Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than ISIS

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

  • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
    There was NO attempt to hide the fact that some Shafi and Maliki scholars did follow opinions of the anthropomorphic Hanbalis in Aqida. When I stated the above, I was saying it in a general sense. Scholars do it all the time.
    No. You were rather specific in stating that the phenomena of taking the Dhaahir of the Attributes was an invention of Ibn Taymiyyah and the "Salafi Dawah, Hanbali anthropomorphs".

    I completely shredded that notion by proving it wrong through the quotes of Shafi'ees from the 4th century. I can go earlier than that as well.

    The problem is that you're going to do the same as what you just did above- move the goal posts and claim that the texts quoting those Salaf are altered somehow.

    This isn't my first rodeo.

    Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
    I was completely aware of the scholars you mentioned for in my post, I quoted Ibn Taymiyyah, who said, (Majmo al Fatawa 33:176)
    Great. The problem is you don't believe Ibn Taymiyyah. Rather you consider him a Kaafir. The only reason you'd quote him is to disprove what he's saying.

    Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
    Those scholars are from the khalaf, thus my point still remains no one from the Salafus Saleh said to take the unclear texts concerning Allah's Attributes upon its apparent meaning (ala dhahiri) intending thereby the literal meaning (haqiqatan). For example Allah's Yad. Now I am being very specific.
    Yes. Now you are. Very good. Specificity is usually what leads to Ash'aris running away or exposing themselves as deviants.

    So since you wannabe Ash'aris love to play with terminologies once you get cornered, thereby obfuscating and moving goal posts, let's get something clear:

    The time of the "Salaf" did not involve debates requiring the clarification and codification of terms like "upon the apparent meaning" and "literal meaning". These were terminologies developed specifically to combat the Jahmiyyah and other deviants who arose later on.

    One thing we agree on is that the early Salaf related the verses and Ahadith of the Attributes without delving into them or diverting them from the "apparent meaning" in their wording.

    And this is where your personal confusion regarding the Ash'ari creed leads your argument to go off to the woods and die a lonely death:

    Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
    In most cases, the dhahir (literal-haqiqatan) Asharis reject for Allah, most of Salafis I know reject the actual meaning the Asharis are rejecting as well. In some cases what Asharis call tawil (appropriate or acceptable explanation), Salafis either call it dhahir (contextual meaning) or tawil (incorrect explanation) depending on the verse or hadith being quoted.
    Yeah, right- "in most cases", and "most Salafis you know". And now "in some cases".

    So now Ash'aris engage in "Ta'weel" and accepting the "Dhaahir" for the Attributes of Allah when before they were pure Mufawwidhah who didn't know the meaning. Tell me- how can a person give a "Ta'weel" or accept the "Dhaahir/Haqeeqah" of a term if they don't know its meaning?

    You're all over the place since I broke open your claim of Tafweedh.

    Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
    Asharis and Salafis utilize different methodology. The wording may be similar but the meanings utilized may be different.
    Who's talking about "Salafis"? I'm not a "Salafi" and all the quotes I've brought so far are from the classical scholars of Islam.

    Wannabe Ash'aris don't have a methodology. Rather when they get caught lying or confusing matters, they being to waiver and play with terminologies so that they can avoid acknowledging they didn't know enough about their own creed much less the creed of the Salaf.

    Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
    Most of the people I know, use tafwid with great success. The general rule is we implement tafwid, of course there are cases when tawil is appropriate, for various reasons.
    Let me explain to those reading, since you seem to be oblivious to the fact that now you've been outed as having no methodology whatsoever:

    1) You claim that the Salaf practiced Tafweedh and that this Tafweedh consists of not knowing the meaning of the Attributes of Allah, which is the Ash'ari creed.

    2) Then you claimed that taking the Dhaahir of the Attributes is anthropomorphism invented by Hanbalis and promoted by Salafi Dawah.

    3) Now you're saying Ash'aris take the Dhaahir and make Ta'weel of the Attributes, only after I proved it to you that they do so.

    4) To defend your creed, you now claim that the terms "Dhaahir" and "Ta'weel" mean something different to the Ash'aris and Salafis and that's why it's ok when the Ash'aris do it.

    You're a mess. Maybe another Ash'ari on this forum can help you out.

    Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
    In my quote above, when I said the Salafus followed the way of tafwid, I was being general again. It would have been more accurate for me to say, the vast majority of the Salafus Saleh followed tafwid while some implimented tawil. Tafwid and Tawil existed in the time of the Salafus Saleh.
    Ah yes, the waivering continues.

    So, now the Salaf practiced Ta'weel and Tafweedh at the same time. This stands to reason then, that there are some Attributes that they did know the meaning of and some which they didn't. If they were able to give a "Ta'weel" then this suggests that the meaning of the Attribute was further explained or described with a term that shared the same meaning however differed in wording.

    But I thought the Attributes belonged exclusively to the category of "Mutashabihaat" and were like the abbreviated letters and the time of the descent of Isa AS, i.e. unknown except to Allah AWJ?

    Now you're saying that some Attributes belong to the "Mutashabihaat" as defined by one opinion of the Tafseer of the 3:7, i.e. unknown except to Allah, and other Attributes belong to the "Mutashabihaat" as defined by another opinion, i.e. verses which have more than one wording but the same meaning or a different meaning but the same wording.

    What's the point of ever saying that the Salaf practiced "Tafweedh" if they didn't do so exclusively?

    What's the point of saying the Attributes belong to the category of "only Allah knows their meaning" if that isn't the case in all instances?
    Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
    No one is obligated to follow any specific nomenclature with its meanings as the Prophet :saw: did not specifically legislate that. Terminology and nomenclature are an ijithad of the scholars as a means to systematize and codify the Aqida of Ahlus Sunnah in a way to make it easy to understand. Some scholars were better at it than other scholars. One reality remains, is that scholars DO NOT always use the same technical vocabulary. That said, there are many meanings for the word Tawil and dhahir. So much so, that in some cases dhahir and tawil are synonyms.


    Therein lies your issue.

    Earlier you conflated the terms "Dhaahir" and "Haqiqah", and now you're conflating the terms "Dhaahir" and "Ta'weel".

    You're not an Ash'ari and you're not ready to have this conversation. The aforementioned terms can never be synonyms except to the person who confuses them and cannot defend his misuse of them.

    Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
    I don't want to go into a terminology warfare with you. It leads to no where.
    Ah, but it has led somewhere. It's just that his place it has led is no good for your grip on the reality of your confused "creed".

    I've been debating with wannabe Ash'aris for over 15 years. I would say to you "take some time and come back", but in my experience, people in your position just dig themselves farther into the confusion. Your problem is that you didn't study Aqeedah properly from the outset, rather you began by being influenced by these peddlers of confusion and obfuscation from the beginning, so that the truth sounds false and falsehood sounds true.

    For those who begin their study of Aqeedah under the auspices of neo-Ash'aris, they rarely ever dig themselves out of that deviant sect. Even wannabe so-called "Salafis" fall prey to that deviant creed, if they don't begin with studying Aqeedah properly before engaging in such debates and discussions.

    Very sad.

    But let me let you in on something you apparently don't know:

    A person who accepts the "Ta'weel" and "Tafweedh al-Kayfiyyah" of the Salaf, and also acknowledges that when the Salaf did not do "Ta'weel" and simply "passed along as is" the Attribute upon "its Dhaahir", that such a person is an Athari in Aqeedah, not an Ash'ari.

    You're almost there. Only if you'd get out of your own way...

    Comment


    • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

      Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
      Barak Allah fik

      But as it pertains to the understanding of Abu Sulayman , which he describes clearly in this post ...

      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman
      What I do believe is that the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - supplicates for his Ummah after his death. So this means that he's a mean for Allah's help to come through his supplication and intercession.

      As for the issue of hearing: If one is in front of his grave he - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - will hear one and if one is far away then it may reach him through angels. Even if it doesn't reach him from afar, then I believe there is Barakah (blessings) in mentioning the name of Rasulallah, 'alayhi salatu wa sallam. So Allah's help may simply come by the Barakah of our beloved Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.

      If Allah ta'ala gives help to the Muslim who does Tawassul, Tashaffu' or Istighathah with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, then this is a Mu'jizah that Allah ta'ala granted to his beloved Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam, even after his death. That is why Imam Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 AH) said the following:



      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!

      Fatawa Ibn al-Salah

      Is everything clear now?
      What is the Hukm with regards to this post I quoted. Sorry to push you on this , but I don't feel that my question is being answered.

      Thank you in advanced.
      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman
      What I do believe is that the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - supplicates for his Ummah after his death. So this means that he's a mean for Allah's help to come through his supplication and intercession.
      There is no acceptable proof that the Prophet SAWS comes to know about the affairs of every individual of his Ummah after his SAWS death.

      So that if I say from my seat in my home, "Oh Allah! I ask you by the right/honor of Your Prophet to grant me relief from hardship. Ameen," the Prophet SAWS is not informed of this Du'a or my circumstances which led to this Du'a.

      Rather the Du'a goes straight to Allah AWJ and He AWJ responds.

      Now, if Abu Sulayman means by this that Allah's love for His Prophet SAWS is the "means" by which my Du'a is looked favorably upon and responded affirmatively to, then this, although a reasonable and non-Shirk issue, is still wrong.

      We believe, as Muslims, that when we make Du'a to Allah for some Dunya-related matter, the response is always going to be the best for us, whether what we're asking for is granted or not. And when we make Du'a to Allah for some Akhirah-related matter, the response is always going to be coupled with whether our own condition permits the favor, mercy and blessing to descend in response.

      So what use is Allah's love for His Prophet to us as sinners and seekers of Dunya-related matters? What proof is there that the Prophet SAWS is aware of all the circumstances and Ad'iyyah of every member of his Ummah and actively interceding and supplicating on their behalf? And if true, how is this not a share of the unique Attributes of Allah?

      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman
      As for the issue of hearing: If one is in front of his grave he - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - will hear one and if one is far away then it may reach him through angels.
      The only information we've been given about the matter of the hearing of the dead is what is related in authentic Ahadith. And if we adhere closely to what those Hadith mention and not seek to expand their meaning through speculation or various rationales, then only the Salaam is conveyed to the Prophet SAWS by angels and the hearing of the dead in the grave is limited to the footsteps directly after the funeral and other specific matters.

      There is not a single acceptable Hadith which informs us that the Prophet SAWS can hear every speaker at his grave. And as for those far away, we know that our Salaam must be conveyed through angels in order to reach him SAWS.

      If the Prophet's soul is returned to him to respond to the Salaam, then how do we know that his SAWS soul is present in the grave and returned to him, when an individual is standing at the grave speaking to him SAWS?

      You see, these Ash'aris will take a holier-than-thou approach to the Attributes of Allah and condemn Atharis for speaking about the Unseen without rigorously authenticated proof directly from the Quran and Ahadith, yet when it comes to the matter of the Unseen vis-a-vis Tawassul, Istighaathah and Istishfaa', they accept all kinds of speculation, reasoning and interpretation.

      Setting all that aside, as Atharis we demand specific acceptable proof as answers to these questions. All the Ash'aris can offer are more stories about dreams, chainless narratives, novel interpretations from the Khalaf and Aql-based deductions. None of which they would permit regarding the Attributes of Allah.

      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman
      Even if it doesn't reach him from afar, then I believe there is Barakah (blessings) in mentioning the name of Rasulallah, 'alayhi salatu wa sallam. So Allah's help may simply come by the Barakah of our beloved Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.
      This is not how "creed" works- "I believe this act to be so true, I stake my Akhirah on it and condemn those who condemn it, however, just in case it's not true, then that's ok because the blessing in the outward form of the act and the intention behind it is sufficient."

      That seems more like the creed of a spoiled, confused 5-year old.

      If there is sufficient Barakah in simply mentioning the name of the Prophet, then why not simply engage in the myriad of Dhikr that mention the name of the Prophet SAWS and come by way of rigorously authenticated Ahadith?

      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman
      If Allah ta'ala gives help to the Muslim who does Tawassul, Tashaffu' or Istighathah with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, then this is a Mu'jizah that Allah ta'ala granted to his beloved Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam, even after his death.
      What we know for sure is that if a person commits Shirk, even if this Shirk involves the person of the Prophet SAWS, Allah will not only not help this person, but put them in the Hell-Fire and curse them in life.

      So it's extremely important to understand that Tawassul, Istighaathah and Istishfaa' can involve what is recommended, permissible, prohibited, innovation and Shirk, where the only difference between those rulings can be a simple point of belief and a wording.

      It stands to reason then that each person who wishes to engage in these matters, and really any matter of the Deen, is clear as day as to the precise manner and wording of the recommended and acceptable forms of Tawassul, Istighaathah and Istishfaa'. And what better safety and security can be offered than the instructions as found in rigorously authenticated and agreed-upon verses and Ahadith of the Prophet SAWS?

      If we adhere to the instruction found in the rigorously authenticated and agreed-upon verses and Ahadith, then there is no confusion on these matters.

      We do not direct anything except our Salaam towards the Prophet SAWS. We directly address Allah AWJ with our needs and Du'a. And we all pray and hope for the intercession of the Prophet SAWS on the Day of Resurrection.

      Anything else is in the realm of speculation for which we have no proof in front of Allah on the Day of Resurrection except to say "so-and-so said..."

      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman
      That is why Imam Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 AH) said the following:



      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!

      Fatawa Ibn al-Salah


      None of what is mentioned in the quote discusses "how" these miracles came about- so we are left to assume they were through legislated forms of Ibaadah.

      Comment


      • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

        Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

        You see, these Ash'aris will take a holier-than-thou approach to the Attributes of Allah and condemn Atharis for speaking about the Unseen without rigorously authenticated proof directly from the Quran and Ahadith, yet when it comes to the matter of the Unseen vis-a-vis Tawassul, Istighaathah and Istishfaa', they accept all kinds of speculation, reasoning and interpretation.

        Setting all that aside, as Atharis we demand specific acceptable proof as answers to these questions. All the Ash'aris can offer are more stories about dreams, chainless narratives, novel interpretations from the Khalaf and Aql-based deductions. None of which they would permit regarding the Attributes of Allah.

        Wallaahi this is gold.

        You would think a sect which boasts itself as people of logic , and decisive proofs - would have strict standards when it comes to Ibaadah and affirming possibilities for the Messenger (saws). As you have pointed out , it is a clear inconsistency.

        It would have been more cohesive had they took an Athari approach and not went beyond what is absolutely certain.


        Anyways thank you for the detailed response. I think it's extremely important that we are not comparing 'apples and oranges' - and this goes to both parties.

        When Salafees say Istighatha is shirk akbar , or when [MENTION=122148]Abu Sulayman[/MENTION] says Salafees accuse classical scholars of shirk akbar , well we are not always comparing the exact same form or intended meaning of Istighatha.

        My family is from Iran. When they say " Ya Ali " / "Ya Abu'l Fadhl" they don't follow the understanding of Abu Sulayman. They believe Ali is everywhere and Ali is helping you directly. Hence the difference , the true uneqivocal Shirk Akbar form of Istighatha.

        And Allah knows best.
        Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 28-09-17, 07:01 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

          Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
          There is no acceptable proof that the Prophet SAWS comes to know about the affairs of every individual of his Ummah after his SAWS death.

          So that if I say from my seat in my home, "Oh Allah! I ask you by the right/honor of Your Prophet to grant me relief from hardship. Ameen," the Prophet SAWS is not informed of this Du'a or my circumstances which led to this Du'a.

          Rather the Du'a goes straight to Allah AWJ and He AWJ responds.

          Now, if Abu Sulayman means by this that Allah's love for His Prophet SAWS is the "means" by which my Du'a is looked favorably upon and responded affirmatively to, then this, although a reasonable and non-Shirk issue, is still wrong.

          We believe, as Muslims, that when we make Du'a to Allah for some Dunya-related matter, the response is always going to be the best for us, whether what we're asking for is granted or not. And when we make Du'a to Allah for some Akhirah-related matter, the response is always going to be coupled with whether our own condition permits the favor, mercy and blessing to descend in response.

          So what use is Allah's love for His Prophet to us as sinners and seekers of Dunya-related matters? What proof is there that the Prophet SAWS is aware of all the circumstances and Ad'iyyah of every member of his Ummah and actively interceding and supplicating on their behalf? And if true, how is this not a share of the unique Attributes of Allah?



          The only information we've been given about the matter of the hearing of the dead is what is related in authentic Ahadith. And if we adhere closely to what those Hadith mention and not seek to expand their meaning through speculation or various rationales, then only the Salaam is conveyed to the Prophet SAWS by angels and the hearing of the dead in the grave is limited to the footsteps directly after the funeral and other specific matters.

          There is not a single acceptable Hadith which informs us that the Prophet SAWS can hear every speaker at his grave. And as for those far away, we know that our Salaam must be conveyed through angels in order to reach him SAWS.

          If the Prophet's soul is returned to him to respond to the Salaam, then how do we know that his SAWS soul is present in the grave and returned to him, when an individual is standing at the grave speaking to him SAWS?

          You see, these Ash'aris will take a holier-than-thou approach to the Attributes of Allah and condemn Atharis for speaking about the Unseen without rigorously authenticated proof directly from the Quran and Ahadith, yet when it comes to the matter of the Unseen vis-a-vis Tawassul, Istighaathah and Istishfaa', they accept all kinds of speculation, reasoning and interpretation.

          Setting all that aside, as Atharis we demand specific acceptable proof as answers to these questions. All the Ash'aris can offer are more stories about dreams, chainless narratives, novel interpretations from the Khalaf and Aql-based deductions. None of which they would permit regarding the Attributes of Allah.



          This is not how "creed" works- "I believe this act to be so true, I stake my Akhirah on it and condemn those who condemn it, however, just in case it's not true, then that's ok because the blessing in the outward form of the act and the intention behind it is sufficient."

          That seems more like the creed of a spoiled, confused 5-year old.

          If there is sufficient Barakah in simply mentioning the name of the Prophet, then why not simply engage in the myriad of Dhikr that mention the name of the Prophet SAWS and come by way of rigorously authenticated Ahadith?



          What we know for sure is that if a person commits Shirk, even if this Shirk involves the person of the Prophet SAWS, Allah will not only not help this person, but put them in the Hell-Fire and curse them in life.

          So it's extremely important to understand that Tawassul, Istighaathah and Istishfaa' can involve what is recommended, permissible, prohibited, innovation and Shirk, where the only difference between those rulings can be a simple point of belief and a wording.

          It stands to reason then that each person who wishes to engage in these matters, and really any matter of the Deen, is clear as day as to the precise manner and wording of the recommended and acceptable forms of Tawassul, Istighaathah and Istishfaa'. And what better safety and security can be offered than the instructions as found in rigorously authenticated and agreed-upon verses and Ahadith of the Prophet SAWS?

          If we adhere to the instruction found in the rigorously authenticated and agreed-upon verses and Ahadith, then there is no confusion on these matters.

          We do not direct anything except our Salaam towards the Prophet SAWS. We directly address Allah AWJ with our needs and Du'a. And we all pray and hope for the intercession of the Prophet SAWS on the Day of Resurrection.

          Anything else is in the realm of speculation for which we have no proof in front of Allah on the Day of Resurrection except to say "so-and-so said..."



          [/FONT][/COLOR]None of what is mentioned in the quote discusses "how" these miracles came about- so we are left to assume they were through legislated forms of Ibaadah.
          Assalamu alaykom

          After reading this once again now , I believe I have taken your words " although non shirki " incorrectly.

          To make the matter decisive , and wallaahi , I am asking you for the third time for a clear answer

          1) Are the beliefs in the quote Shirk Akbar?

          Can you just reply with a yes or a no?

          Comment


          • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

            Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
            Assalamu alaykom

            After reading this once again now , I believe I have taken your words " although non shirki " incorrectly.

            To make the matter decisive , and wallaahi , I am asking you for the third time for a clear answer

            1) Are the beliefs in the quote Shirk Akbar?

            Can you just reply with a yes or a no?
            Wa Alaykas-Salam,

            Since you did not quote the part you're asking about, I cannot say a simple "yes" or "no".

            To be clear-

            Asking Allah for something "by the right of" or "by the honor of" the Prophet SAWS is not Shirk Akbar.

            Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab both said it is Haraam and a Bid'ah but they did not make Takfeer over it.

            That should've been clear already.

            I don't know why you're unclear about it except that Abu Sulayman lied and claimed that Ibn Taymiyyah and MIAW differed with Ahl as-Sunnah and the 4 schools on the matter by calling it Shirk Akbar, when they didn't.

            Comment


            • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

              Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
              Wa Alaykas-Salam,

              Since you did not quote the part you're asking about, I cannot say a simple "yes" or "no".

              To be clear-

              Asking Allah for something "by the right of" or "by the honor of" the Prophet SAWS is not Shirk Akbar.

              Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab both said it is Haraam and a Bid'ah but they did not make Takfeer over it.

              That should've been clear already.

              I don't know why you're unclear about it except that Abu Sulayman lied and claimed that Ibn Taymiyyah and MIAW differed with Ahl as-Sunnah and the 4 schools on the matter by calling it Shirk Akbar, when they didn't.
              Alaykom salam wa Rahma

              The specifics of the 'call'.

              1) You say" Yaa Nab'ee "

              2) Intending that perhaps an angel may deliver the call ( Which would result to the Nabee making du'a for you to Allah )

              3) And believing that Allah will help you regardless , simply by the Barakah of mentioning the Nabee's name.

              This belief is bid'ah and haram , and not Shirk Akbar despite the fact that upon it's Dhahir , it would appear to be Shirk. The internal beliefs are what distinguishes it's reality.

              If what I have deduced is incorrect , then please correct it.

              :jkk:
              Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 29-09-17, 01:27 AM.

              Comment


              • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                No. You were rather specific in stating that the phenomena of taking the Dhaahir of the Attributes was an invention of Ibn Taymiyyah and the "Salafi Dawah, Hanbali anthropomorphs".

                I completely shredded that notion by proving it wrong through the quotes of Shafi'ees from the 4th century. I can go earlier than that as well.

                The problem is that you're going to do the same as what you just did above- move the goal posts and claim that the texts quoting those Salaf are altered somehow.

                This isn't my first rodeo.



                Great. The problem is you don't believe Ibn Taymiyyah. Rather you consider him a Kaafir. The only reason you'd quote him is to disprove what he's saying.



                Yes. Now you are. Very good. Specificity is usually what leads to Ash'aris running away or exposing themselves as deviants.

                So since you wannabe Ash'aris love to play with terminologies once you get cornered, thereby obfuscating and moving goal posts, let's get something clear:

                The time of the "Salaf" did not involve debates requiring the clarification and codification of terms like "upon the apparent meaning" and "literal meaning". These were terminologies developed specifically to combat the Jahmiyyah and other deviants who arose later on.

                One thing we agree on is that the early Salaf related the verses and Ahadith of the Attributes without delving into them or diverting them from the "apparent meaning" in their wording.

                And this is where your personal confusion regarding the Ash'ari creed leads your argument to go off to the woods and die a lonely death:



                Yeah, right- "in most cases", and "most Salafis you know". And now "in some cases".

                So now Ash'aris engage in "Ta'weel" and accepting the "Dhaahir" for the Attributes of Allah when before they were pure Mufawwidhah who didn't know the meaning. Tell me- how can a person give a "Ta'weel" or accept the "Dhaahir/Haqeeqah" of a term if they don't know its meaning?

                You're all over the place since I broke open your claim of Tafweedh.



                Who's talking about "Salafis"? I'm not a "Salafi" and all the quotes I've brought so far are from the classical scholars of Islam.

                Wannabe Ash'aris don't have a methodology. Rather when they get caught lying or confusing matters, they being to waiver and play with terminologies so that they can avoid acknowledging they didn't know enough about their own creed much less the creed of the Salaf.



                Let me explain to those reading, since you seem to be oblivious to the fact that now you've been outed as having no methodology whatsoever:

                1) You claim that the Salaf practiced Tafweedh and that this Tafweedh consists of not knowing the meaning of the Attributes of Allah, which is the Ash'ari creed.

                2) Then you claimed that taking the Dhaahir of the Attributes is anthropomorphism invented by Hanbalis and promoted by Salafi Dawah.

                3) Now you're saying Ash'aris take the Dhaahir and make Ta'weel of the Attributes, only after I proved it to you that they do so.

                4) To defend your creed, you now claim that the terms "Dhaahir" and "Ta'weel" mean something different to the Ash'aris and Salafis and that's why it's ok when the Ash'aris do it.

                You're a mess. Maybe another Ash'ari on this forum can help you out.



                Ah yes, the waivering continues.

                So, now the Salaf practiced Ta'weel and Tafweedh at the same time. This stands to reason then, that there are some Attributes that they did know the meaning of and some which they didn't. If they were able to give a "Ta'weel" then this suggests that the meaning of the Attribute was further explained or described with a term that shared the same meaning however differed in wording.

                But I thought the Attributes belonged exclusively to the category of "Mutashabihaat" and were like the abbreviated letters and the time of the descent of Isa AS, i.e. unknown except to Allah AWJ?

                Now you're saying that some Attributes belong to the "Mutashabihaat" as defined by one opinion of the Tafseer of the 3:7, i.e. unknown except to Allah, and other Attributes belong to the "Mutashabihaat" as defined by another opinion, i.e. verses which have more than one wording but the same meaning or a different meaning but the same wording.

                What's the point of ever saying that the Salaf practiced "Tafweedh" if they didn't do so exclusively?

                What's the point of saying the Attributes belong to the category of "only Allah knows their meaning" if that isn't the case in all instances?
                [/COLOR]

                Therein lies your issue.

                Earlier you conflated the terms "Dhaahir" and "Haqiqah", and now you're conflating the terms "Dhaahir" and "Ta'weel".

                You're not an Ash'ari and you're not ready to have this conversation. The aforementioned terms can never be synonyms except to the person who confuses them and cannot defend his misuse of them.



                Ah, but it has led somewhere. It's just that his place it has led is no good for your grip on the reality of your confused "creed".

                I've been debating with wannabe Ash'aris for over 15 years. I would say to you "take some time and come back", but in my experience, people in your position just dig themselves farther into the confusion. Your problem is that you didn't study Aqeedah properly from the outset, rather you began by being influenced by these peddlers of confusion and obfuscation from the beginning, so that the truth sounds false and falsehood sounds true.

                For those who begin their study of Aqeedah under the auspices of neo-Ash'aris, they rarely ever dig themselves out of that deviant sect. Even wannabe so-called "Salafis" fall prey to that deviant creed, if they don't begin with studying Aqeedah properly before engaging in such debates and discussions.

                Very sad.

                But let me let you in on something you apparently don't know:

                A person who accepts the "Ta'weel" and "Tafweedh al-Kayfiyyah" of the Salaf, and also acknowledges that when the Salaf did not do "Ta'weel" and simply "passed along as is" the Attribute upon "its Dhaahir", that such a person is an Athari in Aqeedah, not an Ash'ari.

                You're almost there. Only if you'd get out of your own way...


                Ok I'll hear you out, teach me Salafi Aqida... and why you believe taking the dhahir is a better than the methodology of Tafwid? Or even Tawil?
                My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                Comment


                • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                  Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                  Alaykom salam wa Rahma

                  The specifics of the 'call'.

                  1) You say" Yaa Nab'ee "

                  2) Intending that perhaps an angel may deliver the call ( Which would result to the Nabee making du'a for you to Allah )

                  3) And believing that Allah will help you regardless , simply by the Barakah of mentioning the Nabee's name.

                  This belief is bid'ah and haram , and not Shirk Akbar despite the fact that upon it's Dhahir , it would appear to be Shirk. The internal beliefs are what distinguishes it's reality.

                  If what I have deduced is incorrect , then please correct it.

                  :jkk:
                  You didn't specify whether this Nidaa' was while at the grave of the Prophet SAWS or not.

                  Just like Fiqh, Hadith and Quranic sciences, Aqeedah requires precision and discipline. Too many people are running around giving verdicts and making extremely general and unrestricted statements showing they lack the basic requirements for discussing issues related to the Islamic sciences.

                  A lot of times people become angry or frustrated with all the corrections needed just to help them formulate the right question, not to mention understanding the answer.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                    Assalamu alaykom

                    Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                    A lot of times people become angry or frustrated with all the corrections needed just to help them formulate the right question, not to mention understanding the answer.

                    Well considering you said ..


                    Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                    I know these questions weren't directed at me, however unlike the OP, I have straight-forward answers..

                    And considering it has been over 24 hours , 3-6 messages going back and forth , and we both know what is being refered to ( The quote of Abu Sulayman ), then one can only hope that everyones intentions are sound.



                    Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                    You didn't specify whether this Nidaa' was while at the grave of the Prophet SAWS or not.
                    As it would relate to what is most contraversial and relevant to this chapter of the discussion , what I am refering to is ..

                    1) You say" Yaa Nab'ee " ( From a distance far enough in which it would be physically impossible to hear)

                    For example , performing this 'call' from your current bedroom.

                    2) Intending that perhaps an angel may deliver the call ( Which would result to the Nabee making du'a for you to Allah )

                    3) And believing that Allah will help you regardless , simply by the Barakah of mentioning the Nabee's name.

                    Do you consider this belief and practice as Shirk Akbar , or just Bid'ah and Haram ?
                    Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 29-09-17, 07:42 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                      Let's not forget that the 'Ashaa'irah of today will like to make it seem like that it is them and the Maturidiyyah at war with the Salafis.

                      Such is not the case. Anyone who has read the books of the Maturidiyyah such as نظم الفرائد و جمع الفوائد فى بيان المسائل التى وقع فيها الاختلاف بين الماتريدية والأشعرية فى العقائد knows that their scholars have said that the Ashaa'irah believe Imaan is created and one is not to pray behind them.

                      Others have stated that anyone who believes Imaan is created is a kaafir.

                      They have also accused the Ashaa'irah of kufr based on their saying I am a believer in shaa Allaah.

                      The Maturidiyyah have been explicit.

                      It is Salafi websites such as IslamQA and Islamweb who have actually said that the Ashaa'irah are not kaafirs but made mistakes.

                      So, really if you want to tell a story tell the full one. Don't deceive the world into thinking its the Maturidiyyah and Ashaa'ira vs the Salafis. There is no coalition between the Maturidiyyah and Ashaa'irah. There never was. The differences led to the former saying it is not permissible to pray behind the later or marry their women.


                      Click image for larger version

Name:	mvsa.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	120.4 KB
ID:	10765826

                      And it is written in the fatawa hindiyyah

                      ومن قال بخلق القرآن ، فهو كافر ، وكذا من قال بخلق الإيمان فهو كافر


                      And he who says the Qur'aan is created is a kaafir and likewise the one who says that Imaan is created is a kaafir.
                      Last edited by ZeeshanParvez; 29-09-17, 03:07 PM.
                      Watch those eyes

                      Comment


                      • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                        Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                        Assalamu alaykom

                        Well considering you said ..

                        And considering it has been over 24 hours , 3-6 messages going back and forth , and we both know what is being refered to ( The quote of Abu Sulayman ), then one can only hope that everyones intentions are sound.
                        I think you're confused.

                        You think I know what's being referred to and refuse to answer.

                        Let's explore this issue:

                        Abu Sulayman wrote in post #757:

                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman
                        What I do believe is that the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - supplicates for his Ummah after his death. So this means that he's a mean for Allah's help to come through his supplication and intercession.

                        As for the issue of hearing: If one is in front of his grave he - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - will hear one and if one is far away then it may reach him through angels. Even if it doesn't reach him from afar, then I believe there is Barakah (blessings) in mentioning the name of Rasulallah, 'alayhi salatu wa sallam. So Allah's help may simply come by the Barakah of our beloved Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.
                        Then you asked me in post #763

                        Originally posted by AmantuBillahi
                        " Calling upon the Prophet (as) , believing the Prophet can certainly hear at all times and in all places - and also responds to your needs himself."

                        Question
                        : Would you brothers claim , from the Aqidah / Tradition you follow , that this form of istighatha is considered as Shirk Akbar , or just Bid'ah and Haram ?

                        @AbuNajm can you answer this specific post ? Im concerned about ruling more than anything. From your tradition , is Istighatha through this method and intention Shirk Akbar or just bid'ah and Haram.
                        To which I responded in post #764:

                        Originally posted by AbuNajm
                        The belief that the Prophet SAWS can hear all things and fulfill the needs of all supplicants himself is without a doubt Shirk Akbar.
                        Now you are me to judge the personal belief of Abu Sulayman.

                        I've never come across what he's claiming and it is a very unique combination of positions not found in the books of reference, as far as I can tell.

                        His belief is unique in the sense that it's full of "ifs" and "mays", that, in my understanding, does not even amount to an actual "belief".
                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman
                        If one is in front of his grave he - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - will hear one and if one is far away then it may reach him through angels.
                        The only "belief" contained in the above is that the Prophet SAWS can hear those at his grave.

                        That is a false belief and is based on invalid Qiyas and/or weak Hadith. However, it does not appear to be "Shirk Akbar" according to any scholars that I'm aware of.

                        Next, Abu Sulayman says:

                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman
                        Even if it doesn't reach him from afar, then I believe there is Barakah (blessings) in mentioning the name of Rasulallah, 'alayhi salatu wa sallam. So Allah's help may simply come by the Barakah of our beloved Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.
                        This speech contains the doubt that an address to the Prophet SAWS will reach him from afar, so it does not constitute a "belief".

                        It also makes clear that the response to the Du'a is actually from Allah and not the Prophet SAWS.

                        So the only actual "belief" in the above statement is that there is "Barakah" in the "name of Rasulallah".

                        I've never heard of this before, however it sounds inconsistent with the well-known Sunnah. Rather the names of Allah are reported to contain "blessings" in learning then and mentioning them in Dhikr.

                        So claiming the same for the name of the Prophet SAWS and likening it to the names of Allah, appears to be problematic.

                        I would need to ask Abu Sulayman some questions about this "belief" before making a determination about it. But on face value it appears like an innovated belief that could be borderline Shirk.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                          Originally posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
                          Let's not forget that the 'Ashaa'irah of today will like to make it seem like that it is them and the Maturidiyyah at war with the Salafis.

                          Such is not the case. Anyone who has read the books of the Maturidiyyah such as نظم الفرائد و جمع الفوائد فى بيان المسائل التى وقع فيها الاختلاف بين الماتريدية والأشعرية فى العقائد knows that their scholars have said that the Ashaa'irah believe Imaan is created and one is not to pray behind them.

                          Others have stated that anyone who believes Imaan is created is a kaafir.

                          They have also accused the Ashaa'irah of kufr based on their saying I am a believer in shaa Allaah.

                          The Maturidiyyah have been explicit.

                          It is Salafi websites such as IslamQA and Islamweb who have actually said that the Ashaa'irah are not kaafirs but made mistakes.

                          So, really if you want to tell a story tell the full one. Don't deceive the world into thinking its the Maturidiyyah and Ashaa'ira vs the Salafis. There is no coalition between the Maturidiyyah and Ashaa'irah. There never was. The differences led to the former saying it is not permissible to pray behind the later or marry their women.

                          [ATTACH=CONFIG]87814[/ATTACH]

                          And it is written in the fatawa hindiyyah

                          ومن قال بخلق القرآن ، فهو كافر ، وكذا من قال بخلق الإيمان فهو كافر


                          And he who says the Qur'aan is created is a kaafir and likewise the one who says that Imaan is created is a kaafir.

                          Old fatawa. Old news. A few hundred years late. Asharis and Maturidis do not act upon those fatawa anymore. It was an issues between Hanafis and Shafis, Hanafis were generally Maturidis and Shafis were generally Asharis. You find in some old books of fiqh that it was impermissible for a Shafi to pray behind a Hanafi and a Hanafi to pray behind Shafi. And it was said that it was impermissible for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi etc etc, It was a riff between Asharis and Maturudis not really a riff between Shafi and Hanafi. In some masajid you would find two minarads. One for the Hanafis and one for the Shafis. But this old news. Now the Asharis and Maturidis together represent Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. And you will find fatawa from the later scholars reflecting such.



                          Asharis and Maturidis as one Ahlus Sunnah.


                          In fact, Imam Taftazani an Ashari, wrote a commentary on a Maturidi Aqida Text, Aqida Nafasi, to illustrate our unity.

                          Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974/1567; R. A.)

                          Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami defined the Sunni Muslims as follows in his book Fath al-jawad: "A Mubtadi (innovator) is the person who does not have the faith (Aqeedah) conveyed unanimously by the Ahl as-Sunnah. This unanimity was transmitted by the two great Imam's Abu'l Hasan al-Ashari (d.324/936; Rahimahullah) and Abu Mansur al- Maturidi (d.333/944; Rahimahullah) and the scholars who followed their path." Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami also said in his book al- Fatawa al-Hadithiyya (pg. 205): "Man of bid'ah means one whose beliefs are different from the Ahl as-Sunnah faith. The Ahl as- Sunnah faith, is the faith of Abu'l Hasan al-Ashari, Abu Mansur al- Maturidi and those who followed them. One who brings forth something which is not approved by Islam becomes a man of bid'ah."

                          Imam Abdullah ibn Alawi al-Haddad (d. 1132 AH; Rahimahullah),

                          Imam al-Haddad stated in The Book of Assistance (pg. 40): "You must correct and protect your beliefs and conform to the pattern of the party of salvation, who are those known from among the other Islamic factions as the "People of the Sunnah and Jama'ah" (Ahl as- Sunnah wa'l Jama'ah). They are those who firmly adhere to the way of the Messenger of Allah (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim), and of his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all). If you look with a sound understanding into those passages relating to the sciences of faith in the Book (Qur'an), the Sunnah, and the saying of the virtuous predecessors, whether they be Companions or followers, you will know for certain that the truth is with the party called the Ashari (NB-the Maturidi's are also upon the truth), named after the Shaykh Abu'l Hasan al-Ashari, may Allah have mercy on him, who systematized the foundations of the creed of the people of the truth, and recorded its earliest versions, these being the beliefs with the Companions and the best among the followers agreed upon."



                          Asharis, Maturidis and Hanbalis as one Ahlus Sunnah


                          Eventhough historically Asharis and Hanbalis were at odds with each other. We had actually reach a point in history where the Asharis, Maturidis and Hanbalis saw each others as equals.

                          Imam Saffarini al Hanbali said, “The Ahlus Sunnah consist of three groups: the textualists al-Atharis, whose Imam is Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the Ash’aris, whose Imam is Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari, and the Maturidis, whose Imam is Abu Mansur al-Maturidi رضي الله عنهم and they are all one group, the saved sect (al-Firqatun Najiyyah), and they are Ahl al-Hadith, the Ahlus Sunnah Wa’l Jama’ah.” [Imam Muhammad Saffarini al-Nabulusi al-Hanbali رحمه الله in Lawami` al-Anwar]

                          Imam Ibn al Shatti al Hanbali saod, :Some scholars say that they, the saved sect, are the people of hadith (Ahl al Hadith), in other words the Atharis, Asharis and Maturidis.) (Tabsir al Qani)

                          Imam al Mawahibi al Hanbali said, "The factions of Ahlus Sunnah are three, the Asharis, the Hanbalis and the Maturidis." ( Al Ayn wal Athar)


                          The true later Hanbalis are not Anti Asharis and Anti Maturidi, and the true later Asharis are not anti Hanbali or anti Maturidi. Through the grace of Allah, Allah lead me to a Shahdhili Shaykh who was Hanbali. There are many traditional Hanbalis who are not anti-Ashari and one can find them in Syria, Palestine, Jordon, Lebanon, and there are some in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, it is the Salafi strand of Hanbalism that is well known in the world today. It is the Salafis who seek to divide the Ummah, and because of their fitna, Allah caused them to be divided. How many Salafi sects are there now? Each one of them accusing the other of deviating from the Minhaj. And Allah knows best.
                          My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                          Comment


                          • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                            Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                            I think you're confused.

                            You think I know what's being referred to and refuse to answer.
                            You don't need to attack my comprehension to make up for your shortcomings.

                            You quoted me incorrectly , rather it is clear that you yourself are confused , or dishonest.

                            My quote in full was ..

                            Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                            [MENTION=3349]AbuNajm[/MENTION] [MENTION=118642]abufulaans[/MENTION]

                            As you can see , the definition of istighatha which this brother intends is not the same as ..

                            " Calling upon the Prophet (as) , believing the Prophet can certainly hear at all times and in all places - and also responds to your needs himself."
                            The context of this quotes makes clear that I was not asking for a perspective on what was in quotations - that was only to show what the belief was not.

                            Anyways , as to what is important.

                            Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                            But on face value it appears like an innovated belief that could be borderline Shirk.
                            Alhamdulillah

                            Salamu alaykum

                            Comment


                            • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                              Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
                              Old fatawa. Old news. A few hundred years late. Asharis and Maturidis do not act upon those fatawa anymore.
                              I generally do not reply to people who are so ignorant that they cannot tell the difference between dhaahir and ta'wiil or believe any of the other fairytale al-Baqillani has written in his book, but thank you for saying exactly what I wanted someone to say. You take the bait well.

                              IslamWeb is Salafi and not promoting the killing of you misguided Ashaa'irah.
                              IslamQA is Salafi and not promoting the killing of you misguided Ashaa'irah
                              The ahl al-Hadiith in the subcontinent are not killing any of you misguided mix in the form of Maturidi/Ashaa'irah here
                              The Salafis in the UK/US are not killing any of you misguided Ashaa'irah

                              Ibn Taymiyyah never called for you to be killed.

                              What Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhaab did is history. If the OP sees the killing where he is let him preach there.

                              In the meanwhile I suggest you learn the difference between ta'wiil and dhaahir and stop copy pasting Hadad [or whatever his name is]! : D

                              And if we want to talk about history then we can talk about the waste those who followed your beloved Madhdhaahib left in the past.

                              Come to think of it this section is labeled history and I just presented some which seems to have made you queasy. I wonder why the truth is so bitter to some.
                              Last edited by ZeeshanParvez; 29-09-17, 06:00 PM.
                              Watch those eyes

                              Comment


                              • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                                Originally posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
                                I generally do not reply to people who are so ignorant that they cannot tell the difference between dhaahir and ta'wiil or believe any of the other fairytale al-Baqillani has written in his book, but thank you for saying exactly what I wanted someone to say. You take the bait well.

                                IslamWeb is Salafi and not promoting the killing of you misguided Ashaa'irah.
                                IslamQA is Salafi and not promoting the killing of you misguided Ashaa'irah
                                The ahl al-Hadiith in the subcontinent are not killing any of you misguided mix in the form of Maturidi/Ashaa'irah here
                                The Salafis in the UK/US are not killing any of you misguided Ashaa'irah

                                Ibn Taymiyyah never called for you to be killed.

                                What Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhaab did is history. If the OP sees the killing where he is let him preach there.

                                In the meanwhile I suggest you learn the difference between ta'wiil and dhaahir and stop copy pasting Hadad [or whatever his name is]! : D

                                And if we want to talk about history then we can talk about the waste those who followed your beloved Madhdhaahib left in the past.

                                Come to think of it this section is labeled history and I just presented some which seems to have made you queasy. I wonder why the truth is so bitter to some.
                                I love you for the sake of Allah. Miss you brother.

                                Explain to me the difference between dhahir and tawil.

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

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X