The Official Sunni/Salafi Debates Thread

[Musleemah]

Hafidh Ibn Hajar Asqalani refuting the claim that the Salaf did tafwid of meaning (tafwid al ma'na) - Fath al Bari-:


وَقَالَ غَيْره قَوْل مَنْ قَالَ طَرِيقَة السَّلَف أَسْلَمَ وَطَرِيقَة الْخَلَف أَحْكَم لَيْسَ بِمُسْتَقِيمٍ ؛ لِأَنَّهُ ظَنَّ أَنَّ طَرِيقَة السَّلَف مُجَرَّد الْإِيمَان بِأَلْفَاظِ الْقُرْآن وَالْحَدِيث مِنْ غَيْر فِقْه فِي ذَلِكَ ، وَأَنَّ طَرِيقَة الْخَلَف هِيَ اِسْتِخْرَاج مَعَانِي النُّصُوص الْمَصْرُوفَة عَنْ حَقَائِقهَا بِأَنْوَاعِ الْمَجَازَات ، فَجَمَعَ هَذَا الْقَائِل بَيْن الْجَهْل بِطَرِيقَةِ السَّلَف وَالدَّعْوَى فِي طَرِيقَة الْخَلَف ، وَلَيْسَ الْأَمْر كَمَا ظَنَّ ، بَلْ السَّلَف فِي غَايَة الْمَعْرِفَة بِمَا يَلِيق بِاَللَّهِ تَعَالَى ، وَفِي غَايَة التَّعْظِيم لَهُ وَالْخُضُوع لِأَمْرِهِ وَالتَّسْلِيم لِمُرَادِهِ ، وَلَيْسَ مَنْ سَلَكَ طَرِيق الْخَلَف وَاثِقًا بِأَنَّ الَّذِي يَتَأَوَّلهُ هُوَ الْمُرَاد وَلَا يُمْكِنهُ الْقَطْع بِصِحَّةِ تَأْوِيله ، وَأَمَّا قَوْلهمْ فِي الْعِلْم فَزَادُوا فِي التَّعْرِيف عَنْ ضَرُورَة أَوْ اِسْتِدْلَال وَتَعْرِيف الْعِلْم ،

"..the saying of who said: the way of the Salaf is safer and the way of the Khalaf is wiser is not correct, because he thought that the way of the Salaf is only the belief in the Lafz (words-letters) of the Quran and Hadith without having understanding of it , (and) the way of the Khalaf is to derive the meanings of the texts that are turned away from their haqiqa with different types of majaz (figurative meaning); so the one who said this combined between the ignorance of the way of the Salaf and the claiming of the way of the Khalaf, and it is not like he thought/assumed. The Salaf had utmost knowledge of what befits Allah, and had the utmost glorification and submission to His commands...."

[loveProphet]

Picking and choosing what one likes from the statements of Imam adh-Dhahabi rahimahu Allah.

Imam adh Dhahabi rahimahu Allah confirms the dhahir meaning of sifat in his book al uluw, he explains about their being 2 dhahirs. (check the first link posted here below)
He also mentions a similar statement about dhahir meaning in his book siyar a'lam an Nubala', which explains what he meant by saying "tafwid ma'nah", meaning the detailed meaning = kayfiyyah.

for their is a general meaning and a detailed one, now if he made complete tafwid of the meaning like Asha'ris do, he wouldn't have confirmed the dhahir meaning in another part of his book, and in his book al uluw, one looks at different statements of his to understand what he really means, one statement explains the other. and his statements about the dhahir explain what he means by "al ma'na" in his statement "tafwid ma'naha".

as for his statements regarding bi-dhatihi, I asked Abul Hasan about one of them, and he ignored it and kept on yelling at me and threatening a ban.
and I showed how he believed in it, but didn't like to use the phrase here (evidence from the Imam's own words):

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=180038&highlight=dhahabi#post180038


He also says in his book al uluw, that the attributes are not majaz, and that if it was taken by majaz then it wouldn't be attributes, and that one doesnt' do ta'wil to them, here is his statment in Arabic:
قلت وكان أيضا يسعه السكوت عن صفة حقيقة فإننا إذا أثبتنا نعوت الباري وقلنا تمر كما جاءت
فقد آمنا بأنها صفات فإذا قلنا بعد ذلك صفة حقيقة وليست بمجاز كان هذا كلاما ركيكا نبطيا مغلثا للنفوس فليهدر مع أن هذه العبارة وردت عن جماعة ومقصودهم بها أن هذه الصفات تمر ولا يتعرض لها بتحريف ولا تأويل كما يتعرض لمجاز الكلام والله أعلم
وقد أغنى الله تعالى عن العبارات المبتدعة فإن النصوص في الصفات واضحة ولو كانت الصفات ترد إلى المجاز لبطل أن يكون صفات لله وإنما الصفة تابعة للموصوف
[ جزء 1 - صفحة 240 ]
فهو موجود حقيقة لا مجازا وصفاته ليست مجازا فإذا كان لا مثل له ولا نظير لزم أن تكون لا مثل لها


as for the "claimed" naseeha of his, it falsely attributed to him, check here (http://www.alsoufia.org/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1768) (for ones who know Arabic).
Insha'Allah someone else with more knowledge can answer you fully.
But i'd just point out about the 'Uluw book of Imam Dhahabi(RA).
Sheikh GF Haddad mentioned:

"Al-`Uluw li al-`Ali al-Ghaffar ("The Exaltation of the All-High and Most-Forgiving"), a book written under Ibn Taymiyya's influence - as stated by al-Kawthari in his Maqalat - when al-Dhahabi was twenty-five and which he later disavowed as related by its copyist the hadith master Ibn Nasir al-Din al-Dimashqi (d. 842):

Its author stated - as Allah is His witness - in his own hand-writing as I read it in the margin of the original manuscript written in the year 698:

"This book contains narrations against the unreliability of which I am cautioning the reader, and the statements of a number of people who spoke in outlandish terms. Neither do I subscribe to their terms, nor do I imitate them. May Allah forgive them! Nor will I ever consider myself bound by such terms. This is my belief, and I know that Allah – "There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him" (42:11)!"(Cited and photo-reproduced at the beginning of Shaykh Hasan `Ali al-Saqqaf's edition of al-Dhahabi's `Uluw (p. 3-4).
)"

As for your claim about the Naseehah being forged, it has been discussed here:http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2889
Of those who considered it authentic and a letter to Ibn Taymiyya was Imam Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani(RA) and his student Imam Sakhawi(RA)! The scans are Alhamdulillah also included in the link i just gave.

As for your claim that Sheikh Abul Hasan threatened to ban you, that is a lie against the Sheikh and i have seen no such thing!

[Musleemah]

that claim has been refuted.
and if you dont' want to accept his book al Uluw, he ll confirmed the dhahir in his book "siyar a'lam an Nubala' ".

[Musleemah]

As for your claim about the Naseehah being forged, it has been discussed here:http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2889
Of those who considered it authentic and a letter to Ibn Taymiyya was Imam Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani(RA) and his student Imam Sakhawi(RA)! The scans are Alhamdulillah also included in the link i just gave.

actually what is in the link you provided is dealt with in the link I provided in my post:
http://www.alsoufia.org/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1768

especially the one about Imam as-Sakhawi rahimahu Allah, in which he did mention the name of the work of Imam adh Dhahabi that he was speaking about, he just said "risala", and the one who claimed that Imam Sakhawi mean "Naseeha" was kawthari in his commentary on the book, or else, the quotes Imam as Sakhawi quoted in his book when speaking about "risala" of Imam dhahabi, are found in "zaghl al ilm" not in "naseeha" which proves kawthari wrong, the details are in the link.



As for your claim that Sheikh Abul Hasan threatened to ban you, that is a lie against the Sheikh and i have seen no such thing!

In this link:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=127521&postcount=25

he said:

Let us be direct and blunt as there is a limit to transgression from your likes that will be tolerated here.


and at the end:

I know for sure that if i was to behave and claim things like you have done on your so called "Salafi" forums - I would probably have been banned by now.


I felt and considered it a warning or a threat to ban me.
Now, he might have not meant for it to be a threat, but I wouldn't have known that.
so as a precaution I didn't repeat my question for fear if I continued I would be banned, I could be wrong, but just as a precaution.

[ozgurislam]

Hafidh Ibn Hajar Asqalani refuting the claim that the Salaf did tafwid of meaning (tafwid al ma'na) - Fath al Bari-:


What a load of cods wallop, im sorry but your english is so bad that everthing is messed up.

[Ibn Umaysh]

As salaamu alaikum,



our tafwid is tafwid "al kayf" or " al kayfiyyah", meaning "how" the attribute is, its description.
But we confirm the apparent general meaning of it, like for example the yad of Allah, we believe it is a hand not just an ambigous word that we don't know the meaning of at all, and the general meaning we confirm for it is that it is an attribute of the essence (dhat), that Allah folds, grasps ..etc. (what is mentioned in Quran and Sunnah about the yad\hand of Allah).
As for how that hand is, the details and description of it that Allah didn't tell us in Quran or Sunnah, then we consign it to Allah, and do not speak about it or even ask about it.

Thats right- this is the tafweedh of Salafis, however, two things about this:

1) That by assigning a strictly literal meaning (which may not even be the most appropriate in terms of Arabic usage, or siyaaq, context, of the ayah), you have very little to do tafweedh on besides the exact description

This is why we say, when you say Tafweedh, we say of the meaning itself, although no doubt the text can still speak to the reader in a way that the context is understood. Even before any Arabic studies, reading the English version of the Qur'an, as someone who came from a religion of a lot of tashbeeh, it was understood that the apparent meaning wasn't always the literal.

Now forget my own take, can you establish without a doubt that the Salaf (or most of them), and hence the Islam itself, has laid out that every word to do with attributes are to be taken literally and have no other possible meaning?

2) The problem that Salafis get into is that they make conclusions from their affirmation of a literal meaning that are not warranted from the Salaf. Although disparity exists according to who says it and how literal that person is on the Sifaat, they will say that they takle Istawa on the literal meaning,

but then instead of leaving it, they will begin to use that to answer questions on location, relative adjacency, etc that to my knowledge are not unanimously transmitted.


as for the other part, what do you exactly mean by "real meaning", what I know is that Ash'aris that do tafwid to meaning consign the whole meaning to Allah, to them the word is ambigous, they only believe in the letters, while not knowing the meaning of the word.

You cannot complain that the word becomes meaningless- rather it definitely has a meaning, but for us to say what it is for sure without any transmission is not in order. Then one can say that even affirming a literal meaning but cancelling all practical attributes that that word carries, also renders the word effectively meaningless. What do you mean a hand that is not a hand in any way close to a definition, one may say- then why use the word- isn;t that nothing we can relate to? Thats the same thing you say when you say, "if yad doesn't mean a "real hand", it has become meaningless since I don't know its exact meaning." So that is an invalid argument.

Understand that the literal meaning may not be the intended one; and taking the literal meaning every time may mean you nullify the other possible meaning.

We say that the Kayf itself, as an ism and not the adaatul istifhaam, is non-existent- since people don't seem to understand that its not jsut a description of a physical object we are speaking about. That way, all things in the Qur'an are "without a how (ie. exact description)"- jannah, jahannam, etc.

When we say kayfiyyah , or the manner of being, or mode is non-existent, due to the tendancy to go towards tashbeeh of the common person, the ulema explain how it signifies that the word itself is not one that carries a meaning in which a physical process or self-changing action, or a tangible object is occurring.


I didnt' understand that, can you explain it more.
thanks

That was badly worded. I meant that its not simply a case of translation, its what you are saying the word is actually representing in actuality. So the problem isn't necessarily saying yad means hand in the apparent English, but what you entail by saying that is totally different and becomes apparent even to a casual English reader. So when you say that "The Face of your Lord, dhul Jallaali wal Ikraam remains." I don't have a problem TRANSLATING that, so not the strict verbal meaning creates a problem, but the fact that you take that to mean that the reality of it must be a physical face of some unqiue way. If you say its not physical- you have relegated every defining characteristic of what a face is and thus rendered the word meaningless- you have hollowed it out of its own definition you claim to adhere to. And if you refuse to deny it is NOT a physical face out of "not saying how", then I would say that being physical is a quality of created things, as the literal word "physical" means, and then that is tashbeeh.


can we stay away from philisophical explanations and arguments, I can't understand that stuff, I prefer text and simple logic.

This is not philosophy; I have studied no Greek or Indian metaphysics.

This is complicated no doubt- but your request to go to text and simple logic only shows how you are asserting things about Sifaat which you are saying you cannot back up or understand.

In fact, I too consider this such an extra excercise- but one that doesn't have to take place if everyone just reads the Qur'an like the grandparents of the ummah do- they read it, believe it, and never ask whether yad is literal or not, never insist that in order for imaan to be correct you say that Istawa signifies being above the throne in person, or that one must even consider these things.

As well, your request to stick to text and logic is not an accurate one-

Text is what is getting you into trouble because you are not using the same logic you are asking me to show you.

Logic is the art of thinking correctly. I am not bringing Greek metaphysics into this.

If you refuse to see a side of logic, then want to interpret text, that is the entire reason you are not seeing what I think, the majority of ulema who had to deal with tashbeeh dealt with for centuries and why they are right.

Logic on things that the ulema spent centuries using to defend Islam is not always simple- for those who want to restrict as such, as in any science like fiqh or hadeeth, they should either try to use what is necessary tools, or stop discussing it and leave it to others. This goes for any science.



It is a limb when it comes to creatures like humans and animals, because they are made of bodies with parts\limbs, so they are similar in their essence in it being a body with parts\limbs.
So the "limb" is not something shared by everything that has a foot, but only with essences that are composed of parts\limbs that fall apart.
If the essence is not composed of parts\limbs, then the foot would not be a limb.

You have really nullified the attribute, as well as the word foot, hand, etc.

Now this is not logic that you are using- this is actually a sort of speculative thinking when you say that foot is a thing that exists, but is divided into two types: when foot is said to the rest of creation it is a limb, but when said to Allah, it is not a limb.

A few things:

1) There is no reason to translate what you are saying as foot then, nor does it at all carry meaning. Since Allah Ta'ala used a word that can be mushtarak, why then assign a literal meaning that has no substantiation, rather in all instances implies likeness to the creation, rather than leave the meaning.

Actually, even by saying it is a thing unique, the actual meaning has been left to Allah, the problem is your saying it is a "thing" has put you into tashbeeh.

How can you classify something with a set when it has nothing to do with that set at all? this is not Allah Ta'ala's import, as you might say, rather, your chosen interpretation that was not authorized or even hinted towards.

2) Really, and most importantly, yad is never used unequivocally as a Sifaat in of itself-

and this is the entire problem. All of these "Sifaat" that seem to be physical limbs if literally taken (which Ibn al Jawzi rightly defines as Sifaat ul Fi'l to be more accurate, not Sifaat), are not the objectives of the ayahs themselves, but always mentioned in relation to some other beneficial (ie. relating some info) statement.

You will never see in the Qur'an, at leats I haven't, correct me if I am wrong, clear of any other context, a clear statement that Allah has a hand. Allah has a foot.


But Allah 'azza wa jal's essence is completely different than that of the creation, it is not composed of limbs, so His attributes would not be limbs.


That doesn't justify them being "real" hand, feet, etc then. You have to admit you don't know what you're saying. not just the description, you don't even know what it is you are speaking about, which is worse that the tafweedh we practise

Since by sticking to a literal, and insisting on a real ____, what you do is nullify all other possible appropriate intended meanings, while your definition really doesn't mean anything,

While what we say is to leave the possibility of the word open to its Speaker; neither will we deny what the word literally means, although to concoct a meaning and then insist on a reality is wrong, we say that whatever Allah Ta'ala meant is what He meant.

We won't assign an empty literal meaning and cancel the intended meaning- that is nullification since because you made the wrong choice of meaning/actuality, you render the word improperly and that is worse- much worse- that leaving it and not having to be responsible for interpreting it. Now, if you do what you are doing and then also fall into tashbeeh, that is leading towards shirk and is much worse than anyone trying to hesitantly suggest a majaazi meaning in taweel to steer the people clear of committing shirk.

I said:


...This is why insisting on the literal interpretation and the using the word, you contradict yourself since you say essentially that yad is a "real hand" without any single resemblance to the definition of that real hand, in which case only the name is similar not even the broadest actuality.

So you actually, on one hand, say that not giving the meaning to the word and not affirming the literal means we are saying that the our way makes the Qur'an not make sense and that it was revealed to be understood; we say that by ascribing a literal meaning, you still remove all possibility of relating to the word (rightfully so), but in the end, you are left just as unclear, if not more

To which you said:


That is not correct brother,

The general meaning we confirm for yad of Allah, has in it similarities with the attribute of yad\hand that we know (similarity in meaning not the how), and it is all found in Quran and Sunnah:
1_ being an attribute of the essence.
2_ it folds, grasps ..etc. (actions metioned in texts)
3_ has fingers (like mentioned in hadith, but we confirm it like we do hands, one that is befitting of Allah not likening it to creation, and consigns its description\how to Allah)

Right there, you have ventured into tashbeeh.

You have just said that Allah's apparent "hand" has similarities with what hand that we know! Where is Laysa ka mithlihi shai - There is nothing like Him? In the color and size? Astagferllah. We say whatever quality we have He CANNOT have, not that He differs in the details of.

Firstly, bring your proof that "yad" is speaking of the dhaat of Allah. I am only learning, so please show me where uneqiovocally the Salaf understood those ayahs (strictly yad wajh qadam) to be about the dhaat.

Second, have you ruled out that if a hand has other meanings, that the actions that can be done with a hand also signify other meanings?

It is very obvious in any language, not only Arabic. You can say hand and be unliteral, then you can say clenched fist and still be unliteral, then say fingers and still be unliteral. The combination of the metpahors, though they seem to be speaking about the same created object, does not in any way become a proof of that.

So to say that "The city was in the hands of the armless king. He ruled it with a clenched fist and every subject was between his fingers."

And then say LOOK! Because hand and other examples are used, and even a sub-limb on the hand is used, it must mean that the armless man has a hand!

That absuridity and lack of understanding in language is much much less than what the ulema saw when they were told by Allah Ta'ala that He doens't resemble anything created nor is anything like Him, and neither does any imperitive in the Qur'an direct us to take every single Idaafa construction to do with Allah to be taken on the literal surface meaning to be affirmed as a actuality.

Right there, this seems to go right into tashbeeh

You have clearly said the hands has fingers- let me ask you, does you hand have fingers? Just not with the same qualities? Didn't you just say that when it comes to Allah, hand is not a limb? then what is a non-limb with "real" fingers? Do you see the tashbeeh it creates?

This is why we insist- the Salaf never went to the lengths you are going to, nor was this even brought up. The Mutaziltes and Jahmiyya negated any possible meaning, while the mujassima over-reacted and went the opposite way. The Salaf remained silent and consigned the meanings to Allah. After the mujassima left, the ones after them, the Hashawiyya, couldn't come out to the gross conclusions the mujassima had reached, but neverthless went and those today still are at the threshold of tashbeeh that the majority of Salaf never authorized.


and whatever other attributes Allah has told us about His attribute al yad\hand.
but being a "limb" is not one what we confirm for it, for it was not affirmed by Allah or His messenger, and Allah's dhat is not parts\limbs that fall apart like in creation.

Where did you get that Allah Ta'ala meant to tell us that yad was even a) an intended Sifat 2) that it dealt with His essence 3) that it was real and literal.

Can you explicitly show me where many Salaf outlined exactly what you say?

You only seem to be twisting their consignment, general statements and lack of questioning and exploring to being your understanding.



firstly, it is the DHAHIR meaning of the texts (Quran & Sunnah) not the "literal". dhahir means the apparent meaning not necessarly the literal\haqiqi meaning.
If you know Arabic, just check what it means in books of usool.
or the post by the brother in this topic, I think the one before this one.

Yes, I know what the dhaahir meaning is, but you don't even take that.

If you agree that Dhaahir is, according to an Usool primer:

"Huwa ism likulli lafdh wa kalaam dhaharal muraad bihi lis-saami' bimujarradis -simaa' min ghair ta-ammul shadeed.

It is the ism for every word and speech that's intended objective comes out by means of it upon the listener, with mere listening, from other than deep contemplation."

Even then, keeping in mind Allah Ta'ala is speaking, never would someone who keeps in mind who is speaking and the ayah of Laysa kamithlihi shai, even take on the surface that that is speaking about "a real hand".

As well, even without understanding the ayahs of Laysa kamithlihi shai, one who can understand devices in any language will sense that hand, without any hard contemplation, is certainly not speaking about "a real hand".

And if you insist on the literal meaning, then I say you have missed the dhaahir, which we may think to ourselves, but not say for sure or even say because the true meaning is left to Allah and our job is to read as a worship and still admire from what we gather from what is written.


2nd: what do you mean by "didn't explicitly say how to take the word" ?
Allah said that Quran is clear "kitab mubeen".
and the Quran was sent as a guidance, so what guidance is there in words that are ambigous to us?

How is it mubeen? That every word is literal so you grasp it at all costs?

Does Allah Ta'ala promise that every single word will be understood by you?

Then what about Alif Laaaaam Meeeeem?

And read the ayah on Mutashaabihaat very carefully- clearly some things will not be made undertstood to you!

So are you saying that every word now has to go on the literal meaning despite its contradicting other parts of the Qur'an?

And can you say, since we don't know every single letter's meaning, and Allah Ta'ala said it is mubeen, that it is no longer guidance???

Or that mubeen itself is not speaking about the technical usage of every word itself, but rather something else? I am curious to check the tafseer.

As well, don't you realize that by saying "hand" and insisting on it being "real" and it having "fingers" (what are you putting together other than a hand?),

yet nullifying all things that make a hand a hand, you actually don't know what you are saying?

You actually don't even know anything beyond the bare letters then? and that is not clear, not "mubeen", so if you think Mubeen means to understand each word, you are saying the Qu'ran is not clear.

As well, you are saying that Mubeen is applying to the surface meaning of words, not the reality of them, or even anything close, to by that condition, where did you get this meaning?


what benefit are they for us when we have no idea what they mean?
Quran, Allah's words, is hikmah (wisdom) what wisdom is there in having words that have no meaning to us at all?

You are now indulging in the most speculatively, open questioning that I have seen.

This is philosophy- why is this and why is that?

Why did Allah create good and evil? Why why why?

Allah Ta'ala said there is nothing like Him, if you feel you can't relate to His Book because of that, and because you have to refrain from taking every word literally, this is your faulty demands of Allah Ta'ala's book, and you shouldn't demand from it rather take what was intended and what you don't know, leave it, and this is saying Sami'na wa ATa'naa (We hear and we obey!).

As well, you contradict yourself when you say hand but not like a hand we know, but a real hand- of what benefit is that, by your measure? And who is to say the benefit only comes in loosely defining a word but not knowing its reality? And who is to say that Allah Ta'ala intended you to benefit from the literal meaning of that word?

But that is your line of reasoning, I am simply showing you how you own methodology simply satisfies your philosophical reasoning, that is your personal dissatisfaction with leaving the meaning to Allah Ta'ala, whereas someone else may have dissatisfaction with leaving your "real" hand to being nothing definable to them, but to both of you, we say, too bad-

We move on.


Also, the Sunnah is an explainer of the Quran, Allah sent it to the Messenger to explain to us the Quran, so why do you also make the attributes in the Sunnah ambigous too?

You are saying that assigning a literal meaning neccessarily ends the ambiguity of a word- so what if you have assigned what you like, it could be wrong. And for anyone who understands what tashbeeh is, for words like "finger" and "hand" for Allah Ta'ala, it is wrong if you take it to be a reality. The sunnah didn't promise to be literal; in fact, much of the Sunnah is other than it, and you are again philosophizing with the words of the Prophet Sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam

and not remaining content and satisfied with taking what was said, applying as much as you understand, refraining from assigning what was not assigned unequivocally speaking, and not questioning or further defining. So leave it to Allah Ta'ala and move on! Have the rest of us not benefiting from the words of Allah Ta'ala and the hadeeth? Don't answer- that is to show what philosophy you are doing.


something that explains something can not be ambigous itself, because it is supposed to explain what is not understood or ambigous.
and in Sunnah the hand of Allah is mentioned very clearly, in more than one hadith.

You have obviously misunderstood what clarifying something means. If hadeeth were to be clarifiers intended to settle this to favour your side, it would have easily told the majroity of the Tafweedh-making ummah : Take the word yad literally and it is an actual hand.

So are you saying the Sunnah didn't clarify like it should have, and the majority of the ummah was astray? Or that it left people like yourself to resort to philosophical pleas of dissatisfaction as the only defense for tashbeeh?

Don't answer- I am trying to show you how even your philosophy can be used against what you say. I don't prefer asking this as a proof over the Qur'an, and what the majority of ulema have demonstrated.



ow I would like to tell me, is "yaday" in the following ayah also ambigous?
we can't know its meaning?
not clear?

Allah's saying " Qala ya Iblis ma mana'ak an tasjuda lima khalaqtu bi-yaday" (38:75)
(translated literally)(Allâh) said: "O Iblîs (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands.

and there is an athar by Ibn Umar radiyallahu anhu that Allah created 4 with His hand, one of them is Adam alayhi assalam.
so are we also going to do tafwid of meaning to the athar by the sahabah??
their words are also ambigous?

Show me first the unambiguous ayah or hadeeth that says Allah Ta'ala has a hand.

And recognizing what a word means translated and trying to force an actuality of what it implies is two different things!

Does the ayah say anyhting about affirming two hands? Can NO OTHER meaning we possible? Don't you and I Alhumdulillah have 2 hands?

Then what is it that you are trying to say and insist on the literal actuality?

Why is it always then mentioned in some way that CAN be interpreted in the Arabic language alternately (and I can show you if you wish, but how much do you have to show when the tashbeeh you imply is clear?)?

Why is it always mentioned in the context of another setting when other Sifaat , true Sifaat of Dhaat, are simply mentioned mutlaqan, without mixing or other settings?


againt, the dhahir meaning, remember the Quran was sent to all mankind, laymen and people with knowledge, it is in Arabic, not some other language, and it is sent as guidance to mankind, it is "clear", so the words would not be something ambigous or confusing, or the words meaning something other than what is dhahir, unless their something in the context that indicates it meaning other than the dhahir, and in the ayah about Allah creating Adam with His hands, has no indication that it means other than the dhahir, which is attribute of the hand.


Philosophy.

And philosophy that doesn't hold up to the ayah Laysa kamithlihi shay.

You are simply arguing your desire to have it the way you want and insisting it is not guidance unless your view is taken, as if you are not satisified with what Allah Ta'ala intended, you have to put your own meaning and be satisfied that it is made clear to you then.

And again, there is no unequivocal verse supporting your literal interpretation nor does leaving the meaning to Allah Ta'ala leave anyone less better off. The faiida is what Allah Ta'ala wants us to know, whether someone knows even the outward of the word or not, not what we make up and insist on.

And according to your philosophy, what is the benefit of mentioning those things then? How much closer have you actually become by insisting on the literal and then contradictorily claiming no actual way to relate to the "reality" of the word? No, again, don't answer because I don't want philosophy.

And as well, who said that the Arab who knows Arabic couldn't sense another intended meaning from those things when Arabic poetry of old was RIFE with such examples- even up to modern day English SHARING some of those, even other languages, sharing those meaning and words! And then in your books, if even the modern Arab can't pick up the language of the Qur'an, are you saying for their lack of understanding, you put it on Qur'an?


where are the transmissions that say that "yad" in ayah (38:75) means something different than "hand" ?

Ok lets see which mufassir you picked:


How about Imam Abu Ja'far at Tabari who was a shafi'i (d. 310), in his tafsir, he says in his tafsir of ayah (38:75 - above) : Allah the exalted mentions by that Him creating Adam with with his two hands (biyadayh).

And lets see in his tafseer what he, being the closest to the Salaf out of most mufassireen we use today, used for the word "yad" in this verse:

Surah 51:47
وَٱلسَّمَآءَ بَنَيْنَاهَا بِأَييْدٍ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ

He writes:

حدثني عليّ، قال: ثنا أبو صالح، قال: ثني معاوية، عن عليّ، عن ابن عباس، قوله: { والسَّماءَ بَنَيْناها بأَيْدٍ } يقول: بقوّة

حدثني محمد بن عمرو، قال: ثنا أبو عاصم، قال: ثنا عيسى وحدثني الحارث، قال: ثنا الحسن، قال: ثنا ورقاء جميعاً، عن ابن أبي نجيح، عن مجاهد، قوله: { بأَيْدٍ } قال: بقوّة.

حدثنا بشر، قال: ثنا يزيد، قال: ثنا سعيد، عن قتادة { والسَّماءَ بَنَيْناها بِأَيْدٍ }: أي بقوّة.

حدثنا ابن المثنى، قال: ثنا محمد بن جعفر، قال: ثنا شعبة، عن منصور أنه قال في هذه الآية: { والسَّماءَ بَنَيْناها بأَيْدٍ } قال: بقوّة.

حدثني يونس، قال: أخبرنا ابن وهب، قال: قال ابن زيد، في قوله: { والسَّماءَ بَنَيْناها بأَيْدٍ } قال: بقوّة.

حدثنا ابن حُميد، قال: ثنا مهران، عن سفيان { والسَّماءَ بَنَيْناها بأَيْدٍ } قال: بقوّة.

Keep in mind, he is saying this, not myself. And he moves on to the next part of the ayah, and doesn't contradict or go against these riwayaat at all.


and Imam at Tirmithi (d. 270 A.H) rahimahu Allah in his jami' , when speaking about attributes in hadith speaking about Allah's hand...

I showed you the tafseer above. As well, please bring the Arabic quotes for what you are saying. From the sounds of it, it is understood that we cannot, with Dhanni speculation, say anything about yad without a riwayah, and to definitely pick one meaning to the exlcusion of all others IS a nullifcation (just like how your taking a literal meaning nullifies another meaning that was actually intended for it, aside from it being tashbeeh).


Now, if he was speaking about affirming the word itself with tafwid of the meaning, he wouldn't have mentioned the example of yad with sight and hearing, since you believe that salaf confirmed the meaning of the sight and hearing, but made tafwid of the yad.

Actually, in all instances, the words might be common, we don't argue this. Just because Imam Tirmidhi doesn't state the dsitinction between them, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As well, nowhere

And this is the real thing

Does he say what you say: That it is a real hand. What else is that when you say he said you can't say a hand like a hand- then what is a real hand anyways?

Either way, you haven't established that it means a real hand- I don't think anyone would make that mistake.

As Ibn al Jawzi said:

"If you had said, "We but read the hadiths and remain silent," no one would have condemned you. What is shameful is that you interpret them literally."

That is not my proof at all, it is my point to you.


is there evidence in that ayah that it does not mean literally hand??

Laysa kamithlihi shay.

Is the One who creates like the one who does not create?

Then, on top of that is the absurd claim that a literal hand is something other than a limb. Then, then by cancelling out all meaning to a real hand, as you claim the laymen should understand it, still insisting it is is real hand- thats not an indicator?


that is because you looked at that ayah first, so you negated then confirmed, so based on it you negated everything that you "believe" or in your "limited mind" sounded like "tashbih or tajsim", you didn't base it on text, but on logic and your limited mind.
As for us, we confirmed then negated, meaning we confirmed every single attribute in Quran and Sunnah, then negated tashbih to it.

So you made tashbeeh first and then were corrected (but still didn't take the correction)? Rather than me knowing not to make tashbeeh and reading every ayah accordingly?

Either way, first or last, the principle still applies. No tashbeeh. And not only that, but keep in mind that we don't negate what Allah Ta'ala UNEQUIVOCALLY states for Himself- it is obvious by reading and understanding that language has different meanings.

But show me where it unequivocally confirms the literal hand.


Now tell me, if Allah didn't have any attributes that are shared in creation, by name and general meaning, would there have been benefit in saying "laysa kamithlihi shay' "?

To say would there be benefit or not, is again philosophizing on why an ayah was there or not- why are you doing that?

One benefit we obtain is so that people who make tashbeeh can see the error of their ways when dealing with words with multiple meanings.

[Musleemah]

1_ your post is toooooooooooooo long, so I read about half then stopped, I have a problem concentrating on very long posts.

2_ you kept on repeating the word "literal" when I told you that we go by the "dhahir" of the Quran, not the "literal", and dhahir can be literal or non literal, depending on the context.

so most of what you said that I read would have been clear if you didn't keep on sticking that "literal" in your head instead of the "dhahir".

[Musleemah]

oh I am sorry if you didn't like the translation and thought it was "very bad", no one is perfect, and brother, dont' make fun of others weaknesses and mistakes, because Allah might cause others to do same to you.

I advise you to go learn Arabic so you won't need to depend on English translations, and have a peace of mind.

I provided the Arabic text for the members who know Arabic to verify it for themselves.

[Salafi]

Ibn Umaysh:

no comments on our and HIS وجود (existance) ?

wasslam

[Ali al-Hanafi]

The general meaning we confirm for yad of Allah, has in it similarities with the attribute of yad\hand that we know (similarity in meaning not the how), and it is all found in Quran and Sunnah:
1_ being an attribute of the essence.
2_ it folds, grasps ..etc. (actions metioned in texts)
3_ has fingers (like mentioned in hadith, but we confirm it like we do hands, one that is befitting of Allah not likening it to creation, and consigns its description\how to Allah)





Did you mean by this that Allah's hand has seperate parts, i.e. the hand itself and then fingers too? I am not asking about the "how", i.e. how the Fingers are or how His hand is but that they are two distinct entities?
I know you said that,



and whatever other attributes Allah has told us about His attribute al yad\hand.
but being a "limb" is not one what we confirm for it, for it was not affirmed by Allah or His messenger, and Allah's dhat is not parts\limbs that fall apart like in creation.
His dhat is completely different, so His attribute would also be in its description different.

But this seems like a contradiction to me because on the one hand you say that Allah has a hand and fingers (which implies parts) and on the other you say that He has no parts so could you please clarify or have I missed something?

[Ibn Umaysh]

As salaamu alaikum,


1_ your post is toooooooooooooo long, so I read about half then stopped, I have a problem concentrating on very long posts.

I apologize, but if you read it, I think its a comprehensive reply to your long post. It pretty much ends the discussion as far as I would think.


2_ you kept on repeating the word "literal" when I told you that we go by the "dhahir" of the Quran, not the "literal", and dhahir can be literal or non literal, depending on the context.

We are differing on mere words and that is nothing to distract us from what is actually being said.

What you said STILL wouldn't be clear, since as I mentioned somewhere, I don't agree that the meaning and actuality you take as Dhahir is the right one- nor do you have proof for it.

If you read the post (yours was long as well), you will see.




Ibn Umaysh:

no comments on our and HIS وجود (existance) ?

wasslam

One thing at a time insha Allah, I would like to make sure the sister has had a chance to read the post. Basically we say we cannot affirm other than the literal since the absence of it in that case affirms imperfection for Allah so we take it literally, but saying only the word is common. You can say we cannot say a literal hand, or face, because its absence is not an imperfection, but the opposite of existence is non-existence which cannot be done without. It is how everyone is forced to interpret the verse on Allah forgetting as other than literal since the literal in that case would imply imperfection.

[Musleemah]

Did you mean by this that Allah's hand has seperate parts, i.e. the hand itself and then fingers too? I am not asking about the "how", i.e. how the Fingers are or how His hand is but that they are two distinct entities?
I know you said that,



But this seems like a contradiction to me because on the one hand you say that Allah has a hand and fingers (which implies parts) and on the other you say that He has no parts so could you please clarify or have I missed something?

akhi it sounds contradicting to you because you have only seen a hand that has fingers which are parts, connected with joints.
Allah's fingers are part of His hand, but not parts like in creation that fall apart, we cannot comprehend that, because our minds are limited, and we only know what we have seen, and we have not seen Allah Himself nor His attributes, it is wrong to measure the absent with the present (Allah's attributes with that of the creation in its how), because Allah's dhat is not like our dhat firstly, and secondly we have not seen it, and we cannot try to comprehend it because we cannot comprehend Allah's dhat, let along His attributes.

now tell me akhi,
Angels- Mala'ikah have hands, can you tell me how their hands are?
are they limbs?
flesh and bone?
have joints ?

[Musleemah]

As salaamu alaikum,


wa alaykum assalam


We are differing on mere words and that is nothing to distract us from what is actually being said.

What you said STILL wouldn't be clear, since as I mentioned somewhere, I don't agree that the meaning and actuality you take as Dhahir is the right one- nor do you have proof for it.

nope, it is not just differing on mere words, dhahir is different than literal, so it can make a different in tafsir of the ayat of the Quran, whether the ones on attributes or others.
as for evidence about taking the attributes on their dhahir I have evidence.

one of them is quote by Imam Abu Sulaiman al Khattabi, mentioned in al Bayhaqi's asmaa wa sifat, about Salaf's madhhab in sifat like nuzool that they passed it on its dhahir , here it is in Arabic:

قال أبو سليمان الخطابي : هذا الحديث وما أشبهه من الأحاديث في الصفات كان مذهب السلف فيها الإيمان بها ، وإجراءها على ظاهرها ونفي الكيفية عنها

and there are other quotes by Imams before shaikh al Islam Ibn taimiyyah rahimahu Allah confirming that sifat were taken by their dhahir without takeef.

but I need to search for them in my file, it is not well organized.

[Salafi]

One thing at a time insha Allah, I would like to make sure the sister has had a chance to read the post. Basically we say we cannot affirm other than the literal since the absence of it in that case affirms imperfection for Allah so we take it literally, but saying only the word is common. You can say we cannot say a literal hand, or face, because its absence is not an imperfection, but the opposite of existence is non-existence which cannot be done without. It is how everyone is forced to interpret the verse on Allah forgetting as other than literal since the literal in that case would imply imperfection.


U said that by affirming Allah's attributes like Yad or Wajha we eventually contradict to "laysa kamithlihi shai" because these are the attributes of His creature, a spatial/physical one. so we affirm imperfection for Allah. its ur deduction man.

Likewise ‘existence’ is also an attribute of His creature and in most ‘seen’ cases its spatial/physical. So, according to ur deduction, if one takes His existence literally and affirms it he/she affirms imperfection for Allah.

anyways u 2 continue the debate. (its end is most unlikely…lol)

[masum2u]

I felt and considered it a warning or a threat to ban me.
Now, he might have not meant for it to be a threat, but I wouldn't have known that.
so as a precaution I didn't repeat my question for fear if I continued I would be banned, I could be wrong, but just as a precaution.

:salam:

Umm...sorry sis, but i take you are ''assuming'' again. It isn't good to assume, especially when it is a Scholar you are referring to.. I thought i might give you a little reminder after reading the thread you have provided.

Wassalaam

[Ali al-Hanafi]

akhi it sounds contradicting to you because you have only seen a hand that has fingers which are parts, connected with joints.
Allah's fingers are part of His hand, but not parts like in creation that fall apart, we cannot comprehend that, because our minds are limited, and we only know what we have seen, and we have not seen Allah Himself nor His attributes, it is wrong to measure the absent with the present (Allah's attributes with that of the creation in its how), because Allah's dhat is not like our dhat firstly, and secondly we have not seen it, and we cannot try to comprehend it because we cannot comprehend Allah's dhat, let along His attributes.

I'm not asking about “how” His Fingers are in relation to His Hand, rather I am enquiring about definitions, not states. Our belief is that Allah is One. Amongst the implications of this is that He is not separated into sections in either state or in definition. You affirm that Allah has a Hand and that He has Fingers and you do not do Tafweedh of these meanings because you said, “The general meaning we confirm for yad of Allah, has in it similarities with the attribute of yad\hand that we know (similarity in meaning not the how), and it is all found in Quran and Sunnah:”.
By definition therefore, it appears as though you are dividing Allah's into parts, far exalted He is from such a description, because in terms of definition and meaning, a hand is different from a finger. Please don’t mis-understand. I’m not trying to criticise you. I’m new to this issue and am still learning. It’s only that this is the impression I got from reading your posts on this issue.


now tell me akhi,
Angels- Mala'ikah have hands, can you tell me how their hands are?
are they limbs?
flesh and bone?
have joints ?

What's your point?

[Musleemah]

What's your point?

you will know the point after answering the question

in hadith it is confirmed the Angels have hands, now can you tell me
is their hand a limb?
flesh and bones?
have joints?

[Musleemah]

:salam:

Umm...sorry sis, but i take you are ''assuming'' again. It isn't good to assume, especially when it is a Scholar you are referring to.. I thought i might give you a little reminder after reading the thread you have provided.

Wassalaam

wa alaykum assalam brother

firstly, I mentioned in my reply that I might be wrong, but that is just what I felt, and stopped as a precaution.

secondly, he might be a "scholar" to you, to me he is not, since I do not know his real name nor anything about him.
someone having the words "scholar" beneath his name does not make him so.

so now, if you have a bio of him with his name, then maybe you can share it with us.

[masum2u]

wa alaykum assalam brother

firstly, I mentioned in my reply that I might be wrong, but that is just what I felt, and stopped as a precaution.

secondly, he might be a "scholar" to you, to me he is not, since I do not know his real name nor anything about him.
someone having the words "scholar" beneath his name does not make him so.

so now, if you have a bio of him with his name, then maybe you can share it with us.

Assalamu 'Alaykum

Yes, that is in other words...''assuming'' sis.

As for him being a scholar, don't doubt it, the moderators of this forum have given him the rightful status by putting ''Scholar'' under his name. I do hold a bio of him, but i don't think i'm allowed to put it up on the net where everyone can see, nor am i permitted to pass it on without his consent. All i can tell you is that yes, he IS a scholar and many brothers take a lot of benefit from his classes.

Why don't you take a little advice, pay heed to what he says, by looking at the threads where you have debates with him, it is evident that you always lose the debates and still stick to your ''manhaj'' that you are following, is it not time to give up? You disregard what a scholar in Islam had to say even though you know he is more learned than you and who even carries 'Ijaza's back to so many scholars in the era of the Salaf as Saliheen? Or what about his unbroken chains of transmissions to over 2500 classical books back to their original authors?

Check this link out, it maybe of some interest:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=951&highlight=Abu+ghudda

I'm pretty sure you are no scholar...i think it's time you started studying under one, and see where the Haqq lies, instead of coming to all these discussion forums and not only causing havoc and mayhem, but also confusing other people as well.....you know you may find it quite surprising but believe me on this....many converts go back into their old ways, black converts worth mentioning because of these discussions!

Wassalaam

[Musleemah]

1_ and how do you know that I am not studying under scholars?
2_ Me losing debates with him doesn't make him on haqq, like you said, he has more knowledge than me.
if he debated with someone who has same knowledge as him or more, he might lose.

anyways, no benefit in this discussion, so not going to continue it insha Allah.

[caynan]

Assalamu alaykum brothers and sisters,

I kept on hearing this term called Ahl as-Sunna wal-Jamaat, and wondered what it meant? Is it a group? according to wikipedia it is and also some one who adheares to the sunnah. Am confused on what i found there so can you help me in cleariflying this meaning of Ahl as-Sunna wal-Jamaat.



I just like to be called a Muslim, i try not to go into anything other then that because am afriad that i might deviate from the path of allah, and don't consider myself to be apart from a group that is not in our ummah.

was salam

[MohammadMufti]

Ahlus Sunnah wa'l Jammah = Muslims

It just means people (ahl) of Sunnah and Jammah (consensus). Ahl al Bidah wal Dalalah means people of innovation and Misguidence and that is the 72 non-Orthodox sects that were prophecised but these are still amongst us (Muslims).

[caynan]

assalamu alaikum,

so these these brothers and sisters just call themselfs alhu sunna wal jammah, but what i want to know is why make a name, or a term. Why can't it be enough to be a muslim who follows the quran and sunnah, and a madhab if you like so we can be guieded. Why make a term then like this?

was salaam

[MohammadMufti]

This isn't an invented term, it was in use from early times (in fact, Ibn Abbas (ra) used it to my knowledge). But the reason it became important to use said term was because initially the Munafiqeen movement was something 'whisper-whisper' and not propogating it's traits in the name of Islam. When the prophet (saw) died, soon after there was small cults and tendencies coming from the politically motivated individuals and these people began to misguide Muslims.

The problem was that now they did it under the guise of Muslims so the Muslims saw it as necessary to make use of these terms to distinguish themselves. Other Muslims made the mistake of considering some of these cultists as brothers and so they had a different reason for the term.

Bukhari 88/230 Hudhaifa said, 'In fact, it was hypocrisy that existed in the lifetime of the Prophet but today it is Kufr (disbelief) after belief.'

[Yahya]

Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah are the Muslims who adhere to the proper BELIEF. More specifically, they are the followers of the Ash'ari or Maturidi schools of Aqidah.

[JayshAllah]

Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah are the Muslims who adhere to the proper BELIEF. More specifically, they are the followers of the Ash'ari or Maturidi schools of Aqidah.

Ridicolous.

If it referred specifically to these two groups, then this means that Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah did not exist in the times of the Salaf!

So we must not forget those who follow the Aqeedah of Atharis who are most definitely part of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah.

[abdul_karim]

Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah are the Muslims who adhere to the proper BELIEF. More specifically, they are the followers of the Ash'ari or Maturidi schools of Aqidah.

Wrong. Sayyidina Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani (may Allah perfume his grave) said that the Awliya of Allah are only on the creed of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahmatullah alaih). This means that the elite of the Ummah are all Ahl al-Athar, and the Asharis (ahl al-kalam) and Maturidis (ahl al-ra'y) are of an entirely inferior status.

[Ali al-Hanafi]

you will know the point after answering the question

in hadith it is confirmed the Angels have hands, now can you tell me
is their hand a limb?
flesh and bones?
have joints?

I'm afraid it's not something that I've looked into so I don't know. Maybe you can enlighten me?

[abuhajira]

:salam:


Likewise ‘existence’ is also an attribute of His creature and in most ‘seen’ cases its spatial/physical. So, according to ur deduction, if one takes His existence literally and affirms it he/she affirms imperfection for Allah.

What is meant by most "seen" case... because I am having trouble understanding the whole salafi logic of "Dhahir" in the context of "adh-har" / most obvious etc meaning.. So can you please elaborate what is most "seen"?

I had opened this point in the Islamic Education area, but I guess this place is as good as any. What is Dhahir?

According to a salafi blog Dhahir is the most obvious meaning in the Jumla. For example :

Dhahabtu Ila Khaymati Thumma Laqitu Alasada. The salafi brother on the blog explained that the Dhahir of Asad is "person" because one cannot find a lion in the camping ground. So person is the most obvious meaning for this.. Sis Musleema do you agree to this being Dhahir? if not what is the Dhahir here?

:ws:

[abuhajira]

:salam:

MashAllah and SubhanAllah, a stranger to Islam came to ask a simple question. Instead of giving a nice answer we had to turn the thread into a Salafi/khalafi argument... and it took what...5 posts to do it!! that a new record.

:ws:

[caynan]

assalamu alayikum,

brother abuhajra, thanks brother i needed that its sad to see us asking a question and all of a sudden we get some sort of a dispute amoungs us because of our views. I will keep on checking this term, and others including shalaf etc. I will try to educate myself on it, but i will always say i'm a MUSLIM and anything else Allah commands me to do in the quran and sunnah. I am a muslim who follows the quran and sunnah, if that is a sect so be it. But i know in my intention that i submite to the will of Allah and the sunnah.

wasalaam

[abdul_karim]

:salam:

MashAllah and SubhanAllah, a stranger to Islam came to ask a simple question. Instead of giving a nice answer we had to turn the thread into a Salafi/khalafi argument... and it took what...5 posts to do it!! that a new record.

:ws:

I'm not a Salafi.

[abuhajira]

:salam:

Again, rather than answering the question you have deviated from the topic.

Ahl Sunnah Wal Jama'ah

Linguistically, Ahl refers to "people of" and Sunnah is the practice and saying of Rasulullah :saw:. Though there is explaination in this, but in bried this should suffice. Jama'ah means a group.

Now, in explaination.. Imam Ibn Taymiya r.a gives a striking definition for who are the Ahl Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. He says " Ahl Sunnah Wal Jama'ah are those who follow the "Nass" and "Ijmaa". {Minhajus Sunnah 3/272}. Nass in terminology refers to "Quraan" and "Sunnah". And Ijmaa' refer to the view of the Sahaba. When the view of Sahaba agreed on a matter that became the consensus of the Sahaba.

Question : Where do we get the ruling of following these things Quran, Sunnah and Ijmaa?
Answer: For quran it is aparent in the Quran. And Quran commands us to follow Rasulullah :saw: when it says "Wa Ateeullah Wa Ateeur Rasul".

Establishing that following Rasulullah :saw: is obligatory. Rasulullah :saw: says "Alaykum Bisunnati" (Hold Firlmy onto my Sunnah) . Similarly He :saw: said "..Alaykum Biljama'a.." (Baihaqi Vol 16 Pg 65)

:ws:

[Saad]

Nabi s.a.w said that Hadhrat Hassan r.a and Hussain r.a are the coolness of the eyes of the Ahle Sunnat.

[JayshAllah]

:salam:

MashAllah and SubhanAllah, a stranger to Islam came to ask a simple question. Instead of giving a nice answer we had to turn the thread into a Salafi/khalafi argument... and it took what...5 posts to do it!! that a new record.

:ws:

And who was the one who started it? A Salafi or a Non-Salafi? It was your own brother Yahya who started it by excluding the Atharis from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah, a ludicrous statement!

[Salafi]

What is meant by most "seen" case... because I am having trouble understanding the whole salafi logic of "Dhahir" in the context of "adh-har" / most obvious etc meaning.. So can you please elaborate what is most "seen"?


it was just to limit the discussion. i dont want to discuss this issue on the molecular, atomic or sub-atomic level...lol



There is a problem with this: for example, the foot of an ant and the foot of an elephant. They totally different in their qualities. If you take if to the molecular level and spacially, they are the same.

[Yahya]

And who was the one who started it? A Salafi or a Non-Salafi? It was your own brother Yahya who started it by excluding the Atharis from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah, a ludicrous statement!

I did not exclude Atharis. Athari is not a separate group. "Athari" is an umbrella term that for centuries was used to collectively refer to Ash'aris and Maturidis. No one began using the term as if it referred to a third group until recently.

No one claims that the followers of Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) are not ahl us-Sunnah. Rather, it is consensus that they are. However, there are concerns regarding the chains of transmission for the explanations of his creed.

And my statement INCLUDES the early Muslims as well. Because the creed of Imam al-Ash'ari and Imam al-Maturidi is the same creed that was taught TO THEM with SaHeeH chains that go back to the Companions and Rasoolullah :saw:.

There is only one creed. But there are multiple schools for explaining it.

The groups that i AM excluding are the Mu'tazilaa', the Khawaarij, the qadariyyah, the mushabbihah, and others.

[OneLife]

Sidi Abu Hajira, I thought Ijma was also defined by what the Ummah has agreed upon as well, whether it be on fiqhi masail, or theological points. Or is ijma always just based on what was declared by the Sahaba?

Jaysh stop spewing hate for no reason, it was obvious what Yahya meant, Atharis are always included as long as they don't hold anthropomorphic stances.

[Musleemah]

:salam:



What is meant by most "seen" case... because I am having trouble understanding the whole salafi logic of "Dhahir" in the context of "adh-har" / most obvious etc meaning.. So can you please elaborate what is most "seen"?

I had opened this point in the Islamic Education area, but I guess this place is as good as any. What is Dhahir?

According to a salafi blog Dhahir is the most obvious meaning in the Jumla. For example :

Dhahabtu Ila Khaymati Thumma Laqitu Alasada. The salafi brother on the blog explained that the Dhahir of Asad is "person" because one cannot find a lion in the camping ground. So person is the most obvious meaning for this.. Sis Musleema do you agree to this being Dhahir? if not what is the Dhahir here?

:ws:

wa alaykum assalam

yes, since you wouldn't find a lion (the animal) in a training camp, although there might be a slight chance that they use a lion in training maybe?
but that would be the less apparent meaning, the most apparent one or obvious one would be lion meaning brave man.

and like I said, if you don't feel that using the word obvious is correct here, u can use apparent which is actually the meaning of "dhahir" in Arabic.

[Musleemah]

I'm afraid it's not something that I've looked into so I don't know. Maybe you can enlighten me?

The reason why I asked is because according to Ash'ari logic, we cannot attribute a "hand" to Allah, because they say it is a limb in the creation, so then we would be saying that Allah has "limbs", because we cannot comprehend a hand that is not a limb, and part of the defintion of a hand (in dictionary) is that it is a limb.
so basically every hand has to be a limb.

So I thought maybe you would answer my question, about hand of angels, "is their hand a limb" ?
with a "yes", since that is the logic of Ash'aris.

but you answered "I don't know".

so then that would go against the logic above, that every hand is a limb, and that one cannot comprehend a hand that is not a limb, and angels are from creation but they are not created from same thing as humans, and we have not seen them in their real nature.

what would make one say "I don't know" when asked about the hand of angels, while when it comes to Allah's hand people reject it because they say that it must be a limb if we affirm it for Allah?
why can't it be same thing for angels? that it must be a limb?
and can one be positive 100% that the hand of angels are limbs?
can one swear by Allah on that and be sure 100% that they are correct?

Could you answer that question for me please?

[sahih-baba]

salam

come on brothers who call themselves salafis,
just admit that ahl as-sunnah are traditionally the majority of the ulema from morocco to indonesia who agree on the main aqida points, follow 1 of the madhhabs and are friendly to tasawwuf.

[xii]

:salam:

People who don't follow one of the recognised schools of thought for fiqh( 4 sunni schools) and one of the imams of aqeedah( Imam Maturidi(R.A) and Imam Abul Hasan Ashari (R.A)) and unfriendly to tasawuf are outside the fold of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah.

[MohammadMufti]

:salam:

People who don't follow one of the recognised schools of thought for fiqh( 4 sunni schools) and one of the imams of aqeedah( Imam Maturidi(R.A) and Imam Abul Hasan Ashari (R.A)) and unfriendly to tasawuf are outside the fold of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah.

There is ghulat possible in every "group" and if there is ghuluw tendencies in some Sufis than nobody wether they claim to follow a madhab or not should be supporting it. Takfiris are outside the fold of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah. And it's no case necessary to be from amongst the 4 madhabs to be Sufi, or pertienent for a Sufi to belong to the four madhabs, Ruwaym (rahimullah) was a Sufi of Zahiri madhab and many of the Madhabis have not been so timid in their criticisms when some people are practicing ghulat.

[abuhajira]

:salam:

Br. Onelife, Yes there need a lot of explaination into these terms. I sufficed for what is most brief. Any addition as long as it is within the topic will be appreciated.

One point.. there are different types of Ijmaa... even an act that is agreed upon by the 4 imams is an ijmaa of aimma ( but not of 4 madhahib)...


And who was the one who started it? A Salafi or a Non-Salafi? It was your own brother Yahya who started it by excluding the Atharis from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah, a ludicrous statement!

Br. Jaysh...(and others too) Please be sensible and stop the rant. We are not 4 year olds here to say who started it and all.. Ahl Sunnah Wal Jamaa accept Athari Creed under the umbrella of Ashari since there are not much differences. But if you wish to discuss that Indepth Aqeedah is the place NOT HERE! Consider it a warning! any post (relating to conflicts) in the line of athari/ashari... will be deleted.. it does not serve the thread.

:ws:

[Ali al-Hanafi]

The reason why I asked is because according to Ash'ari logic, we cannot attribute a "hand" to Allah, because they say it is a limb in the creation, so then we would be saying that Allah has "limbs", because we cannot comprehend a hand that is not a limb, and part of the defintion of a hand (in dictionary) is that it is a limb.
so basically every hand has to be a limb.

So I thought maybe you would answer my question, about hand of angels, "is their hand a limb" ?
with a "yes", since that is the logic of Ash'aris.

What makes you think that I’m an Ash’ari?


but you answered "I don't know"

so then that would go against the logic above, that every hand is a limb, and that one cannot comprehend a hand that is not a limb…

It would go against the Ash’ari logic if I said that every hand is not a limb. I said that I don’t know and “I don’t know” means “I don’t know”; and not that the hands of Angles are not limbs.
Anyway, I explained already that I am not talking about “Hand” as a limb so I don’t know why you keep mentioning limbs.


what would make one say "I don't know" when asked about the hand of angels while when it comes to Allah's hand people reject it because they say that it must be a limb if we affirm it for Allah?

1. What makes one say “I don’t know” is that I haven’t researched the nature of angles. All I know is that they are made from light and can take various forms.

2. If for arguments sake I accept that the hands of angles are limbs then that would imply that the Hand of Allah is also a limb because the same word is used for the hand of angles as is used for the Hand of Allah (I presume). You could say to this that a hand does not necessarily mean a limb (as you have already said) but then you would be contradicting yourself because you accept the apparent meaning of the word ‘hand’ and the apparent meaning of ‘hand’ is that it is a limb as you mentioned yourself.

3. I didn’t say that I reject that Allah has a hand. Allah is as He has described Himself. All I am saying is that the meaning of “hand” for Allah is from the Mutashaabihaat and that Tafweedh of this is the safest route to take rather than the Salafi view that hand for Allah means a hand the way we understand it, i.e. to accept the apparent meaning.


why can't it be same thing for angels? that it must be a limb?

Like I said, I don’t know if the hands of angles are limbs or not and I didn’t say that it was not a limb. If you accept the apparent meaning of hand, then yes, the hands of angles are limbs. In that case, point 2 mentioned above would apply and so your stance would be incorrect.


and can one be positive 100% that the hand of angels are limbs?
can one swear by Allah on that and be sure 100% that they are correct?

If the word “hand” has been used for angles and the apparent meaning of “hand” is that it is a limb, then that’s the proof.
But like I said, I don’t know how the Angles are. They may have limbs they may not. That’s not the issue here. I am asking that by definition is a hand different from a finger(s) or not. I’m not asking if a hand always implies a limb. If they are not different by definition, then it makes no sense for Allah to give them separate names that have different zahiri meanings. If they are different then you are dividing Allah into parts by definition (I am not talking about limbs). Thus, the safest route is to make tafweedh here.
How do you explain this verse then?

“Nay, both His Hands are widely outstretched.”(5:64)

If you accept the apparent meaning of “Hand”, then you would have to accept the apparent meaning here that His Hands and limbs.

Consider the following hadith of the Sahihayn:

“Ibn Umar (RA) reported that the Prophet (Pbuh) said, “the believer will be brought close to his Lord. Then He will place His wing over him” ”

[Salafi]

What makes you think that I’m an Ash’ari?

Assalamo 'alaikum

this book, al muhannad 'ala al mufannad, was written by khalil ahmad suharanpuri a famous deobandi scholar in the refutaion of ahmad raza khan bareilwi ( hanafi ).

meaning of the underlined sentences:

and we are followers of imam abul hasan al ash'ari and imam abu mansoor al maturidi in a'etiqad and usool.

it was endorsed ny following deobandi scholars:

Shaikhul hind Maulana Mahmood al-Hasan
Maulana Ashraf Alee Thanwee al chisti
Maulana Meer Ahmad Hasan Amaruhwee
Maulana Azeezur Rehmaan Maulana
Muhammad Ahmad (The son of Maulana Qaasim Nanautwee)
Maulana Aashiq Elaahee Meerthy
Mufti Kifaayatullah
and many more.

[Ali al-Hanafi]

Assalamo 'alaikum

this book was written by khalil ahmad suharanpuri a famous deobandi scholar in the refutaion of ahmad raza khan bareilwi ( hanafi ).

meaning of the underlined sentences:

and we are followers of imam abul hasan al ash'ari and imam abu mansoor al maturidi in a'etiqad and usool.

it was endorsed ny following deobandi scholars:

Shaikhul hind Maulana Mahmood al-Hasan
Maulana Ashraf Alee Thanwee al chisti
Maulana Meer Ahmad Hasan Amaruhwee
Maulana Azeezur Rehmaan Maulana
Muhammad Ahmad (The son of Maulana Qaasim Nanautwee)
Maulana Aashiq Elaahee Meerthy
Mufti Kifaayatullah
and many more.

Look, I never denied that the Ulema of Deoband subscribe to the school of Imam Ash'ari. As your quote shows, they endorse both Ash'ari and Maturidi schools, just like they endorse the four Maddhabs. All I wanted to know is why Musleema thought that I was Ash'ari and not Maturidi, which the Ulema of Deoband also follow.
If this is some ploy of yours to find out which school I subscribe to then it hasn't worked (and if it is not then i apologise for this) and I do not wish to divulge this at this moment in time because it will probably take the discussion off topic.

[Salafi]

Look, I never denied that the Ulema of Deoband subscribe to the school of Imam Ash'ari. As your quote shows, they endorse both Ash'ari and Maturidi schools, just like they endorse the four Maddhabs. All I wanted to know is why Musleema thought that I was Ash'ari and not Maturidi, which the Ulema of Deoband also follow.
If this is some ploy of yours to find out which school I subscribe to then it hasn't worked (and if it is not then i apologise for this) and I do not wish to divulge this at this moment in time because it will probably take the discussion off topic.

endorsement and itteba' (following) are very very different.

u 2 continue.

[abuhajira]

wa alaykum assalam

yes, since you wouldn't find a lion (the animal) in a training camp, although there might be a slight chance that they use a lion in training maybe?
but that would be the less apparent meaning, the most apparent one or obvious one would be lion meaning brave man.

and like I said, if you don't feel that using the word obvious is correct here, u can use apparent which is actually the meaning of "dhahir" in Arabic.


:salam:

Okay if the above is correct then I may say that such an understanding for Dhahir will not be completely appropriate.

The reason is, in the Mithl of Lion in the camp, when you considered two meanings and then gave obviousness to one over the other, you have infact not only made Ta'ammul rather also made ta'weel between two of the meanings of the word; one being the haqeeqi and one majazi. Once ta'ammul is made it no longer remains a Dhahir because Dhahir is "Ma Fahima Bilaa Ta'amul.." . But it is not this case here.. rather you are proving an Adh-har meaning to an already Dhahir. and that cannot be without a little pondering.

One a more technical aspect of the example, as I mentioned in the other thread.. it is an Isti'aara, where the word asad is brought to represent the brave person, since "brave person" is a more distant meaning of it. This isti'ara is seen as isti'ara because of the Qareena(indication) in the word "laqiya" that shows us the improbability of meeting a lion. Unlike the understanding of my salafi brother on the blog who took camping ground as an indication. The Isti'ara is Tasreehiya Asaliyya..

Enough on Balagha, The Dhahir in this case would be Lion (the animal) as it is in understanding without any pondering. There is nothing about appropriateness or obviousness in stating something to be Dhahir.

Moreover, that concept is in Usool of Fiqh. In Kalaam the Dhahir is what is (Haqqiyyah) truth of the word. So in "Yaddun" the Dahir is "Yaddun".. Its Haqeeqah is "hand" (as is understood in our language) and its Majaz is "power ...etc" and in these two the Muta'akhirin of Maturidis made Ta'weel to Qudra (with probibility of its truth being something else) to avoid making ta'weel towards something that is inappropriate to Dhat of Allah (such as towards its Haqeeqah).

The qawl of Aslaaf that we believe in Dhahir is just that.. We believe in the Haqiyyat (truthfulness) of Yadullah and do not dwell into how..


it was just to limit the discussion. i dont want to discuss this issue on the molecular, atomic or sub-atomic level...lol

Brother, you are in an in-depth section. Indepth analysis is what is being tried here. For that lugha along with its balagha has to be understood before making claims. Take care..

:ws:

[Salafi]

Brother, you are in an in-depth section. Indepth analysis is what is being tried here. For that lugha along with its balagha has to be understood before making claims. Take care..

:ws:

explain

[abuhajira]

:salam:

I think I tried my shot at that in my reply to Sister Musleemah.. I dont even agree with the meaning of Dhahir that is being used by Salafis..

:ws:

[Musleemah]

bro abu hajira
yes, the dhahir would be what would come to your mind without ta'amul
like when you read ayah "Ya Ibliso man mana'aka an tasjuda lima khalaqtu bi-yaday"
anyone reading this first time would come to his mind, hand, not power or ne'ma.
so in this ayah it means hand that is haqiqi not majazi.

but when you read ayat mentioning "fathamma wajhu Allah" what first comes to mind is direction, not face of Allah, also ones saying "yuridoon wajhallah", meaning His sake, which first comes to mind, which is the dhahir.

If you check in Asma' was sifat book of al Bayhaqi, regarding texts on "wajh" of Allah, he explains how some texts mean face of Allah, the attribute, and others mean other meanings.
so it depends on the context, the dhahir would differ in one than the other depending on its context.
sometimes majazi and sometimes haqiqi.

and I am speaking here in general not necessarly sifat.

[Wahdy]

Shaykh-ul Akbar ibn Arabi?:rolleyes:



Ahlus Sunnah Wa'l Jama'h basically means "The adherents of the Sunnah and the Community(of scholars)"

[clip]

Don't worry too much about all these names and terms. Just read the Qur'an, read hadith, go to lectures, speak with Shayookh, and always keep an open mind. The best thing to do, however, is to look for the Daleel, or ask for it--instead of just taking anyones word. (Unless that person is a very knowledgable Shaykh.)

[Hamood]

Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah are the Muslims who adhere to the proper BELIEF. More specifically, they are the followers of the Ash'ari or Maturidi schools of Aqidah.

Ditto.

[zaheerhussain]

http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1179633961318250.xml&coll=5&thispage=1


Mosque members sue to oust religious leader
Sunday, May 20, 2007
BY LINDA STEIN
At a time of debate over how the Islamic religion is practiced, some founding members of a Trenton mosque are asking a judge to oust their leader because they say he is taking the congregation in a fundamentalist direction.

In recent years, Imam Sabur Abdul Hakim has adopted stricter views of Islam and his aides plan to link the mosque with others of a conservative sect in Saudi Arabia, beaming in lectures via satellite links, according to a lawsuit filed in Superior Court in Mercer County.

In the lawsuit, the International Muslim Brotherhood Inc., which owns the mosque, and founding members Rahman Khan, Salim Baig and Mubin Kathrada contend that Hakim began changing religious practices at their mosque, Masjid As-Saffat, on Oxford Street in Trenton, three years ago.

In the suit, the members say Hakim appointed his son-in-law, Shalby Akbar Shalby, as "ameer" last August, without an election by the congregants.

Hakim and his lawyer, Eric Broadway, declined to comment about the lawsuit, which was filed in April.

Since it was founded in 1981 by local adherents and state workers seeking a place to pray, the mosque was open to Muslims of all sects, the suit said.

"It was the policy not to discriminate based on sect and to allow various religious ideas to be heard," the suit said. "In that vein the board of trustees would select a rotating slate of educated individuals to give the weekly Friday Khutbah (sermon)," the suit said.

But in 2004, Hakim decided that he alone would decide who gave the Friday sermon. Generally, that person would be Mohammad Hasan, who follows strict Salafi doctrine, the suit said.

"For the last three years, Hakim and a small group of congregants of the mosque began having more rigid views of Islam," the suit said.

"They decided that they wanted the mosque to follow the Salafi doctrine. Adherents of Salafi Islam believe that there is only one true way of worshipping Islam and are totally intolerant of other moderate sects of Islam," according to the lawsuit.

Peter Golden, a Rutgers University history professor who specializes in Middle East and Islamic history, said the term Salafi means "the ancestor."

Those who practice it want to go back to "what some people imagine is an early and pristine time," he said.

Salafi is the form of Islam associated with the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia, but it has also taken other forms, he said. Practitioners consider themselves reformers but others think of them as reactionary, Golden said.

The same dispute rocking the Trenton mosque is being played out in the larger Islamic world, Golden said, as people try to cope with changes brought on by modernism. Currently, in Turkey, those who favor the secular status quo are being challenged by an Islamist revival, Golden said.

While Salafism has been linked to terrorists and al Qaeda, everyone who practices it is not a terrorist. Golden noted that Islamic fundamentalists are not the only ones linked to terrorism. Other religious fundamentalists, like David Koresh's Branch Davidians, also have been linked to violence, he said.

Meanwhile, the change toward Salafism has driven away many of the more moderate members at Masjid As-Saffat and its religious school closed last year, the suit said.

Shalby, who is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit, sent a letter to congregants in August saying the mosque would be linked to all Salafi mosques, appointing "hard-liner" Hasan as responsible for religious affairs, indicating that lectures would be held at the mosque via telelink from Saudi Arabia and changing the locks, the suit said.

Shalby could not be reached for comment.

Shalby also changed the time of afternoon prayers and tried to change the manner of conducting prayers during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the suit said.

"We have been together for a long time," Khan said, when reached by phone last week. "I hope to reconcile with Hakim. We'll let the judge decide."

Although the mosque is incorporated under the name, International Muslim Brotherhood, it is not related to overseas organizations with the same name, he said.

Khan referred other questions to his lawyer, Marlyn E. Quinn, who did not return calls.

In September, Khan and other board members sent a letter to Hakim signed by more than 90 congregants objecting to the "unilateral actions of Hakim and Shalby," the suit said.

In response, they were removed from their positions in favor of Shalby as vice president and Michael Oliver as treasurer.

In addition to asking the court to remove the imam and ameer, the suit asks for an accounting of how funds have been spent and for an election of a new board of trustees by the congregants.

Imam Hamad Ahmad Chebli, the religious director of the Islamic Society of Central Jersey in South Brunswick, said he was aware of the dissension at the mosque in Trenton and had offered to help the parties with their dispute.

"It's a very bad situation, a very sad situation to hear of a house of worship end up in the court," Chebli said.

"The people have to solve their situation themselves, not through the courts," he said. "The mosques, synagogues, churches, houses of God are supposed to be open to everybody. The leadership should apply the holy book."

In America, mosques are organized as separate congregations and imams are appointed by boards of directors elected by the congregants. There is no central authority, Chebli said.

Before they can be appointed, imams must study and receive a degree from an Islamic university and be well-versed in the Quran. The board also hires other staff such as secretaries and teachers for the religious school, Chebli said.

"Every mosque is run by the members of that congregation," Chebli said.

Seth Lapidow, a lawyer with Saul Ewing firm, which has an office in Plainsboro, said the mosque lawsuit is unlikely to run afoul of the principle of separation of church and state and will be handled by the court as any other employment dispute.

"There are cases where courts are involved regarding clergy," Lapidow said. Lapidow remembered one regarding a New Jersey rabbi who was dismissed. "If (the imam) is appointed by the congregation, the court has the right to decide (the issue)."

At one time, that mosque was very active with people coming from all over the world to speak there, Chebli said. In 2003, members took a stand to protect the area from a city plan for unwanted redevelopment of Oxford Street.

"We will pray for both of them," Chebli added.

[farook]

Division in Islam through lack of knowledge of the global philosophy behind Islam, the Religion of Allah (SWT). Allah (SWT) clearly forbids us to discuss about things that we do not know about. It is unfortunate that our Imams / Scholars seem to have skipped this verse.

[yasinr]

A salaamu alaykum,

This is my first post, so bear with me. I am a univeristy student and have met many different muslims. We constantly talk about politics, life and islam. We are sufi's, salafi's, whabbis, random branches. But at the end of the discussion, when the time for prayer comes, we all stand up and pray together. There is no hatred or disrespect between us. We all pray to the same direction, in the same manner with the same intention within our hearts.

One thing we are united on is that if the ummah is to be strong, unification is needed within the muslims themseleves.

Don't you guys agree? Is this not the best solution?

Salam,
Yasin

[abdulhaqq1181]

I didnt realize this article was already posted. I had posted earlier today on the other thread. I can't believe they're taking this case to court. I've never heard of that before but I hope it works and that Masjid as-Saffat is restored to what it once was. The article it says people left because of Imam Sabur Abdul Hakim. Did it really get that bad or is it just hyped up?

[biscuitcrumbs]

Are'nt there sufis who are also salafis?
What's the difference between wahabis and salafis?

[sahih-baba]

salam
yes we need to unite, but difficult if everybody is saying different things.
there is general ignorance in the ummah, hence all these groupings like salafis and others.
unity can be possible if the traditional ahl as-sunna regain political power rather than the present day wahhabiyya or shi'a.

wallahu a'lam

[bambino]

:salam:

Brother let me explain, these "battles", for the most part are restricted to the "internets", emails and pseudo-intellectual bloggers with too much time on their hands. The majority of Muslims in the real 3D world never experience any problems. Do your own thing, life is short. On the very rare occasions when I am confronted by somebody of a different persuasion, and questioned, I just say Allahu-alim and get on with with rest of the day. Smile :)

:salam:

[sahih-baba]

so true!

[beespreeteam]

:salam:

Brother let me explain, these "battles", for the most part are restricted to the "internets", emails and pseudo-intellectual bloggers with too much time on their hands. The majority of Muslims in the real 3D world never experience any problems. Do your own thing, life is short. On the very rare occasions when I am confronted by somebody of a different persuasion, and questioned, I just say Allahu-alim and get on with with rest of the day. Smile :)

:salam:


Ahahaha QFT.
Awesome post Mashallah.

Wassalaam

[Egyptian_Muslim]

I agree, but say that to the salafis :)

[Yaseen]

Bambino if only your experience was the same in my workplace. It's full of anti-Sufis even those who aren't practising wanna be part of the vibe. I do agree though the best thing is to smile and carry on.

[Hassan Adami]

Salaam Aleikum,

I am new to sunniforums, and I thought I should take advantage of my first post by sharing some of my thoughts with all of you regarding the topic at hand.

The matters regarding Salafi, Wahhabi,Sunni, Sufi, Shi'ite differences are the very matters which have been used against us all by anti-Muslim groups around the world whether they are part of a government or part of the media or any other groups as various as they may be, to divide and conquer us, destroy and plunder, and they are even doing it today as we speak here in this forum. This is a problem within our own house which we need to resolve amongst ourselves, and as long as we can clean up our own house first, this is the first step towards reaching haqq in this matter. I am not a scholar so I do not think it is wise if I made any decrees, it is not my place to do so. But in regards to those amongst our community who actually betray us Muslims by exposing our faults and giving them ammunition to tear the fabric which binds us together apart, these are the ones we need to deal with first and foremost. Please forgive me if I have made any mistakes in my wording. Allahu 'Alam.

[MohammadMufti]

Are'nt there sufis who are also salafis?
What's the difference between wahabis and salafis?

There is no such thing as Wahabi, it's a term invented by hateful people with an agenda against other persuasions. It's like the term "Yazidi" and other such terms invented by Rawafid (or misapplied) against Muslims.

[Muaz bin jabal]

A salaamu alaykum,

This is my first post, so bear with me. I am a univeristy student and have met many different muslims. We constantly talk about politics, life and islam. We are sufi's, salafi's, whabbis, random branches. But at the end of the discussion, when the time for prayer comes, we all stand up and pray together. There is no hatred or disrespect between us. We all pray to the same direction, in the same manner with the same intention within our hearts.

One thing we are united on is that if the ummah is to be strong, unification is needed within the muslims themseleves.

Don't you guys agree? Is this not the best solution?

Salam,
Yasin
if u dont know let me introduce u to www.masud.co.uk

[Tanya]

A salaamu alaykum,

This is my first post, so bear with me. I am a univeristy student and have met many different muslims. We constantly talk about politics, life and islam. We are sufi's, salafi's, whabbis, random branches. But at the end of the discussion, when the time for prayer comes, we all stand up and pray together. There is no hatred or disrespect between us. We all pray to the same direction, in the same manner with the same intention within our hearts.

One thing we are united on is that if the ummah is to be strong, unification is needed within the muslims themseleves.

Don't you guys agree? Is this not the best solution?

Salam,
Yasin

What's the difference in them? I don't know much, just that I'm a Sunni Muslim :$

[skills]

when we say we are sunni, all we are doing is neagting being shia. is this correct?

[MohammadMufti]

No, there would be 73 sects within the fold of Islam, and other groups outside of the fold. When we say we are Sunni it means we are from the original sect, the the one Rasulallah (saw) and his sahabah (ra) were on. It negates not only being Rafidi, but also being Zaydi, Ibadi, Kharijji, etc.

[Ansari]

Mufti Zar Wali Khan [clip] says in a quesion & answer session [11 march 2005]: http://www.ahsanmedia.com/Sound/Jumaz/2005/10_Juma_11_Mar_2005_29_Muharam_1426_h.mp3 [starts at 1:11:45]

It is not permissible to pray in the masjids of the Ghayr-Muqallideen. Their Aqaaid regards to the matter of sifaat have almost reached kufr.

[loveProphet]

Mufti Zar Wali Khan [clip] says in a quesion & answer session [11 march 2005]: http://www.ahsanmedia.com/Sound/Jumaz/2005/10_Juma_11_Mar_2005_29_Muharam_1426_h.mp3 [starts at 1:11:45]

It is not permissible to pray in the masjids of the Ghayr-Muqallideen. Their Aqaaid regards to the matter of sifaat have almost reached kufr.
Wow...

[tazkiyyah]

Hmm

That sounds a little harsh to me to be honest.

Wallahu Ta3la A3lam

[Saad]

Mufti Zar Wali Khan [clip] says in a quesion & answer session [11 march 2005]: http://www.ahsanmedia.com/Sound/Jumaz/2005/10_Juma_11_Mar_2005_29_Muharam_1426_h.mp3 [starts at 1:11:45]

It is not permissible to pray in the masjids of the Ghayr-Muqallideen. Their Aqaaid regards to the matter of sifaat have almost reached kufr.

May ALLAH preserve the Mufti Sahab.

Love his Pathan accent.

[iqadeer]

Hmm

That sounds a little harsh to me to be honest.

Wallahu Ta3la A3lam

Yes, when it comes to Ahle Hadith or Barelvis, Mufti sahib doesn't mince any words. Shouldn't the Deobandis be allowed to have at least one firebrand type when every other Barelvi or Ahle Hadith one is ready to cut our throats off :cheesygri

Humor aside, Mufti sahib is highly knowledgeable masha'Allah. I have been listening to his Quranic Tafsir and so far, can't say if I have heard anyone who remembers so much juzi'at of deen.

[Saad]

I believe Mufti Sahab was only referring to their scholars since most of the Ghair Muqallids are not even aware of these things. In the sub-Continent most of the people havent even heard of the words *Maturidi/Ashri* etc.

[farook]

The matter having been referred to a Court of Justice, I will limit myself to the Islamic aspect of the issue.

It is indeed very sad to learn about such happenings, in particular, when the Imam of a masjid is involved. The Imam is ,in a way, a symbol of Islam. His actions are permanently subject to scrutiny. Although human and, therefore, liable to err, he is a model for all those who accept that he leads them in prayer. One cannot accept that someone leads him in prayer if the latter cannot be trusted.

One who acts as Imam is also someone who is supposed to know quite a bit of Islam, even though he may not be a scholar. At least he is supposed to know and comply with basic rules of our Shariah such as, inter alia, it is forbidden to lie, no major sins, non-violation of the trust another party has put in him, total respect of a contract between him and a third party, offending any member of the congregation especially during Friday Khutba even though he may be totally right in what he may be saying.

Based on the first post, it seems to me that the Imam has been employed by the Board of the Masjid. Islam prescribes that such a transaction must be sealed by a contract between the two contracting parties , i.e. the Board and the Imam. The contract must necessarily specify all the terms and conditions governing the employment, and specify the duties and responsibilities of the employee and the extent of any power entrusted to the employee. Has there been a breach of contract by either the Board or the Imam? If there has been a breach, then whoever is guilty of such a breach has committed an offence as far as Islamis rules are concerned.

This issue could have been sorted out by a few muslims known for their honesty and integrity. But because of our so many sects, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the two parties to agree on who to select.

THIS IS A VERY SAD DAY FOR ISLAM

[farook]

The matter having been referred to a Court of Justice, I will limit myself to the Islamic aspect of the issue.

It is indeed very sad to learn about such happenings, in particular, when the Imam of a masjid is involved. The Imam is ,in a way, a symbol of Islam. His actions are permanently subject to scrutiny. Although human and, therefore, liable to err, he is a model for all those who accept that he leads them in prayer. One cannot accept that someone leads him in prayer if the latter cannot be trusted.

One who acts as Imam is also someone who is supposed to know quite a bit of Islam, even though he may not be a scholar. At least he is supposed to know and comply with basic rules of our Shariah such as, inter alia, it is forbidden to lie, no major sins, non-violation of the trust another party has put in him, total respect of a contract between him and a third party, not offending any member of the congregation especially during Friday Khutba even though he may be totally right in what he may be saying.

Based on the first post, it seems to me that the Imam has been employed by the Board of the Masjid. Islam prescribes that such a transaction must be sealed by a contract between the two contracting parties , i.e. the Board and the Imam. The contract must necessarily specify all the terms and conditions governing the employment, and specify the duties and responsibilities of the employee and the extent of any power entrusted to the employee. Has there been a breach of contract by either the Board or the Imam? If there has been a breach, then whoever is guilty of such a breach has committed an offence as far as Islamis rules are concerned.

This issue could have been sorted out by a few muslims known for their honesty and integrity. But because of our so many sects, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the two parties to agree on who to select.

THIS IS A VERY SAD DAY FOR ISLAM

[biscuitcrumbs]

There is no such thing as Wahabi, it's a term invented by hateful people with an agenda against other persuasions. It's like the term "Yazidi" and other such terms invented by Rawafid (or misapplied) against Muslims.

Can you explain further? Like historically how that happen? :confused:

[biscuitcrumbs]

Wahhabism (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya الوهابية, Wahabism, Wahabbism) is the name given to the branch of Islam practiced by those who follow the teachings of Muhammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab, after whom the movement is named. Ibn Abdul Wahhab, who reintroduced Shariah (Islamic) law to the Arabian peninsula, was influenced by the writings of scholars such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya. This theology is the dominant form found in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, as well as some pockets of Somalia, Algeria and Mauritania.

The term "Wahhabi" (Wahhābīya) is rarely used by the people it is used to describe. The currently preferred term is "Salafism" from Salaf as-Salih, the "pious predecessors" as earlier propagated mainly by Ibn Taymiyya, his students Ibn Al Qayyim al-Jawziyya, and later by Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab and his followers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi

[br_syed]

THIS IS A VERY SAD DAY FOR ISLAM

Correction:
It is a sad day for Muslims
It is never ever a sad day for Islam

[MohammadMufti]

Can you explain further? Like historically how that happen? :confused:

There was a man from Najd by the name of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab. He wrote some books and since than "wahabi" has been a term of choice from Rawafid along with Nawasib. Disgustingly enough, they even call pre-Wahhab sheikhs as "wahabi" like Ibn Tayymiyah (rahimullah) which is absurd beyond belief. Many of the slanders against Ibn Abdul Wahab are pure trash, I read from some Rawafid saying that he's a Nasibi. For a year I had actually accepted the word of the Shi'a and believed the same. Than I bought his title "Kitab at Tawhid" (which beware has some da'if ahadith and others that can be helped with understanding by a scholar or a commentary).

And than the extremist madhabis who picked up and say things like Muslims who don't follow a madhab should be executed by the Ottomons, and such people know who I'm talking about of course so there is no need to name names...

[Suffiyun]

A salaamu alaykum,

This is my first post, so bear with me. I am a univeristy student and have met many different muslims. We constantly talk about politics, life and islam. We are sufi's, salafi's, whabbis, random branches. But at the end of the discussion, when the time for prayer comes, we all stand up and pray together. There is no hatred or disrespect between us. We all pray to the same direction, in the same manner with the same intention within our hearts.

One thing we are united on is that if the ummah is to be strong, unification is needed within the muslims themseleves.

Don't you guys agree? Is this not the best solution?

Salam,
Yasin

Assalam Alaikum.I'm Amr from turkey,and salam to whole forum with my first post.
Now I can say sth. about this,coz I've a salafi brother who was a sufi before.
You know,tasawwuf path apply the method which is called sunnah.You know,our Prophet(s.a.w) fight, in order to get people lived.Not to kill.
So his fight understanding didn't include anger or hate,that was all about peace.
Salafi's are wrong at here as they are a lot of things.
If a man make himself better,then his family become better and then his around,then his neighbours and then his nation,then world...So this last step is the life before Qıyamah."Islam is sovereing all over the world."
For this,people first must look at themselves,not to anybody.Salafi's choose this,looking others,not to theirselves.
And they occasionaly don't follow mazhaps,either on ibadah and aqaed.
So,they are becoming different from "right way's muslims" by time.You know,Ummah will be splitted into 63 paths.The one is right and for muctaheds,for knowledgers and from hadidhts,as living,this is Ehl-ul Sunnah.
And tasawwuf is a title,living this way rightly.
Wassalam.

[Sunni_Student786]

There was a man from Najd by the name of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab. He wrote some books and since than "wahabi" has been a term of choice from Rawafid along with Nawasib. Disgustingly enough, they even call pre-Wahhab sheikhs as "wahabi" like Ibn Tayymiyah (rahimullah) which is absurd beyond belief. Many of the slanders against Ibn Abdul Wahab are pure trash, I read from some Rawafid saying that he's a Nasibi. For a year I had actually accepted the word of the Shi'a and believed the same. Than I bought his title "Kitab at Tawhid" (which beware has some da'if ahadith and others that can be helped with understanding by a scholar or a commentary).

And than the extremist madhabis who picked up and say things like Muslims who don't follow a madhab should be executed by the Ottomons, and such people know who I'm talking about of course so there is no need to name names...

You make some valid points, however, the majority of that which Ibn Abdul Wahhab has said and done that has been criticized is not "slander".

Take it from a former "Salafi" (myself).

[zaheerhussain]

It needs some clarification.

Sabur Abdul Hakim is not an Imam per se. He was like the President of the original Board. He was respected for his regularity in prayers. Gradually he became Salafi and started overruling other members in every matter.

First started the usual bid'ah khutbahs and foot-to-foot insistence. There were instances when people left jumuah prayers when the imam forced people to join their feet.

Then he stopped non-Salafis from giving Khutbahs. Then, he and other Salafis secretly registered a total Salafi board without any public input. He and other salafis said elections are haraam in Islam, and the Imam must be obeyed in any condition.

No non-Salafi was allowed to be invited in the masjid.

Salaam was not returned whenever non-Salafis greeted them. Reason: non-Salafis are inhabitants of fire and, therefore, non-Muslims per Salafi aqeedah.

Then, Taraweeh became a problem. Non-salafis were not allowed to pray 20 rakahs. Salafi guards would stand in front of non-Salfis preventing people from praying.

Then Asr Salah became a problem. Non-Salafis were not allowed to pray another congregation saying that is not allowed.

Loud recitation was played on speakers whenever non-Salafis prayed in the masjid.

Children were taught not to give their seat to non-Salafis. Whenever a child moved to let a non-Salafi pray, that child was rebuked loudly.

Then the full-time school was ordered closed for teaching non-Salafi curriculum.

Then the last straw was non-salafis were taken hostage when they came for Asr salaah, cops were called, attempts were made to frame them for creating trouble.

That led to the court battle.

[AbdulQahhar]

It needs some clarification.

Sabur Abdul Hakim is not an Imam per se. He was like the President of the original Board. He was respected for his regularity in prayers. Gradually he became Salafi and started overruling other members in every matter.

First started the usual bid'ah khutbahs and foot-to-foot insistence. There were instances when people left jumuah prayers when the imam forced people to join their feet.

Then he stopped non-Salafis from giving Khutbahs. Then, he and other Salafis secretly registered a total Salafi board without any public input. He and other salafis said elections are haraam in Islam, and the Imam must be obeyed in any condition.

No non-Salafi was allowed to be invited in the masjid.

Salaam was not returned whenever non-Salafis greeted them. Reason: non-Salafis are inhabitants of fire and, therefore, non-Muslims per Salafi aqeedah.

Then, Taraweeh became a problem. Non-salafis were not allowed to pray 20 rakahs. Salafi guards would stand in front of non-Salfis preventing people from praying.

Then Asr Salah became a problem. Non-Salafis were not allowed to pray another congregation saying that is not allowed.

Loud recitation was played on speakers whenever non-Salafis prayed in the masjid.

Children were taught not to give their seat to non-Salafis. Whenever a child moved to let a non-Salafi pray, that child was rebuked loudly.

Then the full-time was ordered closed for teaching non-Salafi curriculum.

Then the last straw was non-salafis were taken hostage when they came for Asr salaah, cops were called, attempts were made to frame them for creating trouble.

That led to the court battle.

:salam:

I'm getting really sick with attitude of some salafiyah men. What do they think they're doing? They're loosing common sense. Since when is a non-salafi a non-Muslim?
I think the main problem of some salafi is that they are concerned more about others rather than themselves. It's an attitude - we know what's right, and all others are simply wrong. :rolleyes:

May Allah :taala: saves all Muslims from evils like these.

[AbdulQahhar]

And also - is this how true Muslims are supposed to behave? Is it? To me it looks that some salafiya treat fellow Muslims as enemy, for ridiculous things, i.e. because they pray Istikhara 20 Rak'ah and not 8??? How more ridiculous can this go?
Allah :taala: said that if we don't know, we must ask those who do know (not in the exact words like these, but we all know what was meant by this :alhamd:). Now somebody who doesn't know, asks a scholar, somebody with 'Ilm. And he/she did his/her duty :alhamd:. But then a weirdo-violento appears and claims that that's wrong and becomes violent??!?!?! :rolleyes:
Violent because of what? Because of the desires of his own nafs? And how by Allah, does this violento know what's in the heart of this fellow Muslim who is just following what His Lord :taala: has commanded??!?!?!?!

Is this not going against Allah :taala:? Is it not? Is it not, I ask all those who label themselves as salafi here on this forum?

People who act like this have no idea how great injustice they are commiting, they simply have no idea. And may Allah :taala: guide them - if they want to be guided at all.

[AbdulQahhar]

:salam:

I want to know an honest answer to an honest question - that's all.

[Saad]

You should ask this question on a Salafi forum. :rolleyes:

[Hamood]

You should ask this question on a Salafi forum. :rolleyes:

Ditto.

[Sunni_Student786]

I have rarely heard the Salafis explicitly say that non-Salafi Muslims are not Muslims, however, implicitly, they do say so, or at least make comments that would indicate so, particularly with respect to those Muslims make Tawassul or Istighaatha or visit the graves of the pious.

[Sunni_Student786]

It needs some clarification.

Sabur Abdul Hakim is not an Imam per se. He was like the President of the original Board. He was respected for his regularity in prayers. Gradually he became Salafi and started overruling other members in every matter.

First started the usual bid'ah khutbahs and foot-to-foot insistence. There were instances when people left jumuah prayers when the imam forced people to join their feet.

Then he stopped non-Salafis from giving Khutbahs. Then, he and other Salafis secretly registered a total Salafi board without any public input. He and other salafis said elections are haraam in Islam, and the Imam must be obeyed in any condition.

No non-Salafi was allowed to be invited in the masjid.

Salaam was not returned whenever non-Salafis greeted them. Reason: non-Salafis are inhabitants of fire and, therefore, non-Muslims per Salafi aqeedah.

Then, Taraweeh became a problem. Non-salafis were not allowed to pray 20 rakahs. Salafi guards would stand in front of non-Salfis preventing people from praying.

Then Asr Salah became a problem. Non-Salafis were not allowed to pray another congregation saying that is not allowed.

Loud recitation was played on speakers whenever non-Salafis prayed in the masjid.

Children were taught not to give their seat to non-Salafis. Whenever a child moved to let a non-Salafi pray, that child was rebuked loudly.

Then the full-time school was ordered closed for teaching non-Salafi curriculum.

Then the last straw was non-salafis were taken hostage when they came for Asr salaah, cops were called, attempts were made to frame them for creating trouble.

That led to the court battle.

Has the above been confirmed by reliable witnesses?

[slaveof Allaah]

:salam:

I'm not salafi, but i'm hated by a few of them, so let me tell you quite clearly, that they (not most) do not declare open takfir on us (the true Ahle Sunnah Wa Jammah) however, they do think we are misguided.

[mospike]

In my opinion they dont make takfir on us

[farook]

Correction:
It is a sad day for Muslims
It is never ever a sad day for Islam

Dear Brother,

YES & NO. It depends on one's interpretation.

Islam is the religion that Allah (SWT) has prescribed for MAN. During the pagan period, prior to the coming of the beloved Messenger (SAW) of Allah, Islam was practically speaking non-existent except for the very very few who still stuck to the teachings of the prophets Abraham and Moses.

Religion is there to be practised. When such practice deviates from the original prescription, that religion is in danger, and when most people cease to practice it altogether, it becomes "dormant" until Allah (SWT) elects someone to rekindle its light.

So, we can certainly say that the pagan period was a VERY SAD period for Islam.

Today, with lots of discussions on very minor religious issues that lead to severe rifts amongst the various sects (contrary to the commandments of Allah (SWT)), I would consider these days to be very sad for Islam, as such discussions and rifts dim the glory of Islam.

Further, today with ready access to discourses, books and other material linked to Islam via the Internet, and with more and more people being literate, I would even go to the extent of saying that Islam is in danger. These sources, although providing information within seconds, may also cause a lot of confusion in people's minds if proper guidance is not available and sought.

Brotherly yours. Farook

[AbdulQahhar]

You should ask this question on a Salafi forum. :rolleyes:

I will :insh:, just send me a few links of salafiyya forums if you have them. I want to make things clear.

[loveProphet]

:ws:

I know that a lot of the wahabis hate me and some have a declared takfir of me as they think i "grave worship" and cause i wear ta'wiz which they think is "shirk" even though it consists of Allah's Names!

:ws:

[AbdulQahhar]

:ws:

I know that a lot of the wahabis hate me and some have a declared takfir of me as they think i "grave worship" and cause i wear ta'wiz which they think is "shirk" even though it consists of Allah's Names!

:ws:

:salam:

what is ta'wiz bro?

[loveProphet]

:salam:

what is ta'wiz bro?
:ws:

See:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=3697&CATE=152

However i don't know the position of most wahabis(i'm pretty sure they say its haraam but not shirk) but most of the ones i know of my friends(in real life lol) say its shirk.
In fact, the ones i know, they even say theres a difference of opinion amongst the Sahaba but its stills shirk!
:ws:

[loveProphet]

Wahabis have led to a lot of fitnah and bid'a and killing in this world, even in the Haramayn!

[mospike]

A friend wrote this to me, his name is Ismi

Our Faith behoves us not to search for faults in others and we would do well to heed the advice of our Beloved Prophet :

"Part of being a good person is minding your own business."

While the purpose of commanding good and forbidding evil is to correct and restore; fault finding inevitably leads to undermining the character of people and sometimes to destroying relationships. Prophet Muhammad said:

"The worst of people are those engaged in slandering others, those who ruin relationships between dear ones who try to find fault with innocent people."


The Prophet also admonished us that "when you pursue the faults of others, you corrupt them" and warned, "Those who unduly pursue the shortcomings of others will have their own faults exposed."


Fault-finding is the habit of the miserable


Confucius said: "the great person calls to attention the good points in others while the miserable person calls to attention the defects in others." (Analects 12:16).

That is perhaps why losers can easily say, "something is wrong" and winners usually say, "how can I correct it". Why losers say, "why don't you do this?" and winners usually say, "here is something I can do."


Faultfinders normally tell others about someone's faults and rarely have the guts to face people; fitting the description of dhul-wajhayn (two-faced), which the Prophet Muhammad assigned to troublemakers and hypocrites.

Fault-finders also tend to be miserable themselves, lacking self-esteem; and since they focus so much on blaming others, they become resentful; and rather than cherish people, tend to develop a desire to undermine and discredit people.

The negative feelings that a faultfinder harbours regarding others eventually consumes the person and this negativity eventually becomes part of the fault-finder's character.

Prophet Muhammad therefore advised us "Refrain from holding bad opinions of people."

[AbdulQahhar]

:ws:

See:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=3697&CATE=152

However i don't know the position of most wahabis(i'm pretty sure they say its haraam but not shirk) but most of the ones i know of my friends(in real life lol) say its shirk.
In fact, the ones i know, they even say theres a difference of opinion amongst the Sahaba but its stills shirk!
:ws:

Bro, the links on that page ain't working. Somebody took them off, but 4got to remove the links :D .

Server Error in '/' Application.
The resource cannot be found.
Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly.

Requested URL: /resources/questions/QA00000728.aspx

[AbdulQahhar]

Just type those phrases in their search feature and the answers will come up. They made some structural changes which is why they have lots of dead links.

rm -rf C:/Inetpub/wwwroot ?

[AbdulQahhar]

Okay i tried the second set of links. They worked. I'll put them here.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=698&CATE=115
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=729&CATE=115

:jazak:

BTW Are you admin on sunnipath.com?

[Daughter of Hawa]

Assalamu Alaikum

I have encountered a few insults from Salafis myself, some considered me as a a hypocrite and also a kaafir because I used the 'wrong and fabricated' hadiths. However I don't blame their ideology as nobody can judge a tree by its fruits.

What makes someone a Muslim? A Muslim is someone who beleieve in the Oneness of Allah, obeys Him and no-one else, a Muslim is someone who obeys the rules given by Allah and follows the the Messengers (as) of Allah. So belonging to a different ideology does not necesariyl take u out of the fold of islam, committing shirk does, so being a salafi or not doesnt make a difference as Allah judges us all by our intentions :)

Ma'salamah

[Nasir B.]

Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab considered tawassul and istighatha to be shirk. So, according to him, those who engage in these acts and are aware of their implications are disbelievers. He explains this position in al-Qawa'id al-Arba'a and Kashf ash-Shubuhat. He states in the former:


That the mushriks of our time are more severe in shirk than those before, because those of the past committed shirk in (times of) ease, but were sincere (to Allah) in (times of) hardship. However, the mushriks of our time are always committing shirk, in ease and in hardship. (Qadhi, An Explanation of Muhammad ibn 'Abdul Wahhab's Four Principles of Shirk, p. 27)

The translator, Yasir Qadhi (a graduate of the Islamic Univeristy of Madina) comments in a section entitled "The Concept of Intercession":


Likewise, the Companions, who were the most knowledgeable of this nation, never asked the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) after his death to intercede for them, since they knew that after the Prophet's (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) death, it is not possible to request the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to do anything. If this is the case with the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), then what is the status of any pious saint in comparison to his (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) status? . . . The irony of all this is that those who do these acts of shirk with pious saints and the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) (by invoking upon them as intercessors) do it with the excuse that they want to gain the shafa'ah of the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), and yet this act of theirs automatically disqualifies them from his shafa'ah because of their shirk. (p. 50)

And if you know the history of Arabia, then you know that Muhammad ibn 'Abdu-Wahhab acted on his words, because he actually fought "jihad" against those he obviously made takfir of.

[Usman]

Fee Fi Fo Fum, I heard somebody calling my numm... err. name(but that didn't rhym).

[zaheerhussain]

Has the above been confirmed by reliable witnesses?

Yes, brother.

[Usman]

We were having a talk with Maulana Syed Adnan Kakakhel @ Jamiatur Rasheed a couple of months back, and he made a very nice point.
__________________________________________________ ____________
The problem with the brothers claiming to be "salafis" is that , they choose specific meaning for a word ,and then stick to it.

If we refer to authentic dictionaries like Tajul Uroos and Lissaanul Arab, the word "yadd" has several meanings. Now the salafis, they just pick out one meaning (literal interpretation of the word i.e. hand) and then stick to it. If anyone makes a different interpretation, they call him deviant. The quesiton is, who gave you the right to specify one meaning? And then you make a claim "Layisa kamithlihee shayy".

This automatically interprets as "Allah has hands, but no hands are like His". So the question arises, have you ever found a hand which is "exactly" the same as anyone else's? Everyone's finger prints are different, so?

And the problem is that the salafis make an interpretation and then claim there's nothing like Him. It should rather be that saying "Layisa kamithlihee shayy" and then discuss the different interpretations. Otherwise, if people call you Mujassem, don't object.
__________________________________________________ ____________

Simililarly Dr. Manzoor sahib said about outrightly "denying" the possible literal interpretation that many have not been able to merely understand the issue.

He said that if you insist so much on keeping the literal meaning, then allow a different interpretation as well, for there's nothing wrong with it either. Reason? Qur'an says :

وَاذْكُرْ عِبَادَنَا إبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ أُوْلِي الْأَيْدِي وَالْأَبْصَارِ

38.45 ." And me mention of our bondmen , Abraham , Isaac and Jacob , men of parts and vision ."

This basically is the faulty translation from htspub(I think it's Pickthall's ). The other translation would be

"And Mention of our bondmen , Ibraheem and Ishaaq and Ya'qoob, the men of HANDS and VISION"

Now we all know that these Prophets Alaihimus Salaam could see and had hands, still , in Tafseer Durr-e-Manthoor :

وأخرج عبد بن حميد عن سعيد بن جبير رضي الله عنه ‏{‏أولي الأيدي والأبصار‏}‏ قال‏:‏ أما اليد فهو القوة في العمل، وأما الأبصار فالبصر ما هم فيه من أمر دينهم‏.

Even though the words are clearly from the Qur'an, Syydina Saeed bin Jubayir Radhi Allahu anh interprets the hands as "power" and vision as the foresight for the religious affairs.

So if you like to pose a fatwa of deviance, feel free to do so, but first make a decision about Syyidina Saeed bin Jubair (Radhi Allahu anh).

Now one might wonder, "OK , so what's the Story". The answer is simple , that these words are Kinayah, that if one takes another possible interpretation, the prior one is not denied, and vice versa. But still, sticking to one interpretation and calling others deviants,mu'tazili etc (like Abdullah AlHarabi of "AlMaturidiyah, Dirasatan wa Taqweeman" [from Saud bin Sultan University]) did, is wrong and merely a prejudiced approach.


Allah knows best
WasSalaam

[Sunni_Student786]

Brother Nasir,

That doesn't change really veracity of that I said.

[Omar HH]

Likewise, the Companions, who were the most knowledgeable of this nation, never asked the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) after his death to intercede for them, since they knew that after the Prophet's (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) death, it is not possible to request the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to do anything. If this is the case with the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), then what is the status of any pious saint in comparison to his (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) status? . . . The irony of all this is that those who do these acts of shirk with pious saints and the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) (by invoking upon them as intercessors) do it with the excuse that they want to gain the shafa'ah of the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), and yet this act of theirs automatically disqualifies them from his shafa'ah because of their shirk. (p. 50)

La hawla wa la quwwatah illa billah. I disagree with this comment as it is incorrect, may Allah have mercy and preserve Shaykh Yasir Qadhi (hafidhahullah).

We should remember that the scholars of ahl al sunnah wal jama'ah are so ardent and strong in their rejection and refutation of shirk that the Salafiyah really have no excuse to say such things.

The definition of sincerity is that you only ask from Allah. Shaykh Ramzy taught us 'aqidah on SunniPath and told us that there is no such thing as cause and effect. Allah's will is the only will and only his will is done -- we cannot say "X" caused "Y" but only that Y followed X. Nothing happens except in Allah's will. As our Prophet :saw: taught us in his ahadith and teachings - that if the entire ummah were to come together to benefit you they would only benefit you in something which Allah has written for you. It is considered from the levels of ikhlas, as I have learned from my teachers, to only ask Allah for everything.

However, istighatha or tawassul is done under this context. The Prophet :saw: cannot benefit or harm us or cause anything independently of Allah -- believing so is shirk. When we ask others to help us, such as asking the Prophet :saw: to make du'a for us to Allah or to intercede for us on the Day of Judgment then we do this only in the realization that there is no power or strength except with Allah -- and so we are really "asking Allah," even when asking the Prophet because we realize that the Prophet can only ask Allah by Allah's leave, and Allah can only answer at his leave as well. It is the same when we are asking someone living to make du'a for us -- if we believe they can help us indepdently of Allah then this is shirk, and if we believe that they actually are the CAUSE of asking Allah or that Allah has given the power to cause anything or make anything happen then this is bid'ah. If I punch you then I didn't cause the pain, Allah created my punch of you and Allah created the pain - nothing came from myself -- however I am held accountable to my actions with Allah.

There is a sahih narration of Sayyidina Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him) going to the grave of the Master of Masters :saw: and saying to him in the time of drought, "O Messenger of Allah ask rain for your ummah." And there is ijm'a that the companions of the Prophet :saw: were upright.

[Nasir B.]

Brother Nasir,

That doesn't change really veracity of that I said.I don't understand what you mean here. I essentially agree with what you said. Salafis don't explicitly make takfir of all non-Salafis; however, they do, quite explicitly, judge tawassul and istaghatha as shirk. The implication is that the common Muslims who practise these are inadvertent mushrikun and eligible for "da'wa"; while those who practise them with knowledge (presumably after the "evidences" have been shown to them) are fought against, which is exactly what Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab did. Just to provide another example, The Effects of the Methodologies of al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen upon the Path of Salafiyyah: A Historical Review and Analysis, a series of articles by Salafi Publications contains in Part 1, p. 8, quoting Shaykh Rabee' bin Haadee al-Madkhalee:


". . . Allaah brought the Imaam, the Mujaddid, Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahhaab to repel them from the Ummah, and so he assaulted the people of innovations and misguidance and attacked them with evidences and proofs and with the sword and the spear, until he returned the strength to Islaam, the illumination back to Tawheed, and the slendour and purity back to the Sunnah." (italics mine)

On p. 10:


The reformative da'wah of Shaykh ul-Islaam Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhaab was based upon a correction of Islamic beliefs (aqaa'id), worship (ibaadaat) and affairs of methodology (manaahij) in numerous arenas of knowledge and action. His call was to Tawheed as it was taught, understood and implemented by the Messengers of Allaah, and he called to the Salafee Aqeedah, Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah and Tawheed al-Asmaa was-Sifaat, and fought on account of this, and initiated his da'wah upon this . . . His da'wah was successful and he purified the Arabian Peninsula from the Shirk that had entered into it, in the shadow of a Soofee Ottoman Empire.

Shirk and Innovation had crept in over the centuries, culminating in the worship of the dead, such as Yusuf, Shamsaan and Taaj, from amongst the tawaagaheet (false gods). The purification of this Shirk and Innovations from the peninsula, on account of the da'wah of Shaykh ul-Islaam, led to subsequent blessings upon this land, and a state built upon Tawheed . . . (italics mine)


La hawla wa la quwwatah illa billah. I disagree with this comment as it is incorrect, may Allah have mercy and preserve Shaykh Yasir Qadhi (hafidhahullah).I respect Yasir Qadhi, and to be fair I should mention that that book was published in 2002. A lot can change in five years. I don't know if he's recanted that belief or not.

[loveProphet]

Assalamu Alaikum

I have encountered a few insults from Salafis myself, some considered me as a a hypocrite and also a kaafir because I used the 'wrong and fabricated' hadiths. However I don't blame their ideology as nobody can judge a tree by its fruits.

What makes someone a Muslim? A Muslim is someone who beleieve in the Oneness of Allah, obeys Him and no-one else, a Muslim is someone who obeys the rules given by Allah and follows the the Messengers (as) of Allah. So belonging to a different ideology does not necesariyl take u out of the fold of islam, committing shirk does, so being a salafi or not doesnt make a difference as Allah judges us all by our intentions :)

Ma'salamah
:ws:
You've seen nothing yet. Just see the wahabi Shuyukh such as Sheikh Albani cursing and insulting the 'Ulema of the Ahlus Sunnah.
Not to mention that some of the wahabis get violent when they can't win intellectually, one big wahabi(the leader of their group) threatened to beat me up if i don't change "my views"! But Alhamdulillah i exposed his games in front of everyone and he can't do anything, now the people can see the true face of the wahabis!
Its no wonder they took power in the Hijaz and Haramayn by violence and slaughter.

:ws:

[tazkiyyah]

Mawlana Usman,

Jazakallah.
One of my friends told me that jamiat ar rasheed was teaching
salafi aqeeda.
But you have clarified the issue

[tazkiyyah]

Did you guys actually listen to what he said ,
or are you just praising him.????

He said yunus saharanpuri is mubtedi
Ghayr muqallid!
Wow

1:06

[AbdulQahhar]

:ws:
You've seen nothing yet. Just see the wahabi Shuyukh such as Sheikh Albani cursing and insulting the 'Ulema of the Ahlus Sunnah.
Not to mention that some of the wahabis get violent when they can't win intellectually, one big wahabi(the leader of their group) threatened to beat me up if i don't change "my views"! But Alhamdulillah i exposed his games in front of everyone and he can't do anything, now the people can see the true face of the wahabis!
Its no wonder they took power in the Hijaz and Haramayn by violence and slaughter.

:ws:

:astagh:

Violence against Muslims?

:astagh: :astagh:

[tazkiyyah]

Also,he mentions that imam ahmad rida khan's father was a sound and correct aalim of deen-from the ulema e haq(mawlana naqi ali khan rahmatullahi alayh)

[tazkiyyah]

He says he was a good friend of shaykh muhammad alawi al maliki,who studied in a deobandi madrassa for 2 years before going to arabia.
And he met him towards the end years of his life

[Salafi]

We were having a talk with Maulana Syed Adnan Kakakhel @ Jamiatur Rasheed a couple of months back, and he made a very nice point.
__________________________________________________ ____________
The problem with the brothers claiming to be "salafis" is that , they choose specific meaning for a word ,and then stick to it.

If we refer to authentic dictionaries like Tajul Uroos and Lissaanul Arab, the word "yadd" has several meanings. Now the salafis, they just pick out one meaning (literal interpretation of the word i.e. hand) and then stick to it. If anyone makes a different interpretation, they call him deviant. The quesiton is, who gave you the right to specify one meaning? And then you make a claim "Layisa kamithlihee shayy".

This automatically interprets as "Allah has hands, but no hands are like His". So the question arises, have you ever found a hand which is "exactly" the same as anyone else's? Everyone's finger prints are different, so?

And the problem is that the salafis make an interpretation and then claim there's nothing like Him. It should rather be that saying "Layisa kamithlihee shayy" and then discuss the different interpretations. Otherwise, if people call you Mujassem, don't object.
__________________________________________________ ____________


he gave excellent response to musharraf. (i think he is the same kakakhel)

tell him to read what Mufti Taqi uthmani said in darse tirmidhi. he pointed out that ibn taymiyyah had this belief but said that he was not a mujassem. and denounced ibn batutah.

[Daughter of Hawa]

:ws:
You've seen nothing yet. Just see the wahabi Shuyukh such as Sheikh Albani cursing and insulting the 'Ulema of the Ahlus Sunnah.
Not to mention that some of the wahabis get violent when they can't win intellectually, one big wahabi(the leader of their group) threatened to beat me up if i don't change "my views"! But Alhamdulillah i exposed his games in front of everyone and he can't do anything, now the people can see the true face of the wahabis!
Its no wonder they took power in the Hijaz and Haramayn by violence and slaughter.

:ws:
Assalamu Alaikum Br, I dont think its neccessary to generalise the whole of wahabi's just because we have encountered a few insults. Many Shias have come up to me telling me how Sunni muslims treated them bad in Mosques and Universities, does that mean we all do the same, should a minority represent the attitude for a whole group? Khair everyone has faults in them, nobody here is perfect, we should be setting examples and be tolerant, if you call someone a kafir and he isn't one then you're a kafir yourself, so if they call us kaffir then let them, at the end of the day we will all be held accountable for our deeds Insh'Allah, hope thats helped :)

Ma'Salamah

[Saad]

Did you guys actually listen to what he said ,
or are you just praising him.????

He said yunus saharanpuri is mubtedi
Ghayr muqallid!
Wow

1:06

Who is Yunus Saharanpuri?

[Saad]

He says he was a good friend of shaykh muhammad alawi al maliki,who studied in a deobandi madrassa for 2 years before going to arabia.
And he met him towards the end years of his life

Yea at Binori town. But Shaikh also mentions he indulged in some biddats (probably referring to Meelad) just becasue he was strict in his opposition of some Salafi scholars in Saudi. Yea and he said when he met him at the end of his life, he said he regretted going to Pakistan on the inviattion of Dr. Tahir ul Qadri.

[Saad]

he gave excellent response to musharraf. (i think he is the same kakakhel)

.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=C70QYju0ZnE

[loveProphet]

Yea at Binori town. But Shaikh also mentions he indulged in some biddats (probably referring to Meelad) just becasue he was strict in his opposition of some Salafi scholars in Saudi. Yea and he said when he met him at the end of his life, he said he regretted going to Pakistan on the inviattion of Dr. Tahir ul Qadri.
Probably cause in Pakistan, there is vehemant opposition to the Mawlid etc...

[loveProphet]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=C70QYju0ZnE
Watch this too:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=445clL0nKBg&mode=related&search=

Did we get a refutation of this too?

[tazkiyyah]

Mufti Zarwali Khan sahib attacks salafis again

http://ahsanmedia.com/Sound/Shab_e_Juma/2007/021_Shab_e_Juma_Bayan_24_May_2007.mp3

Listen from
29 minutes onwards

he mentions that he visited saudi and picked up a salafi translation of the
quran with tafseer.

Interesting

[tazkiyyah]

It attacks the saudis.How the salafis
are filling the translations of Quran with
their own FILTH.

Their own FUHUSH GHALTIYAN

[Saad]

Who did Mufti Sahab study under?

[farook]

A friend wrote this to me, his name is Ismi

Our Faith behoves us not to search for faults in others and we would do well to heed the advice of our Beloved Prophet :

"Part of being a good person is minding your own business."

While the purpose of commanding good and forbidding evil is to correct and restore; fault finding inevitably leads to undermining the character of people and sometimes to destroying relationships. Prophet Muhammad said:

"The worst of people are those engaged in slandering others, those who ruin relationships between dear ones who try to find fault with innocent people."


The Prophet also admonished us that "when you pursue the faults of others, you corrupt them" and warned, "Those who unduly pursue the shortcomings of others will have their own faults exposed."


Fault-finding is the habit of the miserable


Confucius said: "the great person calls to attention the good points in others while the miserable person calls to attention the defects in others." (Analects 12:16).

That is perhaps why losers can easily say, "something is wrong" and winners usually say, "how can I correct it". Why losers say, "why don't you do this?" and winners usually say, "here is something I can do."


Faultfinders normally tell others about someone's faults and rarely have the guts to face people; fitting the description of dhul-wajhayn (two-faced), which the Prophet Muhammad assigned to troublemakers and hypocrites.

Fault-finders also tend to be miserable themselves, lacking self-esteem; and since they focus so much on blaming others, they become resentful; and rather than cherish people, tend to develop a desire to undermine and discredit people.

The negative feelings that a faultfinder harbours regarding others eventually consumes the person and this negativity eventually becomes part of the fault-finder's character.

Prophet Muhammad therefore advised us "Refrain from holding bad opinions of people."

Alhamdulillah. Let us pray that Allah (SWT) guide us all on this path. Beautifully expressed in a very simple language.

[smile*]

why do we have to have all these sects and stuff!!!
I just follow quran and sunnah , and thats good enough for me!

[Yahya Ibn Sal]

why do we have to have all these sects and stuff!!!
I just follow quran and sunnah , and thats good enough for me!

Well... Its not so simple because everyone will say i am follow Qu'ran and Sunnah, ... Whether they say they are so and so sect or not...

[Suffiyun]

why do we have to have all these sects and stuff!!!
I just follow quran and sunnah , and thats good enough for me!

So,where do you learn Sunnah from ?


Well... Its not so simple because everyone will say i am follow Qu'ran and Sunnah, ... Whether they say they are so and so sect or not...


:thumbsup:

[Sunni_Student786]

why do we have to have all these sects and stuff!!!
I just follow quran and sunnah , and thats good enough for me!

It is amazing how often this comes up.

[ServantofAllah]

Hafidh Ibn Hajar Asqalani refuting the claim that the Salaf did tafwid of meaning (tafwid al ma'na) - Fath al Bari-:

In that passage Ibn Hajar (rh) was talking about how one can learn about Allah, whether it is through reason alone, through scripture or a combination of both. He, of course, concludes the latter.

In the particular part you quoted he is talking about the evidence present in the Qur'an which points to Allah. Some postulated the Salaf did not understand this evidence whereas those after did (which is proabably true). This view is refuted by explaining the Salaf too knew the meanings of the verses of the Qur'an which point to Allah. The part you quoted says "The Salaf were at the peak of recognition as to what befits Allah Most High, and at the peak of glorification of Him, and submission to His will and surrender to His intent". This in no way means the Salaf ascribed specific meanings to ambiguous words applied to Allah. In fact it says the opposite: "surrender to His intent" (taslim li muradih). The Salaf too performed tafwid of meaning, and the posts on this thread are sufficient to prove it.

[faqir]

as-salamu 'alaikum sidi,

please contact us at : http://www.************/index.php?option=com_contact&Itemid=3 if you are interested in getting involved with our site.

jazaakumAllah khayr for what you mentioned about that quote. Here is the quote in question, in its context. To add to what you mentioned brother, it seems Ibn Hajar is perhaps quoting someone else as he says: And others beside him say.....etc Even if this is not the case then I fail to see how this is against tafwid.








الحديث‏:‏

و حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَبِي الْأَسْوَدِ حَدَّثَنَا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ الْعَلَاءِ حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ أُمَيَّةَ عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ صَيْفِيٍّ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ أَبَا مَعْبَدٍ مَوْلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ يَقُولُ سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يَقُولُ لَمَّا بَعَثَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مُعَاذَ بْنَ جَبَلٍ إِلَى نَحْوِ أَهْلِ الْيَمَنِ قَالَ لَهُ إِنَّكَ تَقْدَمُ عَلَى قَوْمٍ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ فَلْيَكُنْ أَوَّلَ مَا تَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى أَنْ يُوَحِّدُوا اللَّهَ تَعَالَى فَإِذَا عَرَفُوا ذَلِكَ فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ فَرَضَ عَلَيْهِمْ خَمْسَ صَلَوَاتٍ فِي يَوْمِهِمْ وَلَيْلَتِهِمْ فَإِذَا صَلَّوْا فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ افْتَرَضَ عَلَيْهِمْ زَكَاةً فِي أَمْوَالِهِمْ تُؤْخَذُ مِنْ غَنِيِّهِمْ فَتُرَدُّ عَلَى فَقِيرِهِمْ فَإِذَا أَقَرُّوا بِذَلِكَ فَخُذْ مِنْهُمْ وَتَوَقَّ كَرَائِمَ أَمْوَالِ النَّاسِ

الشرح‏:‏

قوله ‏(‏سمعت ابن عباس لما بعث‏)‏ كذا فيه بحذف‏.‏

‏(‏قال أو يقول‏)‏ وقد جرت العادة بحذفه خطا ويقال يشترط النطق به‏.‏

قوله ‏(‏لما بعث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم معاذ بن جبل إلى نحو أهل اليمن‏)‏ أي إلى جهة أهل اليمن، وهذه الرواية تقيد الرواية المطلقة بلفظ ‏"‏ حين بعثه إلى اليمن ‏"‏ فبينت هذه الرواية أن لفظ اليمن من باب حذف المضاف وإقامة المضاف إليه مقامه، أو من إطلاق العام وإرادة الخاص، أو لكون اسم الجنس يطلق على بعضه كما يطلق على كله، والراجح أنه من حمل المطلق على المقيد كما صرحت به هذه الرواية، وقد تقدم في باب بعث أبي موسى ومعاذ إلى اليمن في أواخر ‏"‏ المغازي ‏"‏ من رواية أبي بردة بن أبي موسى، وبعث كل واحد منهما على مخلاف قال ‏"‏ واليمن مخلافان ‏"‏ وتقدم ضبط المخلاف وشرحه هناك، ثم قوله ‏"‏ إلى أهل اليمن ‏"‏ من إطلاق الكل وإرادة البعض، لأنه إنما بعثه إلى بعضهم لا إلى جميعهم، ويحتمل أن يكون الخبر على عمومه في الدعوى إلى الأمور المذكورة وإن كانت إمرة معاذ إنما كانت على جهة من اليمن مخصوصة‏.‏

قوله ‏(‏إنك تقدم على قوم من أهل الكتاب‏)‏ هم اليهود، وكان ابتداء دخول اليهودية اليمن في زمن أسعد ذي كرب وهو تبع الأصغر كما ذكره ابن إسحاق مطولا في السيرة، فقام الإسلام وبعض أهل اليمن على اليهودية، ودخل دين النصرانية إلى اليمن بعد ذلك لما غلبت الحبشة على اليمن، وكان منهم أبرهة صاحب الفيل الذي غزا مكة وأراد هدم الكعبة حتى أجلاهم عنها سيف بن ذي يزن، كما ذكره ابن إسحاق مبسوطا أيضا، ولم يبق بعد ذلك باليمن أحد من النصارى أصلا إلا بنجران وهي بين مكة واليمن، وبقي ببعض بلادها قليل من اليهود‏.‏

قوله ‏(‏فليكن أول ما تدعوهم إلى أن يوحدوا الله فإذا عرفوا ذلك‏)‏ مضى في وسط الزكاة من طريق إسماعيل بن أمية عن يحيى بن عبد الله بلفظ ‏"‏ فليكن أول ما تدعوهم إليه عبادة الله فإذا عرفوا الله ‏"‏ وكذا أخرجه مسلم عن الشيخ الذي أخرجه عنه البخاري، وقد تمسك به من قال أول واجب المعرفة كإمام الحرمين واستدل بأنه لا يتأتى الإتيان بشيء من المأمورات على قصد الامتثال، ولا الانكفاف عن شيء من المنهيات على قصد الانزجار إلا بعد معرفة الآمر والناهي، واعترض عليه بأن المعرفة لا تتأتى إلا بالنظر والاستدلال، وهو مقدمة الواجب فيجب فيكون أول واجب النظر، وذهب إلى هذا طائفة كابن فورك، وتعقب بأن النظر ذو أجزاء يترتب بعضها على بعض، فيكون أول واجب جزأ من النظر وهو محكي عن القاضي أبي بكر بن الطيب وعن الأستاذ أبي إسحاق الأسفرايني أول واجب القصد إلى النظر، وجمع بعضهم بين هذه الأقوال بأن من قال أول واجب المعرفة أراد طلبا وتكليفا، ومن قال النظر أو القصد أراد امتثالا لأنه يسلم أنه وسيلة إلى تحصيل المعرفة، فيدل ذلك على سبق وجوب المعرفة، وقد ذكرت في ‏"‏ كتاب الإيمان ‏"‏ من أعرض عن هذا من أصله وتمسك بقوله تعالى ‏{‏فأقم وجهك للدين حنيفا، فطرة الله التي فطر الناس عليها‏}‏ وحديث ‏"‏ كل مولود يولد على الفطرة ‏"‏ فإن ظاهر الآية والحديث أن المعرفة حاصلة بأصل الفطرة، وأن الخروج عن ذلك يطرأ على الشخص لقوله عليه الصلاة والسلام ‏"‏ فأبواه يهودانه وينصرانه ‏"‏ وقد وافق أبو جعفر السمناني وهو من رءوس الأشاعرة على هذا وقال‏:‏ إن هذه المسألة بقيت في مقالة الأشعري من مسائل المعتزلة؛ وتفرع عليها أن الواجب على كل أحد معرفة الله بالأدلة الدالة عليه، وأنه لا يكفي التقليد في ذلك انتهى‏.‏

وقرأت في جزء من كلام شيخ شيخنا الحافظ صلاح الدين العلائي ما ملخصه‏:‏ أن هذه المسألة مما تناقضت فيها المذاهب وتباينت بين مفرط ومفرط ومتوسط، فالطرف الأول قول من قال يكفي التقليد المحض في إثبات وجود الله تعالى ونفي الشريك عنه، وممن نسب إليه إطلاق ذلك عبيد الله بن الحسن العنبري وجماعة من الحنابلة والظاهرية، ومنهم من بالغ فحرم النظر في الأدلة واستند إلى ما ثبت عن الأئمة الكبار من ذم الكلام كما سيأتي بيانه‏.‏

والطرف الثاني‏:‏ قول من وقف صحة إيمان كل أحد على معرفة الأدلة من علم الكلام، ونسب ذلك لأبي إسحاق الأسفرايني‏.‏

وقال الغزالي‏:‏ أسرفت طائفة فكفروا عوام المسلمين، وزعموا أن من لم يعرف العقائد الشرعية بالأدلة التي حرروها فهو كافر، فضيقوا رحمة الله الواسعة وجعلوا الجنة مختصة بشر ذمة يسيرة من المتكلمين، وذكر نحوه أبو المظفر بن السمعاني وأطال في الرد على قائله، ونقل عن أكثر أئمة الفتوى أنهم قالوا‏:‏ لا يجوز أن تكلف العوام اعتقاد الأصول بدلائلها، لأن في ذلك من المشقة أشد من المشقة في تعلم الفروع الفقهية‏.‏

وأما المذهب المتوسط فذكره وسأذكره ملخصا بعد هذا‏.‏

وقال القرطبي في المفهم‏:‏ في شرح حديث ‏"‏ أبغض الرجال إلى الله الألد الخصم ‏"‏ الذي تقدم شرحه في أثناء ‏"‏ كتاب الأحكام ‏"‏ وهو في أوائل ‏"‏ كتاب العلم ‏"‏ من صحيح مسلم، هذا الشخص الذي يبغضه الله هو الذي يقصد بخصومته مدافعة الحق ورده بالأوجه الفاسدة والشبه الموهمة، وأشد ذلك الخصومة في أصول الدين، كما يقع لأكثر المتكلمين المعرضين عن الطرق التي أرشد إليها كتاب الله وسنة رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم وسلف أمته، إلى طرق مبتدعة واصطلاحات مخترعة وقوانين جدلية وأمور صناعية مدار أكثرها على آراء سوفسطائية، أو مناقضات لفظية ينشأ بسببها على الآخذ فيها شبه ربما يعجز عنها، وشكوك يذهب الإيمان معها، وأحسنهم انفصالا عنها أجدلهم لا أعلمهم، فكم من عالم بفساد الشبهة لا يقوى على حلها، وكم من منفصل عنها لا يدرك حقيقة علمها ثم إن هؤلاء قد ارتكبوا أنواعا من المحال لا يرتضيها البله ولا الأطفال، لما بحثوا عن تحيز الجواهر والألوان والأحوال، فأخذوا فيما أمسك عنه السلف الصالح من كيفيات تعلقات صفات الله تعالى وتعديدها واتحادها في نفسها، وهل هي الذات أو غيرها وفي الكلام‏:‏ هل هو متحد أو منقسم، وعلى الثاني‏:‏ هل ينقسم بالنوع أو الوصف، وكيف تعلق في الأزل بالمأمور مع كونه حادثا، ثم إذا انعدم المأمور هل يبقى التعلق، وهل الأمر لزيد بالصلاة مثلا هو نفس الأمر لعمرو بالزكاة إلى غير ذلك مما ابتدعوه مما لم يأمر به الشارع وسكت عنه الصحابة ومن سلك سبيلهم، بل نهوا عن الخوض فيها لعلمهم بأنه بحث عن كيفية ما لا تعلم كيفيته بالعقل، لكون العقول لها حد تقف عنده، ولا فرق بين البحث عن كيفية الذات وكيفية الصفات، ومن توقف في هذا فليعلم أنه إذا كان حجب عن كيفية نفسه مع وجودها، وعن كيفية إدراك ما يدرك به فهو عن إدراك غيره أعجز، وغاية علم العالم أن يقطع بوجود فاعل لهذه المصنوعات منزه عن الشبيه مقدس عن النظير متصف بصفات الكمال، ثم متى ثبت النقل عنه بشيء من أوصافه وأسمائه قبلناه واعتقدناه وسكتنا عما عداه، كما هو طريق السلف، وما عداه لا يأمن صاحب من الزلل، ويكفي في الردع عن الخوض في طرق المتكلمين ما ثبت عن الأئمة المتقدمين كعمر ابن عبد العزيز ومالك بن أنس والشافعي، وقد قطع بعض الأئمة بأن الصحابة لم يخوضوا في الجوهر والعرض وما يتعلق بذلك من مباحث المتكلمين، فمن رغب عن طريقهم فكفاه ضلالا، قال‏:‏ وأفضي الكلام بكثير من أهله إلى الشك، وببعضهم إلى الإلحاد وببعضهم إلى التهاون بوظائف العبادات، وسبب ذلك إعراضهم عن نصوص الشارع وتطلبهم حقائق الأمور من غيره، وليس في قوة العقل ما يدرك ما في نصوص الشارع من الحكم التي استأثر بها، وقد رجع كثير من أئمتهم عن طريقهم، حتى جاء عن إمام الحرمين أنه قال ‏"‏ ركبت البحر الأعظم، وغصت في كل شيء نهى عنه أهل العلم في طلب الحق فرارا من التقليد والآن فقد رجعت واعتقدت مذهب السلف ‏"‏ هذا كلامه أو معناه وعنه أنه قال عند موته ‏"‏ يا أصحابنا لا تشتغلوا بالكلام، فلو عرفت أنه يبلغ بي ما بلغت ما تشاغلت به ‏"‏ إلى أن قال القرطبي‏:‏ ولو لم يكن في الكلام إلا مسألتان هما من مبادئه لكان حقيقا بالذم‏:‏ إحداهما قول بعضهم إن أول واجب الشك إذ هو اللازم عن وجوب النظر أو القصد إلى النظر، وإليه أشار الإمام بقوله ركبت البحر‏.‏

ثانيتهما قول جماعة منهم إن من لم يعرف الله بالطرق التي رتبوها والأبحاث التي حرروها لم يصح إيمانه، حتى لقد أورد على بعضهم أن هذا يلزم منه تكفير أبيك وأسلافك وجيرانك، فقال لا تشنع علي بكثرة أهل النار، قال وقد رد بعض من لم يقل بهما على من قال بهما بطريق من الرد النظري وهو خطأ منه، فإن القائل بالمسألتين كافر شرعا، لجعله الشك في الله واجبا، ومعظم المسلمين كفارا حتى يدخل في عموم كلامه السلف الصالح من الصحابة والتابعين، وهذا معلوم الفساد من الدين بالضرورة، وإلا فلا يوجد في الشرعيات ضروري، وختم القرطبي كلامه بالاعتذار عن إطالة النفس في هذا الموضع لما شاع بين الناس من هذه البدعة حتى اغتر بها كثير من الأغمار فوجب بذل النصيحة، والله يهدي من يشاء انتهى‏.‏

وقال الآمدي في أبكار الأفكار‏:‏ ذهب أبو هاشم من المعتزلة إلى أن من لا يعرف الله بالدليل فهو كافر، لأن ضد المعرفة النكرة والنكرة كفر، قال‏:‏ وأصحابنا مجمعون على خلافه وإنما اختلفوا فيما إذا كان الاعتقاد موافقا لكن عن غير دليل، فمنهم من قال إن صاحبه مؤمن عاص بترك النظر الواجب، ومنهم من اكتفى بمجرد الاعتقاد الموافق وإن لم يكن عن دليل وسماه علما، وعلى هذا فلا يلزم من حصول المعرفة بهذا الطريق وجوب النظر‏.‏

وقال غيره‏:‏ من منع التقليد وأوجب الاستدلال لم يرد التعمق في طريق المتكلمين، بل اكتفى بما لا يخلو عنه من نشأ بين المسلمين من الاستدلال بالمصنوع على الصانع، وغايته أنه يحصل في الذهن مقدمات ضرورية تتألف تألفا صحيحا وتنتج العلم، لكنه لو سئل كيف حصل له ذلك ما اهتدى للتعبير به، وقيل الأصل في هذا كله المنع من التقليد في أصول الدين وقد انفصل بعض الأئمة عن ذلك بأن المراد بالتقليد أخذ قول الغير بغير حجة، ومن قامت عليه حجة بثبوت النبوة حتى حصل له القطع بها، فمهما سمعه من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان مقطوعا عنده بصدقه فإذا اعتقده لم يكن مقلدا لأنه لم يأخذ بقول غيره بغير حجة، وهذا مستند السلف قاطبة في الأخذ بما ثبت عندهم من آيات القرآن وأحاديث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فيما يتعلق بهذا الباب، فآمنوا بالمحكم من ذلك وفوضوا أمر المتشابه منه إلى ربهم، وإنما قال من قال إن مذهب الخلف أحكم بالنسبة إلى الرد على من لم يثبت النبوة، فيحتاج من يريد رجوعه إلى الحق أن يقيم عليه الأدلة إلى أن يذعن فيسلم أو يعاند فيهلك، بخلاف المؤمن فإنه لا يحتاج في أصل إيمانه إلى ذلك، وليس سبب الأول إلا جعل الأصل عدم الإيمان فلزم إيجاب النظر المؤدي إلى المعرفة وإلا فطريق السلف أسهل من هذا كما تقدم إيضاحه من الرجوع إلى ما دلت عليه النصوص حتى يحتاج إلى ما ذكر من إقامة الحجة على من ليس بمؤمن، فاختلط الأمر على من اشترط ذلك والله المستعان‏.‏

واحتج بعض من أوجب الاستدلال باتفاقهم على ذم التقليد، وذكروا الآيات والأحاديث الواردة في ذم التقليد، وبأن كل أحد قبل الاستدلال لا يدري أي الأمرين هو الهدي، وبأن كل ما لا يصح إلا بالدليل فهو دعوى لا يعمل بها، وبأن العلم اعتقاد الشيء على ما هو عليه من ضرورة أو استدلال وكل ما لم يكن علما فهو جهل، ومن لم يكن عالما فهو ضال‏.‏

والجواب عن الأول أن المذموم من التقليد أخذ قول الغير بغير حجة، وهذا ليس منه حكم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فإن الله أوجب اتباعه في كل ما يقول، وليس العمل فيما أمر به أو نهى عنه داخلا تحت التقليد المذموم اتفاقا، وأما من دونه ممن اتبعه في قول قاله واعتقد أنه لو لم يقله لم يقل هو به فهو المقلد المذموم، بخلاف ما لو اعتقد ذلك في خبر الله ورسوله فإنه يكون ممدوحا، وأما احتجاجهم بأن أحدا لا يدري قبل الاستدلال أي الأمرين هو الهدى فليس بمسلم، بل من الناس من تطمئن نفسه وينشرح صدره للإسلام من أول وهلة، ومنهم من يتوقف على الاستدلال، فالذي ذكروه هم أهل الشق الثاني، فيجب عليه النظر ليقي نفسه النار لقوله تعالى ‏{‏قوا أنفسكم وأهليكم نارا‏}‏ ويجب على كل من استرشده أن يرشده ويبرهن له الحق وعلى هذا مضى السلف الصالح من عهد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وبعده‏.‏

وأما من استقرت نفسه إلى تصديق الرسول ولم تنازعه نفسه إلى طلب دليل توفيقا من الله وتيسيرا‏.‏

فهم الذين قال الله في حقهم ‏{‏ولكن الله حبب إليكم الإيمان وزينه في قلوبكم‏}‏ الآية‏.‏

وقال ‏{‏فمن يرد الله أن يهديه يشرح صدره للإسلام‏}‏ الآية وليس هؤلاء مقلدين لآبائهم ولا لرؤسائهم‏.‏

لأنهم لو كفر آباؤهم أو رؤساؤهم لم يتابعوهم بل يجدون النفرة عن كل من سمعوا عنه ما يخالف الشريعة وأما الآيات والأحاديث فإنما وردت في حق الكفار الذين اتبعوا من نهوا عن اتباعه وتركوا اتباع من أمروا باتباعه‏.‏

وإنما كلفهم الله الإتيان ببرهان على دعواهم بخلاف المؤمنين فلم يرد قط أنه أسقط أتباعهم حتى يأتوا بالبرهان‏.‏

وكل من خالف الله ورسوله فلا برهان له أصلا وإنما كلف الإتيان بالبرهان تبكيتا وتعجيزا‏.‏

وأما من اتبع الرسول فيما جاء به فقد اتبع الحق الذي أمر به وقامت البراهين على صحته، سواء علم هو بتوجيه ذلك البرهان أم لا‏.‏

وقول من قال منهم إن الله ذكر الاستدلال وأمر به مسلم لكن هو فعل حسن مندوب لكل من أطاقه، وواجب على كل من لم تسكن نفسه إلى التصديق كما تقدم تقريره وبالله التوفيق‏.‏

وقال غيره قول من قال طريقة السلف أسلم وطريقة الخلف أحكم ليس بمستقيم، لأنه ظن أن طريقة السلف مجرد الإيمان بألفاظ القرآن والحديث من غير فقه في ذلك، وأن طريقة الخلف هي استخراج معاني النصوص المصروفة عن حقائقها بأنواع المجازات، فجمع هذا القائل بين الجهل بطريقة السلف والدعوى في طريقة الخلف، وليس الأمر كما ظن، بل السلف في غاية المعرفة بما يليق بالله تعالى، وفي غاية التعظيم له والخضوع لأمره والتسليم لمراده، وليس من سلك طريق الخلف واثقا بأن الذي يتأوله هو المراد ولا يمكنه القطع بصحة تأويله، وأما قولهم في العلم فزادوا في التعريف عن ضرورة أو استدلال وتعريف العلم، انتهى عند قوله عليه‏:‏ فإن أبوا إلا الزيادة فليزدادوا عن تيسير الله له ذلك وخلقه ذلك المعتقد في قلبه، وإلا فالذي زادوه هو محل النزاع فلا دلالة فيه وبالله التوفيق‏.‏

وقال أبو المظفر بن السمعاني تعقب بعض أهل الكلام قول من قال إن السلف من الصحابة والتابعين لم يعتنوا بإيراد دلائل العقل في التوحيد بأنهم لم يشتغلوا بالتعريفات في أحكام الحوادث وقد قبل الفقهاء ذلك واستحسنوه فدونوه في كتبهم، فكذلك علم الكلام، ويمتاز علم الكلام بأنه يتضمن الرد على الملحدين وأهل الأهواء، وبه تزول الشبهة عن أهل الزيغ ويثبت اليقين لأهل الحق، وقد علم الكل أن الكتاب لم تعلم حقيته، والنبي لم يثبت صدقه إلا بأدلة العقل، وأجاب‏:‏ أما أولا فإن الشارع والسلف الصالح نهوا عن الابتداع وأمروا بالاتباع، وصح عن السلف أنهم نهوا عن علم الكلام وعدوه ذريعة للشك والارتياب‏.‏

وأما الفروع فلم يثبت عن أحد منهم النهي عنها إلا من ترك النص الصحيح وقدم عليه القياس، وأما من اتبع النص وقاس عليه فلا يحفظ عن أحد من أئمة السلف إنكار ذلك، لأن الحوادث في المعاملات لا تنقضي وبالناس حاجة إلى معرفة الحكم، فمن ثم تواردوا على استحباب الاشتغال بذلك بخلاف علم الكلام‏.‏

وأما ثانيا‏:‏ فإن الدين كمل لقوله تعالى ‏{‏اليوم أكملت لكم دينكم‏}‏ فإذا كان أكمله وأتمه وتلقاه الصحابة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم واعتقده من تلقى عنهم واطمأنت به نفوسهم، فأي حاجة بهم إلى تحكيم العقول والرجوع إلى قضاياها وجعلها أصلا، والنصوص الصحيحة الصريحة تعرض عليها فتارة يعمل بمضمونها، وتارة تحرف عن مواضعها لتوافق العقول‏.‏

وإذا كان الدين قد كمل فلا تكون الزيادة فيه إلا نقصانا في المعنى، مثل زيادة أصبع في اليد فإنها تنقص قيمة العبد الذي يقع به ذلك، وقد توسط بعض المتكلمين فقال‏:‏ لا يكفي التقليد بل لا بد من دليل ينشرح به الصدر‏.‏

وتحصل به الطمأنينة العلمية، ولا يشترط أن يكون بطريق الصناعة الكلامية بل يكفي في حق كل أحد بحسب ما يقتضيه فهمه انتهى‏.‏

والذي تقدم ذكره من تقليد النصوص كاف في هذا القدر‏.‏

وقال بعضهم المطلوب من كل أحد التصديق الجزمي الذي لا ريب معه بوجود الله تعالى والإيمان برسله وبما جاءوا به كيفما حصل وبأي طريق إليه يوصل، ولو كان عن تقليد محض إذا سلم من التزلزل‏.‏

قال القرطبي‏:‏ هذا الذي عليه أئمة الفتوى ومن قبلهم من أئمة السلف، واحتج بعضهم بما تقدم من القول في أصل الفطرة وبما تواتر عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم الصحابة أنهما حكموا بإسلام من أسلم من جفاة العرب ممن كان يعبد الأوثان، فقبلوا منهم الإقرار بالشهادتين، والتزام أحكام الإسلام من غير إلزام بتعلم الأدلة، وإن كان كثير منهم إنما أسلم لوجود دليل ما، فأسلم بسبب وضوحه له، فالكثير منهم قد أسلموا طوعا من غير تقدم استدلال، بل بمجرد ما كان عندهم من أخبار أهل الكتاب بأن نبيا سيبعث وينتصر على من خالفه، فلما ظهرت لهم العلامات في محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم بادروا إلى الإسلام، وصدقوه في شيء قاله ودعاهم إليه من الصلاة والزكاة وغيرهما، وكثير منهم كان يؤذن له في الرجوع إلى معاشه من رعاية الغنم وغيرها، وكانت أنوار النبوة وبركاتها تشملهم فلا يزالون يزدادون إيمانا ويقينا‏.‏

وقال أبو المظفر بن السمعاني أيضا ما ملخصه‏:‏ إن العقل لا يوجب شيئا ولا يحرم شيئا، ولا حظ له في شيء من ذلك، ولو لم يرد الشرع بحكم ما وجب على أحد شيء، لقوله تعالى ‏(‏وما كنا معذبين حتى نبعث رسولا‏)‏ وقوله ‏(‏لئلا يكون للناس على الله حجة بعد الرسل‏)‏ وغير ذلك من الآيات‏.‏

فمن زعم أن دعوة رسل الله عليهم الصلاة والسلام إنما كانت لبيان الفروع، لزمه أن يجعل العقل هو الداعي إلى الله دون الرسول ويلزمه أن وجود الرسول وعدمه بالنسبة إلى الدعاء إلى الله سواء، وكفى بهذا ضلالا‏.‏

ونحن لا ننكر أن العقل يرشد إلى التوحيد وإنما ننكر أنه يستقل بإيجاب ذلك حتى لا يصح إسلام إلا بطريقه، مع قطع النظر عن السمعيات لكون ذلك خلاف ما دلت عليه آيات الكتاب والأحاديث الصحيحة التي تواترت ولو بالطريق المعنوي، ولو كان يقول أولئك لبطلت السمعيات التي لا مجال للعقل فيها أو أكثرها، بل يجب الإيمان بما ثبت من السمعيات، فإن عقلناه فبتوفيق الله وإلا اكتفينا باعتقاد حقيته على وفق مراد الله سبحانه وتعالى انتهى‏.‏

ويؤيد كلامه ما أخرجه أبو داود عن ابن عباس ‏"‏ أن رجلا قال لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنشدك الله الله أرسلك أن نشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن ندع اللات والعزى‏؟‏ قال‏:‏ نعم فأسلم ‏"‏ وأصله في الصحيحين في قصة ضمام بن ثعلبة، وفي حديث عمرو بن عبسة عند مسلم أنه ‏"‏ أتى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال ما أنت‏؟‏ قال‏:‏ نبي الله‏.‏

قلت‏:‏ الله أرسلك‏؟‏ قال‏:‏ نعم‏.‏

قلت‏:‏ بأي شيء‏؟‏ قال‏:‏ أوحد الله لا أشرك به شيئا ‏"‏ الحديث، وفي حديث أسامة بن زيد في قصة قتله الذي قال لا إله إلا الله فأنكر عليه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وحديث المقداد في معناه، وقد تقدما في ‏"‏ كتاب الديات ‏"‏ وفي كتب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى هرقل وكسرى وغيرهما من الملوك يدعوهم إلى التوحيد؛ إلى غير ذلك من الأخبار المتواترة التواتر المعنوي الدال على أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يزد في دعائه المشركين على أن يؤمنوا بالله وحده ويصدقوه فيما جاء به عنه، فمن فعل ذلك قبل منه سواء كان إذعانه عن تقدم نظر أم لا، ومن توقف منهم نبهه حينئذ على النظر، أو أقام عليه الحجة إلى أن يذغن أو يستمر على عناده‏.‏

وقال البيهقي في ‏"‏ كتاب الاعتقاد ‏"‏ سلك بعض أئمتنا في إثبات الصانع وحدوث العالم طريق الاستدلال بمعجزات الرسالة فإنها أصل في وجوب قبول ما دعا إليه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم‏.‏

وعلى هذا الوجه وقع إيمان الذين استجابوا للرسل، ثم ذكر قصة النجاشي وقول جعفر بن أبي طالب له ‏"‏ بعث الله إلينا رسولا نعرف صدقه فدعانا إلى الله وتلا علينا تنزيلا من الله لا يشبهه شيء فصدقناه وعرفنا أن الذي جاء به الحق ‏"‏ الحديث بطوله، وقد أخرجه ابن خزيمة في ‏"‏ كتاب الزكاة ‏"‏ من صحيحه من رواية ابن إسحاق وحاله معروفة وحديثه في درجة الحسن، قال البيهقي فاستدلوا بإعجاز القرآن على صدق النبي، فآمنوا بما جاء به من إثبات الصانع ووجدانيته وحدوث العالم وغير ذلك مما جاء به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم في القرآن وغيره، واكتفاء غالب من أسلم بمثل ذلك مشهور في الأخبار، فوجب تصديقه في كل شيء ثبت عنه بطريق السمع، ولا يكون ذلك تقليدا بل هو اتباع والله أعلم‏.‏

وقد استدل من اشترط النظر بالآيات والأحاديث الواردة في ذلك، ولا حجة فيها لأن من لم يشترط النظر لم ينكر أصل النظر، وإنما أنكر توقف الإيمان على وجود النظر بالطرق الكلامية، إذ لا يلزم من الترغيب في النظر جعله شرطا، واستدل بعضهم بأن التقليد لا يفيد العلم إذ لو أفاده لكان العلم حاصلا لمن قلد في قدم العالم ولمن قلد في حدوثه‏.‏

وهو محال لإفضائه إلى الجمع بين النقيضين‏.‏

وهذا إنما يتأتى في تقليد غير النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم‏.‏

وأما تقليده صلى الله عليه وسلم فيما أخبر به عن ربه فلا يتناقض أصلا واعتذر بعضهم عن اكتفاء النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم والصحابة بإسلام من أسلم من الأعراب من غير نظر بأن ذلك كان لضرورة المبادئ‏.‏

وأما بعد تقرر الإسلام وشهرته فيجب العمل بالأدلة ولا يخفى ضعف هذا الاعتذار والعجب أن من اشترط ذلك من أهل الكلام ينكرون التقليد وهم أول داع إليه حتى استقر في الأذهان أن من أنكر قاعدة من القواعد التي أصلوها فهو مبتدع ولو لم يفهمها ولم يعرف مأخذها وهذا هو محض التقليد فآل أمرهم إلى تكفير من قلد الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام في معرفة الله تعالى والقول بإيمان من قلدهم وكفى بهذا ضلالا وما مثلهم إلا كما قال بعض السلف‏:‏ إنهم كمثل قوم كانوا سفرا فوقعوا في فلاة ليس فيها ما يقوم به البدن من المأكول والمشروب ورأوا فيها طرقا شتى فانقسموا قسمين فقسم وجدوا من قال لهم أنا عارف بهذه الطرق وطريق النجاة منها واحدة فاتبعوني فيها تنجوا فتبعوه فنجوا، وتخلفت عنه طائفة فأقاموا إلى أن وقفوا على أمارة ظهر لهم أن في العمل بها النجاة فعملوا بها فنجوا وقسم هجموا بغير مرشد ولا أمارة فهلكوا، فليست نجاة من اتبع المرشد بدون نجاة من أخذ بالأمارة إن لم تكن أول منها، ونقلت من جزء الحافظ صلاح الدين العلائي يمكن أن يفصل فيقال‏:‏ من لا له أهلية لفهم شيء من الأدلة أصلا وحصل له اليقين التام بالمطلوب إما بنشأته على ذلك أو لنور يقذفه الله في قلبه، فإنه يكتفي منه بذلك، ومن فيه أهلية لفهم الأدلة لم يكتف منه إلا بالإيمان عن دليل، ومع ذلك فدليل كل أحد يحسبه وتكفي الأدلة المجملة التي تحصل بأدنى نظر، ومن حصلت عنده شبهة وجب عليه التعلم إلى أن تزول عنه، قال فبهذا يحصل الجمع بين كلام الطائفة المتوسطة، وأما من غلا فقال لا يكفي إيمان المقلد فلا يلتفت إليه، لما يلزم منه من القول بعدم إيمان أكثر المسلمين، وكذا من غلا أيضا فقال لا يجوز النظر في الأدلة لما يلزم منه من أن أكابر السلف لم يكونوا من أهل النظر انتهى ملخصا‏.‏

واستدل بقوله ‏"‏ فإذا عرفوا الله ‏"‏ بأن معرفة الله بحقيقة كنهه ممكنة للبشر، فإن كان ذلك مقيدا بما عرف به نفسه من وجوده وصفاته اللائقة من العلم والقدرة والإرادة مثلا، وتنزيهه عن كل نقيصة كالحدوث فلا بأس به، فأما ما عدا ذلك فإنه غير معلوم للبشر وإليه الإشارة بقوله تعالى ‏(‏ولا يحيطون به علما‏)‏ فإذا حمل قوله فإذا عرفوا الله على ذلك كان واضحا مع أن الاحتجاج به يتوقف على الجزم بأنه صلى الله عليه وسلم نطق بهذه اللفظة وفيه نظر، لأن القصة واحدة ورواة هذا الحديث اختلفوا‏:‏ هل ورد الحديث بهذا اللفظ أو بغيره‏؟‏ فلم يقل صلى الله عليه وسلم إلا بلفظ منها، ومع احتمال أن يكون هذا اللفظ من تصرف الرواة لا يتم الاستدلال، وقد بينت في أواخر ‏"‏ كتاب الزكاة ‏"‏ أن الأكثر رووه بلفظ ‏"‏ فادعهم إلى شهادة أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله، فإن هم أطاعوا لك بذلك ‏"‏ ومنهم من رواه بلفظ ‏"‏ فادعهم إلى أن يوحدوا الله، فإذا عرفوا ذلك ‏"‏ ومنهم من رواه بلفظ ‏"‏ فادعهم إلى عبادة الله، فإذا عرفوا الله ‏"‏ ووجه الجمع بينهما أن المراد بالعبادة‏:‏ التوحيد، والمراد بالتوحيد‏:‏ الإقرار بالشهادتين، والإشارة بقوله ذلك إلى التوحيد، وقوله‏:‏ فإذا عرفوا الله أي عرفوا توحيد الله، والمراد بالمعرفة الإقرار والطواعية فبذلك يجمع بين هذه الألفاظ المختلفة في القصة الواحدة وبالله التوفيق‏.‏

وفي حديث ابن عباس في الفوائد غير ما تقدم الاقتصار في الحكم بإسلام الكافر إذا أقر بالشهادتين، فإن من لازم الإيمان بالله ورسوله التصديق بكل ما ثبت عنهما والتزام ذلك، فيحصل ذلك لمن صدق بالشهادتين‏.‏

وأما ما وقع من بعض المبتدعة من إنكار شيء من ذلك فلا يقدح في صحة الحكم الظاهر، لأنه إن كان مع تأويل فظاهر، وإن كان عنادا قدح في صحة الإسلام، فيعامل بما يترتب عليه من ذلك كإجراء أحكام المرتد وغير ذلك‏.‏

وفيه قبول خبر الواحد ووجوب العمل به، وتعقب بأن مثل خبر معاذ حفته قرينة أنه في زمن نزول الوحي فلا يستوي مع سائر أخبار الآحاد، وقد مضى في باب إجازة خبر الواحد ما يغني عن إعادته، وفيه أن الكافر إذا صدق بشيء من أركان الإسلام كالصلاة مثلا يصير بذلك مسلما، وبالغ من قال كل شيء يكفر به المسلم إذا جحده يصير الكافر به مسلما إذا اعتقده، والأول أرجح كما جزم به الجمهور، وهذا في الاعتقاد أما الفعل لو صلى فلا يحكم بإسلامه وهو أولى بالمنع لأن الفعل لا عموم له، فيدخله احتمال العبث والاستهزاء‏.‏

وفيه وجوب أخذ الزكاة ممن وجبت عليه، وقهر الممتنع على بذلها ولو لم يكن جاحدا، فإن كان مع امتناعه ذا شوكة قوتل، وإلا فإن أمكن تعزيره على الامتناع عزر بما يليق به، وقد ورد عن تعزيره بالمال حديث بهز بن حكيم عن أبيه عن جده مرفوعا ولفظه ‏"‏ ومن منعها - يعني الزكاة - فإنا آخذوها، وشطر ماله عزمة من عزمات ربنا ‏"‏ الحديث أخرجه أبو داود والنسائي وصححه ابن خزيمة والحاكم، وأما ابن حبان فقال في ترجمة بهز بن حكيم لولا هذا الحديث لأدخلته في ‏"‏ كتاب الثقات ‏"‏ وأجاب من صححه ولم يعمل به بأن الحكم الذي دل عليه منسوخ وأن الأمر كان أولا كذلك ثم نسخ، وضعف النووي هذا الجواب من جهة أن العقوبة بالمال لا تعرف أولا حتى يتم دعوى النسخ ولأن النسخ لا يثبت إلا بشرطه كمعرفة التاريخ ولا يعرف ذلك، واعتمد النووي ما أشار إليه ابن حبان من تضعيف بهز وليس يجيد لأنه موثق عند الجمهور حتى قال إسحاق بن منصور عن يحيى بن معين بهز بن حكيم عن أبيه عن جده صحيح إذا كان دون بهز ثقة‏.‏

وقال الترمذي‏:‏ تكلم فيه شعبة وهو ثقة عند أهل الحديث، وقد حسن له الترمذي عدة أحاديث، واحتج به أحمد وإسحاق والبخاري خارج الصحيح وعلق له في الصحيح‏.‏

وقال أبو عبيدة الآجري عن أبي داود وهو عندي حجة لا عند الشافعي فإن اعتمد من قلد الشافعي على هذا كفاه، ويؤيده إطباق فقهاء الأمصار على ترك العمل به فدل على أن له معارضا راجحا، وقول من قال بمقتضاه يعد في ندرة المخالف وقد دل خبر الباب أيضا على أن الذي يقبض الزكاة الإمام أو من أقامه لذلك، وقد أطبق الفقهاء بعد ذلك على أن لأرباب الأموال الباطنة مباشرة الإخراج، وشذ من قال بوجوب الدفع إلى الإمام وهو رواية عن مالك، وفي القديم للشافعي نحوه على تفصيل عنهما فيه‏.‏

[aras298]

Does anybody know where to get this book. I have tried two addresses but those don't exist anymore. Please help. I like to read books on paper form rather online. Jazaakallah.

[AbdulQahhar]

:salam:

like it or not, those who blindly follow Albani, may Allah :taala: forgive him, are in fact also following a madhhab - Albani's madhhab! So now we can all be sure that EVERYBODY is following somebody's madhhab.

[xii]

I didnt know Albani was a Mujtahid Imam.... :lol:

[Tajweedpodcast]

I thought as Muslims when person dies HE/SHE are in the presence of ALLAH

and HE will deal with them.

NO ONE IS MASUM BR.

Talk about something useful to benefit you ion this life and the Akhirah.

khaled ALMALIKI ALSHAARI

http:www.tajweedinenglish.com

[sahih-baba]

salam
that is true, TAJWEEDPODCAST, but unfortunately his legacy lives on.
and it's better that muslims are warned about his writings.

[Nahla Naji]

Assalamu alaikum!
We received some books from Bilal Philips and we were wondering about him... What is your opinion about him?

[laughinglion]

Assalamu alaikum!
We received some books from Bilal Philips and we were wondering about him... What is your opinion about him?

:salam:

Generally unreliable. If the books are related to the rulings and practices of Islam it is better that one does not read them. If they are about history, or like subjects they maybe useful.

with peace

[loveProphet]

:salam:

Generally unreliable. If the books are related to the rulings and practices of Islam it is better that one does not read them. If they are about history, or like subjects they maybe useful.

with peace
:ws:

Plus he isn't even a scholar.

:ws:

[mospike]

He has insulted the Knowledge of the Ulama e Deoband in many of his lectures.

He is a HARD CORE SALAFI, none of his work on Aqida should be trusted...

[Nahla Naji]

Assalamu alaikum!
His books are about aqeedah, tawhid, fiqh, tafsir, women rights... al this subjects...
Thank you for your answers... jazak Allah khair!!

[xii]

:salam:

keep away from him, he is not a scholar and as others have mentioned a hard core member of the deviant salafi sect. Stick to the noble Ulema-e-Kiram of the Ahlus-Sunnah Wal Jamaah.

[Ansari_UK]

I think he is sometimes good for Dawah to Non Muslims as he is a clear english speaker how on those issues of fiqh, aqeedah, etc... then stay away especially if you are new or intend to give the books to new sisters.

Saudi Arabian Ulema are famous for their "free" booklets or cheap oil money financed £1.99 booklets/leaflets/books etc...

they prey on

1) Easy low prices and mass production of their literature
2) Ignorant or NEW Muslims in the deen (revert or newly practising ones).

Once you have these 2 ingrediants they have the "prime" soil for converts. Woe be to an intelligent learned Faqih or Muslim approaching them, they wouldnt know what to do (as they know it will be impossible for him to be brainwashed).

My advice is look for other books and do not use them.

[slaveof Allaah]

:salam:

Firstly he is salafi

secondly, he has no aadab, he has spoken down about so many Mashaikh from different backgrounds.

[Nahla Naji]

Assalamu alaikum!!
We received the books from Egypt, and they are sent free, for new muslims. All the girls that received them are enthusiatic about them :cry: As you said, the fact that they are written in perfect English is an advantage for them... As we have books from Dar al Manarah, but they are so bad translated and have so many errors :frown:
For example, for us here, all this madhabs and terms and so on are so confusing... we know that we are sunni anf that's it... I first read about Deoband here, and so on...
There are people here that studied shariah, but they are not so many, and as long as there are people who do not know how to pray, there are other priorities, that the rpofound layers of deen... And there is the barrier of language, that forces all women here to base all their knowledge on the books translated into our language, or in English, if they know...
But insha Allah in time we will progress, with the help of Allah.... 15 years ago we did not have any book...

[Nahla Naji]

:salam:

Firstly he is salafi

secondly, he has no aadab, he has spoken down about so many Mashaikh from different backgrounds.

I don't want to seem from another world? But what is salafi? As far as i know, the salaf were the companions of Rasulallah (sallaAllahu alaihi wa sallam) and salafye means those who follow their example, or they live as the salafs did, with strict adherence to the Quran and Sunnah...

[Ansari_UK]

We received the books from Egypt, and they are sent free, for new muslims.

Walaykum Asalaam

Sister that explains it all from my previous post. We in the UK have some genuine books from all the 4 madhabs. If you wish to attain them also instead of the above pls let me know and i will try and assist inshAllah.

[Assaalik]

I don't want to seem from another world? But what is salafi? As far as i know, the salaf were the companions of Rasulallah (sallaAllahu alaihi wa sallam) and salafye means those who follow their example, or they live as the salafs did, with strict adherence to the Quran and Sunnah...

Assalamu 'alaikum

Try the search feature on this site. You will find plenty of information.

Wa salam

[Assaalik]

Assalamu 'alaikum

"Salafi" is used incorrectly today in reference to a deviated sect that do not adhere to traditional Islam. You will also find the term "Salafi like" on this forum, which refers to taqwa, as opposed to following desires, when used in certain contexts.

"Salafi" is often used synonymously with the term "Wahabi". The reality is that both those terms are problematic, so many refer to them as pseudo Salafi or Hashawiya a term that refers to their predecessors.

Wa salam

[Pr1nce]

Wa Alaykum Salam Wa Rahmatullah

Avoid him at all costs

[Abu Affan al-Hanafi]

Assalaamu Alaikum

He has called our respectable Ahlus Sunnah scholar Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller a Mushrik - SubhanAllah. And by that he has also called all the major scholars such as Imam Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, Imam Ahmad as Mushrikeen. All because of the permissibility of Tawassul. They take what they want and reject the rest, they discredit our beloved Ulama and claim that the greatest amongst the Ulama have all adhered to their position when the opposite is clearly evident.

Wassalaam

[Nahla Naji]

Assalaamu Alaikum

He has called our respectable Ahlus Sunnah scholar Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller a Mushrik - SubhanAllah. And by that he has also called all the major scholars such as Imam Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, Imam Ahmad as Mushrikeen. All because of the permissibility of Tawassul. They take what they want and reject the rest, they discredit our beloved Ulama and claim that the greatest amongst the Ulama have all adhered to their position when the opposite is clearly evident.

Wassalaam

Assalamu alaikum!
Can you please expand youe answer? :rolleyes: what is tawassul? All this terms rather confuse me... please don't mind, but i really want to learn about all this things, especially after all the people are reading and praising him here :cry: I really need strong arguments to show them and make them give him up... Can you give me more such things that contradict ahl as sunnah? Jazak Allah khair...
Allah ma'akum

[Proud2baMuslim]

ALLAHO AKber!! this thread let me know abt Bilal Philips.i dnt know before abt him. Jazakumullaho khaira all.

Salafi= wahabi= GM i-e Ghair Muqallad( which dnt follow any Madhab)

We should only read authentic books, recommended by Ulema Karam.

[Abu Affan al-Hanafi]

Assalamu alaikum!
Can you please expand youe answer? :rolleyes: what is tawassul? All this terms rather confuse me... please don't mind, but i really want to learn about all this things, especially after all the people are reading and praising him here :cry: I really need strong arguments to show them and make them give him up... Can you give me more such things that contradict ahl as sunnah? Jazak Allah khair...
Allah ma'akum

Wa Alaikum Assalaam

Tawassul is to set up an intermediary between you and Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala. You can read a refutation of Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips and the Wahhabiyya on the topic HERE (http://www.amislam.com/philips.htm) :insha:.

Generally followers of Bilal Philips and his likes are narrow minded and stubborn, and i do not intend to slander or backbite anyone. Even if you show them this evident proof from Ahlus Sunnah scholars - some of the greatest from the past. They still have a tendency to say that you are using unreliable sources and they go on blindly trusting their "Scholars and Shuyukh".
The fact is that these people don't have knowledge on the topic and are in no position to say that it's unreliable when you bring it to them, because they probably never heard of the books and sometimes not even the scholars. But these are scholars that their "Shuyukh" are supposedly following.
They disagree with us on many matters, or maybe even most matters. In my opinion the Shi'a are closer to Ahlus Sunnah on many things than the Wahhabiyya(Salafiyya). Feel free to ask me anything.

[clip - bad, very bad]

Wassalaam

[whodat]

Sister feel comfortable reading his books. For decades new muslims from all walks of life have benefited from his works. Not every reader has become some wahhabi zealot. Naturally, the brothers on this forum have reservations about his book on tawheed or the evolution of fiqh but he has numerous others like salvation through repentance and general intro topics about Isa (a) or Islam in general. While he holds some views that many here might not agree with, he's not the boogyman. In fact he maintians cordial relations with Zaid Shakir. Not everyone is perfect but his books will certainly be a jariah for him long after he's gone.

[Abu Affan al-Hanafi]

Whodat
Assalaamu Alaikum
His book on Tawheed is in many ways an insult to Ahlus Sunnah Aqeedah..
absolutely erronous. It really gives the new and/or uneducated muslimeen a wrong picture of Tawheed.. he slanders AHLUS SUNNAH WAL JAMA'A calling our Ulama MUSHRIKEEN.. not excplicitly in that book.. but those who know Ahlus Sunnah beliefs and practices understands that..

[abdul_karim]

He has very strange and incorrect views on fiqh, but his aqeedah is completely in line with the correct Athari creed.

(Don't argue with me on this, that would be another example of the Asharis and Maturidis trying to tell Atharis what our creed.)

[umer.siddiqui]

Assalamualaikum,

Bro abdul_karim,

in the "Fundamentals of Tawheed" Bilal Philips says:

“He has neither corporeal body nor is He a formless spirit. He has a form befitting His majesty, the like of which no man has ever seen or conceived, and which will only be seen (to the degree of man’s finite limitations) by the people of paradise.”

Imam Tahawi states in #38 of his Al-Aqida: “He [Allah] is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs....”

According to Imam al-Baihaqi, in his “Manaqib Ahmad,” he relates with a sahih chain that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: “A person commits an act of disbelief (kufr) if he says Allah is a body, even if he says: Allah is a body but not like other bodies.”

Are you sure his beliefs are in line with "athari" creed?

[umer.siddiqui]

Assalamualaikum,

For sister Nahla Naji...

You can find a lot of your answers on this website http://www.masud.co.uk/

Here is a good answer to your question:

Who or what is a Salafi?
Is their approach valid?
©Nuh Ha Mim Keller 1995



The word salafi or "early Muslim" in traditional Islamic scholarship means someone who died within the first four hundred years after the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including scholars such as Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Anyone who died after this is one of the khalaf or "latter-day Muslims".
The term "Salafi" was revived as a slogan and movement, among latter-day Muslims, by the followers of Muhammad Abduh (the student of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani) some thirteen centuries after the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), approximately a hundred years ago. Like similar movements that have historically appeared in Islam, its basic claim was that the religion had not been properly understood by anyone since the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the early Muslims--and themselves.

In terms of ideals, the movement advocated a return to a shari'a-minded orthodoxy that would purify Islam from unwarranted accretions, the criteria for judging which would be the Qur'an and hadith. Now, these ideals are noble, and I don't think anyone would disagree with their importance. The only points of disagreement are how these objectives are to be defined, and how the program is to be carried out. It is difficult in a few words to properly deal with all the aspects of the movement and the issues involved, but I hope to publish a fuller treatment later this year, insha'Allah, in a collection of essays called "The Re-Formers of Islam".

As for its validity, one may note that the Salafi approach is an interpretation of the texts of the Qur'an and sunna, or rather a body of interpretation, and as such, those who advance its claims are subject to the same rigorous criteria of the Islamic sciences as anyone else who makes interpretive claims about the Qur'an and sunna; namely, they must show:

1. that their interpretations are acceptable in terms of Arabic language;

2. that they have exhaustive mastery of all the primary texts that relate to each question, and

3. that they have full familiarity of the methodology of usul al-fiqh or "fundamentals of jurisprudence" needed to comprehensively join between all the primary texts.

Only when one has these qualifications can one legitimately produce a valid interpretive claim about the texts, which is called ijtihad or "deduction of shari'a" from the primary sources. Without these qualifications, the most one can legitimately claim is to reproduce such an interpretive claim from someone who definitely has these qualifications; namely, one of those unanimously recognized by the Umma as such since the times of the true salaf, at their forefront the mujtahid Imams of the four madhhabs or "schools of jurisprudence".

As for scholars today who do not have the qualifications of a mujtahid, it is not clear to me why they should be considered mujtahids by default, such as when it is said that someone is "the greatest living scholar of the sunna" any more than we could qualify a school-child on the playground as a physicist by saying, "He is the greatest physicist on the playground". Claims to Islamic knowledge do not come about by default. Slogans about "following the Qur'an and sunna" sound good in theory, but in practice it comes down to a question of scholarship, and who will sort out for the Muslim the thousands of shari'a questions that arise in his life. One eventually realizes that one has to choose between following the ijtihad of a real mujtahid, or the ijtihad of some or another "movement leader", whose qualifications may simply be a matter of reputation, something which is often made and circulated among people without a grasp of the issues.

What comes to many peoples minds these days when one says "Salafis" is bearded young men arguing about din. The basic hope of these youthful reformers seems to be that argument and conflict will eventually wear down any resistance or disagreement to their positions, which will thus result in purifying Islam. Here, I think education, on all sides, could do much to improve the situation.

The reality of the case is that the mujtahid Imams, those whose task it was to deduce the Islamic shari'a from the Qur'an and hadith, were in agreement about most rulings; while those they disagreed about, they had good reason to, whether because the Arabic could be understood in more than one way, or because the particular Qur'an or hadith text admitted of qualifications given in other texts (some of them acceptable for reasons of legal methodology to one mujtahid but not another), and so forth.

Because of the lack of hard information in English, the legitimacy of scholarly difference on shari'a rulings is often lost sight of among Muslims in the West. For example, the work Fiqh al-sunna by the author Sayyid Sabiq, recently translated into English, presents hadith evidences for rulings corresponding to about 95 percent of those of the Shafi'i school. Which is a welcome contribution, but by no means a "final word" about these rulings, for each of the four schools has a large literature of hadith evidences, and not just the Shafi'i school reflected by Sabiq's work. The Maliki school has the Mudawwana of Imam Malik, for example, and the Hanafi school has the Sharh ma'ani al-athar [Explanation of meanings of hadith] and Sharh mushkil al-athar [Explanation of problematic hadiths], both by the great hadith Imam Abu Jafar al-Tahawi, the latter work of which has recently been published in sixteen volumes by Mu'assasa al-Risala in Beirut. Whoever has not read these and does not know what is in them is condemned to be ignorant of the hadith evidence for a great many Hanafi positions.

What I am trying to say is that there is a large fictional element involved when someone comes to the Muslims and says, "No one has understood Islam properly except the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and early Muslims, and our sheikh". This is not valid, for the enduring works of first-rank Imams of hadith, jurisprudence, Qur'anic exegesis, and other shari'a disciplines impose upon Muslims the obligation to know and understand their work, in the same way that serious comprehension of any other scholarly field obliges one to have studied the works of its major scholars who have dealt with its issues and solved its questions. Without such study, one is doomed to repeat mistakes already made and rebutted in the past.

Most of us have acquaintances among this Umma who hardly acknowledge another scholar on the face of the earth besides the Imam of their madhhab, the Sheikh of their Islam, or some contemporary scholar or other. And this sort of enthusiasm is understandable, even acceptable (at a human level) in a non-scholar. But only to the degree that it does not become ta'assub or bigotry, meaning that one believes one may put down Muslims who follow other qualified scholars. At that point it is haram, because it is part of the sectarianism (tafarruq) among Muslims that Islam condemns.

When one gains Islamic knowledge and puts fiction aside, one sees that superlatives about particular scholars such as "the greatest" are untenable; that each of the four schools of classical Islamic jurisprudence has had many many luminaries. To imagine that all preceding scholarship should be evaluated in terms of this or that "Great Reformer" is to ready oneself for a big letdown, because intellectually it cannot be supported. I remember once hearing a law student at the University of Chicago say: "I'm not saying that Chicago has everything. Its just that no place else has anything." Nothing justifies transposing this kind of attitude onto our scholarly resources in Islam, whether it is called "Islamic Movement", "Salafism", or something else, and the sooner we leave it behind, the better it will be for our Islamic scholarship, our sense of reality, and for our din.

[loveProphet]

He has very strange and incorrect views on fiqh, but his aqeedah is completely in line with the correct Athari creed.

(Don't argue with me on this, that would be another example of the Asharis and Maturidis trying to tell Atharis what our creed.)
As for the accusation that these wahabis represent the true/standard doctrine of the Hanbalis, this is baseless and is only held by the wahabis who pretend to be Hanbalis.

Just see Imâm Ahmad's `Aqîda and Pseudo-Hanbali `Aqîda (http://www.livingislam.org/n/hpha_e.html). Just see what the Hanbali Imam Ibn Balban(RA) said about the Hanbali Aqida.

It is also known that Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal(RA) never believed that Allah literally descends or moves or sits on the Arsh!

And do we forget about the tafwid of the real Hanbalis compared to the anthropomorphism of the wahabis?

Heed the advice of the Hanbali Imam Ibn Jawzi(RA):

If you said: We read the hadiths and keep quiet, no one would criticize you; it is only your taking them in the external sense which is hideous. Therefore do not bring into the school of this pious man of the Salaf -- Imam Ahmad -- what does not belong in it. You have clothed this madhhab with an ugly deed, so that it is no longer said "Hanbali" except in the sense of "anthropomorphist"....

Read his book "Daf` Shubah al-Tashbih " too see the difference between the wahabis and the real Hanbalis.

Just see Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali the Mufawwid and todays Pseudo-Salafiyya (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5916&highlight=Hanbali)

And see The REAL Hanbali Creed - not the pseudo-Salafi Creed (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3075&highlight=Hanbali)

The dependable Hanbali works in creed are:

Lum`at ul-I`tiqaad by Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Din

al-I`tiqaad by Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Din

ad-Durar al-Bahiyyah by Imaam as-Saffaarini

Kitaab ush-Shari`a by Imaam Abu Bakr al-Aajuri

Said ul-Khaatir by Imaam Ibn al-Jawzi

al-Iqtisaad fil-I`tiqaad by Imaam al-Maqdisi

[abdul_karim]

As for the accusation that these wahabis represent the true/standard doctrine of the Hanbalis, this is baseless and is only held by the wahabis who pretend to be Hanbalis.

Just see Imâm Ahmad's `Aqîda and Pseudo-Hanbali `Aqîda (http://www.livingislam.org/n/hpha_e.html). Just see what the Hanbali Imam Ibn Balban(RA) said about the Hanbali Aqida.

It is also known that Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal(RA) never believed that Allah literally descends or moves or sits on the Arsh!

And do we forget about the tafwid of the real Hanbalis compared to the anthropomorphism of the wahabis?

Heed the advice of the Hanbali Imam Ibn Jawzi(RA):

If you said: We read the hadiths and keep quiet, no one would criticize you; it is only your taking them in the external sense which is hideous. Therefore do not bring into the school of this pious man of the Salaf -- Imam Ahmad -- what does not belong in it. You have clothed this madhhab with an ugly deed, so that it is no longer said "Hanbali" except in the sense of "anthropomorphist"....

Read his book "Daf` Shubah al-Tashbih " too see the difference between the wahabis and the real Hanbalis.

Just see Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali the Mufawwid and todays Pseudo-Salafiyya (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5916&highlight=Hanbali)

And see The REAL Hanbali Creed - not the pseudo-Salafi Creed (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3075&highlight=Hanbali)

The dependable Hanbali works in creed are:

Lum`at ul-I`tiqaad by Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Din

al-I`tiqaad by Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Din

ad-Durar al-Bahiyyah by Imaam as-Saffaarini

Kitaab ush-Shari`a by Imaam Abu Bakr al-Aajuri

Said ul-Khaatir by Imaam Ibn al-Jawzi

al-Iqtisaad fil-I`tiqaad by Imaam al-Maqdisi


You're not a Hanbali, you have no right to try to teach me my madhhab.

The great Hanbali Shaykh of Syria, Abdul-Qadir ibn Badran (rahimahuallah) who was a traditional Hanbali scholar (not a Wahhabi) said that these were the reliable books of Hanbali creed:

1) al-‘Aqidah al-Hamawiyah by Ibn Taymiyah
2) Sharh al-‘Aqidah al-Asfahaniyah by Ibn Taymiyah
3) And many other books written by him on creed
4) Lum’at al-I’tiqad by Ibn Qudamah
5) Mukhtasar Nihayat al-Mubtadi’in by Badr al-Din al-Balbani
6) Al-‘Ain wa al-Athar by ‘Abd al-Baqi
7) ‘Aqidah of ‘Abd al-Ghani ibn Surur al-Maqdisi (I think he’s referring to Iqtisad fi al-I’tiqad)
8) Najat al-Khalaf Fi I’tiqad al-Salaf by ‘Uthman ibn Ahmad al-Najdi
9) Al-Durrah al-Mudhiyah by al-Saffarini, except that Ibn Badran criticised it saying that he took a way between Atharis and Ash’aris.
10) Al-Mu’tamad and it’s Mukhtasar by al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la
11) Al-Ibanah by Ibn Battah
12) Kitab al-Tawhid by Ibn Mandah
13) Al-Tanbih by al-Taraifi
14) And many others...

[mishor]

Here are some previous discussions regarding Bilal Phillips:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7516&highlight=bilal+phillips

On his book 'The Evolution of Fiqh'
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7225

[Ansari_UK]

As i said sister, leave what is doubtfull. If you want true Islamic books on Aqeedah and Fiqh pls let us know, we can send to Egypt. Man kitaabun has an excellent booklet on Bidah by Shaykh Nuh Keller (i bought 6 to hand out inshAllah) for £1 each.

thats dirt cheap.

In short we can help you so you dont have to rely on someone so controversial. Just let us know.

Walaykum Asalam

[Nahla Naji]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah!!

I want to thank all that answered to my questions, may Allah reward you all...
I must admit that in some points i lost the connections...:cry: I am muslim for 2 years now, but unfortunatelly for a year and a half i lived with no musim around me, just christians, and i just prayes and feasted, no learning :cry: I try to reccuperate everything, but it is rather hard...
I do not live in Egypt, dear brother Ansari_UK and i want to thank you so much for your offer to send me books... But my husband does not allow me to receive them - he says he already had to burn a box full of deviant books and for not knowing English it is hard for him to check the books... But i would really appreciate if u did me a list of them... he will pick me the ones he already knows and he can obtain them for me... Living in a non-muslim country, we base ourselves on books received from outside... those in Arabic are verified by those who already graduated shari'ah - but most of them do not know English, just Arabic. The books in English are first translated into our language then checked... many times we translate them and then we find out that there are so many errors there :cry: For exmple, i worked a lot with a friend to translate Fatwa for Women, by Ibn Taymyah, but it turned out that the English version was far from the Arabic version, with so many errors... this is why my husband tries to limitate the books i read...
Thank you a lot for the article with the salafi...
Can you please point me out JUST the negative aspects of wahhabi? I looked on the internet, but i did not find anything wrong there, just positive aspects... I found out about wahhabi in Saudi Arabia when everyone was afraid to say wahhabi loud on the street, and the curiosity kept growing in our group... my husband keeps telling me that one day, when i will be more prepared he will discuss with me the aspect of so many groups... they are so distracting for me......

Jazak Allah khair for your answers!!

[*BismikAllahumma*]

what is tawassul?

http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-22324795

[loveProphet]

You're not a Hanbali, you have no right to try to teach me my madhhab.

Lol, those books i listed were mentioned by Sheikh Abul Ja'far al Hanbali, a Hanbali and Athari Sheikh. He's not a mujassim or wahabi:) and is a true Hanbali and Athari.

Plus the quotes and links i gave are from Hanbalis and Atharis, true ones.

[OneLife]

The great Hanbali Shaykh of Syria, Abdul-Qadir ibn Badran (rahimahuallah) who was a traditional Hanbali scholar (not a Wahhabi)

Could you please provide some more information on the Shaykh? I am not discrediting him by any means, but I want to know more about him. Maybe where and with whom he studied, his peers, etc.

:jazak:

[abdul_karim]

Lol, those books i listed were mentioned by Sheikh Abul Ja'far al Hanbali, a Hanbali and Athari Sheikh. He's not a mujassim or wahabi:) and is a true Hanbali and Athari.

Plus the quotes and links i gave are from Hanbalis and Atharis, true ones.

Abu Jafar "al-Hanbali" is not a shaykh, he's a taalib. Also, his opinion doesn't hold as much weight as Shaykh Abdul-Qadir ibn Badran (a scholar he lists as a major Hanbali scholar). Also, he has some perplexingly odd beliefs. For example, he lists Muhammad ibn Ibrahim, Hamud ibn Uqla ash-Shuaybi, and Abdullah ibn Jibreen (major Wahhabi scholars), as non-Wahhabis.

[abdul_karim]

Could you please provide some more information on the Shaykh? I am not discrediting him by any means, but I want to know more about him. Maybe where and with whom he studied, his peers, etc.

:jazak:

http://ukiew.org/htp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=39

This doesn't have alot of information, but rest assured, he was one of the most prolific Hanbalis of the last century.

[dining_philosopher]

Assalamu alaikum!
We received some books from Bilal Philips and we were wondering about him... What is your opinion about him?

Deviant of the first order.

[dining_philosopher]

You're not a Hanbali, you have no right to try to teach me my madhhab.

The great Hanbali Shaykh of Syria, Abdul-Qadir ibn Badran (rahimahuallah) who was a traditional Hanbali scholar (not a Wahhabi) said that these were the reliable books of Hanbali creed:

1) al-‘Aqidah al-Hamawiyah by Ibn Taymiyah
2) Sharh al-‘Aqidah al-Asfahaniyah by Ibn Taymiyah
3) And many other books written by him on creed
4) Lum’at al-I’tiqad by Ibn Qudamah
5) Mukhtasar Nihayat al-Mubtadi’in by Badr al-Din al-Balbani
6) Al-‘Ain wa al-Athar by ‘Abd al-Baqi
7) ‘Aqidah of ‘Abd al-Ghani ibn Surur al-Maqdisi (I think he’s referring to Iqtisad fi al-I’tiqad)
8) Najat al-Khalaf Fi I’tiqad al-Salaf by ‘Uthman ibn Ahmad al-Najdi
9) Al-Durrah al-Mudhiyah by al-Saffarini, except that Ibn Badran criticised it saying that he took a way between Atharis and Ash’aris.
10) Al-Mu’tamad and it’s Mukhtasar by al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la
11) Al-Ibanah by Ibn Battah
12) Kitab al-Tawhid by Ibn Mandah
13) Al-Tanbih by al-Taraifi
14) And many others...



BAHAHHAHAH the first of those books are basicaly wahabi belief for dummies!

Seriously dont act all arrogant because your a 'real' hanbali... Maybe youve just been led to believe you are one, but your clearly a wahabi.

[Assaalik]

:cheesygri

[Musleemah]

Sister
assalamu alaykum

when a person wants to know about a group of people, he goes to the sources, meaning reads their material to know their beliefs.

so if you want to know about whom people label as "Wahhabi", read the books of shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, especially the one titled "kitab at Tawheed", and other books by him, they are written for laymen mostly, so they are not hard to understand, there are also many sharh (explanations) of the books for more clearification on different issues in the book.
just do a search in google for "kitab Tawheed".
you will find some audio lectures also on the book.
You can also purchase the book from here (http://www.dar-us-salam.com/store/main.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=007&Store_Code=Dus&search=tawheed&offset=0&filter_cat=&PowerSearch_Begin_Only=&sort=&range_low=&range_high=).


To other members, please dont' start this thing about not reading the shaikhs books because you believe he is deviant, and laymen shouldn't be reading "deviants" books, the sister wants to know what the "wahhabis" believe, she should read what they themselves say.
not from websites written by their enemies and who hate them.
sufi members here wouldn't like it if Salafi websites talking about sufis were posted to new Muslims who ask about sufis, so don't attack whom you call "wahhabis" for telling the new Muslim to read the books of whom you call "Wahhabis" for her to judge by herself by reading the books of the people whom she is asking about.


note sister: the ones who are labeled as "wahhabis" do not label themselves such, they reject such a label, the ones who don't like them call them that, they "wahhabis" call themselves ahl assunnah, and consider themselves ahl assunnah, even if other groups do not consider them ahl assunnah, same with "wahhabis" do not consider those groups ahl assunnah, ones who call themselves such.
so one judges by the groups beliefs not what others label them as.

[Assaalik]

http://ukiew.org/htp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=39

This doesn't have alot of information, but rest assured, he was one of the most prolific Hanbalis of the last century.

Imam Zahid al-Kawthari is the first name mentioned?
He is the ax we use to hunt al-Hashawiyoon.;)

[dining_philosopher]

With all due respect, sister, your advice isnt going to help, but rather confuse the person. Because when some one lacks knowledge, everything seems correct.

Read this article:

Who or what is a Salafi?
Is their approach valid?
©Nuh Ha Mim Keller 1995

The word salafi or "early Muslim" in traditional Islamic scholarship means someone who died within the first four hundred years after the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including scholars such as Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Anyone who died after this is one of the khalaf or "latter-day Muslims".

The term "Salafi" was revived as a slogan and movement, among latter-day Muslims, by the followers of Muhammad Abduh (the student of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani) some thirteen centuries after the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), approximately a hundred years ago. Like similar movements that have historically appeared in Islam, its basic claim was that the religion had not been properly understood by anyone since the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the early Muslims--and themselves.

In terms of ideals, the movement advocated a return to a shari'a-minded orthodoxy that would purify Islam from unwarranted accretions, the criteria for judging which would be the Qur'an and hadith. Now, these ideals are noble, and I don't think anyone would disagree with their importance. The only points of disagreement are how these objectives are to be defined, and how the program is to be carried out. It is difficult in a few words to properly deal with all the aspects of the movement and the issues involved, but I hope to publish a fuller treatment later this year, insha'Allah, in a collection of essays called "The Re-Formers of Islam".

As for its validity, one may note that the Salafi approach is an interpretation of the texts of the Qur'an and sunna, or rather a body of interpretation, and as such, those who advance its claims are subject to the same rigorous criteria of the Islamic sciences as anyone else who makes interpretive claims about the Qur'an and sunna; namely, they must show:

1. that their interpretations are acceptable in terms of Arabic language;

2. that they have exhaustive mastery of all the primary texts that relate to each question, and

3. that they have full familiarity of the methodology of usul al-fiqh or "fundamentals of jurisprudence" needed to comprehensively join between all the primary texts.

Only when one has these qualifications can one legitimately produce a valid interpretive claim about the texts, which is called ijtihad or "deduction of shari'a" from the primary sources. Without these qualifications, the most one can legitimately claim is to reproduce such an interpretive claim from someone who definitely has these qualifications; namely, one of those unanimously recognized by the Umma as such since the times of the true salaf, at their forefront the mujtahid Imams of the four madhhabs or "schools of jurisprudence".

As for scholars today who do not have the qualifications of a mujtahid, it is not clear to me why they should be considered mujtahids by default, such as when it is said that someone is "the greatest living scholar of the sunna" any more than we could qualify a school-child on the playground as a physicist by saying, "He is the greatest physicist on the playground". Claims to Islamic knowledge do not come about by default. Slogans about "following the Qur'an and sunna" sound good in theory, but in practice it comes down to a question of scholarship, and who will sort out for the Muslim the thousands of shari'a questions that arise in his life. One eventually realizes that one has to choose between following the ijtihad of a real mujtahid, or the ijtihad of some or another "movement leader", whose qualifications may simply be a matter of reputation, something which is often made and circulated among people without a grasp of the issues.

What comes to many peoples minds these days when one says "Salafis" is bearded young men arguing about din. The basic hope of these youthful reformers seems to be that argument and conflict will eventually wear down any resistance or disagreement to their positions, which will thus result in purifying Islam. Here, I think education, on all sides, could do much to improve the situation.

The reality of the case is that the mujtahid Imams, those whose task it was to deduce the Islamic shari'a from the Qur'an and hadith, were in agreement about most rulings; while those they disagreed about, they had good reason to, whether because the Arabic could be understood in more than one way, or because the particular Qur'an or hadith text admitted of qualifications given in other texts (some of them acceptable for reasons of legal methodology to one mujtahid but not another), and so forth.

Because of the lack of hard information in English, the legitimacy of scholarly difference on shari'a rulings is often lost sight of among Muslims in the West. For example, the work Fiqh al-sunna by the author Sayyid Sabiq, recently translated into English, presents hadith evidences for rulings corresponding to about 95 percent of those of the Shafi'i school. Which is a welcome contribution, but by no means a "final word" about these rulings, for each of the four schools has a large literature of hadith evidences, and not just the Shafi'i school reflected by Sabiq's work. The Maliki school has the Mudawwana of Imam Malik, for example, and the Hanafi school has the Sharh ma'ani al-athar [Explanation of meanings of hadith] and Sharh mushkil al-athar [Explanation of problematic hadiths], both by the great hadith Imam Abu Jafar al-Tahawi, the latter work of which has recently been published in sixteen volumes by Mu'assasa al-Risala in Beirut. Whoever has not read these and does not know what is in them is condemned to be ignorant of the hadith evidence for a great many Hanafi positions.

What I am trying to say is that there is a large fictional element involved when someone comes to the Muslims and says, "No one has understood Islam properly except the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and early Muslims, and our sheikh". This is not valid, for the enduring works of first-rank Imams of hadith, jurisprudence, Qur'anic exegesis, and other shari'a disciplines impose upon Muslims the obligation to know and understand their work, in the same way that serious comprehension of any other scholarly field obliges one to have studied the works of its major scholars who have dealt with its issues and solved its questions. Without such study, one is doomed to repeat mistakes already made and rebutted in the past.

Most of us have acquaintances among this Umma who hardly acknowledge another scholar on the face of the earth besides the Imam of their madhhab, the Sheikh of their Islam, or some contemporary scholar or other. And this sort of enthusiasm is understandable, even acceptable (at a human level) in a non-scholar. But only to the degree that it does not become ta'assub or bigotry, meaning that one believes one may put down Muslims who follow other qualified scholars. At that point it is haram, because it is part of the sectarianism (tafarruq) among Muslims that Islam condemns.

When one gains Islamic knowledge and puts fiction aside, one sees that superlatives about particular scholars such as "the greatest" are untenable; that each of the four schools of classical Islamic jurisprudence has had many many luminaries. To imagine that all preceding scholarship should be evaluated in terms of this or that "Great Reformer" is to ready oneself for a big letdown, because intellectually it cannot be supported. I remember once hearing a law student at the University of Chicago say: "I'm not saying that Chicago has everything. Its just that no place else has anything." Nothing justifies transposing this kind of attitude onto our scholarly resources in Islam, whether it is called "Islamic Movement", "Salafism", or something else, and the sooner we leave it behind, the better it will be for our Islamic scholarship, our sense of reality, and for our din.

[Musleemah]

bro, thanks
but I am not interested in the article
it is written by a non Salafi
I already know what a salafi is and who they are because I am one, but I prefer using the label ahl assunnah.

and I have read from the books of shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab rahimahu Allah and so did many many other Muslims, including laymen, and they didn't find anything confusing, and there are many explanations for the book, written and audio so one doesn't have an excuse saying it is confusing, it is easy to understand, it is a book that both laymen and scholars read.

Like I said, if someone came and asked me who are sufis and what is sufism, and I gave them an article about them written by a Salafi, then Sufis wouldn't like it and would advise the person to read about sufis and sufism from sufi sites and books.

so lets be fair.

[dining_philosopher]

Subhanallah! I wasnt posting the article for your benefit. It was for the benefit of the original poster. NOT YOU.. So I thank you to keep your deviant opinions to yourself. I couldnt care less if you call yourself a salafi or whether you prefer to use the mis-noma of ahlus sunnah... It doesnt affect me. So i fail to see why you felt the need to tell me all that...

Anyway arent you capable of reading something OBJECTIVELY? Meaning you dont need to accept or reject it... And as to be 'confused by kitab at tawhid', of course i didnt mean the book would confuse the reader, but simply due to the fact that the original poster is new to practising islam, she wouldnt be able to put it into the proper context. The same goes with Bilal Phillips books. Ibn Abdul Wahhab is known to be one of the worst heretics of Islam, even his own father and brother disowned him because of his herecy. Not to mention the fact that he was only the second person in the history of Islam to be burned alive as his Hadd punishment, by the khalifa of the time, due to the seriousness of his herecy.

Your comparison "if someone came and asked me who are sufis and what is sufism, and I gave them an article about them written by a Salafi..." is completely invalid, because salafis represent a tiny minority of muslims compared to the vast elite of the ulema in history who were what you label 'sufis'. So to say what you are saying simply betrays a vast ignorance of Islamic history and a completely infantile approach to knowledge.

On the topic of 'being fair'. I would say you arent being fair to yourself, if anyone, by refusing to read something that isnt written by some one who belongs to your sect. Its a completely closed minded approach to life which wont get you anywhere. Ajeeb.

May allah guide you.

wasalam.

[dining_philosopher]

Now, let me add one more thing. Stay away from anything written by Muhammad ibn abdul wahhab, anything about aqidah from Ibn taymiyyah or anything published by Darussalam. Their ideas are completely minority opinions, which are completely deviant.

The only reason why they are so prevalent is due to the saudi petro dollars funding wahabi propagation activities.

[Nahla Naji]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahamtullah wa barakatu!!
Thank you all for the answers... It is amasing how much information i can gather with you...
And thank you all for your adivice...
It is not that i do not understand a book written by Wahhab, BUT how can i tell it is against islamic principle? This is my worst fear... that i read a book and take for granted the information... and not just that, but i spread it to others here, too... This is why I am afraid to read everything i have... my computer is full with articles... i read a great part of it, but when i tell my husband he says this or that is not true, that is a deviation and so on... unfortunatelly he does not have so much time to spend with me and explain it all... and this is why i want to thank you for all ur interest... Insha Allah in some time i may judge for myself the books i read and insha Allah will become easier...
Jazak Allah khair...
Allah ma'akum

[Nahla Naji]

Now, let me add one more thing. Stay away from anything written by Muhammad ibn abdul wahhab, anything about aqidah from Ibn taymiyyah or anything published by Darussalam. Their ideas are completely minority opinions, which are completely deviant.

The only reason why they are so prevalent is due to the saudi petro dollars funding wahabi propagation activities.

Ya Allah, Darussalam!!! Half my books are from Darussalam... and the other half from Dar al manarah :cheesygri When we were in Saudi, we kept away from Dae al Manarah, becaude we discovered some books that were either intentionally or not with errors, and chose to take Darussalam... What publishing house do u consider "safe"?

[loveProphet]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahamtullah wa barakatu!!
Thank you all for the answers... It is amasing how much information i can gather with you...
And thank you all for your adivice...
It is not that i do not understand a book written by Wahhab, BUT how can i tell it is against islamic principle? This is my worst fear... that i read a book and take for granted the information... and not just that, but i spread it to others here, too... This is why I am afraid to read everything i have... my computer is full with articles... i read a great part of it, but when i tell my husband he says this or that is not true, that is a deviation and so on... unfortunatelly he does not have so much time to spend with me and explain it all... and this is why i want to thank you for all ur interest... Insha Allah in some time i may judge for myself the books i read and insha Allah will become easier...
Jazak Allah khair...
Allah ma'akum
:ws:

The search feature is your good friend.

:ws:

[Ansari_UK]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah!!

I want to thank all that answered to my questions, may Allah reward you all...
I must admit that in some points i lost the connections...:cry: I am muslim for 2 years now, but unfortunatelly for a year and a half i lived with no musim around me, just christians, and i just prayes and feasted, no learning :cry: I try to reccuperate everything, but it is rather hard...
I do not live in Egypt, dear brother Ansari_UK and i want to thank you so much for your offer to send me books... But my husband does not allow me to receive them - he says he already had to burn a box full of deviant books and for not knowing English it is hard for him to check the books... But i would really appreciate if u did me a list of them... he will pick me the ones he already knows and he can obtain them for me... Living in a non-muslim country, we base ourselves on books received from outside... those in Arabic are verified by those who already graduated shari'ah - but most of them do not know English, just Arabic. The books in English are first translated into our language then checked... many times we translate them and then we find out that there are so many errors there :cry: For exmple, i worked a lot with a friend to translate Fatwa for Women, by Ibn Taymyah, but it turned out that the English version was far from the Arabic version, with so many errors... this is why my husband tries to limitate the books i read...
Thank you a lot for the article with the salafi...
Can you please point me out JUST the negative aspects of wahhabi? I looked on the internet, but i did not find anything wrong there, just positive aspects... I found out about wahhabi in Saudi Arabia when everyone was afraid to say wahhabi loud on the street, and the curiosity kept growing in our group... my husband keeps telling me that one day, when i will be more prepared he will discuss with me the aspect of so many groups... they are so distracting for me......

Jazak Allah khair for your answers!!

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah!!



Sister

Thank you for your personal reply. It was humbling. Let me be totally honest and remove all these barriers as I understand your position I think Alhamduliulah. You see I have a hidden agenda. I want to brainwash you. I want to completely and utterly remove all previous versions of a particular book. Please pay attention and don’t be horrified as I am being honest at least give me 2 minutes of your time. Wahabis,Salafis etc… can be told who they are and whether they are the correct belief by the book they propagate called “Kitab at Tawheed” by Muhammad bin abdul Wahab. They use this to say it cleanses Shirk as it is the book on Tawhid. They have printed so many books of it. OK Fine now for my hidden agenda sister.

I want to brainwash you with Surah Al Ikhlaas.

It comes from the Quran.

Allah revelead it.

it is a surefire protection against shirk.

Recitation of this confirms Tawheed

Just have a sincere intention.

You see sister. If all the books in the world and all the ink was used on “other” books. And you just had Surah al Ikhlaas.

That would be enough.

So ignore any signs of modernist books made by anyone claiming 1400 years of Muslim rule made the wrong Tawheed (Did Allah not do his job protecting the Ummah of his beloved, naudobillah)????

I am sincerely sorry for trying to brainwash you with the Quran sister. I hope you are not offended.

Your brother.
Ansar

[Nahla Naji]

Assalamu alaikum!

I read your message and i do not know what to take out of it :cry: :cry: I am so sorry for this misinterpretation... I was really grateful that u offered to send me books, but i told u that my husband does not approve... it is not my fault that there are so many books written for i do not know what purpose... It was not my intention to offend u or to say that u intend to brainwash me, oksim billah. I believe in ur sincere intentions, but i ask u to believe in mines, too. My least intention was to offend anyone here....
Maybe i just should take ur advice (or what i understood from it) and stick to the Quran, read only the Quran and Bukhari... but still my duty is to learn... maybe it is too early for me to get into all this whirl, as it is seems to me now...

[Ansari_UK]

No Sister sorry my post was also meant in light humour :)

You didnt offend me one bit. What i meant was you only need Allahs words and beleif in them like Surah Ikhlaas so ignore poeple who come along and say to you "read this new book, written 1400 years later" about shirk.

Obviosuly I knew you wouldn’t be offended with the Quran so I was half joking.

Sister as for your husband of course its fine, i understand especially if people from abroad send you somethings. Please read works of the Syrian Scholars, Maghreb, some Indian but ignore the Saudi Arabia ones. Im still being sincere with you sister. They have oil money to print and brainwash genuine Muslims and I don’t like it, hence my opposition.

If you want online stuff for sisters read Aisha Bewleys website which is very good

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/

although it is Maliki but you can read lots of things their. She has mastery of Arabic language and is known as possibly the best translator of Arabic- English works in the world.

Masud.co.uk is also good.

However if it is Arabic books you are after then just get

“MAFAHIM YAJBIU AN TUSAHAH” by the late Mufti of Makkah (who taught in the haramayn) Shaykh Alawi al Maliki al Makki. He followed Fiqh and is a decendant of the Prophet salalahu alayhi wasalaam. I think you would have to get his book either from Egyptian or Beirut suppliers. I am confident your husband would have no issues with this. As I said, he is of noble lineage and it has all the teachings of the Salaf As Saleh in proper Arabic. Failing that sister and you cant find it, then you can order the original Arabic book online for about 5 euros which is about £3.50 for the book , they also do shipping overseas.

You can order it from this website:

http://www.sunnipubs.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=31&category_id=7&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26

BOOK COVER
http://www.sunnipubs.com/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/108d6108e88c5e11138761f04202874b.jpg

I hope you find the above usefull. The same Naseeha I give to you in sincerity I also give it to my Sister Muslimah. Allah is then the one that guides, not me.

Walaykum Asalaam

[Musleemah]

Subhanallah! I wasnt posting the article for your benefit. It was for the benefit of the original poster. NOT YOU.. So I thank you to keep your deviant opinions to yourself. I couldnt care less if you call yourself a salafi or whether you prefer to use the mis-noma of ahlus sunnah... It doesnt affect me. So i fail to see why you felt the need to tell me all that...

why the yelling?
did I yell at you in my reply?
Did I speak to you in a bad manner?
I remember you posting the article in this same thread before if I remember correctly, and your reply was to me, so I thought you were posting the article for me, I thought maybe you didn't know I was Salafi, since your a new member, and I haven't been posting here for couple months.



Ibn Abdul Wahhab is known to be one of the worst heretics of Islam,

according to sufis and other sects, to many Muslims he is a mujadid, called people back to tawheed.


Not to mention the fact that he was only the second person in the history of Islam to be burned alive as his Hadd punishment, by the khalifa of the time, due to the seriousness of his herecy.

false information.



Your comparison "if someone came and asked me who are sufis and what is sufism, and I gave them an article about them written by a Salafi..." is completely invalid, because salafis represent a tiny minority of muslims compared to the vast elite of the ulema in history who were what you label 'sufis'.

A stereotype
I already replied to it in one of my posts in this forum.



So to say what you are saying simply betrays a vast ignorance of Islamic history and a completely infantile approach to knowledge.

oh, I can see your very knowledgable about history from your reply.
May Allah increase us in beneficial knowledge and grant us ikhlas.



On the topic of 'being fair'. I would say you arent being fair to yourself, if anyone, by refusing to read something that isnt written by some one who belongs to your sect. Its a completely closed minded approach to life which wont get you anywhere. Ajeeb.

May allah guide you.

wasalam.

and how do you know I don't read materials written by sufis?
I read books written by Salafis if I want to know my aqeedah, and increase my knowledge in deen.
I read other sects books including sufis, if I want to know what they believe, I don't just take it from my shaikhs, I try to verify it.

so don't accuse me of something or judge me when you don't know me.

[loveProphet]

why the yelling?
did I yell at you in my reply?
Did I speak to you in a bad manner?
I remember you posting the article in this same thread before if I remember correctly, and your reply was to me, so I thought you were posting the article for me, I thought maybe you didn't know I was Salafi, since your a new member, and I haven't been posting here for couple months.




according to sufis and other sects, to many Muslims he is a mujadid, called people back to tawheed.



false information.


.

A stereotype
I already replied to it in one of my posts in this forum.




oh, I can see your very knowledgable about history from your reply.
May Allah increase us in beneficial knowledge and grant us ikhlas.




and how do you know I don't read materials written by sufis?
I read books written by Salafis if I want to know my aqeedah, and increase my knowledge in deen.
I read other sects books including sufis, if I want to know what they believe, I don't just take it from my shaikhs, I try to verify it.

so don't accuse me of something or judge me when you don't know me.
Why repeating things over and over again? Though your queries or accusations have been answered over and over again on SF.

Save people some time and yours.

If you have queries, just go to www.aslein.net , don't misguide here.

[Musleemah]

I wrote this over an hour ago, but I guess it didn't go through

-------------------------

to sister Nahla

I understand sister what you mean by not knowing if what you are reading is really correct teachings of Islam or something twisted when I said to read shaikh M. bin Abdul Wahhab's books, but that can also be said about links, books and articles given to you by members in this forum, how do you know that it is also not twisted?

anyone can tell you that what they follow is correct and the other person's beliefs are deviant and twisted.

so how do you know? how can you trust the person who is telling you which books to read? and which bookstore to take from?

you can't just because they told you so, you don't even know the person.


so my advice to you sister is:

1_ start by reading the Quran, all of it, even if you already read it all, read it again.
actually a Muslim should be reading it daily, at least few pages.

2_ read sahih Bukhari and Muslim for now, since they are authentic hadiths, just a general read.

3_ now we come to books of scholars and shaikhs, and here is where the confusion comes, which shaikhs are on the right path? whom do I trust? how do I know if they teach what is correct or not?

The answer is: through Allah sister, He is the one who can guide you to the correct path.
what you do is > make duaa in your salat, in sujood which is the best postion to make duaa, for Allah to guide you to the truth, and always do that duaa, always ask Him to guide you to the haqq (Truth) and what pleases Him, and put your trust in Allah that He will answer your duaa.
then start reading books by different Muslim shaikhs, whether ones recommanded to you here, or whom are accused of being deviants, ones labeled as "Wahhabis".
and insha Allah, becuase of your duaa and asking Allah's help with sincerety, Allah will guide you to the right path, and make your heart comfortable with the truth, meaning when you read the truth, whether it was with sufis or Salafis = "wahhabis", your heart will feel at peace and feel it is the truth insha Allah.

so don't trust my word or anyone elses on whom is the one on right path, for everyone claims to be on right path and that the other is deviant, just put your trust in Allah, and ask Him alone to guide you to the right path.

and I wish for you the best my sister, and for Allah to guide me and you to straight path.

your sister in Islam

[Ansari_UK]

Sister a simple way to listen to your heart is

Do you think Allah misguided billions of Muslims(naudobillah), except a pocket of them in Eastern Najd (who apparently had the correct aqeedah)?

Do you think that actually, Muslims are GOOD , their history is GOOD, their scholars are GOOD and that , just by chance

this small sect of people, could have actually got it wrong? And that Allah IS perfect and did guide the community of Muhammad salalahu alayhi wasalaam

And that the Ulema of Najd actually got it wrong???

Ask yourself - Muhammad bin abdul wahab.

What was his linegae of teachers?

His scholars?

His Ijazahs?

(or did he make the religion up from his own opinion as he went along?)

How about what the father of Muhammad bin Abdul wahab why dont you read his writings and what he had to say about his son?

He was worried he wouldnt study Fiqh and misguide people, as he had presentiments about this.

Here read his own fathers letter. Do you know him better than his father? Do i know him better than his father? Does Muslimah know him better than his father?


Some of the people whom I met have related from some of the people of knowledge narrations from the contemporaries of Shaykh ‘Abdul Wahhāb that describe his anger with his son Muhammad. This is because he had not agreed to study the religious knowledge of his ancestors and the people of his area. His father had a presentiment that something would happen because of him, and so he frequently said to the people, "How much evil you are going to see from (my son) Muhammad." Subsequently, what Allāh destined to happen came to pass.

http://www.************/articles/abdulwahhab-ibnhumayd.pdf

Why dont you read the miracles that happened to people he tried to Attack?

Is the Salaf someone who says "You are a Mushrik" and then chops your head off and takes your women as "slave girls"?

Finally sister we represent the Ummah and love it as it has been for the past 1400 years. The fact you question Bilal Philips in the first place to post is Imaan and what can save you, otherwise their path is just refutation, closed mindedness, authority for their scholars and a complete and utter Denial of 1400 years of Islamic History except as seen by their eyes.


Surah al Kahf

"He whom Allah guides non can misguide, and he whom Allah leaves to go astray (due to their own mistakes) non can guide".

Walaykum Asalaam

[Musleemah]

akhi Ansari

have you read my last advice to the sister?
I hope your reply wasn't after you read it, because all it is saying to her is to ask Allah for guidance, and not to take my word or anyone elses, for each one of us believes what they are on is the truth and the other is misguided, who should she trust? and why should she trust me or you?
the one she can trust 100% is Allah.

secondly:
you make it sound like the ones whom you label as "wahhabis" = Salafis, are only in Najd, or around 98% are in Najd, which is totally false, and I am sure you know that there is a very big number of Salafis in Egypt as well, many of them shaikhs, if you want I can name you many of them, also there are Salafi students in al Azhar, one of my teachers (tafsir teacher) is Egyptian who studied in al Azhar, and his aqeedah is Salafi.
also, there is a huge number of Salafis in USA, and many in UK and Canada and many other non Muslim countires.
also in my home country in North Africa, many are Salafi, and other countries in North Africa also.
also in Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Yemen, Kuwait ...etc. there are Salafi laymen, students of knowledge and shaikhs.
I know some personally from those countries, and some I heard of or read some of what they wrote or heard lectures by them.
also in Bosnia, Albania and other non Arab Muslim countries, and I am not just saying this, I know people from those countries who are Salafi, either personally or through other people.

it is a long list, I already mentioned abotu this in another post in this forum.

also, in regards to shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, I do not want to get into a discussion about it, because it will turn into an argumen, all I will say is that many things said about him and the history that happened are not true.

and I dont' see any point in discussing about him rahimahu Allah.
his books are available for people to read themselves and judge.

But for now, I think the sister should focus on readng Quran and hadith, then when ready to read books written by any shaikh, then she should ask Allah to guide her to the truth, and not just trust my words or yours.

so the best thing for the sister and anyone else who is confused is to put their trust in Allah and ask Him for guidance.

If you believe you are on the truth, my advice to her about asking Allah for guidance and not trusting just my word or yours, should not bother or upset you.

[abdul_karim]

BAHAHHAHAH the first of those books are basicaly wahabi belief for dummies!

Seriously dont act all arrogant because your a 'real' hanbali... Maybe youve just been led to believe you are one, but your clearly a wahabi.

That list was compiled by the greatest Hanabli scholar of the last century, Abdul-Qadir ibn Badran, not me. He was a traditionalist Hanbali, not a Wahhabi. Don't revile the scholars.

I think its rather clear than I'm not a Wahhabi. I'm an admirer of Ibn Arabi and Rumi. I've been looking for a Murshid in tasawwuf. I hate the Saudi government and their so-called scholars. Does that sound like a Wahhabi to you?

[Nahla Naji]

I wrote this over an hour ago, but I guess it didn't go through

-------------------------

to sister Nahla

I understand sister what you mean by not knowing if what you are reading is really correct teachings of Islam or something twisted when I said to read shaikh M. bin Abdul Wahhab's books, but that can also be said about links, books and articles given to you by members in this forum, how do you know that it is also not twisted?

anyone can tell you that what they follow is correct and the other person's beliefs are deviant and twisted.

so how do you know? how can you trust the person who is telling you which books to read? and which bookstore to take from?

you can't just because they told you so, you don't even know the person.


so my advice to you sister is:

1_ start by reading the Quran, all of it, even if you already read it all, read it again.
actually a Muslim should be reading it daily, at least few pages.

2_ read sahih Bukhari and Muslim for now, since they are authentic hadiths, just a general read.

3_ now we come to books of scholars and shaikhs, and here is where the confusion comes, which shaikhs are on the right path? whom do I trust? how do I know if they teach what is correct or not?

The answer is: through Allah sister, He is the one who can guide you to the correct path.
what you do is > make duaa in your salat, in sujood which is the best postion to make duaa, for Allah to guide you to the truth, and always do that duaa, always ask Him to guide you to the haqq (Truth) and what pleases Him, and put your trust in Allah that He will answer your duaa.
then start reading books by different Muslim shaikhs, whether ones recommanded to you here, or whom are accused of being deviants, ones labeled as "Wahhabis".
and insha Allah, becuase of your duaa and asking Allah's help with sincerety, Allah will guide you to the right path, and make your heart comfortable with the truth, meaning when you read the truth, whether it was with sufis or Salafis = "wahhabis", your heart will feel at peace and feel it is the truth insha Allah.

so don't trust my word or anyone elses on whom is the one on right path, for everyone claims to be on right path and that the other is deviant, just put your trust in Allah, and ask Him alone to guide you to the right path.

and I wish for you the best my sister, and for Allah to guide me and you to straight path.

your sister in Islam

Assalamu alaikum wa rahamtullah wa barakatu!!
Thank you for ur kind reply, i will follow it insha Allah... i will ask more Allah for help and guidance...
As for whom to trust... i trust my husband first of all :cheesygri and i check with him if he thinks one of the books here may benefit me... I asked today again about Wahab, if i should read his Tawheed and he said read it and write down all his main ideas and then come and we will discuss them together and i will explain more about them... insha Allah after my graduation exams next week i will have more time to study all this material u gave me... especially if he told me to write down everything and check with him...

To brother Ansari... i am glad that things ended well after all "Much Ado about Nothing" :rolleyes:
Jazak Allah khair!!
Allah ma'akum

[Cloud_Strife]

Nahla Naji, I warn you about Wahabism...some people here were former wahabis,until they realized, Alhamdulillah, there were issues in their aqeedah. Insha'Allah some of them can add their comments and tell you what they know now and what they thought before.
Sister, one piece of advice I want to tell you about: Prophet saw said that all sects will be in hell-fire except one, which he said is the majority of the believers. Ask yourself this, is Wahabism the majority of how people believe today? No, it isn't. Most Muslims in the world are (overwhelming) muslims in the world follow a madhab, whether they realize it or not. Wahabis are not the majority of the believers (there are only small pockets of wahabis outside of Saudi Arabia,and they are paid by saudi petrol money). Also Prophet saw said that Allah will not let the majority of the ummah be on error-so again, you see that the majority is following a madhab, and is a part of Ahl Sunnah Wal jamaah, so you see that the people who are in the majority are on the truth.
May Allah swt forgive me if I made mistakes in quoting the hadith.
Wasalaam.

[Nahla Naji]

Nahla Naji, I warn you about Wahabism...some people here were former wahabis,until they realized, Alhamdulillah, there were issues in their aqeedah. Insha'Allah some of them can add their comments and tell you what they know now and what they thought before.
Sister, one piece of advice I want to tell you about: Prophet saw said that all sects will be in hell-fire except one, which he said is the majority of the believers. Ask yourself this, is Wahabism the majority of how people believe today? No, it isn't. Most Muslims in the world are (overwhelming) muslims in the world follow a madhab, whether they realize it or not. Wahabis are not the majority of the believers (there are only small pockets of wahabis outside of Saudi Arabia,and they are paid by saudi petrol money). Also Prophet saw said that Allah will not let the majority of the ummah be on error-so again, you see that the majority is following a madhab, and is a part of Ahl Sunnah Wal jamaah, so you see that the people who are in the majority are on the truth.
May Allah swt forgive me if I made mistakes in quoting the hadith.
Wasalaam.

Assalamu alaikum wa rahamtullah wa barakatu...
I read the hadith myself and as far as i remember, the ummah will be divided in 72 sects and just one will eneter Paradise... You see, here in our country, we do not follow a specific school... for example, when anyone asks my husband for fatwa, he answers something like this: The hanafi school says, the Hanbali school says, and everyone is free to choose what he thinks it suits them... And we are all adiviced to stick to that school that we think it is good for us... for example if today i follow the hanafi school on one issue, tomorrow i follow the same school on that same issue...
And i thought (for quite some long time) that if u resume to this schools, u r a sunni... and that if someone says that he is part of Ahl as Sunnah, it means that on main issues he is in these limits.... Now i discover that the things are much more complicated ...
For example today i found out that one of the reasons why Bilal Philps is blamed is that on his books there are referrences to Sayd ibn Khuttub ( i hope i spell it correctly cause i just heard the name) who was accused of having relations with Muslim Brothers (i hope this is correct translation - i just took the words from our language and translated it into English :cheesygri ). As u can imagine, this added to my confusion, and appeared another name i must check out...:cry:
But i have hope that all these will clear up some day, insha Allah
Allah ma'akum

[abdul_karim]

Nahla Naji, I warn you about Wahabism...some people here were former wahabis,until they realized, Alhamdulillah, there were issues in their aqeedah. Insha'Allah some of them can add their comments and tell you what they know now and what they thought before.
Sister, one piece of advice I want to tell you about: Prophet saw said that all sects will be in hell-fire except one, which he said is the majority of the believers. Ask yourself this, is Wahabism the majority of how people believe today? No, it isn't. Most Muslims in the world are (overwhelming) muslims in the world follow a madhab, whether they realize it or not. Wahabis are not the majority of the believers (there are only small pockets of wahabis outside of Saudi Arabia,and they are paid by saudi petrol money). Also Prophet saw said that Allah will not let the majority of the ummah be on error-so again, you see that the majority is following a madhab, and is a part of Ahl Sunnah Wal jamaah, so you see that the people who are in the majority are on the truth.
May Allah swt forgive me if I made mistakes in quoting the hadith.
Wasalaam.

There is disagreement as to the meaning of Jama'ah in that hadith: http://www.jamiat.org.za/isinfo/dsects.html

"The scholars have differed as to the meaning of majority (jama'ah) as contained in the above traditions. There seem to be five more plausible explanations:

The first explanation is that it means the majority of Muslims. Abu Ghalib attests to this view saying: "The majority are the salvation group. Whatever they decide in religious matters is the truth. Whoever opposes them will die a death of ignorance, whether such opposition is done in maters of religious matters or political matters." Abu Mas'ud al-Ansari and ibn Mas'ud also held the same opinion. When 'Uthman ibn 'Affan was murdered, Abu Mas'ud al-Ansari was asked about it, he said: "Adhere to the majority, for Allah will not allow the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad to jointly agree on deviation. Exercise patience until you are granted relief from an oppressive ruler." Ibn Mas'ud said: "Always listen and obey your leader, for h is the firm rope of Allah." He then gripped his hand with the other and said: "It is better that you dislike a few things in the majority (community), than laving a few things in a division."

According to this definition, all the people are included in the majority without exception, even the eminent scholars (mujtahidun).

The second opinion of the word majority (jama'ah) as contained in the tradition under question is that it means the eminent scholars (a'immah al-'Ulama wa al-Mujtahidin) of Islam. Whoever opposes the verdicts which such recognised scholars have pronounced dies a death of ignorance. The laws of Allah are propagated by the 'Ulama who have been made the proof of Allah on this earth. It is this same scholars who are referred to in that tradition: "Verily Allah will not allow my Ummah to jointly agree on wrong." The masses seek religious guidance from the scholars, thus all the scholars will never jointly agree to something wrong.

'Abdullah ibn Mubarak, Ishaq ibn Rahwiah, and the majority of the Usuluyyin adhere to this interpretation. Those who do not qualify to be scholars, automatically fall under the category of followers (muqallidun). Whoever opposes the scholars in their verdicts, dies a death of ignorance. A scholar can not be an innovator in religion (mubtadi'), and if he is of such a nature, he will not be reckoned to be amongst the scholars.

The third opinion of the word majority (jama'ah) as contained in the tradition under question is that it means the Sahabah in specefic. They were the ones who erected the structure of Islam, and fortified its foundations. The Sahabah can never jointly agree on wrong, but any other group besides them can. The Holy Prophet said: "The day of Judgement will not arrive except on the worst of people." In this tradition, the Holy Prophet Muhammad has said that the people of each generation will become progressively worse, and they will collectively deviated and steeped in infidelity (kufr). Thus, only the first generation of Muslims is meant here, and not those following them.

'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz was a vociferous proponent of this explanation. Ibn Wahab reports on the authority of Malik that 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz used to say: "The Holy Prophet and the four Rightly-Guided caliphs devised a pattern for us to follow. To follow it is accepting the Qur'an and submitting fully to Allah. It signifies strength upon Islam. None should change or oppose this way. Whoever seeks guidance from it will be guided, and whoever seeks help from it will be helped. On the other hand, whoever opposes it and follows a path than those of the Believers, Allah will consign him to it, and his abode will be the fire!"

According to this interpreatation, the last part of the tradition: "That path upon which Myself and my Companions are," is supportive of it. Other traditions also support this view which speaks of the virtues of the Sahabah, and the reign of the Khulafa rashidun as the glorious epoch of Islam. The Holy Prophet said: "Adhere to my pattern, and to the pattern of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs after me." The Sahabah received direct Prophetic instructions and guidance, they understood Islam the best as they received it first-hand from the Holy Prophet Muhammad. No other group had this opportunity, and the understanding of later scholars of Islam, no matter how erudite and intelligent, can be flawed in some way.

The fourth opinion of the word majority (jama'ah) as contained in the tradition under question is that it means the consensus of the Muslims. If a consensus is decreed on any matter, is is mandatory for all to follow it. Imam Shafi'i said: "The majority will not be heedless to the message of the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and to analogy (qiyas). Such heedlessness is only to be found in divisions."

The fifth opinion of the word majority (jama'ah) as contained in the tradition under question is that it means the strict loyalty and unwavering allegiance to one's leader (amir). Tabari was of this opinion. This interpretation is supported by the many traditions which exhort one to always follow the leader. The Holy Prophet also said: "Whoever enters my Ummah in order to divide it, slay his neck."

This adage was perhaps mostly aptly demonstrated by 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. When he was fatally wounded, and it dawned upon him with certitude that his life was so shortly end, he made speedy arrangements for the election of a successor. He instructed in a voice terse with political urgency to Suhaib: "Let 'Ali, 'Uthman, Talhah, Zubair, Sa'd and 'Abd al-Rahman (the nominess) enter into a room. Let ibn 'Umar also enter, but he has no share in the matter. O Suhaib, than stand with a sword raised above their necks. If five of them agree on one person, and one opposes it, slay him. If two of them oppose him, slay both of them. Continue in this fashion until they decide on one person."

[Pr1nce]

also, there is a huge number of Salafis in USA, and many in UK and Canada and many other non Muslim countires.
Hahaha thats quite funny. This statement alone proves that you have no clue what you're talking about. It is better to stay silent on matters of which you do not know

[dining_philosopher]

That list was compiled by the greatest Hanabli scholar of the last century, Abdul-Qadir ibn Badran, not me. He was a traditionalist Hanbali, not a Wahhabi. Don't revile the scholars.

I think its rather clear than I'm not a Wahhabi. I'm an admirer of Ibn Arabi and Rumi. I've been looking for a Murshid in tasawwuf. I hate the Saudi government and their so-called scholars. Does that sound like a Wahhabi to you?


Then forgive me for my suspicions brother..

inshallah.

[dining_philosopher]

Hahaha thats quite funny. This statement alone proves that you have no clue what you're talking about. It is better to stay silent on matters of which you do not know

Actually its you who seems to not know what your talking about... There are many wahabis in the western coutries, although probably no where near as many regular sunnis, the wahabis seem to be the most vocal.

And Musleemah, take your misguidance some where else. Im not going to bother replying to your rubbish seeing as you've basically just confirmed everything i said about you with that reply.

[Musleemah]

bro freeman, the internet is for everyone, not only for you, and this forum is not restricted only to you, as long as I follow the rules of the forum, I am allowed to post.
you don't like what I say, dont' read it.
and I posted for the sister not you.
you believe what I say is misguidance, because you don't believe what I do.

------------------------------------------

to sister Nahla

ok, that's good, just ask Allah for guidance, then your husband insha Allah.

I wish for you the best

your sister in Islam

[dining_philosopher]

Actually your wrong there. I say you are misguiding because what you say is completely wrong and heretical, to say the least.

[laughinglion]

... the ones whom you label as "wahhabis" = Salafis, are only in Najd, or around 98% are in Najd, which is totally false, and I am sure you know that there is a very big number of Salafis in Egypt as well, many of them shaikhs, if you want I can name you many of them, also there are Salafi students in al Azhar, one of my teachers (tafsir teacher) is Egyptian who studied in al Azhar, and his aqeedah is Salafi.
.

:salam:

Siti Nahla, remember this point from our sister in Islam, Musleemah. Al-Azhar and Egypt are overrun with Salafis (who I would rather were called, khalfis). The look to who you take your Deen from.

May Allah guide and protect you.

with peace

[tru_Qur'an]

Assalaamu Alaikum

He has called our respectable Ahlus Sunnah scholar Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller a Mushrik - SubhanAllah. And by that he has also called all the major scholars such as Imam Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, Imam Ahmad as Mushrikeen. All because of the permissibility of Tawassul. They take what they want and reject the rest, they discredit our beloved Ulama and claim that the greatest amongst the Ulama have all adhered to their position when the opposite is clearly evident.

Wassalaam

Excuse me, but can you please site your evidence that he called Imam Nawawi, Ibn Hajr, and Imam Ahmad "Mushrikeen" ! ( May Allah have mercy upon them).

And Allah knows Best

Wasalam

[mospike]

Please do provide the evidence for the above.

What you saying has serious consequences...

i dont like his style,,,

but i cant believe that he would have called those illustrious Shuyukh albeit the differences he might have with the, mushrikeen

[tru_Qur'an]

Please do provide the evidence for the above.

What you saying has serious consequences...

i dont like his style,,,

but i cant believe that he would have called those illustrious Shuyukh albeit the differences he might have with the, mushrikeen

According to Umdat ul Salik ( The Reliance of the Traveller ) section w57.2 pages 1009-1010 mentions

Imam Nawawi was Ash'ari

Sheikh Al Islam Ahmad Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani was Ash'ari

Imam ibn Hajar Haytami was Ash'ari ( May Allah have mercy upon all of them).

I could see if Bilal Philips didn't take from these scholars in matters of AQEEDAH, because he didn't agree with them on that issue, but to say they are "Mushrikeen" is another ball game.

Anyhow,,please produce your evidence for your claim Abu Affan al- Hanafi

And Allah Knows Best

Wasalam

[Assaalik]

Assalamu 'alaikum

What should be made clear is that the people of madhab are not divided rather united in recognizing each madhab as being valid. The same can't be said for wahabi's. It's only one title from our perspective. The truth is that you can barely find two wahabi masjids that recognizes the others interpretation of Islam. That is because each one of them pontificate their opinions which is 'obviously" the right one, and therefore they can't accept conflicting opinions.
The ones who follow a madhab realize that we must have criteria for interpreting the religion it's not just for anyone.
Can anyone just pickup medical text books on their own read them for a few years then come to the conclusion that they are a doctor? I don't think you'll let them operate on you!

Wa salam

[Ansari_UK]

That list was compiled by the greatest Hanabli scholar of the last century, Abdul-Qadir ibn Badran, not me. He was a traditionalist Hanbali, not a Wahhabi. Don't revile the scholars.

I think its rather clear than I'm not a Wahhabi. I'm an admirer of Ibn Arabi and Rumi. I've been looking for a Murshid in tasawwuf. I hate the Saudi government and their so-called scholars. Does that sound like a Wahhabi to you?

MashAllah

[Ansari_UK]

Sister Nahla

You are on the correct path. Do not deviate Alhamdulilah. Quran and Hadith need a teacher. Obey your Husband and dont ever let anyone brainwash you by pretence piuosness and that includes me and everyone.

As i said the fact you question bilal phillips in the first place is Imaan sister.

Walaykum Asalaam

pls remember me in your duahs.

[Nahla Naji]

Sister Nahla

You are on the correct path. Do not deviate Alhamdulilah. Quran and Hadith need a teacher. Obey your Husband and dont ever let anyone brainwash you by pretence piuosness and that includes me and everyone.

As i said the fact you question bilal phillips in the first place is Imaan sister.

Walaykum Asalaam

pls remember me in your duahs.

Assalamu alaikum wa rahamtullah!!

I will take your adivice insha Allah... and i will mention you in my du'as, insha Allah, may Allah guide us all towrads the Truth, insha Allah

[Pr1nce]

Actually its you who seems to not know what your talking about... There are many wahabis in the western coutries, although probably no where near as many regular sunnis, the wahabis seem to be the most vocal.
What are you talking about? The majority of Muslims in the West are not wahabis and they are decreasing in number all the time

[loveProphet]

What are you talking about? The majority of Muslims in the West are not wahabis and they are decreasing in number all the time
Just see the USA, the wahabis have Alhamdulillah been in sharp decline and people are coming back to the Ahlus Sunnah.
Same in Saudi.
Just one person i know in Riyadh knows 40 peoples who converted from wahabism to the Ahlus Sunnah and they're all Imams of Mosques and teachers, Alhamdulillah!

Besides, it is the sign of the End of Days that jahiliyya will spread and increase, and this is also shown by the increase in wahabis.

:ws:

[loveProphet]

That list was compiled by the greatest Hanabli scholar of the last century, Abdul-Qadir ibn Badran, not me. He was a traditionalist Hanbali, not a Wahhabi. Don't revile the scholars.

I think its rather clear than I'm not a Wahhabi. I'm an admirer of Ibn Arabi and Rumi. I've been looking for a Murshid in tasawwuf. I hate the Saudi government and their so-called scholars. Does that sound like a Wahhabi to you?
Bro, a sincere question.

Whats the difference between you and the wahabi beliefs and between the mujassimah who are literalists in the attributes of Allah?

[abdul_karim]

Bro, a sincere question.

Whats the difference between you and the wahabi beliefs and between the mujassimah who are literalists in the attributes of Allah?

The mujassimah are those who say that Allah (subhanu wa ta'ala) is similar to His creation. If I refer to "Allah's Hand" (as the Prophet and Sahabah often did), that does not make me a mujassim, unless I believed that "hand" means the same thing for Allah as for creation (which it doesn't). To take His attributes "ala Dhahir" (on the apparent) doesn't mean the same as "literal", it means the "apparent" meaning, and the apparent with regards to Allah cannot be something like creation. Sometimes the dhahir meaning is clearly metaphorical, sometimes its unclear, and sometimes it is perfectly clear.

For example, al-Qur'an chapter 48 verse 10 contains a reference to "Allah's Hand" that is clearly metaphorical:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُبَايِعُونَكَ إِنَّمَا يُبَايِعُونَ اللَّهَ يَدُ اللَّهِ فَوْقَ أَيْدِيهِمْ فَمَن نَّكَثَ فَإِنَّمَا يَنكُثُ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ وَمَنْ أَوْفَى بِمَا عَاهَدَ عَلَيْهُ اللَّهَ فَسَيُؤْتِيهِ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا

" Lo! those who swear allegiance unto thee (Muhammad), swear allegiance only unto Allah. The Hand of Allah is above their hands. So whosoever breaketh his oath, breaketh it only to his soul's hurt; while whosoever keepeth his covenant with Allah, on him will He bestow immense reward."

The references to Allah's istiwa over the throne are of unclear meaning (ie. we can't understand them).

The references to Allah being All-Powerful, etc. are perfectly clear.

[loveProphet]

The mujassimah are those who say that Allah (subhanu wa ta'ala) is similar to His creation. If I refer to "Allah's Hand" (as the Prophet and Sahabah often did), that does not make me a mujassim, unless I believed that "hand" means the same thing for Allah as for creation (which it doesn't). To take His attributes "ala Dhahir" (on the apparent) doesn't mean the same as "literal", it means the "apparent" meaning, and the apparent with regards to Allah cannot be something like creation. Sometimes the dhahir meaning is clearly metaphorical, sometimes its unclear, and sometimes it is perfectly clear.

For example, al-Qur'an chapter 48 verse 10 contains a reference to "Allah's Hand" that is clearly metaphorical:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُبَايِعُونَكَ إِنَّمَا يُبَايِعُونَ اللَّهَ يَدُ اللَّهِ فَوْقَ أَيْدِيهِمْ فَمَن نَّكَثَ فَإِنَّمَا يَنكُثُ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ وَمَنْ أَوْفَى بِمَا عَاهَدَ عَلَيْهُ اللَّهَ فَسَيُؤْتِيهِ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا

" Lo! those who swear allegiance unto thee (Muhammad), swear allegiance only unto Allah. The Hand of Allah is above their hands. So whosoever breaketh his oath, breaketh it only to his soul's hurt; while whosoever keepeth his covenant with Allah, on him will He bestow immense reward."

The references to Allah's istiwa over the throne are of unclear meaning (ie. we can't understand them).

The references to Allah being All-Powerful, etc. are perfectly clear.
Cool. So bro do you consign the meaning to Allah?

[abdul_karim]

Cool. So bro do you consign the meaning to Allah?

Shaykh Ibn Qudamah (rahmatullah alayh) said:

وعلموا أن المتكلم بها صادق لا شك في صدقه فصدقوه ولم يعلموا حقيقة معناها فسكتوا عما لم يعلموه

"[The Salaf] knew that the one who conveyed to us [the information about Allah’s Attributes] is truthful, with no doubt in his truthfulness. Hence, they believed him, without knowing the reality of the meaning, and remained silent over that which they did not know."

He made tafwidh of the reality of the meaning, while still affirming the dhahir in the manner I explained earlier.

[loveProphet]

Shaykh Ibn Qudamah (rahmatullah alayh) said:

وعلموا أن المتكلم بها صادق لا شك في صدقه فصدقوه ولم يعلموا حقيقة معناها فسكتوا عما لم يعلموه

"[The Salaf] knew that the one who conveyed to us [the information about Allah’s Attributes] is truthful, with no doubt in his truthfulness. Hence, they believed him, without knowing the reality of the meaning, and remained silent over that which they did not know."

He made tafwidh of the reality of the meaning, while still affirming the dhahir in the manner I explained earlier.
Cool.
The tafwid quotes(scans) from the different Imams and Salaf is given here:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13478

And yes, tafwid is the default way of the Ash'aris as respresented by Imam Suyuti's fatwa:
http://www.************/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=69&Itemid=47

"Consign [the meaning] of the ahadīth of attributes [to Allāh]
And do not liken them to the creation nor negate them
If all other pursuits have passed except embarking upon
The solving of this problem, only then search for an interpretation
Indeed the one who consigns [its meaning to Allāh] is saved
From the burden of the one who interprets figuratively..."

:ws:

[Ansari_UK]

Bro Abdul Karim

Pls give this good dawah to your brethren pseudo-Hanbalis and may Allah reward you with Jannah for your intelligence in breaking free from splinter groups.

Pls do duah 4 me.

Walaykum Asalaam

[loveProphet]

Imam Qudamah(RH) said(as mentioned in the previous link):
"The Madhab of the Salaf is to have Iman in the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala and His Names, with which He described Himself in the Qur’an and Sunnah without adding to it, and removing from it, and not exceeding the bounds of it, without giving explanation, or a ta’wil that opposes its dhahir, without resemblence to the attributes of the creation or the qualities of (things) brought into existance. Rather, they passed them on (narrated them) as they came and relegated the knowledge of them to the One who spoke them (Allah) and the meaning of them to the One that said them."

This is what you meant sidi Abdul Karim right?
And do you accept this:

Imam Ibn Kathir says in his Tafsir of the verse ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى ٱلْعَرْشِ translated by some as: "Then He ‘was established’ (istawa) upon the Throne" (Qur’an 7 : 54) :





وأما قوله تعالى: { ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى ٱلْعَرْشِ } فللناس في هذا المقام مقالات كثيرة جداً ليس هذا موضع بسطها، وإنما نسلك في هذا المقام مذهب السلف الصالح مالك والأوزاعي والثوري والليث بن سعد والشافعي وأحمد وإسحاق بن راهويه وغيرهم من أئمة المسلمين قديماً وحديثاً، وهو إمرارها كما جاءت من غير تكييف ولا تشبيه ولا تعطيل، والظاهر المتبادر إلى أذهان المشبهين منفي عن الله، لا يشبهه شيء من خلقه و
{ لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَىْءٌ وَهُوَ ٱلسَّمِيعُ ٱلْبَصِيرُ }



[translation of above - let me know if there are mistakes!]


...people have many positions on this matter, and this is not the place to present them at length. On this point, we follow the position of the early Muslims (salaf)—Malik, Awza‘i, Thawri, Layth ibn Sa‘d, Shafi‘i, Ahmad, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, as well as others among the Imams of the Muslims, ancient and modern—namely, to let the verse pass as it has come, without saying how it is meant (bi la takyif), without any resemblance to created things (wa la tashbih), and without nullifying it (wa la ta‘til), and the literal outward meaning (dhahir) that comes to the minds of anthropomorphists (al-mushabbihin) is negated of Allah, for nothing created has any resemblance to Him: "There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, and He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing"
:ws:

[abdul_karim]

Imam Qudamah(RH) said(as mentioned in the previous link):
"The Madhab of the Salaf is to have Iman in the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala and His Names, with which He described Himself in the Qur’an and Sunnah without adding to it, and removing from it, and not exceeding the bounds of it, without giving explanation, or a ta’wil that opposes its dhahir, without resemblence to the attributes of the creation or the qualities of (things) brought into existance. Rather, they passed them on (narrated them) as they came and relegated the knowledge of them to the One who spoke them (Allah) and the meaning of them to the One that said them."

This is what you meant sidi Abdul Karim right?
And do you accept this:

Imam Ibn Kathir says in his Tafsir of the verse ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى ٱلْعَرْشِ translated by some as: "Then He ‘was established’ (istawa) upon the Throne" (Qur’an 7 : 54) :





وأما قوله تعالى: { ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى ٱلْعَرْشِ } فللناس في هذا المقام مقالات كثيرة جداً ليس هذا موضع بسطها، وإنما نسلك في هذا المقام مذهب السلف الصالح مالك والأوزاعي والثوري والليث بن سعد والشافعي وأحمد وإسحاق بن راهويه وغيرهم من أئمة المسلمين قديماً وحديثاً، وهو إمرارها كما جاءت من غير تكييف ولا تشبيه ولا تعطيل، والظاهر المتبادر إلى أذهان المشبهين منفي عن الله، لا يشبهه شيء من خلقه و
{ لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَىْءٌ وَهُوَ ٱلسَّمِيعُ ٱلْبَصِيرُ }



[translation of above - let me know if there are mistakes!]


...people have many positions on this matter, and this is not the place to present them at length. On this point, we follow the position of the early Muslims (salaf)—Malik, Awza‘i, Thawri, Layth ibn Sa‘d, Shafi‘i, Ahmad, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, as well as others among the Imams of the Muslims, ancient and modern—namely, to let the verse pass as it has come, without saying how it is meant (bi la takyif), without any resemblance to created things (wa la tashbih), and without nullifying it (wa la ta‘til), and the literal outward meaning (dhahir) that comes to the minds of anthropomorphists (al-mushabbihin) is negated of Allah, for nothing created has any resemblance to Him: "There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, and He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing"
:ws:

I'd never read that quote from Imam ibn Kathir (RA), but that's a very good explanation of the matter.

[loveProphet]

I'd never read that quote from Imam ibn Kathir (RA), but that's a very good explanation of the matter.
Certain people have dirtied the Hanbali madhab such that it is really rare to find a real Hanbali, thats why many are pessimistic these days when people claim to be Hanbalis.
So you understand our attitude by testing Hanbalis.
Sorry if i caused any offense.

:ws:

[abdul_karim]

Certain people have dirtied the Hanbali madhab such that it is really rare to find a real Hanbali, thats why many are pessimistic these days when people claim to be Hanbalis.
So you understand our attitude by testing Hanbalis.
Sorry if i caused any offense.

:ws:

Every Salafi I've ever met has the exact same aqeedah as me. In fact, I got that quote from Ibn Qudamah from a Salafi website (http://***********************/2006/09/01/ibn-qudama-on-tafwid/), and that explanation of what dhaahir means came from Abuz-Zubair's forum (http://forums.*********************/showthread.php?t=4523&page=2&highlight=dhaahir).

The only difference I have with Salafis is my beliefs about taqleed and tasawwuf. My aqeedah is 100% the same.

BTW, non-Hanbalis can't "test Hanbalis", that's ridiculous.

[loveProphet]

Every Salafi I've ever met has the exact same aqeedah as me. In fact, I got that quote from Ibn Qudamah from a Salafi website (http://***********************/2006/09/01/ibn-qudama-on-tafwid/), and that explanation of what dhaahir means came from Abuz-Zubair's forum (http://forums.*********************/showthread.php?t=4523&page=2&highlight=dhaahir).

The only difference I have with Salafis is my beliefs about taqleed and tasawwuf. My aqeedah is 100% the same.

BTW, non-Hanbalis can't "test Hanbalis", that's ridiculous.
And thats precisely why i refused to comment on the dhaahir:)
Thats why i gave that quote by Imam Ibn Kathir because he negated the dhaahir.
As the Imam said: "...and the literal outward meaning (dhahir) that comes to the minds of anthropomorphists (al-mushabbihin) is negated of Allah, for nothing created has any resemblance to Him: "There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, and He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing"
I however had found the part on tafwid to be interesting and i brought forth what the Ash'aris said on tafwid as you saw.

As for Aqidah of different people being in line with the Ahlus Sunnah, that is for the Ulema to decide, not me.

As for the tafwid, you can see the threads/posts from before easily or use the search and see how the wahabis reject the tafwid that the Ash'aris and Imam Ibn Qudamah etc did, i.e. tafwid al-ma'na.

So do you also believe like Ibn Baz that "Allah is beyond limits that we know but has limits He knows" as stated in his footnote to article 38 of Imam al-Tahawi's Aqida and which i have checked to and you can see yourself.

As for attributing direction to Allah or a place, this is a belief not from the Ahlus Sunnah and is a bid'a.

Real Hanbalis i believe are in fiqh, they are those who follow the Hanbali methodology and school instead of taking from the madhab and taking from other madhabs and mixing them and adding new and absurd opinions and shouting shirk right left and centre! Many people you see these days do this and claim to be Hanbali.
You can also get in Hanbalis who are mujassim(such as Imam Harrawi) or not(such as Imam Ibn Jawzi), aqida is different from being a Hanbali as a Hanbali is in fiqh, not aqida. Just like we've had Hanafi mu'tazila, yet they're still considered Hanafis.
Aqida is a different thing.

[AngelFuzion]

all of u who say that he and salfiz are deviated and are niot from tha ahlul sunnah, i asked a deobandi scholar that if wahbis and salfiz are from ahlul sunnah he said thay are fom the ahlul sunna and that scholar is a tableeghi as well

[abdul_karim]

And thats precisely why i refused to comment on the dhaahir:)
Thats why i gave that quote by Imam Ibn Kathir because he negated the dhaahir.
As the Imam said: "...and the literal outward meaning (dhahir) that comes to the minds of anthropomorphists (al-mushabbihin) is negated of Allah, for nothing created has any resemblance to Him: "There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, and He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing"
I however had found the part on tafwid to be interesting and i brought forth what the Ash'aris said on tafwid as you saw.

As for Aqidah of different people being in line with the Ahlus Sunnah, that is for the Ulema to decide, not me.

As for the tafwid, you can see the threads/posts from before easily or use the search and see how the wahabis reject the tafwid that the Ash'aris and Imam Ibn Qudamah etc did, i.e. tafwid al-ma'na.

So do you also believe like Ibn Baz that "Allah is beyond limits that we know but has limits He knows" as stated in his footnote to article 38 of Imam al-Tahawi's Aqida and which i have checked to and you can see yourself.

When he says that, he simply means that Allah (subhanu wa ta'ala) does not indwell in His creation.


As for attributing direction to Allah or a place, this is a belief not from the Ahlus Sunnah and is a bid'a.

Real Hanbalis i believe are in fiqh, they are those who follow the Hanbali methodology and school instead of taking from the madhab and taking from other madhabs and mixing them and adding new and absurd opinions and shouting shirk right left and centre! Many people you see these days do this and claim to be Hanbali.
You can also get in Hanbalis who are mujassim(such as Imam Harrawi) or not(such as Imam Ibn Jawzi), aqida is different from being a Hanbali as a Hanbali is in fiqh, not aqida. Just like we've had Hanafi mu'tazila, yet they're still considered Hanafis.
Aqida is a different thing.

"Direction" and "Place" are concepts from Aristotle's system of categories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_(Aristotle)) (just like "substance" and "accident" (http://metafysica.nl/subenac.html)), and have no place in Islamic discussion. I take my deen from Sayyidina Muhammad al-Mustafa (salallahu alayhi wa salaam), the Messenger of Allah and Seal of the Prophets, not the Greek philosophers.

[farook]

I wrote this over an hour ago, but I guess it didn't go through

-------------------------

to sister Nahla

I understand sister what you mean by not knowing if what you are reading is really correct teachings of Islam or something twisted when I said to read shaikh M. bin Abdul Wahhab's books, but that can also be said about links, books and articles given to you by members in this forum, how do you know that it is also not twisted?

anyone can tell you that what they follow is correct and the other person's beliefs are deviant and twisted.

so how do you know? how can you trust the person who is telling you which books to read? and which bookstore to take from?

you can't just because they told you so, you don't even know the person.


so my advice to you sister is:

1_ start by reading the Quran, all of it, even if you already read it all, read it again.
actually a Muslim should be reading it daily, at least few pages.

2_ read sahih Bukhari and Muslim for now, since they are authentic hadiths, just a general read.

3_ now we come to books of scholars and shaikhs, and here is where the confusion comes, which shaikhs are on the right path? whom do I trust? how do I know if they teach what is correct or not?

The answer is: through Allah sister, He is the one who can guide you to the correct path.
what you do is > make duaa in your salat, in sujood which is the best postion to make duaa, for Allah to guide you to the truth, and always do that duaa, always ask Him to guide you to the haqq (Truth) and what pleases Him, and put your trust in Allah that He will answer your duaa.
then start reading books by different Muslim shaikhs, whether ones recommanded to you here, or whom are accused of being deviants, ones labeled as "Wahhabis".
and insha Allah, becuase of your duaa and asking Allah's help with sincerety, Allah will guide you to the right path, and make your heart comfortable with the truth, meaning when you read the truth, whether it was with sufis or Salafis = "wahhabis", your heart will feel at peace and feel it is the truth insha Allah.

so don't trust my word or anyone elses on whom is the one on right path, for everyone claims to be on right path and that the other is deviant, just put your trust in Allah, and ask Him alone to guide you to the right path.

and I wish for you the best my sister, and for Allah to guide me and you to straight path.

your sister in Islam

Alhamdulillah. Excellent approach

[farook]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahamtullah wa barakatu!!
Thank you for ur kind reply, i will follow it insha Allah... i will ask more Allah for help and guidance...
As for whom to trust... i trust my husband first of all :cheesygri and i check with him if he thinks one of the books here may benefit me... I asked today again about Wahab, if i should read his Tawheed and he said read it and write down all his main ideas and then come and we will discuss them together and i will explain more about them... insha Allah after my graduation exams next week i will have more time to study all this material u gave me... especially if he told me to write down everything and check with him...

To brother Ansari... i am glad that things ended well after all "Much Ado about Nothing" :rolleyes:
Jazak Allah khair!!
Allah ma'akum

Excellent sister. There could not have been a better decision. May Allah (SWT) guide you on His Path. Insh'Allah

[Malik Ahmed]

can anyone give me some information/websites how to refute Salafis and their Claims/Accusations according to Hanafi sources.

[abuhajira]

:salam:

Br. Let the salafies be, and just focus on your own ibadaat.. InshAllah Allah's deen is protected..

However, if there is anything in particular you need info on, please ask.. we have many brothers here who can help you..

better yet, do a search of the forums before hand.. inshAllah it should help.

:ws:

[abuhajira]

:salam:

Br Fareed, please start with salam and please form some paragraph or indexing for us to read the post easily.

Jazak Allah

:ws:

[Malik Ahmed]

The Biggest Refuation to the Salafis is what there fellow Salafis are doing like Criminal Acts around they world like Suicide Bombings in Markets in Iraq in which Civillans are Killed and Bringing Terror on the Residents of the Palestinaian Refugee Camp Naher Al Bared in Lebanon in which houses and everything was destroyed by the fighting in which a Salafist Group Called the Fatah Al Islam was Fighting and brought hell on the residents there and whom were they fighting none other than same arabs and leabnese army in which many Muslims were there these people are and wanting to wage Jihad wherever they feel like and are committing inhuman acts in the name of Jihad and one such person was Abu Musab Al Zarqawi who was a Wahhbai/Salafi of Jordan who started the Civil War in Iraq by inciting the Sunnis against the Shias and then inciting Shias against the Sunnis by Bombing the Askari Mosque in Sammara and even bombed the Abdul Qadr Al Jilani Mosque and targeting people on Sectrain Lines by taking them out of there Houses this fitna was started by none other then the Salafis and Wahhabis in Iraq whose aim was to start the Civil war between Shias and Sunnis then somehow try to beacome Saviours of Sunnis and now the Local Sunni Tribes in Iraq have understood there evil Designs and are fighting them and are trying to push them out these people are fitna wherever they go from there Neighbourhood Mosque to Battelfields how can they fight Jihad when there Aqeedah is wrong and based on Wrong Beleifs they will kill and get killed and nothing else and wont win anyhwere in there Jihad Because many things which they arre doing is Un Islmaic but when it comes to Mawlid and Sunni Traditions they talk a lot about Biddath , Kufr and Shirk butwhen it comes to Beheadings of Shias , Car Bombings, Suicide Bombings in Markets and Hostage Takings all is allowed for them this itself shows there Hypocrisy and there Ulema say we are aginst this but when it comes in real they support them Underground by all means and hail these people by finacning them and morally supporting them they are all the same fitna and called them Takfiris and inreality all the takfiris salafis wahhabis are all the same but diffrent tags of the Same Aqeedah with Minor Diffrences.

^^^i am not interested in your Political lies about our Mujahideen brothers i am talking about an explanation about the aqiedah of the salafis

[Saad]

^^^i am not interested in your Political lies about our Mujahideen brothers i am talking about an explanation about the aqiedah of the salafis

:p

[AbdulQahhar]

can anyone give me some information/websites how to refute Salafis and their Claims/Accusations according to Hanafi sources.

:ws:

you can't I suppose. BTW Why would you even bother I wonder?

:salam:

[AbdulQahhar]

:salam:

Br Fareed, please start with salam and please form some paragraph or indexing for us to read the post easily.

Jazak Allah

:ws:

:ws: akhi, a little off topic, but still - u like my new sig? see below

[alfarooq85]

Sorry for digging up an old(ish) thread, but I thought I'd comment considering I live in the Philadelphia area.

I think the main reason why there has been issues at this masjid is because Philly, unlike most large cities in the US, has a rather strong, conservative Salafi community (Btw, Philly isn't too far from this masjid). The Salafi brothers here are not your typical masjid quarrel, "feet-to-feet" annoyance kind of brothers. Rather, many of their disputes go to the next level (as seen by brother Zaheer's earlier post if any of you read it).

Many of the Salafis here are converts from the inner city, and they bring their "gang" mentality when they come into Islam. Hence, we see disputes almost escalating into physical altercations. As much as I disagree with the Salafi 'aqeedah and ideology, I'd have to say that most of them are not as extreme as they are here.

Finally, I know the situation going on at the masjid, and I can only pray that Allah ta'aala rectifies the situation quickly.

[Assaalik]

I noticed a double standard that is a result of a slippery slope.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the case that the general vibe in this forum is 'to respect differences of opinion'. Having said that doesn't the ones who advocate that stance have to accept the pseudo Salafi's stance even if it conflicts with them? After all it's their opinion.
So now what happens? We pick and chose as to what differences to respect and which ones not to? Based on what?
Could it be that this 'respect deviant belief' baloney is not really the Orthodox position?

Wa salam

[Hussain20]

differences of opinion according to any of the four legal frameworks in fine, anything which opposes the four legal frameworks is what people need to look out for and reject.

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (Rahimullah) mentions that to oppose the four madhabs, of to drift from the four legal opinions is going against Ijma.

[Cloud_Strife]

in nyc and new jersey,are there at least some masajids that have tj brothers and that have traditional islamic scholars?

[Colonel_Hardstone]

Asslamo Allaikum,

Salafee Brothers in Philly, NJ & North Carolina, in my opinion are a bit harsher then anywhere else in US.



Sorry for digging up an old(ish) thread, but I thought I'd comment considering I live in the Philadelphia area.

I think the main reason why there has been issues at this masjid is because Philly, unlike most large cities in the US, has a rather strong, conservative Salafi community (Btw, Philly isn't too far from this masjid). The Salafi brothers here are not your typical masjid quarrel, "feet-to-feet" annoyance kind of brothers. Rather, many of their disputes go to the next level (as seen by brother Zaheer's earlier post if any of you read it).

Many of the Salafis here are converts from the inner city, and they bring their "gang" mentality when they come into Islam. Hence, we see disputes almost escalating into physical altercations. As much as I disagree with the Salafi 'aqeedah and ideology, I'd have to say that most of them are not as extreme as they are here.

Finally, I know the situation going on at the masjid, and I can only pray that Allah ta'aala rectifies the situation quickly.

[Abid Mairaj]

can anyone give me some information/websites how to refute Salafis and their Claims/Accusations according to Hanafi sources.

asalamu alaikum
dear brother if u knw urdu then consult these books. these books will help u to understand the bases of the salafies. the main difference between the salafies and the muqalids(followers of any of the four madhabs) is that they(salafies) do not follow the fatwas of the imams. v shd not call thm salafies they are 'gair muqalids' i.e., they deny taqleed.
the books are:-
1. tohfa ahl hadees by hazrat bilal damat barkatuhum
2. hadees aur ahl hadees
3. angrez aur ahl hadees
4. ikhtilaf-e-umat aur sirat-u-mustaqim by hasrat moulana mahammad yousuf RA.
i hope these references will help you.

[pedzaman]

Malik Ahmed

Listen to abuhajira

Time spent learning about Salafi's can used more wisely. Instead of learning about their aqeedah, learn about yours.

[jinnzaman]

Assalamu alaikum

The Salafis claim that Albani was a muhaddith.

What is the definition of a muhaddith in our day and age?

Is anyone aware of how the Salafis account for the claim that Albani memorized 100,000 hadeeth but cannot trace these hadeeth through his hadeeth teachers that he purportedly received ijazeh through?

masalama

[alfarooq85]

Assalamu alaikum

The Salafis claim that Albani was a muhaddith.

What is the definition of a muhaddith in our day and age?

Is anyone aware of how the Salafis account for the claim that Albani memorized 100,000 hadeeth but cannot trace these hadeeth through his hadeeth teachers that he purportedly received ijazeh through?

masalama

wa 'alaykum as-salaam Sidi,

To my understanding, al-Albani is not considered a true muhaddith by the mainstream Sunni scholars for several reasons. The main reason being that he was essentially self-taught with no formal ijaaza. In addition, he never memorized any book of hadith. To get more information, you can check out Sheikh GF Haddad's piece here:

http://www.abc.se/~m9783/alb_e.html
(bear in mind that Sidi Haddad is known to be quite strict on the Salafis, but what he says I'm sure is echoed by other ulema' as well, as evidenced by the scholarly refutations he lists in the article).

As for what defines a Muhaddith, Sheikh Musa Ferber writes:

"There are two definitions for “muhaddith”. One is someone who knows hadiths and their chain of transmissions[tariq], names of narrators, and the various wordings [mutun]. This person is superior to a “musnad”, who is someone who narrates hadith along with chains of transmission, whether he understands the content or simply narrates it. The other definition is based on the de facto ranks of Ahl al-Hadith: the first is “talib”, the novice; next is “muhaddith”, defined as anyone who bears hadiths and pays attention to aspects of its transmission and meaning; then “hafiz”, defined as anyone who has memorized one hundred thousand hadiths--including their chains of transmission and their content--and has fully comprehended whatever additional knowledge needed; and so on. (See Luqat al-durur, via `Abd Allah Siraj al-Din’s commentary on the Bayquniyyah, pp 21-22)

So, unless the claimant fits one of these definitions it is wrong to claim the title “muhaddith”; actually, claiming a title for oneself is wrong to begin with, even if deserved. If he truly has not memorized the Forty Nawawi, then he definitely is not a “muhaddith” according to the second definition, since memorizing it is the first step we novices take."

(for more, please see http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=157&CATE=91)


salaam

[Husain]

While we dislike Albani, his manhaj and many of his opinions, it is hard to deny his being a muhaddith.

A muhaddith does not have to memorize books of hadith, neither does he have to have ijazah in them.
The real condition is that he has to be knowledgeable of ahadith.

It is based on Urf and according to the urf of these times, he is definitely a muhaddith.

Yes, he made thousands of errors, has many ridiculous opinions etc, but is still a muhaddith.

While we do accept his being a muhaddith, it doesn't mean that he is the greatest one, neither does it mean that his opinions are acceptable.

The term muhaddith can be applied to the senior teachers of hadith in most Madaris.

It shouldn't be confused with a Hafidh. That is something different, which Albani definitely was not.

[Husain]

Is anyone aware of how the Salafis account for the claim that Albani memorized 100,000 hadeeth but cannot trace these hadeeth through his hadeeth teachers that he purportedly received ijazeh through?



No salafi in his right mind would make such a ridiiclous claim.
Ok, I know many of them aren't in their right minds, but even they would not claim that he memorized so many ahadith.

Have you seen them clearly mentioning that he memorized this amount?
Source please, if you have.

As for not having ijazah for all these ahadith, it isn't much of a problem. All you have to do is memorize the ahadith from the books and gain mastery on the topic. The Ijazat of today are for tabarruk.

Yes, studying the field under an ustadh is important, as he will guide you, but is doesn't mean that you have to learn every hadith from him, neither do you have to have ijazah for every hadith.

[mospike]

I asked Mufti AK Hoosen about Shaykh Albani and he said the following

Hazrat Moualana Yunus saheb who took over the Sheikhhul Hadith after the demise of Shaykh Zakarriya was asked about Shayk Albani, to which he replied on 2 occasions that he is a GREAT MUHADDITH one was in Makkah and the other time at Mina.

[tilmeedh]

Have you seen them clearly mentioning that he memorized this amount?
Source please, if you have.I have.
There's this story of how some disciple of his keeps insisting, and he humbly keeps avoiding the question.... but in the end somehow he manages, without saying it, to communicate to the disciple that the answer is 'yes'.

By the way, orientalists know 'lots' about Islam. But it doesn't benefit them. And their analysis is crooked too.

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

As for not having ijazah for all these ahadith, it isn't much of a problem. All you have to do is memorize the ahadith from the books and gain mastery on the topic. The Ijazat of today are for tabarruk.


Scholars have pointed out that the published editions of hadith collectoions have discrepancies and errors in them which could be corrected by consulting those who have ijazah for the hadiths from qualified teachers. Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad mentioned something along those lines.

:ws: