The Official Sunni/Salafi Debates Thread

[faqir]

Asalamu alaykum,

InshaAllah, something I had posted previously on another forum............some examples to illustrate the Creedal errors of the pseudo-salafi cult of today:





http://www.salafitalk.net/st/printthread.cfm?Forum=8&Topic=1138

So they entered into it, and the result of it is what you hear today from these Innovators, Deviants, Heretics, who are the descendants of those ones:



"Allaah is not inside the universe, nor outside of it, nor to the left of it, nor to the right of it, nor above, nor below it...."

"Allaah exists without a place"

"We cannot attribute direction to Allaah"

"Allaah exists without a jism"



And many other slogans and phrases. So they entered many of these statements



Let us compare this deviant statement of the pseudo-salafi theologians to the statement of Imam Abu Ja'far at-Tahawi [who I am sure most of us are familiar with]



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


SubhanAllah, that one statement of Imam at-Tahawi deals with the pseudo-salafi's objection to all of the above statements it quotes in its article which it shamelessly claims the Muslims stole from "Greek Homosexuals" ... see http://www.salafitalk.net/st/printthread.cfm?Forum=8&Topic=1138 !

What will they now say about Imam al-Tahawi?

[faqir]

Elsewhere, Shaykh Ibn Baz [Salafi theologian] says in Taliqat Hamma `ala ma Katabahu al-Shaykh Muhammad `Ali al-Sabuni fi Sifat Allah (Kuwait: Jam`iyya Ihya' al-Turath al-Islami, pg. 22):

"To declare Allah transcendent beyond possessing body (al-jism), pupils (al-hadaqa), auditory meatus (al-simâkh), tongue (al-lisân), and larynx (al-hanjara) is not the position of Ahl al-Sunna but rather that of the scholars of condemned kalâm and their contrivance.



Again, compare this statement to what Imam Abu Ja'far at-Tahawi says in point number 38 of his creedal work:

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


So what then is the shaykh's opinion of Imam Abu Ja'far at-Tahawi?

[faqir]

Now look at how the Salafis try and get around this!

In his footnote to this point in his "commentary" [or rather twisting] of Aqeedatut-Tahawiyyah Shaykh Ibn Baz says :

"Allah is beyond limits that we know but has limits He knows."

[Sh. Shu`ayb Hassan [a former favourite of the Salafis] has translated this into English if anyone wants to check for themselves.... alteranatively, if anyone would like the full footnote they can pm me, inshaAllah.


The question we should ask ourselves.... is this not a misguided innovation ?? Where did Shaykh Ibn Baz [RH] get this information that Allah has limits that He knows?? Did the salaf engage in speculation of modality when they mentioned the divine attributes!?! And this is complete contradiction to the primary text upon which the "commentary" is supposedly given i.e. the statement of Imam Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi

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




The fact is that Aqeedatut Tahawiyya is not palatable to this pseudo-salafi sect so it advises its members to read it with the commentary of their "salafi" theologians.

[faqir]

Shaykh Uthaymin RH claims in his Sharh al-`Aqida al-Wasitiyya :

"Can the vision of Allah Most High in the hereafter be other than in a direction?"




Shall we let Imam Abu Ja'far at-Tahawi answer his question?



35. The Seeing of Allah by the People of the Garden is true, without their vision being all-encompassing and without the manner of their vision being known. As the Book of our Lord has expressed it: "Faces on that Day radiant, looking at their Lord." (al-Qiyama 75:22-3) The explanation of this is as Allah knows and wills. Everything that has come down to us about this from the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in authentic traditions, is as he said and means what he intended. We do not delve into that, trying to interpret it according to our own opinions or letting our imaginations have free rein.

No one is safe in his religion unless he surrenders himself completely to Allah, the Exalted and Glorified and to His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and leaves the knowledge of things that are ambiguous to the one who knows them.

[faqir]

Shaykh Al-Uthaymin [RH] in "The Muslim's Belief"

[http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49466]


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



In reply, let me quote Sh. G.F. Haddad:


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

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

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

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

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

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



The great Hanbali, Shaykh Ibn al-Jawzi RH states:

Whoever says: He is established on the Throne ‘in person’ (bi dhatihi), has diverted the sense of the verse to that of sensory perception. Such a person must not neglect that the principle is established by the mind, by which we have come to know Allah, and have attributed pre-eternity to Him decisively. 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 [Ibn Hanbal] – what does not belong in it. You have clothed this madhab [or school of jurisprudence] with an ugly deed, so that it is no longer said ‘Hanbali’ except in the sense of ‘anthropomorphist’

[Abul Hasan]

:salam:

Mashallah! I have seen all this before and these innovators have yet to reply appropriately. The strange thing with these Ahlul Hawa is that they claim to agree with Imam al-Tahawi's creedo, but they blatantly go against it with their distortive explanations using such Mubtadi'in like: Ibn Abi'l Izz (declared a Mubtadi by Mulla Ali al-Qari), Bin Baz, Salih al Fawzan and the latest Sharh on Tahawiyya by the distorting enemy of al-Asha'ira: Safar al-Hawali - who was exposed even by his own pseudo-Salafi brethren. This al-Hawali went as far as attacking al-Albani on the issue of Irja, as did the latest Mubtadi: Falih al Harbi! This is their latest trend: Refuting and exposing each other! May Allah guide them and keep us away from their Fitna. Amin.

The father of the idea's spread by the Ahlul Bid'a wal Dalala today was no doubt ibn Taymiyya and his pupil Ibn al Qayyim al Jawziyya, in the name of the Salaf.

Here is a recent list of works on the Taymiyyan way as mentioned by DR GF Haddad:



1. Fataawaa Ibn Taymiyya fil-Meezaan [Ibn Taymiyya's Fatwas under Investigation]. By the Mauritanian Shaykh al-Sayyid Muhammad Ahmad Miskah ibn al-`Ateeq al-Ya`qubi, Allah reward him. 500 p. (Damascus 2000.)

2. Al-Kaashif al-Sagheer `an `Aqaa'id Ibn Taymiyya [Minor Exposure of the Beliefs of Ibn Taymiyya]. By Sa`id `Abd al-Latif Fawdah. 500 p. (Amman 2000).

3. Risaala fil-Radd `ala Ibn Taymiyya fi Mas'alati Hawaaditha laa Awwala Laha [Epistle in Refutation of Ibn Taymiyya in the Question of 'Created Matters without Beginning']. By al-Imam Baha' al-Din al-Ikhmeemi al-Misri (700-764). Ed. Sa`id `Abd al-Latif Fawdah. 128 p. (Amman 1998) This was written in refutation of Ibn Taymiyya's belief that the world is of a pre-eternal nature and exists with Allah since pre-eternity as an "ever-abiding created object" (makhluqan da'iman!), thus making it necessarily existent in His Essence (mujaban bi al-dhat) and [making Him] not acting deliberately (la fa`ilan bi al-ikhtyar), elevated is He beyond that! Dr. al-Buti in Kubra al-Yaqeenaat al-Kawniyya pointed out that this is nothing other than Aristotelian philosophy and, before him, Imam Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini said that whoever holds such a doctrine is considered a kafir.

4. Risaala Shareefa feemaa Yata`allaqu bi Kam al-Baaqi min `Umr al-Dunya [Noble Epistle Concerning the Remainder of the Life of this World]. by Imam al-San`ani. Ed. al-Wasabi al-Mathani. (San`a', 1992). This is a refutation of the same heresy as in #3.

5. Al-Qawl al-Wajeeh fi Tanzeeh Allah Ta`ala `an al-Tashbeeh [The Eminent Discourse Concerning Divine Transcendence beyond All Resemblance to Created Things]. By Shaykh al-Sayyid Abul-Hasanayn `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Rahman al-Makki al-Hashimi rahimahullah. 111 p. (Amman 1995.)

6. Al-Salafiyya al-Mu`aasira: Munaaqashaat wa Ruduud [Contemporary Salafism: Discussions and Refutations]. By Shaykh al-Sayyid Abul-Hasanayn al-Makki al-Hashimi rahimahullah. 230 p. (Amman 1996.)

7. Al-Farq al-`Azeem bayn al-Tanzeeh wal-Tajseem wayaleeh al-Muqtataf fi Naqd al-Tuhaf [THe Tremendous Difference between Transcendence and Anthropomorphism]. By Sa`id `Abd al-Latif Fawdah. 72 p. (Amman 2001.) Contains a valuable commentary on al-Shawkaani's `Aqida titled al-Tuhaf fi Madhhahib al-Salaf.

8. Tasheeh al-Mafaaheem al-`Aqdiyya fil-Sifaat al-Ilaahiyya [The Redress of Doctrinal Understandings of the Divine Attributes]. By Shaykh `Isa ibn Maani` al-Himyari. 300 p. (Cairo 1998.)

---------------------------------------------

Wassalam

Abul Hasan

[faqir]

:salam:

Mashallah! I have seen all this before and these innovators have yet to reply appropriately. The strange thing with these Ahlul Hawa is that they claim to agree with Imam al-Tahawi's creedo, but they blatantly go against it with their distortive explanations using such Mubtadi'in like: Ibn Abi'l Izz (declared a Mubtadi by Mulla Ali al-Qari), Bin Baz, Salih al Fawzan and the latest Sharh on Tahawiyya by the distorting enemy of al-Asha'ira: Safar al-Hawali - who was exposed even by his own pseudo-Salafi brethren. This al-Hawali went as far as attacking al-Albani on the issue of Irja, as did the latest Mubtadi: Falih al Harbi! This is their latest trend: Refuting and exposing each other! May Allah guide them and keep us away from their Fitna. Amin.



Ameen

[ilm_seeker]

As sallamu alaikum

Br. Abul Hasan, whats the latest news from Reviving-Islam.com?

Wa alaikum as sallam

[muminah]

Shaykh Al-Uthaymin [RH] in "The Muslim's Belief"

[http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49466]


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

i dont think its reliable to quote the words from another forum! Anything could be twisted!




(a) violated the Salaf's rule of [SIZE=3]bilâ kayf - "not saying how" - that applies to the verses pertaining to the Divine Attributes and Attributes of Acts;...."."

sorry, but what do you mean by that? as in didnt do ta'weel? Well, back to square one.


[SIZE=3]
(b) attributed an act that is precluded, prohibited, and close to shirk to apply to the Transcendent Creator of the worlds, namely, "sitting";;...."."

In the English translation of this work, this is how this statement is translated, but when one reads the original Arabic it quickly becomes clear that it is impossible to translate ibn Uthaymeen’s statement as above, here is what ibn Uthaymeen says on pg.11 of the original Arabic,
"We believe that He ‘created the Heavens and the earth in Six days than He made Istawaa upon the Throne, He manages everything.' His Istawaa means that He is in Person above the Throne in a way that befits His Majesty and Greatness. Nobody Knows how He made Istawaa,"

I have no idea how the translator of this work could have translated so badly!
[SIZE=3]
(c) made use of an innovated phrase which the pious Sunni Salaf never used, namely, "in person" (bidhâtih);";;...."."

daleel please? wAllahu a'lam. But i just came across the mas'alah of kalaam-ullaah. Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishaaq bin rahaweh, Imaam Bukhaari and the salaf (this is according to shaykh yunus hafidhahullah-the great muhaddith of our era) believe that kalaam-ullaah means that it is a dhaati sifat. so are they not from the sunni salaf then??


[SIZE=3]
(e) generally promoted the doctrine of anthropomorphism, which is not Islamic but comes straight out of the abrogated Books."

not the case, as above

A statement from Imaam Abuu Haneefah (rahimahullah) on this:

Abu Haneefah (RH) when asked of his opinion of the one who says, ‘I do not know whether Allaah is above the heavens or on the earth.’ - "He said, he has disbelieved, because Allaah says, "The Most Merciful rose above the Throne.", and His Throne is above His seven heavens.’ He was then asked, ‘what if he said that Allaah is above His Throne but he does not know whether the Throne is in the heavens or on the earth?’ He said, ‘He has disbelieved, because He has denied that He is above the heavens, And whosoever denied that He is above the heavens has disbelieved."

[muminah]

Shaykh Uthaymin RH claims in his Sharh al-`Aqida al-Wasitiyya :

"Can the vision of Allah Most High in the hereafter be other than in a direction?"




.[/SIZE]

how can he be claiming when its a question?? *confused*

[muminah]

Now look at how the Salafis try and get around this!

In his footnote to this point in his "commentary" [or rather twisting] of Aqeedatut-Tahawiyyah Shaykh Ibn Baz says :

"Allah is beyond limits that we know but has limits He knows."

[Sh. Shu`ayb Hassan [a former favourite of the Salafis] has translated this into English if anyone wants to check for themselves.... alteranatively, if anyone would like the full footnote they can pm me, inshaAllah.


.


Shk. Suhayb Hasan is a former fav. of salafis?? enlighten me more on that please akhi

[muminah]

:
The father of the idea's spread by the Ahlul Bid'a wal Dalala today was no doubt ibn Taymiyya and his pupil Ibn al Qayyim al Jawziyya, in the name of the Salaf.

Here is a recent list of works on the Taymiyyan way as mentioned by DR GF Haddad:

[SIZE=4][COLOR=Blue]



Abul Hasan

how can you just accuse a scholar with such heavy words? fear Allaah. surely, they were better Muslims than you and I is ?

there is no scholar free from error - as we all are humans, but that doesnt mean we have got the right to go around throwing accusations at the scholars. we should safeguard our tounge as commanded by Allaah and his messenger SAW

May Allaah help us all to safeguard our tounges. Aameen

btw akhee, where can you buy these books from?

[Silver Sparrow]

how can he be claiming when its a question?? *confused*
Isnt it a rhetorical question? i.e. like he's saying: are you denying that this is true?
?

[Azzam]

I advise people not to blindly follow what anyone says.

A lot of this stuff is taken out of context. If I had the time we could go into it, but from going through it here and other places its the same thing that is being tossed around with heavy accusations.

As I said earlier, people have made it their main concern that to prove salafis are applying bodily features in comparison to Allah. This is not true and there are sects that believe this and they will claim to believe in it. When you speak to a salafi they will never accept this unless he or she is a new convert who is still learning and is confused or anyone else who does not know.

The attributes are all confirmed but there is no resemblance made to any living thing. So just as the Asharis accept the Speech of Allah as an attribute with no comparison, even though humans also speak, then the other attributes are the same with NO comparison.

But we should explore this quotes presented and see what context they were said in and whether they were said or not in reality anyway.

Just the same when sufi brethren ask people not to judge weird sufi quotes of claiming horrible things.

[muminah]

jazaakAllaah akhi, well said

[faqir]

Asalamu alaykum,



i dont think its reliable to quote the words from another forum! Anything could be twisted!


The book is in print - you can verify it as I have, inshaAllah.




sorry, but what do you mean by that? as in didnt do ta'weel? Well, back to square one.

Show me which of the salaf has added the anthropomorphic phrase "in person". The way of the majority of the salaf was primarily that of absolute Tafweed. That is Tafweed al Ma'na and Tafweed al-Kayfiyya.

Sadly, the quote proves that this is not the way of the Salafi theologian.



In the English translation of this work, this is how this statement is translated, but when one reads the original Arabic it quickly becomes clear that it is impossible to translate ibn Uthaymeen’s statement as above, here is what ibn Uthaymeen says on pg.11 of the original Arabic,
"We believe that He ‘created the Heavens and the earth in Six days than He made Istawaa upon the Throne, He manages everything.' His Istawaa means that He is in Person above the Throne in a way that befits His Majesty and Greatness. Nobody Knows how He made Istawaa,"

I have no idea how the translator of this work could have translated so badly!


Again, this is a negation of the method of the salaf.

The Salafi sect are continuously adding their phrases of innovation such as "bi dhatihi".

Or they will say that Allah is "settled" on his throne - "istiqrar" as said by Sh. Uthaimeen here:

عرشه واستوى عليه علوا واستقرارا يليق به

I ask you now where is the daleel that this is the method of the salaf?




daleel please? wAllahu a'lam. But i just came across the mas'alah of kalaam-ullaah. Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishaaq bin rahaweh, Imaam Bukhaari and the salaf (this is according to shaykh yunus hafidhahullah-the great muhaddith of our era) believe that kalaam-ullaah means that it is a dhaati sifat. so are they not from the sunni salaf then??


I apologise but I honestly can't understand your English / Arabic mix here.

Also, could you please provide direct quotes from the Imams regarding whatever it is you are trying to prove.

I hope you are not trying to say that Ulema like Imam Ahmad understood the attributes of Allah in a LITERAL manner?


If so then can you PLEASE read:


"Was Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal an anthropomorphist ..........."

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq5.htm


Another article worth reading would be:

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/inthesky.htm



not the case, as above

A statement from Imaam Abuu Haneefah (rahimahullah) on this:

Abu Haneefah (RH) when asked of his opinion of the one who says, ‘I do not know whether Allaah is above the heavens or on the earth.’ - "He said, he has disbelieved, because Allaah says, "The Most Merciful rose above the Throne.", and His Throne is above His seven heavens.’ He was then asked, ‘what if he said that Allaah is above His Throne but he does not know whether the Throne is in the heavens or on the earth?’ He said, ‘He has disbelieved, because He has denied that He is above the heavens, And whosoever denied that He is above the heavens has disbelieved."


I am surprised you posted this statement.

Have you been reading Salafi manipulated texts / forgeries and believing them?


Here is what the Sh. Haddad said of this statement for your benefit, inshaAllah.


Mawdu` and a lie in its attribution to the Imam. Al-Dhahabi himself states [Mukhtasar p. 136 #118; al-`Uluw p. 391 #327] that everything above was reported from the Imam by Abu Muti` al-Hakam ibn `Abd Allah al-Balkhi who is DISCARDED as a narrator according to Imam Ahmad, Ibn `Adi, Abu Dawud, a liar according to Abu Hatim, and a forger according to al-Dhahabi himself as reported by Ibn Hajar in Lisan al-Mizan (2:407)!.

Even so, the text mentioned by the Hanafi authorities is: "Whoever says, 'I do not know whether my Lord is in the heaven or on earth' is a disbeliever and, similarly, whoever says, 'He is on the Throne and I do not know whether the Throne is in the heaven or on earth ' is a disbeliever."

As to its meaning: al-Bayadi said in Ishaaraat al-Maraam: "This is because he implies that the Creator has a direction and a boundary, and anything that possesses direction and boundary is necessarily created. So this statement explicitly attributes imperfection to Allah Most High. The believer in [divine] corporeality and direction is someone who denies the existence of anything other than objects that can be pointed to with the senses. They deny the Essence of the Deity that is transcendent beyond that. This makes them positively guilty of disbelief." As quoted in al-Kawthari, "Khuturat al-Qawl bi al-Jiha" ("The Gravity of the Doctrine That Attributes Direction [to Allah Most High]") in his _Maqalat_ (p. 368-369).

Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi states something similar in Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar, and others.




how can he be claiming when its a question?? *confused*

Samirah has kindly answered your question. :)

Re. sh. Suhayb Hasan - I read an article on him from a salafi source - if you are interested then the place to look is the salafitalk.net forums where you can see various posts from Salafis shaykhs against him and Abu Muntasir and other Salafis.

And Allah knows best.

Wasalam

[Sunni_Student786]

As salaamu alaykum.

Could any of my more knowledgeable brothers provide the titles of some very good books, in ARABIC, on two topics:

1) Exposing the errors of the ENTIRE Salafi methodology, as well as specific issues on which they have erred,

2) A good book(s), authored by Orthodox Ulema, not Orientalists, outlining the history of the Salafi movement,

and

3) Books in ARABIC discussing not only the permissibility of Taqleed, but it's OBLIGATION in this day and age.

The first and last category of books are most important because my family has a friend, who is an Arab, who was always a traditional Muslim, but has now, over the course of the years, developed several Salafi tendencies as a result of listening to the tapes of people such as Tariq as Suwaidan and now, he still believe in the permissibility of Taqleed, but not it's obligation. Furthermore, he also now believes that, even though his fiqh is generally Shafi'i, he can choose opinions from other Madhabs after "analyzing" the proofs advanced by other Madhabs for other positions and making a determination of which one is stronger, even though he readily admits that he is a lay men. His recent (about 2 years ago) adoption of this mentality now has him criticizing, at times, some Hanafis at our Masjid for their refusal to adopt another opinion and insistence on following the Hanafi opinion, even if there are hadiths at his disposal which SEEMINGLY contradict the Hanafi opinion. He thinks that this is due to the fact that many of those Hanafis don't know Arabic and that is why they won't budge from following the opinion of their madhab.

Now I know what is wrong with the mentality of my friend which I have outlined above, and I know the arguments and proofs establishing the obligation of Taqleed, but I would rather not get into detailed discussions regarding such matters with our family friend because he is quite older than us, as well as for some other reasons which I would rather not share, so if anyone could provide some ARABIC book titles' that deal with the topics that I outlined above, please furnish the titles.

Jazakallahu Khair.

Wa'salaam.

P.S. My friend is very open-minded and does not consider himself a Salafi in the least. He says that he follows the Shafi'i madhab and does so on almost all issues unless he comes across a book authored by some Salafi, who does not identify himself as such, and SEEMINGLY shows that his opinion is stronger than the Shafi'i madhab's.

[Omar HH]

Arabic? Yeah I really don't know any good Arabic books, but for the general history of the Wahhabi movement there are many good resources in English.

First of all there's the book written by the "neo-Sufi" (i.e. all religions are the same religion, etc.) named Stephen Schwartz called "The Two Faces of Islam" which is actually pretty fair overall in many respects, except that it attacks Shaykh Hamza Yusuf on 2 pages I think.

Other than this you can get Prof. Masdul Hassan's large "A History of Islam" Vol. 2, which has a nice little chapter on Wahhabism and is a good summary.

There's probably a bunch of other good studies of the Wahhabi movement in the English language if you look hard enough.

As for Arabic maybe you should search Arabic bookstores online.

[Abul Hasan]

As salaamu alaykum.

Could any of my more knowledgeable brothers provide the titles of some very good books, in ARABIC, on two topics:

1) Exposing the errors of the ENTIRE Salafi methodology, as well as specific issues on which they have erred,

2) A good book(s), authored by Orthodox Ulema, not Orientalists, outlining the history of the Salafi movement,

and

3) Books in ARABIC discussing not only the permissibility of Taqleed, but it's OBLIGATION in this day and age.

The first and last category of books are most important because my family has a friend, who is an Arab, who was always a traditional Muslim, but has now, over the course of the years, developed several Salafi tendencies as a result of listening to the tapes of people such as Tariq as Suwaidan and now, he still believe in the permissibility of Taqleed, but not it's obligation. Furthermore, he also now believes that, even though his fiqh is generally Shafi'i, he can choose opinions from other Madhabs after "analyzing" the proofs advanced by other Madhabs for other positions and making a determination of which one is stronger, even though he readily admits that he is a lay men. His recent (about 2 years ago) adoption of this mentality now has him criticizing, at times, some Hanafis at our Masjid for their refusal to adopt another opinion and insistence on following the Hanafi opinion, even if there are hadiths at his disposal which SEEMINGLY contradict the Hanafi opinion. He thinks that this is due to the fact that many of those Hanafis don't know Arabic and that is why they won't budge from following the opinion of their madhab.

Now I know what is wrong with the mentality of my friend which I have outlined above, and I know the arguments and proofs establishing the obligation of Taqleed, but I would rather not get into detailed discussions regarding such matters with our family friend because he is quite older than us, as well as for some other reasons which I would rather not share, so if anyone could provide some ARABIC book titles' that deal with the topics that I outlined above, please furnish the titles.

Jazakallahu Khair.

Wa'salaam.

P.S. My friend is very open-minded and does not consider himself a Salafi in the least. He says that he follows the Shafi'i madhab and does so on almost all issues unless he comes across a book authored by some Salafi, who does not identify himself as such, and SEEMINGLY shows that his opinion is stronger than the Shafi'i madhab's.

:salam:

Insha'allah this should help a little:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=39161#post39161

Make sure you look at the arabic list. If your friend holds misnomers on the validity of Hanafi fiqh and its evidences then let him acquire the 21 volume arabic work: I'la al-Sunan by Shaykh Zafar Ahmad al-Uthmani (d. 1974, rahimahullah) - It is available in Karachi, and in England it should be available in an Islamic Book centre based in Bolton. This work gives the major fiqh dala'il of the Ahnaf, also one volume deals with the Science of Hadith and one volume deals with Ijtihad and Taqleed (by Shaykh Habib Khayranwi). If you want me to scan the front cover let me know...

Wassalam

Abul Hasan

[Omar HH]

Someone needs to translate Shaykh al-Bouti's book about Salafiyya is a Blessed Historical Period!

How long is it? If it's not very long it wouldn't be that hard to translate.

Anyways where can I get it (in Arabic obviously) I don't see it on Shaykh al-Bouti's website.

[Sunni_Student786]

Jazakallah my brother Abul Hasan.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

yes he was salafi, and the site you posted has a lot of inaccuracies, namely the fact that they bash "salafism" then they have a biography section on their site praising a whole bunch of scholars who are salafi, either the people who made the site are really ignorant, or they are trying to deliberately confuse people.

It doesn' mean he didnt follow a madhab. People equate salafisim with those who dont have a madhab, this is an incorrect assumption.
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41407&postcount=6

which of the scholars mentioned on that site are 'salafi' by your definition?

secondly, what is your definition/description of a 'salafi'?

thirdly, the site is highly accurate... if you have any problems with inaccuracies, e-mail the host - i am quite positive he will respond to you

[abuhidaya]

Sh. Umar Abdur Rahman, Sh. Hamud Ibn Uqla Ash Shuaybi, And probably Abdur rahman ibn Jibrin.

My definition of a salafi is a person who strives to adhere to the path of the salaf-us-salih including people like Imam an Nawawi, Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, Ibn Taymiyah they are salafi. But Im not a big fan of the label salafi, Muslim is the best name. But the above scholars probably also fit the category of "wahabi" by sufi standards.

http://212.67.202.62/%7Esecurity/htspub/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=39#24

[Mossy]

This is his definition of a "salafi" from which the list was compiled:


Key beliefs

The Salafiyyah as an organisation has many beliefs, but we are mainly interested in those that are in clear contravention of what Muslim Orthodoxy have believed in the major areas that border on salvation and other crucial doctrines:

a. Salafiyyah does not share the belief with Muslim Orthodoxy in that Allah is above matter and not resembling His Creation in any manner. Allah is implicitly held (and in some cases explicitly) by Salafi theologians to be an exalted man sitting on a large chair. His Attributes are all literal according to the language and how we know and understand them. Therefore to the Salafis, the Lord sits, stands climbs up and climbs down, etc and is the same as a human being.

b. The Prophet Muhammad is not primordial, but only a mere man and the last prophet. Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhaab denied most of his prophetic miracles.

c. Prophets are not completely infallible (this tenet is held implicitly) and in fact the Prophet Muhammad was led astray at one point by Shaitan (this tenet is expressed explicitly).

d. Denial of the miracles of the saints and sometimes of some of the prophets.

e. Salvation is by deeds and the believer enters the Paradise because of his deeds and not due to Grace and the Mercy of Allah.

f. Following the Four Orthodox schools is blind following at the least and at the most is major shirk that will eject the perpetrator out of Islam and into apostasy.

g. Salafi theologians believe themselves able to extract laws and make rulings directly from the Qur’an and the Sunna, placing themselves on the same level as the Four Great Imaams.

h. Swearing by other than Allah is major shirk that will eject the perpetrator out of Islam and into apostasy (the Orthodox state that while it is a sin, it is not enough to lead to apostasy).

i. Visiting the graves to seek the barakah (bounty) of the saints is shirk that can eject one out of Islam and into apostasy.

j. Making du`aa to Allah using the barakah of the prophets or saints is major shirk that will eject the perpetrator out of Islam and into apostasy.

k. Calling on the angels for help when one is in distress is major shirk that will eject the perpetrator out of Islam and into apostasy (in fact, this action was done by the Mother of Ismaa`il, Hajar and there are many other instances).

l. Using the Qu’ran or the Names of Allah to heal people or as a pendant is major shirk that will eject the perpetrator out of Islam and into apostasy. The government of Saudi Arabia, which is run by the Salafi cult, has executed perpetrators of this ‘crime.’

m. Most Muslims are idol worshippers and have gone back into the Pre-Islamic Age of Ignorance before the Prophet Muhammad came to preach unto them.

n. The Prophet Muhammad cannot be seen in a dream by Muslims now and the ahaadith about his being seen in a dream in his actual form can only be interpreted to mean his companions who knew how he appeared.

o. There is only a small faction of the Muslims that is entering the Paradise.

p. Salvation is by actions and not by faith alone.

q. Some elements of the Salafiyyah organisation have actually went to the extreme of proclaiming Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhaab as a prophet. This statement was insinuated by Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhaab himself one more than two occasions and recorded of his followers on three other occasions.

r. Those that disagree with them are either astray or kuffar.

s. The prophets, saints and martyrs are dead in their graves and do not hear.

t. Although having a form of godliness, Salafiyyah rejects by implication many things of the unseen. An example would be the espousing of the belief in angels, but when any report comes of a sighting of them, they say that angels cannot be seen and that it must have been a demon.

u. Whoever will not label him or herself specifically with the title ‘Salafi’ will fall under divine judgement.

v. Salafiyyah has an emphasis on the negative aspects of the law, for example, what not to do, what to abstain from, what to avoid. However, the positive laws Salafis are very ignorant of and many are not aware of the peace and joy that can be found in Islam. It is for this reason that many Salafis have either returned to their former religion, if they converted, or abandoned Salafism and became born again Christians.

[abuhidaya]

by the way the above scholars mentioned on the site are also supporters of militant salafi organizations.

[Harris Ibn Qureshi]

Asalaam Alaikum

Can someone clarify the above quote by br mossi?

Clearly it is a bit biased and i would like to know a knowledgeable or a scholarly salaafi who can answer the above accusations. If it is true what br Mossi posted, then indeed salafis/wahabis are the khawrij of our day and age...

[Omar HH]

Really, besides the whole fiqh thing (because really all the Salafis are either Hanbali in fiqh or a combination of Hanbali and some other positions) the REAL place that Salafis and Sunnis disagree is Iman and Ihsan. The Salafi aqeedah believes God is like a man. This is opposed to the Ashari and Maturidi aqeedah of those like Imam Nawawi or Imam Abu Hanifa. And they also reject Tassawuf.

If you believe in the Aqeedah at-Tahawiyah you are a member of Ahlul Sunnah.

[abuhidaya]

the site makes a lot of lies upon salafiya, for instance , to see the ridiculous nature, they say Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab ra thinks he was a prophet, if that was the case, he would be a kafir, and all of the scholars would declare them kufaar like they did to the qadiyaniya.

I have doubts about that site, it seems it is just made to confuse people and mislead them, they also did a very poor job at it, with self contradictions, like the ones I pointed out earlier.

They bash the various salafi organizations, then they list scholars from those organizations as their true scholars.

The other point is salafi aqidah does not look at ALLAH as a man, it preaches against this, to think that is apostacy. Which why some of the elders of deoband have included this aqidah among the ahlus sunnah, like Ahmad Sahranpuri.

[Omar HH]

the site makes a lot of lies upon salafiya, for instance , to see the ridiculous nature, they say Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab ra thinks he was a prophet, if that was the case, he would be a kafir, and all of the scholars would declare them kufaar like they did to the qadiyaniya.

I have doubts about that site, it seems it is just made to confuse people and mislead them, they also did a very poor job at it, with self contradictions, like the ones I pointed out earlier.

They bash the various salafi organizations, then they list scholars from those organizations as their true scholars.

The other point is salafi aqidah does not look at ALLAH as a man, it preaches against this, to think that is apostacy. Which why some of the elders of deoband have included this aqidah among the ahlus sunnah, like Ahmad Sahranpuri.

Brother you seem very sincere. I would like to ask you something, do you disagree with any of these statements?

1. Allah is One, without any partners.

2. There is nothing like Him.

3. There is nothing that can overwhelm Him.

4. There is no god other than Him.

5. He is the Eternal without a beginning and enduring without end.

6. He will never perish or come to an end.

7. Nothing happens except what He wills.

8. No imagination can conceive of Him and no understanding can comprehend Him.

9. He is different from any created being.

10. He is living and never dies and is eternally active and never sleeps.

11. He creates without His being in need to do so and provides for His creation without any effort.

12. He causes death with no fear and restores to life without difficulty.

13. He has always existed together with His attributes since before creation. Bringing creation into existence did not add anything to His attributes that was not already there. As He was, together with His attributes, in pre-eternity, so He will remain throughout endless time.

14. It was not only after the act of creation that He could be described as "the Creator" nor was it only by the act of origination that He could he described as "the Originator."

15. He was always the Lord even when there was nothing to be Lord of, and always the Creator even when there was no creation.

16. In the same way that He is the "Bringer to life of the dead," after He has brought them to life a first time, and deserves this name before bringing them to life, so too He deserves the name of "Creator" before He has created them.

17. This is because He has the power to do everything, everything is dependent on Him, everything is easy for Him, and He does not need anything. "There is nothing like Him and He is the Hearer, the Seer." (al-Shura 42:11)

18. He created creation with His knowledge.

19. He appointed destinies for those He created.

20. He allotted to them fixed life spans.

21. Nothing about them was hidden from Him before He created them, and He knew everything that they would do before He created them.

22. He ordered them to obey Him and forbade them to disobey Him.

23. Everything happens according to His degree and will, and His will is accomplished. The only will that people have is what He wills for them. What He wills for them occurs and what He does not will, does not occur.

24. He gives guidance to whomever He wills, and protects them, and keeps them safe from harm, out of His generosity; and He leads astray whomever He wills, and abases them, and afflicts them, out of His justice.

25. All of them are subject to His will either through His generosity or His justice.

26. He is Exalted beyond having opposites or equals.

27. No one can ward off His decree or delay His command or overpower His affairs.

28. We believe in all of this and are certain that everything comes from Him.

29. And we are certain that Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is His chosen Servant and elect Prophet and His Messenger with whom He is well pleased,

30. And that he is the Seal of the Prophets and the Imam of the godfearing and the most honored of all the messengers and the Beloved of the Lord of all the worlds.

31. Every claim to prophethood after Him is falsehood and deceit.

32. He is the one who has been sent to all the jinn and all mankind with truth and guidance and with light and illumination.

33. The Qur'an is the word of Allah. It came from Him as speech without it being possible to say how. He sent it down on His Messenger as revelation. The believers accept it, as absolute truth. They are certain that it is, in truth, the word of Allah. It is not created as is the speech of human beings, and anyone who hears it and claims that it is human speech has become an unbeliever. Allah warns him and censures him and threatens him with Fire when He says, Exalted is He: "I will burn him in the Fire." (al-Muddaththir 74:26) When Allah threatens with the Fire those who say "This is just human speech" (74:25) we know for certain that it is the speech of the Creator of mankind and that it is totally unlike the speech of mankind.

34. Anyone who describes Allah as being in any way the same as a human being has become an unbeliever. All those who grasp this will take heed and refrain from saying things such as the unbelievers say, and they will know that He, in His attributes, is not like human beings.

35. The Seeing of Allah by the People of the Garden is true, without their vision being all-encompassing and without the manner of their vision being known. As the Book of our Lord has expressed it: "Faces on that Day radiant, looking at their Lord." (al-Qiyama 75:22-3) The explanation of this is as Allah knows and wills. Everything that has come down to us about this from the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in authentic traditions, is as he said and means what he intended. We do not delve into that, trying to interpret it according to our own opinions or letting our imaginations have free rein.

No one is safe in his religion unless he surrenders himself completely to Allah, the Exalted and Glorified and to His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and leaves the knowledge of things that are ambiguous to the one who knows them.

36. A man's Islam is not secure unless it is based on submission and surrender. Anyone who desires to know things which it is beyond his capacity to know, and whose intellect is not content with surrender, will find that his desire veils him from a pure understanding of Allah's true unity, clear knowledge and correct belief, and that he veers between disbelief and belief, confirmation and denial and acceptance and rejection. He will he subject to whisperings and find himself confused and full of doubt, being neither an accepting believer nor a denying rejector.

37. Belief of a man in the seeing of Allah by the People of the Garden is not correct if he imagines what it is like or interprets it according to his own understanding, since the interpretation of this seeing or indeed, the meaning of any of the subtle phenomena which are in the realm of Lordship, is by avoiding its interpretation and strictly adhering to the submission.

This is the religion of Muslims. Anyone who does not guard himself against negating the attributes of Allah, or likening Allah to something else, has gone astray and has failed to understand Allah's glory, because our Lord, the Glorified and the Exalted, can only possibly be described in terms of oneness and absolute singularity and no creation is in any way like Him.

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

39. Al-Mi`raj (the Ascent through the heavens) is true. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was taken by night and ascended in his bodily form, while awake, through the heavens, to whatever heights Allah willed for him.

Allah ennobled him in the way that He ennobled him and revealed to him what He revealed to him, "and his heart was not mistaken about what it saw" (al-Najm 53:11). Allah blessed him and granted him peace in this world and the next.

40. Al-Hawd, the Pool which Allah has granted the Prophet as an honour to quench the thirst of his Community on the Day of Judgement, is true.

41. Al-Shafa`a, the intercession which is stored up for Muslims, is true, as related in the hadiths.

42. The covenant which Allah made with Adam and his offspring is true.

43. Allah knew, before the existence of time, the exact number of those who would enter the Garden and the exact number of those who would enter the Fire. This number will neither be increased nor decreased.

44. The same applies to all actions done by people, which are done exactly as Allah knew they would be done. Everyone is eased towards what he was created for and it is the action with which a man's life is sealed which dictates his fate. Those who are fortunate are fortunate by the decree of Allah, and those who are wretched are wretched by the decree of Allah.

45. The exact nature of the decree is Allah's secret in His creation, and no angel near the Throne, nor Prophet sent with a message, has been given knowledge of it. Delving into it and reflecting too much about it only leads to destruction and loss, and results in rebelliousness. So be extremely careful about thinking and reflecting on this matter or letting doubts about it assail you, because Allah has kept knowledge of the decree away from human beings, and forbidden them to enquire about it, saying in His Book, "He is not asked about what He does, but they are asked" (al-Anbiya' 21: 23).

Therefore, anyone who asks: "Why did Allah do that?" has gone against a judgement of the Book, and anyone who goes against a judgement of the Book is an unbeliever.

46. This in sum is what those of Allah's Friends with enlightened hearts need to know and constitutes the degree of those firmly endowed with knowledge. For there are two kinds of knowledge: knowledge which is accessible to created beings, and knowledge which is not accessible to created beings. Denying the knowledge which is accessible is disbelief, and claiming the knowledge which is inaccessible is disbelief. Belief can only be firm when accessible knowledge is accepted and the inaccessible is not sought after.

47. We believe in al-Lawh (the Tablet) and al-Qalam (the Pen) and in everything written on the former. Even if all created beings were to gather together to make something fail to exist, whose existence Allah had written on the Tablet, they would not be able to do so. And if all created beings were to gather together to make something exist which Allah had not written on it, they would not be able to do so. The Pen has dried having written down all that will be in existence until the Day of Judgement.Whatever a person has missed he would have never got, and whatever he gets he would have never missed.

48. It is necessary for the servant to know that Allah already knows everything that is going to happen in His creation and has decreed it in a detailed and decisive way. There is nothing that He has created in either the heavens or the earth that can contradict it, or add to it, or erase it, or change it, or decrease it, or increase it in any way. This is a fundamental aspect of belief and a necessary element of all knowledge and recognition of Allah's oneness and Lordship. As Allah says in His Book: "He created everything and decreed it in a detailed way." (al-Furqan 25: 2) And He also says: "Allah's command is always a decided decree." (al-Ahzab 33: 38) So woe to anyone who argues with Allah concerning the decree and who, with a sick heart, starts delving into this matter. In his deluded attempt to investigate the Unseen, he is seeking a secret that can never be uncovered, and he ends up an evil-doer, telling nothing but lies.

49. Al-`Arsh (the Throne) and al-Kursi (the Chair) are true.

50. He is independent of the Throne and that which is beneath it.

51. He encompasses all things and that which is above it, and what He has created is incapable of encompassing Him.

52. We say with belief, acceptance and submission that Allah took Ibrahim as an intimate friend and that He spoke directly to Musa.

53. We believe in the angels, and the Prophets, and the books which were revealed to the messengers, and we bear witness that they were all following the manifest Truth.

54. We call the people of our qibla Muslims and believers as long as they acknowledge what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, brought, and accept as true everything that he said and told us about.

55. We do not enter into vain talk about Allah nor do we allow any dispute about the religion of Allah.

56. We do not argue about the Qur'an and we bear witness that it is the speech of the Lord of all the Worlds which the Trustworthy Spirit came down with and taught the most honoured of all the Messengers, Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. It is the speech of Allah and no speech of any created being is comparable to it. We do not say that it was created and we do not go against the Congregation (jama`a) of the Muslims regarding it.

57. We do not consider any of the people of our qibla to be unbelievers because of any wrong action they have done, as long as they do not consider that action to have been lawful.

58. Nor do we say that the wrong action of a man who has belief does not have a harmful effect on him.

59. We hope that Allah will pardon the people of right action among the believers and grant them entrance into the Garden through His mercy, but we cannot be certain of this, and we cannot bear witness that it will definitely happen and that they will be in the Garden. We ask forgiveness for the people of wrong action among the believers and, although we are afraid for them, we are not in despair about them.

60. Certainty and despair both remove one from the religion, but the path of truth for the People of the Qibla lies between the two.

61. A person does not step out or belief except by disavowing what brought him into it.

62. Belief consists of affirmation by the tongue and acceptance by the heart.

63. And the whole of what is proven from the Prophet, upon him be peace, regarding the Shari`a and the explanation (of the Qur'an and of Islam) is true.

64. Belief is, at base, the same for everyone, but the superiority of some over others in it is due to their fear and awareness of Allah, their opposition to their desires, and their choosing what is more pleasing to Allah.

65. All the believers are Friends of Allah and the noblest of them in the sight of Allah are those who are the most obedient and who most closely follow the Qur'an.

66. Belief consists of belief in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, the Last Day, and belief that the Decree -- both the good of it and the evil of it, the sweet of it and the bitter or it -- is all from Allah.

67. We believe in all these things. We do not make any distinction between any of the messengers, we accept as true what all of them brought.

68. Those of the Community of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who have committed grave sins will be in the Fire, but not forever, provided they die and meet Allah as believers affirming His unity even if they have not repented. They are subject to His will and judgement.

If He wants, He will forgive them and pardon them out of His generosity, as is mentioned in the Qur'an when He says: "And He forgives anything less than that (shirk) to whomever He wills" (al-Nisa' 4: 116); if He wants, He will punish them in the Fire out of His justice, and then bring them out of the Fire through His mercy, and for the intercession of those who were obedient to Him, and send them to the Garden.

This is because Allah is the Protector of those who recognize Him and will not treat them in the hereafter in the same way as He treats those who deny Him, who are bereft of His guidance and have failed to obtain His protection. O Allah, You are the Protector of Islam and its people; make us firm in Islam until the day we meet You.

69. We agree with doing the prayer behind any of the People of the Qibla whether rightful or wrongful, and doing the funeral prayer over any of them when they die.

70. We do not say that any of them will categorically go to either the Garden or the Fire, and we do not accuse any of them of kufr (disbelief), shirk (associating partners with Allah), or nifaq (hypocrisy), as long as they have not openly demonstrated any of those things. We leave their secrets to Allah.

71. We do not agree with killing any of the Community of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, unless it is obligatory by Shari`a to do so.

72. We do not accept rebellion against our Imam or those in charge of our affairs even if they are unjust, nor do we wish evil on them, nor do we withdraw from following them. We hold that obedience to them is part of obedience to Allah, the Glorified, and therefore obligatory as long as they do not order to commit sins. We pray for their right guidance and ask for pardon for their wrongs.

73. We follow the Sunna of the Prophet and the Congregation of the Muslims, and avoid deviation, differences and divisions.

74. We love the people of justice and trustworthiness, and hate the people of injustice and treachery.

75. When our knowledge about something is unclear, we say: "Allah knows best."

76. We agree with wiping over leather socks (in ablution) whether on a journey or otherwise, just as has come in the hadiths.

77. Hajj and jihad under the leadership of those in charge of the Muslims, whether they are right or wrong-acting, are continuing obligations until the Last Hour comes. Nothing can annul or controvert them.

78. We believe in the the noble angels who write down our actions, for Allah has appointed them over us as two guardians.

79. We believe in the Angel of Death who is in charge of taking the spirits of all the worlds.

80. We believe in the punishment in the grave for those who deserve it, and in the questioning in the grave by Munkar and Nakir about one's Lord, one's religion and one's prophet, as has come down in the hadiths from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and in reports from the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them all.

81. The grave is either one of the meadows of the Garden or one of the pits of the Fire.

82. We believe in being brought back to life after death and in being recompensed for our actions on the Day of Judgement, and the exhibition of works, and the reckoning, and the reading of the book, and the reward or punishments, and the Bridge, and the Balance.

83. The Garden and the Fire are created things that never come to an end and we believe that Allah created them before the rest of creation and then created people to inhabit each of them. Whoever He wills goes to the Garden out of His bounty and whoever He wills goes to the Fire through His justice. Everybody acts in accordance with what is destined for him and goes towards what he has been created for.

84. Good and evil have both been decreed for people.

85. The capability in terms of divine grace and favor which makes an action certain to occur cannot be ascribed to a created being. This capability is integral with action, whereas the capability of an action in terms of having the necessary health and ability, being in a position to act, and having the necessary means, exists in a person before the action. It is this type of capability which is the object of the dictates of the Shari`a. Allah the Exalted says: "Allah does not charge a person except according to his ability." (al-Baqara 2: 286)

86. People's actions are created by Allah but earned by people .

87. Allah, the Exalted, has only charged people with what they are able to do and people are only capable of doing what Allah has granted them to do. This is the explanation of the phrase: "There is no power and no strength except by Allah." We add to this that there is no stratagem or way by which anyone can avoid or escape disobedience to Allah except with Allah's help; nor does anyone have the strength to put obedience to Allah into practice and remain firm in it, except if Allah makes it possible for him to do so.

88. Everything happens according to Allah's will, knowledge, predestination and decree. His will overpowers all other wills and His decree overpowers all stratagems. He does whatever He wills and He is never unjust. He is exalted in His purity above any evil or perdition and He is perfect far beyond any fault or flaw. "He will not be asked about what He does, but they will be asked." (al-Anbiya' 21: 23)

89. There is benefit for dead people in the supplication and alms-giving of the living.

90. Allah responds to people's supplications and gives them what they ask for.

91. Allah has absolute control over everything and nothing has any control over Him. Nothing can be independent of Allah even for the blinking of an eye, and whoever considers himself independent of Allah for the blinking of an eye is guilty of unbelief and becomes one of the people of perdition.

92. Allah is angered and He is pleased but not in the same way as any creature.

93. We love the Companions of the Messenger of Allah but we do not go to excess in our love for any one individual among them; nor do we disown any one of them. We hate anyone who hates them or does not speak well of them and we only speak well of them. Love of them is a part of Islam, part of belief and part of excellent behavior, while hatred of them is unbelief, hypocrisy and rebellion.

94. We confirm that, after the death of Allah's Messenger, peace be upon him, the caliphate went first to Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, thus proving his excellence and superiority over the rest of the Muslims; then to `Umar ibn al-Khattab; then to `Uthman; and then to `Ali ibn Abi Talib; may Allah be well pleased with all of them. These are the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and upright leaders.

95. We bear witness that the ten who were named by the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and who were promised the Garden by him, will be in the Garden, as the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, whose word is truth, bore witness that they would be. The ten are: Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman, `Ali, Talha, Zubayr, Sa`d, Sa`id, `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf, and Abu `Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah whose title was the Trustee of this Community, may Allah be pleased with all of them.

96. Anyone who speaks well of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and his wives and offspring, who are all pure and untainted by any impurity, is free from the accusation of hypocrisy.

97. The learned men of the Predecessors, both the first community and those who immediately followed: the people of virtue, the narrators of hadith, the jurists, and the analysts-- they must only be spoken of in the best way, and anyone who says anything bad about them is not on the right path.

98. We do not prefer any of the saintly men among the Community over any of the Prophets but rather we say that any one of the Prophets is better than all the awliya' put together.

99. We believe in what we know of the karamat or marvels of the awliya' and in the authentic stories about them from trustworthy sources.

100. We believe in the signs of the Hour such as the appearance of the Antichrist (dajjal) and the descent of `Isa ibn Maryam, peace be upon him, from heaven, and we believe in the rising of the sun from where it sets and in the emergence of the Beast from the earth.

101. We do not accept as true what soothsayers and fortune-tellers say, nor do we accept the claims of those who affirm anything which goes against the Book, the Sunna, and the consensus of the Muslim Community (umma).

102. We agree that holding together is the true and right path and that separation is deviation and torment.

103. There is only one religion of Allah in the heavens and the earth and that is the religion of Islam ("submission"). Allah says: "Surely religion in the sight of Allah is Islam." (Al `Imran 3: 19) And He also says: "I am pleased with Islam as a religion for you." (al-Ma'ida 5: 3)

104. Islam lies between going to excess and falling short, between the likening of Allah's attributes to creation (tashbih) and divesting Allah of attributes (ta`til), between determinism and freewill, and between sureness and despair.

105. This is our religion and it is what we believe in, both inwardly and outwardly, and we renounce any connection, before Allah, with anyone who goes against what we have said and made clear.

[abuhidaya]

2th Century/18th Century back

Imaam Sulaimaan ibn `Abdul Wahhaab
Imaam `Abdul Baaqi al-Hanbali
Imaam Muhammad Salim al-Kurdi
Imaam `Abdul Wahhaab ibn Sulaimaan
Imaam `Alawi al-Haddaad
Imaam Ahmad ad-Dardir
Imaam Muhammad al-`Afaaliq
Imaam Jamil al-Afandi
Imaam al-Ahdal
Imaam Ahmad as-Saffaarini
Imaam Muhammad `Ali Basha
Imaam Wali ullah ad-Dahlawi

If you look at these orthodox scholars, it lists Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab and His children, on the Hanbali texts society web site.

http://212.67.202.62/~security/htspub/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=6

I accept Aqidat ut tahawayiah but the understanding of this , by the ahlul hadith. For instance Shaykh Ibn Baz wrote the sharh for this treastise on aqidah, and I follow that sharh.

Ofcourse I dont come here to debate, because this is re-inventing the wheel, these differences have been there for centuries, I dont think debating it while being lay people is going to add anything new to the already existing debates amongst the classical scholars. The only thing it will add maybe is insults, hatred, and gheebah etc.....

[Omar HH]

If you look at these orthodox scholars, it lists Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab and His children, on the Hanbali texts society web site.

The Deobandis and some members of Ahlul Sunnah have favorable views of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. Just as members of Ahlul Sunnah have favorable views of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and Shaykh Ibn Hazm (May Allah have mercy upon all of them).

[Omar HH]

Akhi are you Hanbali/Athari in Aqeedah or Salafi/Anthropomorphic? You may say you are Salafi, but if you believe that Allah (SWT) is both:

a) Above the Arsh but "without asking how or delving into speculation" and
b) Seperate from his creation and independent from them (including his creations of time and space)

You aren't really a "Salafi" and if you are a "Salafi" even after this then know that you are a member of Ahlul Sunnah according to the people on our board.

[Sunni_Student786]

2th Century/18th Century back

Imaam Sulaimaan ibn `Abdul Wahhaab
Imaam `Abdul Baaqi al-Hanbali
Imaam Muhammad Salim al-Kurdi
Imaam `Abdul Wahhaab ibn Sulaimaan
Imaam `Alawi al-Haddaad
Imaam Ahmad ad-Dardir
Imaam Muhammad al-`Afaaliq
Imaam Jamil al-Afandi
Imaam al-Ahdal
Imaam Ahmad as-Saffaarini
Imaam Muhammad `Ali Basha
Imaam Wali ullah ad-Dahlawi

If you look at these orthodox scholars, it lists Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab and His children, on the Hanbali texts society web site.

http://212.67.202.62/~security/htspub/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=6

I accept Aqidat ut tahawayiah but the understanding of this , by the ahlul hadith. For instance Shaykh Ibn Baz wrote the sharh for this treastise on aqidah, and I follow that sharh.

Ofcourse I dont come here to debate, because this is re-inventing the wheel, these differences have been there for centuries, I dont think debating it while being lay people is going to add anything new to the already existing debates amongst the classical scholars. The only thing it will add maybe is insults, hatred, and gheebah etc.....

Brother, none of the two names that you've highlighted belong to Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab or any of his children.

The first name, i.e. Imaam Sulaimaan ibn `Abdul Wahhaab, is that of his BROTHER who WROTE and SPOKE OUT AGAINST HIM! (http://212.67.202.62/%7Esecurity/htspub/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=39#1)

The second name, i.e. Imaam `Abdul Wahhaab ibn Sulaimaan, is of a scholar who was born BEFORE Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, so how could he have been his child (http://212.67.202.62/%7Esecurity/htspub/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=39#)? I see absolutely no contradiction in what that site (www.htspub.com) has said about Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab.

In the future, please do some more thorough research before making a claim bro.

[Abul Hasan]

I accept Aqidat ut tahawayiah but the understanding of this , by the ahlul hadith. For instance Shaykh Ibn Baz wrote the sharh for this treastise on aqidah, and I follow that sharh.




And who are these "Ahlul-Hadith" by name specifically? If you mean the likes of Ibn Abi'l Izz - then he was declared a Mubtadi by the foremost Hanafi Imam of his time: Shaykh Ali al-Qari. If you mean Salih al-Fawzan and Bin Baz - then these are not real Salafi's, but modern deviants who work(ed) for the Saudi regime.

How do you understand this deviation ascribed to Bin Baz:

Other false claims of the mujassima, in addition to Bilal Philips, are made by other wahhabis also like the late so-called Mufti of Saudi Arabia Abdl Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz. Bin Baz, in his commentary of Imam Abu Ja’afar at-Tahawi’s “Al-Aqida,” says under footnote #3:

“By hudood (limits) the author [refering to Imam Tahawi] means such as known by humans since no one except Allah Almighty knows His limits.”

One can see that Bin Baz, the majassim, says that Allah has limits, when it is clearly stated by Ahl al-Sunna scholars like Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Imam Ghazali, and Imam Baihaqi that Allah is clear of any limits whatsoever. The noble Imam Tahawi clearly said:

“He [Allah] is beyond...being restricted...”

He did not say:

“Allah has restrictions which humans don’t know but restrictions which only Allah knows.”

Bin Baz misrepresents the pious Salaf and is following the footsteps of Shaytan by trying to twist the correct explanations of sahih treatises written by Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah. Wahhabis are infamous for their mockery and misrepresentation of Ahl al-Sunna scholars.
Furthermore, Bin Baz says in the same footnote:

Similarly, his [refering to Imam Tahawi] saying “The six directions do not surround Him like all other innovations ” means the six created directions. He does not means the negation of Allah being above His creation and established on His throne because His position is not covered by the six directions, as He is above this universe and surroundings.”

Like Bilal Philips, Bin Baz has also contradicted himself. According to Bin Baz, Allah is not bound by the “created directions,” but then contradicts himself by saying,

“All the evidence from the Book and the authentic Mutawatir Sunnah prove that He is in the direction above us”

later in the same footnote. The deviation of their intellectc compel them to contradictory statments and the do not heven realized it. Bin Baz is not only contradicting himself, but also lying in behalf of the Qur’an and the authentic Mutawatir Sunnah. The fact is that the Qur’an, Sunna and the Ahl al-Sunna scholars have never attributed a direction to Allah.

See here for more deviations of those on the Bin Baz style of misrepresentation of the true Salaf: http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/amislam/tawhid2.htm

--------------------------------

[Abdur_Rahman]

This is his definition of a "salafi" from which the list was compiled:

:salam:

akhi, that is from the Hanbali texts society right :confused: , is that the approving authority on the matter? Let's do each other a favor and help one another in trying to better ourselves :insh:, instead of giving out websites and things.

There are other compilations out there that will tell you something different ;)

Dawah Salafiyya - Our Creed and Methodology

1. Judging to the Noble Qur’aan and the Authentic and Purified Sunnah in every affair of the affairs of life.

2. Every issue of aqeedah (creed), ibaadah (worship) or manhaj (methodology) which the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah has not provided a text for and upon which the Companions never agreed upon is falsehood, vain and innovated.

3. Affirming what is established in the Book and the Authentic Sunnah in every issue of the issues of aqeedah and not resorting to ta’weel (figurative interpolation) with respect to any of it and not delving into argumentation regarding it in that for which there is no place for the intellect.

4. Not arguing with the People of Innovations and Desires, or sitting with them, listening to their words or presenting any of their doubts (to others).

5. The Prophetic Manhaj (methodology) which is found in the Qur’aan, the Saheeh compilations of Bukhaaree and Muslim and the remaining books of the Sunnah and the sayings and actions of the Salaf us-Saalih, not the various new and pretentious manaahij (methodologies).

6. Acquainting the Muslims of their true religion and calling them to act in accordance with its teachings and rulings and to adorn themselves with its excellencies and its noble manners - which will guarantee for them the pleasure of Allaah and which will bring into reality both happiness and glory.

7. Warning the Muslims from Shirk (associating partners with Allaah) in all its different manifestations, and from innovations, all strange and false thoughts and rejected and fabricated hadeeth - all of which have mutilated the beauty of Islaam and have prevented the advancement and progress of the Muslims.

8. Eagerness for bringing about the Jamaa’ah of the Muslims and uniting their word upon the truth and in the truth. And these multiplicity of contemporary groups and parties have divided the Muslims and have mutilated the beauty of Islaam.

9. It is a duty upon every Muslim, Muwahhid to restore and offer the rights that the Sharee’ah has upon him with respect to the Scholars, the Senior Shaikhs - to respect them, honour them, giving them their due recognition and estimation, taking knowledge from them, refraining from attacking them and their honour and keeping far from causing doubt about their intentions. So do not be a helper to the criminals by abandoning the Scholars of the Sunnah, and by this action of yours, make the people flee from them, from their lectures and gatherings - and forsake them, leaving them as booty for the Du’aat (callers) of political agitation and incitement or leave them neglected as prey for the various parties and groups.

10. Getting closer to Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic - by giving obedience to whomever Allaah has placed over our affair and not to rebel against him.

11. Following the truth, absolutely and unconditionally in both narration (riwaayah) and opinion (ra’i) without specifying a specific person or group besides the Messenger (Sallallaahu 'Alayhi Wa Sallam) as someone to be followed in all circumstances.

12. We love every Muslim to the extent of what he possess of obedience, following (of the Sunnah) and we hate him to the extent of what he possess of disobedience and opposition (to the Sunnah). And we love the one who aids the Sunnah and its people and we hate the one who helps Innovation and its people.

13. We love the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallallaahu 'Alayhi Wa Sallam) and we detest everyone who speaks ill about them. And when you see a man speaking bad about a single one of the Companions of Allaah’s Messenger (Sallallaahu 'Alayhi Wa Sallam), then know that he is a Zindeeq (heretic).

14. We believe that the Qur’aan is the Speech of Allaah, it is not created and we do not declare anyone from the people of the qiblah to be a disbeliever on account of a sin that he committed - so long as he does not declare it to be permissible.

15. We reject those who divide the religion into the categories of a) trivial and b) important matters, and we know that this is a destructive call. And we reject those who desert the knowledge of the Sunnah, who abandon acting by it and who abandon separating what is authentic from what is inauthentic.

16. Tasfiyyah (purification of the religion in terms of aqeedah and ibaadah) and Tarbiyah (nurturing and cultivation upon the pure religion) upon the Straight Prophetic Methodology and the guiding understanding of the Salaf.

17. Refuting every opposer (to the Sunnah) whether he is a Muslim or other than that - whatever level his slip or mistake might be, regardless of whether his opposition to the truth occurred deliberately or as an error - whatever methodology he may ascribe to - with whatever is possible from the use of evidences - so that this Noble Religion retains its purity and innocence and so that the people can drink from it, certain of its sweet taste.

18. Speaking the truth, not fearing the censure of those who blame and rebuke and holding on to the Sunnah with the molar teeth amidst all the controversies and differences, till the affair of Allaah is established.

And all praise is due to Allaah and prayers and peace upon His Messenger, Muhammad, his family and his Companions.


Brother you seem very sincere. I would like to ask you something, do you disagree with any of these statements?

:mash: this is a good website :D

http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/aqeedah/0020.htm

:insh: we can do away with the constant attacks of each other (maybe, I'm just speaking out of sheer desire, and foolishness *sigh* ) :(

[Mossy]

The statement made was that the list of scholars included "salafis" and was thus contradictory. It makes sense to look at what criterion were being used for salafism on that site, doesn't it?

The list of points you posted does not hold across all salafi groups. Some are clearly predicated on different grounds.

[Abdur_Rahman]

The statement made was that the list of scholars included "salafis" and was thus contradictory. It makes sense to look at what criterion were being used for salafism on that site, doesn't it?

The list of points you posted does not hold across all salafi groups. Some are clearly predicated on different grounds.:salam: and what you compilied from the website isn't contradictory in some way either? :confused: and what was posted from that site I don't agree with either however I guess it's automatically applied to me as well, :subh: where's the justice? From what I gave you is what this particular site says what the creed is and you give me something else that says something totally different.

Let's be just in helping each other akhi :D

[Mossy]

No.. If you look at the posts, abuhidaya said the list of "orthodox" scholars on the website was contradictory because indviduals such as Ibn Hajar were "salafi". I pointed out that htspubs definition of salafi was the quoted factors, which clearly do not apply to Ibn Hajar et al, so the list is not contradictory.

As for what "really" constitutes a salafi, I very much doubt any one group can lay claim to the definition - we have a prescriptive definition, ie a set of principles they say they follow, then we have a descriptive definition, ie a set of actions that we see them carry out.

[GenN]

Assalmu alaykum.

We have not been discussing the defintion of salafiyyah here. We are discuissing what certain salafis belive.

A defintion of salafiyah would simply be "a group of scholar claimants who have interpretated Quran and sunnah according to their own understanding, wheter it is in terms of the fundamentals of Islam, or in the fiqh details, or tazkiyyah"

After this we can look at all sorts of interpretations of Quran and sunnah by all sorts of differnet salafi scholar claimants (if you really want to and have the time to, i personally like to ignore them these days), and yes theres a whole spaghetti full of salafi groups and organistations (many at each others throats declaing takfir and all sorts) out there casuing further fithna in the form of sectarian split after split, and all in the name of following Quran and sunnah.

We then take each of the interpretations of each indivdual salafi and compare it with the authority of ancient texts by undisputed scholars, and we show them where they have failed in their understanding of Quran and sunnah. If they wish to accept the authority of the jumhoor of this ummah, and concede to the fact that they have failed to understadn the true meaning of the quran and sunnah in that topic then alhamdullillah, if they still wish to consider the jumhoor wrong and themselves right, then our's and theirs reckoning is with Allah.

Some scholars we see in recent times who have had opinions in many and/or major issues which are differnt to the jumhoor throughout the centuries are people like ibn baz, albani, ibn uthaymeen.

As for the actaul differnces where these scholars have differd in major areas, well we could be here all day, and there are many other threads already pointing out these differnces.

and Allah knows best.

was salaam.

[Abdur_Rahman]

:salam: I agree nice post akhi GenN, but some reason we as muslims feel like we have to outdue each and everyone on the basis aqeedah and others sciences. This is where (allahu alim) we fall short of the mark, instead of helping each other we're in a constant attack mode, and just do not want to give any one any credit.

Like I've seen some of the muslims who attack the madhab and saying that it's a innovation, I'm like :subh:, people tend say things very easily and not taking the time out to learn more about this deen.

may allah forgive us all for our shortcomings and grant us the ferdous, ameen

and protect us from the fire, ameen

[Azzam]

As I mentioned in the other thread, the site is not reliable. As they have listed not only salafi scholars but militant ones. Then they mention Umar Abdur Rahman on their list and have no clue about Abdullah Azzam's Aqeedah.

It is enough to say that, but then to comment on the Jihad situation in one article which I found quite ridiculous without knowing the above is actually not correct.

If the author is speaking about saudi regime supporters than thats a different story but will not match up for the issues about MUhammad ibn Abdil Wahhab.

I think the sheikh of that site should know what these scholars said about Muhammad ibn Abdil Wahhab and also what aqeedah scholars like ibn Jibrin and Sh. Hamoud follow.

[abuhidaya]

The site has misconceptions, sulayman ibn abdul wahab later changed his views to adopt his brothers teachings.

Even if you are right for arguements sake and he didnt change his view, it doesnt account for the other inaccuracies found on the site, namely listing Hamud ibn Uqla , Umar Abdur Rahman, Ibn Jibreen, then bashing their beliefs.

With all due respect Abul Hasan, I dont really care what you think about Shaykh Ibnu Baz or any ahlul hadith scholar because he is accepted and respected amongst all the circles of main stream islamic groups in North America, highly respected in groups like isna, icna, iana, cair, MAS, qss, and jimas, and even deobandi scholars. Only few groups have held negative opinions about him, such as those who were refuted for their bid'ah and shirk.

As for the links, I dont like to read refutations on the internet because they are always filled with inaccuracies and misconceptions.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

Sh. Umar Abdur Rahman, Sh. Hamud Ibn Uqla Ash Shuaybi, And probably Abdur rahman ibn Jibrin.

My definition of a salafi is a person who strives to adhere to the path of the salaf-us-salih including people like Imam an Nawawi, Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, Ibn Taymiyah they are salafi. But Im not a big fan of the label salafi, Muslim is the best name. But the above scholars probably also fit the category of "wahabi" by sufi standards.

http://212.67.202.62/%7Esecurity/htspub/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=39#24


so your definition of salafi includes those who make taqleed of the 4 imams?

[faqir]

:salam:



That is a very interesting definition of salafi indeed!

Re. the shuyukh mentioned on htspub - the brother Abu Ja'far al-Hanbali has explained many times on the forum that the scholars he has mentioned there [according to his research] are Hanbali in Creed - as opposed to being anthropomorphist Salafis and they are in many cases Hanbali in fiqh / or followers of an orthodox Madhab. This does not mean that he agrees with all their fiqhi positions, of course. [you can see: http://212.67.202.62/~security/htspub/index.php?option=com_simpleboard&Itemid=33&func=view&id=247&catid=6 ] for further clarication - alteratively, the shaykh gives talks around the Midlands where you can speak to him directly, inshaAllah.

Anyway, as far as I can tell the Salafi sect differs from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah in three key areas.

Islam - the outward rituals / fiqh as outlined by the four Sunni schools of thought [that is the focus of Sh. Nuh's article here: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/salafi.htm ]

Iman - Creedal issues [as documented by the Ashari/Maturidi/ [and Athari] schools. [http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/littlk.htm ]

Ihsan - tasawwuf [http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/sufitlk.htm]

For an excellent article summarising all this please read carefully the latter half of the following article:

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq6.htm


Wallahu Alam.

[muslim786]

The site has misconceptions, sulayman ibn abdul wahab later changed his views to adopt his brothers teachings.

Where is your evidence, all the evidence is too the contrary, very much to the contrary.


Even if you are right for arguements sake and he didnt change his view, it doesnt account for the other inaccuracies found on the site, namely listing Hamud ibn Uqla , Umar Abdur Rahman, Ibn Jibreen, then bashing their beliefs.
Pose your questions to Sidi Abu Jafar directly he will clarify things for you, it is better than backbiting him.



With all due respect Abul Hasan, I dont really care what you think about Shaykh Ibnu Baz or any ahlul hadith scholar because he is accepted and respected amongst all the circles of main stream islamic groups in North America, highly respected in groups like isna, icna, iana, cair, MAS, qss, and jimas, and even deobandi scholars. Only few groups have held negative opinions about him, such as those who were refuted for their bid'ah and shirk.

I bet you don't even know what bidah and shirk, are. What you say is utter rubbish whereas what Maulana Abul Hasan says is through knowledge and scholarship.



As for the links, I dont like to read refutations on the internet because they are always filled with inaccuracies and misconceptions.
Then why are you here at all, and why do your fatwas not have inaccuaracy while others do?
My advice to you dear brother is to go back to the drawing board and learn something first, and do so with an open and clear mind.

[muslim786]

The people that call themselves salafis these days are a very weird bunch of people, as they seem to have inner sects among themselves. What is clear is that all the salafis groups, be they the vanilla form, jihadi form or whatever, have one thing in common they all 100% seem to love, admire and follow Abdul Wahabi Najidi (Founder of the Wahabi ideology), Al Albani and Ibn Tamiiyya.

[Sunni_Student786]

The site has misconceptions, sulayman ibn abdul wahab later changed his views to adopt his brothers teachings.

Proof?


Even if you are right for arguements sake and he didnt change his view, it doesnt account for the other inaccuracies found on the site, namely listing Hamud ibn Uqla , Umar Abdur Rahman, Ibn Jibreen, then bashing their beliefs.

Which of their beliefs has he bashed? None of the above mentioned Ulema held a creed (i.e. Aqeedah) that implied that Allah was like his creation nor described Allah as having limits, as did Ibn Baz, Uthaymeen, and others who describe themselves with the term "Salafi". Furthermore, none of the above mentioned Ulema (i.e. Hamud ibn Uqla , Umar Abdur Rahman, and Ibn Jibreen), espoused the Fiqh Methodology that Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, Ibn Baz, Uthaymeen, and claimants to Salafiyyah do (i.e. a practical rejection of making Taqleed of the four madhabs).

Once again bro, no contradictions.

[Azzam]

Insha allah I will find out the reality of this matter with sh. Ibn Jibreen and the others.

[asma]

Assalamu alaikum,


Someone needs to translate Shaykh al-Bouti's book about Salafiyya is a Blessed Historical Period!
How long is it? If it's not very long it wouldn't be that hard to translate.
Anyways where can I get it (in Arabic obviously) I don't see it on Shaykh al-Bouti's website.that's pretty long.(270pp) most major university libraries will have it in their islamic studies-in-arabic section. Its call number is BP166.1.B847 in the library of congress system, if that helps. this site carries it: http://www.fikr.net/cgi-bin/_showcard.cgi?id=319 ( http://www.fikr.net/cgi-bin/e_qsearch.cgi?searchtext=Buti&searchtype=auth&step=30 ). But unfortunately I haven't been able to find an easy supplier for westerners, so look for big libraries.

A perhaps more relevant and much shorter book(under 100 pp) by Shaykh Buti, may he be rewarded, is Al-lamadhhabiyya akhtar bid`a tuhaddidu al shari`a al islamiyya, which insha`Allah I am in the process of trying to translate, so please make du`a. In libraries it's right next to the previous at BP166.1.B84 . It's this book: http://www.bouti.com/bouti_e_book11.htm .

I've heard of a book by Taha Jabir al Alwani called al Ijtihad wa al Taqlid fi al islam, which has also purportedly been translated into english by Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo (?) -- inshaAllah you might have more luck finding it than I have.

Another I haven't found is by Muhammad Zahid al Kawthari: Al-Lamadhhabiyya Qantaratu al-Ladiniyya (Anti-Madhhabism is the Archway of Atheism). But it would be interesting.

wasalaam,
Asma

[Omar HH]

Thank you sister,

Yes Shaykh al-Bouti's book would be the epitome of brilliance in this matter.

[Ansari]

I've heard of a book by Taha Jabir al Alwani called al Ijtihad wa al Taqlid fi al islam, which has also purportedly been translated into english by Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo (?) -- inshaAllah you might have more luck finding it than I have.


:salam:

Is this man actually a reliable scholar? His biography: http://www.alimprogram.com/scholars/alawani.shtml

This is what he says:


The Fiqh of Minorities— the New Fiqh to Subvert Islam


3. REWORKING THE QUESTION
The advocates of Fiqh of Minorities state that the “traditional” answers need not to be given, and that although the realities are known in Islamic Jurisprudence, we need to rework the questions.

An example is mentioned by Taha Jabir al-Alwani: “A questioner asks, ‘Is it forbidden (haram) for a Muslim woman to be married to a non Muslim, and what should one do?’”

A Muslim woman’s marriage to a disbeliever is clearly unlawful as mentioned in the ayah of the Qur’an:

“They are not lawful for the disbelievers, nor are the disbelievers lawful for them” [TMQ Al-Mumtahinah: 10].

This ayah holds one single meaning—that such a marriage is considered null and void and holds no value whatsoever. But according to the Fiqh of Minorities this answer needs to be reworked by reworking the question. So as Taha Jabir al-Alwani mentions in this particular case the circumstances are as follows: “The woman has just converted to Islam and she has a husband and two young kids. The husband is very supportive but is not at this time interested in converting. The woman was told immediately after converting
that she had to divorce her husband of 20 years. Within these circumstances the question should have been: Is it worse for a Muslim woman to be married to a non-Muslim husband or for her to leave the religion? The answer is that leaving the religion is much worse, therefore, it is acceptable for her to continue with her marriage and she is responsible before Allah on Judgement Day.”7 Alwani, Dr Taha Jabir. Muqadimah fii Fiqh al-Aqaliyaat

This is a quite unthinkable verdict that comes from the Fiqh of Minorities perspective. This situation such as when a British woman accepts Islam while her husband remains a non-Muslim is not a new issue to Islamic jurisprudence. This problem occurred at the time of The Prophet  when his daughter Zaynab accepted Islam while her husband remained a non-Muslim. He  instructed her to leave and did not go against the definitive command of Allah , because going against the explicit command of Allah  is the greatest evil that can occur here; an evil that the Fiqh of Minorities seems to encourage and agree with. Therefore, in order to solve this problem today we need to go back to the legal texts and study them in order to acquire the Islamic ruling. This applies to all other issues as well. Reworking the question is something that leads to munkar (evil). It makes the mind and the prevailing reality the source of legislation, rather than the subject of legislation that the shariah rules come to regulate. This is an action that Allah  condemned the people of the Book for in the past:

“And do not say, concerning the falsehood which your tongues utter, ‘This is halal and that is haram,’ in order to fabricate a lie against Allah; assuredly those who fabricate a lie against Allah will not prosper” [TMQ Al-Nahl: 116].
The Prophet  said; “Do not do what the Jews did in order to (technically) legalize Allah’s prohibitions by flimsy excuses” [reported by ‘Abdullah bin Battah on good authority].8

Other points which are derived using this methodology are: the integration of the Muslims into the political system; the permissibility of riba; allowing Muslims to join the armies of the Kufaar, and fighting against the Muslims, amongst others.

http://www.*********/books/pdfs/FiqhMinorities.pdf
See also:
Fiqh of minorities - i
By Taha Jabir Alalwani
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/01-15May04-Print-Edition/0105200444.htm

Fiqh of minorities - ii
By Taha Jabir Alalwani
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/16-31May04-Print-Edition/1605200469.htm


Oh well perhaps there is nothing wrong with it: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/fiqh.htm

[Husain]

Brother Pahlawaan
If you wish to understand the huge Aqeedah difference with the salafis, I don't think you would find a better book than
البراهين الساطعة في در بعض البدع الشائعة للشيخ سلامة القضاعي العزامي
The Forward to it is by Shaikh Zaahid al-Khawthari.
Shaikh Salama's "Furqanul Quran" is also very good. Both are available from Maktabatul azhariyyah in Egypt.

As for other answers to the salafis and ibn taymiyyah, Shaikh Saeed Fowdah of Jordan has many good books.
Most can be downloaded from www.al-razi.net

[Sunni_Student786]

Jazakallah Soofi_Saheb.

[ibn abid]

Asslam u Aliekum,

Shaikh Attiq-ur-Rahman, the grandson of the widely popular Anwer Shah Kashmiri Deobandi Hanafi, has left deobandis and hanafis and became a salafi just recently. If you dont know his grandfather then let's just say it is said: "The proof of deobandis being upon the truth is that Anwar Shah Kashmiri was a Deobandi!"

He (Attiq ur Rahman) has detailed his reasons and explained why he did this in a lecture titled: "Mei Ahlul Hadeeth Kiyu Howa"

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO IT (http://www.ahlulhadeeth.net/php/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownloaddetails&lid=13&ttitle=Mei_Ahlul_Hadeeth_Kiyu_Howa)

If the above does not work then go to:

http://www.ahlulhadeeth.net/php/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=19

and click on the lecture titeled: "Mei Ahlul Hadeeth Kiyu Howa"
Also note that he was in his last year for graduating as a hanafi scholar from Paksitan.

Ibn Abid

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

i didn't listen to the link. but its very sad news indeed..... anyone care to summarise his reasons?

[abdushakur]

why is this so amazing?

[ibn abid]

Brother listen to it and you'll know what i mean inshallah

[Abu Suliman]

It does not make any differance that he has become salafi it does not mean there is something wrong with Hanafies.
There has been alot of scholars who become salafies then later on they come back to the truth of madhabs inshallah he will do the same.
if he does not it does not make following a madhab wrong,he does not represent he's grandfather because everyone is responsible for hes own actions.
I listened to some of the bayaan and this guys says that Fiqha is not knowledge and the Hanafies dont teach true knowledge only Quran & Sunnah is true Ilm and only people who teach & act upon this true Ilm are the Ahle-Hadith.
This guys is young and fiery and has been mislead by the salafies and did not get satisfactory answers from the Hanafi Ulema he went for answers he will soon realise what mistake he has made.

[MinSid]

Asslam u Aliekum,

Shaikh Attiq-ur-Rahman, the grandson of the widely popular Anwer Shah Kashmiri Deobandi Hanafi, has left deobandis and hanafis and became a salafi just recently.


Who cares ! ........ Allah guides whom he wills, Allah misguides whom he wills. Stop wasting your time in this petty issues. Think of yourself and work on it.

[Sadiq]

As rightly said by our brother...

Read the story of Prophet Nuh, his wife was not saved due to her being the prophet wifes.... The person who has left the "majority"... to go on the path of anarchy... and his the grandson of the great shaykh of our times... everyone for themselves.. as a saying goes. Even if he had the link to this great shaykh, doesnt mean he will be on the truth....

The real shock is, if you aware of a scholar in the "saved sect" (salafi)... by the name of Abu Aaliyah, a famous speaker, has a great force, a great say on how the salafi movement in the UK, specically works, has found the truth, Alhamdulilah. Few weeks back, he gave a 8 hour seminar on the "importance of taqleed" and he retracted his many years of "bashing it"... He has said, that after many research, the best course for anyone to do in this time and age is to follow a madhab....

Im not saying "they" got one of ours, we get one of theirs... Those who dig into this spectrum of salafism, can find out that this speaker, this shaykh, and a fellow "malaki" now (mossy, will be pleased ;) ) is one of the most influential speakers around. Has a large following.

As those who dig a bit more, as brother Abul Hasan has, and can enlighten us on the various branches of "salafism" at present. Abu Aaliyah represented one big chunk of it. Another caller to this group, Abu Usamah, if i am not mistaken (spelling) has also become a fellow "hanbali"... Alhamdulilah... Allah guides whom He wills.

As a french writer said; "All truth in the long run, is just common sense clarifed."

Wasallam. Lets not waste our times on these issues.

[salman]

Salamu Alaikum

Ibn Abid - the nephews of ShiaikhulHadith Zakariyya becae Hadit rejectors in their lifetime, ironic? So maybe we should all become Quranists also!

It makes no difference to us -

[Abu Yaseen]

Alhamdullilah we all know Hadhrat Anwar Shah and his status- I have even come across a "salafi" book which quotes him, and then who is his grandson?!
On a side note Hadhrat Anzar Shah- son of Hadhrat Anwar Shah is still Hanafi and comes to England quite a bit- this means you should be Hanafi Ibn Abid?

[faqir]

Poor chap [never heard of him], he joined the Salafi cult / Ahl al-Bid'ah.

InshaAllah he will return to Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah - the path of his grandfather Shaykh Anwar Shah Kashmiri.

[muslim786]

Poor chap [never heard of him], he joined the Salafi cult / Ahl al-Bid'ah.

InshaAllah he will return to Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah - the path of his grandfather Shaykh Anwar Shah Kashmiri.
Ameen. InshAllah. May Allah SWT help and guide us all.

[Sunni_Student786]

.....The real shock is, if you aware of a scholar in the "saved sect" (salafi)... by the name of Abu Aaliyah, a famous speaker, has a great force, a great say on how the salafi movement in the UK, specically works, has found the truth, Alhamdulilah. Few weeks back, he gave a 8 hour seminar on the "importance of taqleed" and he retracted his many years of "bashing it"... He has said, that after many research, the best course for anyone to do in this time and age is to follow a madhab.........

Abu Aaliyah represented one big chunk of it. Another caller to this group, Abu Usamah, if i am not mistaken (spelling) has also become a fellow "hanbali"... Alhamdulilah... Allah guides whom He wills.

Bro, do you think that you could find a source for this? Also, where can I get some info on the two former Salafis who now appear to have changed their stance on Taqleed?

[Fibre-Regular]

hey everybody, can i get a collective 'who cares?'

[ilm_seeker]

Bro, do you think that you could find a source for this? Also, where can I get some info on the two former Salafis who now appear to have changed their stance on Taqleed?
As sallamu alaikum

Yes I too would like to see the evidence. Also, is this Abu Aalaiya of the Jawziya Institute who appears on Islam channel from time to time or someone else?

Wa aliakum as sallam

[Muawiyah]

So, what did he become a madkhalee, a qutubi or a suroori???

[MinSid]

So, what did he become a madkhalee, a qutubi or a suroori???

He prolly became worldy!

[Sadiq]

Bro, do you think that you could find a source for this? Also, where can I get some info on the two former Salafis who now appear to have changed their stance on Taqleed?

Brother, i will try and find something for you, i dont think it will be a "press release" on their websites... but from my local shaykh... who reported this to us. For more information about them, do a simple search, and you will find them on the "saved" websites... they are very big. My local shaykh reported the above news, with his students attending that specific taqleed seminar that took place.

Hope that helps. Best thing, maybe to get hold of the salafi websites and ask them, but they may not reply. Lets see what i can find out. "wouldnt my word be enough"....

Wasallam...

[Ansari]

Bro, do you think that you could find a source for this? Also, where can I get some info on the two former Salafis who now appear to have changed their stance on Taqleed?
I think if you look a closer look on their stance of taqleed, there is no difference with the sunni's. I myself heard this from a hardcore salafi. The only difference is the taqleed/interpretation of certain scholars that they follow.

[Sadiq]

I think, that statement by brother pako is true to some extent... but the big difference would be "all options" open that they have, which is contray to the majority.

And the mentionshed speakers clearly (as reported by my teacher) said, that they wish to take all of the years of "neglecting" this great blessing....

[Omar HH]

Muslim turns kaffir,
Kaffir turns Muslim,
Christian turns Jew,
Jew turns Muslim,
Hindu turns Daoist,

La hawla wa la quwatah illa billah.

[Muawiyah]

I think if you look a closer look on their stance of taqleed, there is no difference with the sunni's. I myself heard this from a hardcore salafi. The only difference is the taqleed/interpretation of certain scholars that they follow.

Yeah, of late the madakhilah at salafitalk have been making many seemingly pro-taqleed (or at least not anti-taqleed) statements, they've also attacked the indian-subcontinental la-madhhabiyah for attacking the Ahnaaf on issues such as rafa' yadayn etc., where there is ikhtilaaf among the Sunni fuqahaa, when their own `aqaid are not correct.

[Yusuf]

I think, that statement by brother pako is true to some extent... but the big difference would be "all options" open that they have, which is contray to the majority.

And the mentionshed speakers clearly (as reported by my teacher) said, that they wish to take all of the years of "neglecting" this great blessing....

Abu Aliyah's always been one of the more moderate salafis. Like when talking about the 15th of sha'ban I remember him saying that even Ibn taymiyyah recommended nafl ibadah on the night and that there was legitimate difference regarding veneration of the night.

[Sunni_Student786]

I think if you look a closer look on their stance of taqleed, there is no difference with the sunni's. I myself heard this from a hardcore salafi. The only difference is the taqleed/interpretation of certain scholars that they follow.

Bro, I would have to respectfully disagree with much of what I have quoted above.

The Salafis, for the most part, who talk about Taqleed at all say that it is "ok" to make Taqleed and RARELY say that it is required.

Furthermore, when they talk about making Taqleed, they do not restrict it to the four orthodox Madhabs, but to any "qualified" scholar, even though all chains of authority to make ijtihaad going back to the Prophet (peace be upon him) have only survived through the four orthodox madhabs and the only "usuls" (juristic methodologies for the derivation of law) which were developed by people who were given the authority to do so are to be found in the four orthodox madhabs.

Further still, the Salafis, even the ones who say that Taqleed is permissible, or even obligatory (which they rarely do say), for the laymen, still act as though the only scholars of the modern day that are upon the "haqq" are their particular scholars and that they are the only ones that one may make Taqleed of.

Finally, those same Salafis try to judge the strength of the positions of the various madhabs, which were derived through the use of different, yet valid methodologies, through the lense of a single methodology, i.e. a modified Hanbali one. For example, when looking at an issue that the Hanafi madhab has based its ruling on a "Mashur" hadith, the Salafis say that such a ruling is "opposed to the Sunnah" because there may exist some "Ahad" hadiths that would lead oen to a different conclusion, not realizing that in the Hanafi methodology for the derivation of law an "Ahad" hadith cannot be used as a primary evidence when a "Mashur" hadith exists for an issue that says something seemingly contrary to the "Ahad" hadith related to the subject.

I pray that the Salafis see the error in their ways and, at a minimum, at least begin making Taqleed of the Hanbali madhab, if no other one since it seems that many of the scholars to which they look up to for their rather unique ideas, their day to day fiqh, and whose classical texts they study, are Hanbali. Perhaps that could be a beginning to the end of Salafiyyah and, through a domino effect, other la-madhabi ideologies.

[Sunni_Student786]

Yeah, of late the madakhilah at salafitalk have been making many seemingly pro-taqleed (or at least not anti-taqleed) statements, they've also attacked the indian-subcontinental la-madhhabiyah for attacking the Ahnaaf on issues such as rafa' yadayn etc., where there is ikhtilaaf among the Sunni fuqahaa, when their own `aqaid are not correct.

Bro, I visit salafitalk.net quite often (usually, 2-3 times a week) and haven't come across some of what you've mentioned. Would it be possible to perhaps post a link or something where I could read some of what you've said above?

[mummum]

Allah SWT guides whoever He wishes.
Also He guides who himself wants to be guided.

One of the mureeds of Mehboob-e-Ilahi Hazrat Khawajah Nizamuddin Dehlawi ra, asked him that what was the reason that most of time the "sahib-zadagan" (sons of a Sheikh) were the one who did not beneift from the Sheikh's spirituality and remained devoid of the father's real inheritance.

Hazrat Mehboob-e-Ilahi ra replied that this was a sign from Allah SWT to show that it is HE who guides. It is not within the capacity of anyone to benefit any other individual without His grant. And He only guides those who really want to be guided.


wama taufiqi ilabillahi

[taalibah]

bismillah, was-salaatu ala rasulillah
as-salaamu alaykum

I listened to the talk, I think there is a lot we can learn from it instead of simply dismissing him as 'another convert to salafism'.
Firstly just to make myself clear, I'm no fan of the modern indian ahle hadeeth to say the least, but he raised a few points which we should consider.

A few things seemed exaggerated, like studying bukhari in jami'ah faruqiyyah and not knowing about the sahih ahadith on raf' ul yadayn is just ridiculous, and I have never come across any hanafi who has ever claimed there is no sahih hadeeth for it, wAllahu a'lam.

It seems, and again Allahu a'lam, that some of the hanafiyyah in pakistan (especially) are extreme, to the point of injustice. Obviously this is like every group everywhere but one thing that seemed to stand out to be from the talk was that the scholars he went to refused to properly discuss with him the issues he had problems with. They simply brushed his questions aside. Altogether the way he was treated, and Allaah knows best regarding the truth, was apalling, and no wonder he did become ahle hadith. I must say I was quite disappointed that the issue boiled down to irrelevant things like raf' ul yadayn and reciting al faatihah behind the imam which I suppose is typical of the modern 'ahle hadith'.

Anyway, some issues he talked about, like why ihs questions were not answered, why no legitimate diferences in opinion are allowed (so he seemed to think if you do raf' ulyadayn, say aameen loudly etc. it means you can't be a hanafi) etc. really we have to think about these things otherwise we are just going to stay in this circle of forever fighting against each other instead of concentrating on the similarities and focusing our energies elsewhere.

At the end of the day, does it really matter? It doesn't really bother me at all, except that he seems to be very bitter against the deobandis and I hope this doesn't lead to creating more divisions against the Muslims especially in india/pakistan.

Finally, some naseehah to those who start throwing around the label of mubtadi' to someone you don't know anything about, fear Allaah and be just.

wAllahu a'lam. This is just my opinions, any mistakes are mine, and all good is from Allah.
was-salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh

[Muawiyah]

Bro, I visit salafitalk.net quite often (usually, 2-3 times a week) and haven't come across some of what you've mentioned. Would it be possible to perhaps post a link or something where I could read some of what you've said above?

Salafi pubs refute Jamiat Ahle hadees:

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=AHLE+HADEES&ei=UTF-8&u=www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm%3Fforum%3D9%26topic%3D2641&w=ahle+hadees&d=473E26AE02&icp=1&.intl=us

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm%3FForum%3D23%26Topic%3D1323+%22an d+others+hold+that+it+is+permissible+in+certain+si tuations%22+%22they+are+so+infatuated+with+the+iss ues+relating+to+the+subject+of+taqleed%22&lr=&strip=1

note "Zubayr Ali" instead of Zubayr Alizai and "Abdul-Qadir Bakhsh" (isn't that shirk) instead of Qadir Bakhsh

I came across two other posts which I can't find right now, one was about Sayyid Sabiq, someone there said something like, "he didn't know fiqh and he was an ikhwani who wanted everyone to follow the same fiqh"

The other was about the early Ahl ul Hadeeth being Shafi'i and Hanbali.

[Muawiyah]

They simply brushed his questions aside. Altogether the way he was treated, and Allaah knows best regarding the truth, was apalling, and no wonder he did become ahle hadith. I must say I was quite disappointed that the issue boiled down to irrelevant things like raf' ul yadayn and reciting al faatihah behind the imam which I suppose is typical of the modern 'ahle hadith'.

These minor Fiqhi issues are given an inordinate amount of importance as if a person's place in Jannah will be determined by whether he makes rafa' yadayn or not, and whenever there's a munazirah or one of our `ulama writes a book about the ghayr muqallideen it's about fatihah khalf al-imam etc. Very few `ulama write about the extremely heretical `aqaid of the Ghayr Muqallideen, like their belief that Allah Ta'ala is in a Makaan or their belief that mukashifaat are impossible or their making Takfeer on a`amaal (tawassul). Even the syllabus of madaris is around 80% fiqh at a time when sunni `aqaid are being attacked from all around and huge numbers of people have started to deny the necessities of the Deen. You take someone who's not too clever and he might think, "The salafis fiqh positions seem to be stronger, they must be on the right path"

[tazkiyyah]

Sidi Muawiyah..do u study shariah.if so where??

I had a friend who was studying in jamiah raseeh nazimabad karachi.
he told me its being overtaken by wahhabi ideas of aqeeda...

Particularly they are being convinced by panj-peeris??A new type of deobandi?????

Also , could u explain what is a hayaati deobandi and a mamaati deobandi.!?

Subhanallah..so much fitna

[Muawiyah]

I'm in a university unfortunately

Our Maulana (Maulana Zarwali Khan Sahib Hafizahullah) looked in to all the books of Shaykh ul Quran Maulana Muhammad Tahir Panjpiri rahimahullah (aka PanjPir Maulana) and he said that the Panjpir Maulana was a sunni;




زیادہ سے زیادہ یہ کہا جا*سکتا ہے کہ حضرت کی تحریک میں شدت یا بعض مسائل میں ان کے یکطرفہ مؤقف اختیار کرنے میں حدود اعتدال سے تجاوز ہو*چکا ہے۔ هذا ما عندي ولا نزكي على الله احدا

[tazkiyyah]

salams

and whats a hayati and mamati deobandi?

[Yaseen]

and whats a hayati and mamati deobandi?

Salaam
I am hoping one of the other members could further elaborate. According to my limited knowledge the "mamaatis" reject that the Prophets salalahu'alyhi wasalam is alive in his grave. There are very few Deobandis of this type and I think the majority of Deobandis reject this train of thought. Yunus Numani is one of the famous mamaati scholars around.

Hopefully another member will provide you with a better answer.

Wasalaam

[Sunni_Student786]

Was "Maulana Muhammad Tahir Panjpiri rahimahullah" from among the ranks of the Ulema of Deoband? If so, then why is it that people commonly call the "Wahhabi/Ahl al Hadith/Salafi" types "panjpiris"?

[Muawiyah]

I suppose it's the same reason as how some people refer to the Deobandi `Ulama as "Wahhabies"

[Muawiyah]

Yunis Numani (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1222)

[Abdur_Rahman]

As those who dig a bit more, as brother Abul Hasan has, and can enlighten us on the various branches of "salafism" at present. Abu Aaliyah represented one big chunk of it. Another caller to this group, Abu Usamah, if i am not mistaken (spelling) has also become a fellow "hanbali"... Alhamdulilah... Allah guides whom He wills.
Abu Usamah At-Thahabi who used to live in USA, mashallah I know the brother if this is the same person you're talking about?

[deobandi]

These minor Fiqhi issues are given an inordinate amount of importance as if a person's place in Jannah will be determined by whether he makes rafa' yadayn or not, and whenever there's a munazirah or one of our `ulama writes a book about the ghayr muqallideen it's about fatihah khalf al-imam etc. Very few `ulama write about the extremely heretical `aqaid of the Ghayr Muqallideen, like their belief that Allah Ta'ala is in a Makaan or their belief that mukashifaat are impossible or their making Takfeer on a`amaal (tawassul). Even the syllabus of madaris is around 80% fiqh at a time when sunni `aqaid are being attacked from all around and huge numbers of people have started to deny the necessities of the Deen. You take someone who's not too clever and he might think, "The salafis fiqh positions seem to be stronger, they must be on the right path"

The only reason salafism is strong, because the hukumat is with them. The saudi hukumat is salafism. If they allow Hafanfi scholars to talk and prove their point in Arab countris, then the whole Arabia will be Hanafies. Anyway, salafism has to end because Hazrat Mehdi has to appar soon. They have to take bay't in his hands and do his taqleed. What will be their excuse at that time?

[faqir]

Bump for those who like to quote Aqeedatut Tahawiyya against Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah.

[Silver Sparrow]

More on anthropormorphism:
http://www.al-morrin.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16

[Abul Hasan]

how can you just accuse a scholar with such heavy words? fear Allaah. surely, they were better Muslims than you and I is ?

there is no scholar free from error - as we all are humans, but that doesnt mean we have got the right to go around throwing accusations at the scholars. we should safeguard our tounge as commanded by Allaah and his messenger SAW

May Allaah help us all to safeguard our tounges. Aameen

btw akhee, where can you buy these books from?


Yes ya ukhti, we need to all fear Allah and speak only with Ilm al-Nafi with clear cut dala'il and burhan. What i said is based on the way of the Kibar al-Ulama from Ahlus Sunna from over the last centuries - who knew more than me and you on the reality of ibn Taymiyya. The latter's errors are far greater and serious than many other scholars, and they are usually conected to the most delicate issues connected to Aqeeda.

So if you know arabic then the following list is for your reference, and so one should acquire as many of them as possible to see what the Ulama say ( I found this list years ago on the net somewhere, but have now lost the URL):



من علماء أهل السنة الذين ردوا على ابن تيمية



ذكر بعض العلماء والفقهاء والقضاة الذين ناظروا ابن تيمية أو ردوا عليه وذكروا معايبه ممن عاصروه أو جاءوا بعده



ذكر أسماء بعض من ناظر ابن تيمية المتوفى سنة 728 ص أو ردّ عليه من المعاصرين له والمتأخرين عنه من شافعية وحنفية ومالكية وحنابلة، ونذكر رسائلهم وكتبهم التي ردوا عليه فيها فمنهم.


ا- القاضي المفسر بدر الدين محمّد بن إبراهيم بن جماعة الشافعي المتوفى سنة 733هـ .

2- القاضي محمّد بن الحريري الأنصاري الحنفي.

3- القاضي محمّد بن أبي بكر المالكي.

4- القاضي أحمد بن عمر المقدسي الحنبلي.

وقد حبس بفتوى موقعة منهم سنة 726 هـ . أنظر عيون التواريخ للكتبي، ونجم المهتدي لابن المعلّم القرشي.


5- الشيخ صالح بن عبد الله البطائحي شيخ المنيبيع الرفاعي نزيل دمشق المتوفى سنة 707هـ.

أحد من قام على ابن تيمية ورد عليه، (أنظر روضة الناظرين وخلاصة مناقب الصالحين لأحمد الوتري). وقد ترجمه الحافظ ابن حجر في الدرر الكامنة.


6- عصريه الشيخ كمال الدين محمد بن أبي الحسن علي السراج الرفاعي القرشي الشافعي. تفاح الأرواح وفتاح الأرباح.


7- قاضي القضاة بالديار المصرية أحمد بن إبراهيم السروجي الحنفي المتوفى سنة 710 هـ . اعتراضات على ابن تيمية في علم الكلام.


8- قاضي قضاة المالكية علي بن مخلوف بمصر المتوفى سنة 718 هـ. كان يقول: ابن تيمية يقول بالتجسيم وعندنا من اعتقد هذا الاعتقاد كفر ووجب قتله.


9-الشيخ الفقيه علي بن يعقوب البكري المتوفى سنة 724 هـ ، لما دخل ابن تيمية إلى مصر قام عليه وأنكر على ابن تيمية ما يقول.


10- الفقيه شمس الدين محمد بن عدلان الشافعي المتوفى سنة 749 هـ . كان يقول: إن ابن تيمية يقول: إن الله فوق العرش فوقية حقيقية، وان الله يتكلم بحرف وصوت.


11- الحافظ المجتهد تقي الدين السبكي المتوفى سنة 756 هـ .

الاعتبار ببقاء الجنة والنار.

الدرة المضية في الرد على ابن تيمية.

شفاء السقام في زيارة خير الأنام .

النظر المحقق في الحلف بالطلاق المعلق.

نقد الاجتماع والافتراق في مسائل الأيمان والطلاق.

التحقيق في مسألة التعليق.

رفع الشقاق عن مسألة الطلاق.


12- ناظره المحدث المفسر الأصولي الفقيه محمّد بن عمر بن مكي المعروف بابن المرخل الشافعي المتوفى سنة 716.

13- قدح فيه الحافظ أبو سعيد صلاح الدين العلائي المتوفى سنة 761 هـ .

* أنظر ذخائر القصر في تراجم نبلاء العصر لابن طولون (ص/ 32- 33).

* أحاديث زيارة قبر النبي .


14- قاضي قضاة المدينة المنورة أبو عبد الله محمد بن مسلّم بن مالك ألصالحي الحنبلي المتوفى سنة 726 هـ .

15- معاصر ه الشيخ أحمد بن يحيى الكلابي الحلبي المعروف بابن جهبل المتوفى سنة 733 هـ .

* رسالة في نفي الجهة.


16- القاضي كمال الدين بن الزملكاني المتوفي سنة 727 هـ .

* ناظره وردّ عليه برسالتين، واحدة في مسئلة الطلاق الأخرى في مسئلة ا لزيارة.


17- ناظره القاضي صفي الدين الهندي المتوفى سنة 715 هـ .


18- الفقيه المحدّث علي بن محمّد الباجي الشافعي المتوفى سنة 714 هـ

ناظره في أربعة عشر موضعا وأفحمه.


19- المؤرخ الفقيه المتكلم الفخر بن المعلّم القرشي المتوفى سنة 725 هـ-

نجم المهتدي و رجم المعتدي.


20- الفقيه محمد بن علي بن علي المازني الدهان الدمشقي. رسالة في الرد على ابن تيمية في مسألة الطلاق.

رسالة في الرد على ابن تيمية في مسألة الزيارة .


21- الفقيه أبو القاسم أحمد بن محمد بن محمد الشيرازي المتوفى سنة 733 هـ

رسالة في الرد على ابن تيمية.


22- رد عليه الفقيه المحدث جلال الدين محمد القزويني الشافعي المتوفى سنة 739 هـ


23- مرسوم السلطان ابن قلاوون المتوفى سنة 741 و حبسه.


24- معاصره الحافظ الذهبي المتوفى سنة 748 هـ

* بيان زغل العلم والطلب.

* النصيحة الذهبية.


25- المفسر أبو حيان الأندلسي المتوفى سنة 745 هـ

* تفسير النهر الماد من البحر المحيط.


26- الشيخ عفيف الدين عبد الله بن أسعد اليافعي اليمني ثم المكي المتوفى سنة 768هـ.


27- الفقيه الرحالة ابن بطوطة المتوفى سنة 779هـ .

رحلة ابن بطوطة.


28- الفقيه تاج الدين السبكي المتوفى سنة 771 هـ.


* طبقات الشافعية الكبرى.

29- تلميذه المؤرخ ابن شاكر الكتبي المتوفى سنة 764 هـ

* عيون التواريخ.


30- الشيخ عمر بن أبي اليمن اللخمي الفاكهي المالكي المتوفى سنة 734 هـ .

* التحفة المختارة في الرد على منكر الزيارة.


31- القاضي محمد السعدي المصري الأخنائي المتوفى سنة755 هـ .

* المقالة المرضية في الرد على من ينكر الزيارة المحمدية، طبعت ضمن "البراهين الساطعة" للعزامي.


32- الشيخ عيسى الزواوي المالكي المتوفى سنة 743 هـ.

* رسالة في مسألة الطلاق.


33- الشيخ أحمد بن عثمان التركماني الجوزجاني الحنفي المتوفى سنة 744هـ .

* الأبحاث الجلية في الرد على ابن تيمية.


34- الحافظ عبد الرحمن بن أحمد المعروف بابن رجب الحنبلي المتوفى سنة 795هـ .

* بيان مشكل الأحاديث الواردة في أن الطلاق الثلاث واحدة.


35- الحافظ ابن حجر العسقلاني المتوفى سنة 852هـ .

* الدرر الكامنة في أعيان المائة الثامنة.

* لسان الميزان.

* فتح الباري شرح صحيح البخاري.

* الإشارة بطرق حديث الزيارة.


36- الحافظ ولي الدين العراقي المتوفى سنة 826 هـ.

الأجوبة المرضية في الرد على الأسئلة المكية.


37 _ الفقيه المؤرخ ابن قاضي شهبة الشافعي المتوفى سنة 851 هـ.

* تاريخ ابن قاضي شهبة.


38- الفقيه أبو بكر الحصني المتوفى سنة 829 هـ.

* دفع شبه من شبه وتمرد ونسب ذلك إلى الإمام أحمد.


39- رد عليه شيخ إفريقيا أبو عبد الله بن عرفة التونسي المالكي المتوفى سنة 853هـ .


45- العلامة علاء الدين البخاري الحنفي المتوفى سنة 841 هـ ، كفره وكفر من سماه شيخ الإسلام أي من يقول عنه شيخ الإسلام مع علمه بمقالاته الكفرية، ذكر ذلك الحافظ السخاوي في الضوء اللامع.


41- الشيخ محمد بن أحمد حميد الدين الفرغاني الدمشقي الحنفي المتوفى سنة 867 هـ.

* الرد على ابن تيمية في الاعتقادات.


42- ردّ عليه الشيخ أحمد زروق الفاسي المالكي س المتوفى سنة 899هـ

* شرح حزب البحر.


43- الحافظ السخاوي المتوفى سنة 902 هـ .

*الإعلان بالتوبيخ لمن ذمّ التاريخ.


44- أحمد بن محمد المعروف بابن عبد السلام المصري المتوفى سنة 931 هـ.

* القول الناصر في رد خباط علي بن ناصر.


45- ذمه العالم أحمد بن محمد الخوارزمي الدمشقي المعروف بابن قرا المتوفى سنة 968 هـ.


46- القاضي البياضي الحنفي المتوفى سنة 1098 هـ.

* إشارات المرام من عبارات الإمام.


47- الشيخ أحمد بن محمّد الوتري المتوفى سنة 980 هـ .

* روضة الناظرين وخلاصة مناقب الصالحين.


48- الشيخ ابن حجر الهيتمي المتودى سنة 974هـ .

* الفتاوى الحديثية.

" الجوهر المنظم في زيارة القبر المعظم.


حاشية الإيضاح في المناسك.


49- الشيخ جلال الدين الدواني المتوفى سنة 928 هـ

* شرح العضدية.

50- الشيخ عبد النافع بن محمّد بن علي بن عراق الدمشقي المتوفى سنة 926 هـ

* أنظر ذخائر القصر في تراجم نبلاء العصر لابن طولون (ص/ 32- 33).


51- القاضي أبو عبد الله المقرى.

* نظم اللالي في سلوك الأمالي.


52- ملا علي القاري الحنفي المتوفى سنة 014 ا هـ.

* شرح الشفا للقاضي عياض.


53- الشيخ عبد الرؤوف المناوي الشافعي المتوفى سنة 531 ا هـ

* شرح الشمائل للترمذي.


54- المحذث محمّد بن علي بن علان الصديقي المكي المتوفى سنة 057 ا هـ.

المبرد المبكي في رد الصارم المنكي.


55- الشيخ أحمد الخفاجي المصري الحنفي المتوفى سنة 9 1 0 ا هـ.

شرح الشفا للقاضي عياض.


56- المؤرخ أحمد أبو العباس المقري المتوفى سنة 041 ا.

أزهار الرياض.


57- الشيخ محمّد الزرقاني المالكي المتوفى سنة 122 ا هـ .

* شرح المواهب اللدنية.


58- الشيخ عبد الغني النابلسي المتوفى سنة 43 ا اهـ

* ذمه في أكثر من كتاب.


59- ذمه الفقيه الصوفي محمّد مهدي بن علي الصيادي الشهير بالرواس المتوفى سنة 1287 هـ.


60- السيد محمّد أبو الهدى الصيادي المتوفى سنة 1328 هـ.

* قلادة الجواهر.


61- المفتي مصطفى بن أحمد الشطي الحنبلي الدمشقي المتوفى سنة 1348 هـ

* النقول الشرعية.


62- محمود خطاب السبكي المتوفى سنة 1352 هـ

* الدين الخالص أو إرشاد الخلق إلى دين الحق.


63- مفتي المدينة المنورة الشيخ المحدث محمد الخضر الشنقيطي المتوفى سئة 1353.

* لزوم الطلاق الثلاث دفعه بما لا يستطيع العالم دفعه.


64- الشيخ سلامة العزامي الشافعي المتوفى سنة 1376 هـ

* البراهين الساطعة في ردّ بعض البدع الشائعة.

*مقالات في جريدة المسلم (المصرية).


65- مفتي الديار المصرية الشيخ محمد بخيت المطيعي المتوفى سنة 1354 هـ.

* تطهير الفؤاد من دنس الاعتقاد.


66- وكيل المشيخة الإسلامية في دار الخلافة العثمانية الشيخ محمّد زاهد الكوثري المتوفى سنة 1371 هـ

* كتاب مقالات الكوثري.

*التعقب الحثيث لما ينفيه ابن تيمية من الحديث.

* البحوث الوفية في مفردات ابن تيمية.

* الإشفاق على أحكام الطلاق.


67- إبراهيم بن عثمان السمنودي المصري، من أهل هذا العصر.

*نصرة الإمام السبكي برد الصارم المنكي.


68- عالم مكة محمد العربي التبّان المتوفى سنة 1395هـ .

* براءة الأشعريين من عقائد المخالفين.


69- الشيخ محمّد يوسف البنوري الباكستاني.


* معارف السنن شرح سنن الترمذي.


70- الشيخ منصور محمّد عويس ، من أهل هذا العصر.

* ابن تيمية ليس سلفيا.


71- الحافظ الشيخ أحمد بن الصديق الغماري المغربي المتوفى سنة 1380 هـ

* هداية الصغراء.

* القول الجلي.


72- الشيخ المحدث عبد الله الغماري المغربي المتوفى سنة 1314 هـ .

* إتقان الصنعة في تحقيق معنى البدعة.

* الصبح السافر في تحقيق صلاة المسافر.

* الرسائل الغمارية، وغيرها من الكتب.


73- المسند أبو الأشبال صالم بن جندان الأندونيسي.

* الخلاصة الكافية في الأسانيد العالية.


74- حمد الله البراجوي عالم سهارنبور.-

* البصائر لمنكري التوسل بأهل القبور.


75- وقد كقره الشيخ مصطفى أبو سيف الحمامي في كتابه غوث العباد ببيان الرشا د.

وقرّظه له جماعة وهم الشيخ محمّد سعيد العرفي، والشيخ يوسف الدجوي، والشيخ محمود أبو دقيقة، والشيخ محمّد البحيري، والشيخ محمّد عبد الفتاح عناتي، والشيخ حبيب الله الجكني الشنقيطي، والشيخ دسوقي عبد الله العربي، والشيخ محمّد حفني بلال.


76- رد عليه أيضا محمد بن عيسى بن بدران السعدي المصري.


77- السيد الشيخ الفقيه علوي بن ظاهر الحداد الحضرمي.


78- مختار بن أحمد المؤيد العظمي المتوفى سنة 1340 هـ

*جلاء الأوهام عن مذاهب الأئمة العظام والتوسل بجاه خير الأنام عليه الصلاة والسلام، رد فيه على كتاب "رفع الملام " لابن تيمية.


79- الشيخ إسماعيل الأزهري.

* مرءاة النجدية.


80- الشيخ سراج الدين عباس الأندونيسي المتوفى سنة 1403 هـ.

له كتب في العقيدة حذر فيها من عقائد ابن تيمية.

This list is now out of date as there are at least a dozen more books that could be added to the 80+ or so titles/Ulama noted above.

I have nothing further to add for now and Insha'Allah i will try to post one complete short arabic work in expose of ibn Taymiyya's aqeeda by Imam al-Ikhmaymi.

Shukran

[maturidi sufi]

as-salaam `alaykum,

Jazak Allah kheir brother Abul Hasan for the article. I remember that article was on website http://members.tripod.com/sunniyy by one the students of Shaykh Abdullah al-Hariri al-Habashi of Lebanon.

Brother Abul Hasan if you have the article of Dr. GF Haddad on Ibn Jahbal Kilabi could you please post it here.

[ilm_seeker]

As sallamu alaikum

If I remember correctly from the 1998 Virginia Suhba lectures of Sh. Nuh Keller he said that Ulema from Damascus (I think) were authoring a 500 page book on Ibn Taymiya's aqeeda. Do you know if that book was ever published? If it was I though you might want to get your hands on it.

Wa aliakum as sallam

[Abul Hasan]

As sallamu alaikum

If I remember correctly from the 1998 Virginia Suhba lectures of Sh. Nuh Keller he said that Ulema from Damascus (I think) were authoring a 500 page book on Ibn Taymiya's aqeeda. Do you know if that book was ever published? If it was I though you might want to get your hands on it.

Wa aliakum as sallam

:salam:

I am not sure exactly, it could be this:

Fataawaa Ibn Taymiyya fil-Meezaan [Ibn Taymiyya's Fatwas under Investigation]. By the Mauritanian Shaykh al-Sayyid Muhammad Ahmad Miskah ibn al-`Ateeq al-Ya`qubi, Allah reward him. 500 p. (Damascus 2000.)

Or may be he meant the book by Shaykh Saeed Fawda (listed on the fisrt page of this thread)...

I will try to post a full radd by Imam al-Ikhmaymi on ibn Taymiyya soon...

Wassalam

[Aamir]

Could somebody tell us how this guy who has become salafi was releated to Hazrat Anwar Shah, was he his sons child or through a daughter or what

[faqir]

Salafi theologian Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips states in reference to Allah [swt]:

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.

http://muslimconverts.com/e-books/fundamentals_of_tawheed.htm



Imam al-Bayhaqi, in his Manaqib Ahmad relates with an authentic chain that Imam Ahmad [RH] 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.

[Abdur_Rahman]

:salam:

A brother who follows the shafi' fiqh refered the book evolution of fiqh by Bilal Phillips and also he's been banned in parts of the penninsula :confused:

[Mossy]

In so far as the History is concerned, the book is fine.

Not really, some of his comments on the Maliki madhab are just bunkum. He really should have asked a Maliki scholar about his assumptions on the school and its positions..

[Mossy]

Maybe you are right. I am a Hanafi. I wouldn't know. ;)

You should learn some Maliki fiqh/usul. It's pretty.

[Abdur_Rahman]

In so far as the History is concerned, the book is fine. When the "suggestions" start rolling in, then we have a problem. It's as though he assumes that a super-madhhab is the need of the day.

And yes, he's banned in Saudi and the Emirates for making snide remarks against governments. This is one thing that I respect him for.

:salam:

Eh? I thought it was not good to speak out against the government. Actually I guess it's a two way street you can (having the remnants of the khawarij) then you can't (being patient and making dua to Allah aza wajal to correct the affairs of the rulers and likewise also to correct our affairs as well.)

Allahu alim

[Abdur_Rahman]

No it's not prohbited to speak against the governments if the governments are themselves wrong. This reminds me of Imam Nawawis speech against the Hakim al Waqt when he introduced an illegal property deed act.

Bascially Bilal Philips spoke out against the inustices carried out against the expatriate population in these countires. One Deobandi )traditional Hanafi) scholar also got kicked out of the Emirates for that.

:mash:

Was this during a khutbah or was this a one on one exchange?

[Abdur_Rahman]

Khutbah...

:mash:

I'm sure he could've taken it one on one b/c he's a well known individual. Besides he should've taken the high road and should set up a meeting or something

Allah alim

[faqir]

Dr. Muhammad Khalil Harras [described here: http://www.uh.edu/campus/msa/articles/sharh/biog.html#harras as "a great Salafi Aalim and research scholar" writes in his translation of Ibn Taymiya’s “Sharh Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah,” page 73:

“The Mutazila deny the vision. This denial is based on refusing to accept Allah in any direction for it is necessary for a thing being seen to be in the direction of the seer...”


Imam Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi states:

35. The Seeing of Allah by the People of the Garden is true, without their vision being all-encompassing and without the manner of their vision being known. As the Book of our Lord has expressed it: "Faces on that Day radiant, looking at their Lord." (al-Qiyama 75:22-3) The explanation of this is as Allah knows and wills. Everything that has come down to us about this from the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in authentic traditions, is as he said and means what he intended. We do not delve into that, trying to interpret it according to our own opinions or letting our imaginations have free rein.

No one is safe in his religion unless he surrenders himself completely to Allah, the Exalted and Glorified and to His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and leaves the knowledge of things that are ambiguous to the one who knows them.


And again:


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

[Abul Hasan]

:salam:

Please find enclosed the full PDF edition of Shaykh Mahmud Sa'eed Mamduh's clarification on what is Tawassul, its evidences, what the scholars say (including "Salafi" favourites like: al-Shawkani), views from the 4 Madhhabs on Ziyara, the view of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal on Tawassul etc.


The title of this work in around 250 pages (e-book edition) is:



رفع المنارة لتخريج أحاديث التوسل والزيارة


Raising the Lighthouse by the extraction of the Hadiths on Seeking Means and Visitation
[of the Prophet – sallallahu alaihi wa sallam]


Included with in it is the refutation of the likes of:

Nasir al-Albani (viz: His book on Tawassul and its types)

Ibn Uthaymin

Bin Baz

Hammad al-Ansari (and his claims against Shaykh Abdullah al-Ghumari have been addressed)

Salih Aal-Shaykh

Abu Bakr al-Jazairi

Amr Abdal Mun'im Salim

Ali Hasan al-Halabi and others


From those who preceded us, it contains replies to the claims of Ibn Taymiyya and his pupil Ibn Abdal Hadi, as well as accounts of Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali on Ziyara, the views of al-Dhahabi etc...


Shaykh Mamduh is currently responding to the claims of Amr Abdal Mun'im (viz: Hadm al-Minara) and others from pseudo-Salafiyya, and will release an updated edition of his Raf al-Minara in the near future.

Note also, in this edition there is also a reply from the late Abdal Qadir al-Arna'ut (d. 2004) on the allegations against him regarding tampering with Imam al-Nawawi's Kitab al-Adhkar.


There are a number of books in clarification of this issue in Arabic, Urdu and also a number of articles in English have already been presented on this very forum.


Note also: Shaykh Mamduh has also written a 6 volume work in expose of al-Albani and some others (like Abdar Rahman al-Mu'allimi), as well as works in refutation of al-Albani's views on: the Tasbih beads, His views on Sahih Muslim, a refutation on Amr Abdal Mun'im (and his futile attempt to respond to the 6 volume work of Shaykh Mamduh) and a short work on al-Albani's contradictions in Hadith. Also, some of the associates of Shaykh Mamduh have recently refuted the claims of pseudo-Salafiyya like: Sulayman al-Karashi and Khalid al-Ansari.

Wassalam

Abul Hasan

[athari]

Would you be kind enough to post the online e-book Hadam al-Manara in which Amr Abdal Munim Saleem totally demolishes and exposes the mistakes of Mahmood Saeed Mamduh. Have you seen the site http://www.***************/arabic ? they have few articles exposing the reliability of Mahmood Saeed Mamduh.
Also Abul Hasan can you comment on the close relationship of Mahmood Saeed Mamduh with Hasan Ali Saqqaf see the website www.tnzih.org and what about the relationship of Hasan Ali Saqqaf, Mahmood Saeed Mamduh with Zaydi Shias of Yemen. Don't these two scholars who you often use their books and articles against us, have close relationship with Shias.

Also, can you comment on the forum of Mahmood Saeed Mamduh where he criticizes Deobandis ?

"salafist" (Although some say it is you) also posted a book against Mahmood Saeed Mamduh. Do you have a reply for that book also ?

Which brother of yours met Mahmood Saeed Mahmud Tariq or Azeem or Karim Abdullah ?

[Abul Hasan]

Poor "Athari" - keeps asking and asking - but runs like a coward time and time again after he asks questions and gets refuted time and time again O reader!

Let the reader see how this individual works and how he exposed himself:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=63522#post63522


http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6961


http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/sho...14&page=1&pp=10

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/sho...p?t=6841&page=2

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/sho...61&page=3&pp=10


He seems like he can't understand basic English! I have said already that Sh. Mamduh is going to print his radd on Hadam al-Minara soon, and then he brings in more clap trap like unrelated twaddle on "Karim Abdullah" "Tariq" "Azeem" etc - Wallahi i don't know these people personally nor have I ever met them. He knows where Sh. Mamduh is available, so - if he knows a little arabic he can ask him directly!

Answer me just one thing O one who asks too much and flees when refuted: Are you not the one known as: Zulfiqaar Ali?! Swear on oath here that you are not him- just as I have done in relation to lies that I am "Karim, Salafist" blah blah, blah.. If you fail to respond then I will address you as Zulfiqaar from now on, just as we are sure now that Abu Alqama posts here under the name: Abu Taymiyah.

As for the clap trap on "sunnipress" - you can search here for my reply to what AR Qadri scanned up from the distorter: Amr Abdal Mun'im (on 2 seperate posts).

"Athari" claims to be a Hanafi, but he clearly went against Imam Abu Hanifa's rejection of: Istiqrar and Jiha. He thought Ibn Qutayba was from his school of thought, but failed to respond even on that issue, as well as what Imam al-Bayahqi said about Ibn Qutayba, not to forget also how ibn Qutayba also made Ta'wil! He also promotes claims that Taraweeh is 8 rak'ahs - by spreading misquotes from Hanafi Ulama of the past (we will show that soon Insha'allah)! Imam Abu Hanifa is on record for 20 rak'ats! Indeed, he spreads distortions from the likes of Abu Khuzayma/Abu Hibban - who were recently exposed for cutting up the words of Hafiz al-Haythami and distorting the facts:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7104

Let us also not forget how "Athari's" own Muhaddith al-Asr cut up the words of Qadi Iyad:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7010


When this "Athari" answers what was said in refutation of him, and admites his mistakes - we can consider responding in greater detail on other issues!

For now let the reader see the games of this person and his double dealings!

[Abul Hasan]

Would you be kind enough to post the online e-book Hadam al-Manara in which Amr Abdal Munim Saleem totally demolishes and exposes the mistakes of Mahmood Saeed Mamduh.


It is typical of these claimants to the Salaf to brag about the status of their own men, but usually hide the facts surrounding these controversial Asaghir - according to their own Ilk!

Indeed, I have already spoken of how Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh was the one who demolished Amr Abdal Mun'im Salim, here, in radd to the distortive claims of AR Qadri - friend of "Athari - Zulfiqaar Ali". See here for details and scans to these hot headed ones:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3194&highlight=Mun%27im

We have also shown how this AR Qadri spread distortions from Amr Abdal Mun'im - with his intentional weakening of a narration from Ibn Abbas (ra) confirming Ta'wil of the Saaq. These people completely ignored the facts that the likes of al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi declared this narration to be Sahih, and Ibn Hajar declared its sanad to be Hasan - and these people think that we are the "distorters" - just because we didn't mention what Ibn Hajar mentioned about the narrator Usama ibn Zayd al-Laythi in the Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, or al-Mizzi in his Tahdhib or al-Dhahabi in al-Mizan!

There was no need to mention this - as the one's who knew the reality of Usama al-Laythi (viz: al-Dhahabi and ibn Hajar) accepted his Riwaya going back to Ibn Abbas (ra)! Fact is: Usama al-Laythi's narrations are found in Sahih Muslim as Mutabi'at etc. How many times do the Huffaz of the past give the full biographical information on every spoken of narrator in the Sanad - when grading a narration?! This is not usually done, rather their final judgement on the status of the narration is what counts!

If they think there was a need then they should have done justice by asking why Abu Khuzaymah/Abu Hibban - themselves left out the full biographical data on Kathir ibn Zayd, but instead these people cut up the words of al-Haythami and quoted just some negative remarks on Kathir and avoided mentioning the Ta'dil on Kathir! Subhanallah! What double standards! See here:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7104

This goes to show that these people are not even capable of understanding how narrations are graded, and how the Huffaz judge the Jarh and Ta’dil on narrators like Usama al-Laythi or Kathir ibn Zayd for the matter! The fact that al-Dhahabi said the narration is Sahih and ibn Hajar saying the sanad is Hasan - is a clear cut radd on the likes of AR Qadri, Abu Rumaysah, Salim al-Hilali and Amr Abdal Mun'im et al...

See here for what I am implying and referring to (see the post by myself dated 19-6-05):

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4030&page=6&pp=10

Below, I will post an article by the "Salafi": Yahya al-Adl - and how he exposed Amr Abdal Mun'im and his mistakes!

[Abul Hasan]

:salam:

The attached file contains examples of how Amr Abdal Mun'im was exposed for basic mistakes in Hadith etc by one of his own "Salafi" colleagues: Yahya al-Adl


Wassalam

Abul Hasan

[maturidi sufi]

The words of Qadi Iyad are little unclear. How can creation share attributes of Creator ?

What I understand is Qadi Iyad is only referring to names and not attributes. What I remember from the texts on Ashari and Maturidi creed that a creation can't have the same attributes with the Creator, otherwise it is tashbeeh.

Sidi Abul Hasan can explain further on this matter.

[faqir]

Fair point Akhi. We all agree that the uncreated Attributes of Allah [subhanahu wa ta'ala] are not in us His creation. The quote from Qadi Iyad, however, was posted to establish the language of Ahl al-Sunnah when referring to the Anbiya and, more specifically, our beloved Prophet salallahu alayhi wa sallam regarding this topic. [In any case, I have removed the post as it was unrelated to the Creedal issues being discussed in this thread and is perhaps a discussion for another thread]

JazakAllah khair.

[Insaniac]

Would someone please shed some light on this statement by salafi "shaykh" al-Munajjid:

"With regard to sources, the Maatreediyyah divide the bases of religion into two categories depending on the source:

1 – Divine or rational: these are matters which are established independently by reason and the reports follow that. This includes issues of Tawheed and the Divine attributes.

2 – Legislative matters or transmitted reports, These are matters which reason states may or may not exist, but there is no way to prove rationally that they exist, such as Prophethood, the torment of the grave and issues of the Hereafter. It should be noted that some of them regarded Prophethood as coming under the heading of rational issues.

It is obvious that this is contradictory to the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, because the Qur’aan, Sunnah and consensus of the Sahaabah are the sources of guidance in their view. This is in addition to their bid’ah (innovation) of dividing the sources of religion into rational matters vs. transmitted reports, which was based on the false notion of the philosophers who assumed that the religious texts contradict reason, so they tried to mediate between reason and the transmitted reports. This led them to force reason into fields where it has no place, so they came up with false rulings which contradicted sharee’ah, and that led them to say that they did not know what the texts mean and that only Allaah knows their meaning, or to misinterpret them altogether. In the view of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, on the other hand, there is no contradiction between sound reason and the sound transmitted reports." [taken from http://****************/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=22473&dgn=4]

And also would someone please make a conclusion with a list of the differences in 'aqeedah between Ahl us Sunnah and the salafees?

One quick question: ordinary ppl wouldn't even know about the differences in 'aqeedah, right? Cu'z ppl don't usually think lik "where is Allah?", "Does Allah have a jism b/c of the yadd, wajh, etc.?", so would there be a difference in aqeedah among common salafees and common sunnis?

Jazakum Allahu khayr & Wassalam

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

In the name of Allah, with blessings on the Messenger of Allah,

Salam 'Alaykum,

What would be the best short reply to a Salafi who told you:

"Some people follow the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of Abu Hanifa, and some people follow the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of Shafi'i, and some people follow the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of Malik, but you should ONLY follow the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of the Messenger of Allah (s)" ?

The standard Salafi confusion here is all too apparent. But what's the best way of expressing it in a sentence or two?

I look forward to hearing everyone else share their answers, and then I will share mine as well.

Wa al-Salam.....

[traveler]

'Ulama's are the heirs of the prophets' ,

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

but you should ONLY follow the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of the Messenger of Allah (s)" ?


...and who understands the understanding of the Messenger?

..cos if joe bloggs can do that, i would like to see what makes him better than the mujtahid imams who had defined methodologies and usul.

[Sadiq]

Everyone is taught.

Our beloved was taught by jibrial.

Our stars, the sahabas were taught by our beloved, the blessed prophet.

We are taught by ............

I think, the word "isnad" something that is dear to Islam, very much, is something people need to research... its so easy to say, i follow the prophet, but its not as simple as that.

One simple answer, one beautiful brother told me once was, if there were 2 sahih hadiths, put infront of you, what would you do? .... hmmm....

For us to follow the prophet, we need to follow his students... whose students, students are our ulama, our imams, whose students, are the students of our teachers, who we are students of....

Its all about the "chain" back to the foundation of mercy, our beloved, something even outside people respect and honour, and not just a chain, rather a sound, traditional chain of sunnah scholarship ....

Sometimes, questions are best answered with other questions, "what is your link to the prophet? who is your link to the prophet?..." hmm...

Many fiqh books show how, if one didnt follow one of the great imams, for example, there are certain actions, only soley for the prophet, not for all, but if one is someone who reads "hadith by themselves".. then they would take that hadith and perform the action, which in reality, means they are not following the "quran and sunnah" as it should be, but in their confused mind of "following", they will be doing injustice to themselves, the sunnah and be in loss of not following the mercy of Allah ; the schools of thought...

so much has been said, check the forum, search...

[Hamood]

Everyone is taught.

Our beloved was taught by jibrial.

Our stars, the sahabas were taught by our beloved, the blessed prophet.

We are taught by ............

I think, the word "isnad" something that is dear to Islam, very much, is something people need to research... its so easy to say, i follow the prophet, but its not as simple as that.

One simple answer, one beautiful brother told me once was, if there were 2 sahih hadiths, put infront of you, what would you do? .... hmmm....

For us to follow the prophet, we need to follow his students... whose students, students are our ulama, our imams, whose students, are the students of our teachers, who we are students of....

Its all about the "chain" back to the foundation of mercy, our beloved, something even outside people respect and honour, and not just a chain, rather a sound, traditional chain of sunnah scholarship ....

Sometimes, questions are best answered with other questions, "what is your link to the prophet? who is your link to the prophet?..." hmm...

Many fiqh books show how, if one didnt follow one of the great imams, for example, there are certain actions, only soley for the prophet, not for all, but if one is someone who reads "hadith by themselves".. then they would take that hadith and perform the action, which in reality, means they are not following the "quran and sunnah" as it should be, but in their confused mind of "following", they will be doing injustice to themselves, the sunnah and be in loss of not following the mercy of Allah ; the schools of thought...

so much has been said, check the forum, search...

Well said.

[Jamaluddine]

In the name of Allah, with blessings on the Messenger of Allah,

Salam 'Alaykum,

What would be the best short reply to a Salafi who told you:

"Some people follow the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of Abu Hanifa, and some people follow the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of Shafi'i, and some people follow the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of Malik, but you should ONLY follow the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of the Messenger of Allah (s)" ?

The standard Salafi confusion here is all too apparent. But what's the best way of expressing it in a sentence or two?

I look forward to hearing everyone else share their answers, and then I will share mine as well.

Wa al-Salam.....
Assalamu alaikum,

Brother,
A true Salafi would not ask you such a question, simply because true salafis respect and take from all four Imams.

I personally do not agree with the regular 'witch-hunt' that Salafis have to endure in this forum, especially at this particular point in time.

You would never find a true Salafi insult any scholar; quite contrary to some of the brothers and sisters on this forum who find no objection whatsoever in 'eating' the flesh of respectable scholars (Abdul-Wahhab, Ibn-Taymiyyah, Albani, Ibn-Baz...etc). Unfortunately, brothers and sisters often base their judgements on incorrect facts, when they are not really qualified to be judging scholars.

On many occasions I have read false interpretations and accusations about what Salafis believe, but I either had no time to reply or chose not to enter in futile arguments. I believe that this the same feeling of many many brothers and sisters who visit this otherwise great website.

Another thing: Some brothers often distinguish betyween Salafis and 'Ahlus-Sunnah Wal Jamaah'. This is a great falsehood, since Salafis are THE most true and original 'Ahlus-Sunnah Wal Jamaah'!

The only reason that myself and many others chose to write 'NONE' when it comes to 'Madhab' is that the 'ALL' option was not offered.

Wassalam

Your brother who loves you all
Jamaluddine

[iqadeer]

Assalam Allaikum brother Jamaluddine,


A true Salafi would not ask you such a question, simply because true salafis respect and take from all four Imams.

Is it true that you consider taqleed-e-shaksi or following a single imam in all matters of deen as prohibited? Furthermore, do you believe that a layperson has the capability to determine and evaluate the evidence presented by different imams in their juristic conclusions? In other words, how much knowledge is required to fulfill the above criterion?

Jazakum Allah Khayr.

Sincerely,

Imran.

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

Salam 'Alaykum,



Assalamu alaikum,

Brother,
A true Salafi would not ask you such a question, simply because true salafis respect and take from all four Imams.

Well, I actually, saw the above statement (not a question) put forward (in a linger form) by a Salafi.

Christians can tell us that a true Christian would never promote violence against Muslims: does this mean we should ignore the brutality of the Crusades?

We should let the Salafis fight it out among themseves as to what is or is not a "true" Salafi (and they *do* fight: see the recent fatwa by a Salafi declaring Ibn Baz a kafir).




I personally do not agree with the regular 'witch-hunt' that Salafis have to endure in this forum, especially at this particular point in time.

The 'witch-hunt' is well-deserved criticism which the Salafis have brought on themselves by accusing mainstream Muslims of "kufr, bid'a, shirk" with no basis at all.

[Jamaluddine]

Assalamu Alaikum,

Dear Brother Sad Ibn Abu Waqqas,

Please calm down. We’re all here to learn from each other.

[and they *do* fight] Not me! I rather choose to talk and learn from others.

[see the recent fatwa by a Salafi declaring Ibn Baz a kafir] Where can I see this fatwa please? How can anybody accuse Ibn Baz (A man who devoted his entire life to the search for the truth) with kufr? He was not perfect, but there again who is? You would never Inshaallah find me calling a fellow Muslim a kafir because I have learnt through the Qur’an and Hadith that this would be a big sin.
I don’t claim to represent any Salafi, I am a mere researcher at the very beginning of a long road, but what most Salafis believe in (if we’re talking about the same people!) seems to me to be closest to what the prophet PBUH left us with.

[The 'witch-hunt' is well-deserved criticism which the Salafis have brought on themselves by accusing mainstream Muslims of "kufr, bid'a, shirk" with no basis at all.] Like I said: I never call anybody anything, I respect everyone.

Dear Brother Iqadeer,

With my very limited and modest knowledge I will try to answer your questions as fully as possible (according to what I believe in and to what I have found so far through research):

First of all there is a major difference between a [layperson (or muqallid)] and a [mufti, Talib (Student of knowledge), scholar…etc].

For the average “rank and file” layperson Muslim, his madhhab is that of his mufti or the scholar whom he consults for religious verdicts; he must ask those pious scholars whom he trusts for opinions when necessary. Some scholars advise the “rank and file” (layperson) to purely call themselves Muslims (rather than Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki or Hanbali) and to refer problematic issues to respectable scholars and to consult the works of scholars who are known for their sincere devotion to Islam and the Muslims, because this would save us from a lot of unnecessary divisions.

If a person has enough knowledge to distinguish which evidence and opinion is stronger, then he must follow the scholarly opinion which has the strongest support from the Qur’an and Sunnah, i.e. he must follow the TRUTH wherever it may lie.

Now about your question:
Furthermore, do you believe that a layperson has the capability to determine and evaluate the evidence presented by different imams in their juristic conclusions? In other words, how much knowledge is required to fulfill the above criterion?
(i.e. to do Ijtihad and issue fatwas):

Here we are definitely not talking about a layperson because there are conditions attached to making ijtihaad. Not every individual has the right to issue fatwas and make pronouncements on matters, unless he has knowledge and is qualified. He has to be able to know the daleel; the wording and apparent meaning of the texts; what is saheeh (sound) and what is da’eef (weak); al-naasikh wa’l-mansookh (what abrogates what); wording and interpretation of texts; what is specific in application and what is general; what is stated in brief and what is mentioned in detail. This needs lengthy experience and practice, knowledge of the various branches of fiqh and where to look for information; knowledge of the opinions of the ‘ulamaa’ and fuqahaa’, and memorization or knowledge of the texts.

A Muslim is permitted to follow one of the four well-known madhhabs, and even to be a Muqallid in the case of an absolute layperson, on the condition that he understands that the truth in any given issue may lie with another madhhab, in which case he must ignore his own madhhab’s opinion and follow the truth. The Muslim’s aim is to follow the truth that is in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah. The madhhabs of fiqh are only a means of reaching ahkaam (rules) based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah; they are not Qur’aan and Sunnah.
We ask Allaah to show us the truth and help us to follow it, and to show us falsehood and help us to avoid it. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w).

Allah knows best.

Wassalam

Jamaluddine

[iqadeer]

Assalam Allaikum brother Jamaluddine,

Jazak Allah for the clarification, but I do have one more question about your following statement:


A Muslim is permitted to follow one of the four well-known madhhabs, and even to be a Muqallid in the case of an absolute layperson, on the condition that he understands that the truth in any given issue may lie with another madhhab, in which case he must ignore his own madhhab’s opinion and follow the truth.

How does a layperson, like myself for example, determine which madhab has the truth? Am I 'mukallif' to investigate this? How much knowledge is necessary to realize this? What are the basis of your conclusion?

Jazakumullah Khayr.

Imran.

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

Assalamu Alaikum

Wa 'Alaykum As Salam




Dear Brother Sad Ibn Abu Waqqas,

Please calm down.

Good advice. You would do well to follow it yourself. Especially over the alleged 'witch-hunt' of Salafis on this site.



We’re all here to learn from each other

Correct. In fact I started this thread to learn from people what would be a concise way to respond to a standard piece of Salafi confusion, but I feel like it's now moving in the direction of a general discussion of Salafism, which was not my original goal. I will therefore start a new thread myself called "Questions for Brother Jamaluddine.", in the "In-depth Islam" section of this site.

If you are convinced that no true Salafi could make the statement I quoted, then please let us know, on this thread, how such a true Salafi would respond to that quotation in a concise fashion. That was, after all, the point of this thread.


Wa al-Salam....

[Silver Sparrow]

There's an - interesting, should we say - thread going on at my dead board, I'm loathe to enter the discussion, but the brother's argument seems pretty strong, and in direct contradiction to what we've been reading here. Though his argument that just because the people with anthropomorphic tendencies are on-line, they're of no consequence... (does this stop people being brainwashed? no) seems rather weak.

What do you make of his case?
The thread (http://www.al-morrin.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57)

[faqir]

:salam:

Concerning the position regarding these ayaat of a group of Hanbali scholars who Ibn Juzay al-Kalbi describes [whilst not obviously endorsing, at least from the quote provided] as:

"The second group includes [some later scholars] who have understood
the words in the primary texts about such subjects as being *literal*.
So, these people have claimed that Allah has a body (lizamahum al-
tajsim). And this is the view of [a group of] the Hanbali scholars
and some Hadith scholars also. "


The famous Hanbali theologian Imam Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Jawzi said in his Daf shubah al-tashbih bi akaff al-tanzih:

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. Do not surrreptiously introduce into the madhhab of this righteous, early Muslim man [Ahmad ibn Hanbal] that which is not of it. You have clothed this madhhab in shameful disgrace, until it can hardly be said "Hanbali" any more without saying anthropomorphist"



There is no doubt that at least some of the Salafi theologians are guilty of using various innovated phrases such as in person / "bi dhatihi", "istiqrar" eg Uthaimin's statement عرشه واستوى عليه علوا واستقرارا يليق به
If you are to look at this forum itself, for example, we have some "salafis" hoping to ascribe jiha to Allah swt, and there are many other examples of apparent anthropomorphic tendencies amongst at least some of the [pseudo]-salafiyya.... you only need go through some of the other threads in this section of the forum.

And Allah knows best.

Wasalam.

p.s. check out this thread I put together recently: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7804

.

[Silver Sparrow]

If you are to look at this forum itself, for example, we have some "salafis" ascribing jiha to Allah swt, and there are many other examples of apparent anthropomorphic tendencies amonst the [pseudo]-salafiyya.
According to the brother on the board though, its okay, because 'theyre only online'

I will post up his original responses for the benefit of the readers:

Assalaamu 'alaykum,

Regarding the accusation of tajseem, I suggest that you personally contact one of those "prominent scholars of salafiyyah" and ask him to explain his position regarding ta'weel and tajseem. You'll find that none of them are guilty of tajseem. Don't just blindly follow what Nuh Keller or whoever else has quoted from them. How much fitnah has spread in these times from this kind of behaviour!

Anyone who accuses the "salafis" - and especially their scholars - of tajseem, has either misunderstood the meaning of tajseem, or does not even know the beliefs of the "salafis" but is merely parroting what somebody else has said without investigating.

There is a website called the "Guiding Helper" which I'm sure you are aware of. There is something there which I'd like to quote:



> The first one is that I have noticed in some of Moroccan ulama
> who are Malikis, who even teach Sidi Khalil, etc, that they have a
> curious position as far as the aqida of Ibn Taimiyya. I have noticed
> the same attitude in some Azhari ulama. They consider the
> Ashari-Maturidi way of interpreting as-Sifat and the way of
> Ibn Taimiyya as acceptable both of them. As far as I know from
> different sources Ibn Taimiyya commited anthropomorphism. But
> this ulama consider that both positions are acceptable.

First we would like to say that fi l-haqiqah the correct answer
to this is that Allah is not like anything else and He has no co-sharer
in his dhaat, sifaat, nor af`aal. His Entity (Dhaat) is timeless, endless,
and formless. His attributes are beginningless and endless and He
does not undergo change.

laysa ka mithlihi shay' wahuwa s-sami`u l-basir.
qul huwallahu ahad allahu s-samad.
wallahu khalqakum wa ma ta`malun
kana allahu wa la sha'a ghuruh (wa huwa l-ana `ala ma `alayhi kan)

So if anyone is confused about this matter, let him know that the
true answer is what we have said above. And this above answer
is the answer given by 100% of the `arifin from the time of Prophet
(May Allah bless him and give him peace) up until our time.
It is only those who are not `arifin (and are ignorant of Allah) that can
imagine that Allah is like something else.

Now returning to your question about the valid views on this subject.
We would say that it can proven that authentic traditional `ulama' with
connected chains to the Prophet (May Allah bless him and give him
peace) have held three views on this subject.

a) Allah is like nothing else and we refrain from further descriptions
about Him and we refrain from giving metaphorical interpretations
to words in the primary texts about Him. Rather we accept the
words in the primary texts as true and say that Allah knows best
what He meant. wa r-rasikhun fi l-`ilmi yaquluna 'amanna bihi
kullun min `indi rabbina.
b) Allah is like nothing else but in order to avoid anthropomorphism
we give metaphorical (majazi) interpretations to words in the primary
texts whose literal interpretation would force us to claim that Allah
had a body, could be present in a location, or was bound by time.
c) Allah is like nothing else but we see that the primary texts themselves
say that Allah has a hand, foot, face, can be present in a location,
or acts through time. Because we are commanded to believe in the
primary texts, we say that Allah has these characteristics but not
necessarily in the way that humans have these things.

Anything beyond (c) above is clear association (shirk) with Allah as agreed
upon by our scholars.

References:
Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi writes:

"Words have come in the Qur'an and Hadith whose literal interpretation
makes Allah seem like His creation -- such as "`ala l-`Arshi s-tawa"
and "yadahu mabsutatan" and like the hadith which speaks of "nuzulu
l-lahi kulla laylatin ila sama'i d-dunya", and other things like this.

So the scholars of our din are divided in three groups concerning this.

The first group is the early pious Muslims (al-salaf al-salih) among the
sahaba and the tabi`in and the Great Imams of the Muslims. They believe
in the words in the primary texts but do not search for details meanings
or interpretations of these words. And they look in disdain upon people
who try to search for the meanings of these words. ... And this is the
view of Imam Malik, Imam al-Shafi`i and most of the Hadith scholars.

The second group includes [some later scholars] who have understood
the words in the primary texts about such subjects as being *literal*.
So, these people have claimed that Allah has a body (lizamahum al-
tajsim). And this is the view of [a group of] the Hanbali scholars
and some Hadith scholars also.

The third group includes [some later scholars] who have given
metaphorical interpretations [ta'wil] to avoid literal interpretations
of such words. And these people have used the rational proofs of
`Aqidah as a basis for their metaphorical interpretations. And this
group includes most of the mutakallimin.

[QF: volume 1: page 13: line(s) 16-26:
{book 0, chapter 5 (tanzihu l-lah), tanbih}


Therefore, understand that there is a difference between not making ta'weel on one hand, and making tajseem on the other. If someone opposes Ash'ari ta'weel, that does not automatically mean that he is a mujassim.

Before anyone suspects me of being a "hard-core salafi" (or even - God forbid - an anthropomorphist), let me say that I disagree with many aspects of the school of thought that is often referred to as "salafiyyah", but at the same time I realise that not everything with them is black and white.

Fear Allah with regard to your Ummah, and fear Allah with regard to yourselves.

Wassalaam

The part I highlighted above. It seems he is under some sort of delusion???


Maybe there are some jaahil pseudo-"salafis" who don't understand Arabic who might misunderstand this issue, but the 'ulama' of those whom you call "salafis" have explained it clearly without any difficulty.

When we say "Allahu fis-sama'", it doesn't mean that Allah is "in" the sky, in the way that the sun or the moon or the clouds are. If you read all of the "salafi" explanations of the meaning of the statement "Allahu fis-sama'", you will find that they explain it to be that Allah is above the sky, not literally "in" it (i.e. surrounded by it).

Question: Can you think of anything higher than the sky? Everything above you is the sky. Therefore, if Allah is above and beyond all that, then how is it anthropormorphism to say that "Allahu fis-sama'" (in Arabic, not how it is mis-translated into English).

In arabic, "as-sama'" means whatever is above you. There is an aayah in the Qur'an in which Allah uses the word "sama'" to refer to the roof of a house.

The word "fi" literally mean "in", but can be used to mean "on" or "over", as in Allah's mention of Fir'awn's threat to the magicians, where he said he will crucify them "fi judhu' in-nakhl" (Literally "in the trunks of trees", but meaning "on" the trunks of trees.)

Repeat: When we say: Allah is "in" the sky/heavens, what we are saying is that Allah is above everything and beyond everything. His 'Arsh is above all of His creation (in a way that only Allah knows how), and Allah is above and over His 'Arsh - not in a physical anthropomorphic sense, but rather in a manner befitting His Majesty.

So perhaps it would be easier for me to explain it in English in the following way, and I hope that it clarifies things:

Allah is above the sky, above His 'Arsh and above the entire creation. Since space and time are part of His creation, He must therefore be above space and time too. So if we say that Allah is above/over the heavens and you understand it in this context, there is no problem with such a statement in sha' Allah.

This is explained clearly in the (Arabic) books of the people you are calling "salafis", so you might refer to them in detail, rather than misunderstand a mistranslation of the arabic words "fis-sama'".

Regarding the issue of the "two eyes", nobody has said that Allah's A'yun (Eyes) are like those of humans or the creations. The debate about the use of the word in the dual ('aynaan) or plural (a'yun) has no connection to any implication of anthropomorphism.

Concerning Bilal Philips' saying "A Form befitting His Majesty", you seem to have concentrated on the first two words of the sentence (A Form) and ignored the remaining three (befitting His Majesty), which in fact explain them. He said that Allah's Form is not like the forms of any of His creation.

On one hand he has produced the fatwa of GH saying that Allah has NO FORM, on the other hand, he is saying its okay to say Allah has a form after all, as long as you disguise it by saying: we dont know how


Before you attack me over the use of the word "Form" for Allah, know that the Prophet (s.a.w.) used the word form (soorah) for Allah, as in the hadith: "Allah created Adam on His Form (soorah)" and another hadith: "I saw (in a dream) my Lord in His best Form (soorah)."

What we are saying is that we cannot know "how" this "Form" is, but we definitely do not liken it to the creation. But the fact that He has it is confirmed in the nusoos. Otherwise, what will the people be looking at when they see Allah in the hereafter? (I hope you don't deny that people will see Allah in the hereafter...)

Here's a tip: Any time you see the words "befitting His Majesty", what it means is a negation of anthropomorphism, saying that whatever is described is according to Allah's greatness, and not to be misunderstood as resembling His creation.

If you accuse people of anthropomorphism just because they use the words that Allah and His Messenger (s.a.w.) have used, then you may as well accuse the Qur'an of anthropomorphism just because it mentions Allah's Hands and Eyes without making ta'weel of them.

If you say: "But Allah says: laysa kamithlihi shay'un..." (There is nothing like Him), then that is what we say too!

Concerning Imam Ahmad's saying: "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."

What is the original Arabic word used by Imam Ahmad? "Body" is usually translated "jism", and no-one from those whom you call "salafis" have claimed that Allah has a "jism". A "soorah" (Form), yes - because the ahadith have said that - but one befitting Allah's Majesty.

There is a big difference between saying that Allah has a "jism" and saying that He has a "soorah". The main reason is that "soorah" is found in the nusoos (texts), but "jism" is an innovated and baatil terminology.

Also, if I may say so, dear sister, did you ever personally ask any of the "salafi" 'ulama' to explain these things to you, or refer back to the original (Arabic) books and commentaries?

If not, then it seems from your post that you got most of your information from internet forums and websites - not exactly the most reliable or scholarly source of information.

And there is no need to say "well some people on such-and-such forum said such-and-such about so-and-so"... what groups of people on the internet say about other people is not relevant to the topic. There are jaahils everywhere, from every group, and on every forum. It is not even a topic that should be discussed, because Allah says: "wa-idhaa marroo bil-laghwi marroo kiraamaa" ("and when they pass by people indulging in futility, they pass by honourably.")

We are not talking about that, we are talking about the accusation of "anthropomorphism" that is being directed by some people against anyone who accepts Allah's attributes that way they have come and does not try to explain them or make ta'weel of them.

If you follow the ash'ari way of looking at it, fair enough! No problem! But if you find others not delving into ta'weel and who accept the Sifaat as they have been narrated in the nusoos (without likening them to the creation remember), then don't accuse them of "anthropomorphism" because of that!

Otherwise, you might find yourself drawn into a sticky situation that it becomes difficult to escape from, when we start asking you: "Is the Qur'an anthropomorphic when it mentions the "A'yun", the "Yad", the "Wajh"? Or when the Propher (s.a.w.) mentioned the "Ru'yah", the "Saaq", the "Qadam", the "Soorah" etc.?

So in conclusion, if we find that Allah or His Messenger (s.a.w.) mentioned something about Allah's Sifaat, then we accept it and believe in it and affirm that it is true, BUT:

[1] We do not liken it to the creation.
[2] We do not try to determine "how" it is.
[3] We do not reject it or change its meaning with our minds or logic, unless there is clear and solid proof from another text.
[4] We do not try to make ta'weel of it, unless there is clear proof (in which case it wouldn't really be ta'weel anyway).

I hope this clears things up, and forgive me if I have hurt anyone.

The part I highlighted in the last quote, what would your response be to that, bearing in mind the issues discussed previously in this thread?

[faqir]

The part I highlighted in the last quote, what would your response be to that, bearing in mind the issues discussed previously in this thread?

I would answer it in the same manner that Ibn al-Jawzi answered it in the quote I provided above.

Namely, "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."

In other words, the position of the Salaf wrt such ayaat and ahadith was that of Tafwid - commital of the meaning to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala - and the Salafis rejection of Tafwid has been highlighted in various other threads [see, for example, the link I mentioned above].

At the end of the day, what the bro says is probably correct to a certain extent - many, if not most, of those who call themselves Salafis do not know nor are they bothered about the position of some of their scholars wrt such issues... this thread and others on the forum as well as the various articles on the internet do not necessarily refer to such people just because they may label themselves "salafi"....

[Yusuf]

All the kalam on `Atiyyah al`awfi in Rafa' al Minar:


P.s This post is from Bro Muawiyah.

[Omar HH]

Jazakallahu Khayrun,
Ahobak billah wa Allah yard'a 'alayka

Wa 'Alaykum as Salam wa Rahmatallahi ta'ala wa Barakatahu

[faqir]

All the kalam on `Atiyyah al`awfi in Rafa' al Minar:


P.s This post is from Bro Muawiyah.


JazakAllah khair for posting that up bro Muawiyah/Yusuf.... I've been trying to learn more on this narrator ;)

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

In the name of Allah, with peace anbd blessings upon the Messenger of Allah,


Assalamu alaikum,

Wa 'alaykum as-salam,

I had planned not to get into a general discussion of Salafism here, because the thread was intended for another purpose. But since it seems that people have stopped using it for that purpose, some remarks on your comments are in order.



Brother,
A true Salafi would not ask you such a question, simply because true salafis respect and take from all four Imams.


Leaving aside the ultimately pointless question of who or what a "true" Salafi is meant to be, this reply is entirely worthless, because the statement I quoted did not show any signs of disrespect towards the four Imams, (or to anyone else for that matter). It was not a disrespectful comment, as presented: rather, it was just confused because it displayed misunderstanding of the role of the four Imams in explaining the Quran and Sunna to the rest of us. I wanted this thread to be a place where concise ways of exposing this confusion could be expressed and put on display as it were.

Respect is just not the issue here: Salafis are often very respectful people (and sometimes they are not). However one can be respectful and yet confused about taqleed, and this is the failing I'm interested in. Salafis could be the most respectful people in the world, and it would not change their confusions about taqleed one tiny bit.




I personally do not agree with the regular 'witch-hunt' that Salafis have to endure in this forum, especially at this particular point in time.


After decades of attacking other Muslims by declaring them to be kafir or mushrik or guilty of bid'a for no more serious reason than following a madhdhab, or seeking tawassul through the Blessed Prophet(s), or being Sufis, the Salafis find themselves under the spotlight, their confusions being exposed, and their near-illiterate misinterpretations of such topics as ijtihad and taqleed and tasawwuf being detailed for all to see. And now they have the nerve to turn around and complain about being the victims of a witch-hunt, when it was they who began a "witch-hunt" of those who followed one of the the four schools, or studied tasawwuf in order to purify themselves? La hawla wa la quwatta illa billah.

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

Like I said: I never call anybody anything, I respect everyone.

So you would, for example, refuse to call the Shi'is, the Mu'tazilis, or the Jahmis people of bid'a? When you know very well that bid'a is a reality in the world, how can you go about refusing to identify those who are guilty of propagating it? Have you never heard of the importance of "commanding the good and forbidding the wrong"? If so, how can you refuse to forbid the wrong of bid'a, by at least identifying it and its bearers clearly, even if only implicitly? The scholars you consider so respectable, such as Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibn Baz were certainly not nearly as shy as you in calling people things, nor are most of their followers.

Your comments are either breathtakingly naive, or frankly, they reveal a diplomacy that borders on deception, both of yourself and of others.



First of all there is a major difference between a [layperson (or muqallid)] and a [mufti, Talib (Student of knowledge), scholar…etc].

It is entirely mysterious why you would put all "Students of knowledge" on a par with muftis and scholars. Even some of the best scholars saw themselves as not having the rank of absolute ijtihad, so it is doubtful whether a mere student could claim this rank.


If a person has enough knowledge to distinguish which evidence and opinion is stronger, then he must follow the scholarly opinion which has the strongest support from the Qur’an and Sunnah, i.e. he must follow the TRUTH wherever it may lie.

There are scholars who have (quite reasonably) disagreed with this: even a person with the requisite knowledge is entitled to follow the opinion of those who he deems to be more reliable then he himself is. This is reported from the scholars among the Companions, some of whom would leave their opinions for the opinions of those they felt were more knowledgeable than themselves.



Now about your question:
(i.e. to do Ijtihad and issue fatwas):

Here we are definitely not talking about a layperson because there are conditions attached to making ijtihaad. Not every individual has the right to issue fatwas and make pronouncements on matters, unless he has knowledge and is qualified. He has to be able to know the daleel; the wording and apparent meaning of the texts; what is saheeh (sound) and what is da’eef (weak); al-naasikh wa’l-mansookh (what abrogates what); wording and interpretation of texts; what is specific in application and what is general; what is stated in brief and what is mentioned in detail. This needs lengthy experience and practice, knowledge of the various branches of fiqh and where to look for information; knowledge of the opinions of the ‘ulamaa’ and fuqahaa’, and memorization or knowledge of the texts..

You forgot to mention that a mujtahid must be someone who is of extreme intelligence by nature, and someone who is of excellent character and piety. The first qualification is very rare anyway, and the second is very rare because of the times we live in. For the two to be combined will be rarer still.


A Muslim is permitted to follow one of the four well-known madhhabs, and even to be a Muqallid in the case of an absolute layperson, on the condition that he understands that the truth in any given issue may lie with another madhhab, in which case he must ignore his own madhhab’s opinion and follow the truth.


It is a standard principle of usul al-fiqh that "My school of thought is right with the possibility of being wrong; your school of thought is wrong with the possibility of being right." Each of the four schools has always recognized the possibility that the others could be right, so there is nothing new here: after all, it is almost a matter of definition that fiqh studies issues regarding which the evidence is less than completely decisive (if t was decisive, there would be no need for reasoning, weighing up evidence and ijtihad.)

So there is nothing incorrect (or new) about realizing that the truth on any issue may lie with another madhhab.

What is really strange is your claim that it is a CONDITION for a person to follow a madhhab that he realize that another school may be correct. A layperson who thinks that the Hanafis are definitely right on a given issue may have a mistaken belief: but it doesn't in any way vitiate the acceptability of his following the Hanafi school on that issue. In fact, if he is a layperson he may well have no choice at all but to follow the Hanafi school, no matter what incorrect beliefs he holds about the four schools.

Moreover, evaluating evidence and determining which is superior is ijtihad.
How can one know that the truth is outside their madhhab without
evaluating the evidence...that is: without ijtihad? A non-mujtahid knowing something that is known by being a mujtahid: that seems to be what you are advocating here. Assume the non-mujtahid was told by someone who is a mujtahid.....it's still taqlid.



The Muslim’s aim is to follow the truth that is in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah. The madhhabs of fiqh are only a means of reaching ahkaam (rules) based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah; they are not Qur’aan and Sunnah.

It is a typical piece of Salafi rhetoric to contrast the madhdhabs on the one hand with the Qur'an and Sunnah on the other (as if the opinions of contemporary Salafis are somehow infallibly identical with the Quran and Sunnah while the madhabs are not).

But before you can follow the truth in accordance with the Qur'an and Sunnah, you have to know that truth. In some cases this is very easy. In other cases, it requires deep understanding and expert knowledge, and this is what the madhabs provide better than anthing else in our history. I have yet to see a more reliable way of learning this truth than to study one of the four madhhabs, because each represents a highly evolved and sophisticated methodology for assessing and drawing conclusions from the evidence of the Quran and Sunnah, and their conclusions have been checked and verified (and even refined or upgraded) by hundreds of scholars. It is hard to see how a single person in the 21st century could match one of these schools in depth of scholarship and reliability of reasoning.

The rules (ahkaam) that the madhhabs reach are not arbitrary man-made rules, but the rulings of Allah Himself: whether a given action is obligatory, recommended, permissible, disliked or forbidden. This is the knowledge we need, and the madhabs give it to us in a form that is easy to access: not infallibly, to be sure, but which scholar is ever going to be less fallible than the four Imams and the hundreds of highly ranked scholars who followed them and checked their conclusions and upgraded their work? So making a distinction betwene the madhhabs, on the one hand, and the Qur'an and Sunnah, on the other hand, is pointless unless we have a better way of deriving rulings from the Qur'an and the Sunnah than these madhhabs. The Salafis certainly haven't provided one.

Allah knows best.

[Djibril]

assalam alaikoum wa rahmatoullah wa barakatouh,

In France we have a problem with some claimants to hanafi madhhab who studied in deobandi madrassat but who promulgate wahabi-like beliefs.
This is a real problem because in french there are almost no true sunni websites like there are in english and thus they deceive people by making them believe they are true representants of hanafism.

Here is what one of them said, in the original language (the translation will follow) :

"A ceux de mes coreligionnaires qui se permettent de dénigrer leurs frères qui disent "Dieu est sur Son Trône mais Il ne ressemble pas aux humains", à ceux qui se permettent donc de dénigrer leurs frères pour cela et de dire d'eux qu'ils sont anthropomorphistes (mujassimites), qu'ils ont subi l'influence des traditions isrâ'îliyyât ou encore qu'ils ne suivent pas Abû Hanîfa, je dirai simplement ceci : "Avant de parler avec des grands airs, renseignez-vous un peu à propos de ce qu'est vraiment l'avis de Abû Hanîfa et de Abû Yûssuf sur la question. Découvrez l'avis de ces deux grands savants, rapporté par le savant hanafite Ibn Abi-l-'izz dans Shar'h al-'aqîda at-tahâwiyya (tome 2 p. 387). De même, lisez un peu ce que Cheikh Thanwî, qui est indien et hanafite, a écrit sur la question dans Bawâdir un-nawâdir (p. 384), Bayân ul-qur'ân et Furû' ul-îmân"."

"To those of my co-religionists who allow themselves to disparage their brothers who say "God is on His Throne but He does not resemble human beings", to those who allow themselves to disparage their brothers for that and to say about them that they are anthropomorphists (mujassimites), that they have been subject to the influence of the isrâ' îliyyât traditions or that they do not follow Abû Hanîfa, I will say simply this: "Before speaking with large airs, make some inquiries about what is really the opinion of Abû Hanîfa and Abû Yûssuf on this matter. Discover the opinion of these two great scholars, reported by the hanafi scholar Ibn Abi-al-'izz in Shar'h al-'aqîda At-tahâwiyya (volume 2 p. 387). In the same way, go and read what Sheikh Thanwî, who is Indian and hanafi, wrote about it in Bawâdir un-nawâdir (p. 384), Bayân ul-qur' ân and Furû' ul-îmân"

Can someone who know sheikh thanwi's writings rebute these accusations of him believing that Allah is litterally on the throne?

[tazkiyyah]

I read shaykh Thanwi's work on taqleed in which he was criticising the salafiyya
and mentioned that they have errors in aqeeda of tajseem.

Its in urdu.,..compiled by dar ul uloom Nadwa in India

[tazkiyyah]

Let those people also be aware that mawlana thanwi was a chishti sufi,
who has a work defending ibn arabi the sufi- call almarghaan ibn arabi

He has a multi-volume work on the mevlevi sufi-mawlana rumi...which is a sharh of the mathnawi...

He has a work on his spiritual master imdaadullah makki(alayhi rahmah).

Also, the book oof tafseer bayan al quran-defends tasawuf highly..including practises like the chillah of the sufis and many other sufistic concepts

the book of duaa of mawlana thanwi called munajaat e maqbool makes tawassul thru the shaykhs in his silsila or chain

[Muawiyah]

عقیدہ مخلوق کی صفتوں سے وہ پاک ہے۔ اور قرآن و*حدیث میں بعضی جگہ جو ایسی باتوں کی خبر دی گئی ہے تو ان کے معنی اللہ کے حوالے کریں کہ وہی اس کی حقیقت جانتا ہے۔ اور ہم بے کھود کُرید کۓ اسی طرح ایمان لاتے ہیں اور یقین کرتے ہیں کہ جو کچھ اسکا مطلب ہے، وہ ٹھیک ہے اور حق ہے اور یہی بات بہتر ہے*۔ یا اسکے کچھ مناسب معنے لگالیں جس سے وہ سمجھ میں آجاوے۔
_____________________________
*جیسے کہ مثلا*ً قرآن میں آیا ہے کہ خدا کا ہاتھ۔ تو بہتر ہے کہ اس کے معنی خدا ہی کے سپرد کر*ے۔ خود کچھ نہ کہے اور اگر کہے تو اس کے مناسب معنی کہہ لے جیسے قوت لیکن پھر بھی یہ نہ سمجھے کہ یقینا*ً یہی مراد ہے اس لۓ کہ یہ اٹکل ہے پس یہ سمجھے کہ یا تو یہی مراد ہوگی یا اور کچھ۔ اور یہ کام بڑے مولوی کا ہے ہر شخص کو معنی مقرر کرنا جائز نہیں۔


بہشتی زیور از حکیم*ِ امت مجدد ملت مولانا اشرف علی تھانوی رحمہ اللہ تعالٰی - حصہ اوّل - عقیدوں کا بیان

This is from Behishti Zewar part-1 bayan of Aqaid (http://www.alinaam.org.za/bahishti/BELIEFS.htm) a translation of the main text only.

Aqeedah He is free from the qualities of the creation. Wherever such qualities have been mentioned in the Quran or Hadith, we leave the meanings of them to Allah. He is the one who knows the reality of these things. We believe in these things without delving into them and have the conviction that whatever their meanings may be, they are correct. And this is the best way of looking at these things. Alternatively, we could give them some appropriate meaning with which we could get an understanding of them.
And in the hashiyah:
For example the Quran mention God's Hand, the better way (for a muslim in respect to this) is that he consigns its meaning to God and does not say anything concerning its meaning from his own self. And if he speaks on it he assigns a suitable meaning to it for example that of Power. but he should not believe that this is definitely what these words mean because this is merely speculation. What he should believe is that maybe it means Power and maybe it means something else. But this matter of interpolation is only suitable for big scholars, this is not permissable for every person.

[faqir]

:salam:

It would appear to me from the quote of the "hanafi" that Sidi Djibril has posted that he is rather clueless about the Aqidah of the Salafis and the Deobandis and thus cannot recognise the difference between a deviant creed and the Maturidi creed of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah .

Refer him to some Deobandi shuyukh like Mufti Desai:

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=14342

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=11949


and Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam:

http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-18272411

http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-21102374






عقیدہ مخلوق کی صفتوں سے وہ پاک ہے۔ اور قرآن و*حدیث میں بعضی جگہ جو ایسی باتوں کی خبر دی گئی ہے تو ان کے معنی اللہ کے حوالے کریں کہ وہی اس کی حقیقت جانتا ہے۔ اور ہم بے کھود کُرید کۓ اسی طرح ایمان لاتے ہیں اور یقین کرتے ہیں کہ جو کچھ اسکا مطلب ہے، وہ ٹھیک ہے اور حق ہے اور یہی بات بہتر ہے*۔ یا اسکے کچھ مناسب معنے لگالیں جس سے وہ سمجھ میں آجاوے۔
_____________________________
*جیسے کہ مثلا*ً قرآن میں آیا ہے کہ خدا کا ہاتھ۔ تو بہتر ہے کہ اس کے معنی خدا ہی کے سپرد کر*ے۔ خود کچھ نہ کہے اور اگر کہے تو اس کے مناسب معنی کہہ لے جیسے قوت لیکن پھر بھی یہ نہ سمجھے کہ یقینا*ً یہی مراد ہے اس لۓ کہ یہ اٹکل ہے پس یہ سمجھے کہ یا تو یہی مراد ہوگی یا اور کچھ۔ اور یہ کام بڑے مولوی کا ہے ہر شخص کو معنی مقرر کرنا جائز نہیں۔


بہشتی زیور از حکیم*ِ امت مجدد ملت مولانا اشرف علی تھانوی رحمہ اللہ تعالٰی - حصہ اوّل - عقیدوں کا بیان

This is from Behishti Zewar part-1 bayan of Aqaid (http://www.alinaam.org.za/bahishti/BELIEFS.htm) a translation of the main text only.

Aqeedah He is free from the qualities of the creation. Wherever such qualities have been mentioned in the Quran or Hadith, we leave the meanings of them to Allah. He is the one who knows the reality of these things. We believe in these things without delving into them and have the conviction that whatever their meanings may be, they are correct. And this is the best way of looking at these things. Alternatively, we could give them some appropriate meaning with which we could get an understanding of them.
And in the hashiyah:
For example the Quran mention God's Hand, the better way (for a muslim in respect to this) is that he consigns its meaning to God and does not say anything concerning its meaning from his own self. And if he speaks on it he assigns a suitable meaning to it for example that of Power. but he should not believe that this is definitely what these words mean because this is merely speculation. What he should believe is that maybe it means Power and maybe it means something else. But this matter of interpolation is only suitable for big scholars, this is not permissable for every person.



:jazak: Akhi Muawiyah for some excellent quotes from Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanawi RH. InshaAllah that will clarify any misconceptions the "hanafi" has wrt the great scholar's Creed!

Wasalam.

[Djibril]

assalam alaikoum,

U know sidi the "clueless" thing is the best interpretation we can give him, but you're talking about someone who completed his 8 year cursus in deoband.
So I have some trouble to believe he's ignorant...


:salam:

It would appear to me from the quote of the "hanafi" that Sidi Djibril has posted that he is rather clueless about the Aqidah of the Salafis and the Deobandis and thus cannot recognise the difference between a deviant creed and the Maturidi creed of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah .

Refer him to some Deobandi shuyukh like Mufti Desai:

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=14342

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=11949


and Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam:

http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-18272411

http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-21102374






:jazak: Akhi Muawiyah for some excellent quotes from Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanawi RH. InshaAllah that will clarify any misconceptions the "hanafi" has wrt the great scholar's Creed!

Wasalam.

[Djibril]

assalam alaikoum,





عقیدہ مخلوق کی صفتوں سے وہ پاک ہے۔ اور قرآن و*حدیث میں بعضی جگہ جو ایسی باتوں کی خبر دی گئی ہے تو ان کے معنی اللہ کے حوالے کریں کہ وہی اس کی حقیقت جانتا ہے۔ اور ہم بے کھود کُرید کۓ اسی طرح ایمان لاتے ہیں اور یقین کرتے ہیں کہ جو کچھ اسکا مطلب ہے، وہ ٹھیک ہے اور حق ہے اور یہی بات بہتر ہے*۔ یا اسکے کچھ مناسب معنے لگالیں جس سے وہ سمجھ میں آجاوے۔
_____________________________
*جیسے کہ مثلا*ً قرآن میں آیا ہے کہ خدا کا ہاتھ۔ تو بہتر ہے کہ اس کے معنی خدا ہی کے سپرد کر*ے۔ خود کچھ نہ کہے اور اگر کہے تو اس کے مناسب معنی کہہ لے جیسے قوت لیکن پھر بھی یہ نہ سمجھے کہ یقینا*ً یہی مراد ہے اس لۓ کہ یہ اٹکل ہے پس یہ سمجھے کہ یا تو یہی مراد ہوگی یا اور کچھ۔ اور یہ کام بڑے مولوی کا ہے ہر شخص کو معنی مقرر کرنا جائز نہیں۔


بہشتی زیور از حکیم*ِ امت مجدد ملت مولانا اشرف علی تھانوی رحمہ اللہ تعالٰی - حصہ اوّل - عقیدوں کا بیان

This is from Behishti Zewar part-1 bayan of Aqaid (http://www.alinaam.org.za/bahishti/BELIEFS.htm) a translation of the main text only.

Aqeedah He is free from the qualities of the creation. Wherever such qualities have been mentioned in the Quran or Hadith, we leave the meanings of them to Allah. He is the one who knows the reality of these things. We believe in these things without delving into them and have the conviction that whatever their meanings may be, they are correct. And this is the best way of looking at these things. Alternatively, we could give them some appropriate meaning with which we could get an understanding of them.
And in the hashiyah:
For example the Quran mention God's Hand, the better way (for a muslim in respect to this) is that he consigns its meaning to God and does not say anything concerning its meaning from his own self. And if he speaks on it he assigns a suitable meaning to it for example that of Power. but he should not believe that this is definitely what these words mean because this is merely speculation. What he should believe is that maybe it means Power and maybe it means something else. But this matter of interpolation is only suitable for big scholars, this is not permissable for every person.

barakallahou fik for all these precious informations =)

Could u also provide the references (page number in the paperbook edition or link to an online version of the book)?

jazakallahou khair

[tazkiyyah]

Subhanallah...This is tafweedh and ta'wil
which the salafis hate..

But this is the aqeeda of ahlus sunnah . ;)

[Ansari]

In the name of Allah, with blessings on the Messenger of Allah,

Salam 'Alaykum,

What would be the best short reply to a Salafi who told you:

"Some people follow the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of Abu Hanifa, and some people follow the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of Shafi'i, and some people follow the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of Malik, but you should ONLY follow the Quran and Sunnah according to the understanding of the Messenger of Allah (s)" ?

The standard Salafi confusion here is all too apparent. But what's the best way of expressing it in a sentence or two?

I look forward to hearing everyone else share their answers, and then I will share mine as well.

Wa al-Salam.....
I guess this sort of a claim is easily tackled when it comes to ulama but...

What would be the reply if they say that we take what is best and most authentic? If they say we look at the ulema of the salaf who gave their stances and we take the stance which is the closest to the sunnah....not restricting ourselves to some ulama of a madhab.

Would there be a difference when it becomes to this issue since we also mix between the schools?

[Ansari]

Moreover, evaluating evidence and determining which is superior is ijtihad.
How can one know that the truth is outside their madhhab without
evaluating the evidence...that is: without ijtihad? A non-mujtahid knowing something that is known by being a mujtahid: that seems to be what you are advocating here. Assume the non-mujtahid was told by someone who is a mujtahid.....it's still taqlid.

:salam:

Wasnt taqleed to trust the judgement of a scholar without demanding evidence?

So if one knows the evidence of his madhab, is it still taqlid?

[hassan roberto hrvat]

salam aleikum dear brother's and sister's. please ,this is not a polemic.it is a question about the path to choice inside Ahl-sunna. I'm searching many year's to travel in a middle path between different group's and sect's.excuse my poor english.i alway's try to fight against sectarian hate , defending even the people i don't agree with them and i don't join them ,if they are insulted in unfair way.i'm studying the literature of so called "traditional sunni Islam" for many year's. the result : that i visit many gruop's andturuq's ,but i don't join any of them.i see cleary that many turuq's of sufi's are guided by charlatan's who are worshipped by their follower's.worshipping in the sense of the hadith of the Prophet(s.a.s) who explain to the sahaba in wiche way jew's and christian's worship their priest's. I was heavly offended and insulted by follower's of sufi shaykh's ,some of them are big personality's inside such tariqa's and they even lie and invent fable's against me ,to destro my reputation.only because i critic some aspect's of they teaching's.so they react as a totalitarian state : if you touch their power they supress you an spread lie's in the eye's of the population again'st you.i'm sure 100% inside myself of the low intelectual ,spiritual and moral level of many tariqa follower's and leader's.not all ,but many.and everybody try to shut you down saying :be carefull dont dare to speak about awliya this o that.when i say that only Allah know who are his awliya ,they say that i'm insulting o that i'm this o that.they lack totally of adab ,they insult me heavly only to protect the power of they party.i'm only searching the truth.ifighting for year's against salafis for defending turuq's and sufism ,madhab's and so on.on the other side insulted and wounded without any mercy by sufi's.on the forum's and on the internet ,they areen a sort of "mafia" of mureed's of some shasykh's who insult you o degrade your personality o your iman if you touch ,even with logic doubt's ,their idol's.i don't say any name ,the intelligent sure understand...What is the difference between this and the secret agent's and police men of dictatorship state ,who jump on you if you dare critic their idol on power. I will start to study Ibn Tayimiah.He fought all live against such organised "spiritual mafia" ,powerful corporation's of sufi leader's who at the end let him die as shahid in jail.May Allah have mercy upon Imam ibn Taymia. I read some of his letter's and i see that he's experience'sre not different ,in some cases ,with my little and poor one.no polemic's.some time's i became attacked heavly by wahabis as "dervish" and the day after the sufi swear at me and call me with very bad name's.i know wahabis can be harsh and rude.but they alway's hope i "repent" and became one of them.they never broke relation with me ,for year's . even i attack them openly and in terrible way many times. but the sufi's ,i don't attack them or they shuhukh ,but when they understand that you are"dissident" about some question's and when they understand that you will not join their sect ,they forget about you forever and behave in very unfair way with you.sufism speak about adab , many time's are only hypocrite sweet word's.some people brooke even in a moment realation with me ,even we have never any problem ,only because tariqa leader or his khalifa understand i never will join tariqa.Is this Islam ? where are the right's and duty's of brotherhood? excuse me ,i'm asking you help.i will say only one thing: i have very terrible experience with follower's of shaykh Nazim and with barelvi people.terrible.please help your brother hassan.

[Abu 'Abdillah al-Maliki]

Dear brother,

Wa'alaykum as-salam...

I used to be a "salafi" myself, and the reason that I left that particular way of thinking was that there are a number of things that they (or at least most of them) believe that go against what the ulama of Ahl as-Sunnah have said.

Yet at the same time, I am fully aware that there are those among the sufis and those who call themselves "traditional Muslims" who are exactly as you have said in your post.

However, do not look at things in terms of the extremes that people might go to. Yes, there are "sufis" who are extreme and all the things that you said. Yes, there are very harsh, ignorant and intolerant "salafis".

But don't let the people's behaviour influence your beliefs. Otherwise, after you become a "salafi", you will probably encounter a lot of opposition among some of them regarding things that you might say that they also disagree with. Such as if you start defending tasawwuf or the ash'aris, for example.

Basically, remember firstly that people are not perfect, and that the truth is not judged by the people, rather the people are to be judged according to the truth.

And also, remember that not everything is in black and white. It is mostly the ignorant people among the "sufis" and "barelwis" who have put you off, however the knowledgeable ones among them are of course totally different! It is exactly the same case with the "salafis".

And within the two groups (I mean salafi/wahhabi and sufi/ash'ari/maturidi) there are many different kinds of people, some more tolerant than others.

Unfortunately, a lot of "salafis" consider all sufis, barelwis, deobandis etc. grave-worshippers and mushrikin! However the more knoweldgeable ones among them tend to be more understanding and more tolerant.

In the same way a lot of the "sufis", barelwis, deobandis etc. consider all "salafis"/"wahhabis" as khawarij, zanadiqah, etc. etc. But the ulama among them don't make such sweeping generalisations.

In conclusion, I advise you to follow the "sawad al-a'dham" of the ulama of Ahl as-Sunnah, stick to what they agreed upon, and in your particular situation try to avoid or reduce the amount of interaction you have with the ignorant people (whether they claim to be "salafis" or "sufis"). Remember that some of the salaf as-salih used to keep away from disputes and a lot of mixing with the people, and they used to say "I never encountered any good from mixing with the people (i.e. the ignorant people)."

Read some of the things that prominent shuyukh (especially those in the west) have said about these kind of issues and observe the level of their tolerance, put your heart at rest with that, turn to Allah and rely on Him, and leave the ignorant to themselves!

May Allah protect you, wassalam...

[Omar HH]

Shaykh `Abdal Hakim Murad said that just by looking at al-Sawad al-`Azam (the vast group) one is able to realize the Wahhabis, Twelver Shi`a, Kharijis, etc. are deviant without even looking into their beliefs.

Yeah some Sufis do goto extremes in some things - that is true!

As for Ibn Taymiyah - read Imam al-Dhahabi's letter against him availible at http://www.masud.co.uk

:jazak:

[Abu 'Abdillah al-Maliki]

Also, regarding Ibn Taymiyyah and other scholars regarding whom there is controversy, you'll find that the safest position regarding them is to take whatever they said that is in accordance with what the rest of the scholars said, and leave those particular things that they were alone in saying.

I have noticed this approach in Shaykh Hamzah Yusuf's speeches, and others.

In other words, don't blindly take everything that Ibn Taymiyyah said (like many of the ignorant among the "salafis" do), but don't completely and utterly reject him and condemn him either (like many of the ignorant among the "sufis" and ash'aris do).

[Omar HH]

In other words, don't blindly take everything that Ibn Taymiyyah said (like many of the ignorant among the "salafis" do), but don't completely and utterly reject him and condemn him either (like many of the ignorant among the "sufis" and ash'aris do).

Wow. We agree then.

;)

:jazak:

[abdullatif]

Bismillah

as sallamu alaikum

Inshaa Allah this reaches you in the best of iman and health. When on talks of islam one should know and realize that one can't blame Islam or a particular Shaykh for the actions of a few muslims. And at the same time we should have good opinion of everyone who has said La ilaha Illa Allah. I beleive and Alah ta'ala know best that a lot of your concerns and questions can be answered by just reading the following articles after all Allah ta'ala says " .. and ask those who know if you don't know" anyway here they are: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/fgtnrevo.htm
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/newmadhh.htm
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/adab_of_islam.htm
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/adab_of_sunna.htm

[Muslimsister]

:salam:

Why to go from one extreme to another, instead of looking to the inside of one's self and acting upon what one feels best, while staying united with others in the heart? Yes, we need to do taqleed in the madhab, but this does not mean we have to join a tareeqa for example at the same time. People are different, what suits one, doesn't necessarily suit another.

What I perosnally dislike in 'salafism', is that it makes people afraid. It rules one with fear instead of creating the love for the deen...'beware of those kinds of muslims', 'beware of doing that'...'this is shirk'...'that is bid'a'. And all that creates a lot of fitna in the ummah. Many even leave the whole deen due to all that.... and these are their basic teachings, in their books etc. A salafi book about virtues of some prayer or other act of worship, almost always has to contain a phrase or more, where some way of doing the particular act is criticized... And usually it is something where there is ikhtilaf, even among other salafis...

There are plenty of different ways within the traditional ahlus sunnah itself, :mash:...why look further?


in your particular situation try to avoid or reduce the amount of interaction you have with the ignorant people (whether they claim to be "salafis" or "sufis"). Remember that some of the salaf as-salih used to keep away from disputes and a lot of mixing with the people, and they used to say "I never encountered any good from mixing with the people (i.e. the ignorant people)."

:thumbsup:

[Omar HH]

Become Deobandi. We have alot of brothers that could help.

Wassalam.

[VeiledOne]

The Deobandi Ulema have chosen a middle path. :mash:
You may want to consider looking into their teachings. Their approach emphasizes on following the sunnah of our beloved Prophet :saw:.
:insh: you can't go wrong with that. Below are a few sites.
http://alinaam.org.za/
http://www.alhaadi.org.za/index.html
http://www.tasawwuf.org/
http://www.sacredlearning.org/
http://www.jamiat.org.za/
http://jucanada.org/
http://alkawtharacademy.org/

[Omar HH]

Yeah I think you would like the Deobandis seriously.

Wassalam.

[celt islam]

asalaamualaykum, the school of ahl medina that of imam malik is a wonderfull school , here is a link to some great speeches from the school of ahl-medina that of the murabitun who are a great an active community of muslims that are activly calling people to islam and establishing communitys wolrdwide, there community in spain is the largest of convert communitys in europe, hope you all enjoy, ma salaam, abdullah .

http://www.islamicyouthconference.com/main/streaming.html

http://shaykhabdalqadir.com/

http://www.granadamosque.com/

[Jamaluddine]

...In other words, don't blindly take everything that Ibn Taymiyyah said (like many of the ignorant among the "salafis" do), but don't completely and utterly reject him and condemn him either (like many of the ignorant among the "sufis" and ash'aris do).
Brother Hassan,
Assalamu alaika wr wb,

I agree with brother Abu Abdillah's advice above, and that certainly can be extended to following any Sheikh, alim, Imam, scholar ...etc.

However, I disagree with [B]some of what has been said by some of the brothers and sisters so far. For example:

1) Instead of following the "sawad al-a'dham", I would say: follow the TRUTH, wherever it may be (and we know that the truth is not always with the majority!)

2) Everyone is claiming to be "sawad al-a'dham" at the moment, but Allah SWT alone knows what's in the hearts. It all depends which forum you're looking at.

3) Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah RhA is not a cotroversial figure... (that is unless you are reading about him in this website, or any of the websites that the brothers and sisters have been recommending in this thread)

4) People on this forum distinguish between 'Salafis' and 'Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaah'. This is a serious mistake, because Salafis are the original and still 'Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaah'. However from what I have seen, Salafis are not distressed by this, because all it means is that being part of 'Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaah' is so correct that everyone wants to claim it now!

Brother Hassan,

You do not have to become anything: Salafi, Sufi, Ash'ari ...etc...etc. However, the obligation upon you, me and all the brothers and sisters is to be a good Muslim taking the Prophet SAW as your example in everything that you do or say.

Worship Allah SWT like the Prophet SAW did. Do not add or take away anything if you can. You also have the example of the closest companions (Abu bakr, Omar, Uthman and Ali) RA.

Do not hate your other brothers and sisters in Islam, no matter how different from you they may be (and do not discuss their faults with non-muslims in the non-muslim section). Take what is true and correct and leave the rest (Oh, and.. don't worry: you will know if it's correct, because the Prophet SAW will have somehow covered it before you!)

Wassalam
Jamaluddine

[Muslimsister]

4) People on this forum distinguish between 'Salafis' and 'Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaah'. This is a serious mistake, because Salafis are the original and still 'Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaah'. However from what I have seen, Salafis are not distressed by this, because all it means is that being part of 'Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaah' is so correct that everyone wants to claim it now!

If you would kindly read through the tons of information on this forum for example about the sayings and writings of the pious salaf and later scholars from the Ahls Sunnah wal Jama'at, I hope you would come to the same conclusion as many 'salafis' that have done this: The current form of the so-called 'salafi' way is merely an ideology built around a few scholars statements and rejecting the majoity of scholars and valid ikhtilaf in many matters. And even of the scholars they claim to follow, they do not take all from them, but rather think the themselves only are upon the haqq.... I do not know about you, but to me this seems like something built around the whims of certain types of people, who may well wish to be on the truth, but have a very ugly way of implementing it.

What is the TRUTH? If that was so clear, then how come some of the biggest scholars of ahlus Sunnah wal jama'at in the past didn't find it (as 'salafis' say)?

I find it very sad, that many new muslims (or those new to practising) learn their deen straight from salafis, and since they have absolutely no background information or anything yet, they get totally convinced by the information they get, that they do not understand to look at what exactly the other side (the majority throughout history) is trying to say and thus they also end up thinking that the ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'at term has been invented by the salafis only.

Saying all the above, I do acknowledge the good sides of the salafi movement. They TRY to stick to the bare sunnah (although in my opinion the deobandis are doing a much better job even in that) and avoid bid'a...but all this is taken into the very extreme so much so, that other who are not doing everything the same way, are classed as misguided... Though as was stated by someone earlier in this thread, not all salafis are this way, there are educated and understanding versions of them, too :mash:...but they usually just concentrate on their own practising and don't come to 'teach' us our deen, but rather acknowledge that they do not know 'the absolute truth'. A big thumbsup for them.

May Allah guide us all.

[tilmeedh]

4) People on this forum distinguish between 'Salafis' and 'Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaah'. This is a serious mistake, because Salafis are the original and still 'Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaah'.

:salam: brother,
Can you tell me what you mean by 'jama'ah' then.
The jama'ah means the main body, or the majority, so how can you say that the salafis, a late development and not the majority of the Muslims, is the jama'ah?

Please consider the following:

The Messenger (s) said: "Allah's Hand is with the main body (majority)."
Sahih.
Tirmidhi (Sunan, #2166), Ibn Hibban (Sahih, #4577), Nasai (Sunan, #4020) and Hakim (Mustadrak #391).

There are other variants of this hadith, with slightly different wordings. Some are strong, some weak, and the majority of them are well-known (mashur) and accepted.
Al-Sindi, on his commentry on this hadith in Sunan Al-Nasai states that the hadith is telling us:
1) not to isolate ourselves from the majority.
2) nor strive to split up the ummah.
3) anyone who does #1 and #2, and the Muslim ruler has allowed it, then that person should be killed.
3) Allah's protection and help is with the Muslims when they agree upon a matter.
4) Anyone who tries to cause a split want to remove Allah's help.

Similarly, Al-Suyuti in his commentry on the same hadith of Sunan Al-Nasai states that Allah's 'Hand' is his protection (i.e. of the Jama'ah of Islam).

--------------------------

The Messenger (s) said: "Allah does not allow the Ummah of Muhammad to agree on an error."
Sahih.
Tirmidhi (Sunan, #2167), Hakim (Mustadrak #397)

In Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi, the commentry on Sunan Tirmidhi, it is explained that:
1) the Ummah is protected from an agreement on error. The only exception is when the entire ummah becomes Kafir, as a hadith states that the Day of Judgement will come only on the Kuffar.
2) Allah's 'Hand' is His protection.
3) Anyone who escapes the main body (majority) in Aqidah or words or actions, then he has escaped into Hellfire.

--------------------------

The Messenger (s) said: "Anyone who seperates himself from the jama'ah even the distance of a hand, then he has thrown off the yoke of Islam from his neck, unless he returns."
Sahih.
Tirmidhi (Sunan, #2863), Abu Dawood (Sunan, #4758), Nasai (Sunan, #4872), Hakim (Mustadrak, #1534), Ahmad (Musnad, #16718, #21050), Abi Ya'la (Musnad, #7203), Bayhaqi (Sunan, #17081), Abdul-Razzaq (Musannaf, #20709) .

In his commentry on the hadith in Sunan Al-Nasai, Suyuti comments that seperating oneself from the jama'ah means violating the limits, laws and orders, and the forbidden things.
The same is stated in the commentry on the hadith of Sunan Tirmidhi, in Tuhfatul-Ahwadhi.

ws

[Omar HH]

Ibn Taymiyah called the Maliki school Umm al-Madhahib and the closest way of following the Sunnah.

Why do you not become Maliki then Jalaledine.

He said:

"Whoever ponders on the fundamentals of the faith and the foundations of Shari’ah, will find the foundations of Malik’s school to be the soundest.”

And Imam Malik (radi Allahu `Anhu) was prophecized by the Prophet :saw: in the hadith as the `Alim from Madina and almost all agreed that this was Imam Malik.

Why do you follow your own fiqh that you made up instead of the Maliki school? Rejecting Ibn Taymiyah?

(Btw... this is just to the "Salafi" Jalaledine and not to Hanafis, Shafi`is, and Hanbalis whom I have full respect for!)

And if your going to follow the Salaf which one of them are you going to follow? `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, the Seven Fuqaha of Madina, Ibn `Umar, who?

As `Umar ibn `Abdal `Aziz said "differences of opinion in the Ummah of Muhammad are a mercy for the people."

I'd rather follow traditional Islam instead of the bid`ah sect of the Salafis.

As the Prophet :saw: said "every bid`ah is misguidance." I'm sorry Salafi bid`ah we don't really care what you have to say.

And nobody's listening.

And you all split up every day into new groups anyways.

Wassalam,

Omar.

[Muslimsister]

We may not be listening to what brother Jamaluddine has to say, but :insh: we will still make du'a for him, that Allah opens his eyes to see the larger reality.

Let's however try to keep this thread on topic, which was advice to br. Hassan and let's not make it into a salafi debating thread, we already have too many..

If some brother would like to collect some previous threads or post for br. Jamaluddine to have a read on, it would be very much appreciated and much more beneficial than starting a new debate here.

:jazak:

[Omar HH]

We may not be listening to what brother Jamaluddine has to say, but :insh: we will still make du'a for him, that Allah opens his eyes to see the larger reality.

Let's however try to keep this thread on topic, which was advice to br. Hassan and let's not make it into a salafi debating thread, we already have too many..

If some brother would like to collect some previous threads or post for br. Jamaluddine to have a read on, it would be very much appreciated and much more beneficial than starting a new debate here.

:jazak:

True.

Exactly.

Brother Jamaluddine is in our du`as :insh: for Allah to guide us all to the truth whether it is Salafi or Sunni. Even though I personally believe it's Sunni.

Yes I agree sorry let's keep it on topic.

But the harsh tone with Salafis only comes as defense from their harsh tones - cannot "turn the other cheek" anymore.

Wassalam,

Omar.

[Kareem]

But the harsh tone with Salafis only comes as defense from their harsh tones - cannot "turn the other cheek" anymore.

Wassalam,

Omar.
jamaluddine did not have a harsh tone, his manners are great imo

[Omar HH]

I know not him. Just the Salafis in general.

For the longest time the Salafis were so harsh and the Sunnis were just being easy and nice and gentle in explaining Islam. Then when the Salafis wouldn't stop some of the Sunnis like Gibril Haddad and more started going extremely harsh.

If they are going to be harsh I am going to be the same. If they stop then we will stop faster - we don't want anything but mercy. It's like goto any Salafi website and then goto the Sunni ones. The Salafi ones are so harsh so now SOME Sunni ones have to get harsh.

Salam.

[hassan roberto hrvat]

Salam aleikum.Thank you very much.To all sister's and brother's who are so kind to spent some time for me. I think that the best thing is realy to avoid discussion's with ignorant and sectarian fanatic's , of every label they may be.But it is even important to resist with energy to every kind of totalitarian "one-minded" muslim's be they sufi's ,salafi's o shia's. Nobody can became an absolute leader of Islam and muslim's , everybody is only a little part of Ummah , we don't have need of any spiritual o political "stalinism" o "maoism" inside Islam. Why must we agree ,what is wrong in difference's of understanding ,of different taste's ,different perception's ? I can love a sister and a brother in Islam and respect his right's even we are different. The important thing is learning to accept and love difference's. It is to easy to sit and be kind only with people of your way of thinking.Fanatism is the problem ,not the label's of this o that sect. I can love a shia if he is a kind ,moderate and lovely tollerant person and i can hate a sunni if he is a bigoted fanatic ,even he is from my tariqa o my madhab.Justice and ethic's must be above denomination's.

[tazkiyyah]

If you reflect on the madness in the Ummah nowadays, you realise that
much of it it salafi-inspired.
All these people like abu hamza/omar bakri/bin ladin

Why is it that all terrorists follow the salafi minhaj?
There is something inherently imbalanced about their way, due to their
rejection of the preserved sound and healthy understandings of the Book
and the Sunnah by the Ulema and Awliya.

[mussnoon]

بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله


If you reflect on the madness in the Ummah nowadays, you realise that
much of it it salafi-inspired.
All these people like abu hamza/omar bakri/bin ladin

Why is it that all terrorists follow the salafi minhaj?
There is something inherently imbalanced about their way, due to their
rejection of the preserved sound and healthy understandings of the Book
and the Sunnah by the Ulema and Awliya.

There is something wrong with the ways of the current "so-called" ahl us-Sunnah people as well: hence they're so passive. They live in the superficial safety of their houses doing "jihaad-un-nafs" while Muslim lands are being taken over by the kuffaar.

Is it not madness that you should just sit and watch as your brothers are being killed, and your sisters being harassed? As their houses are being torn down? As their children are growing up not even knowing what "normal life" feels like? Is it not madness that while Rasoolullaah Sallallaahu Ta'aala 'alaihi wa Sallam has said that this ummah is like a body -- when one part of it is sick, the whole body feels the pain and suffers loss of sleep -- we should sit in the luxury of our homes and not do anything about Muslims being tortured? Is it not madness that we don't worry about the black fire of Hell, and the Wrath of Allaah 'Azza wa Jall on the Last Day, but fear the kuffaar? Is it not madness that we don't worry how we'll stand in front of our brothers and sisters on the Day of Judgment having done nothing for them, but we worry about how we'll show our faces to our kaafir neighbors and co-workers and "friends" if we don't "keep a few things about Islaam down for now"?

Just like you can't do without tasawwuf and cleansing the inner self, just like you can't do without madh-hubs...you can't do without jihaad/qitaal either. It should, and will, go on until the time of Syedina 'Eesa 'alaihiss-Salaam.

But no, I do not advocate, nor support, the killing of non-combatants.

Sorry if this post is off-topic.

May Allaah 'Azza wa Jall Guide us all, and only give us death upon Guidance.


والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله

والحمد لله

[abdullatif]

Bismillah

as sallamu alaikum

Just a small point for us all to reflect on inshaa Allah. That the ummah isn't runied and never will be Allah will preserve the ummah. For many of the problems will face is beacuse so many of us a are so worry with what everyone else is doing and not ourselves. There is a hadith collected by Bazzar and reported by Anas(radyiAllahanhu) that the prophet (sallAllahu alahi wa sallam) said "blessed he is he who is so consumed with his own faults is unawarw of evryone elses faults", There is an another hadith for us to reflect on and put into practice as well its in Sahih Muslim the prophet (sallAllahu alalahi wa sallam) said"When a man says,'The people have gone to ruin,'he is the most ruined of all". Let us all know and realize that many are in need of guidance but we should be very careful what we say about any muslim

[mussnoon]

Bismillaahi wass-Salaatu wass-Salaamu'alaa Rasoolillaah.


Bismillah

as sallamu alaikum

Just a small point for us all to reflect on inshaa Allah. That the ummah isn't runied and never will be Allah will preserve the ummah. For many of the problems will face is beacuse so many of us a are so worry with what everyone else is doing and not ourselves. There is a hadith collected by Bazzar and reported by Anas(radyiAllahanhu) that the prophet (sallAllahu alahi wa sallam) said "blessed he is he who is so consumed with his own faults is unawarw of evryone elses faults", There is an another hadith for us to reflect on and put into practice as well its in Sahih Muslim the prophet (sallAllahu alalahi wa sallam) said"When a man says,'The people have gone to ruin,'he is the most ruined of all". Let us all know and realize that many are in need of guidance but we should be very careful what we say about any muslim

Wa'alaikumus-Salaam wa Rahmatullaah. Subhaan Allaah, may Allaah reward you for the reminder brother.

[Jamaluddine]

Brothers and sisters,
Assalamu alaikum,

Jazakumullahu khairan for all your contributions. I have not been able to contribute for a few days, because I lead a very hectic life. To proceed...
Ibn Taymiyah called the Maliki school Umm al-Madhahib and the closest way of following the Sunnah.

Why do you not become Maliki then Jalaledine.
Brother Omar,
You're a bit out of line. You're my Muslim brother, and I do not want to upset you in any way, so I am going to put things very politely:

You are not more Maliki than I am, especially in matters of Aqeedah. My Aqeedah and Imam Malik's RhA are exactly the same (which is what this topic is about). Is yours?

...Why do you follow your own fiqh that you made up instead of the Maliki school? Rejecting Ibn Taymiyah?
I do not follow or make up my own Fiqh. I take my fiqh from the 4 Imams RhA. It takes an extreme Ash'ari like yourself to argue about matters of fiqh.

(Btw... this is just to the "Salafi" Jalaledine and not to Hanafis, Shafi`is, and Hanbalis whom I have full respect for!)
I have said it before, I do not represent any group. Although I truly believe that The Salafi Aqeedah is by far the more correct (from what is available).

I'd rather follow traditional Islam instead of the bid`ah sect of the Salafis.
This statement is typical of the confusion that you are spreading. History is simple and does not need complicating. This is how it went:
1) At first there was The Prophet SAW and the Salaf.
2) Then the bid'ah (innovation) came in the form of Advanced Tawassul, Istighathah, Ahlul Kalam (who like to argue about anything)... etc...etc
Which would you rather follow? (1) or (2) above?
3) History went on.. People who wanted to be faithful to the Prophet SAW and the Salaf objected to this Bid'aah
4) The Ahlul Bid'ah adopted the strtegy of: 'The best defence is attack', so they started accusing good Muslims of Tajseem, Khawarij, violence ...etc, and even started (childishly) to reject them from Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamaah (it is exactly like invading someone's home and then evicting them out of it!!)
5) and this is the sad state of affairs in which we are today.


...I'm sorry Salafi bid`ah we don't really care what you have to say.

And nobody's listening...
You are starting to sound like the people of Prophet Nooh AS:

[71:7] "And every time I have called to them, that Thou mightest forgive them, they have (only) thrust their fingers into their ears, covered themselves up with their garments, grown obstinate, and given themselves up to arrogance.

Brother Omar,
I don't think that there was anything wrong with my previous post. If you have issues with Salafis or other groups then you have to take it up with them.

Your brother
Jamaluddine

[Omar HH]

Do not use the ayat that apply to the mushrikeen on the Muslims.

`Umar ibn `Abdul `Aziz said "Do not even give the deviant your ear."

Anyways I was a bit out line.

It's ok,

You have your way and I have my way,

Wassalam.

[JayshAllah]

I'd like to give some Naseeha (sincere advice) to Brother Omar HH. I've only been on this site for a short while, and I noticed that I liked most of your posts, brother. You have a good amount of knowledge and we all benefit from your presence.

However, your stance against "Salafis" is disheartening, to say the least. You keep justifying this harsh stance by saying that "the Salafis are harsh with us, so we must be harsh back to them." I'd like to remind you of the verse in the Glorious Quran in which Allah Almighty says: "Believers, never let the hatred of a people toward you move you to commit injustice." (Quran, 5:8)

Prophet Musa (as) was soft with Pharaon, even though Musa (as) was the best of people and Pharaon was the worst of people. And surely, you are not as good as Musa (as) and the Salafis cannot possibly be as bad as Pharaon, despite what some people on this forum seem to say [i.e. blame the Salafis for everything!]

Furthermore, you should clarify when you say "the Salafis are harsh against us, so we must be harsh back to them." The reality is that only SOME Salafis are harsh against you, but you yourself are being harsh to ALL Salafis. I consider myself to be Salafi, and yet I find myself to be very tolerant, certainly more tolerant that many people on this forum (including moderators who liken Salafis to donkeys).

Maybe 90% of Salafis are mean to you. But that still does not justify you to make sweeping statements about 100% of Salafis. White supremacists say that most criminals are black, so then based on this, they say that they can hate all blacks. Is this just or fair?

Allah Almighty says: "Believers, never let the hatred of a people toward you move you to commit injustice." (Quran, 5:8)


In regards to the first post in this thread, I'd like to explain why I became a "Salafi." I became a Salafi because I fell in love with the fact that they rejected Tawassul through "saints" and were against the exaltation of the Prophet Muhammad (s) above that of a human being (i.e. saying he was made of light, etc), and they were against any practise that was even associated with Shirk. For example, I love how they only say "Ya Allah" and never say "Ya Nabi." To me, this is absolute Tawheedullah, and I think it is the very essence of Islam that separates us from the polythiests. I love how Salafis love Tawheedullah and protect it, and how they hate Bidah, Bidahs which usually involve compromising the Tawheed of Allah. I am against most forms of Tawassul and of Tassawuf, and this is why Salafiyya appealed to me.

However, I DO admit that many Salafis are very intolerant, and there are some of them who call everyone else Ahlul Biddah and Mushrik, or what not. I even got called Ahlul Biddah by a Salafi since I said that I like the Ashari position better in regards to Allah's Attributes....

On the flip side of the coin, whereas once it MAY have been that there were many Salafis who bashed on Muqallidoon, now there are just as many or MORE Muqallidoon who bash Salafis. In fact, this entire forum was designed to bash Salafis. They exclude Salafis from Ahlus Sunnah Wah Jamaat, and even block salafi URLs....funny how you can probably post a link to a pornographic site and it won't get blocked by Sunni-Forum but post a Salafi site and it will be !!!

This site is fervently anti-Salafi and it's not justifiable. I'm Salafi and I'm very tolerant; I know many other Salafis who are also tolerant. So why not be inviting towards those people instead of bashing them all??

In any case, I think we need to AGREE to DISAGREE and still love each other. Most of our scholars bash their counterpart scholars. Shaikh Nuh Keller bashes Salafis, and then you go visit SPUBS and they bash everyone back. All our scholars are bashing each other....is this the way???

This does not mean that we now bash the scholars who bash even. I believe in overcoming the hatred amongst the Ummah by OVER-ENCOMPASSING love towards our brothers.

If there are going to be Muqallidoon on this site who hate me for being Salafi, then I will say to them that I love them for being my Muslim brothers, and maybe they will feel embarassed in their hearts then for their unjustified hatred. Right now, us non-scholars need to unite our hearts with over-encompassing love towards each other. Yes, you'll never agree about my views of Tawassul, and I won't agree with your views on certain other things, but let's just agree to disagree....and continually loving each other for the sake of Allah.

[Kareem]

i love you tank

[Omar HH]

Tank is correct 90% of my argument comes from my Nafs and anger towards the Salafis and not to discussing and arguing in a "way that is better." I agree and apologize.

Wassalam.

[abuhajira]

:salam:

Br. TankofAllah, "Agreeing to disagree" is the only aspect which made Salafiyah what they are thought to be. Allama Shami mentiones about Abdullah bin Abdul Wahab rah. that he made a mistake in Ta'weel and thus cannot be declared Kafir. The tolerance shown to him, is the same tolerance Ulema of Deoband have shown over and over again with Salafiyya..

It was not untill recent that Mufti Ebrahim wrote his fatwa against Salafiya, and that too on the matter of Istawaa and Salafi view of Allah having a body. As I recall mufti Sahab himself telling me, "I made lot of Husn Dhann , kept waiting for their agreement to disagreement... but their adamancy on the saying that what we have concluded is according to Quran and Sunnah and what you have deduced is contrary. It was untill the limit of unacceptability that I had to say that the view of Mujasimi is batil etc...." [not the exact wording]

So I think the tolerance I have seen in Mufti Ebrahim Desai Sahib, is much more than my humble Salafi friends. (I am not generalizing, just saying my mushahada).. and in the end I do respect and love you for sake of Allah..

:ws:

[Abu Hurayrah]

Assalamu Alaikum

InshAllah Everyone is doing well.

I will like to remind everyone that it is Fard Ayn on EVERY muslim in the ENTIRE world, with their FULL capacity to free ALL the Muslims Prisoners in the world. Every single muslim in the world who is not working for this at the moment is literally DOOMED(like me) on Yawmul Qiyama for Major Sinning/Habitual Minor sinning which turns into major sin. This is my reminder to everyone.

[MOD: Edit]

Im joking, that was me.

Ma salam

[La ilaha ill Allah]

I saw someone mentioning the Maturidi way of thinking... so my question is;

I know that Al-Maturidi was an Imam from Samarqand and Shafi'i. But can someone give me more info on his works and thoughts?

Wasalam

[jinnzaman]

Shaykh `Abdal Hakim Murad said that just by looking at al-Sawad al-`Azam (the vast group) one is able to realize the Wahhabis, Twelver Shi`a, Kharijis, etc. are deviant without even looking into their beliefs.

Yeah some Sufis do goto extremes in some things - that is true!

As for Ibn Taymiyah - read Imam al-Dhahabi's letter against him availible at http://www.masud.co.uk

:jazak:

subhanAllah, this is such a deep, yet obvious point.

Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad is a man of penetrating insights.

May Allah (swt) preserve him in this life and the akhirah. Ameen.

[faqir]

SOME QUOTES ON TAFWEED
[consigning the knowledge of what is meant by an expression to the one who said it]
FROM THE ULEMA OF AHLUS SUNNAH WAL JAMA'AH





قال الحافظ في هدي الساري 143:
فيهما بالكسر مقصورا وأما المقصور فبمعنى غير قوله ساوى الظل التلول معناه ماثل امتداده ارتفاعها وهو قدر القامة وشرحه الداودي بما وهم فيه قوله استوى على العرش هو من المتشابه الذي يفوض علمه إلي الله تعالى ووقع تفسيره في الأصل قوله اهـ


Ibn Hajar on tafwid

Ibn Hajar in Hadi us-Sari [online Sahab (http://www.sahab.org/books/book.php?id=624&query=) version, page 103] states:


قوله استوى على العرش هو من المتشابه الذي يفوض علمه إلي الله تعالى ووقع تفسيره في الأصل

While defining certain words used in Sahih Al-Bukhari, Ibn Hajar says:

‘The statement istawa alal arshi is from the mutashabih (unclear verses) whose knowledge is consigned (yufawwadu from tafwid) to Allah the Almighty although by principle its manifestation has already occurred.’




فتح الباري، شرح صحيح البخاري، - للإمام ابن حجر العسقلاني

الحديث: -1145-حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنْ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ وَأَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْأَغَرِّ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ:
يَنْزِلُ رَبُّنَا تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى كُلَّ لَيْلَةٍ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ الدُّنْيَا حِينَ يَبْقَى ثُلُثُ اللَّيْلِ الْآخِرُ يَقُولُ: مَنْ يَدْعُونِي فَأَسْتَجِيبَ لَهُ مَنْ يَسْأَلُنِي فَأُعْطِيَهُ مَنْ يَسْتَغْفِرُنِي فَأَغْفِرَ لَهُ.
الشرح: قوله: (عن أبي سلمة وأبي عبد الله الأغر، عن أبي هريرة) في رواية عبد الرزاق، عن معمر، عن الزهري، " أخبرني أبو سلمة بن عبد الرحمن وأبو عبد الله الأغر صاحب أبي هريرة، أن أبا هريرة أخبرهما".
قوله: (ينزل ربنا إلى السماء الدنيا) استدل به من أثبت الجهة وقال: هي جهة العلو، وأنكر ذلك الجمهور لأن القول بذلك يفضي إلى التحيز تعالى الله عن ذلك.
وقد اختلف في معنى النزول على أقوال: فمنهم من حمله على ظاهره وحقيقته وهم المشبهة تعالى الله عن قولهم.
ومنهم من أنكر صحة الأحاديث الواردة في ذلك جملة وهم الخوارج والمعتزلة وهو مكابرة، والعجب أنهم أولوا ما في القرآن من نحو ذلك وأنكروا ما في الحديث إما جهلا وإما عنادا.
ومنهم من أجراه على ما ورد مؤمنا به على طريق الإجمال منزها الله تعالى عن الكيفية والتشبيه وهم جمهور السلف، ونقله البيهقي، وغيره عن الأئمة الأربعة والسفيانين والحمادين والأوزاعي والليث وغيرهمومنهم من أوله على وجه يليق مستعمل في كلام العرب.
ومنهم من أفرط في التأويل حتى كاد أن يخرج إلى نوع من التحريف، ومنهم من فصل بين ما يكون تأويله قريبا مستعملا في كلام العرب وبين ما يكون بعيدا مهجورا فأول في بعض وفوض في بعض، وهو منقول عن مالك وجزم به من المتأخرين ابن دقيق العيد
قال البيهقي: وأسلمها الإيمان بلا كيف والسكوت عن المراد إلا أن يرد ذلك عن الصادق فيصار إليه، ومن الدليل على ذلك اتفاقهم على أن التأويل المعين غير واجب فحينئذ التفويض أسلم




Ibn Hajar on the Hadith of Descent (nuzul)

The hadith of descent from Sahih Al-Bukhari (http://hadith.al-islam.com/display/Display.asp?hnum=1077&doc=0):

Abdullah bin Maslamah narrates from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Abu Salamah and Abdullah Algharr both of whom narrate from Abu Huraira that:

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

‘Our Lord, the Blessed, the Superior, descends every night to the nearest Heaven when the last third of the night remains, saying: “Is there anyone to invoke Me, so that I may respond to invocation? Is there anyone to ask Me, so that I may grant him his request? Is there anyone seeking My forgiveness, so that I may forgive him?”’

Ibn Hajar’s comments from Fathul Bari (http://hadith.al-islam.com/display/Display.asp?hnum=1077&doc=0)


Those who assert direction for Allah have used this hadith as proof that He is in the direction of above-ness (uluww). The vast majority of the scholars reject this, because saying such leads to establishing boundaries for Him and Allah is exalted above that.

And so there is disagreement regarding the meaning of 'Nuzool' upon the [following] sayings (i.e. of the scholars):

So from them are those who hold that that it is upon its Thaahir (apparent) and its Haqeeqi (real literal) meaning, and they are the Mushabbihah (those who make tashbeeh which is to liken Allah to his creation), exalted is Allah from their sayings.
Some reject the validity of the ahadith cited in that chapter altogether. These are the Khawarij and the Mu’tazila and this view is highly contentious. What is strange is that they interpret figuratively what is related to this in the Qur'an, but they reject what is in the ahadith either out of ignorance or out of obstinacy.
Some have taken them as they have come, believing in them without specificity, declaring Allah to be transcendent above modality (kayfiyya) and likeness to creation (tashbih): these are the vast majority of the Salaf. That position is reported by Al-Bayhaqi and others from the four Imams, Sufyan ibn ‘Uyayna, Sufyan Ath-Thawri, Hammad ibn Salama, Hammad ibn Zayd, Al-Awza’i, Al-Layth, and others.
Some interpreted them in a way that befits the linguistic usage of the Arabs.
Some have over-interpreted them to the point that they almost tampered with the text (tahrif).
Some have made a difference between a kind of interpretation that is likely and current in the linguistic usage of the Arabs, and another kind which is far-fetched and archaic, interpreting in the former case and committing the meaning to Allah in the latter. . This is reported from Malik, and among the later scholars (muta‘akhkhirun) it is asserted decisively by Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id.


Al-Bayhaqi said: “The safest method is to believe in them without modality, and to maintain concerning what is meant except if the explanation is conveyed from the Prophet himself, in which case it is followed.” The proof for this is the agreement of the scholars that the specific interpretation is not obligatory, and that therefore the commitment of meaning to Allah (tafwid) is the safest option.





فتح الباري، شرح صحيح البخاري - للإمام ابن حجر العسقلاني
المجلد الثالث عشر >> كِتَاب التَّوْحِيدِ >> باب وَكَانَ عَرْشُهُ عَلَى الْمَاءِ وَهُوَ رَبُّ الْعَرْشِ الْعَظِيمِ




وقال إمام الحرمين في الرسالة النظامية اختلفت مسالك العلماء في هذه الظواهر فرأى بعضهم تأويلها والتزم ذلك في آي الكتاب وما يصح من السنن، وذهب أئمة السلف إلى الانكفاف عن التأويل وإجراء الظواهر على مواردها وتفويض معانيها إلى الله تعالى والذي نرتضيه رأيا وندين الله به عقيدة اتباع سلف الأمة للدليل القاطع على أن إجماع الأمة حجة فلو كان تأويل هذه الظواهر حتما لأوشك أن يكون اهتمامهم به فوق اهتمامهم بفروع الشريعة، وإذا انصرم عصر الصحابة والتابعين على الإضراب عن التأويل كان ذلك هو الوجه المتبع انتهى.
وقد تقدم النقل عن أهل العصر الثالث وهم فقهاء الأمصار كالثوري والأوزاعي ومالك والليث ومن عاصرهم، وكذا من أخذ عنهم من الأئمة، فكيف لا يوثق بما اتفق عليه أهل القرون الثلاثة، وهم خير القرون بشهادة صاحب الشريعة، وقسم بعضهم أقوال الناس، في هذا الباب إلى ستة أقوال قولان لمن يجريها على ظاهرها أحدهما من يعتقد أنها من جنس صفات المخلوقين وهم المشبهة ويتفرع من قولهم عدة آراء، والثاني من ينفي عنها شبه صفة المخلوقين لأن ذات الله لا تشبه الذوات فصفاته لا تشبه الصفات فإن صفات كل موصوف تناسب ذاته وتلائم حقيقته، وقولان لمن يثبت كونها صفة ولكن لا يجريها على ظاهرها، أحدهما يقول لا نؤول شيئا منها بل نقول الله أعلم بمراده، والآخر يؤول فيقول مثلا معنى الاستواء الاستيلاء، واليد القدرة ونحو ذلك، وقولان لمن لا يجزم بأنها صفة أحدهما يقول يجوز أن تكون صفة وظاهرها غير مراد، ويجوز أن لا تكون صفة، والآخر يقول لا يخاض في شيء من هذا بل يجب الإيمان به لأنه من المتشابه الذي لا يدرك معناه



Ibn Hajar on Imam Ibn Al-Juwayni’s exposition from Ar-Risalat An-Nizamiyyah

Ibn Hajar writes in Fathul Bari (http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=11007):

Imam Al-Haramayn (Ibn Al-Juwayni) wrote in Ar-Risalat An-Nizamiyyah:

‘The ways of the scholars have differed over the texts concerning the Attributes (dhawaahir) that occur in the Book and Sunnah; some have viewed they should be interpreted figuratively and make such interpretations necessary for the verses of the Qur’an and the sahih ahadith. The Salaf took to refraining from figurative interpretation and leaving these dhawahir as they are cited and to relegate (tafwid) their meanings to Allah the Almighty. And that which we are pleased with as our view and as our belief in Allaah is by following the salaf; and the textual evidence is unequivocal that the consensus of the nation is a proof that is to be followed; so if it is the case that some interpret these dhawaahir figuratively to such an extent that they occupy themselves in such pursuits more than the occupation of the branches of shari’ah while the era of the Sahabah and Tabi’in have passed in avoiding such interpretations then that [the era of the salaf] is what we follow.’


I have previously mentioned the opinions of the third generation (of scholars), the jurists of the major cities, such as Ath-Thawri, Al-Awza’i, Malik, Al-Layth and their contemporaries as well as those Imams who took from them, so how can we not legalise what has already been agreed upon by the first three generations who are the best of generations, as any who understands the shari’ah will certify?

Some have divided the views of the people on this issue into six categories:

Two of which is to take them according to their apparent meaning:

The first believe that they are from the same type of attributes as the attributes of creation; these are the Mushabbahah and many other opinions branch off from their view
The second deny that they are similar to the creation because the essence (dhat) of Allah is not similar to any other essences so it follows His attributes (sifat) are not similar to any attributes, since the attributes of every descriptive being (mawsuf) has a complementary essence and reality (haqiqah)


Two views which confirm they are from the attributes of Allah but do not take them to be literal:

The first say we do not interpret anything whatsoever rather we say Allah knows best its meaning
The other interprets them figuratively so, for example, they interpret istiwa to mean istila (to dominate) and yad (hand) to mean qudrah (power) etc.


Two views which claim they are not necessarily attributes:

The first say it is possible they are attributes although the literal meaning is not intended but it is also possible that they are not attributes
The other says this should not even be discussed; rather it should simply be believed in since they are from the mutashabih (unclear verses) whose meaning cannot be comprehended



As-Suyuti on tafwid



قال الإمام جلال الدين السيوطي في كتابه "الإتقان في علوم القرآن" (2/6

ومن المتشابه آيات الصفات ... وجمهور أهل السنة، منهم السلف وأهل الحديث على الإيمان بها، وتفويض معناها والمراد منها إلى الله تعالى ولا نفسرها مع تنزيهنا له عن حقيقتها" . اهـ


As-Suyuti writes in Al-Itqan (http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=156&CID=17#s4):

..and the majority of the Ahlus Sunnah, which includes the Salaf and the people of hadith, have opined that such verses should be believed in but their meanings should be consigned to Allah, and we do not interpret them in such a way that negates their reality.




As-Suyuti as quoted by Imam Ibn al-Imad al-Hanbali in Shadharatudh Dhahab [ online meshkat (http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=13&book=733) version, volume 8, page 17] :




فوض أحاديث الصفات * ولا تشبه أو تعطل
الارمت إلا الخوض في * تحقيف معضلة فأول
إن المفوض سالم * مما تكلفه المؤول



Consign (the meaning) of the ahadith of attributes (to Allah)
And do not liken them to the creation nor negate them
If all other pursuits have past except embarking upon
The solving this problem, only then search for an interpretation
'Indeed the one who consigns (its meaning to Allah) is saved
From the burden of the one who interprets figuratively’





As-Suyuti as Quoted in “Aqawil al-Thiqat”


by the Hanbali Shaykh Zaynud-Din Mari'i ibn Yusuf al-Karmi (d. 1033 AH) on Tafwid



http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f378/faqir/karmiquotingsuyutiontafweed3kz.jpg




Imam al-Karmi [RH] quotes Al-Hafiz al-Suyuti in his book Al-Itqan (http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=156&CID=17#s4) as saying:

Among the unclear verses [mutashabih] are the verses of the attributes, and Ibn al-Lubban has a book regarding this which is unique, for example… [the shaykh goes on to quote various ayaat (see above scan)]

… and the majority of the Ahlus Sunnah, which includes the Salaf and the people of hadith, have opined that such verses should be believed in but their meanings should be consigned to Allah, and we do not interpret them in such a way that negates their reality.

And a group from amongst the Ahlus Sunnah holds the position that it should be figuratively interpreted according to what befits His Majesty Most High and this is the madhab of the Khalaf.


Imam al-Sha'bi [RH] as quoted in "Aqawil al-Thiqat" on Tafwid


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/abulhasan/KarmionTafweed_p121.jpg


and it is narrated regarding al-Sh'abi [the famous tabi’i], that he was asked about Istiwa. He said: It is from the unclear verses [mutashaabih] of the Quran, we believe in it, and refrain from examining its meaning.








Imam Ahmad on Tafwid as quoted in [i]al-Luma al-I’tiqad:






قال الإمام أبو عبد الله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه في قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إن الله ينزل الى سماء الدنيا و إن الله يرى في القيامة وما أشبه هذه الأحاديث نؤمن بها ونصدق بها لا كيف ولا معنى ولا نرد شيئا منها ونعلم أن ما جاء به الرسول حق ولا نرد على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا نصف الله بأكثر مما وصف به نفسه بلا حد ولا غاية (ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير) الشورى 11 ونقول كما قال ونصفه بما وصف به نفسه لا نتعدى ذلك ولا يبلغه وصف الواصفين نؤمن بالقرآن كله محكمه ومتشابهه ولا نزيل عنه صفة من صفاته لشناعة شنعت ولا نتعدى القرآن والحديث ولا نعلم كيف كنه ذلك إلا بتصديق الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وتثبيت القرآن .



Imam Abu `Abdullah Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal - may Allah be pleased with him - has said regarding the Prophet's statements - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam- that Allah descends to the lowest heaven, that Allah will be seen on the day of Resurrection, and what resembles such statements. "We have faith and believe in them without how or meaning. We do not reject any of [these reports]. We know that what the Messenger came with is the truth. We do not reject what the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has brought. Nor do we describe Allah with more than what He has described Himself without [ascribing to Him] a limit or an end. 'Like Him there is naught. And He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing.' (42:1 1). We say as He has said and we describe Him as He has described Himself. We do not transgress that. The descriptions of men do not reach Him. We believe in the whole of the Qur'an - its definitive (mukham) and its equivocal (mutashabih). We do not separate from Him any of His attributes due to the protests of anyone. We do not transgress the Qur'an and the hadith. Nor do we know the reality of [these attributes] except by believing the Messenger - sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam - and affirming the Qur'an."



Imam Shafi'i as quoted by Ibn Qudama in Dhamm at-Ta'wil (http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=508) on Tafwid:




وقال بعضهم : ( ويروى ذلك عن الشافعي رحمة الله عليه: آمنت بما جاء عن الله
، على مراد الله ، وبما جاء عن رسول الله ، على مراد رسول الله صلى الله
عليه وسلم ) .




And some said it was related from Imam Shafi'i: "I believe in Allah and what has come about Allah according to the intent of Allah; and what has come from the Rasool of Allah according to the intention of Rasool Allah [sallallahu alayhi wassallam]”









Disclaimer: Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) said, “Everyone after the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam will have his sayings accepted and rejected - not so the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam.” [Irshaad al-Saalik 227/1, Jami Bayaan al-Ilm 91/2]

[faqir]

SOME FURTHER QUOTES APPARENTLY CONFIRMING TAFWEED FROM SOME HANABILAH AND OTHERS



Imam al-Karmi on Tafwid in "Aqawil al-Thiqat"





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/abulhasan/KarmionTafweed_p117.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/abulhasan/KarmionTafweed_p118.jpg



And know [that] these ahadith and those of the same nature are narrated just as they came [kamaa ja'at] and their meaning is consigned to Allah, or they are interpreted with what befits his Majesty and Glory.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/abulhasan/KarmionTafweed_p120.jpg


al-Karmi: and from those unclear verses [mutashaabih]: al-Istiwa, from his speech, Most High: "Al-Rahman istiwa above the arsh", and also: "He then did istiwa on the arsh" [surah a'raf:54], and it is mentioned in the Quran in seven different verses.

As for the salaf, then they [surely] did not speak about it one bit, in keeping with their custom in dealing with those unclear verses of the Quran - not delving into it, [as well as] consigning knowledge of it to Allah, most High, while still believing in it.






Imam Ahmad and Ibn Qudama on [i]Tawid as quoted in al-Luma al-I’tiqad:






وكل ما جاء في القرآن أو صح عن المصطفى عليه السلام صفات الرحمن وجب الإيمان به وتلقيه بالتسليم والقبول وترك التعرض له بالرد والتأويل والتشبيه والتمثيل وما أشكل من ذلك وجب إثباته لفظا وترك التعرض لمعناه ونرد علمه إلى قائله ونجعل عهدته على ناقله اتباعا لطريق الراسخين في العلم الذين أثنى الله عليهم في كتابه المبين بقوله سبحانه وتعالى ( والراسخون في العلم يقولون آمنا به كل من عند ربنا) آل عمران 7 وقال في ذم مبتغي التأويل لمتشابه تنزيله فأما الذين في قلوبهم زيغ فيتبعون ما تشابه منه ابتغاء الفتنة وابتغاء تأويله وما يعلم تأويله إلا الله ) آل عمران 7 فجعل ابتغاء التأويل علامة على الزيغ وقرنه بابتغاء الفتنة في الذم ثم حجبهم عما أملوه وقطع أطماعهم عما قصدوه بقوله سبحانه وما يعلم تأويله إلا الله .

قال الإمام أبو عبد الله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه في قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إن الله ينزل الى سماء الدنيا و إن الله يرى في القيامة وما أشبه هذه الأحاديث نؤمن بها ونصدق بها لا كيف ولا معنى ولا نرد شيئا منها ونعلم أن ما جاء به الرسول حق ولا نرد على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا نصف الله بأكثر مما وصف به نفسه بلا حد ولا غاية (ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير) الشورى 11 ونقول كما قال ونصفه بما وصف به نفسه لا نتعدى ذلك ولا يبلغه وصف الواصفين نؤمن بالقرآن كله محكمه ومتشابهه ولا نزيل عنه صفة من صفاته لشناعة شنعت ولا نتعدى القرآن والحديث ولا نعلم كيف كنه ذلك إلا بتصديق الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وتثبيت القرآن .


All what is mentioned in the Qur'an or is authentically reported upon "the Chosen One" (al-Mustafa) - 'alayhis-salam - from among the attributes of al-Rahman, it is incumbent :

to believe in [that report]

to receive it with submission and acceptance

and to forsake resisting it by (i) rejection, (ii) allegorically interpretation (at-ta'wil, or by resembling (at-tashbih) or likening (at-tamthil) [the attribute to that of His creation].

Whatever of [these reports that we find] difficult [to comprehend] it is required to affirm its wording and to forsake delving into its meaning. We [rather] entrust knowledge of its reality to He who has spoken it and we place the responsibility [of our faith in it] upon he who transmitted it. Thereby following the way of those firmly grounded in knowledge whom Allah has praised in His Clear Scripture by His statement - subhanahu wa ta'ala, "And those firmly rooted in knowledge say, `We believe in it; all is from our Lord."' (3:7) While He has said in condemnation of those who seek the interpretation (at-ta'wil) of the ambiguous (mutashabih) of His revelation: "As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only Allah." So He made seeking its interpretation an indication of perversity [of the heart] and He linked it in its condemnation with seeking dissension (fitna). He then veiled them from that which they sought and He cut off their hope [of ever reaching that] by His statement - subhanahu, "And none knows its interpretation, save only Allah."

Imam Abu `Abdullah Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal - may Allah be pleased with him - has said regarding the Prophet's statements - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam- that Allah descends to the lowest heaven, that Allah will be seen on the day of Resurrection, and what resembles such statements. "We have faith and believe in them without how or meaning. We do not reject any of [these reports]. We know that what the Messenger came with is the truth. We do not reject what the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has brought. Nor do we describe Allah with more than what He has described Himself without [ascribing to Him] a limit or an end. 'Like Him there is naught. And He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing.' (42:1 1). We say as He has said and we describe Him as He has described Himself. We do not transgress that. The descriptions of men do not reach Him. We believe in the whole of the Qur'an - its definitive (mukham) and its equivocal (mutashabih). We do not separate from Him any of His attributes due to the protests of anyone. We do not transgress the Qur'an and the hadith. Nor do we know the reality of [these attributes] except by believing the Messenger - sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam - and affirming the Qur'an."



Imam Ibn Qudama in Dhamm at-Ta'wil (http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=508) on Tafwid:




ومذهب السلف رحمة الله عليهم : الإيمان بصفات الله تعالى وأسمائه التي وصف
بها نفسه في آياته وتنزيله أو على لسان رسوله ، من غير زيادة عليها ، ولا
نقص منها ، ولا تجاوز لها ، ولا تفسير ، ولا تأويل لها بما يخالف ظاهرها ،
ولا تشبيه بصفات المخلوقين ، ولا سمات المحدثين ، بل أمروها كما جاءت ،
وردوا علمها إلى قائلها ، ومعناها إلى المتكلم بها .

وقال بعضهم : ( ويروى ذلك عن الشافعي رحمة الله عليه: آمنت بما جاء عن الله
، على مراد الله ، وبما جاء عن رسول الله ، على مراد رسول الله صلى الله
عليه وسلم ) .

وعلموا أن المتكلم بها صادق لا شك في صدقه فصدقوه ، ولم يعلموا حقيقة
معناها فسكتوا عما لم يعلموه ، وأخذ ذلك الآخر والأول ، ووصى بعضهم بعضا
بحسن الإتباع والوقوف حيث وقف أولهم ، وحذروا من التجاوز لهم والعدول عن
طريقهم ، وبينوا لهم سبيلهم ومذهبهم ، ونرجوا أن يجعلنا الله تعالى ممن
اقتدى بهم في بيان ما بينوه ، وسلوك الطريق الذي سلكوه . .





"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."


And some said it was related from Imam Shafii: "I believe in Allah and what has come about Allah according to the intent of Allah. and what has come from the Rasool of Allah according to the intention of Rasool Allah [sallallahu alayhi wassallam]”

And they (the Salaf) knew that the One who spoke them (Allah) was truthful without doubt, so they believed Him. And they did not know the real meaning (Haqiqah Ma'naha) of them (the attributes) so they were silent about what they did not know. The later and the earlier ones held on to this, and the later ones were the inheritors of the earlier ones in following of excellence and keeping quiet where the early ones kept quiet. and warned from exceeding their bounds and diverging from their path and explained for them their path and their doctrinal positions and we appeal to Allah that he makes us from the ones who followed them in explaining what they explained and following the path that they followed"




Another Quote from Imam Ibn Qudamah [RH]



وقال في تحريم النظر في كتب الكلام 58 :
( وإنما يحصل التشبيه والتجسيم ممن حمل صفات الله سبحانه وتعالى على صفات المخلوقين في المعنى ونحن لا نعتقد ذلك ولا ندين به بل نعلم أن الله تبارك وتعالى ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير وأن صفاته لا تشبه صفات المحدثين وكل ما خطر بقلب أو وهم فالله عز وجل بخلافه لا شبيه له ولا نظير ولا عدل ولا ظهير ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير
وأما إيماننا بالآيات وأخبار الصفات فإنما هو إيمان بمجرد الألفاظ التي لا شك في صحتها ولا ريب في صدقها وقائلها أعلم بمعناها فآمنا بها على المعنى الذي أراد ربنا تبارك وتعالى فجمعنا بين الإيمان الواجب ونفي التشبيه المحرم
وهذا أسد وأحسن من قول من جعل الآيات والأخبار تجسيما وتشبيها وتحيل على إبطالها وردها فحملها على معنى صفات المخلوقين بسوء رأيه وقبح عقيدته ونعوذ بالله من الضلال البعيد ) اه


Comparing Allah to His creation (tashbih) and anthropomorphism (tajsim) is only achieved by holding the notion that the attributes of Allah, glorified and exalted is He, are as the attributes of creation. We do not believe this nor consider it part of our religion; rather we acknowledge that there is nothing like Allah, blessed and exalted is He, and that He is the All-Hearing and All-Seeing and that His attributes do not resemble the attributes of contingent beings, nor does it resemble all that hearts can conceive or imagine. For Allah, glorified and sublime is He, contrary to this, has nothing that resembles Him (shabih) or a counterpart (nadhir) or an equal (‘adl) or a helper (dhahir). There is nothing like Him and He is the All-Hearing and All-Seeing (42:11).

Regarding our belief in the verses and narratives on the attributes (of Allah), it is but belief free from words in which there is no doubt in its accuracy and no uncertainty in its veracity; and the one who has said it (Allah or His Messenger) knows better its meaning than us so we believe in it according to the meaning our Lord intended, blessed and exalted is He. Thus we combine between the necessary (wajib) faith and the prohibited (muharram) comparison to creation (tashbih). And this (approach) is far better than the view of those who consider the verses and narrations (as proof to) compare Allah to His creation (tashbih) and anthropomorphism (tajsim), and those who alter it such that it nullifies it (ibtal), and those who reject it because they consider it implies Allah possesses attributes of creation because of their erroneous outlook (ra’y) and vile belief; and we seek protection in Allah from straying far (from the right path).





[U]Imam Dhahabi on Tafwid:



أَبُو أَحْمَدَ بنُ عَدِيٍّ: حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بنُ عَلِيٍّ المَدَائِنِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بنُ إِبْرَاهِيْمَ بنِ جَابِرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو زَيْدٍ بنُ أَبِي الغَمْرِ، قَالَ:

قَالَ ابْنُ القَاسِمِ: سَأَلْتُ مَالِكاً عَمَّنْ حَدَّثَ بِالحَدِيْثِ: الَّذِيْنَ قَالُوا: (إِنَّ اللهَ خَلَقَ آدَمَ عَلَى صُوْرَتِهِ)، وَالحَدِيْثِ الَّذِي جَاءَ: (إِنَّ اللهَ يَكْشِفُ عَنْ سَاقِهِ)، (وَأَنَّهُ يُدْخِلُ يَدَهُ فِي جَهَنَّمَ حَتَّى يُخْرِجَ مَنْ أَرَادَ). (8/104)
فَأَنْكَر مَالِكٌ ذَلِكَ إِنْكَاراً شَدِيْداً، وَنَهَى أَنْ يُحَدِّثَ بِهَا أَحَدٌ.
فَقِيْلَ لَهُ: إِنَّ نَاساً مِنْ أَهْلِ العِلْمِ يَتَحَدَّثُوْنَ بِهِ.
فَقَالَ: مَنْ هُوَ؟
قِيْلَ: ابْنُ عَجْلاَنَ، عَنْ أَبِي الزِّنَادِ.
قَالَ: لَمْ يَكُنِ ابْنُ عَجْلاَنَ يَعْرِفُ هَذِهِ الأَشْيَاءَ، وَلَمْ يَكُنْ عَالِماً.
وَذَكَرَ أَبَا الزِّنَادِ، فَقَالَ: لَمْ يَزَلْ عَامِلاً لِهَؤُلاَءِ حَتَّى مَاتَ.
رَوَاهَا: مِقْدَامٌ الرُّعَيْنِيُّ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي الغَمْرِ، وَالحَارِثِ بنِ مِسْكِيْنٍ، قَالاَ: حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ القَاسِمِ.
قُلْتُ: أَنْكَرَ الإِمَامُ ذَلِكَ، لأَنَّهُ لَمْ يَثبُتْ عِنْدَهُ، وَلاَ اتَّصَلَ بِهِ، فَهُوَ مَعْذُورٌ، كَمَا أَنَّ صَاحِبَي (الصَّحِيْحَيْنِ) مَعْذُورَانِ فِي إِخرَاجِ ذَلِكَ - أَعْنِي: الحَدِيْثَ الأَوَّلِ وَالثَّانِي - لِثُبُوتِ سَنَدِهِمَا، وَأَمَّا الحَدِيْثُ الثَّالِثُ، فَلاَ أَعْرِفُه بِهَذَا اللَّفْظِ، فَقَولُنَا فِي ذَلِكَ وَبَابِهِ: الإِقرَارُ، وَالإِمْرَارُ، وَتَفْويضُ مَعْنَاهُ إِلَى قَائِلِه الصَّادِقِ المَعْصُومِ. (8/105)

وَقَالَ ابْنُ عَدِيٍّ: حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بنُ هَارُوْنَ بنِ حَسَّانٍ، حَدَّثَنَا صَالِحُ بنُ أَيُّوْبَ، حَدَّثَنَا حَبِيْبُ بنُ أَبِي حَبِيْبٍ، حَدَّثَنِي مَالِكٌ، قَالَ:
يَتَنَزَّلُ رَبُّنَا - تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى - أَمْرُهُ، فَأَمَّا هُوَ، فَدَائِمٌ لاَ يَزُولُ.
قَالَ صَالِحٌ: فَذَكَرْتُ ذَلِكَ لِيَحْيَى بنِ بُكَيْرٍ، فَقَالَ: حَسَنٌ وَاللهِ، وَلَمْ أَسْمَعْهُ مِنْ مَالِكٍ.
قُلْتُ: لاَ أَعْرِفُ صَالِحاً، وَحَبِيْبٌ مَشْهُوْرٌ، وَالمَحْفُوْظُ عَنْ مَالِكٍ -رَحِمَهُ اللهُ- رِوَايَةُ الوَلِيْدِ بنِ مُسْلِمٍ، أَنَّهُ سَأَلهُ عَنْ أَحَادِيْثِ الصِّفَاتِ، فَقَالَ: أَمِرَّهَا كَمَا جَاءتْ، بِلاَ تَفْسِيْرٍ.


Translation of relevant excerpt from Siyar Alam al-Nubala of Imam al-Dhahabi, 8/105:



وفي سير أعلام النبلاء للحافظ الذهبي – رحمه الله – (8/105) يقول ما نصه: فقولنا في ذلك وبابه: الإقرار، والإمرار، وتفويض معناه إلى قائله الصادق المعصوم


"Our saying in this and what falls under it is: Submission to the text, passing it on as it came and consigning the knowledge of its meaning (tafwidh m’anahu) to its Sacrosant and Truthful Sayer…

[Yusuf]

Some interesting quotes from Ibn al Jawzi that would be worth translating aswell:


ومن ذلك قول الامام أحمد رحمه الله تعالى عندما سئل عن أحاديث الصفات : " نؤمن بها ونصدق بها ولا كيف ولا
معنى " رواه عنه الخلال بسند صحيح .

والمذهب في هذا عند أهل العلم من الائمة مثل سفيان الثوري ومالك بن أنس ، وابن المبارك ، وابن عيينة ، ووكيع وغيرهم أنهم رووا هذه الاشياء ، ثم قالوا تروى هذه الاحاديث ونؤمن بها ولا يقال كيف

عن الامام مالك أنه قال في أحاديث الصفات : " أمرها كما جاءت بلا تفسير والمذهب في هذا عند أهل العلم من الائمة مثل سفيان الثوري ومالك بن أنس ، وابن المبارك ، وابن عيينة ، ووكيع وغيرهم أنهم رووا هذه الاشياء ، ثم قالوا تروى هذه الاحاديث ونؤمن بها ولا يقال كيف

وقال الحافظ الذهبي هناك قبل ذلك بأسطر : فقولنا في ذلك وبابه : الاقرار ، والامرار ، وتفويض معناه إلى قائله الصادق المعصوم

قال الحافظ ابن حجر في " فتح الباري " ( 13 / 390 ) في مسألة الصفات إن فيها ثلاثة مذاهب نقلا عن ابن المنير وذكر المذهب الثالث فقال : " والثالث : إمرارها على ما جاءت مفوضا معناها إلى الله تعالى

وقال الحافظ ابن حجر في الفتح ( 13 / 383 ) أيضا مائلا للتفويض : " والصواب الامساك عن أمثال هذه المباحث والتفويض إلى الله في جميعها والاكتفاء بالايمان بكل ما أوجب الله في كتابه أو على لسان نبيه

وقال الحافظ قبل ذلك بأسطر في الفتح ( 13 / 383 ) ناقلا عن الحافظ ابن دقيق العيد رحمه الله تعالى في تقرير التأويل والتفويض : " وقال ابن دقيق العيد في العقيدة : نقول في الصفات المشكلة إنها حق وصدق على المعنى الذي أراده الله ، ومن تأولها نظرنا فإن كان تأويله قريبا على مقتضى لسان العرب لم ننكر عليه ، وإن كان بعيدا توقفنا عنه ورجعنا إلى التصديق مع التنزيه

[Abul Hasan]

Some interesting quotes from Ibn al Jawzi that would be worth translating aswell:


ومن ذلك قول الامام أحمد رحمه الله تعالى عندما سئل عن أحاديث الصفات : " نؤمن بها ونصدق بها ولا كيف ولا
معنى " رواه عنه الخلال بسند صحيح .

والمذهب في هذا عند أهل العلم من الائمة مثل سفيان الثوري ومالك بن أنس ، وابن المبارك ، وابن عيينة ، ووكيع وغيرهم أنهم رووا هذه الاشياء ، ثم قالوا تروى هذه الاحاديث ونؤمن بها ولا يقال كيف

عن الامام مالك أنه قال في أحاديث الصفات : " أمرها كما جاءت بلا تفسير والمذهب في هذا عند أهل العلم من الائمة مثل سفيان الثوري ومالك بن أنس ، وابن المبارك ، وابن عيينة ، ووكيع وغيرهم أنهم رووا هذه الاشياء ، ثم قالوا تروى هذه الاحاديث ونؤمن بها ولا يقال كيف

وقال الحافظ الذهبي هناك قبل ذلك بأسطر : فقولنا في ذلك وبابه : الاقرار ، والامرار ، وتفويض معناه إلى قائله الصادق المعصوم

قال الحافظ ابن حجر في " فتح الباري " ( 13 / 390 ) في مسألة الصفات إن فيها ثلاثة مذاهب نقلا عن ابن المنير وذكر المذهب الثالث فقال : " والثالث : إمرارها على ما جاءت مفوضا معناها إلى الله تعالى

وقال الحافظ ابن حجر في الفتح ( 13 / 383 ) أيضا مائلا للتفويض : " والصواب الامساك عن أمثال هذه المباحث والتفويض إلى الله في جميعها والاكتفاء بالايمان بكل ما أوجب الله في كتابه أو على لسان نبيه

وقال الحافظ قبل ذلك بأسطر في الفتح ( 13 / 383 ) ناقلا عن الحافظ ابن دقيق العيد رحمه الله تعالى في تقرير التأويل والتفويض : " وقال ابن دقيق العيد في العقيدة : نقول في الصفات المشكلة إنها حق وصدق على المعنى الذي أراده الله ، ومن تأولها نظرنا فإن كان تأويله قريبا على مقتضى لسان العرب لم ننكر عليه ، وإن كان بعيدا توقفنا عنه ورجعنا إلى التصديق مع التنزيه


:salam:

Akhi Yusuf

These quotes can't all be from Ibn al-Jawzi - for he died in 597 AH - and some quotes mentioned in arabic come from al-Dhahabi - who never lived in his time - but died in 748 AH, same with Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH). Anyway, some of it is already in Br. Faqir's article above in English.

Insha'allah, I may post some more once i verify them.

Wassalam

[Yusuf]

:salam:

Akhi Yusuf

These quotes can't all be from Ibn al-Jawzi - for he died in 597 AH - and some quotes mentioned in arabic come from al-Dhahabi - who never lived in his time - but died in 748 AH, same with Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH). Anyway, some of it is already in Br. Faqir's article above in English.

Insha'allah, I may post some more once i verify them.

Wassalam

Salamu'alaikum wa rahmatallah.

Jazakamullahu khairan for the correction Shaykh. I copied these quotes from Ibn al-Jawzis kitab with the tahqiq of Hassan saqqaf from sunnah web, maybe the latter quotes are from him.

Wassalam.

[salman]

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


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

Wasalam

[lumumba_s]

I need to learn Arabic . . .

[faqir]

Imam Ibn Daqiq al-'Id and Tafwid






وقال الحافظ قبل ذلك بأسطر في الفتح ( 13 / 383 ) ناقلا عن الحافظ ابن دقيق العيد رحمه الله تعالى في تقرير التأويل والتفويض : " وقال ابن دقيق العيد في العقيدة : نقول في الصفات المشكلة إنها حق وصدق على المعنى الذي أراده الله ، ومن تأولها نظرنا فإن كان تأويله قريبا على مقتضى لسان العرب لم ننكر عليه ، وإن كان بعيدا توقفنا عنه ورجعنا إلى التصديق مع التنزيه


The above statement of Ibn Daqiq al-`Id's quoted by al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar RH In Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 13:383) was translated elsewhere (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7488) as follows:


"We say concerning the various attributes that they are real and true according to the meaning Allah wills for them. As for those who interpret them, we look at their interpretation: if it is close to the rules of language in use among the Arabs we do not reject it, and if it is far from them we relinquish it and return to believing while declaring transcendence."


:salam:

[faqir]

Imam Ibn Kathir - an example of his practising Tafwid


Imam Ibn Kathir says in his Tafsir (http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=7&tAyahNo=54&tDisplay=yes&Page=1&Size=1) 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"






[Lots more quotes from a variety of scholars to come soon, inshaAllah]

[aMuslimForLife]

There is no rational person who would reject Tafwid, only people who are avid about making taqleed on the misguided scholars of najd.
<br><br>
How can you take the literal meaning of Yad in relation to Allah, in any context is beyond me???? Allah has negated the literal meaning of Yad for Himself, so how can you affirm something for Allah when He has specfically negated it.

Keep up the good work, I love all your efforts and works. You are truly a genius. And May Allah continue to give you tawfiq. Ameen.

[stani]

the four imaams were upon one aqeeda, the difference in aqeeda between them in minute, the difference between the four imams is fiqh.
due to the aqeeda of them being one derives the term that all four imaams are ahlus sunnah wal jammat- the aqeeda is the primary issue and not the fiqh.
so if ur aqeeda is not the same as the four imaams then u have strayed. make taubah and come bak the correct manhaj.
with regards to the attributes of Allah they can only be taken from two sources which are infact one they being kitab Allah and from the messenger of Allah (saw), so with regards to Allahs ascention over the throne it is clear and the opinion of the four imams is clear, if u differ from then then bring ur evidence the kitab Alllah or from the messenger of Allah (saw) and if ur evidence is not from these sources then we dont take from any other.

Imaam Abu Hanifah

Abu Muti' Al-Balkhi reported:"I asked Imaam Abu Hanifah about a person who says, 'I do not know whether my Rubb is, above the heavens or on earth?' Abu Hanifah, may Allaah grant him His mercy, said: 'A person who makes such a statement becomes an apostate because Allaah, the Exalted says, 'The Merciful has ascended above the 'Arsh, and the 'Arsh of Allaah is above His heavens'. I further asked Abu Hanifah, 'What if such a person admits, Allaah is above His 'Arsh, but exclaims, I do not know whether His 'Arsh is above the heavens or on earth'. Abu Hanifah responded: 'If he denies that the 'Arsh is above the heavens, he is an apostate." [44] If the person apostatizes by saying that he did not know where is the 'Arsh of Allaah, then by right a person who denies the Loftiness of Allaah altogether is definitely worse than an apostate.

44-Sharhut-Tahawiyyah, p.288

[faqir]

the four imaams were upon one aqeeda, the difference in aqeeda between them in minute, the difference between the four imams is fiqh.
due to the aqeeda of them being one derives the term that all four imaams are ahlus sunnah wal jammat- the aqeeda is the primary issue and not the fiqh.
so if ur aqeeda is not the same as the four imaams then u have strayed. make taubah and come bak the correct manhaj.
with regards to the attributes of Allah they can only be taken from two sources which are infact one they being kitab Allah and from the messenger of Allah (saw), so with regards to Allahs ascention over the throne it is clear and the opinion of the four imams is clear, if u differ from then then bring ur evidence the kitab Alllah or from the messenger of Allah (saw) and if ur evidence is not from these sources then we dont take from any other.

Imaam Abu Hanifah

Abu Muti' Al-Balkhi reported:"I asked Imaam Abu Hanifah about a person who says, 'I do not know whether my Rubb is, above the heavens or on earth?' Abu Hanifah, may Allaah grant him His mercy, said: 'A person who makes such a statement becomes an apostate because Allaah, the Exalted says, 'The Merciful has ascended above the 'Arsh, and the 'Arsh of Allaah is above His heavens'. I further asked Abu Hanifah, 'What if such a person admits, Allaah is above His 'Arsh, but exclaims, I do not know whether His 'Arsh is above the heavens or on earth'. Abu Hanifah responded: 'If he denies that the 'Arsh is above the heavens, he is an apostate." [44] If the person apostatizes by saying that he did not know where is the 'Arsh of Allaah, then by right a person who denies the Loftiness of Allaah altogether is definitely worse than an apostate.

44-Sharhut-Tahawiyyah, p.288

:salam:

Please stop posting irrelevancies in this thread.

The quote you brought from Abu Hanifah RH is, in fact, fabricated. It has been discussed on numerous occasions on this forum. The following should suffice:


Mawdu` and a lie in its attribution to the Imam. Al-Dhahabi himself states [Mukhtasar p. 136 #118; al-`Uluw p. 391 #327] that everything above was reported from the Imam by Abu Muti` al-Hakam ibn `Abd Allah al-Balkhi who is DISCARDED as a narrator according to Imam Ahmad, Ibn `Adi, Abu Dawud, a liar according to Abu Hatim, and a forger according to al-Dhahabi himself as reported by Ibn Hajar in Lisan al-Mizan (2:407)!.


Furthermore, if you only take your creed from the Qur'an and Sunnah then why bother posting a fabricated quote from an Imam?

Why not stick to what you mention: "with regards to the attributes of Allah they can only be taken from two sources which are infact one they being kitab Allah and from the messenger of Allah (saw)"



Anyway brother, this thread is related to quotes from the Ulema pertaining to Tafwid and not fabricated quotes from Imam Abu Hanifa.

:jazak:

[stani]

Imaam Ash-Shafi'ee

Imaam ash-Shafi'ee said:"The creed which I hold is the same creed the Muslims before me were holding, namely, the Testimony of Faith: "There is no god worthy of being worshipped except Allaah, that Muhammed is the Messenger of Allaah, and that Allaah is above His 'Arsh, above the heavens. He descends to the lowest heaven whenever He wishes." [48] Imaam ibn Khuzaimah, a Shafi'ite himself, said: "Whoever disacknowledges that Allaah is above His 'Arsh, above His seven heavens, and that He is separated from His creatures, is a Kafir, (unbeliever). Such person must be ordered to repent and disavow his belief, or else he must be beheaded and thrown on a garbage dump so that neither Ahlul-Qiblah nor Ahludth-dthimmah be annoyed by the foul odor of his carcass." Abu Bakr Muhammad at-Tamimi, a Shafi'ite Imaam of Naisaboor, said:"I do not pray behind a person who denies the attributes of Allaah and does not recognize that Allaah is above His 'Arsh."

48. Al-Juyoosh al-Islamiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, p.93

the statements from Allah are clear the evedinces from the sunnah are clear u bring the evedince were it sais how to understand these attributes. bring from quran and sunnah nad the ashari aqeeda

[faqir]

Listen brother, if you want to discuss the Creed of the four Imams then start a new thread - actually don't worry, I will do it for you!


Imaam Ash-Shafi'ee

Imaam ash-Shafi'ee said:"The creed which I hold is the same creed the Muslims before me were holding, namely, the Testimony of Faith: "There is no god worthy of being worshipped except Allaah, that Muhammed is the Messenger of Allaah, and that Allaah is above His 'Arsh, above the heavens. He descends to the lowest heaven whenever He wishes." [48]

48. Al-Juyoosh al-Islamiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, p.93



Just to let you know that al-Dhahabi in Siyar a`lam al-Nubala’ [8:412] declared this report a forgery.

If you want to post any more forgeries or fabrications you can post it in a new thread that I will dedicate for you:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13940

:salam:

[ozgurislam]

As salamu aleykum,

Some salafi Imam told me that:

The Mutaqaddimeen (The earlier Fuqaha) were all unanimous in accepting of the Siffaat of Allah to be without any ta'weel at all.

For example in the case of Yadun"Hand" the earlier Ulama stated as Imam Abu Hanifa has stated(1), that it refers to Hand of Allah and as for "how" we do not know about it.

We dont attribute "Hand" or "body" to Allah physically neither form and shape to Allah. he said that this the belief of the so called Salafis today.


Now im asking what is wrong with this aqeedah? The so called salafis accepted the Mutashaabihaat in the Quran without asking ''How'' they didnt give form or body to Allah neither a direction, they simply accepted what the Quran did dictate without asking how.

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

[faqir]

Asalamu alaikum akhi!


I am glad that your "salafi" imam likes al-Fiqh al-akbar.

As the "salafis" are keen on quoting from Imam Abu Hanifah I am sure they will not then object to the following quotes acribed to him:



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

Imam Abu Hanifa [Al-Fiqh al-Absat]




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

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


Or perhaps they also agree with the following statement in al-Fiqh al-Akbar:

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

and

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


As for the statement you have brought, the Salafis contradict it do they not? Do they not say that the texts related to yad, etc are to be taken upon their literal and haqiqi meanings? Is that not a contradiction of the "without how" principle that the Imam is referring to? Does the Imam say that these texts are to be taken in such a manner as the "salafis" choose?



But brother, let us leave your "salafi" friend aside and quote some examples for you of statements from the "salafi" theologians and a comparison with the statements of Sunni orthodoxy:





http://www.salafitalk.net/st/printthread.cfm?Forum=8&Topic=1138

So they entered into it, and the result of it is what you hear today from these Innovators, Deviants, Heretics, who are the descendants of those ones:



"Allaah is not inside the universe, nor outside of it, nor to the left of it, nor to the right of it, nor above, nor below it...."

"Allaah exists without a place"

"We cannot attribute direction to Allaah"

"Allaah exists without a jism"



And many other slogans and phrases. So they entered many of these statements



Let us compare this statement of the pseudo-salafi theologians to the statement of Imam Abu Ja'far at-Tahawi [who I am sure you are familiar with]



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


That one statement of Imam at-Tahawi is sufficient to deal with the "salafi"'s objection to all of the above statements it quotes in its article which it shamelessly claims the Muslims stole from "Greek Homosexuals" ... see http://www.salafitalk.net/st/printthread.cfm?Forum=8&Topic=1138 !




------------------------------------------------------------------------


Elsewhere, Shaykh Ibn Baz [Salafi theologian] is quoted as saying in Taliqat Hamma `ala ma Katabahu al-Shaykh Muhammad `Ali al-Sabuni fi Sifat Allah (Kuwait: Jam`iyya Ihya' al-Turath al-Islami, pg. 22):

"To declare Allah transcendent beyond possessing body (al-jism), pupils (al-hadaqa), auditory meatus (al-simâkh), tongue (al-lisân), and larynx (al-hanjara) is not the position of Ahl al-Sunna but rather that of the scholars of condemned kalâm and their contrivance.



Again, compare this statement to what Imam Abu Ja'far at-Tahawi says in point number 38 of his creedal work:

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


So what then is the shaykh's opinion of Imam Abu Ja'far at-Tahawi?



------------------------------------------------------------------------


In his footnote to his "commentary" of this statement in Aqeedatut-Tahawiyyah Shaykh Ibn Baz says :

By limits the author [referring to Imam Tahawi] means such as known by humans since no one except Allaah Almighty knows His limits. "



Does anyone know where Shaykh Ibn Baz [RH] got this information that Allah has limits that He knows??

Is this not a contradiction to the primary text upon which the "commentary" is supposedly given i.e. the statement of Imam Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi

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


Is Aqeedatut Tahawiyya not palatable to the "salafi" sect such that it requires its members to read it with the commentary of their "salafi" theologians?


------------------------------------------------------------------------


Shaykh Uthaymin RH claims in his Sharh al-`Aqida al-Wasitiyya :

"Can the vision of Allah Most High in the hereafter be other than in a direction?"



Shall we let Imam Abu Ja'far at-Tahawi answer his question?



35. The Seeing of Allah by the People of the Garden is true, without their vision being all-encompassing and without the manner of their vision being known. As the Book of our Lord has expressed it: "Faces on that Day radiant, looking at their Lord." (al-Qiyama 75:22-3) The explanation of this is as Allah knows and wills. Everything that has come down to us about this from the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in authentic traditions, is as he said and means what he intended. We do not delve into that, trying to interpret it according to our own opinions or letting our imaginations have free rein.

No one is safe in his religion unless he surrenders himself completely to Allah, the Exalted and Glorified and to His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and leaves the knowledge of things that are ambiguous to the one who knows them.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Shaykh al-Uthaimeen's [rh] article pertaining to al-istiwa:

http://www.ibnothaimeen.com/all/noor/article_793.shtml


Apart from some other errors the statement worth focussing upon was the following:



عرشه واستوى عليه علوا واستقرارا يليق به

Istawa in relation to Allah is being equated with istiqrar "settling".


Sidi Abul Hasan elaborated on the position of sunni orthodoxy relating to this as follows:


It can be found in al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al Asqalani's Fath al-Bari:



قوله (وقال مجاهد استوى: علا على العرش) وصله الفريابي عن ورقاء عن ابن أبي نجيح عنه قال ابن بطال اختلف الناس في الاستواء المذكور هنا فقالت المعتزلة معناه الاستيلاء بالقهر والغلبة واحتجوا بقول الشاعر: قد استوى بشر على العراق من غير ودم مهراق وقالت الجسمية معناه الاستقرار

Here is a translation of part of what is mentioned above:

The Mu`tazila said its meaning is "establishing dominion through subjugation and overpowering" (al-istila' bi al-qahr wa al-ghalaba), citing as a proof the saying of the poet:

Bishr established mastery over Iraq without sword and without shedding blood.

The anthropomorphists (al-jismiyya) said: "Its meaning is settledness (al-istiqrar)."


This meaning was also rejected by Imam al-Izz Ibn Abdas Salaam:


قال الشيخ عز الدين بن عبد السلام رحمه الله ورضي عنه وعنّا به الحمد لله ذي العزة والجلال والقدرة والكمال والإنعام والإفضال الواحد الأحد الفردُ الصمد الذي لم يلد ولم يولد ولم يكن له كفوا أحد ليس بجسم مصوَّر ولا جوهرٍ محدودٍ مقدر ولا يشبه شيئا ولا يشبهه شيءٌ ولا تحيط به الجهات ولا تكتنفه الأرضون ولا السموات كان قبل أن كوَّن المكان ودبَّر الزمان وهو الآن على ما عليه كان خلَق الخلق وأعمالهم وقدّر أرزاقهم وآجالهم فكلُّ نعمة منه فهي فضلٌ وكلّ نقمة منه فهي عدلٌ (لا يُسئَلُ عمَّا يَفْعَلُ وَهُمْ يُسئَلُونَ ) استوى على العرش المجيد على الوجه الذي قاله وبالمعنى الذي أراده استواء منزها عن المماسَّة والاستقرار والتمكُّن والحلول والانتقال فتعالى الله الكبير المتعال عما يقوله أهل الغي والضلال بل لا يحمله العرشُ بل العرشُ وحملَتُه محمولون بلطف قدرته مقهورون في قبضته أحاط بكلِّ شيءٍ عِلما وأحصى كلَّ شيء عددا مطّلِعٌ على هواجس الضمائر وحركات الخواطر حيٌّ مريدٌ سميعٌ بصيرٌ عليمٌ قديرٌ متكلم بكلامٍ قديم أزليٍّ ليس بحرفٍ ولا صوت ولا يُتصوَّر في كلامه أن ينقلب مِداداً في الألواح والأوراق شكلا ترمُقه العيون والأحداق كما زعم أهل الحشو والنِّفاق بل الكتابة من أفعال العباد ولا يُتصوَّر في أفعالهم أن تكون قديمة ويجب احترامها لدلالتها على كلامه كما يجب احترام أسمائه لدلالتها على ذاته وحُقَّ لما دلَّ عليه وانتسب إليه أن يُعتقد عظمته وترعى حرمته ولذلك يجب احترام الكعبة والأنبياء والعُباد والصُّلحاء

Here is a short translation:

What Allah Is Not

He is not a body endowed with form. He is not a substance confined by boundary or measurement. He resembles nothing and nothing resembles Him. Directions and sides do not encompass Him. Neither the earths nor the heavens contain Him.


His Preternity (Beginninglessness)

He was before He brought place and time into existence, and He is now as He ever was. (1)


His Acts

He created creatures as well as their actions. He decreed the extent of their sustenance and the term of their lives. Every benefit from Him is from His favor, and every punishment is from His justice. He will not be questioned as to what He does, but they will be questioned. (21:23)

He established Himself over the glorious Throne in the way that He says and the meaning He intends, “established” in a manner transcending contact (mumâssa), settledness (istiqrâr), fixity (tamakkun), indwelling (hulûl), or movement (intiqâl). (2)

Exalted is Allah the Greatest, the Most High, far above the claims of the people of error and misguidance! Never can the Throne carry Him, rather the Throne and the Throne-Bearers are carried up by the subtlety of His infinite might, and all are powerless (maqhûrûn) in His grasp. (3)



---------------------------

The footnotes to the above also contain some important quotes:

Footnotes for the above:

(1)- Cf. hadith of the Prophet : kâna allâhu wa lâ shay’a ma‘ahu / ghayruhu / qablahu – “Allah existed and nothing existed together with Him / other than Him / before Him.” Narrated from Burayda by al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (2:341), who declared it sound (sahîh) – al-Dhahabi concurred – and from ‘Imran ibn Husayn by Bukhari, Ibn Hibban with two sound chains in his Sahih (14:7 #6140, 14:11 #6142), and Ibn Abi Shayba in his Musannaf. See Appendix, “Allah is now as He ever was.”

(2) See the appendix entitled “Istiwâ’ is a Divine Act” in the translation of Bayhaqi’s al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat, published separately. Note that the “Salafis” deny most of the above: “ The ‘Salafis’ and Ibn Taymiyya assert that settledness takes place over the Throne…. Ibn Taymiyya strenuously asserts that Allah descends, and can be above (fawq) and below (taht) ‘without how’…. and that the school of the Salaf is the affirmation of everything that the Qur’an stated concerning aboveness (fawqiyya), belowness (tahtiyya), and establishment over the Throne.” Abu Zahra, al-Madhahib al-Islamiyya (p. 320-322). Ibn Rushd in Sharh al-‘Utbiyya stated that Malik’s position is: “The Throne is not Allah’s location of settledness (mawdi‘ istiqrâr Allâh).” As quoted in Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 7:124 #3592).

(3) “We assert that Allah established Himself over the throne without His need (hâja) nor settlement (istiqrâr) upon it, for He it is Who preserves the Throne and other than it without needing any of them.” Abu Hanifa, Wasiyya al-Imam al-A‘zam ila Abi ‘Amr ‘Uthman al-Batti (p. 10). “Allah established Himself over the Throne in the sense that He said and the meaning that He wills, with an establishment that transcends touch, settlement, location, immanence, and displacement. The Throne does not carry him, rather the Throne and its carriers are carried by the subtleness of His power, subdued under His grip.” Al-Ash‘ari, al-Ibana ‘an Usul al-Diyana, Mahmud ed. (p. 21); Sabbagh ed. (p. 35),“The carrier of the Throne and of its carriers is in reality Allah Himself.” Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 386) as quoted in Bayhaqi, al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (al-Hashidi ed. 2:279-280).




Here is how Ibn Hajar quoted Ibn Rushd's saying from Imam Malik:



قال أبو الوليد بن رشد في " شرح العتبية " إنما نهى مالك لئلا يسبق إلى وهم الجاهل أن العرش إذا تحرك يتحرك الله بحركته كما يقع للجالس منا على كرسيه، وليس العرش بموضع استقرار الله، تبارك الله وتنزه عن مشابهة خلقه.


And finally, here is Imam al-Bayhaqi on Istiwa and rejection of Istiqrar, in his al-I'tiqad:



الِاعْتِقَادُ لِلْبَيْهَقِيِّ >> بَابُ الْقَوْلِ فِي الِاسْتِوَاءِ >>
" يَنْزِلُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ كُلَّ لَيْلَةٍ إِلَى سَمَاءِ الدُّنْيَا حِينَ

56 أخبرنا علي بن محمد بن عبد الله بن بشران ، ثنا أحمد بن سلمان ، قال : قرئ على سليمان بن الأشعث ، وأخبرنا أبو علي الروذباري ، أنا أبو بكر بن داسة ، ثنا أبو داود ، ثنا القعنبي ، عن مالك ، عن ابن شهاب ، عن أبي سلمة بن عبد الرحمن ، وعن أبي عبد الله الأغر ، عن أبي هريرة ، رضي الله عنه ، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : " ينزل الله عز وجل كل ليلة إلى سماء الدنيا حين يبقى ثلث الليل الآخر فيقول : من يدعوني فأستجيب له ، من يسألني فأعطيه ، من يستغفرني فأغفر له " قال رحمه الله : وهذا حديث صحيح رواه جماعة من الصحابة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وأصحاب الحديث فيما ورد به الكتاب والسنة من أمثال هذا ، ولم يتكلم أحد من الصحابة والتابعين في تأويله ، ثم إنهم على قسمين : منهم من قبله وآمن به ولم يؤوله ووكل علمه إلى الله ونفى الكيفية والتشبيه عنه . ومنهم من قبله وآمن به وحمله على وجه يصح استعماله في اللغة ولا يناقض التوحيد . وقد ذكرنا هاتين الطريقتين في كتاب الأسماء والصفات في المسائل التي تكلموا فيها من هذا الباب ، وفي الجملة يجب أن يعلم أن استواء الله سبحانه وتعالى ليس باستواء اعتدال عن اعوجاج ولا استقرار في مكان ، ولا مماسة لشيء من خلقه ، لكنه مستو على عرشه كما أخبر بلا كيف بلا أين ، بائن من جميع خلقه ، وأن إتيانه ليس بإتيان من مكان إلى مكان ، وأن مجيئه ليس بحركة ، وأن نزوله ليس بنقلة ، وأن نفسه ليس بجسم ، وأن وجهه ليس بصورة ، وأن يده ليست بجارحة ، وأن عينه ليست بحدقة ، وإنما هذه أوصاف جاء بها التوقيف ، فقلنا بها ونفينا عنها التكييف ، فقد قال : ليس كمثله شيء ، وقال : ولم يكن له كفوا أحد ، وقال : هل تعلم له سميا





-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Another example, this time from Sh. al-Uthaimeen's RH book عقيدة أهل السنة والجماعة



ونؤمن بأن الله عز وجل عليّ على خلقه بذاته وصفاته لقوله تعالـى: (وَهُوَ الْعَلِيُّ الْعَظِيمُ) (سورة البقرة من الآية:255) ، قوله: (وَهُوَ الْقَاهِرُ فَوْقَ عِبَادِهِ وَهُوَ الْحَكِيمُ الْخَبِيرُ) (الأنعام:18)

ونؤمن بأنه (خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى عَلَى الْعَرْشِ يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ)(يونس:الآية3). واستـواؤه على العرش: علوه عليه بذاته علوَّاً خاصاً يليق بجلاله وعظمته لا يعلم كيفيتـه إلا هو.

The above was translated by the followers of sh. al-Uthaimeen RH as:

We believe that Allah is well above His creatures in His Person and His Attributes, because He says: "He is the High, the Great" (2:22); "He is Supreme over His servants, and He is the Wise, the All-aware" (6:18 ).

We believe that He "created the Heavens and the Earth in six days, then He settled Himself on the throne; He manages everything" (10:3). His "settling on the throne" means that He is sitting in person on His throne in a way that is becoming to His majesty and greatness. Nobody except He knows exactly how He is sitting.




As for the accuracy of the translation, well where does one start!?

BUT, It seems to me that they have tried to translate the passages in a manner that is as literal as possible!


So to them al-Uthaimeen's statement واستـواؤه على العرش means "settling on the throne" and علوه عليه بذاته علوَّاً خاصاً يليق بجلاله وعظمته لا يعلم كيفيتـه إلا هو means "that He is sitting in person on His throne in a way that is becoming to His majesty and greatness."


Tha accepted translation to our Salafi brethren seems very strange to me but I think that they are perhaps drawing from some of the shaykh's other statements - Allah knows best!

All I can say is that the translated statement contradicts the position of the majority of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah on many issues.

For example, Imam al-Qurtubi and others explained the "Uluw" of Allah in terms of the Uluw of His Majesty, Attributes and Dominion and compare that to what has been mentioned above regarding sitting in person on His throne, etc.


Anyway, let us put the translation to the side for the moment as some may argue that it is the translators fault [maybe he is an anthropomorphist??].

Even if one looks at the Arabic statement alone there are enough problems and contradictions within it are there not?

For example, the use of the innovated phrase "bi dhatihi" in relation to al-istiwa - something that I have not seen reported from the Salaf and actually contradicts the principle of "bila kayf" does it not?

Where is the proof in the Quran and Sunnah for its usage in relation to istiwa? Then, who from the first three generations used it?

In fact, the likes of Ibn Hajar, al-Dhahabi, Ibn al-Jawzi and others rejected its use due to the obvious anthropomorphic implications did they not?!

Ibn al-Jawzī said in Daf‘Shubah al-Tashbīh:

“Whoever says: He established Himself over the Throne bi dhātihi, has diverted the sense of the Qur’ānic verse to that of sensory perception.… The anthropomorphists said: He is established over the Throne ‘in person.’ But this addition is not related by anyone! It is only what they understood with their senses, namely, that one is not established other than with one’s own person.”


Now, some might say, NO, using the phrase bi dhatihi in relation to istiwa is not contradicting the principle of "bila kayf".

Then they would have disagreed with the Imam who the salafis always love to quote over and over on the issue of istiwa, Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr [even though he was refuted and criticised for some errors on his part], because he held the position that to say bidhātihi in the hadīth of descent is modality and is forbidden by Ahl al-Sunna. He states:

Others say that He descends with His Essence (bidhātihi). Ah.mad ibn ‘Abd Allāh told us that his father told him: Ah.mad ibn Khālid narrated to us: Yah.yā ibn ‘Uthmān ibn S.ālih. narrated to us in Egypt: “I heard Nu‘aym ibn H.ammād say the h.adīth of the descent as he was refuting the position of the Jahmiyya and Nu‘aym said: ‘He descends with His essence while He remains on His kursī.’” This is worthless in the view of the people of understanding among Ahl al-Sunna for it is a modality.”




Elsewhere, Imam Dhahabi rejects its use on many occasions:

Al-Dhahabī states in the Siyar: “There is no need for the expression bi dhātihi, and it disturbs the soul.”[Al-Dhahabī, Siyar (Arna’ūt. ed. 19:607).]


------------------------------------------------------------------------


Salafi theologian Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips states in reference to Allah [swt]:


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.

http://muslimconverts.com/e-books/fundamentals_of_tawheed.htm



Imam al-Bayhaqi, in his Manaqib Ahmad relates with an authentic chain that Imam Ahmad [RH] 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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dr. Muhammad Khalil Harras [described here: http://www.uh.edu/campus/msa/articles/sharh/biog.html#harras as [I]"a great Salafi Aalim and research scholar" writes in his translation of Ibn Taymiya’s “Sharh Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah,” page 73:

“The Mutazila deny the vision. This denial is based on refusing to accept Allah in any direction for it is necessary for a thing being seen to be in the direction of the seer...”


Imam Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi states:

35. The Seeing of Allah by the People of the Garden is true, without their vision being all-encompassing and without the manner of their vision being known. As the Book of our Lord has expressed it: "Faces on that Day radiant, looking at their Lord." (al-Qiyama 75:22-3) The explanation of this is as Allah knows and wills. Everything that has come down to us about this from the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in authentic traditions, is as he said and means what he intended. We do not delve into that, trying to interpret it according to our own opinions or letting our imaginations have free rein.

No one is safe in his religion unless he surrenders himself completely to Allah, the Exalted and Glorified and to His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and leaves the knowledge of things that are ambiguous to the one who knows them.


And again:


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

[ozgurislam]

so what is your point on my question?

[an-nepalee]

so what is your point on my question?

:$ :$

[faqir]

Asalamu alaikum sidi,

I will try and break down your post to make it easier for you to understand.



As salamu aleykum,

Some salafi Imam told me that:


First of all, who is this "salafi Imam"?




The Mutaqaddimeen (The earlier Fuqaha) were all unanimous in accepting of the Siffaat of Allah to be without any ta'weel at all.

I do not believe they were unanimously opposed to "any ta'weel at all".

Shaykh al-Islam Imam Nawawi [RH] states in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim in the Chapter ‏صلاة المسافرين وقصرها‏ regarding the hadith of descent:

"هذا الحديث من أحاديث الصفات، وفيه مذهبان مشهوران للعلماء: أحدهما وهو مذهب السلف وبعض المتكلمين أنه يؤمن بأنها حق على ما يليق بالله تعالى وأن ظاهرها المتعارف في حقنا غير مراد، ولا يتكلم في تأويلها مع اعتقاد تنزيه الله تعالى عن صفات المخلوق وعن الانتقال والحركات وسائر سمات الخلق، والثاني مذهب أكثر المتكلمين وجماعات من السلف وهو محكي هنا عن مالك والأوزاعي على أنها تتأول على ما يليق بها بحسب مواطنها، فعلى هذا تأولوا هذا الحديث تأويلين أحدهما:


There are, concerning this hadith and those like it among the hadiths and verses of the divine Attributes, two well-known schools of thought.

The school of the vast majority of the Salaf and some of the scholars of kalam holds that we must believe in their reality according to what befits Allah Almighty and Exalted, but that the literal import we commonly apply to ourselves is not meant, nor do we say anything to interpret them figuratively, believing firmly that Allah is utterly transcendent above the properties of contingence (huduth).

The second school is that of the majority of the scholars of kalam and a number of the Salaf - related from Malik and al-Awza`i - and holds that they are interpreted figuratively but only according to their appropriate contextual meanings. On that basis, this hadith has two interpretations.


So brother, this so called unanimity your Salafi Imam talks about is incorrect according to Shaykh al-Islam.

see also: The Ta'wil of the Salaf (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4030&page=1)




For example in the case of Yadun"Hand" the earlier Ulama stated as Imam Abu Hanifa has stated(1), that it refers to Hand of Allah and as for "how" we do not know about it.

We dont attribute "Hand" or "body" to Allah physically neither form and shape to Allah. he said that this the belief of the so called Salafis today.


Brother, are you saying that the Salafis do not take the texts pertainin to Yad, Wajh, etc upon its literal and Haqiqi import?





Now im asking what is wrong with this aqeedah? The so called salafis accepted the Mutashaabihaat in the Quran without asking ''How'' they didnt give form or body to Allah neither a direction, they simply accepted what the Quran did dictate without asking how.


No. The statements from the Salafi theologians I have provided above contradict your observation. Their belief is far from Imam Abu Hanifah RH.

In fact, can you ask them if they agree with what I have quoted from the Imam's Fiqh al-Akbar above pertaining to the speech of Allah?





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





وهو شيء لا كالأشياء

ومعنى الشيء اثباته بلا جسم ولاجوهر ولاعَرَض

ولاحد له

و لاضدّ له ولاندّ له

ولامثل له

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

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

ولكن يده صفته بلا كيف

وغضبه ورضاه صفتان من صفاته تعالى بلا كيف


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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, as a brother stated elsewhere:

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

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

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

[end quote]


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

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

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

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

We, like Imam Abu Hanifah do not liken Allah to His creation! Rather, we, like the Imam, uphold His transcendence and say: "I believe in Allah and what has come about Allah according to the intent of Allah." [Imam Shafi'i as quoted in Luma'h Al-`Itiqaad Al- Haadi ilaa ilaa Sabeel al-Rashaad]


And Allah knows best.

[Disclaimer: The above is my own limited understanding of what I have understood from my teachers - if there are mistakes please do point them out!!]

[Jamaluddine]

Brother Faqir,
Assalamu alaika,

Yours is a looong post, and in my own opinion there's quite a lot to be commented upon, however for lack of time, I just have one small comment for now:

...In his footnote to his "commentary" of this statement in Aqeedatut-Tahawiyyah Shaykh Ibn Baz says :

"Allah is beyond limits that we know but has limits He knows."


Does anyone know where Shaykh Ibn Baz [RH] got this information that Allah has limits that He knows??...

Are you sure that those were the exact words that Sheikh Ibn Baz RhA said??. I would not want to see you fall into 'mis-quoting'.

Wassalam
Jamaluddine

[faqir]

:salam:


Sidi, I believe the commentary of Sh. Ibn Baaz has been translated by Sh. Shu'ayb Hasan. I recall seeing such a statement within the translated text a long time back - but I shall have to borrow the book again to confirm the accuracy of the quote for myself.


On-line, the statement of Sh. Ibn Baz:

"Allah is beyond limits that we know but has limits He knows."

has been referenced to al-`Aqidah Tahaawiyyah Bi-Ta`liq on page 12 - it is also quoted by Sh. GF Haddad in his article (http://www.abc.se/~m9783/ibaz_e.html) on Sh. Ibn Baz.


Sh. Ibn Baz is also quoted similarly elsewhere trying to "explain" away the clear words of Imam Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi as follows :


[I]"By limits the author [referring to Imam Tahawi] means such as known by humans since no one except Allaah Almighty knows His limits. Thus Allaah the exalted has said:

"He knows what is before or after or behind them, but they shall comprehend Him not." [Taa-Haa 20:110]

Those among the salaf who spoke of a limit with regards to His attribute of istawa, meant a limit known to Allaah only and not known by the people."



Sidi, have you seen the arabic text on-line? If so, perhaps you could link it and we can check the original text. :jazak:

:salam:

[Jamaluddine]

:salam:

..."Allah is beyond limits that we know but has limits He knows."

has been referenced to al-`Aqidah Tahaawiyyah Bi-Ta`liq on page 12 - it is also quoted by Sh. GF Haddad in his article (http://www.abc.se/~m9783/ibaz_e.html) on Sh. Ibn Baz...
I could not find anywhere where Sh. Ibn Baz had ever stated for certain that Allah SWT 'has limits'.


...limits the author [referring to Imam Tahawi] means such as known by humans since no one except Allaah Almighty knows His limits...
I think Sh. Ibn Baz has said this (words of which are quite different from statement 1 above). This is found in English in a small booklet titled 'The Muslim Creed' (of which I have a copy in front of me), with commentary by Sh. Ibn Baz.
The Arabic text can be found here:

http://www.sahab.org/books/book.php?id=585 (page 22 line 4)(I tried to Copy & Paste it, but it wouldn't work; the words were all jumbled up!)

In which there are commentaries by 3 Salafi Scholars.

Wassalam
Jamaluddine

[al-Hanbali]

Shaykh Ibn Baz did indeed say it. I have his notes on at-Tahawiyah in Arabic. And he is not the first to say such words. Look up the Tahawiyah with his notes in Arabic and you will find it.

[faqir]

Imam Ibn Abd as-Salam and Tafwid



Sulţān al-Úlamā Shaykh Ízzuddīn Ábdu’l Ázīz ibn Ábdu’s Salām [d. 660 AH] writes in his epistle: ‘Al-Mulĥah fī Iýtiqādi Ahli’l Ĥaqq’ pg. 12:


استوى على العرش المجيد على وجه الذي قاله * وبالمعنى الذي أراده * استواء منزها عن امماسة والإستقرار * والتمكن والحلول والإنتقال * فتعالى الله الكبير المتعال عما يقوله أهل الغي والضلال بل لا يحمله العرش * بل العرش وحملته محمولون بلطف قدرته * ومقهورون في قبضته * أحاط بكل شيء علما



And He made Istawā on the Majestic Throne in the manner He has said; its meaning is what He Intends. Istawā that is free from touching [the throne] or settling upon it. Or holding unto it or getting into it or transferring upon it. Exalted is Allāh, the Most Exalted from such things attributed by the aberrant and the deviated. Rather the Throne cannot bear Him; infact, the Throne and [the angels] who bear it are dependent on His Grace and are subdued by His Power. He encompasses everything with His Knowledge.


*translated by Sidi Abu Hasan*

[loveProphet]

Listen brother, if you want to discuss the Creed of the four Imams then start a new thread - actually don't worry, I will do it for you!



Just to let you know that al-Dhahabi in Siyar a`lam al-Nubala’ [8:412] declared this report a forgery.

If you want to post any more forgeries or fabrications you can post it in a new thread that I will dedicate for you:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13940

:salam:
Assalam-o-Alaikum,
SubhanAllah brother.
JazakAllah Khair.
May Allah Taa'la Bless you always for defending the Ahlus Sunnah, Ameen.!!!
I posted to stani that his quotes were FABRICATIONS but he didn't listen.

[Jamaluddine]

Brother Faqir,
Assalamu alaika,


...Again, compare this statement to what Imam Abu Ja'far at-Tahawi says in point number 38 of his creedal work:

38. He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created things are....
Imam Abu Ja'far at-Tahawi RhA is probably one of the greatest scholars that this Ummah has ever produced. But does that mean that he is PERFECT in everything that he says??. Muslims take and reject from everyone other than Allah SWT and the dweller of this grave
If we start judging Imam Tahhawi RhA in the same way that you (not necessarily personally) have been judging other great scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah RhA (re: Bithatihi for example), Ibn Baz RhA (see above)...etc,
then you will find that in that same point number 38 he has used terms and ideas that were not used by great scholars before him (e.g. six directions and limits), [see the link that I gave above, p21-22].

However great Islamic scholars do not criticise each other as 'bluntly' as we sometimes allow ourselves to do. They rather give each other the benefit of the doubt, and respect each other's Ijtihad to a great extent (as you will find in the link that I gave above).


Shaykh Uthaymin RH claims in his[I] Sharh al-`Aqida al-Wasitiyya :

"Can the vision of Allah Most High in the hereafter be other than in a direction?"
Please help me here: I have looked in Sharh al-`Aqida al-Wasitiyya but could not find this statement. Could you tell me what chapter and page?

Wassalam
Jamaluddine

[lumumba_s]

:salam:

I really need to learn Arabic . . .

[Sunni_Student786]

:salam:

I really need to learn Arabic . . .

I know how you feel.

[stani]

One of the key issues that divides Ahlus Sunnah from all other sects in Islaam is their belief in Allaah and their knowledge of Him, His Actions and His Attributes, their way being clearly distinct from the way of the Khwaarij, the Shee’a, the Mu’tazila, the Jahmiyyah, the later Ash’arees and other sects.

Know that one of the main purposes of Allaah sending down His revelation is so that mankind may come to know their Lord, and through this knowledge of theirs worship Him as He deserves to be worshipped. And He, Exalted is He, made it a duty upon our Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to convey this revelation and knowledge clearly, in such a way that no doubt would remain in the hearts of the People, and the Way to Allaah would become clear for both the learned and the ignorant to see.

Ibn Abee al-Izz says,

"Allaah says, ‘the Messengers duty is only to convey’ (24:54), and He said, ‘are the Messengers charged with anything but to convey the Message clearly?’ (16:54), and He said, ‘and We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear from them. Then Allaah misleads whom He Wills and guides whom He Wills.’ (14:4), and He said, ‘and there has come to you a Light and a Clear Book from Allaah’ (5:15)….
So the command to have faith in Allaah and the Last Day was either spoken about by the Messenger (SAW) with that which would lead to the truth or not. And the second possibility is rejected. And if he were to speak about the truth with general words that were open to interpretation then he would not have conveyed the clear message, and the best of generations witnessed to his (clear) conveyance (of the message) and Allaah bore witness for them in the Greatest of Places. So the one who claims that he did not convey the message clearly with respect to the foundations of the religion (Usul ad-Deen) has lied against the Messenger (SAW)" [‘Sharh Aqueedah at-Tahaawiyyah’ (pg. 231)]




And all those who claim that it is necessary to make ta’weel of Allaah’s Attributes, while admitting that the Prophet (SAW) and his Companions never delved into ta’weel [As admitted by a group of the Ash’arees, another group claim that the salaf did make ta’weel and discussion on this shall follow in it’s proper place insha’allaah.] then they, knowingly or unknowingly, have claimed that the Messenger (SAW) did not convey his message clearly. Subhaanallaah! Consider this, the Ash’arees and their likes have written volumes and volumes of works concerning the necessity of ta’weel claiming that taking the Attributes of Allaah upon their face value is tashbeeh and tajseem or in other words clear kufr! Yet nowhere in the Qur’aan does Allaah say: everything that We have described Ourselves with cannot be taken on it’s face value because it is kufr. And the Messenger (SAW) never followed up his describing Allaah by warning from taking it upon it’s face value. Is it Allaah and His Messenger (SAW) who are guilty of conveying the Message obscurely? What is the matter with you? How is it that you judge!

Imaam Alee bin al-Murtadaa al-Yamaanee said,

"The second matter is accusing the religion of deficiency by rejecting the texts and dhawaahir (literal meanings of the Attributes), and removing them from their real and literal meanings to metaphorical meanings without a clear and unequivocal proof which would indicate the establishment for the necessity of ta’weel, having only the blind following of some of the Ahl al-Kalaam in principles that they have not agreed upon. And the most vile of these is the madhhab of the Qaraamita, the Baatiniyyah, in their ta’weel of the Beautiful Names of Allaah, and their negation of them by way of absolving Allaah of anthropomorphism and hence actualising tawheed (in their eyes), and their claim that applying them (to Allaah) is tashbeeh, to the extent that they went to say that He is not present/existing and neither is He absent/non-existing…

And from the necessary matters (of this Religion) is to take the Beautiful Names of Allaah mentioned in His Book by way of glorification and supreme praise of Him - do you not see that ar-Rahmaan, ar-Raheem, for example, are recited in every prayer and mentioned in ever Muslim gathering, all of them being agreed that these two Names are the best ways of praising Allaah, the Exalted, and drawing close to Him by glorifying Him by them…..

And what is to prevent affirming the Attribute of Mercy (Rahma) and it’s likes that have been affirmed by Allaah and His Messenger (SAW) in the same way along with negating the deficiencies that are associated with the attributes of the creation, and doing the same with every Attribute that the Lord is described with and the creation is also described with? For He, the Magnificent and Exalted, is described by them in the most perfect way removed from all defects. And the servant is described by them as befits him with the defects and weaknesses. In this way Ahlus Sunnah understood the negation of tashbeeh not by negating the Attributes as done by the Mu’attila.

And from the matters that indicate the futility of ta’weel is that the Mu’tazila dislike the ta’weel that the Ash’arees make of al-Hakeem (the Wise), and the Ash’arees dislike the ta’weel that some of the Mu’tazila make of the Hearing (as-Samee’), the Seeing (al-Baseer), and Ahlus Sunnah dislike the ta’weel that both parties make of ar-Rahmaan, ar-Raheem and their likes. And all the parties dislike the ta’weel made by the Qaraamita. So it is obligatory to affirm what Allaah affirmed for His Noble Self without ta’weel and ta’teel.

And the saying that (affirming the) literal meaning of these Names is disbelief and misguidance, and that the Companions and the righteous salaf did not understand their meanings, or that they did understand them but did not carry out the obligation of advising mankind of their true meaning, is not permissible due to two matters:

1. The necessary and unequivocal reasoning that the nature (of man) necessitates that any matter of this kind would have had a warning against it arising from the Messenger of Allaah (SAW) and his Companions, and it would have been more frequent and greater than their warning from the Lying Dajjaal. And it is not possible due to their complete intellects and religion that they would leave their children, women, and their general masses listening to something, related to Allaah, whose literal meaning is disbelief and remain silent about it. And were they to leave this warning then certainly they would have left the warning from the Dajjaal, for the nullification of His Lordship is greater and more severe according to the intellect. Do you not see that when the Mutakallimeen came to believe in the repugnance of the literal meanings of these texts, their warning against them became frequent as did their ta’weel of them, and they wrote volumes concerning this, and they aroused the negligent, and they taught the ignorant, and they declared the disbelief of those that opposed them, and they made it wide spread amongst the Muslims, rather the whole world. But this would have been more rightfully the duty of the Master of the Messengers, and the Precedent of the Predecessors and the Helpers of the Religion (SAW), if this were true.

2. It is established that any addition in the Religion is forbidden, so it is not correct that the Sharee’ah be silent about something that is required from a text which is from the fundamentals of the Religion, and Islaam is to be followed not to be invented and this is why it declares anyone who rejects any of the pillars of the Religion to be a disbeliever, because they are known by necessity. So it is more deserving and proper that the Sharee’ah not come with something with which is repeatedly recited and (outwardly) false yet not caution us about it, especially since what is heard is false and is well-known in all of the Books of Allaah. So there is nothing that occurs that would oppose (the literal meanings of the texts) by way of the Sharee’ah or intellect and would necessitate ta’weel…

And al-Raazee acknowledged in his book ‘al-Arba’een’ - and he is from the greatest opponents of Ahlus Sunnah - that all of the Heavenly Books came with the mention of Allaah’s Attributes - and Allaah did not mention a single text that He is to be absolved of the Attribute of Mercy, Forbearance, and Wisdom and their likes. So the matter is clear even though he may not accept it."




[‘Eethaar al-Haqq alaa al-Khalq’ (pp. 219+) of al-Yamaanee with summary, as quoted in ‘Sharh Kitaab at-Tawheed min Saheeh al-Bukhaaree’ (1/86+) of Shaykh Adullaah al-Ghunaymaan.]

The position of the Salaf concerning the Attributes of Allaah:

al-Awzaa’ee (d. 157) said, "I asked az-Zuhree and Makhool about the Verses pertaining to the Attributes of Allaah, so they said, ‘leave them as they are’" [‘Sharh Usul I’tiqaad’ (3/430) with a hasan isnaad]


al-Waleed bin Muslim (d.194) said, "I asked Maalik, al-Awzaa’ee, Layth bin Sa’d and Sufyaan ath-Thawree, may Allaah have mercy upon them, concerning the reports related about the Attributes, so they all said: Leave them as they are without asking how" [‘al-Asmaa was Sifaat’ (pg.453) with a hasan isnaad]


Rabee’a ar-Ra’ee (d.136) said, "al-Istawaa (Allaah Rising over His Throne) is not unknown, and how (it occurs) is not comprehensible, and from Allaah is the Message, and upon the Messenger is to convey, and upon us is to affirm." [ ibid. (pg.516). Ibn Taymiyyah said in ‘al-Hamawiyyah’ (pg.80), "al-Khallaal narrated it with an isnaad all of whom are trustworthy."]


Sufyaan bin Uyaynah said, "everything that Allaah described Himself with in His Book then it’s recitation is it’s explanation, without asking how or likening". [Related in ‘Sharh Usul I’tiqaad’ (pg.736), ‘as-Sifaat’ of ad-Daaruqutnee (pg. 61), ‘Dham at-Ta’weel’ (pg. 17 no. 22) via a number of different routes.]


It is also narrated from him about the ahaadeeth concerning the Attributes that he said, "we narrate them as they came without asking how" [as-Sifaat’ (pg. 63) of ad-Daaruqutnee, ‘at-Tamheed’ of ibn Abdul Barr (7/147) with a saheeh sanad.]


Shareek bin Abdullaah said when told that some people rejected and abused the ahaadeeth concerning the Attributes, "the ones that came with these ahaadeeth are the ones that came with the Qur’aan, and that the prayers are five, and the Hajj to the House, and the Fast of Ramadaan. And we do not Allaah except by these ahaadeeth." [‘as-Sunnah’ (1/273) of Imaam Abdullaah bin Ahmad, ‘ash-Sharee’ah’ (pg.306) of al-Aajurree with a saheeh sanad.]


Imaam Maalik said when replying to the one who asked, ‘how did Allaah make Istawaa?’, "al-Istawaa is Known, and how is unknown, to have faith in it is obligatory, and to question it is an innovation." Then he said to the questioner, "I do not think except that you are an innovator" and he ordered him to be expelled. [‘al-Asmaa was Sifaat’ (pg.516).]


He also said, "The Most Merciful Ascended as He Himself described, and it is not to be asked ‘How’ since that is unknown." [ibid (pg.516). Ibn Hajr says in ‘Fath’ (13/406) that it’s isnaad is hasan.]


Imaam Abu Haneefah said, "He is something (shay’un) but not like other things, and the meaning of Shay’un is affirmed without affirming a body, limbs or organs. And He has no limit and no partner or opposite, and no similitude. And He has a Hand, a Face and a Self. As for what is mentioned in the Qur’aan: the Face, the Hand, the Self (Nafs) then these are His Attributes without asking how. And it is not said that His Hand is His Power (Qudra) or Favour (Ni’ma) [Alee al-Qaaree says, commenting on this statement, "i.e. by way of ta’weel which was the way of some of the khalaf in contravention to the way of the salaf."] because this contains nullification of the Attribute, and this is the saying of the People of Qadr (Jabariyyah) and the Mu’tazila. Rather His Hand is His Attribute without asking how, and His Anger (Gadb) and Pleasure (Ridaa) are two Attributes without asking How." [‘Fiqh al-Akhbar’ (pp.36-37) with it’s commentary by Mulla Alee al-Qaaree. This is a book which is attributed to Abu Haneefah, but it seems that the strongest opinion amongst the Scholars of Hadeeth is that it is not affirmed to be from him, but from one the students of his students. Allaah the Most High knows best.]


Muhammad bin al-Hasan ash-Shaybaanee said "the Legal Jurists, from the east to the west, have all agreed to have faith in the Qur’aan and the Ahaadeeth that have come via trustworthy narrators from the Messenger of Allaah (SAW) concerning the Attributes without explanation [meaning the explanation of the Jahmiyyah who innovated explanations of the Attributes in opposition to that which the Sahaabah and the Taabi’een were upon in affirming them, as stated by ibn Taymiyyah in ‘al-Hamawiyyah’ (pg. 115)] and without description and without tashbeeh. So whosoever explains anything from them has left that which the Prophet (SAW) was upon and has split off from the Jamaa’ah (for they did not deny or explain, rather they believed in what was in the Book and Sunnah and then remained silent, so the one who says the saying of Jahm has split off from the Jamaa’ah) because he described Him with descriptions that are empty." [‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’ (no. 165), and the addition in brackets is from al-Laalikaa’ee.]


Imaam Ahmad said, "these ahaadeeth should be left as they are….we affirm them and do not make any similitude for them. This is what has been agreed upon by the scholars." [ ‘Munaaqib al-Ahmad’ (pp155-156) of ibn al-Jawzee]


Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee said, "to Allaah belong Names and Attributes that occur in His Book and His Prophet informed to the nation. It is not possible for anyone to refute/repel (radd) them. So the one who contradicts this after the evidence has been established against him then he is a kaafir, and as for before the establishment of the proof then he is excused due to ignorance, because the knowledge of that cannot be attained through the intellect. So we affirm these Attributes and we negate tashbeeh (likening Allaah to creation) as Allaah negated it by saying, ‘there is nothing like Him’" [ ‘Siyar A’laam an-Nubalaa’ (10/80). adh-Dhahabee says, ‘reported by al-Hakkaaree and others with a chain of narrators containing trustworthy narrators as in ‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’ (pg. 177). He also said, "I say: the censure of Kalaam and it’s people is common from ash-Shaafi’ee, and he was very stringent in following the narrations in usul and the furoo"]


And he said, "the belief that I am upon, and I saw Our Companions, the Ashaabul Hadeeth - like Maalik and Sufyaan and others - to be upon is: affirming the testimony that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah. And that Allaah is Over His Throne, above His Heaven (alaa Arshihi fee Samaa’ihi), He comes close to His Creation howsoever He Wills, and He Descends to the lowest heaven howsoever He Wills." [‘Awn al-Ma’bood’ (13/41), and ibn Abu Ya’la reports it in ‘Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilaa’ (1/283) with a chain of narration linked back to ash-Shaafi’ee.]


Ishaaq bin Raahawayah said, "indeed Allaah has described Himself in His Book with Attributes from which the creation is left in no need to describe Him with other than what He described Himself with. From amongst them, ‘Allaah will Come to them in the shades of clouds’ and His saying, ‘And you see the angels around the Throne, hymning the praises of their Lord’" [‘al-Arba’een fee Sifaat Allaah’ (no. 144) of adh-Dhahabee.]


Imaam at-Tirmidhee (d.279) said, "It has been stated by more than one person from the People of Knowledge about such ahaadeeth, that there is no tashbeeh to the Attributes of Allaah, and our Lord - the Blessed and Most High - Descends to the lowest heaven every night. So they say: affirm these narrations, have faith in them, do not deny them or ask how. The likes of this has been related from Maalik bin Anas, Sufyaan ath-Thawree, Ibn Uyaynah and Abdullaah bin al-Mubaarak, who all said about such ahaadeeth, ‘leave them as they are without asking how.’ Such is the saying of the People of Knowledge from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah. However the Jahmiyyah oppose these narrations and say: this is tashbeeh! However Allaah - the Most High - has mentioned in various places in His book, the Attribute of Hand (al-Yad), Hearing (as-Sam’), Seeing (al-Basr), but the Jahmiyyah make ta’weel of these Verses, explaining in a way, other than is explained by the People of Knowledge. They say: indeed Allaah did not create Aadam with His own Hand - they say that Hand means the Power of Allaah."[ ‘Sunan at-Tirmidhee’ (3/42)]


And Abu Ja’far at-Tirmidhee (d.295), when asked as to How Allaah keeps His Attribute of being above the creation if He Descends to the Lowest Heaven in the last third of the night, replied, "The Nuzool (Descent) is understood, but the how/nature is unknown, and faith in it is obligatory, and to question about it (i.e. how) is a bid’ah." [ ‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’ (pg. 231). Al-Albaanee declared the sanad saheeh. Abu Ja’far was from the greatest scholars of his day and died in the year 295.]
adh-Dhahabee says in his ‘Arba’een fee Sifaat Allaah’,

"and it would be beyond ones ability to mention every Imaam who has words concerning the affirmation of Allaah’s Attributes, and if the opponent is not guided by those whom we mentioned saying: there is a consensus upon affirming them without ta’weel, or he does not believe him in his quote then Allaah will not guide such a person. And by Allaah there is no good in the one who rejects the likes of az-Zuhree, Makhool, al-Awzaa’ee, ath-Thawree, Layth bin Sa’d, Maalik, ibn Uyaynah, ibn al-Mubaarak, Muhammad bin al-Hasan, ash-Shaafi’ee, al-Humaidee, Abu Ubaid, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Abu Eesaa at-Tirmidhee, ibn Suraij, ibn Jareer at-Tabaree, ibn Khuzaimah, Zakariyyah as-Saajee, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’aree, or rejects saying the likes of their saying in acknowledging the consensus on this like al-Khattaabee, Abu Bakr al-Ismaa’eelee, Abu al-Qaasim at-Tabaraanee, Abu Ahmad al-Aasaal….and Abdul Qaadir al-Jeelaanee…"



Let us carefully consider the above narrations. Ibn Taymiyyah says,

"So the saying of Rabee’ and Maalik, ‘al-Istawaa is not unknown….’ is in agreement to the saying of the others, ‘they left them as they are, without asking how’ for all they did was to negate the knowledge of the kayfiyyah, and they did not negate the actual Attribute. And if the people had believed in the mere words without understanding their meanings as was befitting to Allaah, then they would not have said, ‘the Istawaa is not unknown, and the how is not comprehensible’ and they would not have said, ‘they left them as they are without asking how’ for indeed the Istawaa in this case would not be known, rather unknown just as the huroof al-Mu’jam (like Alif Laam Meem). So there would be no need to negate the kayfiyyah to something which was not known or understood, rather it would be necessary to negate the knowledge of the kayfiyyah only when the Attribute has been affirmed (and understood)…

Also their saying, ‘they left them as they are’ necessitates that (what the Attributes) indicated would remain as it were, and they came as words indicating a meaning, so if what they indicated was also to be negated then it would have been necessary to say, "they left the words (as they are) with the belief that the meaning was not known"…"



[ ‘al-Hamawiyyah’ (pg.109)]

So upon considering the above it becomes clear that if the Salaf had not understood the meaning of the Attributes, rather relegated the meanings to Allaah and just affirmed the wording (tafweed al-ma’naa) their would have been no conceivable need to negate the How/Nature (kayfiyyah) from the Attributes! Likewise the meaning of ‘reciting them is their explanation’ is that the clear meaning of what we recite is to be taken, and there is no need to delve into ta’weel or look for hidden and metaphorical meanings etc.

This understanding has also been endorsed by the great Shaafi’ee Imaam, al-Khattaabee (d.388) when he said,

"The madhhab (way) of the scholars of the Salaf and their legal jurists was to leave the likes of these ahaadeeth (concerning the Attributes) upon their literal (dhaahir) meanings, and not to twist their meanings (laa yureeghu lahaa al-Ma’aanee) and neither to make ta’weel of them due to their knowledge that their limited knowledge was incapable of understanding them.

Az-Za’faraanee reported from us from ibn Abee Khaythama from Abd al-Wahhaab bin Najda al-Hutee from Baqya from al-Awzaa’ee who said, ‘Makhool and az-Zuhree used to say: we leave these ahaadeeth as they came.’

I say: this is from the knowledge that we have been ordered to believe in literally without attempting to uncover it’s hidden meanings, and it belongs to a host of the mutashaabiha (verses) that Allaah has mentioned in His Book, so He said,‘He is the One Who has sent to you the Book, in it are clear and unequivocal verses, and others are mutashaabiha (allegorical or open to a number of meanings)’. So from the clear and unequivocal verses arises a true understanding (of their content) and action, and from the mutashaabiha arises faith and knowledge in their literal meanings, and we leave the knowledge of it’s hidden meaning to Allaah, the Most Perfect…"



[‘Mu’aalim as-Sunan’ (4/304 - Daar al-Kutub al-Ilmee) of al-Khattaabee under the chapter, "From the chapter concerning the Seeing (of Allaah in the Hereafter)" when he discusses the hadeeth of Descent.]

Ibn Taymiyyah also says,

"…as for the third group then they are the People of Ignorance and they are many from those who ascribe themselves to the Sunnah and following the salaf. They say: the Messenger (SAW) did not understand the meanings of what Allaah revealed to Him from the verses pertaining to the Sifaat, and neither did Jibreel or the Foremost Predecessors understand them. And they said the same thing for the Ahaadeeth concerning the Attributes - that nobody knew their meaning except Allaah….so these people think that they are following the verse "and none knows their explanation except Allaah"…..but they have not distinguished between the meaning of the words and their explanation and the explanation that Allaah is Alone in knowing. And they thought that the ta’weel mentioned in this verse is the ta’weel mentioned in the words of the later generations and they erred in this...and the explanation of the Attributes whose reality Allaah is Alone in knowing is the knowledge of the kayfiyyah which is unknown to us. So (for example) the Istawaa is known, it’s meaning is understood, and explained and translated in other languages, and this is the explanation that those firmly grounded in knowledge know, but as for the kayfiyyah of the Istawaa then this is the explanation that none but Allaah, the Exalted, knows."



[ ‘al-Hamawiyyah’ (pg. 24+)]

So when we come to realise that the Salaf understood the meanings of the Attributes and affirmed them it becomes necessary to also know that they did so while negating 4 matters:

tashbeeh (likening Allaah to His Creation) and tajseem (likening Allaah to a body)


taqyeef (enquiring into the how or nature of the Attribute)


tahreef (distorting the meaning of the Attribute) and tagyeer (changing the meaning of the Attribute) and ta’weel (figuratively interpreting the meaning of the Attribute)


ta’teel (denying the Attributes)
[ Consult: ‘as-Sunnah’ (1/264-307) of Imaam Abdullaah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal (d.290), ‘ash-Sharh wal Ibaanah’(pg. 187-192) of ibn Battah(d.387), ‘Aqueedah as-Salaf’ (pp. 4-7) of as-Saaboonee(d.449), ‘ar-Risaalah fee Ithbaat al-Istawaa’ of al-Juwainee(d.438 - more on this later), ‘Sharh Aqueedah at-Tahaawiyyah’ (pp. 162-366) of ibn Abee al-Izz al-Hanafee (d.792), ‘at-Tadmuriyyah’ of ibn Taymiyyah, ‘Dhamm at-Ta’weel’ of al-Maqdisee, ‘Aqaaweel ath-Thiqaat fee Ta’weel al-Asmaa was Sifaat’ of ibn Yusuf al-Karmee. ]

[Abul Hasan]

Ibn Abee al-Izz says,

"Allaah says, ‘the Messengers duty is only to convey’ (24:54), and He said, ‘are the Messengers charged with anything but to convey the Message clearly?’ (16:54), and He said, ‘and We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear from them. Then Allaah misleads whom He Wills and guides whom He Wills.’ (14:4), and He said, ‘and there has come to you a Light and a Clear Book from Allaah’ (5:15)….

So the command to have faith in Allaah and the Last Day was either spoken about by the Messenger (SAW) with that which would lead to the truth or not. And the second possibility is rejected. And if he were to speak about the truth with general words that were open to interpretation then he would not have conveyed the clear message, and the best of generations witnessed to his (clear) conveyance (of the message) and Allaah bore witness for them in the Greatest of Places. So the one who claims that he did not convey the message clearly with respect to the foundations of the religion (Usul ad-Deen) has lied against the Messenger (SAW)" [‘Sharh Aqueedah at-Tahaawiyyah’ (pg. 231)]




A look at Stani's source: Ibn Abi'l Izz:

-----------------


IBN ABI AL-`IZZ
by GF Haddad

Sadr al-Din Muhammad ibn `Ala' al-Din `Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Abi al-`Izz al-Hanafi al-Dimashqi al-Salihi (d. 792) is unknown in the Hanafi biographical sources but is mentioned in other sources due to the affair that led to his eleven-month imprisonment from 784 to 785.

Ibn `Imad al-Hanbali (d. 1089) devoted 5 lines to him in his ten-volume Shadharat al-Dhahab (6:326) in which he mentions that Ibn Abi al-`Izz was the Hanafi judge for Damascus, then for Cairo for one month, after which he excused himself and came back to Damascus. There, he was imprisoned for a certain matter and remained incarcerated until a new governor came and gave him amnesty.

The story is told by Ibn Hajar in the chapter for the year 784 in his Inba' al-Ghumr (1:258-260) that when the poet `Ali ibn Baybak al-Safadi wrote a poem in praise of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - and circulated it among the Ulema for perusal, Ibn Abi al-`Izz wrote negative remarks in the margins, among them the following:

Next to the line: "Hasbî Rasûlullah he wrote: "This cannot be said except for Allah."

Next to the line: "Intercede for me!" (ishfa` lî) he wrote: "Intercession is not asked of him."

Next to the line: "I have you as my means" (tawassaltu bika) he wrote: "One does not use him as one's means" (la yutawassalu bihi).

Next to the line: "Made immune against lapses" (al-ma`sûm min al-zalal) he wrote: "Except the lapse earning [Divine] rebuke" (illâ min zillat al-`itâb).

Next to the line: "O best of all creatures!" He wrote: "The likelier position is that angels are better" (al-râjih tafdîl al-malâ'ika).

When he was interrogated before a judge about the above, Ibn Abi al-`Izz admitted saying them then said: "I take back those statements and now believe other than what I first said." He was let go but when the case was later reviewed before the collected judges they decided that he should be flogged with Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali abstaining. The Shafi`i head qadi then commuted the sentence into imprisonment which was carried out, and ordered that tawassul poetry be recited by all the mu'adhdhins of Damascus after the Fajr prayer.

Ibn Abi al-`Izz would be forgotten today were it not for a commentary on al-Tahawi's `Aqida printed and distributed heavily by the "Salafis." Its first printing was in 1930 CE in Makka at the hands of `Abd Allah ibn Hasan ibn Husayn, a descendant of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. Shaykh Ahmad Shakir (d. 1958) brought out another edition in 1954 and, more recently, al-Albani and his friends.

It is evident that Ibn Abi al-`Izz's Sharh on al-Tahawi contains a high amount of real deviations from the doctrinal tenets of Ahl al-Sunna in general and from the Maturidi and Hanafi Schools in particular. Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamâ'a certainly do not use that commentary in their curricula but will use those of 'Abd al-Ghani al-Ghunaymi al-Maydani or Akmal al-Din al-Babarti.

Imam Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari in al-Hawi fi Sira al-Imam al-Tahawi (p. 38-39) referred to Ibn Abi al-`Izz when he said: "A commentary was published [on the `Aqida Tahawiyya], authored by an Unknown spuriously affiliated with the Hanafi school, but whose handiwork proclaims his ignorance of this discipline and the fact that he is an anthropomorphist who has lost his compass."

The late Imam of hadith and usûl of Damascus, al-Sayyid Ibrahim
al-Ya`qubi, raised the possibility that "Ibn Abi al-`Izz" be a pseudonym for Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751) on the basis of the author's systematic abandonment of the Maturidi - and even Sunni - position on not one but several key points in favor of Ibn Taymiyya's innovations, as shown below. However, this seems precluded by Ibn Abi al-`Izz's mention of Ibn Kathir (d. 774) as his teacher in two places of the Sharh, although such a mention could conceivably be a later interpolation.

What is more likely is that Ibn Abi al-`Izz was completely absorbed into the orbit of Ibn Taymiyya's school and abandoned whatever Maturidi principles he may have held at one time in doctrine, adopting innovative views on tawassul and even the curt manners and disdain for Ulema for which that school achieved notoriety from its inception down to our time.

The Hanafi Imam Murtada al-Zabidi in his monumental Ithaf al-Sadat al-Muttaqin (2:146) quotes some lines from Ibn Abi al-`Izz's Sharh al-Tahawiyya then comments: "After examining these words [of Ibn Abi al-`Izz] carefully, I have found them to be in contravention of the principles of the School of his Imam. In fact, he seems to be rejecting the Imams of the Sunna as if he were the advocate of their opponents, speaking rashly and trespassing bounds until he compared the position of Ahl al-Sunna with the sayings of Christians. Let the reader therefore beware!"

Mulla `Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi said in Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar (p. 180): "One must not pay any attention to what the innovators imagine on rational bases, and the commentator of al-Tahawi's `Aqida [i.e. Ibn Abi al-`Izz in Sharh al-`Aqida al-Tahawiyya (p. 195)] committed a mistake in this regard when he said: `Can any vision be rationally conceived without face-to-face encounter? And in it there is a proof for His elevation (`uluw) over His creatures.' It seems that he applies the upward direction to his Lord, whereas the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a is that He - exalted is He - is not seen in any direction ! The Prophet's - Allah bless and greet him - saying: `You shall see your Lord just as you see the moon on the night it is full' [from Abu Hurayra by al-Tirmidhi (hasan gharîb) and Abu Hanifa in his Musnad and, in a slightly different wording, from Jarir ibn `Abd Allah al-Bajali by al-Bukhari and Muslim] is a simile (tashbîh) between two types of sightings generally speaking, not a simile between two objects of vision from every perspective."

Ibn Abi al-`Izz also said in his Sharh (p. 195): "Whoever claims that Allah is seen without direction, let him verify his reason!" Note his casual dismissal of - and deviation from - Imam al-Tahawi's position in the `Aqida (§35. "The Seeing of Allah by the People of the Garden is true, without their vision being all-encompassing and without the manner of their vision being known." §38 "He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created things are") and Imam Abu Hanifa's position in al-Wasiyya (p. 3-4): "The meeting (liqâ') of Allah Most High with the dwellers of Paradise is without modality, nor simile, nor direction." (Liqâ' Allâh ta`âlâ li ahl al-janna bi al-ru'ya al-basariyya bilâ kayf wa lâ tashbîh wa lâ jiha), cited by al-Qari in Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar (p. 176-177). Imam al-Haramayn said in al-Irshad (p. 167): "Among their [the Mu`tazila's] insinuations are claims that stem, in fact, from pure speculation, such as their saying: `one who sees must be facing opposite what he sees, or virtually facing' (al-râ'î yajib an yakûna muqâbilan li al-mar'î aw fî hukm al-muqâbil). We say to them: Do you know for certain what you are claiming, or do you know it on speculative bases? If they claim that they know it for certain and accuse whoever disagrees with them of denial, their credibility collapses and their untruth becomes manifest. The same reasoning applies to the anthropomorphists.... And the Creator sees His creation without direction, therefore it is possible that He be seen without direction."

Ibn Taymiyya's doctrine that Hellfire is of finite duration and shall come to an end was endorsed by Ibn Abi al-`Izz in his commentary on al-Tahawi in flat contradiction of the latter's statement, §83. "The Garden and the Fire are created and shall never be extinguished nor come to an end," cf. Sharh (p. 427-430). Ibn Taymiyya was refuted by Shaykh al-Islam al-Subki in his al-Durra al-Mudiyya fi al-Radd `ala Ibn Taymiyya and by Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-San`ani in his Raf` al-Astar li-Ibtal Adilla al-Qa'ilin bi-Fana al-Nar ("Exposing the Nullity of the Proofs of Those Who Claim That Hell-Fire Shall Pass Away"), ed. Albani (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1984).

Ibn Abi al-`Izz adopts Ibn Taymiyya's "trinitarian monotheism" as expressed in his famous invention of three tawhîds: one for Godhead (tawhîd al-ulûhiyya), one for Lordship (tawhîd al-rubûbiyya), and one for the Divine Names and Attributes (tawhîd al-asmâ' wa al-sifât).1 This is found, to our knowledge, in no other commentary of the Tahawiyya, not even the "Salafi" commentary by Hasan al-Busnawi, although the latter does follow Ibn Abi al-`Izz in other matters.

Finally, Ibn Abi al-`Izz subscribes, exactly like Ibn Taymiyya, to the philosophy that contingencies subsist (qiyâm al-hawâdith) in the Godhead; that the world is "generically pre-existent" (qadîmun bil-naw`); that Allah ( speaks with letters and sounds; and that He has "limits which He alone knows" although he himself reports: "The Salaf all agree that human beings have no knowledge of any limit for Allah and that they do not give any of His Attributes any limits. Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi said: `Sufyan, Shu`ba, Hammad ibn Zayd, Hammad ibn Salama, Sharik, and Abu `Awana did not attribute any limits [to Allah], nor any likeness, nor any simile' "!2



---------------------

NOTES

1In his Fatawa (1:219, 2:275); Minhaj al-Sunna (2: 62); Risala Ahl al-Suffa (p.34). Cf. notice on Ibn Taymiyya at
http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=sunnah.org]/jump/http://sunnah.org/history/Innovators/Default.htm .

2Ibn Abi al-`Izz, Sharh al-`Aqida al-Tahawiyya (1391/1971 ed. p. 239).


GF Haddad

-------------------------


Stani, your plagiarised article mentioned the name of Imam Ali al-Qari - who is on record above as disparaging the very same source you quoted: Ibn Abi'l Izz! So how do you fare with that?

Lahawla wala quwwata illa billah.

[faqir]

Imam Ali al-Qari on Tafwid


Bismillāhi’r Raĥmāni’r Raĥīm


Álī al-Ūshī :

wa rabbu’l árshi fawqa’l árshi lākin
bilā waşfi’t tamakkuni wa’t-tişāli[/FONT]

The Lord of Throne is on the Throne, but –
Sans the attribute of ‘holding unto’ or ‘touching’ it.
-----

Álī al-Qārī [Đaw al-Máālī]

‘Lord of the Throne’ that is, the Creator and the Owner of the Throne. The association is similar to ‘Lord of the House’ [rabbu’l bayt] or ‘Lord of Jibrīl’ [rabbi jibrīl.] The Throne is the greatest thing in the creation and that which encompasses everything. Allāh táālā has said: ‘Raĥmān has made Istawā on the Throne’ [ţā-hā, v.5]

The madh’hab of the latter scholars [khalaf] is to explain Istawā’a as Subduing and the chosen position of the predecessors [salaf] is not to explain it at all. [ádamu’t ta-wīl] Rather, to believe it as it has been revealed, that it is transcendent and unqualified [tanzīh] which negates similitude [tashbīh] and to submit the matter [tafwīđ] towards Allāh and His Knowledge concerning its meaning. Just like Imām Mālik has said: ‘Istawā’a is known; it’s modality is unknown; to ask about it is heresy; to believe in it is mandatory’ [al-istawā’a málūm, wa’l kayf maj’hūl, wa’s suālu ánhu bidáh, wa’l īmānu wājib]

This is also the opinion of our Imām al-Aážam regarding this and all such abstruse verses and traditions like ‘hand’ ‘eyes’ ‘face’ among other such attributes. The word ‘upon’ [fawq] is used like ‘He is Overpowering upon His slaves’ [Al-Anáām, v.18] or ‘They fear their Lord from above them’ [An-Naĥl, v.50] Our elders did not explain the word ‘upon’ or ‘above’ [fawq] as Greatness or Exaltedness like the latter scholars did.

The author [nāžim] replaced a synonym for the word used in the Qur’ān to align it with the poetic meter and then, he clarified the position by saying in the following distich: [I]Above, and it does not mean ‘to take hold’ or ‘to touch.’ That is it doesn’t mean ‘to rest’ or the aspect of ‘reaching’ because these descriptions are inconceivable [muĥāl] concerning Allāh táālā.

In this verse is also the refutation of Karrāmiyyah and the anthropomorphists [Mujassimah] who attest a ‘direction’ [jihah] to Allāh táālā. Thus, the Karrāmiyyah attest the direction of height to Allāh without taking hold on the Throne [istiqrār]

And the anthropomorphists – they are the Ĥashwiyyah – insist that Allāh táālā ‘took hold’ [istiqrār] quoting the verse and taking its literal meaning even though they have no proof for that. Because Istawā’a has many meanings among which is the meaning of overpowering, subduing, control etc. [al-istīylā’a] like the poet says:

[B]qadi’stawā bishrun ála’l írāqi
min ghayri sayfin wa damin mihrāqi

Bishr has subdued and overpowered Iraq,
Without using the sword or bloodshed.
Similarly is the saying of Allāh: ‘and when he reached his youth, and reached his full strength’ [al-Qaşaş/28:14] where Istawā’a is used to mean ‘complete’ or ‘perfected’ [tamām, kamāl.] and the saying of Allāh: ‘and it settled upon the mount Jūdī’ [Hūd v.44] where it means, ‘settled.’ [istiqrār]

Therefore one cannot use this as conclusive evidence when there is a possibility of having so many different meanings.

If someone asks: ‘Then what is the reason of these abstruse [mutashābihāt] verses being revealed?’ I answer: This is to show the incapacity and powerlessness of the creation and their shortfall of their intellect in grasping the meaning of the Divine Speech of their Lord [ižhāru ájzi’l khalqi wa quşūri fahmihim án kalāmi rabbihim] and to prove their slavery and their faith. Like the most knowledgeable among them say: ‘We bear faith [in all that has been revealed.] All of this is from our Lord’

They submit [tafwīđ] to Allāh and believe in the intended meaning of Allāh without trying to understand the meaning itself. [al-iýtiqādu bi ĥaqīqati murādillahi min ghayri an yúrafa murādahu] and this is the highest perfection a slave can attain. And this is the chosen position among our elders [salaf] and they turned away from describing or elucidating the meanings of abstruse verses. However, the latter scholars chose to explain these verses without insisting or being assertive about it claiming this is how it was intended by the Lord, glorified is He.

Slavehood [úbūdiyyah] is far robust than worship; because slavehood entails ‘being pleased with what the Lord does’ and worship is ‘doing what may please the Lord.’ Surely, pleasure of Allāh [riđā] is far greater than actions and deeds [ámal.] So much so that forsaking riđā is apostacy – but forsaking action, is disobeidience and sin [fisq.] Therefore, there is an end to worship – there is no worship in the hereafter, but there is no end to slavehood [úbūdiyyah] in either of the two worlds.

It is crystal clear that the madh’hab of our elders is the safest and the learned; whereas the madh’hab of the latter ones is excellent and more accurate. [madh’habu’s salaf aslam wa aálam wa madh’hab al-khalaf aĥkam]

Allāh táālā knows best.



*Translated by Sidi Abu Hasan*

Note: if anyone has the Arabic text available please post it!

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

... but he didn't listen.

that appears to a regular occurrence in these threads

[amina9183]

:salam:

I am trying to advise this brother against this....but I dont know much on the subject other than that salafis dont promote following one madhab and are known to say odd things every once in a while

can someone with a bit more knowledge outline reasons as to why this wouldnt be the greatest decision?

[crazy_medic]

is no-one going to reply? At least provide links to useful articles maybe?

[IlyasLahoz]

:salam:

I am trying to advise this brother against this....but I dont know much on the subject other than that salafis dont promote following one madhab and are known to say odd things every once in a while

can someone with a bit more knowledge outline reasons as to why this wouldnt be the greatest decision?

http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/default.htm

http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/default.htm

[Musleemah]

you have some misinformation on this board about salafis...not blind following a mathhab doesn't mean we don't study them and take rulings from them.
Salafi students who want to study fiqh have to choose 1 of the 4 mathhabs to study thoroughly, but when has enough knowledge to answer peoples questions related to fiqh he doesn't just stick to that mathhab.. if he sees what he thinks is a stronger view in another mathhab he goes by it.

Blind following of mathhabs mean that you don't accept any view other than the mathhab you have studied and choose to go by.
And no one should be followed strictly except the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

So is it a sin to not strictly follow one mathhab ?? what is your proof on that?
So if I choose to pray like a certain mathhab and then take the ruling on zakat from another mathhab does that mean I am kaffir? or fell into sin?
As long as I didn't do it out of following my worldly desires.

[Musleemah]

and are known to say odd things every once in a while

Odd to you not odd to us, same as some things you might believe in is odd to us not odd to you.

The most important thing is daleel (proof) from Quran and Sunnah with understanding of the Salaf (specially the first salaf which are Sahaba).

[Hmmm]

There are lots of odd salafis as well as those who aren't so bad and just have a lower bar for the level of knowledge required in their eyes to perform juristic selection.

To analyse and judge the relative strength of positions in two madhabs, I would suggest that one be learned and havr recieved ijazah in both, having a thorough understanding of the respective usuls and understanding of what costitutes a daleel and indeed even the probative sunnah in these. This would seem to be the path of most caution and sense.

How long would you suggest it takes to reach this level in all four madhabs?

In addition, the general consensus is that there is no harm in taking complete rulings from different madhabs on topics for even the layman as long as he is careful. This isn't because he believes a proof is necessarily "stronger" (as a layman by definition he cannot), but rather due to the indepedent validity of each of the four methodologies. The care comes in when one takes half of wudu from one madhab and half of wudu from another, resulting in an action which is not valid under any accepted methology. For example.

All madhabs are, of course, are an attempt to provide a systematic objective basis for approximating the Shariah, the will of Allah (swt) as best we humanly can. The methodology of the Prophet (pbuh) had his own personal revelation as one of the cornerstnes, which, alas, we do not have. Hence we construct logical proofs based on our axioms and refine them again and again over the years, as has occured in each of the four madhabs when new evidence has become available. In this manner, we come to a series of rulings that are valid within that specified methodology and reach the level of coherence necessary for "proof". With such refinement behind them, it would behove the student to be cautious before necessarily dismissing any of these positions, unless that student were in fact a teacher. And a very good one at that. Just common sense.

Of course, within each of these methodologies there is leeway for situational rulings and ijtihad in mu'amalat in particular for today. Our fiqh is not necessarily absolute although the Shariah, of course, is.

So, if one is learned in each of these methodologies and has the traditional ijazah to understand the proofs in each, I would say: fantastic.

I have seen a distinct paucity of such individuals however, but rather more of those who take the proof texts of other methodologies and critique them based on their own. Something which, of course, is intellectually dishonest and useless as their axiomatic basis for understanding the Shariah differs so widely.

If you could reference any, I would be appreciative.

[loveProphet]

Assalam-o-Alaikum,

The Salafi beliefs can be found here:

http://www.livingislam.org/n/uthaym_e.html

http://www.livingislam.org/alb_e.html

http://www.livingislam.org/ibaz_e.html

http://www.livingislam.org/n/itay_e.html

[loveProphet]

The salafis are a sect that have TOTALLY different Aqeedah to the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. E.g. they think that Allah has limbs like hands, feet, face etc in the literal sense. They even say that He(Exalted is He above what they attribute to Him) is in the heavens or in a place. AstaghfirUllah.

They don't follow any of the 4 Mujtahid Imams and they do Ijtihad themselves with their own laymen understanding.
Even though Imam Ibn Hanbal(RA) said that to do Ijtihad you must KNOW at least 400,000 Hadiths.

If you see the salafi opinions, many times they're opinions are DIFFERENT to all FOUR of the Madthabs.

They forbid the following of Madthabs and instead think that they should be followed instead of the 4 Imams and then they say that they're following the Salaf even though this is a grave lie by them to deceive the masses.
They even martyred many women and children and innocent people throughout the world especially in saudi because they followed Madthabs.

Another feature of them is that they show enmity against the Aulia Allah which is a grave sin.

Please see the link i included here.

[loveProphet]

you have some misinformation on this board about salafis...not blind following a mathhab doesn't mean we don't study them and take rulings from them.
Salafi students who want to study fiqh have to choose 1 of the 4 mathhabs to study thoroughly, but when has enough knowledge to answer peoples questions related to fiqh he doesn't just stick to that mathhab.. if he sees what he thinks is a stronger view in another mathhab he goes by it.

Blind following of mathhabs mean that you don't accept any view other than the mathhab you have studied and choose to go by.
And no one should be followed strictly except the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

So is it a sin to not strictly follow one mathhab ?? what is your proof on that?
So if I choose to pray like a certain mathhab and then take the ruling on zakat from another mathhab does that mean I am kaffir? or fell into sin?
As long as I didn't do it out of following my worldly desires.

Actually, according to most scholars it is allowed to follow different Madthabs on DIFFERENT issues as long as one is not seeking dispensations.
As for following a Madthab, the proofs are given by following the MAJORITY Hadiths such as the one in my signature.
When following a Madthab, you HAVE to follow the AQEEDAH of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah which the salafis don't have.

[Musleemah]

The salafis are a sect that have TOTALLY different Aqeedah to the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. E.g. they think that Allah has limbs like hands, feet, face etc in the literal sense. They even say that He(Exalted is He above what they attribute to Him) is in the heavens or in a place. AstaghfirUllah.

You see what I mean by MISINFORMATION !
Now bring me from the books of Salafi scholars who say that Allah has "limbs or parts" Exalted be HE! And I mean saying the word "limb or part" . Saying the Allah has hands or face doesnt' mean we say that he has "limbs" review my post here :
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125897&postcount=23



They don't follow any of the 4 Mujtahid Imams and they do Ijtihad themselves with their own laymen understanding.
Even though Imam Ibn Hanbal(RA) said that to do Ijtihad you must KNOW at least 400,000 Hadiths.


We don't follow them meaning bling following them, but we do take rulings from them.
And what does this have to do with aqeedah.. this is related to fiqh.
As for ijtihad and 400.000 hadiths.. don't we have in hadith books today about 400.000 hadiths or more ? and did all the 4 imams know 400, 000 hadiths when they did ijtihad?



Another feature of them is that they show enmity against the Aulia Allah which is a grave sin.


Also on the issue of Awliyah.. we are against worshiping of graves, and doing tawassul through them... we are not against them themselves, but agains what people do at the graves. SO big difference between this and what you said.

[loveProphet]

You see what I mean by MISINFORMATION !
Now bring me from the books of Salafi scholars who say that Allah has "limbs or parts" Exalted be HE! And I mean saying the word "limb or part" . Saying the Allah has hands or face doesnt' mean we say that he has "limbs" review my post here :
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125897&postcount=23




We don't follow them meaning bling following them, but we do take rulings from them.
And what does this have to do with aqeedah.. this is related to fiqh.
As for ijtihad and 400.000 hadiths.. don't we have in hadith books today about 400.000 hadiths or more ? and did all the 4 imams know 400, 000 hadiths when they did ijtihad?




Also on the issue of Awliyah.. we are against worshiping of graves, and doing tawassul through them... we are not against them themselves, but agains what people do at the graves. SO big difference between this and what you said.
You have many times showed enmity to the Aulia Allah. You have called Tawassul shirk EVEN though you are NOT able to respond.

In his `Aqidat al-Muslim ("The Muslim's Belief") `Uthaymin states: "The establishment of Allah on the throne means that He is sitting in person on His throne."Second ed. Saudi Arabia (p. 11).

Albani also called for the demolition of the Tomb of Holy Prophet(SAW) in Ahkam al-Jana'iz wa Bida`uha, Talkhis Ahkam al-Jana'iz, Tahdhir al-Sajid, Hijjat al-Nabi, and Manasik al-Hajj wa al-`Umra

And i believe this statement is enough;
Ibn Baz also suggests corporal limbs for Allah Most High and Exalted in his statement in Taliqat Hamma `ala ma Katabahu al-Shaykh Muhammad `Ali al-Sabuni fi Sifat Allah ("Important Comments on What Shaykh al-Sabuni Wrote Concerning the Divine Attributes") that "To declare Allah transcendent beyond possessing body (al-jism), pupils (al-hadaqa), auditory meatus (al-simâkh), tongue (al-lisân), and larynx (al-hanjara) is not the position of Ahl al-Sunna but rather that of the scholars of condemned kalâm and their contrivance."Tanbihat Hamma (Kuwait: Jam`iyya Ihya' al-Turath al-Islami, p. 22).

Another point is that if you SEE the recent edition of Mukhtas.ar al-Ifâdât fî Rub` al-îbâdât wal-âdâb wal-Ziyâdât by a "Salafî" student and his teacher Muhammad Sulaymân al-Ashqar , i will show you SOME of the comments:

On the saying by Sheikh Ibn Balban(RA):
The authentically transmitted Divine Names and Attributes must be accepted, believed, and conveyed just as they came even if the meaning cannot be conceived (wa 'in lam yu`qal ma`nâh). [p. 49]
The commentator(salafi): said: "No, the meaning is known!"

Again the Sheikh said:
The Madhhab of Ahl al-Sunna is the affirmation (ithbât) of the Names and Attributes together with the negation of likeness (tashbîh) and organs (adawât). [p. 494]
But the salafi said:

"If he means by organs, such as Allâh (swt) has affirmed for Himself of the two hands, the eye, and others of His lofty Attributes, then his words are incorrect because they contradict the text of the Qur'ân.""

I think i've given ENOUGH proof here.

[crazy_medic]

Blind following of mathhabs mean that you don't accept any view other than the mathhab you have studied and choose to go by.
And no one should be followed strictly except the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم'

er...the 4 madhaabs follow the sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم', very strictly infact. those who follow madhaab fully respect the views of another, but as far as that individual is conernced his own is already highly develped in fiqh and other areas of Islam. for example the Hanafi Madhaab has had 1.5 millions fuqaha (jurists) pass through each studying making necessary adjustments where required. You dont mix and match coz each is alreday complete its own right. If you want to mix and match, you got to be at one high mujtahid level. Most do it quite obvuosly becoz other opinions suit there nafs better. so it would seem that you have the misconceptions reagrding this issue musleemah

[maymunah]

Aside from Salafi beliefs that certain ppl perceive as deviant. There is nothing stating that a muslim must adhere to a madhab is there? Essentially Salafis are still our brethren are they not?

[loveProphet]

Aside from Salafi beliefs that certain ppl perceive as deviant. There is nothing stating that a muslim must adhere to a madhab is there? Essentially Salafis are still our brethren are they not?
Essentially theres a IJMA/consensus that a Madthab should be followed although you are not forced to follow it in all things.
Theres also other proofs i've seen which others have posted.
Yes, the salafi sect are our brethren JUST like the other sects are.

[hiker]

salaam

Today 99.999999999999% of muslim are not capable of looking and examining the evidence and seeing which is the strongest daleel, I don't how ppl can even know which is the strongest evidence - the '99.9% of the 'super duper salafi' themselves don't know how a rule was formulated and derivied - It is good and well to shout slogans, I follow the Quran and Hadith, but what principles do the layperson use. There is no IDIOTS GUIDE to Revelation or a MUPPETS guide to interpretating the quran, it takes years of studying.

For me the salafi arguement is so floored and all this rubbish they talk it makes me laugh.......


THE FOUR MADHAB's, DON'T FOLLOW EVERYTHING WHAT THE FOUNDER OF THE SCHOOL SAID - EACH GENERATION OF SCHOLARS OFF THAT MADHAB HAS DEVELOPED AND REFINED THE MADHAB - INFACT THERE ARE MANY RULES WITHIN THE MADHAB, WHICH GOES AGAINST WHAT THE FOUNDER OF THE SCHOOL SAID.


Salafi have caused great harm and destruction to the ummah, as there are many ppl who think shariah is about finding a verse or hadith matching one's opinions - this has been a road to a disaster!!!

[loveProphet]

salaam

Today 99.999999999999% of muslim are not capable of looking and examining the evidence and seeing which is the strongest daleel, I don't how ppl can even know which is the strongest evidence - the '99.9% of the 'super duper salafi' themselves don't know how a rule was formulated and derivied - It is good and well to shout slogans, I follow the Quran and Hadith, but what principles do the layperson use. There is no IDIOTS GUIDE to Revelation or a MUPPETS guide to interpretating the quran, it takes years of studying.

For me the salafi arguement is so floored and all this rubbish they talk it makes me laugh.......


THE FOUR MADHAB's, DON'T FOLLOW EVERYTHING WHAT THE FOUNDER OF THE SCHOOL SAID - EACH GENERATION OF SCHOLARS OFF THAT MADHAB HAS DEVELOPED AND REFINED THE MADHAB - INFACT THERE ARE MANY RULES WITHIN THE MADHAB, WHICH GOES AGAINST WHAT THE FOUNDER OF THE SCHOOL SAID.


Salafi have caused great harm and destruction to the ummah, as there are many ppl who think shariah is about finding a verse or hadith matching one's opinions - this has been a road to a disaster!!!
I agree dear bro!!!

As for the salafis against the Aulia Allah.
We have seen countless desecrations of the graves of the Aulia Allah.
We have also seen the enmity by the salafi sect towards the Aulia Allah(Sufis) such as against Imam Ghazali(RA), Mawlana JalalUddin Rumi(RA) etc.
Need i point out to people how many times they have slandered and lied and insulted the Sufis(Aulia Allah)??

As for the claim that 400,000 hadiths are available, i highly doubt that!!

YES, the Mujtahid Imams DID have access to over 1million hadiths at their time!!! And from what i remember, Imam Ibn Hanbal(RA) said that one MUST KNOW at least 400,000 hadiths by memory. I'll try to find that quote.

[loveProphet]

Assalam-o-Alaikum,
Here is one quote:
Muhammad ibn ‘Ubayd Allah ibn al-Munadi, for example, who died in 272 years after the Hijra, heard Ahmad ibn Hanbal say that having memorized three hundred thousand hadiths was not enough to be a mujtahid.

Zakariyya ibn Yahya al-Darir said to Imam Ahmad(RA): “How many memorized hadiths are sufficient for someone to be a mufti? Are one hundred thousand suffi*cient?” He said no. “Two hundred thousand?” He said no. “Three?” He said no, until Zakariyya said: “Five hundred thousand?” Ahmad said: “I hope that that should be sufficient.” Al-Dhahabi, Siyar (9:469=al-Arna’ut ed. 11:232).

SubhanAllah!!!

[abdullatif]

Bismillah
as sallamu alaikum

I beleive and Allah ta'ala knows best. We all are way to concern with everyone else and not concerned enough about our ownselves. This is not geared to any one person but just collectively. We shoild be making du'a for the salafi asking Allah to guide them, showing them the best adab and charcter. My point is that many of Shuyukh had commented and refuted the salafi postion and aqeedah. So we shouldn't look at ourselves as being better. Allah can change them and make them upright and just, and make us of those people of deviant beleif (may Allah be or refuge from such as state)

[Musleemah]

You should understand that there is a difference between a scholar and a layman... a scholar has studied a lot and can do ijtihad (not all .. but ones who have studied sciences that make them able to do ijtihad).. but layman (when it comes to Salafis) .. like me for example.. I ask a shaikh who is available whom I trust his deen and I ask him my questions, I don't ask him (what does the madhhab so and so say), as long as he gives me a ruling and mentions a daleel on it.. I take it. He could have given me Madhhab Hanbali's view or maybe Hanafi ...etc. I don't know and it doesn't matter ! As long as a daleel is mentioned.

So this is what is meant by not going by a certain madhhab. Not blind following.

[loveProphet]

You should understand that there is a difference between a scholar and a layman... a scholar has studied a lot and can do ijtihad (not all .. but ones who have studied sciences that make them able to do ijtihad).. but layman (when it comes to Salafis) .. like me for example.. I ask a shaikh who is available whom I trust his deen and I ask him my questions, I don't ask him (what does the madhhab so and so say), as long as he gives me a ruling and mentions a daleel on it.. I take it. He could have given me Madhhab Hanbali's view or maybe Hanafi ...etc. I don't know and it doesn't matter ! As long as a daleel is mentioned.

So this is what is meant by not going by a certain madhhab. Not blind following.
But the concept of Madthab IS that they FOLLOW the Quran and Sunnah. They ALL have their daleels. When they have their daleels and that they ARE qualified, you can follow them. And since ALL four of the Fiqhs have their daleels, theres NOTHING wrong in following them.
And the scholars AGREE that you are not allowed to follow other than the FOUR Fiqhs.

When you follow a person, he must be qualified. And since ONLY the qualified are in the 4 Madthabs these days, you are not allowed to follow any of the others i.e. salafis, shias, etc.
TOTAL Ijtihad(as you see the salafis doing) is NOT possible in this day and age since the doors to Ijtihad have been closed for centuries.

The thing is that the "Salafis", they practise TOTAL or partial Ijtihad even when their laymen. That is a fact. As for the Salafi scholars, since they are NOT from any of the 4 Madthabs, they are NOT capable of Ijtihad.
Partial Ijtihad can ONLY be done when the scholar follows a Madthab, the reason being that the 4 Imams, they were capable of total Ijtihad.

Blind following would be when the person follows an incapable person or one who is not capable of Ijtihad.

So sister, ALL the 4 Fiqhs give daleels, so the concept of blind following is not applicable to a person following a Madthab.

[al-Hanbali]

Some of the things said on this thread are ridiculous. Apart from the al-Albani salafi strain of salafiyah, most take their Fatwas from scholars that are Hanbali in general, with preference to Ibn Taymiyahs views within the Madh'hab (and yes, his views are narrated in late Hanbali fiqh works that cite the various sub opinions within the school.)

The problem it seems, at least for me, is when a person takes their fatwas, that are probably valid fatwas as per the Hanbali Usul, and place them over the necks of the entire Ummah and reject any possibility of there being another valid opinion among the other schools. On top of that, those that take these Fatwas sometimes act so sure of themselves because they have heard the Dalil (meaning the dalil used in the Hanbali madh'hab as framed by Hanbali Usul) and act as if there is no valid Dalil within the other 3 Madhahib as framed in their own particular Usul that is accepted by the Ummah as valid.

Sister Musleemah's words show fairness when she says that the Shaykh she asks could give her the Hanafi view with the Hanfi Dalil and she takes it. Most people who dont stick to one Madh'hab would probably be convinced of any Fiqhi opinion in any of the four schools if the proofs are presented in a systematic way by a scholar of one of the schools. So, if I bring you a strong Hanafi Shaykh, im sure he can convince you of the sunnah of placing the hands below the navel in prayer (which is also the main view in the Hanbali Madh'hab as well btw), and then a Shafi scholar can certainly convince you that reciting Basmallah is obligatory in prayer etc.

[Musleemah]

Thank you brother Hanbali.


So Just give me the answer to my question from whichever madhhab.. as long as you (I mean the shaikh) mention a daleel I will take it.. doesn't matter from which one.. they are all Mujtahideen.. I am not going to search every madhhab and their daleel and study it.. for I am not a scholar to be able to compare them.

I love all 4 imams, and I ask Allah that He grants me Jannah and make me able to meet them there.

[loveProphet]

Some of the things said on this thread are ridiculous. Apart from the al-Albani salafi strain of salafiyah, most take their Fatwas from scholars that are Hanbali in general, with preference to Ibn Taymiyahs views within the Madh'hab (and yes, his views are narrated in late Hanbali fiqh works that cite the various sub opinions within the school.)

The problem it seems, at least for me, is when a person takes their fatwas, that are probably valid fatwas as per the Hanbali Usul, and place them over the necks of the entire Ummah and reject any possibility of there being another valid opinion among the other schools. On top of that, those that take these Fatwas sometimes act so sure of themselves because they have heard the Dalil (meaning the dalil used in the Hanbali madh'hab as framed by Hanbali Usul) and act as if there is no valid Dalil within the other 3 Madhahib as framed in their own particular Usul that is accepted by the Ummah as valid.

Sister Musleemah's words show fairness when she says that the Shaykh she asks could give her the Hanafi view with the Hanfi Dalil and she takes it. Most people who dont stick to one Madh'hab would probably be convinced of any Fiqhi opinion in any of the four schools if the proofs are presented in a systematic way by a scholar of one of the schools. So, if I bring you a strong Hanafi Shaykh, im sure he can convince you of the sunnah of placing the hands below the navel in prayer (which is also the main view in the Hanbali Madh'hab as well btw), and then a Shafi scholar can certainly convince you that reciting Basmallah is obligatory in prayer etc.
Yeah i do agree bro.
Although Ibn Taymiyya, he was a scholar of the Hanbali Fiqh, but the Hanbalis don't take much Fiqh from him(i.e. when he goes against the Hanbali or the Ahlus Sunnah school). What about scholars like Imam Ibn Jawzi(RehimaUllah), how much emphasis do the Hanbalis put on his works??

[loveProphet]

Thank you brother Hanbali.


So Just give me the answer to my question from whichever madhhab.. as long as you (I mean the shaikh) mention a daleel I will take it.. doesn't matter from which one.. they are all Mujtahideen.. I am not going to search every madhhab and their daleel and study it.. for I am not a scholar to be able to compare them.

I love all 4 imams, and I ask Allah that He grants me Jannah and make me able to meet them there.
ANY Madthab, the Aqeedah you must have should be of the Ahlus Sunnah.
As for Madthabs, i remember a ruling by Imam Ibn Hajar(RA), i can't find it at the moment.
But it said that one is ONLY allowed to follow different Madthabs on DIFFERENT topics such as Hanafi in Salaah and Shafi in Fasting etc.

Maybe someone can get that fatwa since all the 4 Fiqhs agree to it and theresa consensus on it;.

[hiker]

Sorry I don't buy this, that a salafi ask for daleel and follows what he/she thinks is the best daleel. Like I said 99.999% of ppl (from 4 madhab and salafi) - don't even know the very very basic of fiqh, how are they going to examine the evidence.

Each of the four imams, that is the four madhab, differ on the principles of deriving rulings, so its is not a simple matter of looking at what verse of the Quran or hadith is used???


I don't have a issue, with the one's that follow the hanbali madhab, but differ with the hanbali madhab on certain issue - the problems is with the self made scholars - who mis-use the verse's of the Quran and hadith, those who don't understand the basic concepts of fiqh - there are many around, these ppl are causing great harm to themselves and those who follow them. I can give so many examples of how these ppl totally deriving rulings, without a clue of what the reality of the verse of the quran and hadith is.......

Just look at the takfeeri's, the salafi - especially the fringe groups, make takfeer on each other, like on Sheikh Baz - This is what salafism has created!!

Salafism is continually in a state of change and flux, sooner or later I personally think they are going to implode!!!

[faqir]

More from Ibn Hajar on Tafwid





فتح الباري، شرح صحيح البخاري - للإمام ابن حجر العسقلاني

وَقَوْلِهِ جَلَّ ذِكْرُهُ تَجْرِي بِأَعْيُنِنَا
الشرح: قوله (باب قول الله تعالى ولتصنع على عيني: تغذي) كذا وقع في رواية المستملي والأصيلي بضم التاء وفتح الغين المعجمة بعدها معجمة ثقيلة من التغذية، ووقع في نسخة الصغاني بالدال المهملة وليس بفتح أوله على حذف إحدى التاءين فإنه تفسير تصنع، وقد تقدم في تفسير سورة طه قال ابن التين هذا التفسير لقتادة، ويقال صنعت الفرس إذا أحسنت القيام عليه.
قوله (وقوله تعالى تجري بأعيننا) أي بعلمنا وذكر فيه حديثي ابن عمر ثم أنس في ذكر الدجال، وقد تقدما مشروحين في " كتاب الفتن " وفيهما أن الله ليس بأعور، وقوله هنا وأشار بيده إلى عينه كذا للأكثر عن موسى ابن إسماعيل عن جويرية، وذكره أبو مسعود في الأطراف عن مسدد بدل موسى والأول هو الصواب، وقد أخرجه عثمان الدارمي في كتاب الرد على بشر المريسي عن موسى بن إسماعيل مثله.

ورواه عبد الله بن محمد بن أسماء عن عمه جويرية بدون الزيادة التي في آخره، أخرجه أبو يعلى والحسن بن سفيان في مسنديهما عنه، وأخرجه الإسماعيلي عنهما قال الراغب: العين الجارحة، ويقال للحافظ للشيء المراعى له: عين، ومنه فلان بعيني أي أحفظه، ومنه قوله تعالى (واصنع الفلك بأعيننا) أي نحن نراك ونحفظك، ومثله (تجري بأعيننا) وقوله (ولتصنع على عيني) أي بحفظي، قال وتستعار العين لمعان أخرى كثيرة.

وقال ابن بطال احتجت المجسمة بهذا الحديث.

وقالوا في قوله وأشار بيده إلى عينه دلالة على أن عينه كسائر الأعين، وتعقب باستحالة الجسمية عليه لأن الجسم حادث وهو قديم؛ فدل على أن المراد نفي النقص عنه انتهى، وقد تقدم شيء من هذا في باب قوله تعالى (وكان الله سميعا بصيرا) وقال البيهقي: منهم من قال العين صفة ذات كما تقدم في الوجه، ومنهم من قال: المراد بالعين الرؤية، فعلى هذا قوله (ولتصنع على عيني) أي لتكون بمرأى مني، وكذا قوله (واصبر لحكم ربك فإنك بأعيننا) أي بمرأى منا والنون للتعظيم، ومال إلى ترجيح الأول لأنه مذهب السلف، ويتأيد بما وقع في الحديث وأشار بيده فإن فيه إيماء إلى الرد على من يقول معناها القدرة، صرح بذلك قول من قال إنها صفة ذات وقال ابن المنير وجه الاستدلال على إثبات العين لله من حديث الدجال من قوله (إن الله ليس بأعور) من جهة أن العور عرفا عدم العين وضد العور ثبوت العين، فلما نزعت هذه النقيصة لزم ثبوت الكمال بضدها وهو وجود العين، وهو على سبيل التمثيل والتقريب للفهم لا على معنى إثبات الجارحة، قال ولأهل الكلام في هذه الصفات كالعين والوجه واليد ثلاثة أقوال: أحدها أنها صفات ذات أثبتها السمع ولا يهتدي إليها العقل، والثاني أن العين كناية عن صفة البصر، واليد كناية عن صفة القدرة، والوجه كناية عن صفة الوجود، والثالث إمرارها على ما جاءت مفوضا معناها إلى الله تعالى.

وقال الشيخ شهاب الدين السهروردي في كتاب العقيدة له، أخبر الله في كتابه وثبت عن رسوله الاستواء والنزول والنفس واليد والعين، فلا يتصرف فيها بتشبيه ولا تعطيل، إذ لولا إخبار الله ورسوله ما تجاسر عقل أن يحوم حول ذلك الحمى، قال الطيبي: هذا هو المذهب المعتمد وبه يقول السلف الصالح.



Very rough translation of the last few lines:




... amongst the people of kalaam there are three sayings regarding the attributes (sifaatul) [I]al-ayn, al-wajh and al-yad.

The first saying is: that they are the attributes of essence (sifaatu dhaatu) that have been established by proofs (daleel us-sam’iyyah) and we do not try to comprehend them.

The second saying is: al-Ayn is a metonym for the attribute of Seeing (al-baSr), al-Yad is a metonym for the attribute of Power (al-qudrah) and al-Wajh is a metonym for the attribute of Himself (al-wujood).

And the third - passing on what has come while delegating it's meaning to Allah ta'ala.

And Shaykh Shihab al-Din in his book of Aqida said that Allah has informed in His book and it is authenticated from His Prophet: al-istiwa, al-nuzool, al-nafs, al-yad, al-ayn so do not alter them with Tashbeeh [likening Allah to His creation] or Ta'teel [negation]. If there is no report from Allah or his Rasool then don't engage with your intellect in such dangerous matters. Al-Tibiyy has said: this is the relied upon madhab and the sayings of the righteous predecessors.



.

[Danish Al hyderabaadee]

It is crystal clear that the madh’hab of our elders is the safest and the learned; whereas the madh’hab of the latter ones is excellent and more accurate. [madh’habu’s salaf aslam wa aálam wa madh’hab al-khalaf aĥkam]



Interesting...

So the way of the khalaf is more accurate and better than the salaf????

[OneLife]

Interesting...i dont knwo if anyone else sees somethign wrong with this......

Point proven.....

The latter generation seems to have understood the religion better than the earlier ones......according to the one son this forum

i guess not everyone lieks to stick to the way of the salaf......

So yall khalafees????

Brother, are you really this ignorant or you just pretend to be to get a rise out of people and make yourself feel like you exclusively belong to the 'saved sect'?

What you just did right now was take a quote by a learned Scholar in front of whom you would like a baby sucking it's thumb, and you've distorted what he meant by trying to use his statement in a deragatory manner while villifying the followers of this particular school.

May Allah forgive you and all of us for our shortcomings.

And I'm curious, how old are you exactly?

Allahu Alim

[Danish Al hyderabaadee]

Brother, are you really this ignorant or you just pretend to be to get a rise out of people and make yourself feel like you exclusively belong to the 'saved sect'?

What you just did right now was take a quote by a learned Scholar in front of whom you would like a baby sucking it's thumb, and you've distorted what he meant by trying to use his statement in a deragatory manner while villifying the followers of this particular school.

May Allah forgive you and all of us for our shortcomings.

And I'm curious, how old are you exactly?

Allahu Alim


Can you explain what he meant??? Please faddal shaykh......if you really do then go ahead and if you dotn then let the others reply and refrain from making statements with no substance

I realize that it sounds rude and disrespectful....i edited it.....does it sound better???

May Allah forgive me!!

[OneLife]

How old are you bro?

Faddal Shaykh? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see you quoting Baqilani, Baghdadi, their views of Allahs attribues vs essence, you declaring the Asharis being the ultimate takfeeris, distorting Imam al-Qari's statement without proper understanding, speaking or rather typing things you pick up in books or on message boards in topics which you seem to have mastered Alhamdolilah, so please let me call you Shaykh or Imam.

I've read many of your posts and your knowledge or lack thereof has insulted even the Salafis whom I do respect, that their following has insulent young kids running around who think they can decipher ages of tradition by themselves and condemn what they don't understand or see fit.

Anyhow, If you read the poisition stated by Imam al-Qari and understand the context of how he meant it, then you wouldn't have resorted to insults. Why should I tell you what it means, you're the bigger Alim here, right?

Give it a rest brother, I really wish I didn't have to reply to you, but your comments really hit that spot quite often.

[Danish Al hyderabaadee]

How old are you bro?

Faddal Shaykh? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see you quoting Baqilani, Baghdadi, their views of Allahs attribues vs essence, you declaring the Asharis being the ultimate takfeeris, distorting Imam al-Qari's statement without proper understanding, speaking or rather typing things you pick up in books or on message boards in topics which you seem to have mastered Alhamdolilah, so please let me call you Shaykh or Imam.

I've read many of your posts and your knowledge or lack thereof has insulted even the Salafis whom I do respect, that their following has insulent young kids running around who think they can decipher ages of tradition by themselves and condemn what they don't understand or see fit.

Anyhow, If you read the poisition stated by Imam al-Qari and understand the context of how he meant it, then you wouldn't have resorted to insults. Why should I tell you what it means, you're the bigger Alim here, right?

Give it a rest brother, I really wish I didn't have to reply to you, but your comments really hit that spot quite often.

My statements end with "????".....yes i have implied a few things in my statements, but that is what i get form the passage quoted above....instead of getting on me about random issues that you wanna bring up keep to the content of this post, if you cant explain what is being said then dont reply, thats all I am looking for an explanation, not your attacks on me.

If you are "trying" to advise me, then I am pretty sure the propogators of tasawwuf have taught you better, because the way you do it is not right. (Side point - I have nothing against the goals of the science of tasawwuf)

I have read the passage twice, nowhere do I find Mullah Ali Qari making it "crystal clear" that "the madh’hab of our elders is the safest and the learned; whereas the madh’hab of the latter ones is excellent and more accurate." Thats i why i ask an explanation, if you dont knwo then dont engage and refer back to the quote of Imam Ghazzali tha ti put on the other forums, inshaAllah

Rememeber this was a point of debate between the aqeedah of the traditionalists and the groups of Ahl Al Kalaam. That is why i point it out.

I know my comments hit the spot quite often.....and you seem to react in the way I expect you to. Your loss!

JazakAllahu khayran
Was Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahmatullah

[OneLife]

:salam:

Your statements end in "???" because you're indirectly trying to point to your agenda in everything you post by belittling the others you don't agree with. I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out your illogical arguments and lack of scholarship kid. It's dangerous. I can react any which way I choose as willed by Allah, but someone has to reply against ignorance you know? If I've said anything that hurt you, May Allah forgive me.

:ws:

[loveProphet]

Assalam-o-Alaikum,

http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/wsalafi1.htm


The Wahabis, who call themselves Salafis, are a group who had appeared in the last few centuries and hold beliefs contrary to the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah.
Cool.

Wa Salaam

[Musleemah]

I don't see anything new about that.

it is known that sufis consider Salafis "not" from ahl-assunnah wal-Jam'ah.
And Salafi's too believe that sufis hold beliefs contrary to the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah

Everyone can claim that they are from ahl asunnah wal Jama'h.
The only way to know who is correct is to bring proof.. and that is what I am trying to do in this discussion board, prove that we are ahl-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah.

[ahmedqman]

Sidi Salman corrected me. My bad. A friend who followed his fatwa had an anti-tasawwuf stance, therefore I made the assumption that he wasn't one. It turns out that he is a sufi.

[Sunni Student]

that is what I am trying to do in this discussion board, prove that we are ahl-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah.

Mashallah I respect you for trying, but thus far you have left many topics undone [I think you know what I am refering to]

[OneLife]

YOU AUTOMATICALLY ACCUSE HIM AS A SUFI. This is nuts. Do you even know his stance on the Shadhili hadra? My god... "proof this proof that".


What does he say about it? Link fatwa please.

[salman]

Salamu `Alaykum

Q2) Can you give some examples of where Ulama of Deoband Do not "agree with the beliefs and actions of Sheikh Abdul Wahhaab" as stated on your website (Ref#Q8869)?

A2. There are many difference in Aqaid (beliefs) and fiqh between the Deobandis and the Wahabis. Some of the main differences are: - The Wahabis are in essence Mujassimah (anthropomorphists-Those who attribute a body to Allah Ta'ala). They attribute a hand, leg, face etc to Allah Ta'ala, while the illustrious Ulama of Deoband hold fast to the belief of the Ahlus sunnah wal jamah and that is that Allah knows best the meaning of these words. Similar is the case with all the sifat (qualities) etc in the Quran ie. the Wahabis take it on its apparent meaning while we say that Allah knows best what it means or at times we interpret it in a suitable manner.
-The Wahabis reject the permissiblity of using a deceased person as a intermediary in dua, while we hold that it is permissible.
-The Wahabis reject the Ambiyaa being alive in their graves
- The Wahabis hold that Allah is really resting on his throne in the sky, while we hold that this is from the Mutashabihaat.(Those unclear statements hose meaning is only known to Allah).
- The Ulama of Deoband disagree with the destruction of numerous blessed historical landmarks by the Wahabis.
-The Ulama of deoband hold that taqleed of one mazhab is necessary, while the Wahabis generally do not adhere to a mazhab and claim that following one imam blindly is Bidah and shirk.
-There are dozens of other differences.

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

Link to Fatwa (http://askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=c87393fc4cd9e98061f88a7bf66d3fd8)

[Musleemah]

Mashallah I respect you for trying, but thus far you have left many topics undone [I think you know what I am refering to]

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

and thank you for your politness.

[jinnzaman]

I don't see anything new about that.

it is known that sufis consider Salafis "not" from ahl-assunnah wal-Jam'ah.
And Salafi's too believe that sufis hold beliefs contrary to the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah

Everyone can claim that they are from ahl asunnah wal Jama'h.
The only way to know who is correct is to bring proof.. and that is what I am trying to do in this discussion board, prove that we are ahl-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah.

Do you think you can provide more adequate proof than a guild of mujtahid scholars who've spent their entire lives engaged in study and worship?

[Musleemah]

Do you think you can provide more adequate proof than a guild of mujtahid scholars who've spent their entire lives engaged in study and worship?

Not all the scholars of the past (who have proceeded us) were 'Asha'ira or sufi...
I will prove that we are on the manhaj of As-Salaf specifically Sahaba radiyallahu 'anhum.
I am not going to bring something new... our disagreement here is on >> "who is really on the manhaj of As-Salaf (specially Sahaba (raa) )"
Be patient you will see insha Allah.

[OneLife]

Not all the scholars of the past (who have proceeded us) were 'Asha'ira or sufi...
I will prove that we are on the manhaj of As-Salaf specifically Sahaba radiyallahu 'anhum.
I am not going to bring something new... our disagreement here is on >> "who is really on the manhaj of As-Salaf (specially Sahaba (raa) )"
Be patient you will see insha Allah.

:salam:

So wait, you will be providing proof to prove that 99% of the people on this board are not following scholarship that is in line with the manhaj of the Salaf? Nice.