The Official Sunni/Salafi Debates Thread

[slave of allah]

in defence of shaikh abdul wahhab i would like to say that the salafis do not represent him. wot he did, taught and practised is not what the deviant salafis of today are doing. i have ketaabul tawheed by shaikh abdul wahhab and it was recommended by a deobandi. most of the deobandi ulema i have spoken to have never bad mouthed the shaikh. they say he want a few beliefs contarary to ours and went extreme in some views but overall was a great man who eradicated shirk. from personnel experience ive noticed the only people who curse him are the same idiouts he practised what he eradicated SHIRK.

[loveProphet]

in defence of shaikh abdul wahhab i would like to say that the salafis do not represent him. wot he did, taught and practised is not what the deviant salafis of today are doing. i have ketaabul tawheed by shaikh abdul wahhab and it was recommended by a deobandi. most of the deobandi ulema i have spoken to have never bad mouthed the shaikh. they say he want a few beliefs contarary to ours and went extreme in some views but overall was a great man who eradicated shirk. from personnel experience ive noticed the only people who curse him are the same idiouts he practised what he eradicated SHIRK.
M Ibn Abdul Wahab was a deviant and that is known and accepted by the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah unanimously.
The book Kitabul Tawhid has been WIDELY criticised by the Sunni Ulema and the Hanbali scholars.
See the review of it in livingIslam.org

And he DIDN'T eradicate shirk nor thought it, its just some BIG propaganda by the wahabi sect. He slaughtered MANY innocent Muslims, babies too.

[hiker]

in defence of shaikh abdul wahhab i would like to say that the salafis do not represent him. wot he did, taught and practised is not what the deviant salafis of today are doing. i have ketaabul tawheed by shaikh abdul wahhab and it was recommended by a deobandi. most of the deobandi ulema i have spoken to have never bad mouthed the shaikh. they say he want a few beliefs contarary to ours and went extreme in some views but overall was a great man who eradicated shirk. from personnel experience ive noticed the only people who curse him are the same idiouts he practised what he eradicated SHIRK.
salaam

I think you are confused between Mohammed Abdul Wahab and Sheikh Abdul Wahab - the latter was the father of mohammed Abdul wahab!!!

IF you are talking about Mohammed Abdul Wahab - then this is the first time a deobandi has recommend his book kitab-al-tawheed - if you can provide who these deobandi ulema are.

:ws:

[hiker]

Yes I know what you are refering to brother... the reason why I haven't talked about tawassul is that I got myself in another topic which is istiwa and Allah being above the heavens... I am working on this topic.. preparing daleel for it.. so I can't work on 2 topics at one time..
insha Allah.. I hope maybe in future I will be able to answer the issue on tawassul..

and thank you for your politness.
salaam

several months ago I had a debate with some salafi about tawassul, on a another forum - one thing I found out, most salafi are not aware of what tawassul is - JUST LIKE YOU, going by what you said on the other thread - SO when you do research make sure you don't read the deviant salafi source's on the web, rather read what the salafi ulema and what Ibn Taymiyyah have said!!!

It was just a word of advice!!!

:ws:

[slave of allah]

well i asked a mufti from forest gate. he graduated from bury and became mufti at darul uloom deoband. also many other scholars from east london have said the same thing. there are a few other individuals such as ibn taymiyya (ra) ibn arabii (ra) whom people have gone to both extremes. on one side u have da salafis claimin ibn taymiiya (ra) to be the best thing ever and ibn arabi (ra) as a mushriq and u get other people who say ibn taymiyya (ra) is murtad and ibn arabi (ra) the greatest thing. the deobandis hav taken the middle path in all aspects such as islam teaches us. dont go to extreme or go in to rejection. many deobandis get called wahhabies just because they respect ibn taymiiya (ra) but also get called brealwis because we respect ibn arabi (ra)

[hiker]

well i asked a mufti from forest gate. he graduated from bury and became mufti at darul uloom deoband. also many other scholars from east london have said the same thing. there are a few other individuals such as ibn taymiyya (ra) ibn arabii (ra) whom people have gone to both extremes. on one side u have da salafis claimin ibn taymiiya (ra) to be the best thing ever and ibn arabi (ra) as a mushriq and u get other people who say ibn taymiyya (ra) is murtad and ibn arabi (ra) the greatest thing. the deobandis hav taken the middle path in all aspects such as islam teaches us. dont go to extreme or go in to rejection. many deobandis get called wahhabies just because they respect ibn taymiiya (ra) but also get called brealwis because we respect ibn arabi (ra)
salaams

You are right about the there view on Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Arabi - this is my own view as well - BUT none of the ulema from bury or deoband, have recommend anyone should read the works of Mohammed Abdul Wahab, he has been refuted as he is considered the khawarij of his time - as this was mention by Imam Ibn Abidin, the great hanafi jurist in his books!!!

:ws:

[Musleemah]

salaam

several months ago I had a debate with some salafi about tawassul, on a another forum - one thing I found out, most salafi are not aware of what tawassul is - JUST LIKE YOU, going by what you said on the other thread - SO when you do research make sure you don't read the deviant salafi source's on the web, rather read what the salafi ulema and what Ibn Taymiyyah have said!!!

It was just a word of advice!!!

wa alaykum assalam


I already understand what you mean by tawassul through my discussion with some of the members of the board on the topic.
don't worry.. I will be reading what Ibn Taimiyyah said on the topic insha Allah.

And please don't be labeling us as deviants even if you do believe it... I believe you are deviant from the right path, but you don't see me saying it in my posts and repeating it !
That is not how you debate with others.

[hiker]

And please don't be labeling us as deviants even if you do believe it... I believe you are deviant from the right path, but you don't see me saying it in my posts and repeating it !
That is not how you debate with others.
Who cares what you think!!!
Yeah many salafi sub-groups are very deviant, and I will say they are deviant - so ppl are not taken in by there deception!!!

Salafism has done more harm to the muslim ummah than any other group in the last thrity years - they have spread the most eviliest of ideologies, tampered with text, cause destruction to muslim's hertiage and a host of other things!!!



I already understand what you mean by tawassul through my discussion with some of the members of the board on the topic.
don't worry.. I will be reading what Ibn Taimiyyah said on the topic insha Allah.
and what do you mean, what we understand it -Tawassul had the same meaning for 1200 years - it was not Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah who changed its meaning, BUT mohammed Abdul Wahab - some salafi have even tampered with what Ibn Taymiyyah said about it !!!!!

[loveProphet]

Who cares what you think!!!
Yeah many salafi sub-groups are very deviant, and I will say they are deviant - so ppl are not taken in by there deception!!!

Salafism has done more harm to the muslim ummah than any other group in the last thrity years - they have spread the most eviliest of ideologies, tampered with text, cause destruction to muslim's hertiage and a host of other things!!!
I agree Akhi 100% but add, "salafism" has caused the worst fitnah since the last 10 or more centuries.
Whatever Imam Ibn Abidin(RA) said, is HIGHLY accepted by ALL the Hanafi Ulema since he is a high authority in the school. SInce he said that the wahabi movement and M Ibn Abdul Wahab were deviants and not from the Ahlus Sunnah, his words are accepted and have been UNANIMOUSLY by the Sunni Ulema.

See:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3119

[slave of allah]

you cant base your opinion on just one scholar. you cant pick and choose wot u wana take. if you go to askimam you will find mufti ibrahim also sayin the brealwis are not part of ahle sunnah yet u get some deobandi ulema who say they are. secondly wot benefit are u gettin from continuesly bad mouthing these scholars. what did they do that makes you lot hate them.

[salman]

Salamu `alaykum

I will lock this topic until people relax. There is adab when it comes to discussion which people are not following.

Wasalam

[faqir]

Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi on Tafwid


Sidi Djibril recently provided me with a quote from the contemporary Sh. Yusuf al-Qaradawi - someone who most would consider a "salafi" [although this is likely to be untrue!].

Shaikh Al-Qaradawi in his work published last year, the 6th book of the silsila mubaraka about the unification of thoughts, section on the 'aqida between salaf and khalaf:


للقرضاوى بعنوان {{فصول فى العقيده بين السلف و الخلف و هو الكتاب السادس من سلسلته المباركه “نحو وحد فكريه”
يقول القرضاوى

بعد دراسه و بحث إستمر سنوات أرى أن الراجح أن مذهب
السلف هو تفويض المعنى لا الإثبات و أن هذا هو رأى أكثرالسلف

“After study and research which lasted for years, I realised that the most relied upon opinion as being the opinion of the salaf is the tafwid of the meaning (i.e. to leave the knowledge of the meaning to Allah) and not the ithbat of the meaning (i.e. to take the literal meaning), and that this opinion is the opinion of the majority of the salaf.”

:salam:


p.s. some further quotes from "salafi" authorities that need checking up:



First:

قال الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب في رسالته في الصفات:
"بل أقروها كما جاءت؛ وردوا علمها إلى قائلها، ومعناها إلى المتكلم بها؛ وأخذ ذلك الآخر عن الأول؛ ووصى بعضهم بعضا بحسن الأتباع، وحذروه من اتباع طريق أهل البدع والاختلاف" .

هذ ما نقله أحمد بن حجر آل بوطامي في كتابه "الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب وعقيدته" في الجزء الأول / 184 - 1. ونقله عنهم الدكتور عبدالعزيز بن محمد العبداللطيف في كتابه القيم "دعاوى المناوئين لدعوة الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب عرض ونقد".


Second:

ومن العلماء الذين امتدحوا دعوة الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب الشيخ محمود شكري الآلوسي رحمه الله فهو يقول عن عقيدة أهل نجد ومنهجهم ، وأنهم على نهج السلف الصالح:

(والحاصل أن مذهبهم في أصول الدين مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة وأن طريقتهم طريقة السلف التي هي الطريق الأسلم ؛ بل الأحكم ، وهي أنهم يقرّون آيات الصفات والأحاديث على ظاهرها ويكلون معناها إلى الله تعالى كما قال الإمام مالك في الاستواء ، ويعتقدون أن الخير والشر كله بمشيئة الله تعالى)

تاريخ نجد ص 48.


Third and a beautiful quote indeed:


الشيخ الفاضل عبد الرحمن السعدي في تفسيره "تيسير الكريم الرحمن" عند تفسير سورة آل عمران الآية السابعة بعد إيراد مقولة الإمام مالك الشهيرة:

"فهكذا يقال في سائر الصفات لمن سأل عن كيفيتها أن يقال كما قال الإمام مالك، تلك الصفة معلومة، وكيفيتها مجهولة، والإيمان بها واجب، والسؤال عنها بدعة، وقد أخبرنا الله بها ولم يخبرنا بكيفيتها، فيجب علينا الوقوف على ما حد لنا، فأهل الزيغ يتبعون هذه الأمور المشتبهات تعرضا لما لا يعني، وتكلفا لما لا سبيل لهم إلى علمه، لأنه لا يعلمها إلا الله، وأما الراسخون في العلم فيؤمنون بها ويكلون المعنى إلى الله فيسلمون ويسلمون".انتهى

[faqir]

Imam al-Nawawi RH on Tafwid



Imam An-Nawawi writes in Sharh Sahih Muslim (3/19):


‏اِعْلَمْ أَنَّ لِأَهْلِ الْعِلْم فِي أَحَادِيث الصِّفَات وَآيَات الصِّفَات قَوْلَيْنِ :

أَحَدهمَا : وَهُوَ مَذْهَب مُعْظَم السَّلَف أَوْ كُلّهمْ أَنَّهُ لَا يُتَكَلَّم فِي مَعْنَاهَا , بَلْ يَقُولُونَ : يَجِب عَلَيْنَا أَنْ نُؤْمِن بِهَا وَنَعْتَقِد لَهَا مَعْنًى يَلِيق بِجَلَالِ اللَّه تَعَالَى وَعَظَمَته مَعَ اِعْتِقَادنَا الْجَازِم أَنَّ اللَّه تَعَالَى لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْء وَأَنَّهُ مُنَزَّه عَنْ التَّجَسُّم وَالِانْتِقَال وَالتَّحَيُّز فِي جِهَة وَعَنْ سَائِر صِفَات الْمَخْلُوق , وَهَذَا الْقَوْل هُوَ مَذْهَب جَمَاعَة مِنْ الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ , وَاخْتَارَهُ جَمَاعَة مِنْ مُحَقِّقِيهِمْ وَهُوَ أَسْلَم .

وَالْقَوْل الثَّانِي : وَهُوَ مَذْهَب مُعْظَم الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ أَنَّهَا تُتَأَوَّل عَلَى مَا يَلِيق بِهَا عَلَى حَسَب مَوَاقِعهَا , وَإِنَّمَا يَسُوغ تَأْوِيلهَا لِمَنْ كَانَ مِنْ أَهْله بِأَنْ يَكُونَ عَارِفًا بِلِسَانِ الْعَرَب وَقَوَاعِد الْأُصُول وَالْفُرُوع , ذَا رِيَاضَة فِي الْعِلْم , فَعَلَى هَذَا الْمَذْهَب يُقَال فِي قَوْله صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ( فَيَأْتِيهِمْ اللَّه ) أَنَّ الْإِتْيَان عِبَارَة عَنْ رُؤْيَتهمْ إِيَّاهُ ; لِأَنَّ الْعَادَة أَنَّ مَنْ غَابَ عَنْ غَيْره لَا يُمْكِنهُ رُؤْيَته إِلَّا بِالْإِتْيَانِ , فَعَبَّرَ بِالْإِتْيَانِ وَالْمَجِيء هُنَا عَنْ الرُّؤْيَة مَجَازًا , وَقِيلَ : الْإِتْيَان فِعْل مِنْ أَفْعَال اللَّه تَعَالَى سَمَّاهُ إِتْيَانًا , وَقِيلَ : الْمُرَاد ( يَأْتِيهِمْ اللَّه ) أَيْ : يَأْتِيهِمْ بَعْض مَلَائِكَة اللَّه


The people of knowledge hold two views regarding the ahādīth and verses about the attributes of Allah:


1. The view of the majority or all of the salaf is that its meaning should not be discussed; rather it should be said: we are obliged to believe in them with conviction that they have a meaning suited to the majesty and glory of Allah – which is in accordance with one of our fundamental beliefs that there is nothing like Allah – and that He is transcendent beyond taking on a form, having movement, having direction and from all elements particular to creation. This view is the madhhab of a great mass of the theologians (mutakallimun) and it is the preferred opinion of many of the verifiers (muhaqqiqun). This is the safest option.

2. The view of majority of the scholars of kalam is that they are figuratively interpreted according to their appropriate contextual meanings; this figurative interpretation is only possible for one who is native to the language such that he is well aware of the Arabic language and the primary and secondary principles, which require great intellectual ability. So, for example, according to this madhhab, it is said about the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم words: “Allah will come to them” that the coming here refers to their vision of Him (in a metaphorical sense) because the norm is that it is not possible to see one who is absent from another without his arrival – so, in this example, coming and arriving is interpreted to mean a metaphoric vision; it has also been said that coming is from amongst the actions of Allah and it has been named “coming”; it has also been said the intent of “Allah will come to them” is that some of Allah’s Angels will come to them.







Note: Elsewhere (http://www.abc.se/~m9783/istiwa_e.html), Sh. GF Haddad quotes Imam al-Nawawi as saying in relation to al-Istiwa:

"We believe that {the Merciful established Himself over the Throne} (20:5), and we do not know the reality of the meaning of this nor what is meant by it (la na`lamu haqiqata mi`na dhalika wa al-murada bihi), while we do believe that {There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him} (42:11) and that He is exalted far above the most elevated of created things. That is the way of the Salaf or at least their vast majority, and it is the safest because one is not required to probe into such matters."

[al-Majmu` Sharh al-Muhadhdhab (1:25)]



:salam:

[faqir]

Shaykh Khalil Ahmad Saharanfuri on Tafwid in his Badhl al Majhud, quoting Khatabi:


مذهب علماء السلف وأئمة الفقهاء : إن يمروا مثل هذه الأحاديث على ظاهرها , وأن لا يذكروا لها المعاني , ولا يتأولوها بعلمهم لقصور علمهم عن إدراكها

Wasalam



A very rough translation:

The Madhab of the salaf and the Imams of Fiqh is to pass by ahadith like this upon their apparent purport. And to avoid discussing the meaning and to avoid interpreting that which they have inadequate knowledge of.



On one of the French sites I came across the following quote from the same shaikh - the following is a translation from the French translation :lol: :

Question

What do you say about verse “Ar-Rahmân `ala al-`arsh itsawâ” (“the All-Merciful established himself on the Throne”) and of the similar verses? Do you think it is allowed to attribute a direction or a place to the Creator — ta'ala —?


Answer by Mawlânâ Khalîl Ahmad Sahâranpûrî:

Our position with regard to this verse and to the similar verses consists of believing in it, while excluding the question of how. We believe indeed that Allah — ta'ala — transcends all the attributes of the creatures and any characteristic which implies imperfection or temporality (simât an-naqs wal-hudûth). Such is also the opinion of our predecessors on this subject.

As for the sayings of our contemporary Imâms who formulated about these verses correct interpretations, in harmony with Arabic language and the Sharî `ah, — like saying that the meaning of istiwâ' could be “domination” and that the “Hand” could mean the Divine Power, and other interpretations aiming at getting closer to the meaning for limited minds, — we consider that their approach is also true (haqq).

As regards the attribution of a direction or a place to Allah— ta'ala —, we do not authorize that, and we affirm that He transcends these two things, and any other attribute which implies temporality (Al-hudûth).

Source: Al-Muhannad `alâ Al-Mufannad, `Aqâ’id `Ulamâ’ Ahl Sunnat Deoband (“Beliefs of the Sunni Scolars of Deoband”), by Mawlânâ Khalîl Ahmad Saharanpûrî, in answer to the questions 13 and 14. This work collected the signatures of many Sunni scholars from Deoband, and from the whole Muslim world including scholars from Makka and Madina, Egypt and Syria.


[I have not checked the original source myself]

[faqir]

Al-Hafiz Qasim ibn Qutlubugha [RH] on Tafwid


Hafiz Qasim bin Qutlubughah al-Hanafi writes in Al-Musamarah Sharh Al-Musayarah (Al-Musayarah being a work of his teacher, Ibn Al-Hummam):



وقال سلفنا في جملة المتشابه : نؤمن به ونفوض تاويله الى الله تعالى مع تنزيهه عما يوجب التشبيه والحدوث ، بشرط أن لايذكر الاّ ما في القرآن و الحديث



Our salaf have said about the mutashabih (ambiguous) verses: we believe in them and commit their interpretations to Allah absolving Him of anything which would require similarity with created beings (tashbih) or contingency (huduth) with the condition that nothing is mentioned except that which appears in the Qur’an and hadith.






Hafidh Qasim bin Qutlubughah rahmatullahi alaih (802-879 AH) Zain al din Abu al Adl Qasim bin Qutlubughah al Jamali. He grew as an orphan and began his search for knowledge at a very young age. He studied under some of the most famous authorities of his time such as Hafidh Badr al din al Aini, Hafidh Ibn Hajar and Hafidh Kamal al din Ibn al Hummam. Despite being his teacher Hafidh Ibn Hajar once described him as ‘The eminent Sheikh, the unique and ideal muhaddith’ and on another occasion as ‘The Imam, Allamah, muhaddith, fiqih, hafidh’
His students include Hafidh Shams al din al Sakhawi and Sharaf al din Yahya al Munawi. Hafidh Qasim bin Qutlubughah authored over eighty works, most of which were on hadith and its narrators. He died in Cairo in the year 879 AH. May Allah shower His mercy on him. (The Salah of a Believer pg. 199)

[Link]

A Salafi person posted this and I am wondering if these statements are authentic according to sunnis.


Abu Muti' Al-Balkhi reported:"I asked Imaam Abu Hanifah about a person who says, 'I do not know whether my Rubb is, above the heavens or on earth?'

Abu Hanifah, may Allaah grant him His mercy, said: 'A person who makes such a statement becomes an apostate because Allaah, the Exalted says, 'The Merciful has ascended above the 'Arsh, and the 'Arsh of Allaah is above His heavens'. I further asked Abu Hanifah, 'What if such a person admits, Allaah is above His 'Arsh, but exclaims, I do not know whether His 'Arsh is above the heavens or on earth'. Abu Hanifah responded: 'If he denies that the 'Arsh is above the heavens, he is an apostate." [Sharhut-Tahawiyyah, p.288] If the person apostatizes by saying that he did not know where is the 'Arsh of Allaah, then by right a person who denies the Loftiness of Allaah altogether is definitely worse than an apostate.

Imam Malik (rahimahullah) said: “Al-Istiwaa is known, and how is unknown, to have Iman in it is obligatory and to question it is an innovation.”

Imam ash-Shafi'ee said:"The creed which I hold is the same creed the Muslims before me were holding, namely, the Testimony of Faith: "There is no god worthy of being worshipped except Allaah, that Muhammed is the Messenger of Allaah, and that Allaah is above His 'Arsh, above the heavens. He descends to the lowest heaven whenever He wishes." [Al-Juyoosh al-Islamiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, p.93]

Abu Bakr Muhammad at-Tamimi, a Shafi'ite Imam of Naisaboor, said:"I do not pray behind a person who denies the attributes of Allaah and does not recognize that Allaah is above His 'Arsh."

[faqir]

:salam:


Please see the thread:



The Aqida of the Four Imams (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13940)


:salam:

[jaylen]

subhana Allah, I just heard this in a lecture. Some people say "HE's everywhere" which is even worse because HE's not everywhere ie the bathroom, land dumps, etc.. astaghfurallah. HE is truly indeed on HIS throne above the heavens. that's it.

[loveProphet]

subhana Allah, I just heard this in a lecture. Some people say "HE's everywhere" which is even worse because HE's not everywhere ie the bathroom, land dumps, etc.. astaghfurallah. HE is truly indeed on HIS throne above the heavens. that's it.
SubhanAllah. Actually, to say that Allah is above literally or on His throne literally is much worse than to think that He is everywhere since it means attributing LIMITS and direction to Allah Subhana Wa'taa'a.
So if you think that Allah is above or on the throne LITERALLY, then that is a GROSS error and is not the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah.

Our belief is summarised by Imam Ash'ari(RA):
The Imam of Ahl al-Sunna, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari (d. 324), says in his Al-ibana fi usul al-diyana: "Allah is above the heavens, above the Throne, above everything, with a loftiness (fawqiyya) which does not make Him any closer to the Throne or the heavens, just as it does not make Him any further from the earth. He is close to everything in existence, He is closer to the servant than his jugular vein, and He is a witness over all things."

He also says, as reported by Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi in Usul al-Din: "Allah's establishment on the Throne is an action He has created named istiwa' and related to the Throne, just as He has created an action named ityan (coming) related to a certain people; and this implies neither descent nor movement."

Wa Salaam

[Munira Syeda]

the word is 'OMNIPOTENT' : y r people making physical attributes to our Lord? I do not understand why there has to be an issue on something that is beyond human comprehension? We are not here to question the whereabouts of our Creator. Who are we to ask 'where' Allah (SWT) is? By this mere question are we not decreasing our faith?

p.s. if this is indeed a valid issue in Islam where there has been debates amongst the true scholors of Islam I mean no disrespect towards them.

[jaylen]

it is a valid issue sis, because if we are attributing something to Allah SWT that is incorrect then this is haram because we are being ignorant. Therefore we must be corrected. For some reason this is a touchy subject because we are so limited to what we have been told yet some people LOVE to make conclusions of what they have read which too is haram. Let's just stick to the Quran for that is what Allah has provided for us. It's really of no benefit to us to know where HE is at ALL TIMES to the precise location with details. that's really insignificant. We know HE comes to the 1st heaven on prescribed times of the night and HE hears our duaa. I don't think we need more than that because it will cause fitna. it's simple, HE's near and HE hears us. that's sufficient.

[Sword Of Allah]

الله موجود بلا مكان

ALLAH MAUJOOD BI'LA MAKAAN: ALLAH EXISTS WITHOUT A PLACE.

No one can limit Allah azuwwajul....we ourselves are limited by the 6 directions etc. whearas Allah azuwwajul isnt:

* Anyone who describes Allah azuwwajul as a being in any way the same as a human being is a unbeleiver (kaffir).

* Allah azuwwajul is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created things are.

* Allah azuwwajul is independant of the throne and what is beneath it.

* He encompasses everything and is above it. and what He has created is incapable of encomassing Him.

[ Al Aqida At-Tahawiah by, Imam Abu Jafar At Tahawi Al Hanafi (RaheemAllah) ]

[loveProphet]

الله موجود بلا مكان

ALLAH MAUJOOD BI'LA MAKAAN: ALLAH EXISTS WITHOUT A PLACE.

No one can limit Allah azuwwajul....we ourselves are limited by the 6 directions etc. whearas Allah azuwwajul isnt:

* Anyone who describes Allah azuwwajul as a being in any way the same as a human being is a unbeleiver (kaffir).

* Allah azuwwajul is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created things are.

* Allah azuwwajul is independant of the throne and what is beneath it.

* He encompasses everything and is above it. and what He has created is incapable of encomassing Him.

[ Al Aqida At-Tahawiah by, Imam Abu Jafar At Tahawi Al Hanafi (RaheemAllah) ]
Assalam-o-Alaikum,

Well explained dear brother, that is the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah and whoever wants to have the correct Aqeedah should believe that.
Allah exists WITHOUT a place, SubhanAllah. He is NOT attributed by a direction.
Wa Salaam

[faqir]

Imam al-Baydawi [RH] on Tafwid


Al-Baydawi writes in Anwar at-Tanzil wa Asrar at-Tawil (http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=6&tSoraNo=7&tAyahNo=54&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0)




وعن أصحابنا أن الاستواء على العرش صفة لله بلا كيف، والمعنى أن له تعالى استواء على العرش على الوجه الذي عناه منزهاً عن الاستقرار والتمكن


Our scholars have said that istiwa ‘ala al arsh is an attribute of Allah without modality and [U]its meaning is that Allah, Most High, performed the ‘istawa’ above the ‘arsh’ in the way He described it, transcendent beyond istiqrar (settlement) or tamakkun (establishment).


.

[Musleemah]

ونفوض تاويله الى الله

Did you know that "ta'wil" can mean different things?
it can mean "tafsir" (interpretation of the meaning ) and it can mean to say the reality of something (how it is, its modality), and it can mean: interpreting it with majaz (if I am correct it means in English: figuratively).

So he could mean here by "ta'wil", the kayfiyyah, for he didn't mention the word "kayfiyyah" in his sentence, so he could mean it by the word "ta'wil".

And him saying (absolving Him of anything which would require similarity with created beings (tashbih) or contingency (huduth)) is not proof that he means (the meaning),

In fath al-Bari, Ibn Hajar quoted Is-haq bin Rahawayh as saying:

وقال إسحاق بن راهويه: إنما يكون التشبيه لو قيل: يد كيد و سمع كسمع
Tashbih is one saying: a hand like a hand and a hearing like a hearing.
Meaning: Allah's hand is like the creations' hand .. etc. exalted be Allah.

So when one says that Allah's hand is in a manner befitting His Majestiy then is not tasbih.
So then we are not doing tashbih when we confirmed the meaning without modality.

So when a scholar says "tanzeeh from tashbih", it means not to say that Allah's attributes are like the creations.


Also the word "tafsir", when one says it he could mean by it the "how, modality".. and I have read somewhere that one said it meaning "kayfiyyah"... I need to search for it again... that is the problem with not recording these things.


وعن أصحابنا أن الاستواء على العرش صفة لله بلا كيف، والمعنى: أن له تعالى استواء على العرش على الوجه الذي عناه منزهاً عن الاستقرار والتمكن

Here it shows that he didn't do tafwid al-ma'na because he said "wal-ma'na" (and the meaning is:)
He only rejected the meaning that is "istiqrar"... as it is known the "istawa 'ala " has 4 meanings: علا وارتفع وصعد واستقر
and the meaning (علا وارتفع - rose above, ascended) are confirmed by the Salaf.
So he didn't mention that we don't say these 2 meanings, he only mentioned "istiqrar and tamkeen".

if he did tafwid al-ma'na he wouldn't have said (and its meaning is) because tafwid is to not talk about its meaning at all.


Note: you can try to interpret their saying with anything you want, but that still doesn't make it true that the Salaf (especially the Sahaba) did tafwid al-ma'na.... and I will, in the near future, bring the proof for that insha Allah.

[faqir]

:salam:

Your excuses are hilarious :lol:

[Musleemah]

Brother faqir,

Can you give me the definition of "tafwid" ?

[faqir]

lol, you are the supposed arabic scholar and you ask me, sister?

There are plenty of quotes from the Ulema of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah cited above for you to work out what they mean by tafwid in case you are truly ignorant of what tafwid is.

[Sunni_Muslim]

Did you know that "ta'wil" can mean different things?
it can mean "tafsir" (interpretation of the meaning ) and it can mean to say the reality of something (how it is, its modality), and it can mean: interpreting it with majaz (if I am correct it means in English: figuratively).

So he could mean here by "ta'wil", the kayfiyyah, for he didn't mention the word "kayfiyyah" in his sentence, so he could mean it by the word "ta'wil".

And him saying (absolving Him of anything which would require similarity with created beings (tashbih) or contingency (huduth)) is not proof that he means (the meaning),

In fath al-Bari, Ibn Hajar quoted Is-haq bin Rahawayh as saying:

Tashbih is one saying: a hand like a hand and a hearing like a hearing.
Meaning: Allah's hand is like the creations' hand .. etc. exalted be Allah.

So when one says that Allah's hand is in a manner befitting His Majestiy then is not tasbih.
So then we are not doing tashbih when we confirmed the meaning without modality.

So when a scholar says "tanzeeh from tashbih", it means not to say that Allah's attributes are like the creations.


Also the word "tafsir", when one says it he could mean by it the "how, modality".. and I have read somewhere that one said it meaning "kayfiyyah"... I need to search for it again... that is the problem with not recording these things.



Here it shows that he didn't do tafwid al-ma'na because he said "wal-ma'na" (and the meaning is:)
He only rejected the meaning that is "istiqrar"... as it is known the "istawa 'ala " has 4 meanings: علا وارتفع وصعد واستقر
and the meaning (علا وارتفع - rose above, ascended) are confirmed by the Salaf.
So he didn't mention that we don't say these 2 meanings, he only mentioned "istiqrar and tamkeen".

if he did tafwid al-ma'na he wouldn't have said (and its meaning is) because tafwid is to not talk about its meaning at all.


Note: you can try to interpret their saying with anything you want, but that still doesn't make it true that the Salaf (especially the Sahaba) did tafwid al-ma'na.... and I will, in the near future, bring the proof for that insha Allah.

السلام عليكم

Ibn Hajar described six types of people in regards to the attributes of Allah in Fath al-Bari (http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=11007):

The first two take them literally:

1. this group say the attributes are identical to created attributes
2. this group say the attributes are not identical to created attributes but have a form which suits His majesty because Allah’s essence differs from all essences so His attributes must also differ from other attributes

The second two do not take them literally although they confirm them being attributes:

3. this group leaves figurative interpretation and says Allah knows best its meaning
4. this group interprets figuratively so for example they say ‘hand’ means ‘power’

The last two say they need not necessarily be attributes:

5. this group says they may or may not be attributes but if they are then they have a meaning other then the apparent meaning
6. this group considers them to be from the ambiguous (mutashabih) verses and considers it wrong to discuss their meanings

All of these opinions have been opined by the Ahl as-Sunnah except the first which is the only one which has really been condemned, as well as certain extreme views from group 4 (e.g. the views of the Mu’tazilah which results in ta'til, takyif, tahrif etc.). It appears you and the Salafis are from group 2. But the main difference between you and us is that we allow there to be a scope for difference of opinion, whereas you don’t. It appears majority of the scholars are from groups 3 and 6, including Ibn Hajar himself. Groups 3 and 6 are clearly the safest options.

والسلام

[Musleemah]

lol, you are the supposed arabic scholar and you ask me, sister?

I never claimed that.


There are plenty of quotes from the Ulema of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah cited above for you to work out what they mean by tafwid in case you are truly ignorant of what tafwid is.

I asked to make sure that you know what "tafwid" means, because it seems to me from your posts that you don't know what it means, and I will tell you how when I post a thread on this topic in the near future insha Allah.



All of these opinions have been opined by the Ahl as-Sunnah except the first which is the only one which has really been condemned, as well as certain extreme views from group 4 (e.g. the views of the Mu’tazilah which results in ta'til, takyif, tahrif etc.). It appears you and the Salafis are from group 2. But the main difference between you and us is that we allow there to be a scope for difference of opinion, whereas you don’t. It appears majority of the scholars are from groups 3 and 6, including Ibn Hajar himself. Groups 3 and 6 are clearly the safest options.


You are correct about us being group # 2.

As for 'Ash'aris being from group 3 and 6 only, that is not completely correct, for they do ta'wil on some attributes, if you look in their books, like tafsir al-Qurtubi and other books you will see some ta'wil in there.

[faqir]

Imam Ali al-Qari on Tafwid


Abdur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri (Shaykh of “Ahl-e-Hadith” in India) in his Sharh on al-Tirmidhi known as Tuhfatul Ahwazi (7/233) quoted Imam Ali al-Qari as follows:



قَالَ الْقَارِي

مَذْهَبُ السَّلَفِ التَّسْلِيمُ وَالتَّفْوِيضُ مَعَ التَّنْزِيهِ وَأَرْبَابُ التَّأْوِيلِ مِنْ الْخَلَفِ , يَقُولُونَ الْمُرَادُ بِالْقَدَمِ قَدَمُ بَعْضِ مَخْلُوقَاتِهِ فَيَعُودُ الضَّمِيرُ فِي قَدَمَهُ إِلَى ذَلِكَ الْمَخْلُوقِ الْمَعْلُومِ أَوْ قَوْمٍ قَدَّمَهُمْ اللَّهُ لِلنَّارِ مِنْ أَهْلِهَا , وَتَقَدَّمَ فِي سَابِقِ حُكْمِهِ أَنَّهُمْ لَاحِقُوهَا فَتَمْتَلِئُ مِنْهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ , وَالْعَرَبُ تَقُولُ كُلُّ شَيْءٍ قَدَّمْته مِنْ خَيْرٍ أَوْ شَرٍّ فَهُوَ قَدَمٌ , وَمِنْهُ قَوْلُهُ تَعَالَى : { أَنَّ لَهُمْ قَدَمَ صِدْقٍ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِمْ } أَيْ مَا قَدَّمُوهُ مِنْ الْأَعْمَالِ الصَّالِحَةِ : الدَّالَّةِ عَلَى صِدْقِهِمْ فِي تَصْدِيقِهِمْ

وَالْمُرَادُ بِالرِّجْلِ الْجَمَاعَةُ مِنْ الْجَرَادِ وَهُوَ وَإِنْ كَانَ مَوْضُوعًا لِجَمَاعَةٍ كَثِيرَةٍ مِنْ الْجَرَادِ لَكِنَّ اِسْتِعَارَتَهُ لِجَمَاعَةِ النَّاسِ غَيْرُ بَعِيدٍ . أَوْ أَخْطَأَ الرَّاوِي فِي نَقْلِهِ الْحَدِيثَ بِالْمَعْنَى , وَظَنَّ أَنَّ الرِّجْلَ سَدَّ مَسَدَّ الْقَدَمِ

هَذَا : وَقَدْ قِيلَ وَضْعُ الْقَدَمِ عَلَى الشَّيْءِ مَثَلٌ لِلرَّدْعِ وَالْقَمْعِ , فَكَأَنَّهُ قَالَ يَأْتِيهَا أَمْرُ اللَّهِ فَيَكُفُّهَا مِنْ طَلَبِ الْمَزِيدِ , وَقِيلَ أُرِيدَ بِهِ تَسْكِينُ فَوْرَتِهَا كَمَا يُقَالُ لِلْأَمْرِ يُرَادُ إِبْطَالُهُ وَضَعْته تَحْتَ قَدَمَيَّ ذَكَرَهُ فِي النِّهَايَةِ .

وَفِي شَرْحِ السُّنَّةِ :

الْقَدَمُ وَالرِّجْلُ الْمَذْكُورَانِ فِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ مِنْ صِفَاتِ اللَّهِ الْمُنَزَّهَةِ عَنْ التَّكْيِيفِ وَالتَّشْبِيهِ , وَكَذَلِكَ كُلُّ مَا جَاءَ مِنْ هَذَا الْقَبِيلِ فِي الْكِتَابِ أَوْ السُّنَّةِ , كَالْيَدِ وَالْأُصْبُعِ وَالْعَيْنِ وَالْمَجِيءِ وَالْإِتْيَانِ وَالنُّزُولِ ‏
‏فَالْإِيمَانُ بِهَا فَرْضٌ وَالِامْتِنَاعُ عَنْ الْخَوْضِ فِيهَا وَاجِبٌ . فَالْمُهْتَدِي مَنْ سَلَكَ فِيهَا طَرِيقَ التَّسْلِيمِ , وَالْخَائِضُ فِيهَا زَائِغٌ وَالْمُنْكِرُ مُعَطِّلٌ وَالْمُكَيِّفُ مُشَبِّهٌ , تَعَالَى اللَّهُ عَنْ ذَلِكَ عُلُوًّا كَبِيرًا , لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ اِنْتَهَى .
‏
‏قَالَ الْقَارِي : وَهُوَ الْمُوَافِقُ لِمَذْهَبِ الْإِمَامِ مَالِكٍ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ وَلِطَرِيقِ إِمَامِنَا الْأَعْظَمِ عَلَى مَا أَشَارَ إِلَيْهِ فِي الْفِقْهِ الْأَكْبَرِ , فَالتَّسْلِيمُ أَسْلَمُ وَاَللَّهُ تَعَالَى أَعْلَمُ اِنْتَهَى .
‏
‏قُلْتُ : الْأَمْرُ كَمَا قَالَ الْقَارِي , فَلَا شَكَّ أَنَّ التَّسْلِيمَ وَالتَّفْوِيضَ هُوَ الْأَسْلَمُ بَلْ هُوَ الْمُتَعَيِّنُ


Al-Qārī said:

‘The madhhab of the Salaf is to accept them (taslīm), commit their meanings to Allah (tafwīd) and declare Allah transcendent beyond any ascription of non-divine attributes (tanzīh). The leading figures in the field of figurative interpretation (ta’wīl) from the later generations say the meaning of qadam ‘foot’ is the foot of one of His creation so the pronoun in the phrase ‘his foot’ refers to that particular member of (His) creation. Or (it may refer) to the people that Allah advances to the Fire from its people. I have previously mentioned that they shall enter the Fire and it shall fill because of them. And the Arabs call anything that you present, of a good or evil nature, a qadam (foot) just as Allah says ‘that (the believers have) a qadam (foot) of honesty with their Lord’ (10:2) meaning what they presented in good deeds is an attestation of their honesty in their firm belief.

‘The meaning of leg (as appears in some narrations) is a plague of locusts [this is a literal meaning, not interpretation: rijl may mean a large group of locusts]. Although it may have been designated for a plague of locusts it is not far-fetched to say this may metaphorically refer to a large group of people . (It is possible) a narrator erred in transmitting the meaning because he considered ‘leg’ to be of the same implications as ‘foot’.

‘It has also been said, that to place ones foot in something is used to represent a deterrent and reprimanding, so it is as though Allah is suppressing the Fire from requesting any more (individuals to enter into it). It has also been said that it means abating the ferocity of the Fire, as is said about an action that was annulled ‘I placed it below my foot’ as mentioned in An-Nihayah.

‘It is mentioned in Sharh As-Sunnah (of Al-Baghawi):

“Foot and leg mentioned in this hadith is from the attributes of Allah which are transcendent beyond having a modality or similarity with created beings just like all the other similar things mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah like hand, finger, eye, coming, arrival and descent. Believing in them is obligatory (fard) and refraining from discussion about them is necessary (wajib). The guided one is the one who follows the path of acceptance (taslīm); the one who discusses it is a deviant, the one who rejects it is one who negates the attributes of Allah (mu’attil) and the one who creates a modality is an anthropomorphist (mushabbih) exalted is Allah above that – there is nothing like Him and He is the Hearer and Seer.”’

Al Qārī continues:

‘This is in harmony with the madhhab of Imam Malik رحمه الله and the way of our great Imam (Imam Abu Hanifah رحمه الله) as indicated in his Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar; the approach of acceptance (taslīm) is the safest and Allah, Almighty, knows best.’

I say: the matter is as Al-Qārī has said – there is no doubt that acceptance (taslīm) and committal (tafwīd) are the safest approaches; rather, they are obligatory.

[Musleemah]

[QUOTE]“Foot and leg mentioned in this hadith is from the attributes of Allah which are transcendent beyond having a modality or similarity with created beings just like all the other similar things mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah like hand, finger, eye, coming, arrival and descent. Believing in them is obligatory (fard) and refraining from discussion about them is necessary (wajib). The guided one is the one who follows the path of acceptance (taslīm); the one who discusses it is a deviant, the one who rejects it is one who negates the attributes of Allah (mu’attil) and the one who creates a modality is an anthropomorphist (mushabbih) exalted is Allah above that – there is nothing like Him and He is the Hearer and Seer.”’

Al Qārī continues:

‘This is in harmony with the madhhab of Imam Malik رحمه الله and the way of our great Imam (Imam Abu Hanifah رحمه الله) as indicated in his Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar; the approach of acceptance (taslīm) is the safest and Allah, Almighty, knows best.’
/QUOTE]

Thank you for that !
That proves that our belief is the belief of Imam Malik and Abu Hanifa rahimahum Allah.

Yes taslim and tafwid of "alkayf' (modality) is the correct way.

[faqir]

:lol:

I knew you would misinterpret the words of al-Qari. He means that Kayf is inconceivable i.e. inexistent.

Go back to post 17 in this thread. You will see how he understands the Aqida of Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa.

[Musleemah]

Just like Imām Mālik has said: ‘Istawā’a is known; it’s modality is unknown; to ask about it is heresy; to believe in it is mandatory’ [al-istawā’a málūm, wa’l kayf maj’hūl, wa’s suālu ánhu bidáh, wa’l īmānu wājib]


Now is amazes me how you say that Imam Malik was with the opinion of tafwid al-ma'na when he said "istiwa is known" or in another narration "istiwa is ghayr majhool (Not unknown)", when Al-Qurtubi in his tafsir and Ibn al-Arabi al-Maliki (his saying was posted somewhere in this forum) said that Imam Malik mean by that statement the "meaning in the language (fee al-lugha" !

You are just trying to interpret it to what fits your own beliefs, when his statement is clear !

and what concerns me most in the above statement is what al-Baghawi said:


]“Foot and leg mentioned in this hadith is from the attributes of Allah which are transcendent beyond having a modality or similarity with created beings just like all the other similar things mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah like hand, finger, eye, coming, arrival and descent. Believing in them is obligatory (fard) and refraining from discussion about them is necessary (wajib). The guided one is the one who follows the path of acceptance (taslīm); the one who discusses it is a deviant, the one who rejects it is one who negates the attributes of Allah (mu’attil) and the one who creates a modality is an anthropomorphist (mushabbih) exalted is Allah above that – there is nothing like Him and He is the Hearer and Seer.”

[Musleemah]

As for Imam Abu Hanifa rahimahu Allah he clearly states in Al-Fiqh al-Akbar that he confirms the hand and face for Allah Ta'la (see attached image.

Translation of what he (rahimahu Allah) said:
"And He (Allah) has a hand, face and nafs like Allah Ta'la mentioned in the Quran, and one does not say that His hand means His ability and His ne'ma , because in that is cancellation\nullification of the attribute, and it is the saying of the people of al-Qadar and I'tizal; but His hand is an attribute without modality (kayf)."

Some of you might be questioning my saying that Imam Abu Hanifa confirmed the meaning of Allah's attributes like the hand and face.

Now we know that there are 3 positions regarding the attributes of Allah ta'la (other than mushabiha-Anthropomorphists and mu'atila), all 3 agree that we do not do "takyeef" (modality, say how it is), but disagree on the meaning:

1_ a group confirms the meaning (literal meaning).
2_ does ta'weel to the meaning (non literal meaning).
3_ tafwid of the meaning (returns its meaning to Allah Ta'la).

From Abu Hanifa's saying we know he is not from group # 2 (ta'weel group), because he said:
"and one does not say that His hand means His ability and His ' ne'ma ', because in that is cancellation\nullification of the attribute."

And from his quote, also, we can conclude that he did not do "tafwid of ma'na" (group #3) because he rejected the "ta'wil" of its meaning which is not "tafwid", because tafwid means to return its meaning to Allah and not to talk about its meaning, in other words the meaning to them is "ambigous", only Allah knows what it means.

And when one says that its meaning is not such and such , he is talking about its meaning... so he can't be doing tafwid.

And if he rejects ta'wil then there is only one thing left which is to confirm the literal meaning without modality or tashbih.
Because in the Arabic language there is only a literal meaning and a non literal meaning (which I think is called "figurative" in English if I am not mistaken).

If you say that he also doesn't confirm the literal, then you are basically saying he believes that it means something that isn't in the Arabic language??
And Allah made it clear that the Quran is Arabic !

[Ibn Abbas]

you know that Imam Abu Hanifa (May Allah be Pleased with Him) also says a lot of other things which the salafi's would never agree with.

If you agree with his statements then i'm sure you would also agree with in Al-Fiqh al-Akbar where he states, "And he speaks, not as our speech. We speak with tools and letters while Allah High is He, speaks without tools, and without letters. The letters are created. And the speech of Allah, High is he, is uncreated.

It is disturbing that the Salafi's always use selective quotes to back up their main claims.

[faqir]

As for Imam Abu Hanifa rahimahu Allah he clearly states in Al-Fiqh al-Akbar that he confirms the hand and face for Allah Ta'la (see attached image.

Translation of what he (rahimahu Allah) said:
"And He (Allah) has a hand, face and nafs like Allah Ta'la mentioned in the Quran, and one does not say that His hand means His ability and His ne'ma , because in that is cancellation\nullification of the attribute, and it is the saying of the people of al-Qadar and I'tizal; but His hand is an attribute without modality (kayf)."

Some of you might be questioning my saying that Imam Abu Hanifa confirmed the meaning of Allah's attributes like the hand and face.

Now we know that there are 3 positions regarding the attributes of Allah ta'la (other than mushabiha-Anthropomorphists and mu'atila), all 3 agree that we do not do "takyeef" (modality, say how it is), but disagree on the meaning:

1_ a group confirms the meaning (literal meaning).
2_ does ta'weel to the meaning (non literal meaning).
3_ tafwid of the meaning (returns its meaning to Allah Ta'la).

From Abu Hanifa's saying we know he is not from group # 2 (ta'weel group), because he said:
"and one does not say that His hand means His ability and His ' ne'ma ', because in that is cancellation\nullification of the attribute."

And from his quote, also, we can conclude that he did not do "tafwid of ma'na" (group #3) because he rejected the "ta'wil" of its meaning which is not "tafwid", because tafwid means to return its meaning to Allah and not to talk about its meaning, in other words the meaning to them is "ambigous", only Allah knows what it means.

And when one says that its meaning is not such and such , he is talking about its meaning... so he can't be doing tafwid.

And if he rejects ta'wil then there is only one thing left which is to confirm the literal meaning without modality or tashbih.
Because in the Arabic language there is only a literal meaning and a non literal meaning (which I think is called "figurative" in English if I am not mistaken).

If you say that he also doesn't confirm the literal, then you are basically saying he believes that it means something that isn't in the Arabic language??
And Allah made it clear that the Quran is Arabic !


:salam:

I am sorry to say that once again you have come up with some blatantly nonsensical conclusions from the Imam's statement.


To understand the Aqida of Imam Abu Hanifah you need to look at the statement you are so fond of quoting in the context of his other statements.


For example, Imam Abu Hanifa RH is attributed as saying:


"Allah existed eternally and there was no place. He existed before creating the creation. He existed, and there was no place, creation, or thing; and He is the Creator of everything."

Imam Abu Hanifa [Al-Fiqh al-Absat]


Elsewhere he is attributed as saying:



"Had He been in a place and needing to sit and rest before creating the Throne, then the question 'Where was Allah?' would have applied to Him, which is impossible."

Imam Abu Hanifa [Wasiyya al-Imam al-A'zam Abu Hanifa, pg. 10]


Now, if we look at the above clear statements it becomes blatantly clear that the Imam is clear from what you attribute to him!







وهو شيء لا كالأشياء

ومعنى الشيء اثباته بلا جسم ولاجوهر ولاعَرَض

ولاحد له

و لاضدّ له ولاندّ له

ولامثل له

وله يد ووجه ونفس كما ذكره الله تعالى في القرآن, فما ذكره الله تعالى في القرآن من ذكر الوجه واليد والنفس فهو صفات له بلا كيف

ولايقال: إن يده قدرته أو نعمته, لأن فيه إبطال الصفة [وهذا رد على من أراد تحديد معنى اليد وتفسيرها على أنها القدرة أو النعمة حصراً, والإمام يشير إلى أن الآية التي ورد فيها ذكراليد هي من الآيات المتشابهة التي لايعلم حقيقتها وكنهها إلا الله, وسبيل النجاة في ذلك هو تفويض المعنى مطلقاً إلى الله مع تنزيهه جل وعلا عن مشابهة المخلوقات فلايقال يدٌ حقيقيةٌ ولاجارحة ومن قال بأنها عضو من كل أو جزء من جسم مركب أو جارحة فقد كفر, ولايقال كيف]. وهو قول أهل القدر والاعتزال

ولكن يده صفته بلا كيف

وغضبه ورضاه صفتان من صفاته تعالى بلا كيف


The Salafis have translated this as follows:



"Allàh is 'something' unlike any other thing, and the meaning of 'something' here is: neither a body (jism), nor an indi*visi*ble sub*stance (jawhar), nor an accident ('arad.); and He has no limit (hadd)." He also said: "Whatever Allàh I mentioned in the Qur'àn about the 'Face,' Hand,' and 'Essence,' these are His Attributes without ask*ing how. Let it not be said that His Hand is [but] His Power (qudra) or Bounty (ni'ma) because doing so is a nullifica*tion of the At*tribute and is the position of the Qadarïs and Mu'tazilïs.



First of all, the Imam never translated Yad, Wajh, Nafs as Hand, Face, and Essence.

وآل شيء ذآره العلماء بالفارسية من صفات الله تعالى عَزَّ اسمه فجائز القول به سوى اليد بالفارسية, ويجوز أن
يقال:بروى خداي عز وجل بلا تشبيه وآيفية.

He actually prohibits translating Yad into Persian!



Also tell me where has he stated that he believed that the texts related to such were to be taken upon their literal / haqiqi meaning?

Had he said so he would have contradicted his own statement of "without how"!



The Imam submitted to Allah the meaning [tafwid] of the mutashabihaat and did not practice ta'wil in keeping with what Imam Nawawi and so many others attribute to the majority of the salaf [and the safer position according to the Asharis/ Maturidis].....

According to your twisted logic his opposing ta'wil in this instance = taking the literal meaning. The ludicracy of such a comment is self evident.

After all, what is Tafwid? It is to pass by such statements as they have come, having firm belief in them, refraining from interpretation [ta'wil] whilst relegating knowledge of the meaning to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala. Taking the literal meaning does not come into the equation!

Some people like to use that one statement of Imam Abu Hanifa to knock the Asharis who did practice ta'wil to refute the innovators.

First of all, the Asharis only practiced ta'wil/interpretation when there was an evidence from the salaf and/or room for this in the Arabic language.

Furthermore, as a brother stated elsewhere:

According to the majority of the Asharis the 'Azima is Tafwid, and Ta'wil is a dispensation (rukhs).

Even when they employ Ta'wil the Ash'aris don't say that "Hand" means "Power" in an exclusive specification that negates it having a reality beyond this. Rather, the ta'wil simply entails that "Hand" *signifies* "Power", without negating it having a reality beyond this that is beyond our understanding.

Thus... there is Tafwid in this Ta'wil Tafsili as well.


Salafis often misuse the Imam's statements against the Jahmiyya, and claim that it is a reference to the Ash'aris.

Rather, this is a reference to the Mu'tazilah who said that any time Allah's hand is mentioned, it is always a reference to His "power".

But the Ash'aris do not say the same thing. They say that "Yad" may sometimes signify His "power", sometimes "blessing", sometimes "aid", sometimes "authority". But Allah only knows for certainty the meaning He intended in relation to the Mutashabihaat.

What we do know is that the literal and haqiqi meaning of the words relating to these texts are not to be applied to the Creator, since "there is nothing like unto Him. "

We, like Imam Abu Hanifah do not liken Allah to His creation! Rather, we, like the Imam, uphold His transcendence and say:

"I believe in Allah and what has come about Allah according to the intent of Allah."

[Imam Shafi'i as quoted in Luma'h Al-`Itiqaad Al- Haadi ilaa ilaa Sabeel al-Rashaad]


Now I ask you as you are so fond of quoting Fiqh al-Akbar, do you also agree with the following statement in al-Fiqh al-Akbar:


“And He speaks, not as our speech. We speak with tools and letters while Allah, High is He, speaks without a tool and without letters. The letters are created. And the speech of Allah, High is He, is uncreated.”`

and

“The Qur’an is Allah’s word, High is He, in pages transcribed, in hearts protected, on tongues recited, and on the Prophet (PBUH) and His family revealed. Our utterance of the Qur’an is created. Our writing of it is created. Our recitation of it is created. And the Qur’an is uncreated.”



ANYHOW SISTER, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES FURTHER COULD YOU KINDLY START A NEW THREAD - I WILL NOT BE REPLYING TO ANY MORE POSTS IN THIS THREAD AS I WISH TO CARRY ON WITH POSTING QUOTES.

:jazak:

:salam:

[Musleemah]

ANYHOW SISTER, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES FURTHER COULD YOU KINDLY START A NEW THREAD - I WILL NOT BE REPLYING TO ANY MORE POSTS IN THIS THREAD AS I WISH TO CARRY ON WITH POSTING QUOTES.

No problem.

Insha Allah I will start one soon.

[faqir]

Another Excellent Quote from Ibn Hajar's Fath al-Bari on Tafwid


Ibn Hajar writes in Fath al-Bari quoting Ibn Daqiq Al-‘Id’s Al-‘Aqeedah:


وَقَالَ اِبْن دَقِيق الْعِيد فِي الْعَقِيدَة :

تَقُول فِي الصِّفَات الْمُشْكِلَة إِنَّهَا حَقّ وَصِدْق عَلَى الْمَعْنَى الَّذِي أَرَادَهُ اللَّه , وَمَنْ تَأَوَّلَهَا نَظَرْنَا فَإِنْ كَانَ تَأْوِيله قَرِيبًا عَلَى مُقْتَضَى لِسَان الْعَرَب لَمْ نُنْكِر عَلَيْهِ , وَإِنْ كَانَ بَعِيدًا تَوَقَّفْنَا عَنْهُ وَرَجَعْنَا إِلَى التَّصْدِيق مَعَ التَّنْزِيه . وَمَا كَانَ مِنْهَا مَعْنَاهُ ظَاهِرًا مَفْهُومًا مِنْ تَخَاطُب الْعَرَب حَمَلْنَاهُ عَلَيْهِ لِقَوْلِهِ " عَلَى مَا فَرَّطْت فِي جَنْب اللَّه " فَإِنَّ الْمُرَاد بِهِ فِي اِسْتِعْمَالهمْ الشَّائِع حَقّ اللَّه فَلَا يَتَوَقَّف فِي حَمْله عَلَيْهِ , وَكَذَا قَوْله " إِنَّ قَلْب اِبْن آدَم بَيْن إِصْبَعَيْنِ مِنْ أَصَابِع الرَّحْمَن " فَإِنَّ الْمُرَاد بِهِ إِرَادَة قَلْب اِبْن آدَم مُصَرَّفَة بِقُدْرَةِ اللَّه وَمَا يُوقِعهُ فِيهِ , وَكَذَا قَوْله تَعَالَى ( فَأَتَى اللَّهُ بُنْيَانَهُمْ مِنْ الْقَوَاعِد ) مَعْنَاهُ خَرَّبَ اللَّهُ بُنْيَانهمْ , وَقَوْله ( إِنَّمَا نُطْعِمُكُمْ لِوَجْهِ اللَّه ) مَعْنَاهُ لِأَجْلِ اللَّه , وَقِسْ عَلَى ذَلِكَ وَهُوَ تَفْصِيل بَالِغ قَلَّ مَنْ تَيَقَّظَ لَهُ

وَقَالَ غَيْره :

اِتَّفَقَ الْمُحَقِّقُونَ عَلَى أَنَّ حَقِيقَة اللَّه مُخَالِفَة لِسَائِرِ الْحَقَائِق , وَذَهَبَ بَعْض أَهْل الْكَلَام إِلَى أَنَّهَا مِنْ حَيْثُ إِنَّهَا ذَات مُسَاوِيَة لِسَائِرِ الذَّوَات , وَإِنَّمَا تَمْتَاز عَنْهَا بِالصِّفَاتِ الَّتِي تَخْتَصّ بِهَا كَوُجُوبِ الْوُجُود , وَالْقُدْرَة التَّامَّة , وَالْعِلْم التَّامّ , وَتُعُقِّبَ بِأَنَّ الْأَشْيَاء الْمُتَسَاوِيَة فِي تَمَام الْحَقِيقَة يَجِب أَنْ يَصِحّ عَلَى كُلّ وَاحِد مِنْهَا مَا يَصِحّ عَلَى الْآخَر " فَيَلْزَم مِنْ دَعْوَى التَّسَاوِي الْمُحَال , وَبِأَنَّ أَصْل مَا ذَكَرُوهُ قِيَاس الْغَائِب عَلَى الشَّاهِد وَهُوَ أَصْل كُلّ خَبْط

وَالصَّوَاب الْإِمْسَاك عَنْ أَمْثَال هَذِهِ الْمَبَاحِث وَالتَّفْوِيض إِلَى اللَّه فِي جَمِيعهَا وَالِاكْتِفَاء بِالْإِيمَانِ بِكُلِّ مَا أَوْجَبَ اللَّه فِي كِتَابه أَوْ عَلَى لِسَان نَبِيّه إِثْبَاته لَهُ أَوْ تَنْزِيهه عَنْهُ عَلَى طَرِيق الْإِجْمَال وَبِاَللَّهِ التَّوْفِيق , وَلَوْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِي تَرْجِيح التَّفْوِيض عَلَى التَّأْوِيل إِلَّا أَنَّ صَاحِب التَّأْوِيل لَيْسَ جَازِمًا بِتَأْوِيلِهِ بِخِلَافِ صَاحِب التَّفْوِيض


Ibn Daqiq Al-‘Id said in Al-‘Aqeedah:


‘We say concerning the various attributes that they are real and true according to the meaning Allah wills for them. As for those who interpret them, we look at their interpretation: if it is close to the rules of language in use among the Arabs we do not reject it, and if it is far from them we relinquish it and return to believing while declaring transcendence. So whatever is clear and understood from the speech of the Arabs then that is what we deem it to mean – for example Allah says ‘In that I neglected the side (janb) of Allah’ (39:56) and it is common in their usage of this term (janb) that it means right (haqq) [so the verse would mean ‘In that I neglected the right of Allah’] so we will not relinquish this understanding of the verse. Similarly the statement of the Prophetصلى الله عليه وسلم ‘Verily, the hearts of all the sons of Adam are between the two fingers out of the fingers of the Compassionate’ means the desires of the hearts of man swerves by the power (qudrah) of Allah. Likewise the statement of Allah ‘So Allah came to their buildings from their foundations’ (16:26) means ‘Allah destroyed their buildings…’. Allah also says ‘Truly we feed you only for the face of Allah’ (76:9) which means ‘for the sake of Allah’ and you can draw analogies from these examples for other such verses.’

Others have said:


‘The verifiers (muhaqqiqun) are in agreement that the reality of Allah is different to all other realities. However some of the scholars of kalam have postulated that He is an essence like other essences but is distinguished from other essences by certain traits that are specific to Him like His necessity of being (wujub al-wujud), total dominance (al-qudrah at-tammah) and complete knowledge (al-‘ilm at-tamm); in response to them it is said those things that share the same reality can each rightfully possess an attribute of another so the claim that they are the same is impossible – and the source of such a fatal error is that they compare what they see with what they cannot.’

The correct way is to refrain from the likes of such investigations and commit the meaning to Allah in its entirety and suffice with the belief in all that Allah has mentioned in His book or upon the tongue of His Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, affirming them while declaring transcendence: leaving its meaning ambiguous. Committal of the meaning is preferred to figurative interpretations because the one who interprets is shadowed by doubt as opposed to the one who commits their meanings to Allah.



:salam:

[faqir]

Ibn Hajar Quoting Imam Sayfud-Din al-Amidi on Tafwid


As part of a quote from Imam Sayfud-Din al-Amidi it is mentioned in Fath al-Bari (http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=6824&doc=0) (13/351):



وَهَذَا مُسْتَنَد السَّلَف قَاطِبَة فِي الْأَخْذ بِمَا ثَبَتَ عِنْدهمْ مِنْ آيَات الْقُرْآن وَأَحَادِيث النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِيمَا يَتَعَلَّق بِهَذَا الْبَاب , فَآمَنُوا بِالْمُحْكَمِ مِنْ ذَلِكَ وَفَوَّضُوا أَمْر الْمُتَشَابِه مِنْهُ إِلَى رَبّهمْ


This has been documented from the majority of the Salaf: to take all that has come to us in the form of verses of the Qur’an or ahādīth of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and to believe in the clear verses (muhkam) and commit the meaning of the ambiguous verses (mutashabih) to Allah.


.

[faqir]

An interesting article from Yamin Zakaria

http://www.iiop.org/index3.php?recordID=190








In the 13th century, Hulagu Khan, the grandson of Genghis Khan, led the brutal Mongol invasion of Baghdad, turning the river Euphrates and Tigris red with blood of men, women and children. To instil fear and humiliation, the invaders made pyramids with the human skulls of the victims. For the same reasons, the neo-Mongols of today made similar pyramids with the bodies of naked Iraqis. Clearly technological advancements does not always equate to advancement of civilisation; at least Hulagu Khan was honest, and did not pretend to wear the mask of civilisation while his men carried out atrocities!



The advancing Mongols were halted after their defeat by Sultan Baybars in the battle of Ein Jalut in 1260. Subsequently, the Mongol invaders were absorbed by the Muslims. This is a distinct episode of human history, where the invading conquerors assimilated into the culture and religion of the conquered nations. Yet, the medieval propaganda that Islam was spread by the sword continues to be propagated, by the ‘enlightened’ and scientifically advanced minds of today.



Prior to Sultan Baybars, Salahuddin Al-Ayubi came to the defence of Muslims and non-Muslims of Palestine, and liberated it from the clutches of the barbaric crusaders. After Sultan Baybars, came the rule of the Othmania Caliphate (Ottomans). It produced the likes of Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih, who liberated Istanbul (Constantinople) at the age of 21, partly fulfilling the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). The Islamic State reached its apex under the rule of Suleiman Al-Qanuni (Suleiman the Magnificent), who was on the verge of opening up Venice to Islamic rule.



After his demise, the Islamic State kept declining, with its inherent problems of economic and cultural stagnation. The gap between the Islamic State and secular Europe increased significantly after the Industrial Revolution, because now the European powers could produce much larger quantities of military hardware over a shorter period of time. This led to loss of territory in a series of disastrous wars and increasingly the Ottoman State fell under the financial control of the European powers, who labelled it as “the sick man of Europe’. Furthermore, fuelled by nationalism and inspired by outside forces, internal rebellions from the various ethnic groups increased, after living together in harmony for centuries under the Islamic State.



The last independent Ottoman Sultan was Abdul Hamid, who was renowned for refusing to sell Palestine to the Zionists, despite being tempted by huge amounts of money and at the time the state was in huge debt. He also tried to eradicate the notorious network of freemasonry which was prevalent within the Islamic State. During the Ottoman rule, there were Sultans in other parts of the Islamic world that also defended the Muslim community, for example, Ahmad Shah Durrani (Ahmad Shah Abdali) of Afghanistan, Imam Shamil of the Caucasus, and Sheikh Uthman Dan Fodio who established the Sokoto Caliphate over Nigeria, Cameroon and other parts of West Africa.



Eventually, the Ottoman Islamic State was symbolically demolished in 1924. This was achieved by the collective effort of the colonial powers (Britain and France), the Turkish nationalist movement (Young Turks), and the treacherous Arab regimes that were aided by the Wahhabi (Salafi) movement. The Wahhabi movement ‘legitimised’ the revolt against the Islamic State, as they considered everyone as an apostate unless they followed the Wahhabi school of thought. Whilst the British schemed to create the Arab revolt, the French worked to create the revolt of the Young Turks, both groups worked for the destruction of the Caliphate.



As a just ‘reward’ for their treachery, the colonial nations handed Palestine to the Zionists. People forget that these Arabs aided by the Salafi movement, were complicit with the Zionists in creating the Israeli cancer. Also, the colonial powers betrayed the Arabs by carving up the rest of the region, according to the secret treaty of Sykes-Picot. They created petty kingdoms ruled over by puppet dictators to serve their policy of divide and conquer. Some of the countries are so small and artificial that it can be classified as an oil field with a flag. The colonial powers even manufactured royal dynasties out of wild Bedouins who were operating as bandits.



In the absence of the Caliphate who will come to the defence of the Muslims now? With the demise of the Caliphate, the incursions into the Islamic lands have increased, as has the killing of Muslims and the exploitation of their resources. Most of the puppet regimes in the Muslim world continue to function like the coolies of the British Raj, always ready to serve and take orders in order to preserve their self-interests. They would sell anything to maintain their oil fields, empty palaces, shopping complexes and Filipino ‘maids’. After the Iraqi invasion, one of the members of the Kuwaiti royal family stated on TV that he would embrace the devil to regain his oil-field (Kuwait) in the south of Iraq. There was no Fatwa (Islamic edict) to pronounce him as an apostate from the land that produces endless fatwas against anyone, except those who show support for the pro-US puppet regimes!



When Iraq was attacked by the US-led coalition in 1991, these Gollum (Smeagol) like Salafi ‘scholars’ nearly choked trying to utter the word Jihad. Instead they gurgled and legitimised fighting the Muslims of Iraq under the American flag; some even saw ‘Jihad’ behind American troops in 1991! If fighting behind the Americans is Jihad, surely the likes of Bush and Sharon (a close ally of the US) are the Ameers (leaders) of Jihad! In reality this is Jihad in reverse gear, as the Muslims are the intended victims.



It was those same American troops that continued to commit the atrocities in Iraq, through enforcing the self-styled no-fly zone, and the cruel economic sanctions with direct cooperation from the Salafi orientated regimes. Then came the second invasion in 2003, the US troops committed atrocities in places like Abu-Ghraib, Baghdad, Fallujah, and Ramadi. To humiliate the Arab/Islamic world, they deliberately taped and aired the sadistic torture of Iraqis. In Haditha they gang raped a young girl and killed her along with her family, one of many such brutal crimes.



These Salafi orientated regimes managed to spin idiotic arguments for the naïve and their brain-dead followers. One of these claims is that the presence of US troops was good for Islam, as allegedly so many of them embraced Islam. According to these idiots, the blood of the Iraqi Muslims for some mysterious number of US soldiers allegedly converting to Islam was a good exchange! I suppose the first instruction given to those ‘converts’ by the Gollum like Salafi ‘scholars’ was to bomb the Muslims in Iraq! Was it their words of encouragement that led to the US forces, perhaps including the so-called ‘converts’, to massacre the retreating Iraqis on the road to Basra, and bury the defenceless Iraqi soldiers under the sand?

These Salafis describe the resistance in Palestine and Iraq as terrorists and extremists. Concurrently, they will not issue any criticism of the Pro-US regimes who are actively aiding the slaughter in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, because allegedly they have found a ‘Hadith’ which permits this treacherous stance. Even common sense tells us that this is a perverted interpretation of Islam, as they justify remaining silent and inactive when violence is inflicted upon the Muslims but become overtly critical against Muslims for retaliating against injustices. This stance contradicts human nature as well as Islamic evidences.

What then is the difference between the Salafi position and the neo-con ilk, who are leading the war on terror (Islam)? Only the shameless and treacherous ones would adopt the same position as those who have raped and tortured their children, mothers and sisters in a manner that is not even found amongst animals. Yet, these charlatans have the audacity to call themselves followers of the real pious predecessors (Salafis) that came after the demise of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Therefore, the label ‘neo-con salafis’ or Saudi-Salafis is most appropriate for them. This also distinguishes them from the Jihadi-Salafis, who are far more consistent.



According to the neo-con Salafi obsession of purifying the creed (Aqeeda), liberation (purification) of Palestine should be a top priority. This is because Palestine includes Masjid Al-Aqsa (Jerusalem, Al-Quds), which is explicitly mentioned in the Quran and in the Hadiths, as a purified sacred place for the Muslims. Of course that is difficult as the Salafi orientated Saudi regime is closely aligned with the US and by implication allied with Israel. No one can dispute that the US provides the lifeline for Israel. So how will these neo-con Salafis liberate Palestine when they are aligned with the US and the Israelis? Thus, to date, not a single item of literature has been produced by these neo-con Salafis, as to how they visualise liberating Palestine.



When the Muslims in Bosnia were being massacred and raped by the Christian-terrorists of Europe, the Saudi-Salafis blamed the victims (Bosnians) for their fate, because they were bad Muslims. Surely, such arguments are also applicable to the Palestinians and the Iraqis who are also suffering. If we recall, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) sent an army seeking retribution for the dishonoring of one woman, and there was no discussion if she was a good Muslim or a bad Muslim. What the Saudi-Salafis really meant was: the Bosnians were apostates, so they have no obligation to help them, and they have the same opinion of the others, but the existing public opinion makes it difficult to express their real views. Isn’t it convenient for those who blame the victim, because they can simple turn their backs on them! Some would call it treachery and cowardice. This is why those planes should have been rammed against the palaces of these oppressors, instead of the WTC. Remove the snake inside your house, before you attempt to fight the bigger beast outside.



The paradox is: the neo-con Salafis (Saudi-Salafis) incessantly attack the mainstream Muslims by calling them deviants, as their Aqeeda is not pure enough, yet they have no problem in aligning with belligerent non-Muslims with a false Aqeeda and not just a deviant one. Note, the US bases in Saudi Arabia, and the other smaller Gulf States are used to launch murderous campaigns against the Muslims in Iraq, Palestine and else where, this has hardly bothered the conscience of the neo-con Salafis. Did the Prophet (SAW) not cleanse this land (Saudi Arabia, Hijaz, Najd) and say this is exclusively for the people of Tawhid (monotheism)? How can we explain this paradox, when these neo-con Salafis scream Shirk (Polytheism), Bidda (Innovation) and Kufr (Disbelief) but they are most comfortable with the presence of those hostile foreign forces that displays Shirk, Bidda and Kufr and even go beyond it?



This paradoxical behaviour of the neo-con Salafi can be explained if we dig deeper. Although they classify the rest of the Muslims (non Salafis) as deviants, but in reality they are viewed as apostates. Because, the neo-con Salafis follow the Khawarij doctrine of elevating minor issues of sin to major issues of disbelief (Kufr), hence like the Khawarij they pronounce Takfir (declare someone as an apostate) frequently. However, to avoid being isolated they say a particular notion makes one deviant instead of an apostate, but this is simply clever language on their part.



Therefore, the neo-con Salafis are also the Khawarij (neo-Khawarij) of today. Accordingly they see no real problems with the killings of the Palestinians or the Iraqis or the Bosnians, as they are unbelievers being killed for their sins by another group of unbelievers (the Israelis, Americans, and Serbs). Consequentially, Salafi orientated regimes like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf States find it easy to abuse the poor Muslim workers who have come from places like Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Egypt, Sudan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Yemen. These poor workers are often paid very low salaries, and some occasions paid a lower than what was agreed and there are many cases of withholding payments for long periods. This is disgusting behavior and naked oppression by any standards.



When such criticisms have been raised they become Salafi-Capitalist, arguing that the labor force should move elsewhere for greater salary. So, the Islamic brotherhood vanishes, the purity of the Aqeeda is put aside, and exploiting the poverty faced by the poor Muslims is deemed acceptable and even ‘Islamic’. They are depicting the Sunnah of the pre-Islamic pagan Arabs. Is there a chance of issuing a ‘fatwa’ on this type of issue? Then the neo-Con Salafis have the audacity to lecture these poor Muslim workers facing exploitation about how deviant they are in their Aqeeda. In contrast, the white Europeans and Americans are paid promptly and paid a far greater salary for doing the same work. This is the consequence of having deep inferiority complex and racist views. There is no chance of squeezing a ‘fatwa’ out of them on this issue either.



True to their rebellious Khawarij nature, they aided the destruction of the Caliphate, replaced it with oppressive monarchies. Surely this is one of the greatest form of innovation (Bidda)? Old habits die hard, so they remain active in opposing those who are trying to re-establish the Caliphate, using various pretexts. For example, they say they do not oppose the notion of the Caliphate (Islamic State) but the creed of those who are trying to re-establish it, and at times they have had the chutzpah to question their sincerity. Obviously this is an excuse, otherwise by now we would have seen plenty of literatures and books on the notion of the Caliphate from these neo-Khawarij. In any case, did the Prophet (SAW) test the creed of all the companions before the establishment of the first Islamic State of Medina?



Perhaps these neo-Khawarij are shy to proclaim that they consider the current rulers as legitimate. They were dancing and celebrating with the American forces after the killing of Muslims (or non-Muslims?) in Iraq! Never mind the dead Iraqis, but I would have thought a fatwa on the issue on dancing and celebrating with the American unbelievers would have been pronounced by now, from the land of ‘fatwas’.



For these neo-Khawarij, the Shi’ites are worse than the American soldiers massacring the Iraqis and presumably worse than the Zionist that are murdering Palestinians and Lebanese everyday! Accordingly they criticised the Shi’ites in Lebanon for fighting the Israelis, a close friend of their American masters, and simultaneously remained silent towards the Shi’ites in Iraq who collaborated with the Americans. These neo-Khawarij have been living with the Shi’ites for centuries and they only became a problem after Khomeini came to power in 1979, challenging the legitimacy of the Saudi regime. It was at this juncture we witnessed the circulation of anti-Shi’ite literatures from that part of the world.



To divert attention away from the occupation and slaughter facing the Muslims, the neo-con Salafis insist that everyone should accept their interpretation of certain metaphysical issues that has no real consequences for our life on earth. Nothing else can be discussed until this is resolved. So shedding of the blood of the Muslims, addressing famine, and other forms of tragedy does not rank very high on their list of priorities, assuming it is on their list in the first place! Perhaps helping Muslims in need is considered a minor Prophetic tradition (Sunnah)! But then again, there are no Muslims unless one is a neo-Khawarij (Saudi-Salafi or neo-Con Salafi)!



These neo-Khawarij are well-known for attacking the mainstream Muslims for following the established Madhabs (the traditional Schools of thought). They say you should not follow the Scholars but only the Quran and Sunnah (Hadiths) of the Prophet (SAW). Which tacitly implies the previous Scholars did not do that. In any case this is a redundant argument as following the opinion of a scholar is a must, unless one is a scholar who is capable of deducing the rules from the Islamic texts. The vast majority of the Muslims are not scholars. Therefore, the neo-Khawarij claim of following the Quran and Sunnah in reality means: do not follow the established Madhabs but follow our interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah, i.e. our Madhab. So instead of referring to the books of the traditional scholars like the Hanafi, Shafee, Maliki, Hanbali, Ghazali, and others, you should pickup ‘only’ the books of Al-Albani or Bin-Baaz.



According to these neo-Khawarij, the solution to our problems means going back to the 14th century and continuing the philosophical/theological debate that was initiated as a result of encountering Greek Philosophy. In essence, when everyone becomes a neo-Khawarij, our problem will be magically solved! The US soldiers will then suddenly run in fear seeing the prevailing of the Khawarij (Salafi) compliant doctrines, Israel will cease to exist, and our lands from Morocco to Indonesia will be free and unified under a single Caliphate, finally the oil will be ours, and it will be sold at genuine market prices, the revenue will be used for the welfare of the entire Muslim Ummah (community)!



The neo-Khawarij hide behind their superficial piety which they like to display and brag about, and then confuse the unwary Muslim by citing books, scholars and technical terms. It is easy to promote the above mentioned arguments, as the vast majority of the Saudi-Salafi followers are brain-dead, incapable of thinking independently and rationally about their situation. This is why they fear the wooden cross or the tombstones over the graves, more than the American firepower.



Moreover, they have been programmed to attack the mainstream Muslims and to raise irrelevant minor issues, so that focus is kept away from their paymasters and from vital issues like the mass killings of the Muslims. The Saudi-Salafis talk, you must listen. You challenge them by the constructing your own thoughts then automatically you are reduced to a deviant innovator lacking in scholarly knowledge. There is no doubt the neo-Khawarij are the fifth columnist, they will be at the forefront of fighting the Caliphate when it returns. If we are to learn from history this time we should be prepared to shed their blood and make them extinct, if it is necessary!







Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org)

London, UK



Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2006

[loveProphet]

Interesting

[mustajab]

I agree that the Salafis should do more, because of their influence on world politcs...

Here's another article...

Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves

11/29/06 Washington Post -- In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.

One hopes he won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.

Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region.

Because King Abdullah has been working to minimize sectarian tensions in Iraq and reconcile Sunni and Shiite communities, because he gave President Bush his word that he wouldn't meddle in Iraq (and because it would be impossible to ensure that Saudi-funded militias wouldn't attack U.S. troops), these requests have all been refused. They will, however, be heeded if American troops begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world's Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene.

Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. But it seems possible today, and therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance -- funding, arms and logistical support -- that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.

Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.

Both the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite death squads are to blame for the current bloodshed in Iraq. But while both sides share responsibility, Iraqi Shiites don't run the risk of being exterminated in a civil war, which the Sunnis clearly do. Since approximately 65 percent of Iraq's population is Shiite, the Sunni Arabs, who make up a mere 15 to 20 percent, would have a hard time surviving any full-blown ethnic cleansing campaign.

What's clear is that the Iraqi government won't be able to protect the Sunnis from Iranian-backed militias if American troops leave. Its army and police cannot be relied on to do so, as tens of thousands of Shiite militiamen have infiltrated their ranks. Worse, Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, cannot do anything about this, because he depends on the backing of two major leaders of Shiite forces.

There is reason to believe that the Bush administration, despite domestic pressure, will heed Saudi Arabia's advice. Vice President Cheney's visit to Riyadh last week to discuss the situation (there were no other stops on his marathon journey) underlines the preeminence of Saudi Arabia in the region and its importance to U.S. strategy in Iraq. But if a phased troop withdrawal does begin, the violence will escalate dramatically.

In this case, remaining on the sidelines would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia. To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia's credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran's militarist actions in the region.

To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.

The writer, an adviser to the Saudi government, is managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project in Riyadh and an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not reflect official
Saudi policy.

© Copyright 1996-2006 The Washington Post Company

[faqir]

Prior to Sultan Baybars, Salahuddin Al-Ayubi came to the defence of Muslims and non-Muslims of Palestine, and liberated it from the clutches of the barbaric crusaders. After Sultan Baybars, came the rule of the Othmania Caliphate (Ottomans). It produced the likes of Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih, who liberated Istanbul (Constantinople) at the age of 21, partly fulfilling the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). The Islamic State reached its apex under the rule of Suleiman Al-Qanuni (Suleiman the Magnificent), who was on the verge of opening up Venice to Islamic rule.

Ash'aris and Maturidis?

[Ansari_UK]

Thanks for the link bro Faqir.

[illuminate]

Therefore, the neo-con Salafis are also the Khawarij (neo-Khawarij) of today.

when will sunni muslim go away from calling all salafi khawarij.. - the articles fails to distinguish between the salafi's - not all salafi are khawarij - but all khawarij are salafi.

One of the greatest fitna in our time is the takfiri ideology, which has led to much which has been outline in the article - sunni and the salafi scholars need to work together in combating this evil ideology, salafi has done much to refute this - but unfortunately the sunni scholars are too busy making blanket statements against all salafi's.

Yes I know, the salafi accuse the sunni of having deviant beliefs, but so do the sunni's - isn't it time sunni and salafi work closely together rather than continue writing such articles. ........Too be fair some sunni and salafi scholars do work together and engage in dialogue - isn't it time more muslim did this..

[MuhammadAmin]

Just to add the Young Turks were mainly Jewish secularists living in Ottomon Turkey at the time.


Also the Ottomon were dismantelled by use of USURY finance as a weapon.

[Sunniya]

illuminate is right.

[Ansari_UK]

Brother Amin is also right.

bro Illuminate you are also correct we just have to be carefull. Learn the basics of the religion then of course work with them.

[JayshAllah]

when will sunni muslim go away from calling all salafi khawarij.. - the articles fails to distinguish between the salafi's - not all salafi are khawarij - but all khawarij are salafi.

One of the greatest fitna in our time is the takfiri ideology, which has led to much which has been outline in the article - sunni and the salafi scholars need to work together in combating this evil ideology, salafi has done much to refute this - but unfortunately the sunni scholars are too busy making blanket statements against all salafi's.

Yes I know, the salafi accuse the sunni of having deviant beliefs, but so do the sunni's - isn't it time sunni and salafi work closely together rather than continue writing such articles. ........Too be fair some sunni and salafi scholars do work together and engage in dialogue - isn't it time more muslim did this..

Well said.

(Minor correction though is that Salafis are Sunni. You might think Barelwis are wack, but they are still a group within Sunnism. Likewise with Salafis. It's stupidly childish and moronic how people espouse the Takfeeri attitude whilst condemning Salafis. Saying someone is not Sunni is pretty much like saying they are kaffir, because it is agreed that the saved sect is Sunni.)

Anyways, the article only talks about Madhkali Salafis, which are a dying breed and the other groups of Salafis have set themselves against the Madhkalis.

[loveProphet]

Well said.

(Minor correction though is that Salafis are Sunni. You might think Barelwis are wack, but they are still a group within Sunnism. Likewise with Salafis. It's stupidly childish and moronic how people espouse the Takfeeri attitude whilst condemning Salafis. Saying someone is not Sunni is pretty much like saying they are kaffir, because it is agreed that the saved sect is Sunni.)

Anyways, the article only talks about Madhkali Salafis, which are a dying breed and the other groups of Salafis have set themselves against the Madhkalis.
I would highly disagree with you saying that "salafis"/wahabis being Sunni and that whoever is not Sunni is kafir, this topic has been explained clearly by the great Imams of Islam such as Imam Ibn Hajar(RA) etc and on Sunnipath etc...
Clearly the "salafis"/wahabis are not Ahlus Sunnah due to their deviant beliefs... search SUnniforum

[illuminate]

Anyways, the article only talks about Madhkali Salafis, which are a dying breed and the other groups of Salafis have set themselves against the Madhkalis.
salaams

could you tell me who exactly are the madhkali salafi's - I still don't understand who they are..

:ws:

[salman]

Saying someone is not Sunni is pretty much like saying they are kaffir, because it is agreed that the saved sect is Sunni.)


salamu `alaykum

This is unsound... saying someone is not a sunni is neither saying nor "pretty much like saying" that he is a Kafir.

Wasalam
Salman

[MoGame]

Salafi is not Sunni?

Sub7anAllah! First of All, Where is your Proof. Last time I heard those who follow the Quran, Sunnah of The Prophet and the sahaba is Ahlus Sunnah.

[Nawawi619]

The definition of Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l Jama'ah was according to the classical scholars of this aided, Victorious sect (Tai'fatul-Mansoorah) of Islam.
(
1) 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 (aqid'ah) 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."

(2) Imam Ahmad Shihab ad-Din al Qalyubi (d.1069/1659; R.A.)
Imam al-Qalyubi wrote on the fourth volume of his marginalia to the book Kanz ar-raghibin:

"One who departs from what Abu'l Hasan al-Ashari and Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (Allah's mercy be upon them) reported is not a Sunni. These two Imam's followed the footprints of Rasulullah (Peace be upon him) and his Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them all)."

(3) 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 (peace and blessings be upon him), 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."

(4) Imam Abdal Ghani an-Nablusi (d. 1143/1733; Rahimahullah)
Imam an-Nablusi stated in his book al-Hadiqat an-Nadiyya (vol. 2, pg. 103):

"Jama'ah is rahma, that is, the union of Muslims on truth brings Allahu ta'ala's Compassion. Tafriqa is adhab, that is, separation from the Community of Muslims brings about punishment from Allahu ta'ala. Hence, it is necessary for every Muslim to unite with those who are on the right path. He must join and believe like them even if they are only a small group. The right path is the path of as-Sahaba al-Kiram. Those who follow this path are called Ahl as-Sunnah Wa'l Jama'ah. It should not confuse us that many heretical groups appeared after the time of as-Sahaba al-Kiram. Al-Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458/1066; Rahimahullah) said, 'When Muslims go astray, you should follow the right path of those who came before them! You should not give up that path even if you are left alone on the path!' Najm ad-Din al-Ghazzi (d. 1061/1651; Rahimahullah) wrote: 'Ahl as-Sunnah Wa'l Jama'ah are those ulama who keep on the right path of Rasullullah (Peace and blessings be upon him) and as-Sahaba al-Kiram. As-Sawad al-Azam, that is, the majority of Islamic scholars, have followed this right path. The Firqatun-Naajiyyah which was defined to be the group of salvation among the seventy three groups is this true Jama'ah.' The Qur'an al-Karim declares, 'Do not disunite!' This ayat means 'Do not disunite in i'tiqad, in the teachings of beliefs!' Most ulama, for example, Abdullah ibn Masood (may Allah be pleased with him), interpreted this ayat as above and said that it meant, 'Do not deviate from the right path by following your desires and corrupt ideas.' This ayat does not mean that there should be no disagreement in the knowledge of fiqh. It forbids separation which causes discord and dissension in the knowledge of i'tiqad (see Imam al-Qurtubi's opinion later). The disagreement in the knowledge (of fiqh) derived through ijtihad in the field of practices (amal) is not a discord, because such disagreement has brought to sight the rights, the fards and the subtle teachings in amal and Ibadah (worship). As-Sahaba al-kiram (Allah be pleased with them all), too, differed from one another in those teachings that explained the daily life, but there was no disagreement among them in the knowledge of i'tiqad."

(5) Allamah Sayyid Ahmad at-Tahtawi (d. 1231/1816; Rahimahullah)
Allamah Sayyid Ahmad at-Tahtawi, a great Hanafi fiqh scholar of Egypt, wrote on the subject of 'Zabayih' in his Hashiya al-Durr al-Mukhtar:

"According to the majority of scholars of tafsir, the ayat, 'They parted into groups in the religion,' referred to the people of bid'ah who would arise in this Ummah. In a Hadith reported by Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), Rasulullah (Peace and blessings be upon him) said to Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), 'The ayat about the partitions into groups in the religion refers to the people of bid'ah and to the followers of their nafs who would arise in this Ummah.' Allah declared in the 153rd ayat of Surah Al-An'am, 'This is My Straight path, so follow it! Follow not other ways, lest you be parted from His way!' (that is, Jews, Christians, and other heretics departed from the right path; you should not part like them!). In the 103rd ayat of Surah Al-Imran, Allah declares, 'And hold fast, all of you together, to the rope of Allah, and do not separate!' (see later for a brief commentary). Some scholars of tafsir said that Allah's rope meant Jama'ah, unity. The command, 'Do not separate', shows that it is so and the Jama'ah are the possessors of fiqh and ilm (knowledge). One who descents from fuqaha (scholars of fiqh) as much as a span falls into heresy, becomes deprived of Allah's help and deserves Hell, because the fuqaha have been on the right path and have held on to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Peace and blessings be upon him) and on to the path of al-Khulafa ar-Rashideen, the Four Khaliphs (may Allah be pleased with them). As-Sawad al-Azam, that is, the majority of the Muslims, are on the path of fuqaha. Those who depart from their path will burn in the fire of Hell. O believers! Follow the unique group which is protected against Hell! And this group is the one that is called Ahl as-Sunnah Wa'l Jama'ah. For, Allah's help, protection and guidance are for the followers of this group, and His wrath and punishment are for those who dissent from this group. Today, this group of salvation comes together in the Four Madhhabs, namely the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali."

[loveProphet]

JazakAllah Khair akhi Nawawi, that is enough to prove the Ahlus Sunnah against any deviancies:)

[Jamaluddine]

Assalamu Alaikum,

Where is LoveProphet's post? Why has it been removed and replaced?!

Anyway, since we are discussing whether we should include Salafis in Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jamaah or not, I have decided to research this topic from a NEUTRAL point of view

...Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami defined the Sunni Muslims as follows in his book Fath al-jawad: ...


... Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami also said in his book al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya (pg. 205): ...

I have spent weeks looking for these two books on any online library but could not find them. Could any brother please post a link for these two books (just so that I can verify these quotes for myself, before I post any other opinions).


...(4) Imam Abdal Ghani an-Nablusi (d. 1143/1733; Rahimahullah) Imam an-Nablusi stated in his book al-Hadiqat an-Nadiyya (vol. 2, pg. 103) ...



...(5) Allamah Sayyid Ahmad at-Tahtawi (d. 1231/1816; Rahimahullah)
Allamah Sayyid Ahmad at-Tahtawi, a great Hanafi fiqh scholar of Egypt, wrote on the subject of 'Zabayih' in his Hashiya al-Durr al-Mukhtar:...
These two last quotes have nothing in them that indicates that Salafis are not from Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jamaah. In fact, if anything (from what I have seen so far), they speak for them, not against them, being strict followers of Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jamaah.

Wassalam
Jamaluddine

[loveProphet]

Assalamu Alaikum,

Where is LoveProphet's post? Why has it been removed and replaced?!

Anyway, since we are discussing whether we should include Salafis in Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jamaah or not, I have decided to research this topic from a NEUTRAL point of view




I have spent weeks looking for these two books on any online library but could not find them. Could any brother please post a link for these two books (just so that I can verify these quotes for myself, before I post any other opinions).





These two last quotes have nothing in them that indicates that Salafis are not from Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jamaah. In fact, if anything (from what I have seen so far), they speak for them, not against them, being strict followers of Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jamaah.

Wassalam
Jamaluddine
:salam:

Bro, my post is still there.

As for looking for an "online library", i'm afraid that most classic books you cannot read online, you must get them from an Arab country normally.

[godilali]

Jamaluddine:

al fatawa al hadithiyyah
http://www.****************/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=39927&d=1157277721

[loveProphet]

Jamaluddine:

al fatawa al hadithiyyah
http://www.****************/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=39927&d=1157277721
Didn't work for me:(

[illuminate]

In response to the original written by Yamin Zakaria - the salafi's have written a 75 page response:

http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_YaminZakaria.pdf

and I have heard, Yamin zakaria is preparing a reply..


What is the point of all this whaffle - can someone explain it - what is going to the benefit - here we are muslim being attacked by non-muslim and also within - yet ppl feel it necessary to write such material - very sad indeed :thumbsdow - that is why journalist and ppl in a position of responsibility, should be careful what they write and say..

[Fedayeen1]

I consider myself a Salafi if I must classify myself further than a Muslim, and know quite a few who try to follow the path of the Prophet (PBUH) and his Companions in the first 3 generations, but I know none who would classify Saudi Arabia as Salafi and only a few who classify it as even truly Muslim.

It was Saudi Arabia who denied help from the Fedayeen who had defeated the Atheist Soviets and preferred to seek help from the Zionists and the Crusaders, allowing them to touch Arabian soil. They also ran a severe campaign against Imams in the 1990s and at best are in a state where there is a struggle between Apostates and Muslims. I admire Crown Prince Sultan, but apart from him, very few others in the Saudi state.

[Noor ul Islam]

AssalaamuAlaikum
Why do salafi brothers write no Madhab when they follow the salafi sect. Sorry but I was just wondering. Do you want to say that in reality there are four Madhahib and the rest are not any Madhab at all.Wassalaam

[loveProphet]

I consider myself a Salafi if I must classify myself further than a Muslim, and know quite a few who try to follow the path of the Prophet (PBUH) and his Companions in the first 3 generations, but I know none who would classify Saudi Arabia as Salafi and only a few who classify it as even truly Muslim.

It was Saudi Arabia who denied help from the Fedayeen who had defeated the Atheist Soviets and preferred to seek help from the Zionists and the Crusaders, allowing them to touch Arabian soil. They also ran a severe campaign against Imams in the 1990s and at best are in a state where there is a struggle between Apostates and Muslims. I admire Crown Prince Sultan, but apart from him, very few others in the Saudi state.
SubhanAllah!!!
I myself have seen "salafis"/wahabis call themselves "salafis" sooo many times...

[faqir]

In response to the original written by Yamin Zakaria - the salafi's have written a 75 page response:

http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_YaminZakaria.pdf

and I have heard, Yamin zakaria is preparing a reply..

..

:salam:

have the brixton salafis replied to one of their own salafi wahabi friend "shaikh" Naasir al-Fahad yet?




THE 'UTHMAANI STATE AND THE STANDPOINT OF THE DA'WAH OF SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN 'ABD AL-WAHHAAB CONCERNING IT

By Shaykh Naasir ibn Hamad al-Fahd

(fakkallaahu asrahu)

In the Name of Allaah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

All praise is due to Allaah, and may prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allaah, and upon his family and his companions and all who followed him.

To proceed:

This is a short study that clarifies the reality of the 'Uthmaani state, which many from among those who are called "Islaamic thinkers" praise and speak well of, and describe it as the last of the bastions of al-Islaam, the destruction of which took away the honour of the Muslims.

Also, it clarifies the reality of the position of the da'wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – concerning this state.

And I have divided it into two sections:

The first section: Regarding the 'Uthmaani state.
The second section: Regarding the standpoint of the Shaykh's da'wah concerning it.

THE FIRST SECTION:

THE REALITY OF THE 'UTHMAANI STATE

Verily, whoever considers the nature of the 'Uthmaani state – from its rise up to its fall – will not have any doubt regarding its direct contribution in corrupting the 'aqaa'id (beliefs) of the Muslims, and this becomes clear through two matters:

The first one: through its spreading of shirk.
The second one: through its war against tawheed.

[Those who defend the war of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against ad-Da'wah as-Salafiyyah claim that this war was a political war. But the case is not so; rather it was from the very beginning a war based on 'aqeedah, started by the fataawaa of their 'ulamaa' from the qubooriyyoon. See Haashiyat Ibn 'Aabideen, 4/262.]

And the 'Uthmaani state spread shirk by spreading the shirk-based tasawwuf that is founded on worshipping the graves and the awliyaa', and this is an established fact that no-one argues about, even those who defend it. And I will quote in what follows some of the texts that prove this, from the very sympathisers with the 'Uthmaani state themselves:

'Abd al-'Azeez ash-Shanaawi said in his book ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah Muftaraa 'Alayhaa (The 'Uthmaani State: An Islaamic State Slandered) (1/59) – by way of praise – :

"And one of the manifestations of the religious direction in the policy of the state was the encouragement of tasawwuf among the 'Uthmaaniyyoon. And the state gave the mashaayikh of the sufi tareeqahs wide-ranging authorities and powers over their students and followers. And these tareeqahs initially became widespread in Central Asia, then they moved to the majority of the areas of the state... And the state extended a helping hand financially to some of the sufi tareeqahs... And some of the most important sufi tareeqahs were the Naqshabandiyyah, the Mawlawiyyah, the Baktaashiyyah and the Rifaa'iyyah..." [End of quote.]

[And these tareeqahs are all founded on worshipping the graves and the awliyaa', and indeed upon shirk in the ruboobiyyah that the Arab mushrikoon confirmed belief in, and that is through the soofiyyah's beliefs in "al-ghawth", "al-aqtaab", "al-abdaal", and others whom they claim to control the universe. Refer to what Shaykh al-Islaam [Ibn Taymiyyah] wrote about the soofiyyah, and his debates with the followers of the Rifaa'iyyah (al-Fataawaa, volume 11), and refer to what Ihsaan Ilaahi Dhaheer wrote about the soofiyyah and about these tareeqahs and their practices of shirk in his book Diraasaat fit-Tasawwuf (Studies Regarding Tasawwuf), and what as-Sindi wrote in his book at-Tasawwuf fee Meezaan al-Bahth wat-Tahqeeq (Tasawwuf in the Balance of Investigation and Verification), and what al-Wakeel wrote in his book Haadhihi Hiyas-Soofiyyah (This is Sufism). And a detailed description of some of these tareeqahs will follow, in shaa' Allaah.]

And Muhammad Qutb said in his book Waaqi'unaa al-Mu'aasir (Our Present Situation), page 155:

"Sufism began to spread in the 'Abbaasi society, however it was an isolated corner of the society. But in the shade of the 'Uthmaani state, and in Turkey to be exact, it became the society itself, and it became the religion itself." [End of quote.]

And in al-Mawsoo'ah al-Muyassarah fil-Adyaan wal-Madhaahib al-Mu'aasirah (The Simplified Compendium of Contemporary Religions and Sects), page 348:

"Al-Baktaashiyyah: The 'Uthmaani Turks were affiliated with this tareeqah, and it continues to be widespread in Albania. And it is closer to the shee'i tasawwuf than the sunni tasawwuf... and it had great authority over the rulers of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon themselves." [End of quote.]

[All of tasawwuf is innovation and bid'ah, and there is no such thing as a "sunni tasawwuf". And there will follow the details of this particular tareeqah.]

And in the book al-Fikr as-Soofi fi Dhaw' al-Kitaab was-Sunnah (The Sufi Thinking in the Light of the Book and the Sunnah), page 411:

"And the 'Uthmaani sultaans competed with each other in building tekkes, zaawiyahs, and the graves of the Baktaashiyyah. So some of the sultaans supported it, and others were opposed to them, preferring another different tareeqah." [End of quote.]

For this reason, it is unsurprising that shirk and kufr became widespread, and tawheed began to fade away, in the lands that they ruled. And Shaykh Husayn ibn Ghannaam – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – said, describing their lands:

"Most of the people in his time – i.e. Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab – were sunk in pollution and smeared by the mire of impurity to the extent that they went headlong into shirk, after the Sunnah had been buried... So they turned to worshipping the awliyaa' and the righteous people, and they discarded the collar of tawheed and the religion. So they exerted themselves in seeking aid from them in times of calamities, accidents, and disastrous events, and they ran to them asking them to fulfill their needs and remove their difficulties, from the living ones among them as well as their dead. And many people believed that inanimate objects could bring help or harm..." Then he mentioned the forms of shirk that existed in Najd, al-Hijaaz, al-'Iraaq, ash-Shaam, Egypt, and elsewhere. [End of quote.]

[Rawdhat al-Afkaar, page 5 onwards.]

And Imaam Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – (died 1229H) said in one of his letters to the 'Uthmaani governor of al-'Iraaq, describing the nature of their state:

"So the sha'aa'ir (symbols) of kufr in Allaah and shirk, this is the situation that exists among you. Such as building domes over the graves, lighting lamps over them, hanging curtains over them, the visits to them in manners not legislated by Allaah or His Messenger, celebrating yearly festivals there, and asking those buried therein to fulfill needs, remove difficulties and answer pleas; all of this along with the abandoning of the obligatory duties of the religion that Allaah has ordered to be established, such as the five prayers and other than them. For the one who wants to pray prays alone, and the one who leaves the prayer is not objected to. And likewise is the case with zakaah. And this matter has spread and become well-known, and has filled the ears of many in the lands of ash-Shaam, al-'Iraaq, Egypt and elsewhere from among the lands." [End of quote.]

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 1/382.]

This was, very briefly, the situation of the 'Uthmaani state. If the above quotations are not sufficient to convince a person of this, then there is no hope for him to understand.

And as for the situation of its sultaans – which I have briefly indicated already – it is also of this kind. And I will mention a number of miscellaneous examples of these sultaans, in order to clarify their situation:

.

Sultaan Orkhaan the First (died 761H):

He is the second sultaan of this state, after his father 'Uthmaan ('Uthmaan the first, died 726H). His rule lasted for 35 years. And this sultaan was a sufi upon the Baktaashi tareeqah.

[See Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah al-'Uthmaaniyyah, page 123, and al-Fikr as-Soofi, page 411. And al-Baktaashiyyah is also spelled al-Bakdaashiyyah (with a "daal" د ) and al-Baktashiyyah (with a "taa'" ط ). And the historians have mentioned about this sultaan that he helped the Roman king against the Serbian king, because the Roman king promised to give his daughter to him in marriage. See Taareekh ad-Dawlah, page 125.]

And the Baktaashi tareeqah – which I have mentioned several times already – is a sufi, shee'i, baatini tareeqah founded by Khankaar Muhammad Baktaash al-Khurasaani, who spread it in Turkey in the year 761H. And it is a mix of the 'aqeedah of wahdat al-wujood (the unity of all existence, essentially negating the separateness of Allaah from His creation), worship and deification of the mashaayikh, the 'aqeedah of the Raafidhah regarding the imams, and they exaggerate regarding the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam) in a manner that takes them out of al-Islaam.

And from that is the saying of the student or "mureed" when he wants to enter into this tareeqah: "I have come with longing to the door of the Truth as a beggar, affirming Muhammad and Haydar (i.e. 'Ali), and seeking the "secret" (as-sirr) and the "outpouring" (al-faydh) from both of them, and from az-Zahraa' (i.e. Faatimah) and Shubayr and Shabar (i.e. al-Husayn and al-Hasan)." Then he says: "And with love I have submitted my inner self as a servant of the family of al-'Abbaas, and my refuge is al-Haajj Baktaash, the qutb (pivot) of the awliyaa'." And he says to his shaykh: "Your face is a lamp, and a lighthouse of guidance, your face is an indicator to the form of the Truth, your face is the Hajj and the 'Umrah and the Ziyaarah, your face is to the obedient ones the qiblah of leadership, your face is a summary of the Qur'aan."

And the awraad of the Baktaashiyyah are on the 'aqeedah of the Ithnaa' 'Ashariyyah Raafidhah. And they have in their 'aqeedah, from their baatini awraad, and the way that they visit the graves to get their shirk-based "acceptance", such things that are too terrible to mention.

[See them in detail in al-Fikr as-Soofi fi Dhaw' al-Kitaab was-Sunnah, page 409-424.]

Sultaan Muhammad the Second (al-Faatih) (died 886H):

He is one of the most famous of the sultaans of this state, and he ruled for 31 years.

After conquering Constantinople in the year 857H, he discovered the site of the grave of Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari – radhiyallaahu 'anhu – and built a tomb over it, and next to it he built a masjid, and the masjid was decorated with white stone. And he built over the tomb of Abu Ayyoob a dome. And the custom of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon, in their blind-following of the sultaans, was that they would come in a big procession to this masjid, then the new sultaan would enter this tomb, and he would then receive the sword of Sultaan 'Uthmaan the First from the shaykh of the Mawlawi tareeqah.

[See ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah Muftaraa 'Alayhaa, 1/64.]

And this sultaan was the first to lay down the foundations of "civil law" and "penal law". So he replaced the shar'i bodily punishments that are narrated in the Book and the Sunnah – i.e. a tooth for a tooth, and an eye for an eye – with monetary fines, in a clear methodology that was completed by Sultaan Sulaymaan al-Qaanooni.

[See Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 177, and Fath al-Qustanteeniyyah wa-Muhammad al-Faatih, page 177.]

And he also issued a legislation – that continued to be implemented after him – which was that every sultaan who came to power could kill all of his brothers, so that the throne would be safe for him alone!!

[See ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah...", 1/64. And he began his rule by killing his own infant brother Ahmad! (Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 161).]

Sultaan Sulaymaan al-Qaanooni (i.e. the legislator) (died 974H):

And he is also one of the most famous sultaans of the 'Uthmaani state, and his rule was approximately 46 years.

When he entered Baghdaad, he built a dome over the tomb of Abu Haneefah. And he visited the holy places of the Raafidhah in an-Najaf and Karbalaa', and he rebuilt the structures there that had begun to deteriorate.

[See ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah...", 1/25, and Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 223.]

And he was called "Al-Qaanooni" because he was the first to introduce the European laws upon the Muslims, and to make them enforced in the courts. And it was the Jews and Christians who influenced him to do that.

[See Waaqi'unaa al-Mu'aasir, page 160, and Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 177 and page 198 onwards.]

Sultaan Saleem Khaan the Third (died 1223H):

Imaam Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – said in his letter to the governor of Baghdaad, which we have previously mentioned:

"Your situation, and the situation of your imams and your sultaans, testifies to your falsehood and your lying in regard to that (i.e. their claim to al-Islaam). For we have seen, when we opened al-Hujrah ash-Shareefah (the room of the Prophet), upon its owner be the best of prayers and peace, in the year 22, a letter from your sultaan, Saleem, sent by his cousin to the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam), asking help from him and calling upon him to grant victory over the enemies. And it contains enough lowliness, humilation and self-abasement to testify to your falsehood. It begins: "From your little slave, Sultaan Saleem. To proceed: Yaa Rasoolallaah, we have experienced difficulty and hardship that we are unable to avert, and the slaves of the cross have taken over the slaves of ar-Rahmaan! We ask you to grant us victory over them and help us against them." And he mentioned a lot of words of this general meaning. So look at this enormous shirk, and kufr in Allaah, the One, the All-Knowing! The mushrikoon did not even ask this from their idols al-'Uzzaa and al-Laat, for when hardship and calamities befell them they used to call only on the Creator of all beings!" [End of quote.]

[See ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, page 160, and Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 177 and page 190 onwards.]

Sultaan 'Abd al-Hameed the Second (died 1327H):

This sultaan was a fanatical sufi upon the Shaadhili tareeqah. Here is a letter from him to the shaykh of the Shaadhili tareeqah of his time. He says in it:

"All praise is due to Allaah... I lift up this request of mine to the shaykh of the high Shaadhili tareeqah, and to the one who pours out the spirit and the life, the shaykh of the people of his age, Shaykh Mahmood Effendi, Abush-Shaamaat, and I kiss his two blessed hands, hoping for his righteous prayers. My master: By the tawfeeq of Allaah ta'aalaa I am constantly reciting the awraad of the Shaadhiliyyah night and day, and I request that I continue to be in perpetual need of your heartful prayers."

[See Imaam at-Tawheed, by Ahmad al-Qattaan and Muhammad Zayn, page 148, and at-Tareeq ilal-Jamaa'ah al-Umm, page 56, and the filthy Kuwaiti magazine al-'Arabi, number 157-169.]

And the Shaadhili tareeqah is a sufi, grave-worshipping, shirk-based tareeqah, full of enough enormities and blasphemies to classify it among the idol-worshipping kuffaar.

[See some of the forms of their shirk, deviance and bid'ahs in Diraasaat fit-Tasawwuf, page 235, and at-Tasawwuf fee Meezaan al-Bahth wat-Tahqeeq, page 327.

As for the stories of the relations of this state with the Jews and Christians and other kuffaar, in their appointing them to positions of power, aiding them, and even making them equal with the Muslims, then they are many. Look, if you wish, in Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah and ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah... and you will hardly find a single 'Uthmaani sultaan whose life does not feature something of that. See, for example, the life of 'Abd al-Majeed ibn Mahmood, who issued the Gulkhaanah Decree in the year 1255H, in which he declared total freedom in personal matters and in ideas, and made non-Muslims equal to the Muslims. See Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 455, and al-Islaam wal-Hadhaarah al-Gharbiyyah, page 15.]

.

.

Section:

As for the war of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against tawheed, then it is well-known. For they declared war against the da'wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab – rahimahullaah – as is known. "They wish to extinguish Allaah's Light with their mouths."

And they sent campaign after campaign to war against the people of tawheed, until they crowned this war of theirs with the destruction of ad-Dir'iyyah, the capital of ad-Da'wah as-Salafiyyah, in the year 1233H.

[To know about some of their crimes, see 'Unwaan al-Majd, 1/157.]

And the 'Uthmaaniyyoon, in their war against tawheed, sought help from their brothers the Christians. For one of the researchers in Europe discovered documents of correspondence between Napoleon Bonaparte, the ruler of France, and "al-Baab al-'Aali" (the "High Door", the title of the 'Uthmaani ruler), regarding the da'wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab, and the necessity of taking decisive action against it, as it was a threat to their interests in the east.

[The introduction of 'Atiyyah Saalim to the book al-Imaam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab, by Ibn Baaz. And the researcher was Ahmad at-Taweel, while presenting his doctorate.]

And during the wars of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against the people of tawheed, such atrocities were committed that made those of the crusaders pale in comparison. Here are some examples for you:

The 'Uthmaani state wanted to incite its troops to kill the people of tawheed, so it issues a decree that every soldier will receive a reward for every one that he killed, and it was necessary that the soldier prove his kill by cutting off the ears of his victim and sending them to the capital al-Astaanah (Istanbul). So they did that in al-Madeenah, al-Qunfudhah, al-Qaseem, Dhirmaa, and elsewhere.

[See that in detail in Taareekh al-'Arabiyyah as-Sa'oodiyyah, by the Russian historian Vasiliev, page 173, 183, 176, and 184.]

As for their destruction of villages and cities, and even their burning of masaajid, then narrate without difficulty.

[See that in 'Unwaan al-Majd, 1/157-219, and also in the previous reference.]

And from their crimes is that they took the women and children of the people of tawheed as captives, and sold them as slaves. Al-Jabarti said in his Taareekh:

"And the month of Safar began on a Friday in the year 1235H... and during it a group of the Arab and Maghaaribah troops arrived, who had been in the land of al-Hijaaz. And they were accompanied by prisoners from the "Wahhaabiyyah", women, girls, and boys. They came to al-Hamaayil, and sold them to whoever would buy them, even though they were Muslims and free people." [End of quote.]

[Taareekh 'Ajaa'ib al-Aathaar, 3/606. But be careful regarding this book, for al-Jabarti, as is apparent from his Taareekh, was a sufi khalwati who venerated the graves and the awliyaa', indeed even the heretical deviants such as the zindeeq Ibn 'Arabi.]

And I conclude that with this event that was narrated by a Russian historian. He said:

"In the year 1818M – i.e. 1234H – 'Abdullaah (Imaam 'Abdullaah ibn Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez ibn Muhammad ibn Sa'ood, the last imaam of the first Sa'oodi state) was taken via al-Qaahirah (Cairo) road to al-Astaanah (Istanbul), accompanied by two of those close to him, at the beginning of Kaanoon al-Awwal (December). And the Russian ambassador in al-Astaanah gave the following information:

Last week, the leader of the Wahhaabiyyoon, his minister and his imaam, who had been captured in ad-Dir'iyyah and later taken to the capital, were beheaded. Seeking to add to the impression of his victory over the worst enemies of the two cities that are considered to be the cradle of al-Islaam, the sultaan ordered on that day for an assembly to be made in the old palace in the capital, and they brought to the palace the three prisoners, bound in heavy chains and surrounded by the crowds of spectators. And after the introductory formalities, the sultaan ordered their execution, so the leader was beheaded in front of the main gate of the "Hagia Sofia", and the minister was beheaded in front of the "Saraay Entrance", and the third was beheaded in one of the main markets in the capital. And their bodies were put out on display with their heads under their armpits, and after three days they were thrown into the sea. And His Majesty ordered the observance of a special prayer of thanks to Allaah for the victory of the sultaan's armies, and for the extermination of the group that had laid waste to Makkah and al-Madeenah, spread fear in the hearts of the Muslims, and exposed them to danger." [End of quote.]

[Taareekh ad-Dawlah as-Sa'oodiyyah, by Vasiliev, page 186.]

Section:

So this was their enmity towards tawheed and its people, and this was their spreading of shirk and kufr. So how can it possibly be claimed that this corrupt, infidel state was an "Islaamic khilaafah"?! May Allaah have mercy on Imaam Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez (died 1229H) when the 'Uthmaani governor of al-'Iraaq said to him: "For we are Muslims in truth, and this is what all of our imaams have agreed upon, from all four madhaahib, and the mujtahidoon of the Deen and the Millah."

So the Imaam replied:

"We have clarified from the Words of Allaah ta'aalaa, the words of His Messenger, and the words of the followers of the four imaams, that which refutes your weak case, and defeats your false claim. For not everyone who makes a claim proves it by his action. And a poor person does not become rich simply by saying: "A thousand deenaars!" And a tongue does not burn simply by saying: "Fire". For verily, the Jews, the enemies of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam) said to the Messenger of Allaah when he called them to al-Islaam: "We are Muslims!" And the Christians said similar to that. And likewise Fir'awn said to his people: "And I show you not except that which I see to be correct, and I guide you not except to the path of correctness." Yet he lied and uttered falsehood in that." [End of quote.]

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 1/391.]

And likewise, whoever claims that the 'Uthmaani state was a Muslim state, then he has uttered a lie and a falsehood, and the greatest forgery in this regard is that it was an Islaamic khilaafah!

[The fact that the 'Uthmaani state was a kaafir state does not necessitate the takfeer of everyone in it, and the two sons of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab (Husayn and 'Abdullaah) – rahimahumullaahu ta'aalaa – "It might be ruled that this village is one of kufr, and its people kuffaar whose ruling is that of the kuffaar, but it is not ruled that every single individual of them is himself a kaafir, because it is possible that among them were those upon al-Islaam who were excused from making hijrah, or who openly displayed his religion yet the Muslims did not know about him." Majmoo'at al-Masaa'il, 1/44.]

And know, O my brother, that no-one claims that the 'Uthmaani state was an Islaamic state except for one of two people:

Either a misguided deviant who sees that shirk is al-Islaam.
Or a person ignorant about the affair of this state.

As for the one who understands tawheed, and who understands what this state was upon, and still has doubt regarding its affair, then he is in a very dangerous position, wallaahul-musta'aan (and from Allaah all help is sought).

[faqir]

THE SECOND SECTION:

THE STANDPOINT OF THE DA'WAH OF SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN 'ABD AL-WAHHAAB CONCERNING IT

One of the misconceptions that is often brought up about the da'wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – is that it rose up against the 'Uthmaani khilaafah, and divided the Muslims.

And many of the 'ulamaa' who defended the da'wah of the Shaykh tried to respond to this misconception, but the most that they could say was: "Najd was, from the beginning, independent from the 'Uthmaani state, so for that reason the Shaykh's coming was not an uprising against it."

[See Da'aawaa al-Munaawi'een, 233-240.]

And the reality is that this statement is incorrect, for three reasons:

The first is that the 'Uthmaani state did have nominal rule over Najd, because it ruled al-Hijaaz, al-Yemen, al-Ahsaa', al-'Iraaq and ash-Shaam, and the taxes of the ameers of Najd used to come to the state via some of these countries.

[See ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah... 1/20, and 'Unwaan al-Majd, 1/97 onwards.]

The second is that even if we were to assume that Najd was independent, the da'wah of the Shaykh had entered al-Hijaaz, al-Yemen, al-Ahsaa', al-Khaleej, and the outlying areas of al-'Iraaq and ash-Shaam. They attacked Karbalaa' and beseiged Dimashq, and all of these were indisputably under the control of the 'Uthmaani state.

The third is that the sayings of the imaams of the da'wah – rahimahumullaah – are in agreement that the 'Uthmaani state was daar harb (in a state of war with the Muslims), except those who responded to the da'wah of tawheed, as we will later see, in shaa' Allaahu ta'aalaa.

For the da'wah of the Shaykh – rahimahullaah – was the da'wah to pure tawheed, and war against shirk and its people. And one of the greatest defenders of shirk in that time was the 'Uthmaani state. So the da'wah was an act of war against it. And I will narrate, in what follows, various quotes from the imaams of the da'wah and their followers, clarifying their standpoint regarding this state:

Imaam Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez – rahimahullaah (died 1229H):

I have already narrated some quotes from him regarding the affair of this state. Here are more of his statements in the letter that he sent to the governor of Baghdaad:

"And as for your saying: "How can you so boldly and recklessly stir up fitnah by making takfeer of the Muslims and the people of the qiblah, and fight against a people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day...?" So we say: "We have already stated that we do not make takfeer due to sins, but rather we only fight against those who made shirk with Allaah, and attributed to Allaah partners, calling upon them as they call upon Allaah, slaughtering for them as they slaughter for Him, vowing to them as they vow to Allaah, fearing them as they fear Allaah, calling to them for aid in difficulties and for bringing good, and who fight to defend the idols and the domes built over the graves, which have been taken as idols worshipped besides Allaah. So if you are truthful in your claim that you are on the Millah of Ibraaheem and following the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam), then demolish those idols, all of them, and level them to the ground. And repent to Allaah from all of the shirk and bid'ah."

Then he said: "Or, if you persist in this state of yours, and do not repent from the shirk that you are upon and observe correctly the religion of Allaah with which He sent His Messenger, leaving the shirk, bid'ah and superstitions, then we will not cease fighting you until you return to Allaah's straight religion."

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/397.]

Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn 'Abdillaah ibn ash-Shaykh – rahimahullaah – (died 1233H):

When the Turks invaded the land of tawheed, Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn 'Abdillaah wrote a book entitled ad-Dalaa'il (The Proofs), regarding the apostasy and kufr of whoever aided them and sided with them, even if he was not upon their religion of shirk. And he mentioned therein more than twenty proofs for that, and he referred to the invading army as "the troops of domes and shirk."

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/57-69.]


.

Shaykh 'Abd al-Lateef ibn 'Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Hasan – rahimahullaah (died 1293H):

In one of his letter to Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Ateeq – rahimahullaah – regarding the case of 'Abdullaah ibn Faysal, the imaam at that time, seeking help from the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against his brother Sa'ood ibn Faysal, when the latter defeated him in the battle of Joodah during the events around the year 1289H, he said:

"And 'Abdullaah had a legitimate rule and bay'ah in general, but later on I found out that he had corresponded with the kaafir state (i.e. the 'Uthmaani state), sought help from it and brought it to the lands of the Muslims. So he became like the one about whom it is said [poetry]:

And the one who seeks protection with 'Amr in his difficulty,
Is like the one who seeks protection with fire from the burning heat.

So I spoke to him verbally, objecting to his action and declaring my disassociation from it, and I spoke harshly to him, telling him that this is destruction of the fundamentals of al-Islaam and uprooting of its bases, and that it was this and that and the other... the details of which conversation I cannot remember right now, so he expressed repentance and regret, and he made much istighfaar. And I wrote, at his dictation, to the governor of Baghdaad: "Allaah has sufficed, made easy, and arranged for the people of Najd and the bedouins that which has fulfilled our need, in shaa' Allaah. So we are no longer in need of the army of the state," and words to that effect. And I believe he sent the letter and disassociated himself from what had occurred, and it was a long letter."[End of quote.]

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/184, and Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa wal-'Irfaan, events of the year 1289H, from the first volume.]

And he said in another letter to one of the students of knowledge regarding the same affair:

"As for Imaam 'Abdullaah ibn Faysal, then I have advised him, as I have mentioned, with very harsh advice. And I reminded him in the advice of the aayaat of Allaah and His right, and the obligation of preferring His good-pleasure, and keeping far away from the enemies of His religion, the people of ta'teel (negation of the Sharee'ah), shirk, and clear kufr. And he expressed repentance and regret..." [End of quote.]

[Majmoo'at ar-Rasaa'il, 2/69.]

And he said regarding the entry of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon to the Peninsula in the year 1298H:

"So whoever understands this fundamental principle – i.e. tawheed – will understand the harm of the fitnah that is current in these times regarding the Turkish armies. And he will understand that it (i.e. the fitnah) comes back to this principle, breaking it and demolishing and and utterly effacing it. And it leads to the predominance of shirk and ta'teel, and the raising of its banners of kufr."

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/148-152.]

And he said in a poem about this affair:

And the leader of the people has brought to the Turks a state
Which has committed the greatest crimes against the Millah of al-Islaam.

And it contains:

And they travelled to the people of shirk and submitted to them,
And there came to them every slander and every magician.

And it contains:

And the power has gone to the people of refusal and shirk,
And by them has been established the marketplace of destruction and evil.
And places for sodomy and vileness have returned among them,
That are frequented by every immoral one.
And the unity of the religion has been shattered, and its rope cut,
And it has become lost among the ranks of the soldiers.

And it contains:

And you have made alliance with the people of the Fire, in your stupidity,
And you have become, for the religion of Allaah, the first kaafir.
So ask the dweller of al-Ahsaa', are you a believer
In this, and what is contained in the authentic books?

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/187-191, and Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa... 1/198-202. And he made particular mention of al-Ahsaa' here because the 'Uthmaaniyyoon, after Imaam 'Abdullaah had asked them for aid, entered al-Ahsaa' and took over it first. See the details of that in the events of the year 1289H, from Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa 1/197, from his saying: "The mention of what occurred and took place with the arrival of the 'Uthmaani soldiers and the Turkish troops."]

And he said in another poem:

When the army of deviation appeared, to demolish
The land of guidance and the laws of goodness,
A people intoxicated, their companion would not wake up,
Never, and he would end up in loss,
A people, you see them rushing to every gathering
In which is misfortune and every kufr is close by,
Indeed, in which the laws of the Christians are ruling,
Without any text that has come from the Qur'aan.
So look at the rivers of kufr that have exploded,
They have clashed with the Sharee'ah of ar-Rahmaan.

[Ad-Durar 192-194, at-Tadhkirah 1/203-206. And the amazing thing is that this is the description of the 'Uthmaani troops in the year 1289H, and in the Taareekh of al-Jabarti there is an identical description of the troops who entered the Peninsula around the year 1226H, as he says in his Taareekh (3/341): "And some of their high-ranking people who call to righteousness and piety said to me: "How will we attain victory when the majority of our soldiers are not on the Millah, and among them are those who do not practice the religion? And boxes of intoxicating drinks were brought with us, and you would never hear in our ranks the adhaan being called, nor was the obligatory salaah established among them, and they gave no concern at all to the symbols of the religion... etc." [End of quote.]]

Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Ateeq – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – (died 1301H):

He was – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – one of the hardest of the 'ulamaa' in his stance regarding this state. See the letters written between him and Shaykh 'Abd al-Lateef ibn 'Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Hasan in the seventh and eighth volumes of ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, and I have mentioned some of them. And when the kaafir 'Uthmaani armies entered the Arabian Peninsula, some of the traitors and deviants from the bedouin entered their ranks. So just as Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn 'Abdillaah – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – had written the book ad-Dalaa'il, when the 'Uthmaaniyyoon entered the Peninsula in his time, regarding the ruling of aiding them, likewise Shaykh Hamad – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – wrote a book entitled Sabeel an-Najaah wal-Fikaak min Muwaalaat al-Murtaddeen wal-Atraak (The Path of Salvation and Release from the Alliance with the Apostates and the Turks), regarding the takfeer of whoever aided these armies that were called "Islaamic"!!

[This book is well-known by the name Sabeel an-Najaah wal-Fikaak min Muwaalaat al-Murtaddeen wa-Ahl al-Ishraak (The Path of Salvation and Release from the Alliance with the Apostates and the People of Shirk) instead of wal-Atraak (and the Turks), and the correct name is the one we have mentioned for the following reasons:

a] The original written copy was of this title, and it was from the time of the Shaykh. See Sabeel an-Najaah with the editing of al-Faryaan, page 12.

b] The Shaykh himself mentioned this title in the introductory khutbah of his book Sabeel an-Najaah, page 24.

c] The time of the book's writing and also its contents point to this title, such as his saying on page 35: "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and Christians as awliyaa'..." And likewise whoever allies with the Turks becomes a Turki." And Allaah knows better.]

Shaykh 'Abdullaah ibn 'Abd al-Lateef – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – (died 1339H):

He was asked – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – about the one who did not make takfeer of the state – i.e. the 'Uthmaani state – and the one who brought them to fight against the Muslims, and chose their wilaayah (authority) and that it was obligatory to wage jihaad alongside them, and about another who did not have that view but rather said that the state and those who brought them were Muslim transgressors (bughaat), and it is not lawful do deal with them except in the way that the Muslim transgressors are dealt with, and that what was taken as booty from the bedouins is haraam. So he replied:

"Whoever does not know the kufr of the state, and does not differentiate between them and the Muslim transgressors, then he does not know the meaning of "laa ilaaha illallaah". So if he believes, along with that, that the state are Muslims, then this is even worse and severe, because it is doubting the kufr of one who has committed kufr in Allaah and shirk with Him. And whoever brought them and aided them against the Muslims with any form of aid, then this is clear apostasy (riddah)." [End of quote.]

[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 8/242.]

Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn Sahmaan – rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa – (died 1349H):

He said – rahimahullaah – in one of his poems:

And what is said of the description of the Turks regarding their kufr,
Then it is true, for they are the most disbelieving of the people (akfar an-naas) in the religions.
And their enmity towards the Muslims and their evil,
Grows and increases in the deviation, more than the other sects.
And whoever takes the kaafiroon as awliyaa' then he is like them,
And there is no doubt regarding his takfeer for anyone with intelligence.
And whoever might ally with them or go towards them for support,
Then there is no doubt as to declaring him a faasiq, and he is in a shaky position.

[Deewaan ibn Sahmaan, page 191.]

Shaykh 'Abdullaah ibn Muhammad ibn Saleem – rahimahullaah – (died 1351H):

The Shaykh – rahimahullaah – was sitting one afternoon in the corner of al-Masjid al-Jaami', waiting for the Maghrib prayer, and in the first row there were men who did not know that the shaykh was present there. So one of them spoke to his companion saying to him: "It has reached us that the 'Uthmaani state has predominated, and that its banners have become victorious!" And he went on praising it. So as the shaykh prayed with them, and after the salaah he gave a touching sermon, and he went on to blame the 'Uthmaaniyyoon and to blame those who loved them and praised them [saying]: "Whoever said that saying must regret what he said and make repentance for it! What religion is there for the one who loves the kuffaar and is happy with their predominance and their advancement?! If the Muslim does not affiliate himself with the Muslims, then with whom will he affiliate himself?"

[Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa, 3/275.]

And Shaykh Husayn ibn 'Ali ibn Nufaysah [one of the contemporaries of Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn Sahmaan] said in one of his poems:

So O state of the Turks, may your power never come back
To us, and to our homelands may you never return,
You took power, and opposed the way of our Prophet,
And the evils and intoxicants you made permissible.
You made the symbols of the mushrikoon your own symbols,
So you were quicker to committing shirk than they were.
You gave the religion of the Christians pre-eminence,
So you have borne impurity upon great impurity.
So away with you, off with you, defeat upon you,
And whoever loved you and inclined towards you.

[Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa, 2/149. And in a poem of Saalih ibn Saleem, in memory of Ibn Sahmaan:

And he clarified therein the ruling of the Turks, and their kufr
And the ruling of friendship and alliance with the state.

(Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa, 3/254.)]

And 'Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn 'Abd al-Lateef ibn 'Abdillaah ibn 'Abd al-Lateef Aal ash-Shaykh said:

"And it is well-known that the Turkish state was an idol-worshipping state, whose religion was shirk and bid'ah, and which used to defend such things..." [End of quote.]

['Ulamaa' ad-Da'wah, written by him, page 56.]





Section:

It is clear from what has preceded that the imaams of the da'wah viewed the kufr of the 'Uthmaani state, and that it was a daar harb. And this is an open and clear matter – I mean the kufr of the 'Uthmaani state – and I do not believe that anyone who has read or heard what they were upon of shirk, or who has read what the imaams of the da'wah said regarding their standpoint from this state, will continue to hold any doubt regarding them.

Otherwise, one of the following three applies to him. Either:

a] He is accusing the imaams of the da'wah of ignorance.

b] Or he considers tawheed to be a secondary matter.

c] Or he is a stubborn rejector.

We ask Allaah to grant us sincerity and conformity in our knowledge and deeds, and may Allaah bless and grant peace to our Prophet Muhammad, his family and all of his companions.


nice rosy kalam from their 'salafi' buddy

[TraditionalIslam]

.

[GunsOfPatriot]

An interesting article from Yamin Zakaria

http://www.iiop.org/index3.php?recordID=190

Remove the snake inside your house, before you attempt to fight the bigger beast outside.

I love that quote. Also, I have some information about these guys also. I will post them later on today, thank you for the wonderful article.

Wa-salaaam

[MoGame]

AssalaamuAlaikum
Why do salafi brothers write no Madhab when they follow the salafi sect. Sorry but I was just wondering. Do you want to say that in reality there are four Madhahib and the rest are not any Madhab at all.Wassalaam
salaamualaikum
What are you trying to ask here?
we dont follow ONE imam. We follow Quran and Sunnah, whichever imam has the greater proofs we follow. We don't make taqleed.

[GunsOfPatriot]

An interesting article from Yamin Zakaria

http://www.iiop.org/index3.php?recordID=190

AHADITH ON THE KHAWARIJ
WHICH THE SCHOLARS CONSIDER TO APPLY TO THE WAHHABIS

These ahadith are cited in the Six Books of authentic traditions for the most part.

They have been collated for the most part from the following two books written in refutation of the Wahhabi heresy:

a) al-Sayyid al-`Alawi ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan ibn `Abd Allah ibn `Alawi al-
Haddad: Misbah al-anam wa jala' al-zalam fi radd shubah al-bid`i al-Najdi al- lati
adalla biha al- `awamm ["The Lamp of Creatures and the Illumination of
Darkness Concerning the Refutation of the Errors of the Innovator From Najd by
Which He Had Misled the Common People"] published 1325H.

b) al-Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zayni al-Dahlan (d. 1304/1886). Mufti of Mecca and
Shaykh al-Islam in the Hijaz region of the Ottoman state: Khulasat al-kalam fi
bayan umara' al-balad al-haram ["The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the
Holy Sanctuary"] (A History of the Wahhabi Fitna in Najd and the Hijaz) p. 234-
236.

The Prophet said, Peace be upon him

1. "They [Khawarij = those outside] transferred the Qur'anic verses meant to refer
to unbelievers and made them refer to believers.'

2. "What I most fear in my community is a man who interprets verses of the
Qur'an out of context."

3. "The confusion [fitna] comes from there (and he pointed to the East = Najd in
present-day Eastern Saudi Arabia)."

4. "A people that recite Qur'an will come out of the East, but it will not go past
their throats. They will pass through the religion (of Islam) like the arrow passes
through its quarry. They will no more come back to the religion than the arrow
will come back to its course. Their sign is that they shave (their heads)."

5. "There will be in my Community a dissent and a faction, a people with
excellent words and vile deeds. They will read Qur'an, but their faith does not go
past their throats. They will pass through religion the way an arrow passes through its quarry.

They will no more come back to the religion than the arrow will come back to its original course. They are the worst of human beings and the worst of all creation. The one who kills them or is killed by them is blessed.

They summon to the book of Allah but they have nothing to do with it. Whoever kills them is closer to Allah than they. Their sign is that they shave (their heads)."

6. "A people will come out at the end of times, immature, foolish and corrupt.
They will hold the discourse of the best of creation and recite Qur'an, but it will not go past their throats. They will passes through religion the way an arrow passes through its quarry. If you find them, kill them, for verily whoever kills them will have his reward from Allah the Day of Judgment."

7. "There will be people in my Community whose mark is that they shave (their
heads). They will recite Qur'an, but it will not go past their throats. They will
pass through religion the way an arrow passes through its target. They are the
worst of human beings and the worst of all creation."

8. "The apex of disbelief is towards the East [Najd]. Pride and arrogance is found
among the people of the horse and the camel [Bedouin Arabs]."

9. "Harshness and dryness of heart are in the East [Najd], and true belief is among
the people of Hijaz."

10. "O Allah, bless our Syria and our Yemen!" They said: "Ya Rasulallah, and
our Najd!" He didn't reply. He blessed Syria and Yemen twice more. They asked him to bless Najd twice more but he didn't reply.

The third time he said: "There [in Najd] are the earthquakes and the dissensions, and through it will dawn the epoch [or horn] of shaytan."

11. A version has, "The two epochs [or horns] of shaytan." Some scholars have
said that the dual referred to Musaylima the Arch-liar and to Muhammad ibn
`Abd al-Wahhab.

12. Some versions continue with the words: "And in it [Najd] is the consuming
disease, " i.e. death.

13. Some books of history mention the following version in the chapters devoted
to the battles against the Banu Hanifa:

"At the end of times a man will come out of Musaylima's country and he will change the religion of Islam." Note: Most of the Khawarij were from the Najd area, from the tribes of Banu Hanifa, Banu Tamim, and Wa'il. Musaylima was from the Banu Hanifa, and Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab is from Tamim.

13a. Abu Bakr said concerning the Banu Hanifa (the tribe of Musaylima the Liar):
"Their valley [Najd] will not cease to be a valley of dissensions until the end of time, and the religion will never recover from their liars until Judgment Day, " and
in another version: "Woe to al-Yamama without end."

13b. When `Ali killed the Khawarij, someone said: "Praise be to Allah Who has brought them down and relieved us from them." Ali replied: "Verily, by the One in Whose hand is my soul, some of them are still in the loins of men and they have not been born yet, and the last of them will fight on the side of the Antichrist."

14. "A people that recite the Qur'an will come out of the East, but it will not go
past their throats. Every time a generation of them is cut down another one will
come until the last one finds itself on the side of the Antichrist."

15. "There will be a huge confusion within my Community. There will not remain
one house of the Arabs except that confusion will enter it. Those who die because
of it are in the fire. The harm of the tongue in it will be greater than that of the
sword."

16. "There will be a dissension (in which people will be) deaf, dumb and blind
(this means they will be blind and not see the true issue nor listen to the voice of
truth): whoever tries to control it, the dissension will control him."

17. "A shaytan will appear in Najd by whose dissension the Arabian island will
quake."

18. On the authority of al-`Abbas: "A man will come out of the Wadi Abu
Hanifah [in Najd] (whose appearance is) like a bull that lunges against its yoke.

There will be much slaughter and killing in his time. They will make the possessions of Muslims lawful for themselves and for trade among themselves. They will make the lives of Muslims lawful for themselves and for boasting among themselves.

In that confusion the despised and the lowly will attain positions of power. Their idle desires will keep company with them the way a dog keeps company with its master."

19. On the authority of Abu Sa`id al-Khudri: "Verily in the wake of this time of mine comes a people who will recite Qur'an but it will not go past their throats.

They will pass through religion the way an arrow passes through its quarry. They
will kill the Muslims and leave the idolaters alone. If I saw them, verily I would kill them the way the tribe of `Aad was killed [i.e. all of them]."

20. "There will be towards the end of time a people who will say to you what
neither you nor your forebears ever heard before. Beware of them lest they
misguide you and bring you confusion."

21. "They will pass through Islam like an arrow passes through its quarry.
Wherever you meet them, kill them!"

22. "They are the dogs of the people of Hell."

23. "They recite Qur'an and consider it in their favor but it is against them."

24. "There will be thirty dajjals (antichrists) after me, all claiming prophethood."

25. "Some people will be standing and calling at the gates of hell; whoever
responds to their call, their will throw him into the Fire. They will be from our
own people [i.e. Arabs] and will speak our language [Arabic]. Should you live to
see them, stick to the main body (jama`a) of the Muslims and their leader. (If
there is no main body and no leader, ) isolate yourself from all these sects, even if
you have to eat from the roots of trees until death overcomes you while you are in
that state."

26. "Just before the Hour there will be many liars." Jabir ibn Samurah said: "Be
on your guard against them."

27. "The Hour will not come until thirty dajjals appear, all of them lying about
Allah and His Messenger."

28. "There will be Dajjals and liars among my Community. They will tell you
something new, which neither you nor your forefathers have heard. Be on your
guard against them and do not let them lead you astray."

29. "The time of the Dajjal will be years of confusion. People will believe a liar,
and disbelieve one who tells the truth. People will distrust one who is trustworthy,
and trust one who is treacherous; and the ruwaybidha will have a say." Someone
asked: "Who are they?" He said: "Those who rebel against Allah and will have a
say in general affairs."

30. "If the leadership is entrusted to those unfit for it, expect the Hour."

31. "You will see the barefoot ones, the naked, the destitute, the shepherds and
camel herds take pride in building tall structures in abundance."

32. "One of the signs of the change of religion is the affectation of eloquence by
the rabble and their betaking to palaces in big cities."

[GunsOfPatriot]

An interesting article from Yamin Zakaria

http://www.iiop.org/index3.php?recordID=190


What do you think about the following?


His settling on the throne means that He is sitting in person on His throne....

"In this simple line he [Shaykh al-Uthaymin] has

(a) violated the Salaf's rule of bilâ kayf - "not saying how" - that applies to the verses pertaining to the Divine Attributes and Attributes of Acts;

(b) attributed an act that is precluded, prohibited, and close to shirk to apply to the Transcendent Creator of the worlds, namely, "sitting";

(c) made use of an innovated phrase which the pious Sunni Salaf never used, namely, "in person" (bidhâtih);

(d) applied that innovated phrase to the Deity Most High whereas any attribute pertaining to Allah is by, Consensus, ordained and non-inferable (tawqîfî);

(e) generally promoted the doctrine of anthropomorphism, which is not Islamic but comes straight out of the abrogated Books."

[loveProphet]

What do you think about the following?


His settling on the throne means that He is sitting in person on His throne....

"In this simple line he [Shaykh al-Uthaymin] has

(a) violated the Salaf's rule of bilâ kayf - "not saying how" - that applies to the verses pertaining to the Divine Attributes and Attributes of Acts;

(b) attributed an act that is precluded, prohibited, and close to shirk to apply to the Transcendent Creator of the worlds, namely, "sitting";

(c) made use of an innovated phrase which the pious Sunni Salaf never used, namely, "in person" (bidhâtih);

(d) applied that innovated phrase to the Deity Most High whereas any attribute pertaining to Allah is by, Consensus, ordained and non-inferable (tawqîfî);

(e) generally promoted the doctrine of anthropomorphism, which is not Islamic but comes straight out of the abrogated Books."
Brother, we think that this topic has already been discussed here before.

Please search this forum under the name "Uthaymin"

[GunsOfPatriot]

Brother, we think that this topic has already been discussed here before.

Please search this forum under the name "Uthaymin"

I wasn't aware of this, I'm a new member lol.

Thanks.

[OneLife]

I thought Shaykh al-Uthaymin was sound in his Aqeedah, even if he was Salafi inclined.

[loveProphet]

I thought Shaykh al-Uthaymin was sound in his Aqeedah, even if he was Salafi inclined.
You'll see how "sound" he was if you search this forum... or go to www.livingIslam.org and see about Uthaymin.

[Musleemah]

What do you think about the following?


His settling on the throne means that He is sitting in person on His throne....

"In this simple line he [Shaykh al-Uthaymin] has"

I have not posted here for months, I just thought to stop by to see what is new in the new forum.
just reading, wasn't planning on posting.
but when I saw this I had to say something.

Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin did not say "sitting", that is a wrong translation of what he said, if u go back to the Arabic text, u will see " 'ala" and maybe also "irtaf'a", which is not "sitting - Jalasa".
The translator must have been weak in English, may Allah forgive him for his mistake in translation.

ok leaving now ---- take care -------
Thanks to all members who are just and fair when speaking about us.

[loveProphet]

I thought Shaykh al-Uthaymin was sound in his Aqeedah, even if he was Salafi inclined.
See this bro:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14339&highlight=Uthaymin

It is in refrence to the sisters'(Musleemah) post above.

[Abdullah Ibn Adam]

I have not posted here for months, I just thought to stop by to see what is new in the new forum.
just reading, wasn't planning on posting.
but when I saw this I had to say something.

Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin did not say "sitting", that is a wrong translation of what he said, if u go back to the Arabic text, u will see " 'ala" and maybe also "irtaf'a", which is not "sitting - Jalasa".
The translator must have been weak in English, may Allah forgive him for his mistake in translation.

ok leaving now ---- take care -------
Thanks to all members who are just and fair when speaking about us.

Lol, you're back.

[OneLife]

Well said.

(Minor correction though is that Salafis are Sunni. You might think Barelwis are wack, but they are still a group within Sunnism. Likewise with Salafis. It's stupidly childish and moronic how people espouse the Takfeeri attitude whilst condemning Salafis. Saying someone is not Sunni is pretty much like saying they are kaffir, because it is agreed that the saved sect is Sunni.)

Anyways, the article only talks about Madhkali Salafis, which are a dying breed and the other groups of Salafis have set themselves against the Madhkalis.


How're Salafis Sunni? I asked you this before too, and you could not provide any information on it. Aside from the general aspect that they are not Shia, what are their Sunni stances that agree with the vast majority of Sunni Islam. I'm not attacking you, but trying to understand this.

Also, your logic on Kaffirs is messed up.

[Ibn Ajibah]

Yes, Shaikh Ibn Uthaymin did not say ''jalasa'', he said: Istaqarra, which is the belief of the Karramiyah regarding Allah's Istiwa.

[GunsOfPatriot]

See this bro:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14339&highlight=Uthaymin

It is in refrence to the sisters'(Musleemah) post above.

I don't get it.

So what is the point here that you guys are trying to conclude here?

I'm a little confused about all of your position in this matter... does all this add up to the fact that the Salafi's of today are sunni's or the save sect? and does it also add up to the fact that you guys support the salafi' belief of god having two eyes, and hands, and a throne that it sits on basically Allah is contained in a body.

Is that the conclusion that some of you are making?

LoveProphet what is ur position?

And Muslimeeah what is ur position?

[Musleemah]

no, sufis don't believe we are the saved sect nor do they believe that we are from ahl assunnah. They believe we are total deviants, who make tajseem and antromorphism.

(I am Salafi by the way)


and does it also add up to the fact that you guys support the salafi' belief of god having two eyes, and hands, and a throne that it sits on basically Allah is contained in a body.


nope, sufis dont' support that.
also, a correction, Salafi's do not believe Allah is contained in a body.

and yes, we believe He has eyes and hands like Allah told us in Quran BUT we believe that these attributes are:

1_ in a manner BEFITTING HIS MAJESTY.
2_ are NOT like the attributes of the creation (His eyes are not like the creations eyes, and same with the hands)
3_ we DO NOT know how Allah's eyes and hands are, and we can not imagine them , nor are we allowed to imagine it.

Thus we just confirm the general meaning of the eyes and hands (linguistic meaning = Arabic not English), but do not talk about the kayfiyyah (modality) becasue we do not know HOW Allah's attributes are. Allah has only told us of his attributes but gave us no details.

maybe it will be more clear with an example (walillahi al-mathalu al-a'la = and and for Allâh is the highest description) :

the fruits of al-Jannah and this dunya
They have the same name, and they are fruits, but they are totally different, in their taste, they way they look...etc.
so in their kayfiyyah they are not the same.

This is just to make the issue more clear, and easier to understand.

[loveProphet]

I don't get it.

So what is the point here that you guys are trying to conclude here?

I'm a little confused about all of your position in this matter... does all this add up to the fact that the Salafi's of today are sunni's or the save sect? and does it also add up to the fact that you guys support the salafi' belief of god having two eyes, and hands, and a throne that it sits on basically Allah is contained in a body.

Is that the conclusion that some of you are making?

LoveProphet what is ur position?

And Muslimeeah what is ur position?
Just see:

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=124&CATE=24&redirect=yes

and


http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1685&CATE=91&redirect=yes

As for the wahabis being the saved sect, then no, it is not our(Sunni) view that they are part of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah due to our large differences in Aqeedah and in fiqh(although this is generally tolerable but its made worse by them not following a madthab).


Absolutely not. The main difference between Wahhabis and those on the Sunni path is in matters of belief. This is the primary difference. Matters of fiqh are secondary. There is also a fundamental difference in methodological understandings, especially of the concept of innovation (bid`a) and traditional religious authority. The Wahhabis deny traditional Islamic spirituality as well. The articles on Sidi Mas'ud Khan' excellent website, http://www.masud.co.uk , are essential reading for serious Muslims, especially those by Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad and Shaykh Nuh.

Wassalam,

Faraz Rabbani

[Abu-Umar-Usman-Ali]

no, sufis don't believe we are the saved sect nor do they believe that we are from ahl assunnah. They believe we are total deviants, who make tajseem and antromorphism.

(I am Salafi by the way)



nope, sufis dont' support that.
also, a correction, Salafi's do not believe Allah is contained in a body.

and yes, we believe He has eyes and hands like Allah told us in Quran BUT we believe that these attributes are:

1_ in a manner BEFITTING HIS MAJESTY.
2_ are NOT like the attributes of the creation (His eyes are not like the creations eyes, and same with the hands)
3_ we DO NOT know how Allah's eyes and hands are, and we can not imagine them , nor are we allowed to imagine it.

Thus we just confirm the general meaning of the eyes and hands (linguistic meaning = Arabic not English), but do not talk about the kayfiyyah (modality) becasue we do not know HOW Allah's attributes are. Allah has only told us of his attributes but gave us no details.

maybe it will be more clear with an example (walillahi al-mathalu al-a'la = and and for Allâh is the highest description) :

the fruits of al-Jannah and this dunya
They have the same name, and they are fruits, but they are totally different, in their taste, they way they look...etc.
so in their kayfiyyah they are not the same.

This is just to make the issue more clear, and easier to understand.

So when you say 'we believe he has eyes and hands'. Do you also believe that Allah has 'two eyes, and two hands' or what?

[tazkiyyah]

This is the first speech I have heard from a deobandi Aalim
That tackles problems with the aqeeda of the salafis.

By Allama Khalid Mahmood

http://tauheed-sunnat.com/aud/lec/misc2/khalid-mehmood-tauheed-sunnat-confernce-bradford.ram

[tazkiyyah]

What he seems to indicate is that the christians(kafir)/hindus(mushrik)ghaali sufis are mubtedi as they attribute God's attributes to man- e.g the awliya .
So they make a mistake in the Zaat of Allah.

And the Salafis are mubtedi as they attribute Human attributes to God.
So they make a mistake in the sifaat

[Musleemah]

some questions

who said "bi-yaday" ? was it us or Allah 'azza wa jal?
If Allah didn' mean for us to believe He has a yad, then why would He describe Himself with it? The Quran was meant to be a guidance not to have words that confuse people, and maybe cause some to deviate.

also, did we say that Allah's yad is same as the creations yad? (yad means hand in arabic )
did we speak about its modality? or did we say "we don't know how it is"?
did we say Allah has "limbs"?
or has a "body"?
I mean: did we use these terms describing Allah 'azza wa jal?

Also, distinuguish between "the general literal linguistic meaning" and the "kayfiyyah -modality".


these are just questions to ponder on.
not planning on discussing the topic.

take care.

[sufisticated]

The Quran was meant to be a guidance not to have words that confuse people, and maybe cause some to deviate.

...interpreting the qur'an without knowledge can cause people to deviate.

[Journo]

Musleemah, this is interesting. Would it be correct to say that the salafis believe in the mutashabih verses of the Quraan as they stand without committing any sort of tawil...? What you mention above, is the consensus amongst all salafis? If so, as a matter of interest and definitely not to slander or belittle, where do people (especially the Sufis of the Middle East) get the view point that Salafis believe in Mujassim things???

[Hamood]

This is the first speech I have heard from a deobandi Aalim
That tackles problems with the aqeeda of the salafis.

By Allama Khalid Mahmood

http://tauheed-sunnat.com/aud/lec/misc2/khalid-mehmood-tauheed-sunnat-confernce-bradford.ram

:salam:,

While this may be the first you may have heard, it is definitely not the first deobandi response to the aqidah of the salafis. Mufti Abdurrahman has been talking about for a while. The title that you have chosen for this thread is misleading, there was *always* disagreement between the aqidah of the deobandis (i.e. maturidi) and the salafis.

wassalam,

SL

[Saad]

This is the first speech I have heard from a deobandi Aalim
That tackles problems with the aqeeda of the salafis.

By Allama Khalid Mahmood

http://tauheed-sunnat.com/aud/lec/misc2/khalid-mehmood-tauheed-sunnat-confernce-bradford.ram

Good post, Shaikh is probably the most senior Deobandi scholar at the moment.

[OneLife]

:salam:,

While this may be the first you may have heard, it is definitely not the first deobandi response to the aqidah of the salafis. Mufti Abdurrahman has been talking about for a while. The title that you have chosen for this thread is misleading, there was *always* disagreement between the aqidah of the deobandis (i.e. maturidi) and the salafis.

wassalam,

SL


:salam:

What I've seen is that they don't usually touch on this subject for the sake of unity. I've seen Deobandis who believe in the three tawheeds.

And it's odd, but whenever Salafis have differences in Fiqh due to their Salafiness (not Hanbaliness), Deobandi Imams will say this is a Fiqhi difference and blanket all these people as Hanbalis. Doesn't make sense, it's like opening the door for ikthilaf on issues that didn't even have that.

Ya Allah.

Also, can someone post more about the Allama giving the talk, he's from the UK?

[Saad]

Dr Allama Khalid Mahood is the student of Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani. He is one of the most senior Deobandi Scholars at the moment and he is currently living in Manchester.

[Hamood]

:salam:

What I've seen is that they don't usually touch on this subject for the sake of unity. I've seen Deobandis who believe in the three tawheeds.

And it's odd, but whenever Salafis have differences in Fiqh due to their Salafiness (not Hanbaliness), Deobandi Imams will say this is a Fiqhi difference and blanket all these people as Hanbalis. Doesn't make sense, it's like opening the door for ikthilaf on issues that didn't even have that.

Ya Allah.

Also, can someone post more about the Allama giving the talk, he's from the UK?


You're talking about two things here,

1) salafi aqidah
2) salafi fiqh

While this discussion is not about their fiqh, I won't get into that. Deobandi scholars for the past few decades have been challenging their fiqh stances and have written quite a bit on their opposition to taqlid.



What I've seen is that they don't usually touch on this subject for the sake of unity. I've seen Deobandis who believe in the three tawheeds.


Three tawheeds? If you mean the the three schools of aqidah, then no deobandi scholar has ever claimed that at least to my knowledge. If you can bring me a specific example we can look into it further. As far as you saying, that the Deobandi ulama don't "touch on this subject", I must disagree with that generalization. I have mentioned that Mufti Abdurrahman Ibn Yusuf, who by the way is a very senior deobandi scholar, has taught entire classes on aqidah and explained their understanding of aqidah in depth versus our understanding. If you can bring specific examples than your claim can be substantiated, otherwise its just hearsay.

[lumumba_s]

:salam:

I'm curious, so I couldn't resist. Mostly about the second part . . . .
Three tawheeds?I think he is referring to the so-called "Tawhid al-`Uluhiyya, Tawhid al-Rububbiya and Tawhid al-Asma wa Sifat" in the way that it is articulated, as if they are separate, distinct things.
If you mean the the three schools of aqidah, then no deobandi scholar has ever claimed that at least to my knowledge.What do you mean? I listened to some of Mufti Aburrahman ibn Yusuf's tahawi lecture online, and he affirmed the correctness of the Ash'ari/Maturidi School (actually lumping the latter into the former) and the Atharis. So I am a little confused as to what you meant by that statement.

[OneLife]

You're talking about two things here,

1) salafi aqidah
2) salafi fiqh

While this discussion is not about their fiqh, I won't get into that. Deobandi scholars for the past few decades have been challenging their fiqh stances and have written quite a bit on their opposition to taqlid.

I know they are seperate topics, but they do go hand in hand when discussing groups who may be considered sects. And since the topic was Deobandi Scholars commenting on these issues, all I was saying was for the most part they are very quiet. Just look at what Usman from Pakistan was posting about hardcore Salafi scholars visiting his Ulema. And from my experience, if you go to your local masjid, and ask the Deobandi Alim or Imam there about Salafi Fiqh issues, they will tell you it's ikhtilaf, and for Aqidah, they won't know a whole lot or they will be OK with Aqidah Wasitiyah.




Three tawheeds? If you mean the the three schools of aqidah, then no deobandi scholar has ever claimed that at least to my knowledge. If you can bring me a specific example we can look into it further. As far as you saying, that the Deobandi ulama don't "touch on this subject", I must disagree with that generalization. I have mentioned that Mufti Abdurrahman Ibn Yusuf, who by the way is a very senior deobandi scholar, has taught entire classes on aqidah and explained their understanding of aqidah in depth versus our understanding. If you can bring specific examples than your claim can be substantiated, otherwise its just hearsay.

I'm talking about Ibn Taymiyah and Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab's definition of Tawheed. Sadly, many people are incorporating this type of tawheed as the norm when it comes to Islam. The only people we hear about in the west who refute these ideas are SunniPath affiliates, and you can include Mufti Abdur Rahman in that. He's one scholar, so where are all the others? Also, hearing Deobandi Ulema speak about Abdul Wahhab like he was a good guy is baffling after referring to other Sunni resources on the invidvidual. I'm just sharing with you what I see.

[Hamood]

What do you mean? I listened to some of Mufti Aburrahman ibn Yusuf's tahawi lecture online, and he affirmed the correctness of the Ash'ari/Maturidi School (actually lumping the latter into the former) and the Atharis. So I am a little confused as to what you meant by that statement.

:ws:,

I shall, :insh:, make an attempt to clarify what I mentioned:

1) Deobandis outwardly identifiy themselvs as Maturidi in aqidah. They do not say they are Ashari or Athari hence I meant they have never claimed to be followers of "all three". I guess he was referring to something completely different (i.e. the 2 or 3 tawheed categories salafis often mention) in the first place and I misunderstood, therefore my statement is irrelevant to the discussion at this point.

2) Mufti Abdurrahman lumps them together, rightfully so, majority of their opinions are same (i.e. ashari & maturidi) aside from minor differences due to the differing methods the two Imams used in defending the sunni creed mainly because of their seperate locations.

3) I studied Fiqh Al-Akbar with Mufti Abdurrahman very very briefly, he clearly distinguishes the two schools from each other based on their differences.

4) He talks about Sh. Ibn Taymiah's understanding of Aqidah and discusses its flaws, which I'm mentioning since it seems like this thread might mislead some individuals to think Deobandis have a soft spot for salafi aqidah for the "sake of unity".

[Musleemah]

Musleemah, this is interesting. Would it be correct to say that the salafis believe in the mutashabih verses of the Quraan as they stand without committing any sort of tawil...?

We believe that the mutashabih verses include sifat, and the ta'wil that shouldn't be done to it is what is related to its kayfiyyah (modality-how it is, its description).



What you mention above, is the consensus amongst all salafis?
Yes it is,
I have studied it under more than one shaikh and read it in in different places (books, forums ...etc.) written by Salafi scholars and students of knowledge.
We confirm Allah's attributes that he confirmed for Himself and His Messenger confirmed for Him, but without tashbih(saying it is like creations attributes), or ta'teel (negating the attribute completely), or takeef (speaking about its modality), or tamthil (not sure how to translate this .. make an example for it??)



If so, as a matter of interest and definitely not to slander or belittle, where do people (especially the Sufis of the Middle East) get the view point that Salafis believe in Mujassim things???

only because we confirm the attributes that people regard as human attributes of the essence, like the yad (hand), eyes and other attributes mentioned in Quran and Sunnah that are found in the creation.
they consider us mujasimah because we confirm its general meaning, even though we do not make tashbih or takeef.
We say that Allah has a hand like He said in the Quran and like his Messenger said in sunnah, BUT His hand is not like the creations' hands, that His hand is in a manner that befits his majesty, and that it is forbiden to talk about its modality (how it is) or to even try to think about how it is or looks like.

Also, Ibn Hajar rahiamhu ALlah quoted Ibn Battal (in fath al-bari) saying that tashbih means to say "hearing like a hearing" >> like to say that Allah' hearing is like creations' hearing, which we do not do, so we are not mushabihah.
and just because others say we are and believe that, it doesn't make us so.

Thank you for asking brother/sister ?

[muslim786]

Since when did deobandis ever agree with salafis in aqeedah. Even Imam Ahmed Raza Khan who was greatly against some of the deobandi elders never accused them of not following the maturidi aqidah.

[Musleemah]

I think he is referring to the so-called "Tawhid al-`Uluhiyya, Tawhid al-Rububbiya and Tawhid al-Asma wa Sifat" in the way that it is articulated, as if they are separate, distinct things.

They are all tawhid, this division is only for clearification, used in studying, or else tawhid is one that includes all of these. (so if any of those 3 are negated then tawhid of the person is incomplete meaning he is not on tawhid, becasue tawhid is one, it has to be complete).

same as in other sciences, they made divisions to make understanding easier.

The pagan Arabs believed in existance of Allah but worshiped idols , so they confirmed rububiyyah but negated tawhid uloohiyah.
also, jahmis confirmed tawhid rububiyah but negated tawhid sifat by negating all of Allah's sifat.
today there are many who believe in Allah's existance but worship other with him like Christians do.
also there are people who believe in Allah's existance and do not follow any religion.

Also, the terms rububiyah and uloohiyah were used long before Ibn Taimiyyah rahimahu Allah was born, if you check tafsir Imam at-Tabari and al-Qurtubi rahimahum Allah you will see them in it, uloohiyyah meaning worship.
actually Imam at-Tabari mentions a narration by Ibn Abbas radiyallahu anhu using the word "Uloohiyyah".
Also, in other scholars of Salaf books.

If you want me to get u examples from Salaf scholars' books, just let me know.

[muslim786]

They are all tawhid, this division is only for clearification, used in studying, or else tawhid is one that includes all of these.
same as in other sciences, they made divisions to make understanding easier.


This is a clear bidah, and I thought all bida was in the fire, or is that only when it suits you guys?

[Musleemah]

so in ur opinion that science of usool fiqh is also bidah?
what about science of hadith? and rijal?

oh, and Imam at-Tabari and al-Qurtubi (ra) and other scholars of Salaf who used these term when talking about tawhid were also doing bid'ah ?

I wonder if you even read the rest of my post.

[muslim786]

so in ur opinion that science of usool fiqh is also bidah?
what about science of hadith? and rijal?

oh, and Imam at-Tabari and al-Qurtubi (ra) and other scholars of Salaf who used these term when talking about tawhid were also doing bid'ah ?

I wonder if you even read the rest of my post.

Even the usuage of hadith books is bida, but its a good bida, something salafis don't understand unless it suits them.

[muslim786]

The only reason the pseudo salafis came up with the three categories, which is a clear innovation is so that they can they classify more innocent muslims as people of shirk.

[muslim786]

Here are some links which show the true sunni stance on the understanding of tauheed:

Here's a thread that's compiled some criticism of the division of tawheed:
http://z14.invisionfree.com/Shield_of_Islam/index.php?showtopic=773

Here is Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's definition of tawheed:
http://z14.invisionfree.com/Shield_of_Islam/index.php?showtopic=886

"The Way of Sunni Islam" by Imam Haddad
http://z14.invisionfree.com/Shield_of_Islam/index.php?showtopic=419

"The Meaning of the Shahadah" by Imam Ahmad Mashur al-Haddad
http://z14.invisionfree.com/Shield_of_Islam/index.php?showtopic=781

[Musleemah]

Even the usuage of hadith books is bida, but its a good bida, something salafis don't understand unless it suits them.

so u choose a thing to be good bid'ah if it suits u

and what you don't like u consider bad bid'ah :rolleyes:

so I guess scholars like Imam at-Tabari, al-Qurtubi and other Scholars of Salaf were doing bad bid'ah ?

[sufisticated]

:salam:

sister - if you read the works of the scholars who have explained bid'a hasana, they usually give examples of reprehensible bida. please take the time out to read, rather than asking on here - as it usually creates fitna between us. no need.

:ws:

[sufisticated]

some examples:

1. non-islamic taxes and levies

2. embelleshing masjids

...in addition, the shi'a are defined as ahl al-bid'a due to their deviated creed.

:ws:

[Musleemah]

bro sufisticated (would be interesting to know why u choose that nick :) )

I did read what they said about bid'ah, and them dividing it to 5 categories, i have also studied about bid'ah few years ago and did little more research myself in some of scholars of Salaf's books.
so I am aware generally of what some of them have said, and I see that they were dividing the bid'ah in linugistic meaning to 5 categories.

[sufisticated]

:salam:

generally anything which contravenes the shari'a is termed a bid'a. imam shafi'i was did also make a distinction between good and bad bid'a.

just because something was not done by the first 3 generations, it does not necesarrily mean it is haram or makruh or misguided.

:ws:

[Musleemah]

:salam:

generally anything which contravenes the shari'a is termed a bid'a. imam shafi'i was did also make a distinction between good and bad bid'a.

just because something was not done by the first 3 generations, it does not necesarrily mean it is haram or makruh or misguided.

:ws:

:ws: brother
thank you for ur polite discussion.

I did read what Imam ash-shafi'i rahimahu Allah said regarding this, and it is not contradictory to our definiton of haram bid'ah which is in deen.

and you are correct when u said >> just because something was not done by the first 3 generations, it does not necesarrily mean it is haram or makruh or misguided. <<

the bid'ah that is haram is bid'ah in defintion of shariah, it has some details, one must know it to understand what is considered bid'ah and what is not considered bid'ah in shariah.
so ur statement is right because there were things that happened later which were not considered bid'ah in sharia'h, when one who is ignorant might think it is.

the topic is a little lengthy, and I think the brothers dont' really want to discuss this issue, I think it might only cause an argument from some members, like happened in other topics.
wallahu a'lam.

[tazkiyyah]

The discussions getting hijacked.
People who want to discuss what salafi aqeeda is can open another thread.

What I am asking i that deobandi ulema agree with maturidi aqeedah
but I have never seen anyone outside of the west accuse the wahhabis of tajseem amongst the deobandis.
Both these ulema Allamah khalid mahmood sahib -lives in the west.and mufti abdurrahman(studied partly in syria i believe)

So it seems some deobandis have adopted the position that the wahabis have bid'ah in their aqeeda and are ahlul bid'a
Please not they have not criticised shaykh ibn taymeeyah so this thread is not abou that.

My question is Are there many deobandi ulema in pakistan and india
whohave clarified these aqeeda issues also?

Ja zakallah

[muslim786]

The discussions getting hijacked.
People who want to discuss what salafi aqeeda is can open another thread.

What I am asking i that deobandi ulema agree with maturidi aqeedah
but I have never seen anyone outside of the west accuse the wahhabis of tajseem amongst the deobandis.
Both these ulema Allamah khalid mahmood sahib -lives in the west.and mufti abdurrahman(studied partly in syria i believe)

So it seems some deobandis have adopted the position that the wahabis have bid'ah in their aqeeda and are ahlul bid'a
Please not they have not criticised shaykh ibn taymeeyah so this thread is not abou that.

My question is Are there many deobandi ulema in pakistan and india
whohave clarified these aqeeda issues also?

Ja zakallah

I don't think so, primarily due to the fact that these issue haven't really come up over there it seems. It seems like it is the fiqh stuff that gets heavily debated over there, more than anything else. I could be wrong though.

[lumumba_s]

As salamu `alaykum,

Musleemah: We already had this discussion in the past and it was one of those where we both mutually stopped. Believe it or not, I do not want to get into an argument with you, I was asking Sunnilink to clarify something, for he appeared to be making a statement that completely contradicted what I had heard from Mufti Abdurrahman (Allah preserve him) and I recall him stating that he learns/has learned from him in the past.

The issue is actual meaning and what it is being used for, not merely wording. You yourself brought a quote form Imam al-Ghazali last time, which after I drew your attention to the fact that he wasn't using it for the same purpose that Ibn Taymiyyah had. You agreed and withdrew from the discussion. No one denies Rububbiyya or Uluhiyya. Its the claim that recognition of Rububbiya is not sufficient to make someone a muwahid; i.e. they are two completely distinct things. And that, I care not to discuss. Actually, there is nothing to discuss as far as we both are concerned. So, I care not to argue about it.

[Journo]

We believe that the mutashabih verses include sifat, and the ta'wil that shouldn't be done to it is what is related to its kayfiyyah (modality-how it is, its description).



Yes it is,
I have studied it under more than one shaikh and read it in in different places (books, forums ...etc.) written by Salafi scholars and students of knowledge.
We confirm Allah's attributes that he confirmed for Himself and His Messenger confirmed for Him, but without tashbih(saying it is like creations attributes), or ta'teel (negating the attribute completely), or takeef (speaking about its modality), or tamthil (not sure how to translate this .. make an example for it??)




only because we confirm the attributes that people regard as human attributes of the essence, like the yad (hand), eyes and other attributes mentioned in Quran and Sunnah that are found in the creation.
they consider us mujasimah because we confirm its general meaning, even though we do not make tashbih or takeef.
We say that Allah has a hand like He said in the Quran and like his Messenger said in sunnah, BUT His hand is not like the creations' hands, that His hand is in a manner that befits his majesty, and that it is forbiden to talk about its modality (how it is) or to even try to think about how it is or looks like.

Also, Ibn Hajar rahiamhu ALlah quoted Ibn Battal (in fath al-bari) saying that tashbih means to say "hearing like a hearing" >> like to say that Allah' hearing is like creations' hearing, which we do not do, so we are not mushabihah.
and just because others say we are and believe that, it doesn't make us so.

Thank you for asking brother/sister ?

Well from what I can see then the Salafis are subscribing to the view point of the Muslims prior to the formation of the Ashari/Maturidi schools, who developed as a way of answering the objections of those that had been influenced by Greek thought...?

[Al-Burhan]

Good post, Shaikh is probably the most senior Deobandi scholar at the moment.

Is it not Moulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar db???

[Al-Burhan]

The discussions getting hijacked.
People who want to discuss what salafi aqeeda is can open another thread.

What I am asking i that deobandi ulema agree with maturidi aqeedah
but I have never seen anyone outside of the west accuse the wahhabis of tajseem amongst the deobandis.
Both these ulema Allamah khalid mahmood sahib -lives in the west.and mufti abdurrahman(studied partly in syria i believe)

So it seems some deobandis have adopted the position that the wahabis have bid'ah in their aqeeda and are ahlul bid'a
Please not they have not criticised shaykh ibn taymeeyah so this thread is not abou that.

My question is Are there many deobandi ulema in pakistan and india
whohave clarified these aqeeda issues also?

Ja zakallah

Mufti Muhammad Zarwali Khan db from Karachi, student of Mufti Wali Hassan RA... I heard him discussing the tajseem issue but can't really remember him pointing to the salafis. I think others would be doing the same. Just read Moulana Manzoor Mengal db's 'Tuhfatul Manazir' few days back, where he discussed the issue of sifaat refuting the salafis. but yes, in Pakistan, the fiqh issues hold the primary attention of both parties.

[OneLife]

I think others would be doing the same. Just read Moulana Manzoor Mengal db's 'Tuhfatul Manazir' few days back, where he discussed the issue of sifaat refuting the salafis. but yes, in Pakistan, the fiqh issues hold the primary attention of both parties.

Wasn't Moulana Manzoor a student of Bin Baaz? Yet you're telling me he refutes the issue of sifaat and the Salafis?

Do you think it could be possible you post some of the arguments from the book? :jazak:

[Al-Burhan]

Wasn't Moulana Manzoor a student of Bin Baaz? Yet you're telling me he refutes the issue of sifaat and the Salafis?

yes sidi, he is probably Sheikh Bin Baz's student and consequently has a lot of respect for him, but this doesn't stop him from opposing the salafis. This is exactly what we were talking about some where on this forum that respect is at its place and dalil at its own. The book I was mentioning is actually a collection of his lectures on Munazira (oral debates) in which more than half the topics are related to salafis like Taqlid, Fatiha, Raful Yadain, Sifaat and the like.

I am too busy right now to get some extracts from it, may be brother Usman can help u if he's free.

[Ansari]

MashaAllah, Mawlana Manzoor Mangal is truly a great scholar. The way he gives his lectures is very exciting. Especially when he goes off-topic and gives his view on other related topics, how he had 1 munazarah or what kind of people he met (and he's funny too!). And its always nice to hear when he refers to other scholars (from Allama al-Kawthari to Imam Shaatibi)

His speeches:
http://www.ahnaf.com/downloads-cat17.html

[OneLife]

yes sidi, he is probably Sheikh Bin Baz's student and consequently has a lot of respect for him, but this doesn't stop him from opposing the salafis. This is exactly what we were talking about some where on this forum that respect is at its place and dalil at its own. The book I was mentioning is actually a collection of his lectures on Munazira (oral debates) in which more than half the topics are related to salafis like Taqlid, Fatiha, Raful Yadain, Sifaat and the like.

I am too busy right now to get some extracts from it, may be brother Usman can help u if he's free.

Until Sidi Usman see this, I'm leaving this task for yo. :D

So if you get time, let the SF members in on some of that sifaat talk :insh:

[Ansari]

My question is Are there many deobandi ulema in pakistan and india
whohave clarified these aqeeda issues also?

Ja zakallah

I think there are plenty of deobandi ulama who have handled the anthropomorphic statements of the ghayr-muqallideen. Its just a matter of listening to the Ulama or picking up their books that are written in refutation against the ghayr-muqallideen.

Mawlana Ismael Muhammadi discusses this book called Hadiyatul Mahdi of Wahid uz-Zaman and mentions their baatil beliefs which entails anthropomorphism.

Listen at: 16:46-20:40

Ghair Muqaladeen kay Aqeeday
http://ahnaf.com/downloads/taqreer/mismailmuhammadi/aqaid-e-ghair-muqaladeen.mp3

By the way: does anyone knows where Mawlana Manzoor Mangal teaches nowadays? Or in what city he lives?

[Al-Burhan]

By the way: does anyone knows where Mawlana Manzoor Mangal teaches nowadays? Or in what city he lives?

He is a senior teacher at Jamia Farooqia, Karachi. A nice person to talk to as one of my friends told me who has talked to him on phone from here in Beijing. If you like, I can help you with his phone number too...;)

[Raza Ali]

We the Hanafi's do not read surah fatiha behind the imam as we believe that the imam’s surah fatiha will count for the jammat. The salafi's have a big objection to this and say that the hanafis prayer behind the imam is not excepted because the prophet (saw) said that without surah fatiha the prayer is not valid (to the nearest affect) and the imam reads for himself (surah fatiha). But we also know the the prohet (saw) said that without the jummah kutbah the jummah is not complete (to the nearest affect). So why dont the salafi's bring their own jummah kutbah and read it themselves in jummah as the imam is reading for him according to the salafi’s. Why the double standards?

[AbdulQahhar]

We the Hanafi's do not read surah fatiha behind the imam as we believe that the imam’s surah fatiha will count for the jammat. The salafi's have a big objection to this and say that the hanafis prayer behind the imam is not excepted because the prophet (saw) said that without surah fatiha the prayer is not valid (to the nearest affect) and the imam reads for himself (surah fatiha). But we also know the the prohet (saw) said that without the jummah kutbah the jummah is not complete (to the nearest affect). So why dont the salafi's bring their own jummah kutbah and read it themselves in jummah as the imam is reading for him according to the salafi’s. Why the double standards?

How - by Allah - can one say that the prayer is not accepted????
That's a very "brave" - and ignorant - statement.
We don't know if a prayer is accepted or not, but Allah swt does.

[Yahya]

That's funny. In my area, the so-called salafis do NOT recite al-fatihah behind the imam (if he is reciting out loud).

Anyway, don't worry yourself about it. Just follow your school. The 4 madhhabs are known to be followable.

[Musleemah]

There is difference among Salafi scholars themselves on this issue, so u will find some taking opinion that it is fard to read it behind imam and others who believe that the reading of the Imam of surat al-Fatiha (in jahr prayer) suffices.

so salafi scholars are not in agreement on this issue.

[Jamaluddine]

Assalamu alaikum,


...Why the double standards?

When we ask a question, could we keep it polite and respectful? As I am sure that the brother's intention behind the question is 'to find out', not 'to humiliate'!

Anyway... in an attempt to answer the question:

Sheikh Salih Al-Munajjid was asked a similar question:

Question:

My question relates to the correct manner of praying Farz salaat behind an Imaam, specifically the recital of surah Al Fatiha.
1. Is it obligatory on us to quietly recite surah Al Fatiha whilst the Imaam recites it aloud, during the first and second rakaat of a farz prayer?
2. Is it obligatory on us to recite the surah Al Fatiha in the same situation but in the third and/or fourth rakaat, ie., the Imaam is silent in these rakaats?
This question arises due to our communitiy's wish to correct our method of praying. There are two opinions amongst us, one being that when the Imaam leads a prayer, whether he recites them aloud (1st and 2nd rakaat) or is silent (3rd and 4th rakaat) we must only listen; whilst others comment that without the recitation of surah Al Fatiha, whether resited by the Imaam or not, a prayer is not valid.
Please advise with as many factual evidence as possible.

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Reciting al-Faatihah is one of the essential parts of the prayer, and is to be recited in each rak’ah both by the imaam and by those who are being led by him, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is no prayer for the one who does not recite the Opening of the Book [i.e., al-Faatihah].” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 714). With regard to one who is following an imaam reciting al-Faatihah behind the imaam in a prayer where Qur’aan is to be recited out loud, there are two scholarly opinions.

The first opinion is that it is obligatory, the evidence for that being the general meaning of the hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “There is no prayer for the one who does not recite the Opening of the Book [i.e., al-Faatihah].” And because when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught the one who had not prayed properly, he told him to recite al-Faatihah.

It was narrated in a saheeh report that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to recite it in every rak’ah. Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Baari: “It was proven that permission was given to the one who is praying behind an imaam to recite al-Faatihah in prayers in which Qur’aan is to be recited out loud, without any exceptions. That is what was narrated by al-Bukhaari in Juz’ al-Qiraa’ah, and by al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Hibbaan and others, from Makhool from Mahmood ibn al-Rabee’ from ‘Ubaadah, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stumbled in his recitation in Fajr, and when he finished he said, “Perhaps you recite behind your imaam?” They said, “Yes,” He said, “Do not do that, except for the Opening of the Book (al-Faaithah), for there is no prayer for the one who does not recite it.”

The second opinion is that the recitation of the imaam is also the recitation of the one who is praying behind him. The evidence for that is the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

“So, when the Qur’aan is recited, listen to it, and be silent that you may receive mercy” [al-A’raaf 7:204]

Ibn Hajar said: “Those who say that (the one who is praying behind an imaam) does not have to recite it in prayers where Qur’aan is to be recited out loud, such as the Maalikis, quote as evidence the hadeeth, ‘When he recites then listen attentively.’ This is a saheeh hadeeth which was narrated by Muslim from Abu Moosa al-‘Ash’ari.”

Those who say that it is obligatory say that it should be recited after the imaam has finished reciting al-Faatihah and before he starts to recite another soorah, or that it should be recited when the imam pauses. Ibn Hajar said: “He should listen when the imam is reciting, and recite it when he is silent.”

Shaykh Ibn Baaz said, “What is meant by when the imam pauses is when he pauses during al-Faatihah or after reciting it, or in the soorah that he recites after it. If the imam does not pause, then the one who is praying behind him has to recite al-Faatihah even if the imam is reciting, according to the more correct of the two scholarly opinions.” (See Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, vol. 11, p. 221)

The Standing Committee was asked a similar question and replied as follows:

The correct scholarly opinion is that it is obligatory to recite al-Faatihah when praying alone and it is obligatory upon the imam and those whom he is leading both in prayers where Qur’aan is to be recited out loud and when it is to be recited silently, because of the soundness and specific nature of the texts which indicate that. The aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

“So, when the Qur’aan is recited, listen to it, and be silent that you may receive mercy”

[al-A’raaf 7:204] is general in meaning. The hadeeth, “When the Qur’aan is recited then listen attentively” is general and applies both to al-Faatihah and other soorahs. These two texts are general in meaning, and the following hadeeth refer to an exception to that rule:

“There is no prayer for the one who does not recite the Opening of the Book.” Thus we may reconcile all the proven evidence. The hadeeth “The recitation of the imaam is the recitation of the one who is praying behind him” is da’eef (weak). It is not correct to say that the Ameen of the congregation to the imaam’s recitation of al-Faatihah takes the place of their own recitation. The differences of opinion among the scholars concerning this matter should not be taken as a means to hate one another, and to divide and turn our backs on one another. Rather you have to study the matter in more detail and find out more. If one of you is following a scholar who says that the one who is praying behind an imam has to recite al-Faatihah during prayers in which Qur’aan is to be recited out loud, and others are following a scholar who says that they must be silent and listen to the imam in prayers where Qur’aan is to be recited out loud, and that the imam’s recitation of al-Faatihah is sufficient, there is nothing wrong with that. There is no need for one group to denounce the other, or to hate one another because of that.

They have to be open-minded about differences of opinion among the scholars, and about the reasons for that, and ask Allaah to guide them in matters concerning which there are differences of opinion as to what is correct, for He is the All-Hearing, Ever-Responsive. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Wassalam
Jamaluddine

[Ibn Ajibah]

al-Albani took the Hanafi opinion regarding this issue, so those who follow him tend to follow this.

[Salafi]

We the Hanafi's do not read surah fatiha behind the imam as we believe that the imam’s surah fatiha will count for the jammat. The salafi's have a big objection to this and say that the hanafis prayer behind the imam is not excepted because the prophet (saw) said that without surah fatiha the prayer is not valid (to the nearest affect) and the imam reads for himself (surah fatiha).


According to hanafia recitation of fatiha in the last two raka't is not necessary for both imam and single man/woman praying separately,and if they just remain silent or say subhanAllah the salat is valid (c Hadaya). so recitation behind imam should be adressed at a later stage.



But we also know the the prohet (saw) said that without the jummah kutbah the jummah is not complete (to the nearest affect).

provide reference.



So why dont the salafi's bring their own jummah kutbah and read it themselves in jummah as the imam is reading for him according to the salafi’s. Why the double standards?

plz elaborate.

[leo28]

The salafis need to replace the existing title "salafi". It looks an outdated, obsolete and uncivilised word/title for their sect. They may give it a thought.

[Salafi]

Assalamu alaikum,

When we ask a question, could we keep it polite and respectful? As I am sure that the brother's intention behind the question is 'to find out', not 'to humiliate'!



SubhanAllah,JazakAllah

Muhammad (Sal-Allaahu 'alayhe Wa Sallam) is the Messenger of All&#226;h, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves. .......
(Surah Fath:29)

[Jamaluddine]

Assalamu alaika brother,

The salafis need to replace the existing title "salafi". It looks an outdated, obsolete and uncivilised word/title for their sect. They may give it a thought.

People of knowledge that I know don't care much for names and titles as far as I can see. They would rather be known as 'Ahlus Sunnah Wal-Jamaah'. And that is what they choose to be described as. Because they choose to follow the Sunnah of Our Prophet SAWS (without adding anything to it).

They may occasionally use the term 'Salafi', but that's only because it is the commonly known appellation.

I personally see nothing wrong with this name, as it is a true description of most people that I know.

And by the way, I don't think of them as a sect, but the main trunk of the tree of Islam.

However, there are people (especially on forums such as this one), who like to use the term Salafi, Wahhabi...etc in an attempt to humiliate certain groups of people. It is these pople who are obsessed with names (on false grounds), but wise people choose not to respond to them, because it is (to use your term) an outdated argument, and because those people are left to Allah SWT to deal with:

[49:11] O ye who believe! let not some men among you laugh at others: it may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): nor let some women laugh at others: it may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames: ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness, (to be used of one) after he has believed: and those who do not desist are (indeed) doing wrong.

Wassalam
Jamaluddine

[leo28]

The salafis always tend to become holier than the Pope. May I ask, why do they use computers for communication, since it was not invented during the early times. They may consider using date or olive tree leaves for communication, in order to keep the traditions of their salaf alive. Why do they use vehicles or aeroplanes for travelling, instead of using camels and horses, as used to prevail during ancient times. One should introspect oneself deeply, instead pointing out each and everything, contrary to the religion :cheesygri

[Jamaluddine]

The salafis always tend to become holier than the Pope...

I have heard that they have finally achieved that (become holier than the Pope)...
... 1500 years ago! :D

[AbdulQahhar]

Assalamu alaikum,



When we ask a question, could we keep it polite and respectful? As I am sure that the brother's intention behind the question is 'to find out', not 'to humiliate'!

Anyway... in an attempt to answer the question:

Sheikh Salih Al-Munajjid was asked a similar question:

Question:

My question relates to the correct manner of praying Farz salaat behind an Imaam, specifically the recital of surah Al Fatiha.
1. Is it obligatory on us to quietly recite surah Al Fatiha whilst the Imaam recites it aloud, during the first and second rakaat of a farz prayer?
2. Is it obligatory on us to recite the surah Al Fatiha in the same situation but in the third and/or fourth rakaat, ie., the Imaam is silent in these rakaats?
This question arises due to our communitiy's wish to correct our method of praying. There are two opinions amongst us, one being that when the Imaam leads a prayer, whether he recites them aloud (1st and 2nd rakaat) or is silent (3rd and 4th rakaat) we must only listen; whilst others comment that without the recitation of surah Al Fatiha, whether resited by the Imaam or not, a prayer is not valid.
Please advise with as many factual evidence as possible.

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Reciting al-Faatihah is one of the essential parts of the prayer, and is to be recited in each rak’ah both by the imaam and by those who are being led by him, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is no prayer for the one who does not recite the Opening of the Book [i.e., al-Faatihah].” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 714). With regard to one who is following an imaam reciting al-Faatihah behind the imaam in a prayer where Qur’aan is to be recited out loud, there are two scholarly opinions.

The first opinion is that it is obligatory, the evidence for that being the general meaning of the hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “There is no prayer for the one who does not recite the Opening of the Book [i.e., al-Faatihah].” And because when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught the one who had not prayed properly, he told him to recite al-Faatihah.

It was narrated in a saheeh report that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to recite it in every rak’ah. Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Baari: “It was proven that permission was given to the one who is praying behind an imaam to recite al-Faatihah in prayers in which Qur’aan is to be recited out loud, without any exceptions. That is what was narrated by al-Bukhaari in Juz’ al-Qiraa’ah, and by al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Hibbaan and others, from Makhool from Mahmood ibn al-Rabee’ from ‘Ubaadah, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stumbled in his recitation in Fajr, and when he finished he said, “Perhaps you recite behind your imaam?” They said, “Yes,” He said, “Do not do that, except for the Opening of the Book (al-Faaithah), for there is no prayer for the one who does not recite it.”

The second opinion is that the recitation of the imaam is also the recitation of the one who is praying behind him. The evidence for that is the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

“So, when the Qur’aan is recited, listen to it, and be silent that you may receive mercy” [al-A’raaf 7:204]

Ibn Hajar said: “Those who say that (the one who is praying behind an imaam) does not have to recite it in prayers where Qur’aan is to be recited out loud, such as the Maalikis, quote as evidence the hadeeth, ‘When he recites then listen attentively.’ This is a saheeh hadeeth which was narrated by Muslim from Abu Moosa al-‘Ash’ari.”

Those who say that it is obligatory say that it should be recited after the imaam has finished reciting al-Faatihah and before he starts to recite another soorah, or that it should be recited when the imam pauses. Ibn Hajar said: “He should listen when the imam is reciting, and recite it when he is silent.”

Shaykh Ibn Baaz said, “What is meant by when the imam pauses is when he pauses during al-Faatihah or after reciting it, or in the soorah that he recites after it. If the imam does not pause, then the one who is praying behind him has to recite al-Faatihah even if the imam is reciting, according to the more correct of the two scholarly opinions.” (See Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, vol. 11, p. 221)

The Standing Committee was asked a similar question and replied as follows:

The correct scholarly opinion is that it is obligatory to recite al-Faatihah when praying alone and it is obligatory upon the imam and those whom he is leading both in prayers where Qur’aan is to be recited out loud and when it is to be recited silently, because of the soundness and specific nature of the texts which indicate that. The aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

“So, when the Qur’aan is recited, listen to it, and be silent that you may receive mercy”

[al-A’raaf 7:204] is general in meaning. The hadeeth, “When the Qur’aan is recited then listen attentively” is general and applies both to al-Faatihah and other soorahs. These two texts are general in meaning, and the following hadeeth refer to an exception to that rule:

“There is no prayer for the one who does not recite the Opening of the Book.” Thus we may reconcile all the proven evidence. The hadeeth “The recitation of the imaam is the recitation of the one who is praying behind him” is da’eef (weak). It is not correct to say that the Ameen of the congregation to the imaam’s recitation of al-Faatihah takes the place of their own recitation. The differences of opinion among the scholars concerning this matter should not be taken as a means to hate one another, and to divide and turn our backs on one another. Rather you have to study the matter in more detail and find out more. If one of you is following a scholar who says that the one who is praying behind an imam has to recite al-Faatihah during prayers in which Qur’aan is to be recited out loud, and others are following a scholar who says that they must be silent and listen to the imam in prayers where Qur’aan is to be recited out loud, and that the imam’s recitation of al-Faatihah is sufficient, there is nothing wrong with that. There is no need for one group to denounce the other, or to hate one another because of that.

They have to be open-minded about differences of opinion among the scholars, and about the reasons for that, and ask Allaah to guide them in matters concerning which there are differences of opinion as to what is correct, for He is the All-Hearing, Ever-Responsive. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Wassalam
Jamaluddine

JazakAllahu khair for posting this, however there are quite a few Sahih Ahadith regarding this subject ***missing*** here.

[leo28]

If they have enough time available to point out so much irregularities in non-salafis, then why don't they exert and pursue in bringing the people from other sect and non-Muslims on the right track. All they want us to abandon the normal lives and go back to the caves.

[Abu-Umar-Usman-Ali]

JazakAllahu khair for posting this, however there are quite a few Sahih Ahadith regarding this subject ***missing*** here.

Which hadiths?

[ozgurislam]

al-Albani took the Hanafi opinion regarding this issue, so those who follow him tend to follow this.


The majority of the Hanafis are of opinion that in both loud and silent prayers the followers must not read surah al fatiha behind imam (it is makruh tahrimi to do it).

This is narrated from Abu Hanifa, Imam Muhammad and Abu Yusuf and others

There is also a second valid opinion (which is in my view not a minirity opinion) is that one must not read surah fatiha when the imam is saying it aloud, but they can read (although not obligatory) in silent prayers such as zuhr and asr and in the last 2 rakat of loud prayers.

This is also a opinion narrated from Abu Hanifa , Imam Muhammad and others, Allamah Lucknowi and Muhaddith Zafar Ahmad Usmani (the author of Ileu us Sunan) wrote booklets on this issue and approved this opinion.

Refer to Shayk Abu Yusuf's The salah of a believer in quran and sunnah for details.

[Salafi]

There is also a second valid opinion (which is in my view not a minirity opinion) is that one must not read surah fatiha when the imam is saying it aloud, but they can read (although not obligatory) in silent prayers such as zuhr and asr and in the last 2 rakat of loud prayers.


i think that its also the opinion of Imam Malik, and Albani too.

[slave of allah]

this thread it going slighty off topic. i have a simple question to all those who belive it is neccessary for the muqtadi to recite the faatiha individualy. we all know one can join jamaat up to rukoo until he has to get up n make up for the missed rakah. so if you come and join salaah just as the imam has gone in to rukoo will you conisider your salaah invalid as you have not recitied faatiha.obviously not.

[masum2u]

If they have enough time available to point out so much irregularities in non-salafis, then why don't they exert and pursue in bringing the people from other sect and non-Muslims on the right track. All they want us to abandon the normal lives and go back to the caves.

True, we do want the salafi's going back to the caves...no doubt about that. In that case. We would have less pain up our back-sides to deal with them.

[Yahya]

this thread it going slighty off topic. i have a simple question to all those who belive it is neccessary for the muqtadi to recite the faatiha individualy. we all know one can join jamaat up to rukoo until he has to get up n make up for the missed rakah. so if you come and join salaah just as the imam has gone in to rukoo will you conisider your salaah invalid as you have not recitied faatiha.obviously not.

This is a special case that only applies to the first rak'ah of the masbooq muqtadi. And there is almost certainly a hadith that applies to this one case, which is used to support this special case. But there are other ahadith, general ahadith, which suggest that al-Fatiha is fard upon everyone. Like the hadith which means, "There is no Salat for the one who does not recite fatihatul-kitab."

[Ali al-Hanafi]

"There is no Salat for the one who does not recite fatihatul-kitab."...UNLESS HE IS BEHIND THE IMAM (muatta imam malik)

[Salafi]

UNLESS HE IS BEHIND THE IMAM (muatta imam malik)

assalamo alaikum

what is the sehat of sanad?
who siad this?

wassalam

[Ali al-Hanafi]

This Hadth is recorded in Muwatta Imam Malik (ra), hadith 188 (http://www.masmn.org/documents/Hadith/Muwatta_Malik/003.htm, hadith reference: 3:9:40) according to Raiyadh ul Haq's book on Salat and also in Tirmidhi hadith no. 313. It is also present in the Muatta of Imam Muhammad (ra), haidth 113:

Malik informed us, "Wahb ibn Kaysan narrated to us that he heard Jabir Ibn Abdullah say, 'Whoever prayed a Raka'at in which he didn't recite Umm al Quran (the Fathiha), he has not prayed, except behind the Imam' "

[Raza Ali]

can someone plz read the orginal thread and answer the question for does salfis who are reffered to in the original thread (that claim to say hanafis salaat is not accepted).

[Abu-Umar-Usman-Ali]

True, we do want the salafi's going back to the caves...no doubt about that. In that case. We would have less pain up our back-sides to deal with them.

:cry:

[Abu-Umar-Usman-Ali]

can someone plz read the orginal thread and answer the question for does salfis who are reffered to in the original thread (that claim to say hanafis salaat is not accepted).

I am also looking for someone more knowledgeable about this matter speak up on the question.

[Musleemah]

have u seen a Salafi SCHOLAR say that Hanafis' salat is not accepted?

we already told u that Salaf scholars differ themselves on this issue, if they considered Hanafi salat to be not accepted for that then they would say that about Salafis' who pray with the opinion of Hanafis.

please dont' take ur knowledge from some salafis who write on the internet, see what the scholars themselves said.

[sahih-baba]

salam
we tend to ignore these scholars, just like we ignore the shi'a and ibadiyya ones, because we firmly believe the ahl as-sunna wal-jama'a -that is, the traditional hanafis, malikis, shafi'is and a handful of hanbalis- are on the truth and the rest are misguided, even if some truth comes from them.

[AbdulQahhar]

have u seen a Salafi SCHOLAR say that Hanafis' salat is not accepted?

we already told u that Salaf scholars differ themselves on this issue, if they considered Hanafi salat to be not accepted for that then they would say that about Salafis' who pray with the opinion of Hanafis.

please dont' take ur knowledge from some salafis who write on the internet, see what the scholars themselves said.

Madhhabliya follows a Madhhab, a Madhhab follows the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
Salafis follow everybody or nobody, so how do you solve this?
OR Salafis follow an imaam, and imaam's decisions are based - inshaAllah - on the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

The problem is, how are you Salafis sure that your imaam is any better than i.e. the 4 imaams? Since you are not a scholar you can't really know, how could you, you have to have a wider knowledge than both imaams to say who is better to follow.

I think I already asked this question, but still no answer....still waiting...

So, bottom line: Salafis do also follow a Madhhab - their own imaam's Madhhab.

[Abu-Umar-Usman-Ali]

Madhhabliya follows a Madhhab, a Madhhab follows the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
Salafis follow everybody or nobody, so how do you solve this?
OR Salafis follow an imaam, and imaam's decisions are based - inshaAllah - on the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

The problem is, how are you Salafis sure that your imaam is any better than i.e. the 4 imaams? Since you are not a scholar you can't really know, how could you, you have to have a wider knowledge than both imaams to say who is better to follow.

I think I already asked this question, but still no answer....still waiting...

So, bottom line: Salafis do also follow a Madhhab - their own imaam's Madhhab.

This question always comes to mind and I still have never found answers to it.

A question that needs to be stressed!

wasalaaam

[leo28]

So, bottom line: Salafis do also follow a Madhhab - their own imaam's Madhhab.[/B]

Who is their imam ? I never knew. Someone told, probably on this forum that they follow Imam Hanbal in the initial phase, then they deviate and become non-followers.

[Salafi]

This Hadth is recorded in Muwatta Imam Malik (ra), hadith 188 (http://www.masmn.org/documents/Hadith/Muwatta_Malik/003.htm, hadith reference: 3:9:40) according to Raiyadh ul Haq's book on Salat and also in Tirmidhi hadith no. 313. It is also present in the Muatta of Imam Muhammad (ra), haidth 113:

Malik informed us, "Wahb ibn Kaysan narrated to us that he heard Jabir Ibn Abdullah say, 'Whoever prayed a Raka'at in which he didn't recite Umm al Quran (the Fathiha), he has not prayed, except behind the Imam' "

thanx,though no taadeel but
Wahb ibn Kaysan narrated to us that he heard Jabir Ibn Abdullah say
is fair enough

[AbdulQahhar]

Who is their imam ? I never knew. Someone told, probably on this forum that they follow Imam Hanbal in the initial phase, then they deviate and become non-followers.

Have no idea, Allah swt knows best, but I tell you something my bro - not all Salafis can be imaams, so obviously they're also following some human and not directly the Qur'an and the Sunnah as some might claim.

[leo28]

Have no idea, Allah swt knows best, but I tell you something my bro - not all Salafis can be imaams, so obviously they're also following some human and not directly the Qur'an and the Sunnah as some might claim.


I agree with you. We the laymen can't really comprehend the complicated issues related to our religion. We definitely require the assistance of scholars to arrive at the right conclusion/solution.

[Ali al-Hanafi]

"thanx,though no taadeel but
Wahb ibn Kaysan narrated to us that he heard Jabir Ibn Abdullah say
is fair enough"

Wahb ibn Kaysan. He said in al-Is'af, "Wahb Ibn Kaysan of Quraysh their mawla, Abu Nu'aym the Madinan. An-Nasai and Ibn Sa'd regarded him as a trustworthy narrator. He died in 127 AH" from Ta'liq al Mumajjad (See eng. trans of Muatta Imam Muhammad, pg 565, turath publishing)

[Salafi]

"thanx,though no taadeel but
Wahb ibn Kaysan narrated to us that he heard Jabir Ibn Abdullah say
is fair enough"

Wahb ibn Kaysan. He said in al-Is'af, "Wahb Ibn Kaysan of Quraysh their mawla, Abu Nu'aym the Madinan. An-Nasai and Ibn Sa'd regarded him as a trustworthy narrator. He died in 127 AH" from Ta'liq al Mumajjad (See eng. trans of Muatta Imam Muhammad, pg 565, turath publishing)

JazakAllah

[Raza Ali]

Originally Posted by Musleemah
have u seen a Salafi SCHOLAR say that Hanafis' salat is not accepted?

we already told u that Salaf scholars differ themselves on this issue, if they considered Hanafi salat to be not accepted for that then they would say that about Salafis' who pray with the opinion of Hanafis.

please dont' take ur knowledge from some salafis who write on the internet, see what the scholars themselves said.




Yeah i am referring to those Salfis who make these remarks. This is not taken from the internet but from experience from salfis also known as 'SUPER SALAFIS' lol. You read your books and hadiths on your own and try to do tafseer and that’s were shaytan gets involved. Not anyone can to tafseer the person needs to know were the hadith/ quranic verse revealed, the chain of narration, the situation at the time etc. The Salfis take everything out of context for example, in the hadiths were it says shoulder to shoulder and feet to feet. But they dont menshion the part were the hadith says knee to knee and neck to neck try doing that literally and we see how far you get. Even doing shoulder to shoulder should not be taken literally as shoulder to shoulder but in terms of being very close in salaah. If your 6 ft and you got someone 3ft on one side in salaat and some one 7ft on the other side, how are you going to adjust yourself to shoulder to shoulder. Everyone will think you got a disability and make you sit on a chair or send you to a mental institute.

[Ali al-Hanafi]

Lol!

[Musleemah]

The problem is, how are you Salafis sure that your imaam is any better than i.e. the 4 imaams? Since you are not a scholar you can't really know, how could you, you have to have a wider knowledge than both imaams to say who is better to follow.

I think I already asked this question, but still no answer....still waiting...

So, bottom line: Salafis do also follow a Madhhab - their own imaam's Madhhab.

if u are really asking, why did u give an answer at the end?

answering ur question (how are you Salafis sure that your imaam is any better than i.e. the 4 imaams? )
for ur info, we do not believe that todays Salafis scholars are better than the four Imams, we believe that the first 3 generations are the best of the ummah, which includes the 4 Imams rahimahum Allah, so they are better than the Muslims who came after them, evidance for that is the well known hadith about the 3 first generations being best, first one then second then third.

our scholars study the books of these Imams and their students, fiqh and usool fiqh, and they study their opinions and evidances then they do tarjeeh by their ijtihad using the known tools of ijtihad. sometimes they agree with teh madhhab they studied and somtimes disagree with it and take opinion of another madhhab of the 4 madhhabs.

this is what fiqh scholars do. they study fiqh of specific madhhab then when they have enough knowledge to make ijtihad they might go out of the madhhab on some issues by their tarjih.

evne past fiqh scholars didn't go 100% with their madhhab, and some took a different opinion than the madhhab, I even read a thread here about a sufi shaikh who took a different opinion than his madhhab in some issues by ijtihad of his.

I hope the issue is clear now.
and please dont' give answers to things u have no knowledge of.
if u dont' know just ask without making assumptions.

[Musleemah]

Yeah i am referring to those Salfis who make these remarks. This is not taken from the internet but from experience from salfis also known as 'SUPER SALAFIS' lol. You read your books and hadiths on your own and try to do tafseer and that’s were shaytan gets involved. Not anyone can to tafseer the person needs to know were the hadith/ quranic verse revealed, the chain of narration, the situation at the time etc. The Salfis take everything out of context for example, in the hadiths were it says shoulder to shoulder and feet to feet. But they dont menshion the part were the hadith says knee to knee and neck to neck try doing that literally and we see how far you get. Even doing shoulder to shoulder should not be taken literally as shoulder to shoulder but in terms of being very close in salaah. If your 6 ft and you got someone 3ft on one side in salaat and some one 7ft on the other side, how are you going to adjust yourself to shoulder to shoulder. Everyone will think you got a disability and make you sit on a chair or send you to a mental institute.

good that u admit u didn't take this opinion of urs from Salafi scholars.

u should have wrote in ur title "to Salafis who make these remarks .."
and clearify that u are speaking specifically to Salafi who say such a thing and that not all Salafis say such a thing unless u didn't know that, then we clearified it for u.

[Ali al-Hanafi]

Assalaamualaikum

"good that u admit u didn't take this opinion of urs from Salafi scholars."

Please read the book "Fathiha Khalful Imam" by Badi' adeen Shah aRaashidi al salafi (in urdu) at the bottom of page 6:

"Surah Fathiha is from amongst the arkaan of prayer, without it there will be no salaat, fard or nafl or janazah, loud prayer or silent, alone, as imam or muqtadi (follower). In every situation, reading surah Fathiha is neccessary, without it salat will not be done ("iss ke beghayr namaz nahee ho gee")."

See http://www.deenekhalis.com/component/option,com_remository/Itemid,0/func,fileinfo/id,184/
""

[Musleemah]

I meant the opinion that "Hanafis" prayers are not accepted by Allah.
not opinion that prayer is invalid without fatiha behind Imam in jahr prayer.

if ur going to go that way, then it would be saying that those Salafis believe that the prayer of many Salafis' (who take the other opinion) are also "not accepted".
which I have not heard a Salafi scholar say.

I want a statement by a Salafi scholar that says that Hanafis salat is not accepted, or that the person who takes the other opinion, his salat is not accepted.

[leo28]

I hope the issue is clear now.
.

No sis, the issue is not yet clear, want to know, who is your Imam at present. Your sect seems to be a myth to me, so confusing, nothing is clear. If you study 4 Imams in the initial phase, then why do you tend to deviate at a later stage? Why aren't your own scholars competent enough to guide you properly???

[Musleemah]

No sis, the issue is not yet clear, want to know, who is your Imam at present. Your sect seems to be a myth to me, so confusing, nothing is clear. If you study 4 Imams in the initial phase, then why do you tend to deviate at a later stage? Why aren't your own scholars competent enough to guide you properly???

what do u mean by "deviated in a later stage" ?
explain ur statement

as for my present Imam, I don't follow one shaikh, I have more than one teacher.
and when I have a question I ask any trustworthy scholar who is available.

and who are u to judge our scholars and say that they are no competent enough to guide us ??!!

u probably haven't even read books of our scholars.
I said sooooooooooooo many times, do not get ur info about Salafis through people who write in forums or laymen who dont' have good knowledge out of the internet.

u want to know our beliefs and what our scholars teach, read their books and listen to their lectures.

[leo28]

what do u mean by "deviated in a later stage" ?
explain ur statement
.

You yourself stated that you salafis study Sunni imams, then you evaluate at your end and try to find out the logical conclusion in the light of research done by your scholars. I ask, do you have any scholar??? if you have, then what is the need to consult these 4 Imams in the initial phase. Why can't your own scholars study Islamic jurisprudence, without basing their knowledge, mainly derived from the sunni sources????

It appears to me that your sect doesn't have competent and learned persons, so you are all obliged to look up towards sunni jurisprudence for necessary guidance and assistance, and then claim to be scholars.

Do you know what is Plagiarism???

Plagiarism is defined as presenting someone else’s work, as one’s own :cheesygri .

[Musleemah]

You yourself stated that you salafis study Sunni imams, then you evaluate at your end and try to find out the logical conclusion in the light of research done by your scholars. I ask, do you have any scholar??? if you have, then what is the need to consult these 4 Imams in the initial phase. Why can't your own scholars study Islamic jurisprudence, without basing their knowledge, mainly derived from the sunni sources????

It appears to me that your sect doesn't have competent and learned persons, so you are all obliged to look up towards sunni jurisprudence for necessary guidance and assistance, and then claim to be scholars.

Do you know what is Plagiarism???

Plagiarism is defined as presenting someone else’s work, as one’s own :cheesygri .

all scholars need to knowledge of past scholars, especially in usool fiqh.
all of our scholars study fiqh texts of past scholars in fiqh and usool fiqh, like scholars of other sunni groups.

our scholars are not Sahaba radiyallhau anhum who got their knowledge directly from Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

since begining of Islam, scholars would teach students the knowledge they learned from their salaf, then those students would become scholars and teach their students (next generation) and so on until today, same thing repeats.

and our scholars study jurisprudence through books of usool fiqh and books of fiqh written by past scholars, that is what all scholars do unless u don't know that.

anyways, I gave enough explanation, if u insist on ur nonsense and making false assumptions then I am stopping my discussion with u because it is just a waste of time, I already gave a lot of explanation that is enough for anyone to understand.

[sahih-baba]

what do u mean by "deviated in a later stage" ?
explain ur statement

as for my present Imam, I don't follow one shaikh, I have more than one teacher.
and when I have a question I ask any trustworthy scholar who is available.

and who are u to judge our scholars and say that they are no competent enough to guide us ??!!

u probably haven't even read books of our scholars.
I said sooooooooooooo many times, do not get ur info about Salafis through people who write in forums or laymen who dont' have good knowledge out of the internet.

u want to know our beliefs and what our scholars teach, read their books and listen to their lectures.

thanks for the advice, but no thanks.
i cannot see how any sound minded muslim would give his ear to misguidance from salafis, ikhwanis, shi'a or whatever other sect of islam.
why should we?
the true muslims -ahl as-sunna- made this ummah great!
what have salafis done?

[leo28]

what have salafis done?

Nothing :cry: . The shias are far better, atleast they have their separate jurisprudence, but poor salafis don't have. They steal other's research work and tend to become solo flight seekers :cheesygri . They may consider hiring the services of our learned scholars, with a view to broaden their mental horizon :cheesygri

[leo28]

and our scholars study jurisprudence through books of usool fiqh and books of fiqh written by past scholars, that is what all scholars do unless u don't know that.
.

Then why aren't you called as sunni, why do you tend to have a separate identity as salafi ??? If you don't have a separate jurisprudence, based on your own sources, then better remain sunni and try to strengthen the already existing majority, rather embarking on solo misadventures. My sincere advice to you.

[sahih-baba]

They may consider hiring the services of our learned scholars, with a view to broaden their mental horizon :cheesygri

as a matter of fact some do, as do ikhwanis, but i know one noble shaykh who refuses to give them ahadith :lol:

[leo28]

and our scholars study jurisprudence through books of usool fiqh and books of fiqh written by past scholars, that is what all scholars do .

A fact perhaps. When you study sunni jurisprudence for seeking knowledge, please show some loyalty and sincerity to us and don't try to form an altogether a diff ethnic group. While the sunni Muslims are already trying to bring the other deviated sects on the righ track, don't you think, your deviation is going to increase the amount of hardwork ???? this is not non-sense, rather a point of common-sense.

[AbdulQahhar]

if u are really asking, why did u give an answer at the end?

answering ur question (how are you Salafis sure that your imaam is any better than i.e. the 4 imaams? )
for ur info, we do not believe that todays Salafis scholars are better than the four Imams, we believe that the first 3 generations are the best of the ummah, which includes the 4 Imams rahimahum Allah, so they are better than the Muslims who came after them, evidance for that is the well known hadith about the 3 first generations being best, first one then second then third.

our scholars study the books of these Imams and their students, fiqh and usool fiqh, and they study their opinions and evidances then they do tarjeeh by their ijtihad using the known tools of ijtihad. sometimes they agree with teh madhhab they studied and somtimes disagree with it and take opinion of another madhhab of the 4 madhhabs.

this is what fiqh scholars do. they study fiqh of specific madhhab then when they have enough knowledge to make ijtihad they might go out of the madhhab on some issues by their tarjih.

evne past fiqh scholars didn't go 100% with their madhhab, and some took a different opinion than the madhhab, I even read a thread here about a sufi shaikh who took a different opinion than his madhhab in some issues by ijtihad of his.

I hope the issue is clear now.
and please dont' give answers to things u have no knowledge of.
if u dont' know just ask without making assumptions.

U still didn't answer my question:

How do you know that (new) Salafi scholars are BETTER than 4 Imaams?

U say your scholars "sometimes they agree with teh madhhab they studied and somtimes disagree with it and take opinion of another madhhab of the 4 madhhabs." but sister, this means that your scholars must know BETTER than i.e. 4 Imaams in order to give such an opinion and to take such a decision, correct?

And pls don't be arrogant and don't claim who has knowledge and who doesn't, for this is obviously ghaib for you, correct?

To make this absolutely clear, I will give U an example insha'Allah, and I hope sister that U don't avoid the question.

For instance, let's say we have a fiqhi collection of 6 Imaams: all 4 Imaams (Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Shafi and Ibn Hanbel) and we have 2 new "Salafi" scholars:

Now the question is, i.e. everything about Salah, how do we pray Salah?

Now you basically are claiming that 2 new Salafi scholars have more knowledge than 4 Imaams (which is possible) and you take THEIR OPINIONS ON HOW TO PRAY, WHICH MEANS YOU ARE FOLLOWING THESE 2 IMAAMS, correct?

How do you know that your 2 Imaams are not misleading you? How?

And my 2nd question is: Do you not think then that U are also FOLLOWING SOMEBODY ELSE THAN the Qur'an and the Sunnah?

If, like some Salafis are claiming that Madhhabliya are following a Madhhab rather than the Qur'an and the Sunnah, then Salafis are much much better example of following SOMEBODY'S MADHHAB, A MADHHAB OF YOUR 2 IMAAMS.

Please explain and answer the question, may Allah swt guide you and reward you 4 Ur effort.

[Abu-Umar-Usman-Ali]

U still didn't answer my question:

How do you know that (new) Salafi scholars are BETTER than 4 Imaams?

U say your scholars "sometimes they agree with teh madhhab they studied and somtimes disagree with it and take opinion of another madhhab of the 4 madhhabs." but sister, this means that your scholars must know BETTER than i.e. 4 Imaams in order to give such an opinion and to take such a decision, correct?

And pls don't be arrogant and don't claim who has knowledge and who doesn't, for this is obviously ghaib for you, correct?

To make this absolutely clear, I will give U an example insha'Allah, and I hope sister that U don't avoid the question.

For instance, let's say we have a fiqhi collection of 6 Imaams: all 4 Imaams (Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Shafi and Ibn Hanbel) and we have 2 new "Salafi" scholars:

Now the question is, i.e. everything about Salah, how do we pray Salah?

Now you basically are claiming that 2 new Salafi scholars have more knowledge than 4 Imaams (which is possible) and you take THEIR OPINIONS ON HOW TO PRAY, WHICH MEANS YOU ARE FOLLOWING THESE 2 IMAAMS, correct?

How do you know that your 2 Imaams are not misleading you? How?

And my 2nd question is: Do you not think then that U are also FOLLOWING SOMEBODY ELSE THAN the Qur'an and the Sunnah?

If, like some Salafis are claiming that Madhhabliya are following a Madhhab rather than the Qur'an and the Sunnah, then Salafis are much much better example of following SOMEBODY'S MADHHAB, A MADHHAB OF YOUR 2 IMAAMS.

Please explain and answer the question, may Allah swt guide you and reward you 4 Ur effort.

;)

[Salafi]

thanks for the advice, but no thanks.
i cannot see how any sound minded muslim would give his ear to misguidance from salafis, ikhwanis, shi'a or whatever other sect of islam.
why should we?
the true muslims -ahl as-sunna- made this ummah great!
what have salafis done?

Asslamo alaikum

man its very near to takfeer, may Allah bless u and guide u.

wassalam

[mujahideenryder]

Check this out, its agood read.

http://umarlee.com/2007/01/18/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-salafi-dawah-in-the-us-part-1

It's a in depth 10-post series on the historical rise and fall of salafi movements in the US.

Also check out the comments after. It's a long read, so make sure you got free time.

[sahih-baba]

Asslamo alaikum

man its very near to takfeer, may Allah bless u and guide u.

wassalam

salam, and may allah guide you first to the way of "ikhwanina-lladhina sabaquna bil-iman" then then bless you.

you have not given an answer, but a distortion and a diversion.
so i will go back to the question:

the true muslims raised the ummah to dominate the world,
but what have salafi MUSLIMS done, other than participate -wittingly or unwittingly (most likely the latter because most of them are half-wits) - in shattering the ummah?

[leo28]

Asslamo alaikum

man its very near to takfeer, may Allah bless u and guide u.

wassalam

What is takfeer, can u translate into english, please.

[Ali al-Hanafi]

I meant the opinion that "Hanafis" prayers are not accepted by Allah.
not opinion that prayer is invalid without fatiha behind Imam in jahr prayer.

if ur going to go that way, then it would be saying that those Salafis believe that the prayer of many Salafis' (who take the other opinion) are also "not accepted".
which I have not heard a Salafi scholar say.

I want a statement by a Salafi scholar that says that Hanafis salat is not accepted, or that the person who takes the other opinion, his salat is not accepted.


Musleema, the whole point of this thread, if you look at the original post by Raza, was to discuss the opinion of the Salafis that Salaat is not accepted without the recitation of surah Fathiha in any salaat. Hanafis do not recite the Fathiha behind the Imam (the majority opinion anyway) and thus, according to the Salafis, the prayer of the ahnaaf is not accepted.
You wanted a reference, I gave you one. In fact, the author of this book is clearly targeting the hanafis with this book of his (if you take the time to read it, im sure you will agree with this).
As for tose Salafis who agree with the ahnaaf, then whether or not their Salaat is accepted by the likes of Badi adeen Rashidee al-salafi, that is an issue for the salafies to deal with and does not concern the ahnaaf. It is your scholar who is declearing that Fathiha is neccessary, not ours, so ask him.

[Salafi]

salam, and may allah guide you first to the way of "ikhwanina-lladhina sabaquna bil-iman" then then bless you.

you have not given an answer, but a distortion and a diversion.
so i will go back to the question:

the true muslims raised the ummah to dominate the world,
but what have salafi MUSLIMS done, other than participate -wittingly or unwittingly (most likely the latter because most of them are half-wits) - in shattering the ummah?

thanx
it was not a distortion or diversion i just pointed out that ur post didn't differentiate between the salafis/ikhwanis and rawafidh. regarding ur question i dont want to answer it here. use another thread.

usually takfeer means to pass fatwa that someone is kaafir.. i dont know the english translation.

[jinnzaman]

I wrote a response to his article here (http://jinnzaman.blogspot.com/2007/01/rise-and-fall-of-salafi-dawah.html)

Basically, I don't feel that he gave enough credit to traditional scholarship in subduing the Salafi movement.

[leo28]

thanx

usually takfeer means to pass fatwa that someone is kaafir.. i dont know the english translation.

No brother, it was just a statement/remarks by a brother, doesn't appear to be a fatwa/decree.

[leo28]

Can someone provide me some information or a weblink with the details of the origin of salafi sect???

[UaHuSsain]

What about other questionable actions of salafi's during prayer?

A couple of my salafi aquaintence say they incorporate all of the different actions of the 4 madhabs into their salaat (raising hands to ears while going down in ruko'oh, perpetuously raising right index finger during tasha'hud, sayin ameen loud). They say that all of this is done to beautify their prayer, is this permissible --> I know it is when it done out of following ones madhab it is, but to incorporate all of the actions from the various madhabs to "beautify" your prayer................. what do the ulema have to say about this?

[Sunni_Student786]

I pray that "Traditional Islam" really does not follow the path of Salafiyyah.

Unfortunately, it seems like it is with this culture of refutation and lack of Adab that has recently been displayed on some forums (although, alhamdullilah, not on SunniForum).

Another problem that is quite troubling is the fact that some "Traditional" Muslims have taken a position that is on the opposite extreme of the Salafis insofar as our relationship with the world is concerned, i.e. no problem associating with Kafir governments and no problem with wealth and luxury.

I pray that Allah saves us.

[Omar HH]

as bad as the traditional movements are thank God we haven't gone the takfiri route of making everyone hate everyone.

[Musleemah]

Unfortunately, it seems like it is with this culture of refutation and lack of Adab that has recently been displayed on some forums (although, alhamdullilah, not on SunniForum).

I disagree, I have seen a few with bad adab, and a very bad way of discussing things.

as for doing takfir, their are sufis who make takfir, I have seen some make takfir on Salafis, and have seen 2 members here who believe that Salafis should be wiped off the face of the earth, one saying we should be killed because we are khawarij and the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ordered to kill them.

so u do have extreme\takfiri sufis.

[Sunni_Student786]

...so u do have extreme\takfiri sufis.


However sister, I think that Takfiri Sufis or Traditional Muslims are found far more rarely than their Salafi counterparts, at least in North America, and that is for the time being. I really, truly pray that we do not follow the path blazed by the Salafis.

The cultish mentality is starting to manifest itself in some quarters. I made a post about this quite some time ago entitled "Traditional Immunity", which raised questions about as to how it seems that one can do and say anything and so long as they considered to be "Traditional" they get a pass even if what they are doing clearly appears to be at a variance with the Shariah or juxtaposed to our Tradition. Some "Traditional" Muslims, ironically, adopt methods, means, etc. that are at a variance with our traditions and simply because they are not "Takfiris" and do not have gloomy faces, like many of our North American Salafis, we make excuses for them, while rarely extending the same to our Salafi brethren.

Ya Allah help us.

[Sunni_Student786]

I disagree, I have seen a few with bad adab, and a very bad way of discussing things.

...

And I apologize on behalf of any and all on this forum who may have exhibited bad adab or discuss things in a manner not befitting of a Muslim.

Continue to exhibit your adab sister and pray for the rest of us.

Even though we may not agree with your stance on things, I doubt that many could disagree that you have discussed things with the utmost Adab and patience.

[Omar HH]

I agree with you sister Musleemah even though I am a "madhhabi" and support tassawuf. There are some extreme Sufis out there that are takfiri. One brother I know said that a Sufi came up to him and said, "I would rather marry a Buddhist girl than a Salafi one." This is ignorance obviously, but we must remember that much of this Sufi takfiri extremism (which I would say in some cases has gotten as bad or even worse than Salafis) is only a response to the original Salafi takfir which started fitna throughout almost all corners of north America.

[mospike]

salafi vs mathabi thing in USA seems to be out of proportion such actions have never been heard of here in South Africa

[Musleemah]

salafi vs mathabi thing in USA seems to be out of proportion such actions have never been heard of here in South Africa

how is it in south Africa?
it would be interesting to know.

[Musleemah]

I agree with you sister Musleemah even though I am a "madhhabi" and support tassawuf. There are some extreme Sufis out there that are takfiri. One brother I know said that a Sufi came up to him and said, "I would rather marry a Buddhist girl than a Salafi one." This is ignorance obviously, but we must remember that much of this Sufi takfiri extremism (which I would say in some cases has gotten as bad or even worse than Salafis) is only a response to the original Salafi takfir which started fitna throughout almost all corners of north America.

akhi, there are groups that make takfir on anyone who does not have same ideology as them, and people confuse them with Salafis, and call them salafis when they are not.
We consider their beliefs close to khawarij, these people even make takfir on Shaikh Ibn Baz rahimahu Allah and many other shaikhs in Saudi Arabia.
u will find Shaikhs in Saudi Arabia, especially, warn of them, and their ideology.
I have actually been hurt by them verbally, I truely hate to debate with them, actually it is almost impossible to debate with them.

we are tought by our shaikhs not to make takfir of individuals, only scholars do that, after they make sure that conditions of takfir are met. one can only make general statement like "saying such and such or doing such and such is kufr", but can't say "so and so is kafir" because there are conditions of takfir, and scholars deal with it not us laymen.
any Salafi who starts making takfir of "individuals" (unless scholars have declared that individual as kafir) then they have gone against the way of the righteous Salaf.

so I refrain from doing such a thing, , and I won't even worry about it, my duty is only to inform the other person not to declare them kafir or not.

of course this is regarding people who call themselves Muslims, not non-Muslims, becasue one must believe that ahl kitab and other non Muslims are kafir.

[loveProphet]

akhi, there are groups that make takfir on anyone who does not have same ideology as them, and people confuse them with Salafis, and call them salafis when they are not.
We consider their beliefs close to khawarij, these people even make takfir on Shaikh Ibn Baz rahimahu Allah and many other shaikhs in Saudi Arabia.
u will find Shaikhs in Saudi Arabia, especially, warn of them, and their ideology.
I have actually been hurt by them verbally, I truely hate to debate with them, actually it is almost impossible to debate with them.

we are tought by our shaikhs not to make takfir of individuals, only scholars do that, after they make sure that conditions of takfir are met. one can only make general statement like "saying such and such or doing such and such is kufr", but can't say "so and so is kafir" because there are conditions of takfir, and scholars deal with it not us laymen.
any Salafi who starts making takfir of "individuals" (unless scholars have declared that individual as kafir) then they have gone against the way of the righteous Salaf.

so I refrain from doing such a thing, , and I won't even worry about it, my duty is only to inform the other person not to declare them kafir or not.

of course this is regarding people who call themselves Muslims, not non-Muslims, becasue one must believe that ahl kitab and other non Muslims are kafir.
:ws:

Well, you should tell the "salafi" who did takfir of me this monday! He accused me of being hindu and christian because he believes i do "graveworshipping" and when i told him that he is accusing me of kufr, he said "yeah, so what"!

Seriously, i've seen many takfiri "salafi" although i've seen a few takfiri madthabis/Sufis.

:ws:

[Abu-Umar-Usman-Ali]

:ws:

Well, you should tell the "salafi" who did takfir of me this monday! He accused me of being hindu and christian because he believes i do "graveworshipping" and when i told him that he is accusing me of kufr, he said "yeah, so what"!

Seriously, i've seen many takfiri "salafi" although i've seen a few takfiri madthabis/Sufis.

:ws:

A'salamalikum!!!

Some Salafi's are quick to point others of doing kufr... its okay leave it to Allah (SWT).

[Habib1968]

Salam alaikoum ;

I used to live in Egypt and had some friends who were " salafi " and I never had problems ; there were so helpfull to me when I looked for a flat and an school to learn arabic and they had a good adab that I rarely saw by non-salafi ; even I am following a madhab and they knew this , I allways had the feeling that I was respected ...

Salam alaikoum


Habib

[tazkiyyah]

I have never visited the states,but was very suprised to read this.
Are the salafis in the US really in such disarray?
I find it quite hard to believe.
In england, the salafis are still fairly strong.

Although they are losing some of their bite, they are still very much present

[Abu-Umar-Usman-Ali]

I have never visited the states,but was very suprised to read this.
Are the salafis in the US really in such disarray?
I find it quite hard to believe.
In england, the salafis are still fairly strong.

Although they are losing some of their bite, they are still very much present

No.

Not all Salafi's are like that just a minority. I think we are over exageratting here... There are some very cool ones but its best not to engage in debates with them.

[faqir]

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanawi on Tafwid


عقیدہ مخلوق کی صفتوں سے وہ پاک ہے۔ اور قرآن و*حدیث میں بعضی جگہ جو ایسی باتوں کی خبر دی گئی ہے تو ان کے معنی اللہ کے حوالے کریں کہ وہی اس کی حقیقت جانتا ہے۔ اور ہم بے کھود کُرید کۓ اسی طرح ایمان لاتے ہیں اور یقین کرتے ہیں کہ جو کچھ اسکا مطلب ہے، وہ ٹھیک ہے اور حق ہے اور یہی بات بہتر ہے*۔ یا اسکے کچھ مناسب معنے لگالیں جس سے وہ سمجھ میں آجاوے۔
_____________________________

*جیسے کہ مثلا*ً قرآن میں آیا ہے کہ خدا کا ہاتھ۔ تو بہتر ہے کہ اس کے معنی خدا ہی کے سپرد کر*ے۔ خود کچھ نہ کہے اور اگر کہے تو اس کے مناسب معنی کہہ لے جیسے قوت لیکن پھر بھی یہ نہ سمجھے کہ یقینا*ً یہی مراد ہے اس لۓ کہ یہ اٹکل ہے پس یہ سمجھے کہ یا تو یہی مراد ہوگی یا اور کچھ۔ اور یہ کام بڑے مولوی کا ہے ہر شخص کو معنی مقرر کرنا جائز نہیں۔

بہشتی زیور از حکیم*ِ امت مجدد ملت مولانا اشرف علی تھانوی رحمہ اللہ تعالٰی - حصہ اوّل - عقیدوں کا بیان


This is from Behishti Zewar part-1 bayan of Aqaid a translation of the main text only provided by Sidi Muawiyah.

Aqeedah

He is free from the qualities of the creation. Wherever such qualities have been mentioned in the Quran or Hadith, we leave the meanings of them to Allah. He is the one who knows the reality of these things. We believe in these things without delving into them and have the conviction that whatever their meanings may be, they are correct. And this is the best way of looking at these things. Alternatively, we could give them some appropriate meaning with which we could get an understanding of them.

And in the hashiyah:

For example the Quran mention God's hand, the better way (for a muslim in respect to this) is that he consigns its meaning to God and does not say anything concerning its meaning from his own self. And if he speaks regarding it he assigns a suitable meaning to it, for example, that of Power. But he should not believe that this is definitely what these words mean because this is merely speculation. What he should believe is that maybe it means Power and maybe it means something else. But this matter of interpolation is only suitable for big scholars, this is not permissable for every person.


.

[Ansari_UK]

i feel for the brother. Inshallah he will find assistance in all the tradional path and the Muslim communites will pick up all those broken brothers and sisters from this fallout

[Omar HH]

akhi, there are groups that make takfir on anyone who does not have same ideology as them, and people confuse them with Salafis, and call them salafis when they are not.
We consider their beliefs close to khawarij, these people even make takfir on Shaikh Ibn Baz rahimahu Allah and many other shaikhs in Saudi Arabia.
u will find Shaikhs in Saudi Arabia, especially, warn of them, and their ideology.
I have actually been hurt by them verbally, I truely hate to debate with them, actually it is almost impossible to debate with them.

we are tought by our shaikhs not to make takfir of individuals, only scholars do that, after they make sure that conditions of takfir are met. one can only make general statement like "saying such and such or doing such and such is kufr", but can't say "so and so is kafir" because there are conditions of takfir, and scholars deal with it not us laymen.
any Salafi who starts making takfir of "individuals" (unless scholars have declared that individual as kafir) then they have gone against the way of the righteous Salaf.

so I refrain from doing such a thing, , and I won't even worry about it, my duty is only to inform the other person not to declare them kafir or not.

of course this is regarding people who call themselves Muslims, not non-Muslims, becasue one must believe that ahl kitab and other non Muslims are kafir.

I believe you. I totally understand. The word "Salafi" is used by alot of people, just like the word "Sufi" and the word "Sunni." So we have to clarify our terms. There are many that are peace-loving normal non-takfiri "Salafis" - and we all know this.

Although we disagree in our manhaj, and fiqh -- and in some aspects of even `aqidah in some cases -- we are still Muslim brothers and sisters wal hamdulilah, and there is no need to start fights with each other.

I totally understand what you are saying.

[YousefAbusSafar]

"I believe you. I totally understand. The word "Salafi" is used by alot of people, just like the word "Sufi" and the word "Sunni." So we have to clarify our terms. There are many that are peace-loving normal non-takfiri "Salafis" - and we all know this.

Although we disagree in our manhaj, and fiqh -- and in some aspects of even `aqidah in some cases -- we are still Muslim brothers and sisters wal hamdulilah, and there is no need to start fights with each other."

These are very good points.

I did notice since coming here that ninety percent of the differences between salafi's and traditional sunni's, at least amongst the 'ulama' of both groups, are really arbitrary and related to the way the explain their 'aqidah, manhaj and fiqh, then the actually 'aqidah, manhaj and fiqh themselves.

I don't consider myself salafi anymore and I don't consider myself traditional sunni (although I call myself sunni but I mean in the group sense) and I don't consider myself anti either one of them. I no longer consider ash'ari's and maturidi's to be outside of ahlus sunnah, especially not after reading that kalam of ibn hajr from fathul bari that there are six valid approaches to the belief in the sifaat which are inclusive of the ashar'i, maturidi and athari approach although I haven't decided which method is the soundest yet.

I think the biggest problems the ummah has in the east and the west, is really ta'assub for one's group or sect and the views contained therien, and if we got rid of that we could all unite upon the truth and when we differ it will be only in areas that differing is permitted, not based off of sectarianism or partisanship for one's group.

I think if all the muslims, salafis, traditional sunni's and other than tham left off this ta'assub we would truly be strong and we could then have an easy time giving da'wah to non muslims and the people would enter into Islam in droves, wallahu a'alam., but we also have to practice zuhd as well.

[Musleemah]

I did notice since coming here that ninety percent of the differences between salafi's and traditional sunni's, at least amongst the 'ulama' of both groups, are really arbitrary and related to the way the explain their 'aqidah, manhaj and fiqh, then the actually 'aqidah, manhaj and fiqh themselves.

akhi the differences between Salafi/athari aqeedah and Ash'ari/Maturidi aqeedah is in many issues, not only issue of sifat.
and issue of sifat itself is not just a little difference, u have only seen the issue related to yad, wajh ..etc.
there are other issues related to this topic which u might have not come across yet.

u have only seen only a few of the differences in issues of aqidah.
and they are not minor differences.
even sufi Ash'aris in this forum will tell u that.

u have much to learn akhi.

[Sunni_Student786]

"......I don't consider myself salafi anymore and I don't consider myself traditional sunni (although I call myself sunni but I mean in the group sense) and I don't consider myself anti either one of them. .....

I am somewhat in the same boat as you on this one.

Although I never called myself a Salafi, at one point in my life I had accepted nearly all of their beliefs and prefered only to associate and pray with them. This was a period of about 4 years in my youth. Since then, I have rediscovered "Traditional Islam", however, because of the cultish attitude of some, the term "Traditional Islam" has been reduced merely to a label and a few litmus test beliefs that one must have regarding some issues and, especially, some contemporary religious figures.

I do follow a madhab, believe in the obligation of Taqleed for the laymen, believe in the validity of the science of Tassawuf, and I believe in the validity of the Ashari, Maturidi and Athari approaches to Aqeedah (although, for the sake of caution, I gravitate toward the Athari approach).

Those are my beliefs and some may consider them as the hallmarks of "Traditional Islam", and I would agree that those beliefs are in line with truly "traditional" Islam, not merely the, sometimes, cultish group who is now using that label in the West.

[tazkiyyah]

Akhee.
Do you live in the states.

Are the salafis really self-destructing like the article says?
in this case the other jam'ahs like the sufis and tableeghis and rightly
guided ulema can pick up the pieces??

[tazkiyyah]

The problem with the salafi boat is that it
could not anchor.
It was in constant debate and flux

the hanafis etc could anchor themselves in centuries of opinions
firmly established.

Maybe in england the salafis will self destruct also?

[OneLife]

I thought the article below and discussion is better than the one in this thread. Relates more to the Traditional view.

http://lotaenterprises.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/wahhabis-salafis-and-sufis-the-new-salafis/

[tazkiyyah]

No akhi.
I think its over.

Salafi-ism is over.

You have abu muntasir sitting with shaykh hamza yusuf.

You have the son of shaykh shuayb hasan(famous salafi aalim)
introducing shaykh hamza and defending him.

Isnt that a sign that the salafis are dying

[Musleemah]

Isnt that a sign that the salafis are dying

I am still alive :rolleyes:
many of my friends in US are still alive.

Everyone will die someday

don't get ur high hopes up, Salafis are increasing in number in many places, including the west. (especially new converts to Islam, I knew quite a few when I was in US few years ago, and have met some through the internet)

In my home country (an arab country where there are a good number of sufis) the Salafis are growing in number, that is what my brother noticed when he went to visit.

as for the west

A brother contacted me few months ago who lives in the west (seems the UK, because his email ends with co.uk), he got my email through a yahoo group and contacted me asking me about Salafiyyah, then he told me that he just started to study it and he used to be a Sufi, and he had to sacrifice a lot, including his family, for they wouldn't accept him changing, then over month later he contacted me again and said he made hajj and is going to stay in makkah for a while studying with shaikhs in haram and that he has studied a few sharhs of kitab at-Tawheed, and wants to also study Arabic language.

I've also got a pm in another forum few months ago from a brother (I only posted very few posts their then stopped) and he asked me about somethings then the told me he used to be a sufi and changed to Salafi and contacted me when he knew I was Salafi from one of my posts, he wanted some books to read regarding some issues by salafi scholars.

I only mentioned this so u get this idea of Salafis "dying" out of ur head.
or else I wouldn't have mentioned it, for their is no point to mention it here.

[loveProphet]

I am still alive :rolleyes:
many of my friends in US are still alive.

Everyone will die someday

don't get ur high hopes up, Salafis are increasing in number in many places, including the west. (especially new converts to Islam, I knew quite a few when I was in US few years ago, and have met some through the internet)

In my home country (an arab country where there are a good number of sufis) the Salafis are growing in number, that is what my brother noticed when he went to visit.

as for the west

A brother contacted me few months ago who lives in the west (seems the UK, because his email ends with co.uk), he got my email through a yahoo group and contacted me asking me about Salafiyyah, then he told me that he just started to study it and he used to be a Sufi, and he had to sacrifice a lot, including his family, for they wouldn't accept him changing, then over month later he contacted me again and said he made hajj and is going to stay in makkah for a while studying with shaikhs in haram and that he has studied a few sharhs of kitab at-Tawheed, and wants to also study Arabic language.

I've also got a pm in another forum few months ago from a brother (I only posted very few posts their then stopped) and he asked me about somethings then the told me he used to be a sufi and changed to Salafi and contacted me when he knew I was Salafi from one of my posts, he wanted some books to read regarding some issues by salafi scholars.

I only mentioned this so u get this idea of Salafis "dying" out of ur head.
or else I wouldn't have mentioned it, for their is no point to mention it here.
Thank you for sharing that information... although Allhumdulilah there are many ex-"salafis" here, and i know quite a alot... but now we have to try harder to make these "salafis" "die" away... But i guess there will always be khwarijis till the last hour.

[Ansari_UK]

So much for your "Balanced" attitude then sister Musleemah. As for rise and fals who cares? Allah is the Haqq and he will preserve the Truth. Muslims have had worse things to deal with than petty arguments.

I wellcome this brothers blog Alhamdullilah may Allah reward him.

[Musleemah]

Thank you for sharing that information... although Allhumdulilah there are many ex-"salafis" here, and i know quite a alot... but now we have to try harder to make these "salafis" "die" away... But i guess there will always be khwarijis till the last hour.

I am not worried about that
because Allah is the one who guides, and the haq will triumph where ever it is.

I don't worry myself much about this, I only do my duty of dawah, and Allah is the one who guides.
like I said, I only mentioned that becasue of what Tazkiyyah said.

[Musleemah]

So much for your "Balanced" attitude then sister Musleemah. As for rise and fals who cares? Allah is the Haqq and he will preserve the Truth. Muslims have had worse things to deal with than petty arguments.

I wellcome this brothers blog Alhamdullilah may Allah reward him.

can u tell me what u mean by "balanced" attitude?
I have to make sure I understand what u mean before I reply.

[Sunni_Student786]

Akhee.
Do you live in the states.

Are the salafis really self-destructing like the article says?
in this case the other jam'ahs like the sufis and tableeghis and rightly
guided ulema can pick up the pieces??

Salafiyyah is certainly on the decline and the article that the brother wrote on his Blog was quite on the spot. I left "Salafiyyah" (although I was never officially a Salafi) circa 2000 during my first year of college when I came into constant contact with full time Salafis. It was around this time that many of the inconsistencies, false propaganda, as well as the "harshness" found in most Salafis, of Salafiyyah, came to my attention. Infact, the person that I most credit for allowing me to see through Salafiyyah and practice Islam as it was practiced before Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab's movement was a VERY SINCERE, insha'allah, hardcore Salafi who is now studying in Medina. The errors in logic, circular reasoning, false propaganda, etc. came to my attentio nafter spending so much time with this brother and those at a Salafi masjid.

Around 2003 or so, when the TROID website really took off, is when it became noticeable that Salafiyyah was falling apart, especially here in the greater Philadelphia area, which was the great bastion of Salafiyyah. I have lived in this area for most of my life and can tell you that even if the influence of the Salafis is on the decline, you still do see some new converts, usually former inmates, becoming Salafis, although they don't go around wearing the "Salafi Dawah" t-shirts. Instead, now they wear the "Miskeen" line of clothing (the Dickies work boots are still there and don't seem to ever go away).

I used to work at a Residential Treatment Facility for Delinquent Youth (14-18), 99% of whom came from the greater Philadelphia area, and most of them knew nothing about Islam save that they had to pray 5 times a day, fast in Ramadhan, and not eat Pork. The was the extent of their Islam. 90% did not know that Zinah was haraam, or that stealing was a major sin, and most of these Youth appeared to be "Salafi" because they did wear their Thobes with Dickies Workboots and the Saudi Kafiiyyah wa Aqal, and when those that actually continued to practice Islam after encarcertaion, became Salafi for the most part simply because it was "cool". After I talked to many of them, not even bring up the issue of Salafiyyah, and exposed them to the undrestanding of traditional Ulema, and allowed for them to judge between a "traditional" Muslim congregation and a Salafi one, insofar as who they felt more comfortable with and after whose companionship they felt their Iman invigorated, they almost always chose the "Traditional" mosque, however I never introduced the terms "Traditional" or "Salafi" to them.

With regard to the issue of the traditional Ulema being able to pick up the pieces, to be honest, I don't think that that is, nor can be, the case for many of the converts who were Salafis, as it stands currently. For those who came from Muslim households, I am not entirely sure. I have seen some who fit that description leaving Salafiyyah and following a madhab, including those other than the Hanbali madhab, and acknowledging that "some" Sufis are not deviants, but not that many. Instead, what I have seen is many people who, like myself, were all but Salafi in name, who have instead come back to "Traditional" Islam. Usually, these people have been your "intellectual" types. Those who do not like to think critically, for the most part, just quietly go about doing their thing, without shouting down speakers or making sure that people's elbows were completely wet after Wudhu (I honestly did have the same Salafi brother that I referenced earlier once do that to me). In other cases, they have become prime examples of "Salafi burnout".

In my opinion, the way to bridge the "Traditional" and "Salafi" divide is to have people with Salafitic tendencies, but who actually make Taqleed of the Hanbali madhab, and acknowledge that Tassawuf is merely another name for the codification of the practices of Tazkiyyatun Nafs that were culled from the Quran, Sunnah, and the practice of the Salaf, and that the only Tassawuf that one should object to is that which is at a variance with the Quran and Sunnah, gain more influence in the West. So far, I know of no one who fits this description, although in the Saudi Arabia, there are people who fit this description, or nearly so, for example Shaykh Abdullah Ibn Jibreen and, to a lesser extent, Salman ibn al Awdah.

The reason for why I think that it is important that we have Hanbalis bridge the gap is because of the fact that

1) The fiqh of the Salafis is, for the most part, the same as the Hanbali madhab. When it differs with the Mutamid/Mashur of the Hanbali madhab, at least half the time, support can be found for that difference in the minority positions of the madhab, usually those of Ibn Taimiyyah and/or Ibn al Qayyim (although neither of the two is considered, to the best of my knowledge, to be a preferred opinion in the school).

2) Many Salafis, even those who are vehemently against following a madhab, grudgingly acknowledge that Ibn Taimiyyah, and contemporary Salafi scholars like Bin Baz, Ibn Uthaymeen, etc. have openly said that they follow the Hanbali madhab at least in terms of its Usul.

3) They can be considered part of the fold of Traditional Islam, whilst still following that which initially attracted them to Salafiyyah, i.e. heavy emphasis on textual proofs, a wariness of Bidah, and the fact that it is the dominant fiqh of the Arabian Peninsula, the birthplace of Islam.

When you consider the above, it becomes clear, at least in my mind, that to "wean" people off of Salafiyyah, following the Hanbali madhab makes the most sense, since this is also the madhab that the Salafis have leveled the least criticism against. Furthermore, if one is following Hanbali fiqh, for the most part, one need not worry of doing something that is glaringly at a variance with the "accepted" Salafi position (e.g. Raf ul Yadain) and having a firestorm of controversy started at the local masjid.

Two other things that I believe we must stop doing is using certain issues as litmus tests for determining whether or not someone is a "Traditional" Muslim and discussing issues of Aqeedah in Public.

The litmus tests that many people use in the West, in many circles, for determing whether or not someone is a traditional Muslim are issues like the observance of the Mawlid, validity of following a Tariqah, opinion on Shaykh Hamza, etc. It is nonsensical to use any of these things as litmus test simply because some of these things are fiqh issues on which the Ulema have differeed, while others have little to do with fiqh, aqeedah, etc.

The discussion of issues of Aqeedah in public, among the masses, was something start by the Salafis, however, it is many "Traditional" Muslims who will not let the issue go. We, the laymen, should be content with believing and expressing our Aqeedah in the same way that the early generations did when disputes arise no matter how ridiculous or outlandish peoples claim may be, simpy because none of us are specialists in Aqeedah. Content yourself with believing in things as related to us and in a way befitting our Lord and delve not deeper into things unless you do so under the guidance of an Alim. Aqeedah is no joke.

Wa'salaam.

[Habib1968]

In my home country (an arab country where there are a good number of sufis) the Salafis are growing in number, that is what my brother noticed when he went to visit.


Salam alaikoum ;

in my home country as well ( France ) , they are growing ; you will find a lot of young reverts ; I used to steady a bit in Egypt and I was really surprised to see so much french salafi living and steadying there ; we were only two , to follow a madhab ... But the sufis are growing as well maybe more than the salafi ; don't know exactly but these last years I saw many Reverts following the sufi path ... But where I live now , in Germany , there are more sufis ...


Salam alaikoum

[Musleemah]

The discussion of issues of Aqeedah in public, among the masses, was something start by the Salafis, however, it is many "Traditional" Muslims who will not the issue go. We, the laymen, should be content with believing and expressing our Aqeedah in the same way that the early generations did when disputes arise no matter how ridiculous or outlandish peoples claim may be, simpy because none of us are specialists in Aqeedah. Content yourself with believing in things as related to us and in a way befitting our Lord and delve not deeper into things unless you do so under the guidance of an Alim. Aqeedah is no joke.

always blame the Salafis, sufis are always innocent.
give me a break.

we learned that we do not argue and discuss the issue of sifat unless we have to, which is when to refute the ones who deviated in it.
and that is the way of the Salaf, in their aqeedah books they just mention the general belief, and they would not go into details and discuss it except when refuting ahl bida' like what happened when they refuted the jahmis.

I do not discuss the issue of sifat anywhere except when there are people who preach the wrong belief in it, or when they attack our belief in it, and say false things about it.

other than that, one is not allowed to be discussing it. especially around laymen, it will only confuse them.

[OneLife]

Those are my beliefs and some may consider them as the hallmarks of "Traditional Islam", and I would agree that those beliefs are in line with truly "traditional" Islam, not merely the, sometimes, cultish group who is now using that label in the West.

Exactly which "cultish" type groups are you referring to? Which scholars?

[Sunni_Student786]

Exactly which "cultish" type groups are you referring to? Which scholars?

Brother,

I would rather not name names or groups.

In the past, when pressed again and again to do so, I have and all that it has led to where accusations against me that had no basis in reality.

If you really would like to know, just do a search for posts made under my old screen name of Pahlawaan Khan wherein the term "cult" or "cults of personality" have been written. You'll find what you're looking for insha'allah.

[nauk]

You dunno how many I met when they 17-18 at college.. with a beard.. smiling.. so happy.. activists.. speeches.. empowerment.. a few books.. self importance.. twisting everything.. etc... and I see the same guys only a year or so ago... no beards.. looking a lot more chilled. weird...

[umer.siddiqui]

we learned that we do not argue and discuss the issue of sifat unless we have to, which is when to refute the ones who deviated in it.
and that is the way of the Salaf, in their aqeedah books they just mention the general belief, and they would not go into details and discuss it except when refuting ahl bida' like what happened when they refuted the jahmis.

I do not discuss the issue of sifat anywhere except when there are people who preach the wrong belief in it, or when they attack our belief in it, and say false things about it.


My experience as well as my circle of friends, with "salafi's", has been quite the opposite.

"Salafi's" focus seems to be around who's doing shirk, soofism, etc. etc.

I think you need to be more honest.

[YousefAbusSafar]

As salamu 'alaykum,
Akhi Sunni Muslim (or Faqir or anyone else who could help), could you please show me where in Fathul Bari (online version) I could find the arabic text for this quote:

"السلام عليكم

Ibn Hajar described six types of people in regards to the attributes of Allah in Fath al-Bari:

The first two take them literally:

1. this group say the attributes are identical to created attributes
2. this group say the attributes are not identical to created attributes but have a form which suits His majesty because Allah’s essence differs from all essences so His attributes must also differ from other attributes

The second two do not take them literally although they confirm them being attributes:

3. this group leaves figurative interpretation and says Allah knows best its meaning
4. this group interprets figuratively so for example they say ‘hand’ means ‘power’

The last two say they need not necessarily be attributes:

5. this group says they may or may not be attributes but if they are then they have a meaning other then the apparent meaning
6. this group considers them to be from the ambiguous (mutashabih) verses and considers it wrong to discuss their meanings

All of these opinions have been opined by the Ahl as-Sunnah except the first which is the only one which has really been condemned, as well as certain extreme views from group 4 (e.g. the views of the Mu’tazilah which results in ta'til, takyif, tahrif etc.). It appears you and the Salafis are from group 2. But the main difference between you and us is that we allow there to be a scope for difference of opinion, whereas you don’t. It appears majority of the scholars are from groups 3 and 6, including Ibn Hajar himself. Groups 3 and 6 are clearly the safest options."

I just want to have the original arabic to print out insha'allah.

Allah yajzeekumul khair.

[Sunni_Student786]

My experience as well as my circle of friends, with "salafi's", has been quite the opposite.

"Salafi's" focus seems to be around who's doing shirk, soofism, etc. etc.

I think you need to be more honest.

Brother,

I do not think that she is being dishonest. I think that it is more an issue of there being a big difference in the approach and conduct of Arab, Indo-Pak, and Western Salafis.

[Hamood]

...

The discussion of issues of Aqeedah in public, among the masses, was something start by the Salafis, however, it is many "Traditional" Muslims who will not let the issue go. We, the laymen, should be content with believing and expressing our Aqeedah in the same way that the early generations did when disputes arise no matter how ridiculous or outlandish peoples claim may be, simpy because none of us are specialists in Aqeedah. Content yourself with believing in things as related to us and in a way befitting our Lord and delve not deeper into things unless you do so under the guidance of an Alim. Aqeedah is no joke.

Wa'salaam.

:salam:,

Firstly, the issue with the Salafis is not entirely a fiqh one. In fact, as time and time again many Sunni scholars have rightfully pointed out, fiqh really isn't the main issue with them, the real issue is about Aqidah. Now, I agree with you that speaking on Aqidah is no joke although it's not the Sunnis who are propogating their Aqidadh actively rather its the Salafis who are propogating it. It is in reponse to this (i.e. Salafi emphasis on "Ilm at-Tauheed"), you will find that some Sunni scholars are finally educating the masses on Aqidah and rightfully so. This maybe the reason some of the laymen are actively engaging their Salafi counterparts on complex issues in which they really aren't educated enough to expound upon.

Secondly, your second point points to the fact once again that the main difference is of fiqh while it is not. Yes it is true, many scholars have written against not making taqlid but they didn't go as far to declare the salafis out of Ahle Sunnah on the basis of being Ghayr Muqallid. Why? Let me just ask you one thing. Have you read Shaykh Ibn Taymiah's Aqeedah Al Wastiyyah? This is where lies the divide.

Thirdly, since we consider them muslims we shouldn't shun them completely or disrespect them. Thats out of the question and anyone who advocates completely seperating ourselves from them does not truly understand the muslim condition in the west.

The term "Traditional" is commonly used by those in the west who have their roots with Sunni scholars in the Arab lands. Your theory on "Litmus Tests" is interesting. Although, I wouldn't agree with you if you happen to believe that this is a codified position espoused by the "Traditional" scholars but it could be a developing phenomenon in the laymen from this group. In fact, this is absolutely nothing new and something found in all groups. There are certain things some groups grow to cherish due to fact that they are constantly villified on acting a certain way. This may be the reason you are noticing this trend.

[Goldi]

The litmus tests that many people use in the West, in many circles, for determing whether or not someone is a traditional Muslim are issues like the observance of the Mawlid, validity of following a Tariqah, opinion on Shaykh Hamza, etc. It is nonsensical to use any of these things as litmus test simply because some of these things are fiqh issues on which the Ulema have differeed, while others have little to do with fiqh, aqeedah, etc.

That pretty much sums it up for me too man. Great point.

[Musleemah]

Brother,

I do not think that she is being dishonest. I think that it is more an issue of there being a big difference in the approach and conduct of Arab, Indo-Pak, and Western Salafis.

jazaka Allahu Khayran akhi
I agree with you, I have noticed some differences, and I think it has to do with how they go their knowledge.

In Arab countries the Salafis mostly study under scholars in Masajid or in universities, while many in west get it through the internet (websites especially), and I can't apeak about the indo-pak ones becasue I never lived there and didn't really have contact with them.

in books talking about seeking knowledge, it is always stressed that one get his knowledge from scholars, not just through books.
because in addition to getting the correct understanding, one will also learn from their adab and akhlaq, which is important too.

alhamdulillah that I got a lot of my knowledge through shaikhs, I have benefited a lot from the ones that have taught me, including on how to deal with issues, and scholars and their works.
but still have long ways to get in the path of seeking knowledge, may Allah make it easy for me, and grant me ikhlas.

[Musleemah]

here it is:


وَقَسَّمَ بَعْضهمْ أَقْوَال النَّاس فِي هَذَا الْبَاب إِلَى سِتَّة أَقْوَال قَوْلَانِ لِمَنْ يُجْرِيهَا عَلَى ظَاهِرِهَا أَحَدهمَا مَنْ يَعْتَقِد أَنَّهَا مِنْ جِنْس صِفَات الْمَخْلُوقِينَ وَهُمْ الْمُشَبِّهَة وَيَتَفَرَّع مِنْ قَوْلهمْ عِدَّة آرَاء ، وَالثَّانِي مَنْ يَنْفِي عَنْهَا شَبَه صِفَة الْمَخْلُوقِينَ ؛ لِأَنَّ ذَات اللَّه لَا تُشْبِه الذَّوَات فَصِفَاته لَا تُشْبِه الصِّفَات فَإِنَّ صِفَات كُلّ مَوْصُوف تُنَاسِب ذَاته وَتُلَائِم حَقِيقَته ، وَقَوْلَانِ لِمَنْ يُثْبِت كَوْنهَا صِفَة وَلَكِنْ لَا يُجْرِيهَا عَلَى ظَاهِرِهَا ، أَحَدهمَا يَقُول لَا نُؤَوِّل شَيْئًا مِنْهَا بَلْ نَقُول اللَّه أَعْلَم بِمُرَادِهِ ، وَالْآخَر يُؤَوِّل فَيَقُول مَثَلًا مَعْنَى الِاسْتِوَاء الِاسْتِيلَاء ، وَالْيَد الْقُدْرَة وَنَحْو ذَلِكَ ، وَقَوْلَانِ لِمَنْ لَا يَجْزِم بِأَنَّهَا صِفَة أَحَدهمَا يَقُول يَجُوز أَنْ تَكُون صِفَة وَظَاهِرهَا غَيْر مُرَاد ، وَيَجُوز أَنْ لَا تَكُون صِفَة ، وَالْآخَر يَقُول لَا يُخَاض فِي شَيْء مِنْ هَذَا بَلْ يَجِب الْإِيمَان بِهِ ؛ لِأَنَّهُ مِنْ الْمُتَشَابِه الَّذِي لَا يُدْرَك مَعْنَاهُ .


as u can see, it is the taqsim of some people, also Ibn Hajar rahimahu Allah didn't say which one is the path of the Salaf in this taqsim, you have to study statements by the early scholars to know.

and I have mentioned before that the Salaf have given the general meaning of "istawa 'ala al-'arsh", so that is evidance they didn't do tafwid of alma'na to sifat, but to the kayf.
and some words can mean the kayf and not general meaning like the word "ta'wil (the one that means tafsir)", "tafsir", "tafwid its elm" (can mean elm al-kayf), "haqiqat al-ma'na" (the reality of al-ma'na, and not just the general ma'na) "khawd fi al-ma'na" (to go deep\dig into the meaning, which is the kayf, for a word has a general meaning and a detailed descriptive one).
and u will find many statement that say, one must believe in it without kayf, and didn't mention about the meaning.

=================================

a question to faqir,
I have read in this forum that ash'aris dont' believe in kayf at all, meaning that you believe that there is no kayf to the attributes, it only has a meaning, but has no "how".
is that correct?
do ash'aris believe that their is no kayf (how) at all?
and that the attributes have only meanings which u do tafwid to, but kayf does not exist.

[faqir]

:salam:





I believe in the validity of the Ashari, Maturidi and Athari approaches to Aqeedah (although, for the sake of caution, I gravitate toward the Athari approach).




sidi, can you name us some contemporary 'athari' scholars and some of their works on creed which you've studied? what exactly is the 'athari' approach? Please explain.

[faqir]

As salamu 'alaykum,
Akhi Sunni Muslim (or Faqir or anyone else who could help), could you please show me where in Fathul Bari (online version) I could find the arabic text for this quote:

"السلام عليكم

Ibn Hajar described six types of people in regards to the attributes of Allah in Fath al-Bari:

The first two take them literally:

1. this group say the attributes are identical to created attributes
2. this group say the attributes are not identical to created attributes but have a form which suits His majesty because Allah’s essence differs from all essences so His attributes must also differ from other attributes

The second two do not take them literally although they confirm them being attributes:

3. this group leaves figurative interpretation and says Allah knows best its meaning
4. this group interprets figuratively so for example they say ‘hand’ means ‘power’

The last two say they need not necessarily be attributes:

5. this group says they may or may not be attributes but if they are then they have a meaning other then the apparent meaning
6. this group considers them to be from the ambiguous (mutashabih) verses and considers it wrong to discuss their meanings

All of these opinions have been opined by the Ahl as-Sunnah except the first which is the only one which has really been condemned, as well as certain extreme views from group 4 (e.g. the views of the Mu’tazilah which results in ta'til, takyif, tahrif etc.). It appears you and the Salafis are from group 2. But the main difference between you and us is that we allow there to be a scope for difference of opinion, whereas you don’t. It appears majority of the scholars are from groups 3 and 6, including Ibn Hajar himself. Groups 3 and 6 are clearly the safest options."

I just want to have the original arabic to print out insha'allah.

Allah yajzeekumul khair.



:salam:

You will find it in the first post of this thread.

[loveProphet]

:ws:

I remember that the default of the Ash'aris and Maturidis is tafwidh unless they have to use taw'eel due to the innovators.
Thus the positions of the Ath'aris are generally also the positions of the Ash'aris and Maturidis. This is what i've read. Sidi Faqir or any other knowledgable Sunni may elucidate.

:ws:

[TahirPak]

Can someone provide me some information or a weblink with the details of the origin of salafi sect???

http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/salafi2.html

[faqir]

:salam:

the reason I asked for clarification from pahlawaan khan is that by and large the only people who call themselves 'athari' these days are 'salafis'

i'll ask him in the bros section.... back to the topic at hand !

i had a read of brother Umar Lee's series of articles.

even as a non-salafi I had to say I was left feeling sorry for them. reading the posts brought back some memories... i used to attend UK salafi conferences and talks back in the day - I remember attending Ali al-Tamimi's talk at QMW when there was the big outcry over the Tawheed al-Hakimiyya issue and there was a big boycott. to be honest I can think of very few western salafi speakers who some sect from within the salafi camp has not viciously attacked publicly.

initially the salafis used to just fire their bid'a / shirk guns at everyone non-salafi but it was only natural that they would start to fire at themselves - ex-communicating each other, etc, etc.

the salafis are definitely not the force they used to be in the UK - lets see what happens in the future.

may Allah guide us to the truth. Amin.

[faqir]

I thought the article below and discussion is better than the one in this thread. Relates more to the Traditional view.

http://lotaenterprises.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/wahhabis-salafis-and-sufis-the-new-salafis/


seriously, I think this brother doesn't know what he is talking about.

it would be good if salman can comment on his blog about that particular post from his blog which he removed.

[Sunni_Student786]

Brother Faqir,

I apologize for any confusion that I have caused. When I said "Athari" I meant "Hanbali"; the term "Athari" only came out because this is a term that I was familiar with during my Salafitic youth and after reading so much about the Salafis during this last week, I guess the old terminology came through...lol. My mistake brother.

With regard to who I've studied Hanbali Aqeedah under, I have not formally studied Hanbali aqeedah, however, I have been exposed to it by an Orthodox, Hanafi Alim, from the outskirts of Peshawar, Qari Fareed Shah. He is a Hanafi in fiqh and Maturidi in Aqeedah, however, as he explained it to me, he told me that traditionally, Aqeedah as presented to the masses for hundreds of years in Central Asia and, later on, the Indo-Pak subcontinent, has been, essentially, Hanbali aqeedah. Thus what I did pick up in Maturidi aqeedah was, according to him, essentially Hanbali aqeedah. We did not study in depth as I was only with him for a little over a month (May Allah preserve him and make him successfuly in all his pursuits, worldly and otherwise).

The rest of what I know about Hanbali aqeedah (which hasn't differed from what I was told my Fareed Shah Agha) has been gleaned via email correspondence with Brother Abu Jafar al Hanbali of the "Hanbali Texts Society" and, to a lesser extent, Sidi Musa Furber.

Hope that this helps.

[tazkiyyah]

Okay..but you shouldnt say i follow this to be on the safe side.

all the 3 aqaid are valid.
We dont want to sound like salafis!


Its like saying ok..im hanafi..ur maliki..hes hanbali..no big deal
im chishti ...youre naqshabandi..hes qadiri... no big deal

[Sunni_Student786]

Okay..but you shouldnt say i follow this to be on the safe side.

When I said "safe side" I meant in terms of how to articulate it among the awaam, not in terms of validity.



all the 3 aqaid are valid.
We dont want to sound like salafis!

Agreed.



Its like saying ok..im hanafi..ur maliki..hes hanbali..no big deal
im chishti ...youre naqshabandi..hes qadiri... no big deal

Agreed.

[AbdulQahhar]

Estagfirullah :cry:

Are the claims on this site true or false? Can somebody pls explain all this in a few words? Jazakallahu khair.

http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/salafi2.html

[tazkiyyah]

Sidi..your teacher sounds really interesting.

Does he teach in a madrassa?

The thing i love about pakistani ulema, is that they
dont come to the table of civilsational discourse with
an inferiority complex.
(There are other points which are not so positive.,...but :))

[Raza Ali]

So i guess no one is going to answer my original thread. lol o well.

[Sunni_Student786]

Sidi..your teacher sounds really interesting.

Does he teach in a madrassa?

........

Fareed Shah Agha is currently in Arizona and is finishing residency (he has studied to be a Doctor).

May Allah preserve him and make him forever successul, in this life and the hereafter.

[masum2u]

What about other questionable actions of salafi's during prayer?

A couple of my salafi aquaintence say they incorporate all of the different actions of the 4 madhabs into their salaat (raising hands to ears while going down in ruko'oh, perpetuously raising right index finger during tasha'hud, sayin ameen loud). They say that all of this is done to beautify their prayer, is this permissible --> I know it is when it done out of following ones madhab it is, but to incorporate all of the actions from the various madhabs to "beautify" your prayer................. what do the ulema have to say about this?

Please read ''Fiqh al Imam'' by Shaykh Abdurrahman Bin Yusuf:
http://sunnipath.com/bookstore/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=BKWT1005
http://www.azharacademy.com/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=502

[Dawood82]

http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/salafi2.html

This website is a little over-the-top.

"They declare any Muslim who says he loves Sayyidina Rasulullah (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim) as being a Mushrik."

"They will never label a Christian, etc. as being a Mushrik, but will call a Muslim a Mushrik."

[tazkiyyah]

Coolness :)

[ibnIslam]

Check this out, its agood read.

http://umarlee.com/2007/01/18/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-salafi-dawah-in-the-us-part-1

It's a in depth 10-post series on the historical rise and fall of salafi movements in the US.

Also check out the comments after. It's a long read, so make sure you got free time.

Assalaam u alaykum MR, and Jazaakallahu khayran for the link. I couldn't stop reading it all.

Brother Umar's posts taught me a lot about the mistakes others have made that we can avoid. Since I'm just coming off of AlMaghrib's Rules of Engagement class, I can see that the problem was in Akhlaaq and not exercising due diligence in responding to ghuloow in the Da'wah.

As in calling to "salafiyyah", I and several other organizers in Chicago area have had meetings between ourselves and we have reminded ourselves that our first job here is to call people to Islam, not any particular group or shaykh(s).

The group that will be most victorious in calling to Allah is the one with superior akhlaaq. Alhamdulillah there is so much Ahkhlaaq that we can learn directly from the Quran and Sunnah, but after taking this class, I understand more the benefits of SEEING that akhlaaq in a shaykh's personality.

So my advice is, don't believe the label; look to that person's akhlaaq. Whatever state you find that to be in, it's only proof for himself as a person and not the movement he follows or the shaykh he learns from or the tradition he comes from.

My advice to "salafees": You already have the tawheed and the daleel. Don't let akhlaaq be the reason why Allah deprives you of the ability to call others to Him! Learn it, and teach it by implementing it.

Ma'asalaam,
Akhookum

[Ibn Ajibah]

My advice to "salafees": You already have the tawheed and the daleel. Don't let akhlaaq be the reason why Allah deprives you of the ability to call others to Him! Learn it, and teach it by implementing it.

So by implication, we non-salafis do not have tawhid, nor do we have any Dalil? Ajib.

[tazkiyyah]

LOL
Its like my friend was studying to be a hanafi aalim
and a salafi came upto him and said BRother...we follow quraan and sunnah.

so my friend said...do you think our fuqaha follow the injeel and taurah?

[eTeacher]

LOL
Its like my friend was studying to be a hanafi aalim
and a salafi came upto him and said BRother...we follow quraan and sunnah.

so my friend said...do you think our fuqaha follow the injeel and taurah?

lol...nice comeback!

[jinnzaman]

LOL
Its like my friend was studying to be a hanafi aalim
and a salafi came upto him and said BRother...we follow quraan and sunnah.

so my friend said...do you think our fuqaha follow the injeel and taurah?

lol. awesome.

[ibnIslam]

So by implication, we non-salafis do not have tawhid, nor do we have any Dalil? Ajib.

Assalaam u alaykum,

Comebacks aside, this thread is about salafee methodology of da'wah (not the "salafee fiqh"), and my advice was for those who claim to be on it.

The group that comes most to mind when the key words "tawheed" and "daleel" are mentioned are the salafees, hands down, and that's because a large part of their activity is in explaining those matters

When "akhlaaq" is mentioned, most awwaam connect that with soofee da'wah, and that is a failure on the part of the salafees.

We shouldn't really look at ourselves as "salafee" and "soofee", as huge numbers on both sides are ignorant of the reality of those labels. Instead let us look at it as an issue of competing da'wahs in the ummah.

If I see that a group is implementing something from the Quraan and Sunnah, and that is missing in my da'wah, that I do some introspection to make sure I acquire it and then pass that on as well.

The real polarization is between the heads of the competing da'wahs and it doesn't have to be between their followers.

One example of that is one forum I see brothers who call themselve "Asharee" and are die-hard proponents of that aqeedah but they get shamefully disgraced when they reveal that they are ignorant of the roots of their aqeedah. Same thing happens here when "salafee" folks start discussing without really knowing the foundations of their da'wah.

Please note, I'm not talking about da'wah organizations that are on the same da'wah, I'm talking about the da'wahs themselves, or in other words, the concepts and methodologies that are being called to (Ittibaa vs. Taqleed, Tawassul vs. Istigatha, Tasawwuf vs. Tazkiyatun-Nafs/Zuhd, Salaf/Khalaf etc.).

Ma'asalaam,
Ibn Islam