Ads by Muslim Ad Network

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

  • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

    I can't be bothered to deal with you any further. You don't respond to direct quotations from scholars. Also, the translations you're providing are amateur at best and don't reflect a understanding of Mustalah al-Hadith or Aqeedah as a science.

    This is a waste of time.
    I directed you to an article [Epistle in Refutation of al-Albani (on marifah info website)], which answers all of your objections in a scholarly way. It’s not my fault that you refuse to read. And what you brought was the statement of al-Albani (a self-taught deviant!), while what was mentioned to you were the classical scholars of Hadith, who are generally accepted. Who’s more qualified to decide? The answer should be obvious.

    As for my translations: I’m translating fast and English is not my mother tongue, nor have I lived in a English speaking country, nor are there any English speaking countries around me, nor do I wish to live among disbelievers and polytheists (especially not English speaking ones!).

    As for Mustalah al-Hadith: Come on, don’t try to act as if you’re some sort of scholar or great student of knowledge (which I’m not claiming for myself either). Wasn’t it you who got criticized on IA Forums for acting like that?

    As for ‘Aqida: The classical scholars did not regard this as a matter of ‘Aqida, but rather as a Fiqhi issue.
    And you’ve already proven what kind of wrong understanding you’ve regarding ‘Aqida with your comment on my statement that Ibn Taymiyyah’s belief that the world (what is meant here is everything other than Allah ta’ala) is eternal in it’s kind has been called as disbelief by consensus by the scholars who lived before and after him. That this world has a beginning - and this includes in its kind - is clearly and explicitly established by Shar’i texts. Trying to go against this in any way or form is disbelief.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by علي View Post
      But today, if we look at Salafis, Sufis, Tablighis, people who do tawassul, people who do not, etc. Can we say all of those in any of these groups will never make it to heaven, or can't be "good"? I think all of these movements have been influenced by politics, racism, nationalism, etc to some extent. Doesn't make them necessarily evil, unless they're completely off (like rawafid who reject Sahabah/Qur'aan, or ahamdis who claim a new prophet, and are hostile to the rest of the Muslims because of it).

      But to the average Muslim of today just trying to get by, none of this is really relevant.
      When classical Islam is thrown out of the window and is replaced by the Najdi cult or by modernist groups or other deviant groups then this is not a minor issue, because it affects the belief of the people.
      "Salafis" and Rawafidh are not really that much different: Both have deviant beliefs and are hateful against other Muslims and the Mashayikh of both groups hold positions, which have been called as disbelief by the classical scholars.
      As for Sufis: Tasawwuf is part of our religion.
      But there are people who call to deviance while acting as if they’re Sufis.
      (Qadyanis can not be regarded as Muslims in the first place, because they reject what is necessarily known to be from the religion.)


      As for the claim that all of this is not relevant:
      This is not true. In my country extreme Salafi groups (who are inspired by Najdis as it’s known and it’s not like they’re hiding that) have killed quite a lot of people (first and foremost Muslims!) in the last 15 years.
      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 26-11-18, 09:00 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

        There is no such thing as a "Wahhabi" movement. That is simply a term that Ash'aris came up with to refer to the "Salafi" organization. The "Salafis" are basically the religious institutions and leaders of Saudi Arabia which have come to support and be integral to the rule of the Saudi monarchy. They have several corruptions in beliefs and areas of Fiqh due to the requirements of the alliances of the rulers. For the most part they are Athari in Aqeedah and overwhelmingly Hanbali in Fiqh, however they practice a form of Ijtihad that mimics the Zahiris somewhat.

        It is the Athari creed of the "Salafis" that Ash'aris hate so much and the Saudi money that has spread this creed far and wide in the last century or so.
        This is obviously wrong. The term "Wahhabi” simply indicates that someone is following the teachings of Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab just like the word "Qadiri" indicates that someone follows the Tariqa of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir or just like the term "Hanbali" indicates that someone is following the Fiqh of Imam Ahmad [bin Muhammad] bin Hanbal.

        So the term is neutral in itself. The negative connotation is because of the actions of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab himself and his early followers.
        If you don’t like the term, then we can use the word "Najdi" instead, which still has a negative connotation because of the crimes they comitted.
        Ironically Sulayman bin Sahman (d. 1349 AH) - who was a major and hardcore Najdi / Wahhabi scholar - has a book with the name al-Hadiyya al-Saniyya wal Tuhfa al-Wahhabiyya al-Najdiyya.
        Do I need to say anymore?

        As for "Athari": If the majority of the Hanabila are meant, then "Salafis” are first and foremost followers of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, who both disagreed with many things that the Hanabila teached.
        Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly states that he disagrees with the "Madhhab of the forefathers”
        in the Aslayn (foundation of religion and jurisprudence) and that he used to be on their way, while his forefathers were classical Hanabila.
        Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab explicitly claimed that none of the scholars of his region (mostly Hanabila) knew Tawhid including himself. He explicitly made Takfir of the major Hanbali scholars of his region. He even wrote to the pupils of Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) that they and their teachers and their teachers did not understand Tawhid.


        Most Hanabila believed in Tafwidh of the exact interpretation of the divine attributes and vehemently rejected Ta`wil, while Ibn Taymiyyah rejected both.

        Most Hanabila rejected Tajsim and called it as Kufr, while Ibn Taymiyyah defends the belief that God is spread out in the directions and even claims that God could not exist if he would not be like that.

        Most Hanabila believe that God’s essence is not subject to changes and that claiming this is disbelief, while Ibn Taymiyyah says the opposite.

        The Hanabila believed that the speech of Allah ta’ala is eternal and they called the Qur`an as “qadim", while Ibn Taymiyyah claims that the speech of Allah is only eternal in its kind. According to Ibn Taymiyyah the Qur`an is muhdath and ghayr makhluq at the same time (Imam Ibn Qudama would have gone mad at this statement!)
        Many Hanabila also stated that God speaks with letter and sound, which was heavily rejected by Ash’aris.
        If one looks more into the details one will however see that with sound they simply mean that God’s word can be heard and they explicitly deny limbs. As for the letters: They explicitly stated that they’re not following each other (because this would give them a beginning). So they still do Tafwidh.
        So while they disagreed with Ash’aris who explicitly said God speaks without letters and sound, they are also in disagreement with Ibn Taymiyyah.

        The Hanabila did not believe that the world is eternal in its kind, rather they believed that it has a beginning and that there was Allah and nothing existed besides him as every Sunni Muslims - infact every Muslim! - believes.

        They did not believe in the annihihaltion of the hellfire.

        As for seeking intercession, then it has been already mentioned that they supported it, but like already stated it was a Fiqhi issue for them just like it was for the rest of the scholars.

        As for the last statement regarding Saudi money spreading it far and wide:
        Spreading the ideas of Ibn Taymiyyah and that of Najdis yes, but not classical Hanbali thaught. And it should be enough for anyone with a right mind that "Salafism” has been spread by the corrupt and evil Saudi government and in a time where Muslims are weak as never before, to know the falsehood of this movement.
        Ibn Salman even admitted in a interview with the Washington Post that they spread these ideas, because the West asked them to do so.

        The moment Muslims get strong again, "Salafism" will get weak again.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

          When classical Islam is thrown out of the window and is replaced by the Najdi cult or by modernist groups or other deviant groups then this is not a minor issue, because it affects the belief of the people.
          "Salafis" and Rawafidh are not really that much different: Both have deviant beliefs and are hateful against other Muslims and the Mashayikh of both groups hold positions, which have been called as disbelief by the classical scholars.
          As for Sufis: Tasawwuf is part of our religion.
          But there are people who call to deviance while acting as if they’re Sufis.
          (Qadyanis can not be regarded as Muslims in the first place, because they reject what is necessarily known to be from the religion.)


          As for the claim that all of this is not relevant:
          This is not true. In my country extreme Salafi groups (who are inspired by Najdis as it’s known and it’s not like they’re hiding that) have killed quite a lot of people (first and foremost Muslims!) in the last 15 years.
          What you don't realize is that much of what you've written is itself extremism for your own group. You sweep everyone under the "Salafi" label with the same generalization, using words like "cult" and similar. It's not productive, many "Salafis" tone it down as time progresses, I guarantee you not a single one ever did by reading tirades like your own. Salafis come in all shapes and sizes, with very different beliefs on matters. Just as you believe they have "kufri" beliefs, the more extreme ones believe you do too. This is because both sides purposely misinterpret the other, using straw men and attacking them as if the other holds those beliefs. Been there, done that. Some of them are very moderate though, not siding with the government on issues while recognizing that there are also khawarij among them. My only gripe with those is that they can be dismissive of any source that is not Salafi, while in truth one can benefit from scholars of mathaahib and so on.

          One thing I've come to conclude though, if a person is listening or taking from sources that just keep them toxic and bitter against other Muslims all the time, they should find better sources because they're sectarian. They're likely going to be grouped with the 70+ sects out there who are doing it wrong. The truth is not confined to Sufis, they have their mistakes and external influences just as much as the next group. It's also not confined with Salafis, who have been affected by politics and sectarianism as well. But that does not mean that one cannot benefit from moderates in both groups who do not delve too deeply into the issues that split them up so (i.e. Sufi darwashah and bida`, or Salafi extreme loyalty to government or the opposite takfiri end).
          والمبادرة إلى التكفير إنما تغلب على طباع من يغلب عليهم الجهل - ابن تيمية رحمه الله - بغية المرتاد

          "Rushing towards takfir is an attitude which is dominant over those who are defeated by ignorance." - Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimahullah [Bughyatul Murtaad, page 354]

          Comment


          • Abu Sulayman, as-salam 'aleikum, long time bro! Hope you are well.
            www.marifah.info

            Wahhabis Refuted
            Ash'aris

            Comment


            • Originally posted by علي View Post
              See the problem with all this is that, who cares? Today, no one cares. The Muslim world is burning, we're over here splitting hairs about some people a century or two ago. Was IAW (rahimahullah) completely innocent of everything you're saying here? Probably not, he has been criticized, he may well have even been problematic to an extent. I say rahimahullah because if indeed he is guilty of all of what you say, then certainly he will be more greatly in need of Allah's mercy, just as you would like to have it if you had such grave deeds to your name.
              unfortunately history keeps repeating itself and his followers continue to wreak havoc across the globe, hence the importance of seeing the roots of these takfiri wahhabi / salafist groups
              www.marifah.info

              Wahhabis Refuted
              Ash'aris

              Comment


              • These guys are nothing more than propagandists. They buckle under even the softest questions.

                Comment


                • goofy sufis

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by faqir View Post
                    Abu Sulayman, as-salam 'aleikum, long time bro! Hope you are well.
                    Wa 'alaykum al-salam wa rahmatullah,

                    thank you dear brother. Yes, it has been quite a long time.
                    Hope you’re also doing well.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by علي View Post
                      What you don't realize is that much of what you've written is itself extremism for your own group. You sweep everyone under the "Salafi" label with the same generalization, using words like "cult" and similar. It's not productive, many "Salafis" tone it down as time progresses, I guarantee you not a single one ever did by reading tirades like your own. Salafis come in all shapes and sizes, with very different beliefs on matters. Just as you believe they have "kufri" beliefs, the more extreme ones believe you do too. This is because both sides purposely misinterpret the other, using straw men and attacking them as if the other holds those beliefs. Been there, done that. Some of them are very moderate though, not siding with the government on issues while recognizing that there are also khawarij among them. My only gripe with those is that they can be dismissive of any source that is not Salafi, while in truth one can benefit from scholars of mathaahib and so on.

                      One thing I've come to conclude though, if a person is listening or taking from sources that just keep them toxic and bitter against other Muslims all the time, they should find better sources because they're sectarian. They're likely going to be grouped with the 70+ sects out there who are doing it wrong. The truth is not confined to Sufis, they have their mistakes and external influences just as much as the next group. It's also not confined with Salafis, who have been affected by politics and sectarianism as well. But that does not mean that one cannot benefit from moderates in both groups who do not delve too deeply into the issues that split them up so (i.e. Sufi darwashah and bida`, or Salafi extreme loyalty to government or the opposite takfiri end).
                      I would like to make several points regarding your post:

                      - It seems that we‘re living in different worlds. I‘m telling you that extreme "Salafi" groups are killing Muslims in my country since the last 15 years and you‘re talking about tolerance.

                      Takfir against other Muslims without justified reason and accusing others of polytheism which throws one out of the religion is something very widespread among "Salafis". This is not simply done by zealous "Salafi" laymen, but even by their leading scholars.
                      Take for example Ibn 'Uthaymin. He has a Sharh regarding the 'Aqida of Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH), but at the same time he accused him of Shirk in Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah, because of one line of poetry in his book Ghidha` al-Albab where he seeks aid with our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - by saying »O my Master, o Messenger of Allah, take me by my hand, I‘ve come without knowledge and without deeds« ("يا سيدي يا رسول الله خذ بيدي إني أتيت بلا علم ولا عمل").
                      Or take Ibn Baz - another one of their leading scholars -, who would make Takfir upon the one seeking intercession through our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, even though this has been regarded as permitted and good by the classical scholars (including the Hanabila!) in general.

                      This spilling of blood is directly connected to the unjustified Takfir performed by the Mashayikh of the "Salafiyyah" and also to the actions of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his early followers.

                      - I know that "Salafis“ do not all have the same beliefs and that they differ in their level of extremism, but this does not change the fact that "Salafis" as a group are regarded as deviants and that their leading scholars are guilty of having Kufri beliefs, we ask Allah ta'ala for well-being.
                      It‘s true that you'll find "Salafi" layman who may only ascribe to some deviant views, but do not hold any of the Kufri beliefs that their Mashaykih believe, but at the same this is also true regarding the laymen of the twelver Shi'a. This does not change the fact that both the Shi'a and the "Salafis“ are deviant groups.

                      The things that I'm calling as "Kufri" here (like believing that God is subject to changes, that he‘s spatially confined and has tangible attributes, etc.) has been called as such by the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah in general (this includes the Hanbalis!), so any accusation of extremism based upon this means that one accuses the classical scholars of extremism.
                      There is also no way to deny that they do have these believes, because one can find it explicitly in their books (just look into the Bayyan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah of their Ibn Taymiyyah).

                      - It seems that you're thinking that the difference between normal Sunnis and "Salafis" is like the difference between Ash'aris and Hanbalis, which is not the case. I‘ve already mentioned some of the points where "Salafis" disagree with classical Hanabila.

                      - l‘m not asking anyone to tone down his "Salafism", but rather what I‘m saying is that "Salafism" as a Madhhab is wrong and not based upon classical Islam, but rather upon Najdi thought.
                      Just look where "Salafism" is found and when it started to spread, then you‘ll know why their way is not acceptable.
                      As for where and among whom it can be found: First and foremost it‘s found in persons lacking religious knowledge and in regions where classical scholarship is few or not available.
                      For this reason you'll find that a lot of "Salafis“ are young in age and/or people growing up in the West and in countries or regions where religious knowledge is not widespread.
                      As for the time of its spread: Its spread is clearly connected to the third Saudi state and it happened in a time where the Muslims were (and are) weak as never before.

                      It should be also noted that a lot of "Salafi" laymen are under the impression that the teachings of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab are something that classical scholars also held and that he was a great scholar. That‘s why it‘s important to make it clear that this man was not even a scholar (unlike Ibn Taymiyyah, who had abnormal and deviant views, but was obviously very knowledgeable) and that he was rejected by the scholars of his time in general. He was accusing the scholars of the past and those of his time of teaching polytheism and was guilty of lying (like for example his claim that the people of Hijaz were rejecting the resurrection after death!) and calling to mass-killings of Muslims. That‘s why no one should expect any respect for him or his early followers, who were bloodthirsty ignorant beduins lacking any knowledge or understanding.

                      - As for this "Sufi vs Salafi"-dichotomy that you‘re speaking of, then this is something invented by the "Salafis" and I do not accept it.
                      Tasawwuf is part of the religion and when "Salafis" reject it (I do not care about their claim that they‘re not rejecting it!), then they‘re rejecting something that is part of our religion.
                      Since Tasawwuf in itself is part of the religion, you'll see that the term "Sufiyya" is used for a lot of great Sunni personalities (Junayd al-Baghdadi, Abd al-Qadir al-Geylani, etc.), but also for some deviants (or even heretics).

                      - "Salafism" - no matter how "light" it is - is dangerous to one’s faith, because it disconnects one from Rasulullah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam. This point alone is enough for not tolerating it.
                      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 04-12-18, 01:41 PM.

                      Comment


                      • by sufi theyre refering to the groups.

                        Comment


                        • Assalamu alaykum

                          Could you please shed light on these doubts?

                          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          As for "Athari": If the majority of the Hanabila are meant, then "Salafis” are first and foremost followers of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, who both disagreed with many things that the Hanabila teached.
                          Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly states that he disagrees with the "Madhhab of the forefathers”
                          in the Aslayn (foundation of religion and jurisprudence) and that he used to be on their way, while his forefathers were classical Hanabila.
                          Theological differences among scholars exists within every Madhhab. Salafis are not claiming that the Hanabila were flawless. The assertion is that the Hanbali Madhhab contains the least amount of corruption, and this is because the Hanabila are unanimous on the prohibition of Kalam and the orthodoxy of Imam Ahmed's teachings.


                          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          Most Hanabila believed in Tafwidh of the exact interpretation of the divine attributes and vehemently rejected Ta`wil, while Ibn Taymiyyah rejected both.
                          How did you determine that the majority believed in 'complete Tafwid'? Also, would you say that the Salafis agree with this claim or do they dispute it?

                          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                          Most Hanabila rejected Tajsim and called it as Kufr, while Ibn Taymiyyah defends the belief that God is spread out in the directions and even claims that God could not exist if he would not be like that.

                          Most Hanabila believe that Gods essence is not subject to changes and that claiming this is disbelief, while Ibn Taymiyyah says the opposite.
                          "Tajsim" and "Hawadith" in the vernacular of a Mutakalim won't necessarily be consistent with the understanding of an Athari scholar.

                          1) How did you determine that the majority rejected Tajsim and Hawadith for Allah? And do the Salafis agree with your claim or do they dispute it?

                          2) Are you claiming that the majority of Hanbalis disbelieve in Allah being Above the Throne? Do they also reject Sifat like Nu'zool, Laughter, becoming Happy and Angry, and Speaking when He Wills, because they would entail Muhdath for Allah?
                          Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 09-12-18, 02:05 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                            The Hanabila believed that the speech of Allah taala is eternal and they called the Qur`an as qadim", while Ibn Taymiyyah claims that the speech of Allah is only eternal in its kind. According to Ibn Taymiyyah the Qur`an is muhdath and ghayr makhluq at the same time (Imam Ibn Qudama would have gone mad at this statement!)

                            Many Hanabila also stated that God speaks with letter and sound, which was heavily rejected by Asharis.

                            If one looks more into the details one will however see that with sound they simply mean that Gods word can be heard and they explicitly deny limbs. As for the letters: They explicitly stated that theyre not following each other (because this would give them a beginning). So they still do Tafwidh.

                            So while they disagreed with Asharis who explicitly said God speaks without letters and sound, they are also in disagreement with Ibn Taymiyyah.
                            Imam Ahmad and the rest of the Salaf taught us that the Quran is the uncreated Speech of Allah. The present Quran which consists of letters and sounds is Kalam Allahu Ghayru Makhluq.

                            The people of Kalam rejected the orthodox theology of Imam Ahmad concerning the nature of the Quran. The Ashari's believe that "Speech" is an eternal attribute which is free from Hawadith (re-occurrences). The Arabic Quran has a finite amount of letters and is confined to the Arabic language. As such, the Mutakalim has no choice but to recognize it as a temporal creation.

                            1) How do you resolve the contradiction from the Hanbalis who assert that both the Quran and Allah's Speech are Qadim? If both are Qadim, then what does that make the present Quran -- eternal yet emergent, or a creation? [Don't you think this is another example of Atharis understanding terms differently from Ahl al-Kalam?]

                            I'm not sure why you brought up Ibn Qudama considering his vicious stance against Kalam Nafsi and the deception of Ashari scholars. Ibn Taymiyyah did nothing but reaffirm the orthodox view regarding the Quran, although in a more sophisticated and meticulous manner. Allah's Speech is Qadim in the sense that He's always had the Ability to Speak and He Speaks from His Ilm. Orthodox Muslims believe that Allah speaks how He Wills and when He Wills. When Allah does Speak, neither does His Actions nor Statements become created, despite the fact that they were 'occurances'.

                            Allah says: "To Him belongs the creation and the Command."

                            The notion that every Muhdath is Makhluq is non-prophetic and unnecessary to uphold. The Quran states that our actions are created but we theologically believe that Allah's actions take place in reality without the need for Allah to create Himself.
                            Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 09-12-18, 03:17 PM.

                            Comment


                            • The origin of this mess is because Muslims delved into matters and asking "how" and feeling the urge to explain when no explanation was needed. We hear and obey. If the Sahaba didn't get involved in such matters then why do we feel the need to?
                              The Prophet s.a.a.w warned when he said: "You will surely follow the ways of those who came before you, in exactly the same fashion, to the point were they to enter the hole of a lizard, you too would enter it." It was asked of him, "O Messenger of Allah s.a.a.w., do you mean the Jews and Christians?" He replied, "Who else?" (Bukhari and Muslim)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                                Assalamu alaykum

                                Could you please shed light on these doubts?



                                Theological differences among scholars exists within every Madhhab. Salafis are not claiming that the Hanabila were flawless. The assertion is that the Hanbali Madhhab contains the least amount of corruption, and this is because the Hanabila are unanimous on the prohibition of Kalam and the orthodoxy of Imam Ahmed's teachings.




                                How did you determine that the majority believed in 'complete Tafwid'? Also, would you say that the Salafis agree with this claim or do they dispute it?



                                "Tajsim" and "Hawadith" in the vernacular of a Mutakalim won't necessarily be consistent with the understanding of an Athari scholar.

                                1) How did you determine that the majority rejected Tajsim and Hawadith for Allah? And do the Salafis agree with your claim or do they dispute it?

                                2) Are you claiming that the majority of Hanbalis disbelieve in Allah being Above the Throne? Do they also reject Sifat like Nu'zool, Laughter, becoming Happy and Angry, and Speaking when He Wills, because they would entail Muhdath for Allah?


                                Wa 'alaykum al-salam wa rahmatullah,

                                yes, but I would like to remind you what Ibn Taymiyya himself said:

                                ولكن " هذه المسألة " و " مسألة الزيارة " وغيرهما حدث من المتأخرين فيها شبه . وأنا وغيري كنا على " مذهب الآباء " في ذلك نقول في " الأصلين " بقول أهل البدع ; فلما تبين لنا ما جاء به الرسول دار الأمر بين أن نتبع ما أنزل الله أو نتبع ما وجدنا عليه آباءنا فكان الواجب هو اتباع الرسول

                                "However, regarding this issue (i.e. whether God is subject to changes or not), the issue of the visitation [of the Prophet’s grave] and other than these [issues] there happened doubtful arguments from the later scholars.
                                Me and others were upon the "way of the forefathers" regarding these [issues]; we would say the statement of the people of innovation regarding the Aslayn (i.e. the two foundations: the foundation of religion and that of jurisprudence). So when it became clear to us what the Messenger had came with, the issue became one of either following what Allah had sent down or to follow what we had found our forefathers to be upon. So what had become necessary upon us was to follow the Messenger.
                                "

                                Source: Majmu' al-Fatawa

                                The "Salafi" scholar Salih bin 'Abd al-'Aziz Al al-Shaykh has referred to this qoute in his Sharh al-'Aqida al-Wasitiyya while saying that this change of mind happened to Ibn Taymiyya when he was around 30 years old and that most of his Hanbali teachers were from the people of Tafwidh.

                                Ibn Taymiyya‘s family was Hanbali and his grandfather was a major Hanbali scholar, so him dissociating himself from that which he calls as »way of the forefathers« is basically the rejection of the classical Hanbali thought. The Hanbali scholars after him would refer to him in the issues of the religion, but in no way like the "Salafis" do (who try to act as if his words are almost like revelation), but rather like a Hanbali scholar, whose words can be accepted or rejected.
                                That‘s why it‘s NOT acceptable to try to force everyone to discuss the issues of religion through the way Ibn Taymiyya sees the things, which is what "Salafis" unknowingly do all the time.
                                __________



                                The "Salafis" are in no position at all to accuse the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah - whether they‘re Hanbalis or not - of corruption while their own Madhhab is one piece of corruption.
                                Just look what a position the "Salafis" have given themselves: They’re acting as if all of this Ummah had been corrupt for centuries after centuries, while the Hanbalis were just "less corrupt" (but still deserving to be mass-killed according to Najdis!).
                                Let the "Salafis" show us how they themselves contributed to Islamic knowledge! The best books regarding every science has been written by the classical scholars, whom the deviant "Salafis" regard either as "corrupt" or as "less corrupt than the rest". These "corrupt" Muslims of the past have defended the religion of Allah through the pen and through the sword. Can "Salafis" HONESTLY claim that for themselves too?

                                What you have mentioned is something that their Mashayikh teach them so that they think that their group also existed in the past, the reality however is that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab explicitly made Takfir of the Hanbali scholars of his regions while naming them by their names and also acted as if their teachers and the teachers of their teachers had not understood Tawhid.
                                It‘s also no secret that Hanbalis before and after Ibn Taymiyya also supported the seeking of intercession through our Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, while the Najdis saw this as a justified reason to commit mass-killings.

                                As for the issue of Kalam: Well, what‘s the definition of Kalam?
                                Then: Which Shar'i source made Kalam impermissible?
                                If it‘s claimed that the Salaf have forbidden it, then this again is not true in an absolute way, because while they did condemn the Kalam of the Jahmiyya and Mu'tazila, they themselves also started using Kalam against them.

                                There is another thing here: According to the ignorant "Salafis" today, anyone who says "God is not a body, He‘s not subject to changes, he can not be described by spatial confinement, etc." (which all has been mentioned explicitly by the major Hanbali scholars throughout the centuries!), has engaged in Kalam.
                                I ask: Who from among the major Hanbali scholars (other than Ibn Taymiyyah and his known followers) has stated that making these types of statements (which by the way are supported by clear-cut Ayat!!) is engaging in Kalam?!?
                                And: Why is that we find the major Hanbali scholars making these statements themselves? (One can easily bring examples, so let no one try to deny that.)
                                __

                                ​​​​​​​
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Well, the statements of their major scholars are available.
                                And: If most of the Hanbali teachers of Ibn Taymiyya were actually people of Tafwidh (as stated above), then is there really the need for anything more to be said?

                                As for "Salafis" disputing that or not: Well, their opinion does not hold any weight. But if you look how the leading "Salafi" scholars commented on classic Hanbali texts, you will see them again and again criticizing them for the Tafwidh that their 'Aqida statements usually contain. (This can also be shown.)

                                It should be noted that Tafwidh of Ma'na and Kayf is something that major Hanbalis have explicitly reported from Imam Ahmad without any condemnation of that whatsoever.

                                And: Allah ta’ala is above being described with a "how" of his attributes. Saying otherwise (for example by claiming that God's attributes have a "how", but we don’t know it) - while understanding what one is saying - is disbelief by agreement of every Sunni throughout the history.
                                The reality of Allah‘s attributes can not be understood by the creation.

                                Know that "Salafi" scholar do intend this disbelief by saying things like "God has REAL hands, fingers, feet, eyes, face, shin, waist, etc., but we don‘t know the modality of these attributes": What they mean here is they don‘t know the exact form, size, shape, colour, etc. of these "attributes“. This means that they have made the reality of God’s attributes like that of the creation and only made it different in it’s modality. This is obviously quite a pagan way of thinking on their part.
                                __________

                                ​​​​​​​

                                And again: The Hanabli texts explicitly contain statements like that God is not a body and that he‘s not subject to changes. These statements were understood by the scholars. They were not children.

                                The only one who loved to play this "what do you intend by this word"-game - while clearly knowing what was intended! - was Ibn Taymiyya. Please don‘t try to force Ibn Taymiyya‘s views upon the Hanabila in general.
                                __________

                                ​​​​​​​

                                The Highness of Allah is an absolute one, so Allah ta‘ala is the Highest before and after the creation of the throne and He is as He was before the creation.
                                He‘s not in need of the throne in order to be "perfect". Being above the throne means that He‘s beyond the universe and that His existance is completely different and independent from ours.
                                While according to the "Salafis“ the "Highness" means being literally in the above direction of the throne - which entails spatial confinement as Ibn Taymiyya clearly himself argues - and is an "attribute of perfection", which means that according to them God‘s perfection is bound to the existance of a creation, so it‘s not perfection in reality.
                                What about when the throne didn‘t exist, was God less "perfect"? But guess I forgot that this is no problem for Ibn Taymiyya's followers, because a throne (not the same throne, but rather a new throne every now and then) has always existed, because the world is eternal in its kind according to them. This again is disbelief by agreement.

                                As for God‘s actions: They‘re connected to that which is possible in its existance. So God‘s actions change the creation. The claim of "Salafis" that God changes His own essence by His actions is yet another disbelief by agreement of the Sunni scholars.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X