ ูˆุฅู†ู…ุง ุฃู…ู†ุน ุฅุทู„ุงู‚ ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽุฌูˆูู‡ู ูˆุงู„ุงุณุชุบุงุซุฉ ุŒ ู„ุฃู†ู‘ูŽ ููŠู‡ู…ุง ุฅูŠู‡ุงู… ุฃู†ู‘ูŽ ุงู„ู…ูุชูŽุฌูˆู‘ูŽู‡ูŽ ุจู‡ ุŒ ูˆุงู„ู…ูุณุชุบุงุซูŽ ุจู‡ ุ› ุฃุนู„ู‰ ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ูุชุฌู‘ูŽูˆู‡ู ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุงู„ู…ูุณุชุบุงุซู ุนู„ูŠู‡ . ู‚ูู„ู’ู†ูŽุง : ู‡ุฐุง ู„ุง ูŠูŽุนุชู‚ุฏู‡ ู…ูุณู„ู…ูŒ ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุฏู„ ู„ูุธ ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽุฌูŽูˆู‡ู ูˆุงู„ุงุณุชุบุงุซุฉ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ุŒ ูุฅู†ู‘ูŽ ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽุฌููˆู‡ูŽ ู…ู† ุงู„ุฌูŽุงู‡ู ูˆุงู„ูˆุฌูŽุงู‡ุฉู ุŒ ูˆู…ุนู†ุงู‡ : ุนู„ูˆ ุงู„ู‚ุฏุฑ ูˆุงู„ู…ู†ุฒู„ุฉ ุŒ ูˆู‚ุฏ ูŠูุชูˆุณู‘ู„ ุจุฐูŠ ุงู„ุฌุงู‡ ุฅู„ู‰ ู…ู† ู‡ูˆ ุฃุนู„ู‰ ุฌุงู‡ุงู‹ ู…ู†ู‡ ุŒ ูˆุงู„ุงุณุชุบุงุซุฉ ุทู„ุจ ุงู„ุบูˆุซ . ูุงู„ู…ุณุชุบูŠุซ ูŠุทู„ุจ ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ุณุชุบุงุซ ุจู‡ ุฃู† ูŠุญุตู„ ู„ู‡ ุงู„ุบูˆุซ ู…ู† ุบูŠุฑู‡ ุŒ ูˆุฅู† ูƒุงู† ุฃุนู„ู‰ ู…ู†ู‡ ุŒ ูุงู„ุชูˆุณู„ ูˆุงู„ุชู‘ูŽุดูุนู ูˆุงู„ุชู‘ูŽุฌูˆูู‡ ูˆุงู„ุงุณุชุบุงุซุฉ ุจุงู„ู†ุจูŠ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… ูˆุณุงุฆุฑ ุงู„ุฃู†ุจูŠุงุก ูˆุงู„ุตุงู„ุญูŠู† ุ› ู„ูŠุณ ู„ู‡ุง ู…ุนู†ู‰ ููŠ ู‚ู„ูˆุจ ุงู„ู…ุณู„ู…ูŠู† ุบูŠุฑ ุฐู„ูƒ ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠู‚ุตุฏู ุจู‡ุง ุฃุญุฏูŒ ู…ู†ู‡ู… ุณูˆุงู‡ . ูู…ู† ู„ู… ูŠู†ุดุฑุญ ุตุฏุฑู‡ ู„ุฐู„ูƒ ุ› ููŽู„ูŠุจูƒ ุนู„ู‰ ู†ูุณู‡ ุŒ ู†ุณุฃู„ ุงู„ุนุงููŠุฉ

    โ€œNow if the opponent says: Iโ€™m not disallowing Tawassul and Tashaffuโ€™ (seeking intercession) because of the reports and proofs that youโ€™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, Tashaffuโ€™, Tajawwuh and Istighathah with the Prophet โ€“ sallallahu โ€˜alayhi wa sallam โ€“ 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 whoeverโ€™s breast is not opened with this, then let him cry over himself. We ask Allah for well-being.โ€

    - end of quote -

    Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
    Which scholars criticized Ibn Taymiyyah for the above views? The Subkis? Other Ash'ari or Sufi scholars?

    If you can bring forward quotes from scholars who are Athari and not from the Mutakallimeen, that criticized Ibn Taymiyyah, then that would indeed be something to consider.

    The same old rivalries and your bringing quotes from scholars who were Ash'ari or from the Mutakallimeen is not going to make a difference.
    Again: The above indicates ignorance, because the issues discussed here are NOT from among those issues which are famously disagreed upon among the Hanabila and the Asha'ira (like the issue of the divine speech and the issue of Ta`wil).
    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.
    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 18-03-21, 10:51 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
      The Messenger of Allah SAWS cannot assist anyone after his death. To believe that he can is Shirk, however it may be excused for the ignorant person.
      Allahul musta'an!
      The above is purely a Najdi belief and not even the belief of Imam Ibn Taymiyya or his foremost student (I intend Ibn Qayyim (d. 751 AH) here)!

      Be careful with the words you use regarding the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) please! You could fall into dangerous issues without even realizing.

      We know that Musa (peace be upon him) helped this Umma and this after his death, so what about the Best of creation (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)?! The scholars even mentioned that the martyrs have been seen fighting the disbelievers in battles and this after their Istishhad! So what about the Best of creation (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)?!

      Rather his Mu'jizat (miracles) - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - do not stop with death and this is what the people of the Sunna believe!

      Remember what Imam Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 AH) stated (as quoted HERE):

      ุญุชู‰ ู„ู‚ุฏ ุงู†ุชุฏุจ ุจุนุถ ุงู„ุนู„ู…ุงุก ู„ุงุณุชู‚ุตุงุฆู‡ุง ูุฌู…ุน ู…ู†ู‡ุง ุฃู„ู ู…ุนุฌุฒุฉ ูˆุนุฏุฏู†ุงู‡ ู…ู‚ุตุฑุง ุฅุฐุง ููˆู‚ ุฐู„ูƒ ุจุฃุถุนุงู ู„ุง ุชุญุตู‰ ูุฅู†ู‡ุง ู„ูŠุณุช ู…ุญุตูˆุฑุฉ ุนู„ู‰ ู…ุง ูˆุฌุฏ ู…ู†ู‡ุง ููŠ ุนุตุฑู‡ - ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… - ุจู„ ู„ู… ุชุฒู„ ุชุชุฌุฏุฏ ุจุนุฏู‡ - ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… - ุนู„ู‰ ุชุนุงู‚ุจ ุงู„ุนุตูˆุฑ ูˆุฐู„ูƒ ุฃู† ูƒุฑุงู…ุงุช ุงู„ุฃูˆู„ูŠุงุก ู…ู† ุฃู…ุชู‡ ูˆุฅุฌุงุจุงุช ุงู„ู…ุชูˆุณู„ูŠู† ุจู‡ ููŠ ุญูˆุงุฆุฌู‡ู… ูˆู…ุบูˆุซุงุชู‡ู… ุนู‚ูŠุจ ุชูˆุณู„ู‡ู… ุจู‡ ููŠ ุดุฏุงุฆุฏู‡ู… ุจุฑุงู‡ูŠู† ู„ู‡ - ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… - ู‚ูˆุงุทุน ูˆู…ุนุฌุฒุงุช ู„ู‡ ุณูˆุงุทุน ูˆู„ุง ูŠุนุฏู‡ุง ุนุฏ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุญุตุฑู‡ุง ุญุฏ

      In fact, one of the scholars attempted to enumerate these miracles, and counted one thousand; and even then, we consider him to have fallen short, for they are many multiples of that, and are, in fact, innumerable. They are not limited to only those that appeared at his hands during his life (peace and blessings of God be upon him); rather, they are continuously renewed after him (peace and blessings of God be upon him) with the turning of the ages; for the miracles (karamat) of the saints of his nation, and the answers to those who pray for the fulfilment of their needs by seeking intercession through him, and the succour which they find after seeking his intercession, by which they are delivered in the hour of their most dire need. . . all of these are unequivocal proofs of his greatness, and are to be counted as obvious miracles ascribed to him. As such, they have no limit!
      - end of quote -

      Doubting the very possibility of this, means that one is doubting the Qudra of Allah ta'ala!

      Note that there are two types of help:
      - One that comes through creating and bringing forth
      - And another one by the way of being an intermediary mean (Sabab) and [by the way] of acquisition

      The first type of help is exclusive to Allah ta'ala, while the second type is the type of help that the creation can offer and dependent on the first type. So the issue here is nowhere connected to death, but rather the Qudra of Allah ta'ala!

      No person - whether he's in the Dunya or the Barzakh! - could help you without the Power, Will and Knowledge of Allah ta'ala, because a creation can NOT have real influence on the creation!

      Just think about the following statement: La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah!

      Note how different the Muslims in the past would think to the Najdis!
      When the Muslims of the past would do Tawassul and get help from their Lord jalla jalaluhu, they would see this as a sign of the greatness of the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and a proof for the correctness of his Prophethood and it would strengthen their Iman in Allah ta'ala, while the Najdis basically thought like materialists and atheists regarding these issues and thought that this is a justification to slaughter Muslims!

      I'll continue answering in the next post insha`Allah when I get time.
      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 18-03-21, 11:26 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
        ...Be careful with the words you use regarding the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) please! You could fall into dangerous issues without even realizing...
        Oh yeah?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

          you know i suppose bro its like looking at other peoples faults yet never looking in the mirror to acknowledge your own (dont mean you personally just generally saying)

          my point im trying to make is be just and fair, isnt that the middle path?
          Yeah bro thats what im saying but the thread is about seeking intercession with the prophet saws and out of the blue comes comments against IAW.Lets just take the good of it and leave IAW to be judged by Allah

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

            You said it yourself: It's a modern thing. You don't expect me to believe that the truth is either with the followers of IAW (d. 1206 AH) and those who are influenced by him (i.e. "Salafis") or some cultist and fake "Sufis".
            I am saying there is truth with the "Salafis" and there is even truth with cultist and fake "Sufis". Where the "Salafis" err is in rejecting the Madhaahib [for those that do so] and where the "Sufis" err is in their innovations in worship and extremism towards following their Mashayikh.

            In the context of this argument, I've already mentioned not only my understanding of the existence of the legislation of visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS among the 4 Madhaahib but also my acceptance of it, as well as the recital of specific Du'a as transmitted in the accepted Ahadith on the subject. In this regard, you have to agree I am not taking the side of what you perceive to be the position of "Salafis".

            However, it is my understanding that "Sufis" go to extremes on this point and some of them do address the Prophet SAWS directly without visiting the grave and they transfer this permission and recommendation to all "righteous peoplea' [according to them], living and dead, absent or present. In this regard, I reject the "Sufi" liberties taken under this subject.

            I don't see how I can more clearly distance myself from what we both agree is a false dichotomy between "Salafis" and "Sufis".

            If you're waiting for me to completely join the "Sufi" side of this dichotomy, even if its your "classical" kumbaya version of "Sufism", in order to gauge me as sufficiently distanced from the dichotomy, well, then, that's not going to happen.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman 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".
            I disagree. You and people like you have been brow-beating laypeople for over a century about the "evils" of Shaykh Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his "puritanical" following. The typical "solution" proposed? Follow "Sufism".

            So, how are you not also part of that problem? You are presenting an even less balanced position than the "Salafis" who, while they do demonize "Sufis", at least they don't turn them into salivating, brain-dead, Takfeer zombies hiding under beds and lurking in every dark corner. "Sufis" do a bang-up job of circulating videos of their "rave"-inspired "Zikr" circles, circumambulations of their mausoleum shrines, and absolutely bizarre trance-dances.

            I challenge you to find "Salafi" videos that rival the idiocy and down right incongruity with Islam as found in "Sufi" videos.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            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")!

            Sorry, but the above shows really ignorance regarding the reality and is nothing but "Salafi" propaganda.
            I've already established, and even if not sufficiently in the course of this discussion, then you should already be aware, that the Malikis considered even calling it "visitation" to the grave of the Prophet SAWS as "Makruuh". And Imam Malik's view was not even to make Du'a or to stop there except to say "Salaam" and move on.

            The most famous and widespread view of Imam Ahmad is also to simply say "Salaam" without a Du'a- and that goes for Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA, so no exclusivity for the Prophet SAWS in that visitation according to most Hanbalis.

            And of course, the recommendation of visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS is only pursuant to visiting his Masjid and not to intend the visitation of the grave per se. It is a "Sunnah" to visit the grave of the Prophet SAWS because visiting all graves is a "Sunnah", especially for those scholars, many more than just Ibn Taymiyyah, who reject the reports about solely visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS.

            Most of the books of Fiqh DO NOT have a separate Chapter/Bab for "visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS", rather it is usually a Fasl/section under a chapter of Hajj.

            This emphasizes the fact that it is not an act of worship that is recommended outside of performing the Hajj or visiting the Prophet's Masjid for those not living in Madinah.

            Also, many of the Fuqahaa' do not mention the report of al-Utbi or the Hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf when mentioning the visitation to the grave of the Prophet SAWS. They only mention the "Salaam" and perhaps turning away from the grave and making Du'a at that point.

            So, there is NO CONSENSUS AT ALL among the Fuqahaa', in the books of Fiqh, about how the visitation to the grave of the Prophet SAWS is performed and many scholars DO NOT mention any form of Tawassul or Tashaffa'.

            Stop attempting to give the impression that opposing Tawassul and Tashaffa' during the visitation to the grave of the Prophet SAWS is some kind of sacrilege invented by any single scholar.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman 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!
            Imam Ahmad was NOT a Sufi. His children and companions like al-Marudhi, al-Athram, Harb al-Kirmani, Ibrahim al-Harbi, Baqqi bin Mukhlad, al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Abu Dawud were NOT Sufis. Al-Khallal, al-Kalwadhani, Baha' ad-Deen al-Maqdisi, Majd ad-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah, az-Zarkashi, Ibn Muflih, al-Mardawi, Ibn Qudamah, al-Bahuti, Ibn an-Najjar- NONE of these "major Hanbali scholars" authored treatises on "Sufism", nor did they include chapters of "Tasawwuf" in their books of Fiqh.

            If they were "Sufis" and they have authored treatises or have chapters in their books on "Tasawwuf", then prove it.

            What are you talking about? Who believes you when you say these outlandish things except Juhhaal who don't know better?

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            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!
            The "complete disconnection between Aqidah and Fiqh" is just as real and well-established as the "disconnection" between Tafsir and Hadith. They ARE separate sciences in Islam and they have separate Mustalahaat. Of course a book of Tafsir, at least bil-Ma'thur, will contain Hadith, and the objective of pursuing "authentic" reports in Tafsir is the same as in Hadith sciences. However, they are separate and distinct sciences and typically those scholars who are experts at Tafsir are not necessarily as expert or recognized for their mastery of other sciences.

            Likewise, a Faqeeh is not necessarily an Imam in Aqidah. This is the reason why students of knowledge and scholars do not extract principles or base rulings dealing with Aqidah on books of Tafsir, Fiqh, or History. The A'immah of Aqidah for Ahl as-Sunnah are the same four A'immah that founded the schools of Fiqh- YES. However, not every person who adhered to one of their schools also adhered to their Aqidah- SOME of them followed others who either added or subtracted to the Aqidah of the A'immah of Ahl as-Sunnah- thus, creating their own Aqidah.

            In that way, those who added or subtracted to the Aqidah of the A'immah of Ahl as-Sunnah, thus, creating their own Aqidah, ceased belonging to the Jama'ah of Ahl as-Sunnah in terms of Aqidah. In the same way that anyone who ceased adhering to the school of Fiqh of the A'immah of Ahl as-Sunnah would cease belonging to it.

            Aqidah is no different than Fiqh in terms of adhering or leaving the positions of the A'immah of Ahl as-Sunnah.

            Not everyone who transmitted a school of Fiqh ALSO transmitted the Aqidah of that Imam in Fiqh. Case in point- Ash'aris and Maturidis ARE NOT transmitters of the Aqidah of Abu Hanifah despite adhering to his school in Fiqh. Likewise, Ash'aris do not transmit the Aqidah of Imam Ahmad simply by transmitting his Fiqh and legal rulings.

            Aqidah and Fiqh ARE two separate sciences in Islam. The works of Fiqh do not contain the Aqidah of the respective Imams of the schools.

            Unfortunately, many Ash'ari scholars injected their corrupt beliefs and rhetoric into the books of Fiqh they authored. Those infrequent Aqidah and rhetoric-based additions to the books of Fiqh, not found in the early books and Mutun of the Madhaahib, CAN NEVER constitute a representation of the schools of the respective founding Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah.

            That is a misrepresentation on the part of Ash'aris in conflating their existence among the Fuqahaa', Mufassireen, and Muhadditheen and claiming that the mere existence entails dominance or justification for their Aqidah- when that has nothing to do with Fiqh, Tafsir and Hadith except for the irrelevant and infrequent injections of rhetoric into those books!

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            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!
            Ok, so now there is a conspiracy on the part of "Salafis" to fake adherence to the Hanbali school of Fiqh in order to not be seen as wrong in opposing the Ashaa'irah/Sufis? Wow.

            The majority of Hanbalis today are found in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region. The highest ranking Hanbali scholars have tended to be Athari for over a century now. Sure, there are a few Ash'ari-leaning Hanbalis here and there, but nowhere near a majority.

            There most definitely are "Laa Madh'habi" "Salafis" out here who are completely against Madhaahib. I can't stand them as much as I can't stand extremist Sufis.

            But I find it hard to believe that the "Laa Madh'habi Salafis" form the majority of Hanbalis in any time period.

            You're stretching things on this point.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            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!
            I don't need a history lesson from you. Clearly you see history through the very tinted lenses of bias towards and against various individuals and states. You've made that clear in your posts.

            To compare "Ahl al-Hadith and Ahl ar-Ray'" with "Ash'aris and Hanbalis" is ridiculous. No one has ever argued that either Ahl al-Hadith or Ahl ar-Ray' [I don't even agree with that dichotomy] were NOT Ahl as-Sunnah, since Abu Hanifah tended to represent Ahl ar-Ray' and Imam Ahmad tended to represent Ahl al-Hadith- BOTH Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqidah and Fiqh.

            Also, there are scholars who considered Ahl al-Hadith to be distinct from adherents to the four Madhaahib of Ahl as-Sunnah and having their own methodology. There is some truth to this view, although I don't subscribe to it 100%.

            Whereas Abul-Hasan al-Ash'ari WAS NOT an Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah in either Aqidah or Fiqh. No one among Ahl as-Sunnah has ever claimed that Abul-Hasan al-Ash'ari constituted the 5th Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqidah next to Imams Abu Hanifah, Malik, ash-Shafi'ee and Ahmad.

            So, why sit there today and try to claim that Ash'aris have any standing when compared to Hanbalis, whether in Fiqh or Aqidah?

            Ash'aris have never even drafted a book of Fiqh that attained any form of following or acceptance among Fuqahaa' EXCEPT it was written under the auspices and in adherence to one of the schools of Abu Hanifah, Malik, ash-Shafi'ee or Ahmad.

            Ash'aris have never drafted a book of Aqidah that attained any form of following or acceptance among the Imams of Aqidah of Ahl as-Sunnah with NO EXCEPTIONS. Ash'aris wrote and continue to write books of Aqidah for their own creed and they have never claimed that any of the four Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah adopted that creed.

            Sure, there are revisionists of history that have tried to go back and claim that Imam Ahmad adopted Tafweedh or something like that. But no one in their right mind would ever say that Imam Ahmad was an Ash'ari or that his creed was the same as Abul-Hasan al-Ash'ari's or Abu Mansur al-Maturidi's. That would be crazy.

            Again, so, why sit there today and try to compare a school of Fiqh and Aqidah of one of the Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah with Ash'arism? What's the point of that except to mislead people?

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            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!
            Wait, what?

            Abu Hanifah's creed and Imam Ahmad's creed are fundamentally the same. Abu Mansur al-Maturidi had a separate creed from Abu Hanifah- THAT IS WHY IT'S CALLED MATURIDIYYAH!

            Whereas despite the slight difference in details between the creed of Abu Hanifah and Imam Ahmad- no one has said they are distinct from one another fundamentally so that each creed would be named and referred back to them individually- NO!

            Abu Hanifah and Imam Ahmad have the SAME CREED- the creed of Ahl as-Sunnah. Never, ever, has there ever been a period of time in which Muslims have claimed that Abu Hanifah, Malik, ash-Shafi'ee, and Ahmad had four separate and distinct creeds forming separate "schools" of Aqidah. NEVER.

            They have always been and always will be upon one creed- the creed of Ahl as-Sunnah.

            Ash'aris and Maturidis have their own creeds, named after their founders- and they are fundamentally different from that of the four Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah- otherwise there would be no reason for them to have separate creeds named after them.

            So, to take a distinct group based on creed like the Ash'aris, who possess ZERO works of Fiqh not attached to a Madh'hab of Ahl as-Sunnah, and compare them to a group based on Fiqh from among the Madhaahib of Ahl as-Sunnah, say the Hanbalis, is comparing apples to oranges. You cannot compare a group of adherents to a creed with a group of adherents to a school of Fiqh.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            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!
            I'm not "acting" at all.

            1) Ash'aris and Maturidis are "Sunnis" in the sense that they typically adhere to a Madh'hab of Fiqh from among the four schools of Ahl as-Sunnah.

            2) Ash'aris and Maturidis ARE NOT "Sunnis" in the sense that they have their own creeds distinct from the four Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqidah.

            3) Ash'aris and Maturidis are "Sunnis" in the sense that their creeds are fundamentally distinct from that of the four Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah but still closer to them than the Shi'ah and Mu'tazilah.

            People need to stop pretending that the above is not true and they need to stop taking advantage of people who don't know this.

            When a scholar of Fiqh from Ahl as-Sunnah says that Ash'aris and Maturidis are from Ahl as-Sunnah, they mean #s 1 & 3.

            When a scholar of Aqidah from Ahl as-Sunnah says that Ash'aris and Maturidis are not from Ahl as-Sunnah, they mean #2.

            Let's get that straight.

            So, how can what Fuqahaa' say have any effect on what stands in Aqidah?

            Even though al-Bukhari was one of the preeminent masters of Hadith and a Shafi'ee in Fiqh, no one ever cites his opinions as authoritative when it comes to Ahkam in Shafi'ee Fiqh.

            Likewise, even IF [and that's a big IF] the majority of Fuqahaa' from the four schools of Ahl as-Sunnah claimed that there was no difference between Ash'aris and Atharis and all the differences were mere details- how would that have any impact on the Imams of Aqidah?

            The Fuqahaa' do not deal with Aqidah in their works and few of them drafted authoritative treatises on Aqidah as well as Fiqh.

            Again, you're confusing the confluence of Ash'aris among the schools of Fiqh with that mere existence constituting authority for their Aqidah.

            Aqidah makes no difference to the Faqeeh when it comes to his transmitting legal rulings of a school of Fiqh [with very, very few exceptions].

            Of course, that did not stop Sufis, Ash'aris and Maturidis from injecting their rhetoric and beliefs here and there into the books of Fiqh wherever possible- but the opportunities for that are few and far between.

            You want to cast out Ibn Taymiyyah from the Hanbalis in terms of creed based on references to books of Fiqh? This is a fool's errand you're on.

            Then you want to say that Ibn Taymiyyah was actually misunderstood by later people, especially "Salafis" and that Ibn Taymiyyah actually agreed with the Ash'aris and Sufis.

            Your inconsistencies about Ibn Taymiyyah cannot be covered up by simply saying "people misunderstand him".

            Just like your inconsistencies about what it means to be an Ash'ari and how that is distinct from being upon the creed of Ahl as-Sunnah as expounded by the A'immah of Aqidah from Ahl as-Sunnah NOT Imams of the Ash'ari or Maturidi creeds.

            We know who is an Imam of Aqidah from Ahl as-Sunnah because their beliefs are no different from that of Abu Hanifah, Malik, ash-Shafi'ee and Ahmad and they never subsribed to anyone else's beliefs or Aqidah so that they would be called something other than an Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqidah.

            Whereas those scholars who enjoyed notoriety for their works of Hadith, Fiqh, Tafsir and Usul and who also authored works of Aqidah in which they called people to something other than the beliefs of Abu Hanifah, Malik, ash-Shafi'ee and Ahmad, so that they name themselves and the Aqidah they promoted as "Ash'ari" or "Maturidi"- then their notoriety in Hadith, Fiqh, Tafsir or Usul does not lessen their separation and distance from the Aqidah of Abu Hanifah, Malik, ash-Shafi'ee, and Ahmad.

            Saying the above TRUTH does nothing to "invalidate Divine Law". To suggest such a thing is simply a scare tactic for the weak-minded and uncertain.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            He is a scholar among others and not infallible.
            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!)
            I am a paid translator of the works of Ibn Taymiyyah. That's not to say that I could never make a mistake in translating or understanding one passage out of a thousand. But to make a mistake in understanding ALL of the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah on the topics of Tawassul, Tashaffa' and Istighaathah- that's not reasonable.

            It's quite possible and, in fact, proven, that in some cases Ibn Taymiyyah did have varying views on certain topics. There is much speculation and debate about these things that have formed the basis of many a thesis at the master's and doctorate's level. We're not going to effectively litigate or settle that here.

            I have not, in recent memory, accused any individual Muslims of "Shirk Akbar". In fact, my refusal to do so has landed me afoul of many a Takfiri and has led to several of them making Takfir of me and obligating that on others [as they're known to do].

            I am not using anything from the works of Ibn Taymiyyah EXCEPT his clear DISINCLINATION from declaring Takfir on proponents and adherents to practices and beliefs which he did consider to be Shirk and/or Kufr. What is more important than his disinclination from Takfir, which is a result of his Ijtihad and, no doubt, his compassion for Muslims, and deep understanding of the criteria and obstacles to Takfir, is his clear and detailed statements declaring specific practices and beliefs to be Shirk/Kufr.

            What is misunderstood, if anything, is Ibn Taymiyyah's lack of Takfir does not constitute a retraction of his statements wherein he declares practices and beliefs to be Shirk/Kufr.

            To say so is the real "abuse" and "misunderstanding" of Ibn Taymiyyah's works and legacy.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            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!
            You're exaggerating.

            There have always been tracts within the works of scholars that tended to be more specific and detailed than what is found with others. Due to that clarification and illustration and its benefit to so many, the explanations and categorizations of certain scholars have found their way into the system of conventions in systematizing and organizing topics and subjects within Islam.

            There's nothing wrong with that.

            Ibn Taymiyyah was a standard-bearer for the Aqidah of the Hanabilah and Ahl as-Sunnah during his time. He achieved this status by his opposition to and exposition of the errors of the extremist Sufis, Ashaa'irah, philosophers, and other groups. He was not attempting to "purify" the Ash'ari creed by pointing out its errors and falsehood, rather he was making it clear that Ash'arism IS NOT the creed of Ahl as-Sunnah. That is what made him an Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqidah.

            That is why so many scholars after his death, also took up his standard in Aqidah and that is why so many Ash'aris and grave-worshipers hate Ibn Taymiyyah and attempt to reinterpret his writings and legacy- to try and undo the great blow Ibn Taymiyyah landed on their false beliefs and practices.

            Other Hanabilah have never admitted anything about Ibn Taymiyyah except the great debt owed to him for his striving in Aqidah, Hanbali Fiqh, Tafsir, Usul, and Ijtihad, much less disagree with him and claim that he is misunderstood in his opposition to false practices and beliefs, among which are the presence of Shirk in the types of Tawassul, Istighaathah and Tashaffa' promoted by extremist Sufis and Ashaa'irah/Maturidiyyah.

            Hanbalis have maintained their own tight ship from the beginning and that is why even you must exempt them from concurring with the Ashaa'irah in Aqidah when pressed. Still you have adopted the false distinction of "Taymiyyans" as if there is a such thing as a large group of Muslims laying claim to a distinct Aqidah promoted by Ibn Taymiyyah [which doesn't even make sense because you then belie this as merely a "misunderstanding" of Ibn Taymiyyah's works].

            Hanbalis know who among them subscribed or inclined towards Kalaam or Ash'arism and thus, disregard that scholar's musings on Aqidah, wherever they occur in the works of Fiqh or Usul.

            It is unfortunate that the other schools did not take the same precautions and steps with their own Fuqahaa'. That's alright because we've done it for them.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            Look, this is your problem! You read something from Ibn Taymiyya and then accept it like it's revelation! Note that he has a style where he exaggerates sometimes (even regarding some really trivial issues), but you people don't even go and research whether he's right on this issue or not, but BLINDLY accept what he stated without any further investigation!
            The pot calling the golden throne "black". You're the one that exaggerates.

            You say I'm "blindly" following Ibn Taymiyyah. You don't know me or the views I've adopted well-enough to say such a thing.

            You say I have not conducted any "further investigation". Again, you don't know what I have or haven't researched and read before stating and appearing to agree with the positions of Ibn Taymiyyah which are in clear opposition to what you are claiming in this thread about Shirk in Tawassul and Istighaathah.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman 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!
            No it's not. Ibn Taymiyyah held the position that setting out solely for the purpose of visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS is Haraam and disobedience. That view is consistent with the majority of the Salaf who also held that setting out for long journeys to visit any place other than the 3 Masaajid- al-Haram ash-Sharif, the Masjid an-Nabi, and al-Aqsa- is Haraam. By analogy, as performed by the Companions RA themselves, setting out for any other place, be it graves, holy sites attested to by Allah AWJ like at-Tur, or anywhere else, is also Haraam. Only a few exceptions exist among scholars who say that setting out solely to visit the grave of the Prophet SAWS is permissible or even recommended.

            Referring to the books of Fiqh, by far, the majority of Fuqahaa' are very clear in establishing the Istihbab for visiting the Prophet's grave SAWS pursuant to performing the Hajj or visiting the Masjid of the Prophet SAWS. This is because of the ruling that it is Haraam to set out on a journey for other than the 3 Masaajid.

            So, your claim that Ibn Taymiyyah's position is a "grave mistake" is actually a grave mistake on your part.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            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!
            Are you really disputing one Imam's position by means of another's? As-Subki was an amazing Faqeeh, no doubt. He was also a rather staunch Ash'ari/Mutakallim. Those beliefs definitely shaped as-Subki's position on this matter.

            But to prove that setting out solely to visit the grave of the Prophet SAWS is permissible or even recommended requires evidence in the form of an authentic/fair narration or an established Fatwa/Athar from the Salaf.

            Later scholars writing poems promoting a practice or even declaring practices to be "Mustahabb" when that ruling is not handed down by the Salaf nor found in an authentic/fair narration- none of that is valid or compelling evidence.

            I would hope that we can agree on what constitutes evidence based on the Usul of Ahl as-Sunnah- Quran, authentic/fair Hadith, sound Qiyas, consensus. If we don't agree on that, then we're going to disagree on many more things and discussing the details will make no difference.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            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:

            ู„ู‚ูˆู„ ุงุจู† ุชูŠู…ูŠุฉ ุฒุฎุฑู โ€ฆ ุฃุชู‰ ููŠ ุฒูŠุงุฑุฉ ุฎูŠุฑ ุงู„ุฃู†ุงู…
            ูุฌุงุกุช ู†ููˆุณ ุงู„ูˆุฑู‰ ุชุดุชูƒูŠ โ€ฆ ุฅู„ู‰ ุฎูŠุฑ ุญุจุฑ ูˆุฃุฒูƒู‰ ุฅู…ุงู…
            ูุตู†ู ู‡ุฐุง ูˆุฏุงูˆุงู‡ู… โ€ฆ ููƒุงู† ูŠู‚ูŠู†ุงู‹ ุดูุงุก ุงู„ุณู‚ุงู…


            โ€œIbn Taymiyya gilded his statement โ€ฆ Concerning the visit to the Best of Creation,
            Whereupon souls came in droves to complain โ€ฆ To the best of scholars and purest of Imรขms
            Who compiled this book, providing them with a cure โ€ฆ And so it was indeed The Healing of Sickness.
            โ€
            - end of quote -
            Great poems and works can contain mistakes. They're still great works.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            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!
            Did you ever read "as-Sarim al-Manki feer-Radd 'alaas-Subki" by Ibn Abd al-Hadi al-Hanbali?

            Again, you're referring to "blindness" with regards to the position of Ibn Taymiyyah on the prohibition of setting out solely for the purpose of visiting the Prophet's grave SAWS.

            All of the "proofs" that as-Subki uses to support his position against Ibn Taymiyyah in his poem were already dealt with by Ibn Taymiyyah in his Radd of al-Akhna'ee. All of the reports about visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS are very weak or fabricated and none of the A'immah of Ahl as-Sunnah nor the compilers of the Sunan relied on any of those reports. As for some later Fuqahaa' relating those reports in their works of Fiqh, then that alone does not render those reports as acceptable for establishing a Hukm.

            This is Usul al-Fiqh 101 and Ahkam al-Hadith 101.

            I don't think anyone doubts or questions that Ibn Taymiyyah was far more authoritative when it came to Hadith than as-Subki. Besides, the same scholars you named as praising the poem of as-Subki were the same ones who also declared those Hadith as weak or fabricated. They may have loved the poem, but that did not change their verdicts on those reports used as proof by as-Subki. Al-Iraqi, as-Suyuti, and others were all in agreement with Ibn Taymiyyah about the gradings for those reports.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            I know that the view that he was a Mujtahid Mutlaq exists. The other view (which seems to be the majority view) is that he was a Mujtahid inside the Madhhab.
            Whatever the case may be, his position on the visitation is clearly abnormal.
            Wrong and wrong. I'm not going to argue with you about whether Ibn Taymiyyah was a Mujtahid Mutlaq. His works and mastery in Tafsir, Hadith, Aqidah, Usul, Fiqh, and Arabic Language are all well-established and known.

            His position on the visitation is the majority view. You are sorely mistaken about this entire subject. I can go down the list of works of Fiqh wherein there is either ZERO mentions of visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS at all OR it is only mentioned pursuant to Hajj/visiting the Masjid of the Prophet SAWS- those works form the majority.

            Whereas the works of Fiqh wherein visitation is mentioned as recommended without any mention of Hajj/visiting the Masjid of the Prophet SAWS are in the minority and very few, in fact.

            That should be proof enough that you're wrong, but I doubt you'll accept that since you're so convinced otherwise.

            Something else very clear, especially in the Maliki works of Fiqh, is the expressed statements about combining the Niyyah for visiting the Prophet's Masjid with visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS. Since the grave is in the Masjid, and has been for hundreds of years, what would be the point of specifically pointing out the Niyyah of visiting the Masjid except understanding that it is not allowed to visit the grave of the Prophet SAWS specifically or to set out solely for that purpose?

            It's possible scholars mentioned combining the Niyyah for added benefit, but that doesn't explain why they also mentioned the Hadith prohibiting setting out to visit but the 3 Masaajid.

            In fact, many of the works of Fiqh expressly state the Hadith about not setting out on a journey for other than the 3 Masaajid in the context of visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS and mentioning the Niyyah of visiting the Masjid as well as the grave of the Prophet SAWS. This ties the two topics together, at least according to some scholars.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            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?
            Ok. Let's look at that statement- what are the relied-upon works of Fiqh in each school?

            Hanafis: al-Bida'i as-Sana'i? Fat'h al-Qadir? Majma' al-Anhar?- they all mention combining the Niyyah of visiting the grave and the masjid within the Book of Hajj.
            Shafi'ees: al-Mughni al-Muhtaj? Al-Majmu' Sharh al-Muhadhdhab?- again, combining the Niyyah of the two and in the context of Hajj.
            Malikis: I already mentioned how Imam Malik even disliked referring to it as "visiting" the grave of the Prophet SAWS due to the connotation of innovation and Shirk. The relied-upon texts mention clearly the combination of the Niyyah of visiting the grave and the Masjid.
            Hanbalis: al-Insaf? ash-Sharh al-Kabir? Al-Mubdi'? These all state that the Istihbab is not only for the grave of the Prophet SAWS but also his two Companions RA. Also, the indication in the Hanbali school is that the purpose of the visitation to the grave is the "Salaam" as mentioned by Abd ul-Muhsin at-Turki.

            The majority of the relied-upon texts in each school combine the Niyyah of visiting the grave and Masjid of the Prophet SAWS and this is a major indication that the legislation of visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS is tied to visiting the Masjid as well.

            This puts the majority on the side of Ibn Taymiyyah in not even mentioning visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS outside the context of the Hajj or visiting the Masjid. The majority did not address the ruling on visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS outside of either Hajj or visiting the Masjid- on the contrary, many Fuqahaa' mention combining the Niyyah for the two.

            Not so "abnormal" in reality.

            I will grant you that most scholars do not explicitly mention setting out solely to visit the grave of the Prophet SAWS is Haraam as Ibn Taymiyyah did. However, the implication is definitely there and precedent for such a declaration and proof for it is there as well.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            An example is what Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH) (who is one of his students) stated in his al-Bidaya wal Nihaya:

            ู‚ูŽุงู„ูŽ ุงู„ู’ุจูุฑู’ุฒูŽุงู„ููŠู‘ู: ูˆูŽูููŠ ุดูŽูˆู‘ูŽุงู„ู ู…ูู†ู’ู‡ูŽุง ุดูŽูƒูŽู‰ ุงู„ุตู‘ููˆูููŠู‘ูŽุฉู ุจูุงู„ู’ู‚ูŽุงู‡ูุฑูŽุฉู ุนูŽู„ูŽู‰ ุงู„ุดู‘ูŽูŠู’ุฎู ุชูŽู‚ููŠู‘ู ุงู„ุฏู‘ููŠู†ู ูˆูŽูƒูŽู„ูŽุงู…ูู‡ู ูููŠ ุงุจู’ู†ู ุนูŽุฑูŽุจููŠู‘ู ูˆูŽุบูŽูŠู’ุฑูู‡ู ุฅูู„ูŽู‰ ุงู„ุฏู‘ูŽูˆู’ู„ูŽุฉูุŒ ููŽุฑูŽุฏู‘ููˆุง ุงู„ู’ุฃูŽู…ู’ุฑูŽ ูููŠ ุฐูŽู„ููƒูŽ ุฅูู„ูŽู‰ ุงู„ู’ู‚ูŽุงุถููŠ ุงู„ุดู‘ูŽุงููุนููŠู‘ูุŒ ููŽุนูู‚ูุฏูŽ ู„ูŽู‡ู ู…ูŽุฌู’ู„ูุณูŒุŒ ูˆูŽุงุฏู‘ูŽุนูŽู‰ ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ุงุจู’ู†ู ุนูŽุทูŽุงุกู ุจูุฃูŽุดู’ูŠูŽุงุกูŽุŒ ููŽู„ูŽู…ู’ ูŠูŽุซู’ุจูุชู’ ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ู…ูู†ู’ู‡ูŽุง ุดูŽูŠู’ุกูŒุŒ ู„ูŽูƒูู†ู‘ูŽู‡ู ู‚ูŽุงู„ูŽ: ู„ูŽุง ูŠูุณู’ุชูŽุบูŽุงุซู ุฅูู„ู‘ูŽุง ุจูุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ูุŒ ูˆูŽู„ูŽุง ูŠูุณู’ุชูŽุบูŽุงุซู ุจูุงู„ู†ู‘ูŽุจููŠู‘ู - ุตูŽู„ู‘ูŽู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ูˆูŽุณูŽู„ู‘ูŽู…ูŽ - ุงุณู’ุชูุบูŽุงุซูŽุฉู‹ ุจูู…ูŽุนู’ู†ูŽู‰ ุงู„ู’ุนูุจูŽุงุฏูŽุฉูุŒ ูˆูŽู„ูŽูƒูู†ู’ ูŠูุชูŽูˆูŽุณู‘ูŽู„ู ุจูู‡ูุŒ ูˆูŽูŠูุชูŽุดูŽูู‘ูŽุนู ุจูู‡ู ุฅูู„ูŽู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู
            - 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!
            Try a source other than a history book. They are not suitable as references for Aqidah or establishing legal rulings.

            Besides- I've already established that Ibn Taymiyyah- and the majority of present-day scholars of Aqidah of Ahl as-Sunnah- breaks down Tawassul and Tashaffa' into legislated and non-legislated; among the non-legislated are the innovative and polytheistic. It is no surprise to anyone who studies Ibn Taymiyyah to find a quote from him seeming to approve of Tawassul or Tashaffa'. We would understand that as the "legislated" types.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            This can be even found in the works of Imam Ibn Taymiyya himself, because we find the following in Majmu' al-Fatawa:

            ูˆูŽูƒูŽุฐูŽู„ููƒูŽ ู…ูู…ู‘ูŽุง ูŠูุดู’ุฑูŽุนู ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽูˆูŽุณู‘ูู„ู ุจูู‡ู ูููŠ ุงู„ุฏู‘ูุนูŽุงุกู ูƒูŽู…ูŽุง ูููŠ ุงู„ู’ุญูŽุฏููŠุซู ุงู„ู‘ูŽุฐููŠ ุฑูŽูˆูŽุงู‡ู ุงู„ุชู‘ูุฑู’ู…ูุฐููŠู‘ู ูˆูŽุตูŽุญู‘ูŽุญูŽู‡ู ุฃูŽู†ู‘ูŽ {ุงู„ู†ู‘ูŽุจููŠู‘ูŽ ุตูŽู„ู‘ูŽู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ูˆูŽุณูŽู„ู‘ูŽู…ูŽ ุนูŽู„ู‘ูŽู…ูŽ ุดูŽุฎู’ุตู‹ุง ุฃูŽู†ู’ ูŠูŽู‚ููˆู„ูŽ: ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ูู…ู‘ูŽ ุฅู†ู‘ููŠ ุฃูŽุณู’ุฃูŽู„ููƒ ูˆูŽุฃูŽุชูŽูˆูŽุณู‘ูŽู„ู ุฅู„ูŽูŠู’ูƒ ุจูู†ูŽุจููŠู‘ููƒ ู…ูุญูŽู…ู‘ูŽุฏู ู†ูŽุจููŠู‘ู ุงู„ุฑู‘ูŽุญู’ู…ูŽุฉู ูŠูŽุง ู…ูุญูŽู…ู‘ูŽุฏู ูŠูŽุง ุฑูŽุณููˆู„ูŽ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุฅู†ู‘ููŠ ุฃูŽุชูŽูˆูŽุณู‘ูŽู„ู ุจููƒ ุฅู„ูŽู‰ ุฑูŽุจู‘ููŠ ูููŠ ุญูŽุงุฌูŽุชููŠ ู„ููŠูŽู‚ู’ุถููŠูŽู‡ูŽุง ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ูู…ู‘ูŽ ููŽุดูŽูู‘ูุนู’ู‡ู ูููŠ} " ููŽู‡ูŽุฐูŽุง ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽูˆูŽุณู‘ูู„ู ุจูู‡ู ุญูŽุณูŽู†ูŒ . ูˆูŽุฃูŽู…ู‘ูŽุง ุฏูุนูŽุงุคูู‡ู ูˆูŽุงู„ูุงุณู’ุชูุบูŽุงุซูŽุฉู ุจูู‡ู: ููŽุญูŽุฑูŽุงู…ูŒ. ูˆูŽุงู„ู’ููŽุฑู’ู‚ู ุจูŽูŠู’ู†ูŽ ู‡ูŽุฐูŽูŠู’ู†ู ู…ูุชู‘ูŽููŽู‚ูŒ ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ุจูŽูŠู’ู†ูŽ ุงู„ู’ู…ูุณู’ู„ูู…ููŠู†ูŽ. ุงู„ู’ู…ูุชูŽูˆูŽุณู‘ูู„ู ุฅู†ู‘ูŽู…ูŽุง ูŠูŽุฏู’ุนููˆ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ูŽ ูˆูŽูŠูุฎูŽุงุทูุจูู‡ู ูˆูŽูŠูŽุทู’ู„ูุจู ู…ูู†ู’ู‡ู ู„ูŽุง ูŠูŽุฏู’ุนููˆ ุบูŽูŠู’ุฑูŽู‡ู ุฅู„ู‘ูŽุง ุนูŽู„ูŽู‰ ุณูŽุจููŠู„ู ุงุณู’ุชูุญู’ุถูŽุงุฑูู‡ูุŒ ู„ูŽุง ุนูŽู„ูŽู‰ ุณูŽุจููŠู„ู ุงู„ุทู‘ูŽู„ูŽุจู ู…ูู†ู’ู‡ู ูˆูŽุฃูŽู…ู‘ูŽุง ุงู„ุฏู‘ูŽุงุนููŠ ูˆูŽุงู„ู’ู…ูุณู’ุชูŽุบููŠุซู ููŽู‡ููˆูŽ ุงู„ู‘ูŽุฐููŠ ูŠูŽุณู’ุฃูŽู„ู ุงู„ู’ู…ูŽุฏู’ุนููˆู‘ูŽ ูˆูŽูŠูŽุทู’ู„ูุจู ู…ูู†ู’ู‡ู ูˆูŽูŠูŽุณู’ุชูŽุบููŠุซูู‡ู ูˆูŽูŠูŽุชูŽูˆูŽูƒู‘ูŽู„ู ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ูˆูŽุงูŽู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ู‡ููˆูŽ ุฑูŽุจู‘ู ุงู„ู’ุนูŽุงู„ูŽู…ููŠู†ูŽ
            - end of quote -

            Imam al-Subki even indicated towards this in his Shifa` al-Siqam when he stated (as already posted HERE):

            ูุฅู† ู‚ุงู„ ุงู„ู…ูุฎูŽุงู„ู : ุฃู†ุง ู„ุง ุฃู…ู†ุน ุงู„ุชูˆุณู„ ูˆุงู„ุชุดูุน ู„ู…ุง ู‚ูŽุฏู‘ูŽู…ุชูู… ู…ู† ุงู„ุขุซุงุฑ ูˆุงู„ุฃุฏู„ุฉ ุŒ ูˆุฅู†ู…ุง ุฃู…ู†ุน ุฅุทู„ุงู‚ ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽุฌูˆูู‡ู ูˆุงู„ุงุณุชุบุงุซุฉ ุŒ ู„ุฃู†ู‘ูŽ ููŠู‡ู…ุง ุฅูŠู‡ุงู… ุฃู†ู‘ูŽ ุงู„ู…ูุชูŽุฌูˆู‘ูŽู‡ูŽ ุจู‡ ุŒ ูˆุงู„ู…ูุณุชุบุงุซูŽ ุจู‡ ุ› ุฃุนู„ู‰ ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ูุชุฌู‘ูŽูˆู‡ู ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุงู„ู…ูุณุชุบุงุซู ุนู„ูŠู‡ . ู‚ูู„ู’ู†ูŽุง : ู‡ุฐุง ู„ุง ูŠูŽุนุชู‚ุฏู‡ ู…ูุณู„ู…ูŒ ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุฏู„ ู„ูุธ ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽุฌูŽูˆู‡ู ูˆุงู„ุงุณุชุบุงุซุฉ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ุŒ ูุฅู†ู‘ูŽ ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽุฌููˆู‡ูŽ ู…ู† ุงู„ุฌูŽุงู‡ู ูˆุงู„ูˆุฌูŽุงู‡ุฉู ุŒ ูˆู…ุนู†ุงู‡ : ุนู„ูˆ ุงู„ู‚ุฏุฑ ูˆุงู„ู…ู†ุฒู„ุฉ ุŒ ูˆู‚ุฏ ูŠูุชูˆุณู‘ู„ ุจุฐูŠ ุงู„ุฌุงู‡ ุฅู„ู‰ ู…ู† ู‡ูˆ ุฃุนู„ู‰ ุฌุงู‡ุงู‹ ู…ู†ู‡ ุŒ ูˆุงู„ุงุณุชุบุงุซุฉ ุทู„ุจ ุงู„ุบูˆุซ . ูุงู„ู…ุณุชุบูŠุซ ูŠุทู„ุจ ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ุณุชุบุงุซ ุจู‡ ุฃู† ูŠุญุตู„ ู„ู‡ ุงู„ุบูˆุซ ู…ู† ุบูŠุฑู‡ ุŒ ูˆุฅู† ูƒุงู† ุฃุนู„ู‰ ู…ู†ู‡ ุŒ ูุงู„ุชูˆุณู„ ูˆุงู„ุชู‘ูŽุดูุนู ูˆุงู„ุชู‘ูŽุฌูˆูู‡ ูˆุงู„ุงุณุชุบุงุซุฉ ุจุงู„ู†ุจูŠ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… ูˆุณุงุฆุฑ ุงู„ุฃู†ุจูŠุงุก ูˆุงู„ุตุงู„ุญูŠู† ุ› ู„ูŠุณ ู„ู‡ุง ู…ุนู†ู‰ ููŠ ู‚ู„ูˆุจ ุงู„ู…ุณู„ู…ูŠู† ุบูŠุฑ ุฐู„ูƒ ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠู‚ุตุฏู ุจู‡ุง ุฃุญุฏูŒ ู…ู†ู‡ู… ุณูˆุงู‡ . ูู…ู† ู„ู… ูŠู†ุดุฑุญ ุตุฏุฑู‡ ู„ุฐู„ูƒ ุ› ููŽู„ูŠุจูƒ ุนู„ู‰ ู†ูุณู‡ ุŒ ู†ุณุฃู„ ุงู„ุนุงููŠุฉ

            โ€œNow if the opponent says: Iโ€™m not disallowing Tawassul and Tashaffuโ€™ (seeking intercession) because of the reports and proofs that youโ€™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, Tashaffuโ€™, Tajawwuh and Istighathah with the Prophet โ€“ sallallahu โ€˜alayhi wa sallam โ€“ 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 whoeverโ€™s breast is not opened with this, then let him cry over himself. We ask Allah for well-being.โ€

            - end of quote -
            And here is where the other shoe drops- now you have as-Subki mentioning where this is all headed:

            "Tajawwuh and Istighathah with the Prophet SAWS and the rest of the Prophets and righteous people"...

            It was just a matter of time before you brought out this new wrinkle in the argument- legislating the same that is proposed with the Prophet SAWS for everyone else as well.

            I knew this was coming. And where is the evidence for that? Qiyas based on the already weak or non-existent "proof" for engaging in worship at the grave of the Prophet SAWS? Then taking that worship and legislating it everywhere and anywhere? Even though the reports used as "proofs" are all at the grave of the Prophet SAWS specifcially or during his SAWS lifetime in his presence?

            Even after mentioning the reports containing Tawassul, Ibn Taymiyyah is clear in stating that the actions of the vast majority of the Companions RA and Tabi'een is the proof on this matter- they did not go to the grave of the Prophet SAWS and supplicate to Allah or ask him SAWS for anything- not his intercession nor his intervention in any way. Instead, they went to al-Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet SAWS- that was what Umar al-Faruuq RA did.

            Approaching a living righteous person is what is recommended in ALL the books of Fiqh in the section dealing with the Rain Prayer. Not calling them in their absence as if they can hear from 1,000 miles away.

            To legislate supplication at the grave of the Prophet SAWS in the form of directing some or all of the Du'a towards him requires proof in the form of authentic/fair narrations and precedent in acting upon those narrations among the Salaf. That does not exist AT ALL. There are only weak reports.

            In fact, most of the books of Fiqh mention turning away from the grave of the Prophet SAWS for the Du'a portion of the visit- IF there is mention of Du'a at all.

            And despite some books of Fiqh mentioning that the grave of the Prophet SAWS is the most noble patch of land on earth, NO ONE permits or recommends touching or rubbing the grave. Imagine that!

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            Again: The above indicates ignorance, because the issues discussed here are NOT from among those issues which are famously disagreed upon among the Hanabila and the Asha'ira (like the issue of the divine speech and the issue of Ta`wil).
            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.
            You mention "the Hanabila and the Asha'ira" as if the two groups are equals or peers of one another.

            Seems like I have to keep reminding you that one group is defined by its adherence to a school of Fiqh from Ahl as-Sunnah and the other group is only defined by their adherence to a creed not belonging to any of the four Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah.

            There is no such thing as "Ash'ari legal rulings" or "Ash'ari Fiqh".

            For the last time- Tawassul and Tashaffa' are not legislated in the majority of the books of Fiqh. At least 99% of the relied-upon works of Fiqh DO NOT have a single Kitab, Bab, or Fasl dedicated to "Tawassul" or "Tashaffa".

            Close to 50% of the books of Fiqh do not have a separate Kitab or Bab dedicated to visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS and the other 50% only have a Fasl for it under the Book of Hajj. Many works of Fiqh only mention sending "as-Salaat was-Salaam" upon the Prophet and nothing else- no Du'a, nothing.

            So, to say that "Tawassul" and "Tashaffa" are "allowed" and "known" as issues requires you to come up with those Kutub/Abwab/Fusul in the books of Fiqh wherein they clearly state, like they do with all legal rulings, that those two things are "permissible" or "recommended".

            You will never find a Faqeeh in a major, relied-upon work of Fiqh saying "Tawassul is recommended" or "Tashaffa is recommended". The Fuqahaa' don't describe Tawassul. They don't explain it and provide proofs for it. They don't explain to readers how it is performed and the various parts and aspects to it. They don't explain what to avoid or keep away from so as to not fall into innovation, Disbelief or Shirk or disobedience. There is no mention of how to perform Tawassul and Tashaffa' in accordance with the Sunnah of the Prophet SAWS, the practice of his Companions RA, or in the etiquette of the Salaf. There are simply a few weak reports dealing with a random, unknown Bedouin, misapplied Ahadith that deal with incidents during the lifetime of the Prophet SAWS, and misinterpreted Ahadith dealing with people from previous nations. Nothing actually detailing how to perform Tawassul after the death of the Prophet SAWS. Not in any book of Fiqh as a subject matter.

            None of that exists in any of the major works of Fiqh- but you want everyone to believe that these matters are "agreed upon", "permissible", "known", and that opposing them is contrary to "Divine Law"?

            All of your "proof" is wrapped up in these very small sections of works of Fiqh dealing with visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS and NOT any section named "Tawassul" or "Tashaffa".

            If they really were legislated and so well-established in Islamic law and practice- why don't they have their own chapters? Why isn't the ruling about them more clear, i.e. "Tawassul is permissible/recommended"? Why aren't there guidelines for what to intend, explanations behind the wordings of Du'a containing "Tawassul" just like is found for all the other sections in Fiqh?

            The fact is that most of the mentions of the reports containing Du'a which have wordings that indicate Tawassul or Tashaffa' are mentioned by way of what can be recited verbatim at the grave of the Prophet SAWS. In the Mutun, or primary texts of Fiqh, there is absolutely no mention of the words "Tawassul" or "Tashaffa'".

            How does that turn into Istighaathah at the graves or in the absence of righteous people? And we're talking about "righteous people" as intepreted by anyone and everyone? How does that turn into "Yaa Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, help me pass my underwater basket-weaving exam"?

            Brother Abu Sulayman, you don't have any answers for us. All you have accomplished is raise more doubts and confusion for laypeople.

            All I can continue to do is translate and paraphrase as many of the rebuttals to your cut & paste arguments as I can. It's been quite some time since I've dealt with these issues, so thank you for encouraging me to revisit them.

            I feel like there should be some kind of award for anyone that actually reads all this...

            Comment


            • AbuNajm

              Assalamu alaykum,

              I don't mean to interrupt the discussion or derail the thread but I would appreciate if you could briefly address the following questions:

              1. Do you believe "Fiqh al-Akbar" is authentically attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa?
              2. Are there any discrepancies between the creed of Imam Ahmad and what is authored in Fiqh al-Akbar?
              3. How do you respond to those who claim that the contemporaries of Abu Hanifa held a negative view regarding him not only for being a weak narrator or preferring Ali over Uthman? Did this not have anything to do with him possibly engaging in blameworthy Kalam?

              JazakAllah Khayr.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

                I feel like there should be some kind of award for anyone that actually reads all this...
                Dear brother and Mubtadi', your Dua' to Allah Azza Wa Jal for my sake, Abu Sulayman's sake and all of our sakes will be enough as a reward. I have read everything you wrote, and I hope you believe we are so misguided that you are making copious dua for our sakes. Insha'Allah I'll strive to do the same for you.
                Actually saying less sometimes is saying more, as an elder related to us.


                Something came to Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani (al-Hanbali al-Athari) in the form of a light, and told him he had acheived such a level that he could now abandon the Sharia. Shaykh AbdulQadir thought to himself, how it was that the Prophets Alayhim Salam, the Sahabah Radiyallahu Anhum, the pious from as-Salaf as-Salihin and the previous A'immah, all reached such a high spiritual station, and yet they never gave up the Sharia? So if they stuck to it strictly, who was he to out-do them and reach some kind of supposed level where he doesn't have to follow it? So he realised this light was speaking falsehood.

                So he realised this light was Shaytan.

                Then after realising this and after he identified Shaytan, Shaytan said, "Your knowledge has saved you," Shaykh AbdulQadir replied, "Rather Allah through his Mercy has saved me,"



                May Allah through his mercy save us both.

                Comment


                • AbuNajm, I actually intended answering your previous points one by one, but a brother advised me not to engage with you anymore and this due to your posts containing quite many mistakes and indications of ignorance and some other reasons.

                  I will give you just one example: I told you that Imam al-Subki (d. 756 AH) wrote a work named as Shifa` al-Siqam fi Ziyarat Khayr al-Anam (The Healing of Sickness in the Visitation of the Best of Creation) regarding the issue of the visitation in refutation of Imam Ibn Taymiyya's (d. 728 AH) position and told you that major scholars (including al-'Iraqi (d. 826 AH), al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH), al-Haytami (d. 974 AH), etc.) praised it. As an response to this you told me that they may have just "loved the poem". Shifa` al-Siqam is regarding the issue mentioned and NOT a poem. If this much is not known to you, then we really don't need to discuss any further.
                  (In this work he also refutes him on the issue of Tawassul.)

                  Additionally to the above it would take quite a long time to correct every point with proofs and we would get more and more into off-topic issues. So I'll just concentrate on some points, which are important to me here.


                  But before doing so, let me state the this here:

                  As for this attempt to undermine the Asha'ira (may Allah ta'ala have mercy upon them!) and to act as if nothing they state is taken into consideration and making all types of wrong claims against them:
                  This is 100 % revisionist and deceptive propaganda and nowhere the classical mindset! The Asha'ira have produced among the best books in the different Islamic sciences and this is something that NO ONE will be able to deny! They in fact were the dominant group in all those times where Muslims were strong, so no one is in the position to be dismissing them!
                  Rather we will not take what the modern "Salafis" say into consideration as they are the ones that have no Salaf in reality (other than the Karramiyya and the Khawarij) and are simply followers of the Najdis with their shaven heads (!) and this is enough as a humiliation! And their so called "scholars" are in reality callers to hellfire and this is how we will view them!

                  Regarding the brilliance of the Asha'ira: I will give an example: Who wrote al-Mustasfa, which is one of the most important works on Usul al-Fiqh? Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH), the famous Ash'ari! Even Imam Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali (d. 620 AH) - who is critical of some Ash'ari views - benefited from this work and his famous Rawdhat al-Nadhir is actually based upon such a degree upon al-Mustasfa, that some called it as its summary, so imagine!
                  So here you have it! Every proper Sunni is in need of the works written by the great Ash'ari masters!
                  (In fact even the "Salafi" innovators are unable to study most sciences properly without referring to works written by Asha'ira, while we're not in need of a SINGLE "Salafi" work!)

                  - The major Shafi'i scholars have been mostly Asha'ira!
                  - The major Maliki scholars have again been mostly Asha'ira!

                  - As for the Ahnaf, then their creed has never been Hanbali (with some rare exceptions), let alone Taymiyyan! Imam Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) himself was not upon the Hanbali creed and you can deny this as much as you want, but this is ESTABLISHED! We have more than enough works by their scholars to know this with certainty!
                  Later on in the time of the Ottoman state their creed became known as Maturidi and it's synonymous with the Hanafi creed. If you look into the works of earlier Ash'aris and Hanbalis you will see them simply saying "the Ahnaf believe this and that" and this while mentioning what later on was called as Maturidi!
                  It really seems that you're completely oblivious to this and have been heavily fooled by "Salafi" propaganda!

                  This reminds me of claims like "al-Nawawi was not an Ash'ari" - in order to fool the laymen - and this with the knowledge that Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) did not just study Ash'ari works, but even taught it to his students as a creed (!) and when referring to the Ash'ari Mutakallimun he explicitly calls them as "ASHABUNA"!
                  So this is the level of the deception that "Salafis" have reached, where the deny the most obvious of issues!

                  - As for the Hanabila: Then they never were Asha'ira, nor have I ever claimed otherwise. But their absolute majority were not upon "Ibn Taymiyya / Ibn Hamid"-style of creed (which is either near to Tashbih or already Tashbih) nor upon "Ibn al-Jawzi / Ibn 'Aqil"-type of creed (which is nearer to the Asha'ira), but rather in line with the "Abu Ya'la / Ibn Qudama / Ibn Hamdan"-type of creed (which you people reject, because it contains clear Tanzih!).
                  AND: The absolute majority of them vehemently defended Tafwidh and attacked Ta`wil!
                  So here you have it: Even the majority of the Hanabila were "deviant" according to "Salafi" logic, so you have not left a single Madhhab except that you claimed that the majority of their major scholars "deviated from the correct creed"!
                  And this means that you people are invalidating the divine law and you people are the ones who have opened the door wide open for the modernists to do their so called "Ijtihad" in destruction of the divine law!

                  If we were to ask the "Salafis" to tell us the percentage from among the major classical scholars of Islam who had these "Salafi" positions, then they would be not even able to answer 5 %:
                  - The belief that God is subject to changes (Hulul al-Hawadith)
                  - The belief in the possibility of temporality having no first (Hawadith la Awwala laha)
                  - The belief that there is common degree in meaning between the attributes of the creation and that of the Creator (So what is this commonality regarding a description like "Saq" for example?)
                  - The belief that it's not allowed to declare God transcendent from corporeality (To the degree that some of you don't even know what they're worshiping!)

                  With this being your state, you are in no position to point your fingers at the Ash'aira, who are the leaders and masters of Ahl al-Sunna! The strength of the Asha'ira is the strength of the Muslims, and their weakness is the weakness of Muslims!
                  When was al-Quds al-sharif reopened? When the Asha'ira were dominating the lands! When was Istanbul opened? Again, when the Asha'ira were dominating the lands!
                  I saw you being happy that Ash'aris are weak today, but let me tell you that in the very same manner the disbelievers are happy at the weakness of Muslims in general! The Najdis and thereafter the "Salafis" could only rise, when the disbelievers were invading our lands one after the other! And before them we had the Safawi Rafidhi rise in Iran!
                  So when the Rafidha and the "Salafiyya" have become more widespread in our time, then this does not mean them to be upon the truth! Rather it's expected that before the coming of the Dajjal the callers to hellfire will become prominent and followed among the people!


                  As for Tasawwuf: Then you think that we're calling you to become some weird cultist "Sufi", but this is not the case! Rather we call you to that which the scholars of Islam taught from Tasawwuf and Ihsan!
                  And as for the Hanabila and Tasawwuf: Then it should be enough for you to realize the level of ignorance of the "Salafis" regarding this issue, when Imam Ibn Qudama received the Sufi cloak from no one other than Imam 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (d. 561 AH) himself! So here you have one of the major A`imma of the Madhhab being literally a Sufi! And this just one example! Imagine what would happen if other examples were mentioned!
                  Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 19-03-21, 08:49 PM.

                  Comment


                  • "Salafi" claim: "seeking intercession" does not mean "seeking intercession"!

                    Note that some "Salafis" will claim that saying "So I've come to you, asking for forgiveness for my sin and seeking intercession through you unto my Lord" (as recommended by major scholars including Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) in al-Mughni) during the visitation is just an empty statement and is not intended as asking for intercession from our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).

                    Now this is clear "Salafi" deception. Rather it's clearly understood as asking for intercession!

                    And we can also quote other scholars who used similar wordings and thereby establish beyond doubt that it's intended as asking for intercession:
                    - Imam al-Mawsili (d. 683 AH) for example mentioned in Ta'lil al-Mukhtar that one should say "Intercession, intercession, o Messenger of Allah" and before that he stated "so intercede for us to your Lord"!
                    - Imam Ibn al-Humam (d. 861 AH) said in Fath al-Qadir that one should say "O Messenger of Allah, I ask you for intercession"!
                    - Imam al-Samhudi (d. 911 AH) stated in Khulasat al-Wafa that one should say "So intercede for me, o Messenger of the Lord of the worlds"!
                    Should I keep on?

                    So here you have it! Explicit asking for intercession from the statements of the leading scholars!


                    Najdi and "Salafis" regarding the statement "O Messenger of Allah, I ask for your intercession" to be "greater polytheism"

                    Note that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) - in his ignorance regarding the creed of the people of Islam - claimed that the simple asking for intercession is "Shirk akbar" and even included this among his ten nullifiers of Najdism (which he falsely called as Islam)!

                    He took a correct statement from the classical Hanabila regarding the taking of intermediaries (Wasa`it) (with its clear polytheist understanding) and modified it in such an evil manner in order to apply it even to the Islamic concept of intercession!

                    His son 'Abdullah (d. 1244 AH) explicitly admitted that the scholars of the past had allowed it and still stubbornly argued that it's "polytheism that allows the blood to be spilled".
                    Then he took his deviance to a complete new level by claiming that these scholars of the past "were excused, because the Najdi call had not reached them".

                    This implies disbelief on behalf of these Najdis, because it seems that they thought that proof is not established by the Prophetic call (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) (which had reached these scholars without any doubt!), but rather through the Najdi call! So what is this, o people!?


                    Najdi DISBELIEF: "The Prophet is a simple postman and even inanimate objects have more benefit than him after his death"

                    Note that major scholars (like the 'Allama 'Alawi al-Haddad (d. 1232 AH) and others) have mentioned that these Najdis used to call our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) as "Tarish" (!!!) (which is a word from the dialect and basically means "a simple postman") and that they would regard inanimate objects to be of more benefit than our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), because in their mindset the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) can not aid or benefit anyone after his death!
                    (I disassociate myself from this disbelief and its people!)

                    What do the people of the truth and the Sunna believe? They believe in what their Lord jalla jalaluhu stated:

                    { ุฅูู†ู‘ูŽุง ุฃูŽุฑู’ุณูŽู„ู’ู†ูŽุงูƒูŽ ุดูŽุงู‡ูุฏู‹ุง ูˆูŽู…ูุจูŽุดูู‘ุฑู‹ุง ูˆูŽู†ูŽุฐููŠุฑู‹ุง }
                    { ู„ูู‘ุชูุคู’ู…ูู†ููˆุง ุจูุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ูˆูŽุฑูŽุณููˆู„ูู‡ู ูˆูŽุชูุนูŽุฒูู‘ุฑููˆู‡ู ูˆูŽุชููˆูŽู‚ูู‘ุฑููˆู‡ู ูˆูŽุชูุณูŽุจูู‘ุญููˆู‡ู ุจููƒู’ุฑูŽุฉู‹ ูˆูŽุฃูŽุตููŠู„ู‹ุง }

                    { [O Messenger!] Verily, We have sent you as a witness, a bringer of glad tidings and a warner [of punishment]. }
                    { So that, [O people] you may believe in Allฤh and His messenger; and that you revere him and respect him, and that you sanctify your Lord in the morning and evening. }

                    [48:8-9]

                    And they also believe in His statement:

                    { ูˆูŽุงู„ู‘ูŽุฐููŠู†ูŽ ูŠูุคู’ุฐููˆู†ูŽ ุฑูŽุณููˆู„ูŽ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ู„ูŽู‡ูู…ู’ ุนูŽุฐูŽุงุจูŒ ุฃูŽู„ููŠู…ูŒ }

                    { And those who hurt the Messenger of Allฤh, for them is a painful punishment. }

                    [9:61]

                    And they know that our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is alive in his grave and that he's informed regarding our deeds and our state (remember that he's a witness upon us!) and that he prays for his nation and that his miracles do not stop with his death! He (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is connected to his Umma and may Allah ta'ala punish every single person, who wants to disconnect his Umma from him!

                    Remember also the narrations regarding al-Isra` wal Mi'raj and how our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) met different Prophets (peace be upon them all) (who had already died!) at different places and how Musa (peace be upon him) even aided this Umma! So look at these authentic texts and what they describe regarding the Prophets (peace be upon them all) and their Mu'jizat and Karamat even after their death and compare this with the Najdi atheist mindset!
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 19-03-21, 10:01 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Some interesting and short videos in Arabic

                      I would like to recommend listening to some short videos by the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali regarding issues related to Tawassul and Istighatha:


                      In this video he explains the difference between Imam Ibn Taymiyya and the Hanabila regarding Tawassul:

                      ุงู„ุญู†ุงุจู„ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุงุฎุชู„ุงู ู…ุน ุงุจู† ุชูŠู…ูŠุฉ ููŠ ู…ุณุฃู„ุฉ ุงู„ุชูˆุณู„ ูˆุงู„ุชุจุฑูƒ




                      Here he explains Tawassul again in accordance to the Hanbali Madhhab (and that it's allowed):

                      ุงู„ุชูˆุณู„ ุจุงู„ุตุงู„ุญูŠู† ุจุฐุงุชู‡ู… ูˆ ุจุฌุงู‡ู‡ู… ู…ุฐู‡ุจ ุงู„ุฅู…ุงู… ุฃุญู…ุฏ ุจู† ุญู†ุจู„




                      Here he quotes Imam Ibn Taymiyya regarding the polytheist concept of intermediaries (Wasa`it):

                      ุงุจู† ุชูŠู…ูŠุฉ ูˆ ุงู„ุงุณุชุบุงุซุฉ



                      Now with this belief Istighatha becomes greater polytheism according to Imam Ibn Taymiyya and he's absolutely correct here and there is AGREEMENT upon what he stated here!
                      (Look how far away Najdis are from understanding him correctly!)


                      Here he mentions the different types of Istighatha and their ruling in accordance to a Hanbali scholar (who is in agreement with the view of Ibn Taymiyya on this issue!):

                      ุงู„ุงุณุชุบุงุซุฉ ูˆ ุฃู‚ุณุงู…ู‡ุง



                      Look how not all types are greater polytheism, rather only what is connected with the polytheist concept of intermediaries!
                      Look how it's also mentioned that there are two scholarly views regarding Istighatha and Tawassul: One view doesn't differentiate between the two (and allows both), while the other differentiates between them (and allows Tawassul, while disallowing Istighatha).
                      (The Shaykh himself prefers the view that Tawassul is allowed, while Istighatha should be disallowed to laymen.)


                      And here he mentions the famous poems of Imam al-Sarsari al-Hanbali (d. 656 AH) in praise of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) - which is literally filled with Tawassul, Tashaffu' AND Istighatha! - and how the Hanabila praised Imam al-Sarsari AND his poems:

                      ุซู†ุงุก ุนู„ู…ุงุก ุงู„ุญู†ุงุจู„ุฉ ุนู„ู‰ ุงุณุชุบุงุซุงุช ุงู„โ€ุตุฑุตุฑูŠ



                      Look how Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) praises him AND his poetry and how he describes him to be staunch upon the Sunna (!) and how he does not even say one word in criticism of all the Istighatha that are found in it!
                      Even Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) praised him and only criticized his Istighatha very slightly! But what did the same Imam Ibn Taymiyya do in real life? He went and listened to these very poems filled with Istighatha and became emotional and cried even more when it reached the passage with Istighatha!
                      So here you have it! He was a "Quburi" too and did not regard what was stated as "greater polytheism"!


                      There are more videos, but for now the above should be enough.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        ...It's nowhere mentioned in the Hadith that our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) actually prayed for him...
                        BTW, is this a commonly held belief, that the messenger of Allah didn't actually do as he promised?

                        Comment


                        • The irony ...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                            AbuNajm, I actually intended answering your previous points one by one, but a brother advised me not to engage with you anymore and this due to your posts containing quite many mistakes and indications of ignorance and some other reasons.

                            I will give you just one example: I told you that Imam al-Subki (d. 756 AH) wrote a work named as Shifa` al-Siqam fi Ziyarat Khayr al-Anam (The Healing of Sickness in the Visitation of the Best of Creation) regarding the issue of the visitation in refutation of Imam Ibn Taymiyya's (d. 728 AH) position and told you that major scholars (including al-'Iraqi (d. 826 AH), al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH), al-Haytami (d. 974 AH), etc.) praised it. As an response to this you told me that they may have just "loved the poem". Shifa` al-Siqam is regarding the issue mentioned and NOT a poem. If this much is not known to you, then we really don't need to discuss any further.
                            (In this work he also refutes him on the issue of Tawassul.)

                            Additionally to the above it would take quite a long time to correct every point with proofs and we would get more and more into off-topic issues. So I'll just concentrate on some points, which are important to me here.
                            I didn't read as-Subki's book. Never gave that impression. The only answer I gave about it was: accepting that the scholars you mentioned did love the "work" [whatever it is] and that Ibn Abd al-Hadi responded to it.

                            As for my calling it a "poem" then it was only due to misunderstanding what you said about it.

                            If that's "ignorance", then I'm guilty as charged.

                            As for not "engaging" me because of not reading a random Ash'ari work promoting falsehood. Tell me, did you read Ibn Abd al-Hadi's response to as-Subki?

                            If you didn't, then the same accusations would apply to you.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                              AbuNajm

                              Assalamu alaykum,

                              I don't mean to interrupt the discussion or derail the thread but I would appreciate if you could briefly address the following questions:

                              1. Do you believe "Fiqh al-Akbar" is authentically attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa?
                              2. Are there any discrepancies between the creed of Imam Ahmad and what is authored in Fiqh al-Akbar?
                              3. How do you respond to those who claim that the contemporaries of Abu Hanifa held a negative view regarding him not only for being a weak narrator or preferring Ali over Uthman? Did this not have anything to do with him possibly engaging in blameworthy Kalam?

                              JazakAllah Khayr.
                              ูˆุนู„ูŠูƒู… ุงู„ุณู„ุงู… ูˆุฑุญู…ุฉ ุงู„ู„ู‡

                              1. It doesn't matter what I believe or think on any of these subjects. I'm nobody to formulate my own opinion or much less suggest that others follow it.

                              What I will say is scholars like Ibn Abil-Izz, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qudamah, adh-Dhahabi, and Ibn Qayyim considered al-Fiqh al-Akbar as correctly attributed to Abu Hanifah, rahimahu Llahu. However, that's not to say that every single thing in it is authentically attributed to Abu Hanifah. Scholars have gone through the book and pointed out what is correct or incorrectly attributed to the Imam.

                              One of the criticisms of al-Fiqh al-Akbar is the two transmissions that exist for it through Abi Mati' al-Hakam and Hammad bin Abi Hanifah. Neither of them transmit soundly on authority of Abu Hanifah and there are some issues/Masaa'il in al-Fiqh al-Akbar which do not correspond to the Aqidah of Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah. Instead of attributing those points of Aqidah to Abu Hanifah, many scholars have opted for chalking them up to the unsound transmission and interjection of statements not from Abu Hanifah.

                              Before any Ash'aris or Sufis chime in with their accusations against me personally for vocalizing these views and adopting them, let me provide a link where those doubts and concerns can be directed:

                              https://islamqa.info

                              It's ok to not like what I have to say or to oppose the scholarly views I adopt, but what has to stop is making personal accusations of "ignorance" against me simply for adopting a scholarly view.

                              I will gladly provide links and references to everything I say regarding points in Fiqh, Aqidah, Hadith, etc.

                              My problem with some members here is that almost every time I have done so, they have insulted my sources or Mashayikh. To avoid that drama and childishness, I have stopped providing references in general.

                              2. I haven't read al-Fiqh al-Akbar all the way through. As mentioned above, many scholars have written works dedicated to pointing out the discrepancies between some of what is found in al-Fiqh al-Akbar and the Aqidah of Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah. The link above names two of those works.

                              3. My understanding of this issue based on what scholars have said is that contemporaries and early critics of Abu Hanifah based much of their responsa on what was falsely attributed to Abu Hanifah by deviant sects and groups who attempted [and still attempt] to co-opt major A'immah and scholars through misinterpretation of their statements or attribution of falsehoods to them.

                              The same is being done with Imam Ahmad today with Ash'aris falsely claiming "Tafweedh al-Ma'anaa" or "consignment of the meaning" of the Attributes of Allah AWJ.

                              They have done this throughout history because Ash'aris could not remain satisfied with merely infiltrating the Madhaahib- no, they had to infiltrate the Aqidah of Ahl as-Sunnah as well. This is simply not possible to do through books of Fiqh.

                              The only criticism that still stands against Abu Hanifah, and it is a methodological criticism, is his alternate prioritization of the principles and main sources of evidence in Islam and his perceived rejection of Takhsis of the Quran by means of the Sunnah. Despite these criticisms, Abu Hanifah's positions and views form part of the Sunnah and the Shari'ah. As far as the credal criticisms are concerned, then scholars have dealt with these in different ways and what seems appropriate to me is to remain vigilant and critical of anything attributed to Abu Hanifah that contradicts what is well-established to be the creed of Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah.

                              Even if Ash'aris and Sufis hate that.

                              Not directed at you AmantuBillahi , but those who stir the pot and then "disengage" by means of excuses like "you're too ignorant to debate with"- all that sounds a lot like what people who are losing say when they want to cut their losses and run away.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                                BTW, is this a commonly held belief, that the messenger of Allah didn't actually do as he promised?
                                Some of the weakest responses I've ever heard have come in this thread. Still, some here want to behave as if they're undefeated and unchallenged in their claims and assertions.

                                I can tell when people digress from their usual cut & paste work because they start making all kinds of off-the-wall arguments.

                                What a surprise here- one of the main response of Ibn Taymiyyah is the Tawassul found in the Hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf is only valid during the lifetime of the Prophet SAWS because the Prophet SAWS actually made Du'a for the Blind Man and that circumstance does not apply to anyone else after that.

                                So, of course that response of Ibn Taymiyyah has to be either 1) misunderstood by everyone except promoters of Tawassul after the death of the Prophet SAWS, or 2) we can't be sure he SAWS actually made Du'a for the Blind Man!!!!

                                Even though the Hadith itself is collected by al-Bayhaqi in his book "Evidences of Prophethood" and many scholars consider the healing of the Blind Man as among the miracles performed by the Prophet SAWS.

                                This alone refutes the notion that the circumstances in the Hadith would apply to anyone else after that incident.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X