Al-Albani

[Ansari]

:salam:

You can read the book 'al albani unveiled' on many sites. However, i dont find it that strong, rather misleading (not everything), after i read the salafi reply. Because sometimes Shaykh Saqqaf doesnt present all information available on a subject.

Al-Albani Unveiled
An Exposition of His Errors
and other important issues
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/albintro.htm


The salafi response:

Page Count: 57
File Size: 236KB

A Reply to the Slanderous Book of Falsehood: Al-Albani: Unveiled
http://www.**********/articles/manhaj/innovation/asharees/bookoffalsehood.pdf

What is your opinion about it?

[Muawiyah]

"Albani Unvieled" by Ahmad ibn Muhammad (this version atleast (http://www.google.com/groups?q=+%22what+can+my+enemies+do+to+me%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&selm=CyC6Fo.8MG%40Cadence.COM&rnum=5)) has many unfair attacks on 'Allaamah ibn Taymiyyah Rahimahullah, his merits are presented in a wrong light. The sections dealing with independant tafseer & ijtihaad are very good though.

[Abu Usama]

Talking about Ibn Taymiyyah, have a read of his essay enjoining the good and forbidding the evil (http://www.islamic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tazkiyyah/enjoining_right_and_forbidding_w.htm)

[muslim786]

Assalamulikum WR WB,

Allhamdulilah we have some very good Ulama of our own and do not need to Ibn Tamiyya or his works.

[Abu Usama]

hmmm,

i find it difficult to relate to the opinions of those who demonise Ibn Taymiyyah so much, mostly because i listen to a lot of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, and the good shaykh likes to quotes Imam Ibn Taymiyyah quite a lot in his talks.

[muslim786]

Although a muslim and a scholar Shaykh Ibn Tamiyya is of the Ahle Bidah. As for quotes Shaykh Abu Ammar quotes Ibn Tamiyya throughout his books about traditional scholarship. The reasons many scholars like to do this is to show that the very person the salafis claim they follows agreed with the ahle sunnah on many issues.

[ibnu Rashid]

Although a muslim and a scholar Shaykh Ibn Tamiyya is of the Ahle Bidah. As for quotes Shaykh Abu Ammar quotes Ibn Tamiyya throughout his books about traditional scholarship. The reasons many scholars like to do this is to show that the very person the salafis claim they follows agreed with the ahle sunnah on many issues.

Fear Allah. You'll see the result of your labeling of 'ulamaa as ahl-ul-bid'ah on yaum al-qiyaamah. You benefit no one with your ignorant claims of such, and wallahi this is just a source of deviating people farther from the deen of Allah. Fear Allah is all i have to tell you.

[muslim786]

Fear Allah. You'll see the result of your labeling of 'ulamaa as ahl-ul-bid'ah on yaum al-qiyaamah. You benefit no one with your ignorant claims of such, and wallahi this is just a source of deviating people farther from the deen of Allah. Fear Allah is all i have to tell you.
You should fear Allah. Inshallah Allah SWT will bring you out of your ignorance and onto the path of the ahle sunnah wal jammah. Ibn Tamiyya is of the ahle bidah as many top scholars have told me and many on this forum will too. No doubt he has done good BUT his errors and deviation from ijma are there for all to see. Aren't you the person that thought Bin Baz was ahle sunnah?

[muslim786]

It wasn't me who termed Ibn Tamiyya (May Allah have mercy on him) as Ahle Bida but the Ulema of Ahle Sunnah Wal Jammah have, and I follow their stance. Indeed Ibn Tamiyya is a far greater scholar than many can ever achieve and a devout and pious man BUT his mistakes have been noted to us by the Ulama.

[Mustafa]

i find it difficult to relate to the opinions of those who demonise Ibn Taymiyyah so much, mostly because i listen to a lot of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, and the good shaykh likes to quotes Imam Ibn Taymiyyah quite a lot in his talks.

As-salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah

Shaykh Hamza is qualified enough to be able to discriminate between what is good from Imam Ibn Taymiyya and what is not, while we laymen cannot. In the interview on Deenport the Shaykh does mention one of Imam Ibn Taymiyya's mistakes; his example being that just because someone makes a mistake we shouldn't reject everything he has to say. In 'Reliance of the Traveller' Ibn Taymiyya is held up as an example of someone who can be brilliant in one field, but have serious errors in others (such as aqeeda).

For us laymen not on the level of Shaykh Hamza it's best to stick to scholars that are agreed upon such as the four imams, Imam an Nawawi, etc. This is enough for us and we don't need to accuse anyone of anything. The ulema that criticised Ibn Taymiyya did so for a reason; it's enough for us then to stick to ulema and positions that are accepted by the majority and know that Ibn Taymiyya was most likely more pious than a lot of us here. And Allah knows best.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[Mustafa]

Apologies to sidi 'Pako' for going wildly off-topic, but on the issue of Imam Ibn Taymiyya, sidi Musa Furber had this to say from his old Hanbali Fiqh group:

A bit about Ibn Taymiyya (http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/h/24.html)

And the rest of the Hanbali group archive (for those interested):

Hanbali Archive (http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/h/index.html)

[ibnu Rashid]

You should fear Allah. Inshallah Allah SWT will bring you out of your ignorance and onto the path of the ahle sunnah wal jammah.

Masha'ALlah. You seem to be on the siraat al-mustaqeem. You must be on some divine guidance which affirms the correctness of your manhaj and tareeqah. SubhanAllah. Its ajeeb to see such auliyaa's of Allah. Why don't you tell us what your secret is? I wish i could so easily distinguish between who is in ignorance and on the path of "ahle" sunnah wal jamaah. This is a great karamah or kashf it seems.

Go learn some basic principles molvi saab: Fa laa tuzakku anfusakum.

You say I'm in ignorance and off the path of ahlus-sunnah just for advising you not to slander 'ulamaa? Maybe criticizing 'ulamaa to affirm your own thought-pattern is what your mashaayyikh and your teachers teach you to do, but Alhamdulillaah my teachers and mashaayikh have taught me otherwise. I know people from amongst ahl-ut-tassawwuf whom if you were to utter such stupid comments (as mentioned before) in front of them would shut you down so hard you'd start crying. If you're too baleed to be able to understand an opinion then just keep your mouth shut, that is better for you.
It is the "harvests of the tongue" that can cause one to be thrown into jahannam face first. And wallaahi your labeling or following a few individuals in the labeling of our 'ulamaa brings forth nothing good.

Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Shall We tell you the greatest losers in respect of (their) deeds?

"Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life while they thought that they were acquiring good by their deeds! (Al-Kahf 18:103-104)

You can go on criticizing 'ulamaa along with others and thinking you are doing the right thing, but when the hour is established, you will see what happens for opposing those whom Allah sided with.



Aren't you the person that thought Bin Baz was ahle sunnah?

What's that supposed to mean? Yes I do think he is. If YOU think otherwise, good for you, just keep your opinions to yourself.



Ibn Tamiyya is of the ahle bidah as many top scholars have told me and many on this forum will too.

Before you start ascribing such things to the 'ulamaa of this forum, perhaps you should ask them. I assure you none of them would trangress the limits and do such a thing, because they are well aware of the uselessness of such actions. Not Shaykh Ziad, Shaykh Nazim, or Mufti Yusuf would say such things, because first of all it is out of basic aadaab.

[Mossy]

It seems to me that these two Muslim scholars should be treated the same way we treat all other Muslim scholars: that they have opinions that are correct and others that are not.

Indubitably.

No more talk of Ibn Taymiyyah in this thread please, rancour is rapidly rising, to quote mufti Desai:


Shaykh Taqi-u-ddin Ahmad ibn Taymiyah was a prominent Aalim (scholar) of
Deen. Shaykh Taqi-u-ddin had his independent views on many matters based on his vast knowledge and research. It is incorrect for non-scholars and non-academics to pass a judgment especially on such learned people. They should fear Allah and abstain from engaging themselves in such discussions. Differences of opinion is a salient feature among the Ulama-e-Haqq (true scholars).

Also, let's try to concentrate on the book itself rather than either of the two individuals mentioned in the first post, ok?

[muslim786]

Brother Ibn Rashid I advise you to visit http://212.67.202.62/~security/htspub/ for pure hanabli advise. Its quite obvious that you are a salafi and NOT a hanbali at all. I am sorry to be harsh with you but thats what it seems to me. I advise you to take from that above site.

[Mossy]

He's seen it. Now, back to book debating :)

[Zaid 'Abdur-Rahman]

:bism:

Brother Ibn Rashid I advise you to visit http://212.67.202.62/~security/htspub/ for pure hanabli advise. Its quite obvious that you are a salafi and NOT a hanbali at all. I am sorry to be harsh with you but thats what it seems to me. I advise you to take from that above site.

As-Salaamu 'Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakaatuhu!

Muslim786, Ibnu Rashid, the both of you must lay off each other and make dhikr. I would like to point out it is not in the tradition of the Salaf to designated someone as "ignorant" or " not on the straight path". They would gently try and correct a brother's mistakes, and if they could not, they would divorce themselves from his presence until Allah azza wajjal saw fit to guide his heart back to the proper path. We should not be fighting. We are supposed to be and UMMAH, remember? Debating and such over something as trivial as the Aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah, Rahmatullah 'alaihi will get us nowhere. In the effort of helping this die, I will refrain from my opnions of Taqi' ud-deen and the opinion of the shayks I have spoken to about him. If you wish to discuss his MERITS, pleast open another thread. JazakAllah Khair!


NOW TO GET THIS THREAD BACK ON TRACK WITH AL-ALBANI.

Now, was Al-Albani a scholar? sort of, in the fact that he was relatively learned.
Was he an educated layman? Most definitely.
Was he qualified to make fatwa and "edit" the great texts of Ahadith, texts written by these...mental giants...who were greater than any living Shaykh of our times? Most Definitely not!
Was he qualified to give Fatwa? Keep in mind that a Fatwa is an *opninion*; we are not required to follow it. And given the amount of fallacy even I have easily detected in Al-Albani's fatwas, I find it safe to ignore them. I would also like to point out that it was the established practice of the Salaf, as we see in the books of Imam Malik Rahmatullah 'Alaihi and Ibn Abi Zaid Al-Qaywarani, Allah Preserve him, to not give fatwa and say "this is haram and this is Halal" (unless it was clearly marked so in the Word of Allah or the Sunnah of his Messenger), instead they would say "I do not like this, and I would not do it myself".


As for simply sitting in the library and studying, while a great way to learn, I do not think it allows for doing what Al-Albani did. I have seen such individuals who immerse themselves in texts and such and ignore the vital oral traditions of the shayukh, and then think themselves "shaykhs' (a'udhu billah bear in mind I am not accusing Al-Albani of this, I am just pointing things out from my own experience.) These pseudo-shaykhs then debate "real" shayukh and soundly get trounced.

And Allahu Alim; Allah forgive me from any errors I might have made, and protect those who read this from any of my misjudgements. Amin.

Wasalaam,
Zaid

[ibnu Rashid]

Its quite obvious that you are a salafi and NOT a hanbali at all.

Ijtanibu katheeran min adh-dhann. Do not throw accusations around. Honestly, I don't know how you reached that conclusion, its quite amazing. Perhaps another kashf.

Don't take it personally bro, i'm just messing around. All i'm saying is that one should refrain from labeling anyone...

Including Albani (rahimahullah). Again, WHAT benefit can one possibly get from repeatedly refuting him. He's passed away, he's gone, by bringing up his faults again and again, in essence you may be reviving his ideas. Personally, I don't take anything from Albani, and have never even read any of his works, but at the same time, the only time i've even been exposed to some of his stranger opinions is from those who try to refute him. What good has been done through this? Nothing.

Wallahu a'alam.

[muslim786]

Ijtanibu katheeran min adh-dhann. Do not throw accusations around. Honestly, I don't know how you reached that conclusion, its quite amazing. Perhaps another kashf.

Don't take it personally bro, i'm just messing around. All i'm saying is that one should refrain from labeling anyone...

Including Albani (rahimahullah). Again, WHAT benefit can one possibly get from repeatedly refuting him. He's passed away, he's gone, by bringing up his faults again and again, in essence you may be reviving his ideas. Personally, I don't take anything from Albani, and have never even read any of his works, but at the same time, the only time i've even been exposed to some of his stranger opinions is from those who try to refute him. What good has been done through this? Nothing.

Wallahu a'alam.
point taking bruv. i am sorry, but the way some salafis have been acting around me and I know i shouldn't stoop to their "ie level labelling our ulama as this and that" and also by reading fatwas By Imam Bin Baz it does upset me at the best, if you do read my posts you notice I have a high regard for Imam Ibn Tamiyya rahimullah both as a scholar and poius man, I just said what people have told me about him which includes many ulama. But anyway I am sorry to have offended you.

[muminah]

It wasn't me who termed Ibn Tamiyya (May Allah have mercy on him) as Ahle Bida but the Ulema of Ahle Sunnah Wal Jammah have, and I follow their stance. Indeed Ibn Tamiyya is a far greater scholar than many can ever achieve and a devout and pious man BUT his mistakes have been noted to us by the Ulama.

can you care to mention the names of some of the "ulama" please

[Muawiyah]

There were some ulama who made takfeer on him...

Coming back to the topic, the so-called "salafis" lie all the time, they have the nerve to refer to a book written against them as "A book of falsehood". Possibly Shaykh Saqqaf is using their own false usool over them?

[Mustafa]

can you care to mention the names of some of the "ulama" please

As-salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah

The way you phrase this question implies that you don't consider those particular people ulema. Any cursory reading of Ibn Taymiyya's life reveals that he was a very controversial figure who polarised the ulema of his time into either defending him or opposing him. Both sets of scholars had reasons for doing so, and both sets of scholars are deserving of our respect.

Sidi Mas'ud, on his website, used to have a list of scholars who spoke out against Ibn Taymiyya, but has since taken it down. In the Reliance of the Traveller, it is related that those who gave fatwas against Ibn Taymiyya included Taqi al-Din Subki, Ibn Hajar Haytami and al-Izz Ibn Jama'a. Others who spoke out were Mustafa Ahmad Hasan al-Shatti al-Athari the Mufti of Syria; Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Afaliq; `Afif al-Din ibn `Abd Allah ibn Dawud; `Abd Allah al-Qadumi al-Nabulusi. Once of Ibn Taymiyya's former students, Imam al Dhahabi, allegedely wrote this letter HERE (http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/dhahabi.htm)

I do not wish to get into a debate as to which 'side' of the ulema were correct in this matter; however, it is enough to see that there was no consensus amongst the learned as to Ibn Taymiyya's position and so - for us - it is best to have the best opinion of him and follow the Prophet's (upon him be blessings and peace) advice by sticking to ulema and positions that are supported by the majority of sunni Islam. And Allah knows best.

I hope this is the end of the matter, insha'Allah.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[ibnu Rashid]

As-salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah

The way you phrase this question implies that you don't consider those particular people ulema. Any cursory reading of Ibn Taymiyya's life reveals that he was a very controversial figure who polarised the ulema of his time into either defending him or opposing him. Both sets of scholars had reasons for doing so, and both sets of scholars are deserving of our respect.

Sidi Mas'ud, on his website, used to have a list of scholars who spoke out against Ibn Taymiyya, but has since taken it down. In the Reliance of the Traveller, it is related that those who gave fatwas against Ibn Taymiyya included Taqi al-Din Subki, Ibn Hajar Haytami and al-Izz Ibn Jama'a. Others who spoke out were Mustafa Ahmad Hasan al-Shatti al-Athari the Mufti of Syria; Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Afaliq; `Afif al-Din ibn `Abd Allah ibn Dawud; `Abd Allah al-Qadumi al-Nabulusi. Once of Ibn Taymiyya's former students, Imam al Dhahabi, allegedely wrote this letter HERE (http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/dhahabi.htm)

I do not wish to get into a debate as to which 'side' of the ulema were correct in this matter; however, it is enough to see that there was no consensus amongst the learned as to Ibn Taymiyya's position and so - for us - it is best to have the best opinion of him and follow the Prophet's (upon him be blessings and peace) advice by sticking to ulema and positions that are supported by the majority of sunni Islam. And Allah knows best.

Thank you for adding fuel to the fire.


I hope this is the end of the matter, insha'Allah.

It was ended a long time ago.

[Mustafa]

Sidi, a question was asked and it was answered. If the sister had asked to name the ulema that had defended Ibn Taymiyya then I would expect that question to be answered, too. There's no need to be so touchy, and nothing but the truth was written. The Muslims have a right to know as the position of the Salaf was to be careful from whom you take the deen from. The ulema were split on Imam Ibn Taymiyya and to think otherwise isn't right.

Moreover, the point of my post was to show that those ulema who opposed the Imam were fully qualified to do so, as it was implied that they weren't. It was not meant to be an attack on the Imam.

Wa salam

[Mustafa]

Just to clarify...

The issue re: Imam Taymiyya is not related to the scholar himself, but the way some Muslims regard him today. I've lived in Saudi for quite a few years and have seen people labelled 'deviant' because they followed an opinion (a strong opinion supported by the majority, nonetheless) that opposed the opinion of Ibn Taymiyya, and seen Islamic conferences where there were posters of Quranic ayah put up side by side with hadith of the Prophet (saw) and the sayings of Ibn Taymiyya (as though all three were equal) and heard Saudi Muslims say that (aside from the Prophet and the sahaba) no-one knew more about Islam than Ibn Taymiyya. I'd think that a pious person as Imam Ibn Taymiyya would also be slightly aghast at being described like this.

Anyone's whose heard Imam Zaid Shakir's 'Purification of the Soul' set knows that its very possible that Ibn Taymiyya's statements were misinterpreted, and this is a position that, to me personally, seems very sound.

So, lest sidi Ibnu Rashid think that there is no point to these discussions or that there's an attack on the Imam himself, the point is that since some Muslims consider Ibn Taymiyya the be all and end all of Islam and the last word in the deen (aside from the Prophet (saw) and the sahaba), there is every reason to point out that the ulema were not agreed over him and that there are ulema who have stronger opinions than him.

And like Shaykh Hamza and sidi Musa Furber said...not everything the Imam said was wrong. However, there are some people who think that everything the Imam said was right. Both extremes are incorrect.

Apologies to sidi Mossy for bringing this up again. May Allah forgive us all for our errors.

And Allah knows best.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[ibnu Rashid]

Jazaakallah khayran for the clarification.

And i completely agree with you on the fact that some people think he's not prone to making errors, which is incorrect.

But subhanAllah, we're living in ajeeb times. May Allah show us the truth as the truth, and bless us with the following of it.

[muminah]

AL-Hamdu Lillaah, indeed the Shaykh has memorised a hundred thousand hadeeth...

Shaykh 'Asheesh narrates an incident when the Imaam of Hadeeth, the Shaykh - Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee (rahima-hullaah) was explaining the different scholarly levels of hadeeth, and Shaykh al-Albaanee went on to say:
"al-Haafidth is one who has memorised a hundred thousand hadeeth along with their chains of narration and the text (of each hadeeth)."

So Shaykh 'Asheesh responds:
"Is it possible for me to be satisfied in the knowledge that our Shaykh has memorised a hundred thousand hadeeth?"


Shaykh al-Albaanee said:
"This does not concern you."


Shaykh 'Asheesh said:
"Rather, it is from that which does concern me."


Shaykh al-Albaanee said:
"…does not concern you."

Shaykh 'Asheesh said:
"So is it possible for me to say that our Shaykh is a haafidth?"


So Shaykh al-Albaanee became quiet.

Shaykh 'Asheesh said:
"So is it possible for me to take your silence as an answer?"


Shaykh al-Albaanee said:
"Have I not told you that this does not concern you?"


Shaykh 'Asheesh said:
"Yes. This is from that which does concern me. Is it possible for me to interpret (your) lack of response as an answer?"


So the Shaykh became quiet.

And Shaykh 'Asheesh repeated his question to him a number of times.


Shaykh al-Albaanee recited:
"{And whatever you have of the blessings, then it is from Allaah}."


And Shaykh 'Asheesh quickly said:
"Can I interpret this as an answer?"


Shaykh al-Albaanee said:
"It is for you to interpret it as an answer and it is for you to interpret it as whatever you wish."


Shaykh 'Asheesh narrates:
"So I happily proclaimed: "Allaahu Akbar", and jubilantly exclaimed: "Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah", and said:
"al-Hamdu Lillaah, indeed the Shaykh has memorised a hundred thousand hadeeth."

So our Shaykh laughed; It was as if he confirmed what I was saying."

Shaykh 'Asheesh further narrates:
"From his responses from the beginning to the end there never was a clear answer from the Shaykh, so this does not imply anything except his extreme humility."

Safahaat baydhaa. min hayaat Shaykhinaa al-Albaanee – Page 40

[Mustafa]

Memorising hadith does not make a person a hadith scholar. A hadith scholar (and any scholar in any islamic field) has to have an ijaza from recognised authorities before he can teach others. An ijaza guarantees that a scholar in question has immersed himself in the methodology and understanding of the majority of ulema in the particular field that he has excelled in. This prevents people from changing the deen by interpreting Islam using their own opinions; a tendency that the Prophet (saw) said - in Bukhari and Muslim - would emerge at the end of time, resulting in people going astray.

As for whether this applies to the person in question, Shaykh Nuh goes into some detail in an article dedicated to this, and mentions the opinion of Shaykh Shuaib al Arna'ut, a recognised scholar in hadith. You can read the article HERE (http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq6.htm)

I find it strange that you, as a Hanafi, would consider Al-Albani as an authority as he belongs to a group that opposes taqlid to a single madhab. And Allah knows best.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[muslim786]

Sister Muminah Albani is against the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jammah and is considered by all the Ulama of Ahle Sunnah Al Jammah as a innovator and a person of Ahle Bidah. He has no authority in any Islamic Sciences and is the master of the current day so called salafis.
Brother Ibn Rashid I hope you agree with the above.

[ibnu Rashid]

Memorising hadith does not make a person a hadith scholar. A hadith scholar (and any scholar in any islamic field) has to have an ijaza from recognised authorities before he can teach others. An ijaza guarantees that a scholar in question has immersed himself in the methodology and understanding of the majority of ulema in the particular field that he has excelled in. This prevents people from changing the deen by interpreting Islam using their own opinions; a tendency that the Prophet (saw) said - in Bukhari and Muslim - would emerge at the end of time, resulting in people going astray.

As for whether this applies to the person in question, Shaykh Nuh goes into some detail in an article dedicated to this, and mentions the opinion of Shaykh Shuaib al Arna'ut, a recognised scholar in hadith. You can read the article HERE (http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq6.htm)

I find it strange that you, as a Hanafi, would consider Al-Albani as an authority as he belongs to a group that opposes taqlid to a single madhab. And Allah knows best.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

Just to be fair, i hope you realized the words used were "haafidh"...


al-Haafidth is one who has memorised a hundred thousand hadeeth along with their chains of narration and the text (of each hadeeth)."

Just as there is a difference in regards to the Qur'aan between a haafidh, and say a mufassir, there is a difference between one who is a haafidh of hadeeth and one who studies the detailed meaning of each hadith.

I'm not a big fan of Shaykh Albaani, but i believe credit should be given where its due. The issue of his doing tad'eef and tas'heeh etc of hadith is another issue. But I'll refrain from discussing it because its of no benefit to me, or anyone else per say.

[Mustafa]

Point taken, sidi Ibnu Rashid.

Muslim786 - sidi, Shaykh Nuh describes the 'Wahhabis/ Salafis' as Mumineen who have mistakes in their understanding. I think laypersons such as ourselves should follow the Shaykh's adab and not use inflammatory terms. :)

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[muslim786]

Point taken, sidi Ibnu Rashid.

Muslim786 - sidi, Shaykh Nuh describes the 'Wahhabis/ Salafis' as Mumineen who have mistakes in their understanding. I think laypersons such as ourselves should follow the Shaykh's adab and not use inflammatory terms. :)

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

Where did I say they were not Munmineen, I said they were people of Innovation which is of course what the respected Shaykh calls them.

[muslim786]

His eminence's speech in Lahore was called how to deal with people of Bidah.

[Mustafa]

The point is that the Shaykh was trying to teach us something by using the mumineen term.

As far as I know, the speech in Lahore was about tasawwuf and only in the Q&A session did someone ask 'How do we deal with the people of bid'ah such as the shi'ites?' He answered that the shi'ites are our brothers who have done wrong against us (quoting Imam Ali (ra)), and he made it a point that that's the answer we should use. He also mentioned that the term 'Wahhabi' is thrown about a little too much nowadays. He said its better to emphasise Muslim unity.

And Allah knows best.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[muslim786]

The point is that the Shaykh was trying to teach us something by using the mumineen term.

As far as I know, the speech in Lahore was about tasawwuf and only in the Q&A session did someone ask 'How do we deal with the people of bid'ah such as the shi'ites?' He answered that the shi'ites are our brothers who have done wrong against us (quoting Imam Ali (ra)), and he made it a point that that's the answer we should use. He also mentioned that the term 'Wahhabi' is thrown about a little too much nowadays. He said its better to emphasise Muslim unity.

And Allah knows best.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam
I agree with you that we should strive for muslim unity BUT if someone doesn't stand up for the heresies out there today then there will be no muslims left soon. Al Albani shouldn't be forgiven too easily for his crimes to Islam.

[Mustafa]

Al Albani shouldn't be forgiven too easily for his crimes to Islam.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Shaykh Nuh was teaching us that if you want people to listen to you then you have to speak to them and address them in a way that won't repel them. We want all our brothers and sisters to be guided, but if we label the people that they love with inflammatory terms then they're less likely to listen to us. We want to create affection between Muslims and guide them to Jannah, and not create hatred, anger and enmity and so drive them away.

And, yes, I know that some of them do label us with derogatory terms, but we shouldn't stoop to that same level.

And Allah knows best.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[muslim786]

Do you not agree with me brother that the shia and salafis are people of innovation?

[muslim786]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Shaykh Nuh was teaching us that if you want people to listen to you then you have to speak to them and address them in a way that won't repel them. We want all our brothers and sisters to be guided, but if we label the people that they love with inflammatory terms then they're less likely to listen to us. We want to create affection between Muslims and guide them to Jannah, and not create hatred, anger and enmity and so drive them away.

And, yes, I know that some of them do label us with derogatory terms, but we shouldn't stoop to that same level.

And Allah knows best.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

I see your point, but who do we address their mistakes without using the word innovation or deviation at some point?

[muslim786]

Assalamulikum WR WB,

Believe it or not I generally speak to Salafis very nicely and treat them as our pure brothers, because I too don't want Islam to be broken up further, and I do when generally speaking to salafis never diss al albani, bin baz or anyone they like, I don't even use inovator, rather I direct people to things repelling what the salafis were for, ie articles on madhabs etc. But I used the words inovator here because I wanted to specifically explain to sister Muminah who is a hanafi that she has got a wrong view of al albani and then to explain why this was I had to use the words inovator and ahle bidah. Otherwise she might have thought their was a difference of opinion on Al Albani, I wanted there to be no room for interepretation on this.

[Mustafa]

I see your point, but who do we address their mistakes without using the word innovation or deviation at some point?


Wa alaikum as salaam wr wb

You've answered your own question. As Shaykh Nuh says we refer to their 'mistakes' (or even 'misinterpretations').

Yes, I agree with you that the salafis and shi'a are people of innovation, but it's not for me as a layperson to say so - it's for the ulema. However, I am trying to implement the lessons that Shaykh Nuh (as he's my murshid, alhamdulilah) is trying to teach, and that is that they are Muslim and as such worthy of being addressed with basic respect, even if we disagree with them.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[ibnu Rashid]

Don't you agree that salafis and shia are people of innovation? Also if you read abt the shia aqeedahs from their own books, and I have learnt a lot abt shiaism from the shia as has my dear brother Salman you will realise that a lot of the mainstream 12ers aka jafaris are outside the pale of islam let alone being an innovator.

Akh, you have to look PAST group affiliations. I don't go as far as calling salafis people of innovation (I believe they are a group as opposed to a sect), but regarding shi'as, it may be clear in many cases that some of the doctrines are blatant kufr. However, its is true in several instances where a layman amongst the shi'as believes firmly in the kalimah but does not know anything about the corrupted 'aqaaid. When we throw around labels to a whole group, such people are included, and to unjustly label them would be dhulm (sorry for the redundancy).

I don't wish to cause a big debate, but another example is barelwis. Asides from a good number of my teachers, a large number of big time 'ulamaa that past away within the last few decades have made severe radd against them, equating many of their beliefs to shirk. In many cases I, admitting myself being a jaahil, have to disagree with some of these opinions which are applied to this group as a whole. That is because, like mentioned before, there are many amongst them that take the title because they were born with it. What can they do about it.

Anyways, one story my friend was telling me made me think alot. He (if classified, probably Deobandi) was in Makkah or Madinah (i forgot), talking with his friend, a salafi. Both of them were knowledgable of the sunnah and practicers of it. In the mean while, a barelwi man along with his family happened to pass by them. After seeing them, unaware of the 'hari pagri' (green turban) distinguishing feature of barelwis, the salafi brother commented saying Masha'Allah after seeing the long beard and the imaamah on his head. So my friend told me that this made him think. And this made me think, we all accept, believe, and love the tawheed, and we all try to follow the sunnah...if we take that as our foundations, then we can get along and prosper. If we take our foundations on other grounds, then without doubt we'll experience all the fitnah and commotion we see today. Wallaahu a'alam.

May Allah bring us together on the kalimat-ul-haqq and allow us to look towards the more important issues our ummah is facing.

[muslim786]

Akh, you have to look PAST group affiliations. I don't go as far as calling salafis people of innovation (I believe they are a group as opposed to a sect), but regarding shi'as, it may be clear in many cases that some of the doctrines are blatant kufr. However, its is true in several instances where a layman amongst the shi'as believes firmly in the kalimah but does not know anything about the corrupted 'aqaaid. When we throw around labels to a whole group, such people are included, and to unjustly label them would be dhulm (sorry for the redundancy).

I don't wish to cause a big debate, but another example is barelwis. Asides from a good number of my teachers, a large number of big time 'ulamaa that past away within the last few decades have made severe radd against them, equating many of their beliefs to shirk. In many cases I, admitting myself being a jaahil, have to disagree with some of these opinions which are applied to this group as a whole. That is because, like mentioned before, there are many amongst them that take the title because they were born with it. What can they do about it.

Anyways, one story my friend was telling me made me think alot. He (if classified, probably Deobandi) was in Makkah or Madinah (i forgot), talking with his friend, a salafi. Both of them were knowledgable of the sunnah and practicers of it. In the mean while, a barelwi man along with his family happened to pass by them. After seeing them, unaware of the 'hari pagri' (green turban) distinguishing feature of barelwis, the salafi brother commented saying Masha'Allah after seeing the long beard and the imaamah on his head. So my friend told me that this made him think. And this made me think, we all accept, believe, and love the tawheed, and we all try to follow the sunnah...if we take that as our foundations, then we can get along and prosper. If we take our foundations on other grounds, then without doubt we'll experience all the fitnah and commotion we see today. Wallaahu a'alam.

May Allah bring us together on the kalimat-ul-haqq and allow us to look towards the more important issues our ummah is facing.

Brother if you notice I deleted that post long before u posted ur reply, just to clarify I did use the word some shias in the original post, remember some.

[muslim786]

Akh, you have to look PAST group affiliations. I don't go as far as calling salafis people of innovation (I believe they are a group as opposed to a sect), but regarding shi'as, it may be clear in many cases that some of the doctrines are blatant kufr. However, its is true in several instances where a layman amongst the shi'as believes firmly in the kalimah but does not know anything about the corrupted 'aqaaid. When we throw around labels to a whole group, such people are included, and to unjustly label them would be dhulm (sorry for the redundancy).

I don't wish to cause a big debate, but another example is barelwis. Asides from a good number of my teachers, a large number of big time 'ulamaa that past away within the last few decades have made severe radd against them, equating many of their beliefs to shirk. In many cases I, admitting myself being a jaahil, have to disagree with some of these opinions which are applied to this group as a whole. That is because, like mentioned before, there are many amongst them that take the title because they were born with it. What can they do about it.

Anyways, one story my friend was telling me made me think alot. He (if classified, probably Deobandi) was in Makkah or Madinah (i forgot), talking with his friend, a salafi. Both of them were knowledgable of the sunnah and practicers of it. In the mean while, a barelwi man along with his family happened to pass by them. After seeing them, unaware of the 'hari pagri' (green turban) distinguishing feature of barelwis, the salafi brother commented saying Masha'Allah after seeing the long beard and the imaamah on his head. So my friend told me that this made him think. And this made me think, we all accept, believe, and love the tawheed, and we all try to follow the sunnah...if we take that as our foundations, then we can get along and prosper. If we take our foundations on other grounds, then without doubt we'll experience all the fitnah and commotion we see today. Wallaahu a'alam.

May Allah bring us together on the kalimat-ul-haqq and allow us to look towards the more important issues our ummah is facing.

Brother are you suggesting that Imam Ahmed Raza Khan had corrupt and shirki beliefs? You are talking about the barelvis as if they are not of ahle sunnah but maybe some of their followers are, thats what it sounds like. Naturally you as a person who regards Bin Baz highly your comments have no authority here. Please seek guidance from Allah SWT.

[muslim786]

The bigtime ulama you have mentioned HAVE ALL BEEN salafi orientated, no proper sunni authority has dissed Imam Ahmed Raza Khan or his beliefs to shirk and kufr. Even Hazrat Ashraf Ali Thanvi Shaab regarded him highy, even though Imam Raza Ahmed Khan was opposed to the deobandis very severely.

[muslim786]

I need some clarification on the following my brother Ibn Rashid:

Brother Ibn Rashid what do you think about Tawassul, is it shirk?
Do you think the Prophet SAWAS is dead or alive?
Where is Allah SWT?
Also who was the first prophet (AS) to be created?
Do you have to follow a madhab?
Whats so good about Bin Baz?
What do you think of sufism?

[ibnu Rashid]

Yaa Allah.

First off, regarding your comment:


Brother are you suggesting that Imam Ahmed Raza Khan had corrupt and shirki beliefs? You are talking about the barelvis as if they are not of ahle sunnah but maybe some of their followers are, thats what it sounds like. Naturally you as a person who regards Bin Baz highly your comments have no authority here. Please seek guidance from Allah SWT.

I think you should look through and see if i even mentioned either the word Imam, Ahmed, Raza or Khan anywhere in the post. If you see it, let me know.

Myself, I've only heard his name, and don't know anything about his works.

Secondly, no, they have NOT all been salafi oriented. They were 'ulamaa of the ah'naaf.

Next, ask me to seek guidance just for holding Bin Baaz with high regards? Ajeeb man, I've never heard of this one before.

And finally,


Brother Ibn Rashid what do you think about Tawassul, is it shirk?
Do you think the Prophet SAWAS is dead or alive?
Where is Allah?

To pose such questions is, because I can find any better words, INTIHAA-E-JAHAALAT.

[muslim786]

Yaa Allah.

First off, regarding your comment:



I think you should look through and see if i even mentioned either the word Imam, Ahmed, Raza or Khan anywhere in the post. If you see it, let me know.

Myself, I've only heard his name, and don't know anything about his works.

Secondly, no, they have NOT all been salafi oriented. They were 'ulamaa of the ah'naaf.

Next, ask me to seek guidance just for holding Bin Baaz with high regards? Ajeeb man, I've never heard of this one before.

And finally,



To pose such questions is, because I can find any better words, INTIHAA-E-JAHAALAT.

Please answer my questios brother Ibn Rashid and also name the ulama who called the beliefs shirk and kufr. I unlike brother IbN Rashid are an in ure face person. If you think the barelvis are not proper sunni, then say so.

[muslim786]

Brother Ibn Rashid for your own sake I advise you to drop your allegiance to the neo salaf, and follow a proper sunni alim, it is quite clear you have come here with little or no knowledge of what constitutes a proper sunni. I respect you as a brother in Islam, but I advise you to seek knowledge, beacause at the moment it is people like yourself who have confused pure Islam and salafiesd the local masses. Truth hurts man, but this is the truth.

[ibnu Rashid]

Please answer my questios brother Ibn Rashid and also name the ulama who called the beliefs shirk and kufr. I unlike brother IbN Rashid are an in ure face person. If you think the barelvis are not proper sunni, then say so.

DISCLAIMER: I may or may not agree with many of these opinions.

Thereafter, to start off, we can have a look at what ask-imam.com says.


The Barelwis are not part of the Ahlus Sunnah. Bid'ah is a distinguishing
feature of this sect.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

for: Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.

Other than this, one can refer to Shaykh Yusuf Ludhiyaanwee, or Mufti Lajpuri.

There are many others, but I don't think it should be a thing that is discussed. After your mentioning of Ahemd Raza Khan, I did some research and discovered some rather disturbing sayings.

Now, as for your questions, lets take them one at a time.

Brother Ibn Rashid what do you think about Tawassul, is it shirk?

It does not concern me, I hold NO opinion regarding it.

Do you think the Prophet SAWAS is dead or alive?

Another question which does not in reality concern me. The sunnah is still alive, this is what needs to be followed. But, if an answer is required, I will simply say that what Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq said, without making any further comments:

“Whoever used to worship Muhammad, Muhammad has died, but whoever used to worship Allaah, Allaah is alive and will never die.”

And also the aayaat:

“Verily, you (O Muhammad) will die, and verily, they (too) will die” [al-Zumar 39:30]

“And We granted not to any human being immortality before you (O Muhammad); then if you die, would they live forever?” [al-Anbiyaa’ 21:34]

Where is Allah SWT?

As for this question, I will answer with that answer that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) approved of:

The hadeeth concerning the young slave girl, to whom the Prophet (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him) said: "Where is Allah?" She said: "In heaven" He asked, "Who am I?" She said, "The Messenger of Allah." So he said to her master: "Set her free, for she is a believer."

Also who was the first prophet (AS) to be created?

I am not aware of this, perhaps you can provide the answer with valid evidence??

Do you have to follow a madhab?

Yes I do.

Whats so good about Bin Baz?

He was an 'aalim amongst the 'ulamaa. A HANAFI teacher of daur-al-hadith at Jamia Binoria, whose status in 'ilm and piety was well known, informed his class in a dars once, that if one were to say ibn Baaz (rahimahullah) was the most knowledgable person of this era, this would NOT be mubaalagah (exaggeration).

I have no disclosed in name in fear that some people may go on and slander him, and thus perhaps distance themselves from jannah.

What do you think of sufism?

It is a method from amongst the methods of bringing one closer to Allah. It may be very well synonymous to the term tazkiyyat-un-nafs.

[Mustafa]

As-salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah

Before this thread is deservedely closed, it would be beneficial for all of us to listen to the lecture by Shaykh Nuh that brother 'Muslim786' was referring to (I know it's been posted before, but it does seem like its needed here!).

This was in response to a question about the shi'a, but Shaykh Nuh does go into detail on how to approach the 'people of bid'ah,' what we should think and feel about them, the difference between a school in Islam and a sect, calling the shi'a 'kuffar' and ( very briefly) the position of both Barelwis and Deobandis in Islam (this seems to be a popular topic on this particular forum).

This is hosted on brother Abu Usama's site HERE (http://www.youtea.com/audio/030203Q-BidaShia.mp3)

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[Mustafa]

DISCLAIMER: I may or may not agree with many of these opinions.

Thereafter, to start off, we can have a look at what ask-imam.com says.

This no longer seems to be the position of Mufti Desai. He considers them to be Ahl-us-Sunnah, though he interprets some of their views in a negative light based on his understanding. And Allah knows best.

Fatwa on Barelwis (http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=11330)

(And before any accusations start flying, I belong to neither of these schools.)

I would suggest that if the two of you wish to discuss things further that you do so via private correspondence.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[Ansari]

This no longer seems to be the position of Mufti Desai. He considers them to be Ahl-us-Sunnah, though he interprets some of their views in a negative light based on his understanding. And Allah knows best.

Fatwa on Barelwis (http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=11330)

(And before any accusations start flying, I belong to neither of these schools.)



I guess there are different views. In fatwa rahimiyya the author clearly states that the barelvi's/ reza khani's are ahlul bida and the deobandi's are the true ahlul sunnah wa'l jama'a.

This whole thing about 'who is the true ahlul sunnah wa jama'a' is just useless for the muslim ummah, what i also find sometimes disturbing. There are a lot of sunni muslims who dont associate themselves with the deobandi school of thought.

[muminah]

I guess there are different views. In fatwa rahimiyya the author clearly states that the barelvi's/ reza khani's are ahlul bida and the deobandi's are the true ahlul sunnah wa'l jama'a.

.

All deobandi 'ulamaa say barelwis are from the ahlul bid'ah

[faqir]

All deobandi 'ulamaa say barelwis are from the ahlul bid'ah


Are the Baraelvis a subset of Sufis? Seems like they call themselves followers of ‘Traditional Scholars’ or ‘Traditional Islam’. What is the difference between Sufis and mainstream Muslims?


Answer 11330 2004-04-02




Barelvis are also from the mainstream Muslims – Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa. However, the following beliefs regarding Rasulullah [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] are incorrect:

1. Rasulullah [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] coming to gatherings of Moulood.

2. Rasulullah [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] having absolute knowledge of the future.

3. The practise of Moulood and celebrating the birth of Rasulullah [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam].

All the abovementioned beliefs are incorrect. Rasulullah [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] does not come to gatherings. He is resting in his grave in Madinah Munawwarah. His knowledge of the future was not absolute. That is the sole quality of Allah Ta’ala. Rasulullah [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] himself or his Sahaaba [Radhiallaahu anhum] did not celebrate the birth of Rasulullah [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam].

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

[Mustafa]

All deobandi 'ulamaa say barelwis are from the ahlul bid'ah

Maybe so, but the deobandis are not the sole representatives of Ahl-us-Sunnah. Luminaries such as Shaykh Muhammad al Yaqoubi, Shaykh Nuh and Habib Ali (as far as I know; correct me if I'm wrong) and many other non-Deobandi sunni scholars don't consider them (or the Deobandis) to be ahlul bid'ah. Think outside the box.

Sunni Islam is defined by most scholars as being the Ashari and Maturidi aqeeda (some scholars include the Athari aqeeda) and belonging to one of the four madhabs. Both Barelwis and Deobandis are Maturidi and Hanafi and are thus Ahl us Sunnah wa'l Jama'a. The majority of sunni Muslims in the world belong to neither of these schools (in fact, a lot of them have never even heard of them).

Mufti Muhammad al-Kawthari goes into how both sides can be misrepresented and misunderstood in a fatwa primarily dealing with the Mawlid. You can read it HERE. (http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00003784.aspx) His answer is clear for those whose hearts are not clouded with indoctrinated hatred, and those who do not stubbornly stick to their prejudices even when the truth is presented to them.

I've got no more to say on this as this thread has gone way off topic and has, as seems to happen a bit too often here, gone back into the old Deobandi/Barelwi topic (and since I don't belong to either group, i'm just a layperson who can't really comment) when sunni Islam is far broader than both.

And Allah knows best.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[ibnu Rashid]

Just for clarification, I never stated that the Deobandi's were on the absolute truth, or that they were perfect. Nor did I say that Barelwis were ahl-ul-bid'ah for that matter. I simply quoted the opinions of those scholars and even disclaimed myself from them. If you interpreted from that that I said Barelwi's are mushrik or anything, that's on you.

As a matter of fact, I would like to accept the second opinion of Mufti Desai, that they ARE ahl-us-sunnah. It strikes me though, however, that people claim that the reason we call salafis ahl-ul-bid'ah is because of a supposed difference in 'aqaaid. In the case of barelwis, as Mufti Desai stated, there is also difference in 'aqaaid. How come they are still included in the ahl-us-sunnah though? There seems to be some discrepency here...

Wallahu a'alam. Allahumma ijma'anaa 'alaa kalimatil-haq.

[muminah]

Maybe so, but the deobandis are not the sole representatives of Ahl-us-Sunnah. Luminaries such as Shaykh Muhammad al Yaqoubi, Shaykh Nuh and Habib Ali (as far as I know; correct me if I'm wrong) and many other non-Deobandi sunni scholars don't consider them (or the Deobandis) to be ahlul bid'ah. Think outside the box.

Sunni Islam is defined by most scholars as being the Ashari and Maturidi aqeeda (some scholars include the Athari aqeeda) and belonging to one of the four madhabs. Both Barelwis and Deobandis are Maturidi and Hanafi and are thus Ahl us Sunnah wa'l Jama'a. The majority of sunni Muslims in the world belong to neither of these schools (in fact, a lot of them have never even heard of them).

Mufti Muhammad al-Kawthari goes into how both sides can be misrepresented and misunderstood in a fatwa primarily dealing with the Mawlid. You can read it HERE. (http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00003784.aspx) His answer is clear for those whose hearts are not clouded with indoctrinated hatred, and those who do not stubbornly stick to their prejudices even when the truth is presented to them.

I've got no more to say on this as this thread has gone way off topic and has, as seems to happen a bit too often here, gone back into the old Deobandi/Barelwi topic (and since I don't belong to either group, i'm just a layperson who can't really comment) when sunni Islam is far broader than both.

And Allah knows best.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

sorry bro im not saying whether it is right or wrong ; the statement but that is the view that deobandis hold and i totally agree with you that deobandis are not the only ones from the ahlu-sunnah wal jama'ah, but i have to say Mufti ibn Adam AL-kawthari is no representative of the deobandis
واللہ اعلم

[Mustafa]

Just for clarification, I never stated that the Deobandi's were on the absolute truth, or that they were perfect. Nor did I say that Barelwis were ahl-ul-bid'ah for that matter. I simply quoted the opinions of those scholars and even disclaimed myself from them. If you interpreted from that that I said Barelwi's are mushrik or anything, that's on you.

*Sigh* I didn't say you did. Why are people so touchy? I said that the Mufti's position has changed. It was not an attack on you.*Someone else*here said that they were ahl-ul-bid'ah, not you. It must be mentioned, though, that if you don't consider the Mufti's first position to be accurate, then there was no reason for you to quote it, and you should have quoted sunni scholars that agree with the point you were trying to make.

The points Mufti Desai mentioned are not aqeeda issues. Point three is a fiqh issue. Aqeeda issues are ones that we are accountable to believe in and act upon as described by sidi Faraz here (http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00002330.aspx)

Khalaas! Please!

Wa salam

[muminah]

As a matter of fact, I would like to accept the second opinion of Mufti Desai, that they ARE ahl-us-sunnah. It strikes me though, however, that people claim that the reason we call salafis ahl-ul-bid'ah is because of a supposed difference in 'aqaaid. In the case of barelwis, as Mufti Desai stated, there is also difference in 'aqaaid. How come they are still included in the ahl-us-sunnah though? There seems to be some discrepency here...

Wallahu a'alam. Allahumma ijma'anaa 'alaa kalimatil-haq.

آمین .totally agreed bro. I wonder this aswell, maybe someone can give an answer??? :confused: :rolleyes:

[ibnu Rashid]

*Sigh* I didn't say you did. Why are people so touchy? I said that the Mufti's position has changed. It was not an attack on you.*Someone else*here said that they were ahl-ul-bid'ah, not you. It must be mentioned, though, that if you don't consider the Mufti's first position to be accurate, then there was no reason for you to quote it, and you should have quoted sunni scholars that agree with the point you were trying to make.

The points Mufti Desai mentioned are not aqeeda issues. Point three is a fiqh issue. Aqeeda issues are ones that we are accountable to believe in and act upon as described by sidi Faraz here (http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00002330.aspx)

Khalaas! Please!

Wa salam

I was clarifying my stance in regards to Muslim786, because that was the conclusion he drew from my post it seems.

So, according to this, would those alleged differences with the salafis be considered in reality, 'aqeedah issues?

[Mustafa]

sorry bro im not saying whether it is right or wrong ; the statement but that is the view that deobandis hold

Point taken, but then there's no point in you saying so (that deobandis consider barelwis as ahl-ul-bid'ah ) as it would lead to fitna. It did seem in another thread that you considered those who think both to be equal (and in Basic aqeeda and basic fiqh they are) to be a 'slander and fabrication.' And Allah knows best.

[Abul Hasan]

AL-Hamdu Lillaah, indeed the Shaykh has memorised a hundred thousand hadeeth...

Shaykh 'Asheesh narrates an incident when the Imaam of Hadeeth, the Shaykh - Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee (rahima-hullaah) was explaining the different scholarly levels of hadeeth, and Shaykh al-Albaanee went on to say:
"al-Haafidth is one who has memorised a hundred thousand hadeeth along with their chains of narration and the text (of each hadeeth)."

So Shaykh 'Asheesh responds:
"Is it possible for me to be satisfied in the knowledge that our Shaykh has memorised a hundred thousand hadeeth?"


Shaykh al-Albaanee said:
"This does not concern you."


Shaykh 'Asheesh said:
"Rather, it is from that which does concern me."


Shaykh al-Albaanee said:
"…does not concern you."

Shaykh 'Asheesh said:
"So is it possible for me to say that our Shaykh is a haafidth?"


So Shaykh al-Albaanee became quiet.

Shaykh 'Asheesh said:
"So is it possible for me to take your silence as an answer?"


Shaykh al-Albaanee said:
"Have I not told you that this does not concern you?"


Shaykh 'Asheesh said:
"Yes. This is from that which does concern me. Is it possible for me to interpret (your) lack of response as an answer?"


So the Shaykh became quiet.

And Shaykh 'Asheesh repeated his question to him a number of times.


Shaykh al-Albaanee recited:
"{And whatever you have of the blessings, then it is from Allaah}."


And Shaykh 'Asheesh quickly said:
"Can I interpret this as an answer?"


Shaykh al-Albaanee said:
"It is for you to interpret it as an answer and it is for you to interpret it as whatever you wish."


Shaykh 'Asheesh narrates:
"So I happily proclaimed: "Allaahu Akbar", and jubilantly exclaimed: "Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah", and said:
"al-Hamdu Lillaah, indeed the Shaykh has memorised a hundred thousand hadeeth."

So our Shaykh laughed; It was as if he confirmed what I was saying."

Shaykh 'Asheesh further narrates:
"From his responses from the beginning to the end there never was a clear answer from the Shaykh, so this does not imply anything except his extreme humility."

Safahaat baydhaa. min hayaat Shaykhinaa al-Albaanee – Page 40

Salamu alaikum

This narration is not reliable becasue first of all who is the reporter? Is he Thiqa (trustworthy)? Why do i question this? Well, because it is said that al Albani did not even memorise the Holy Qur'an - so how could he have the capacity to memorise Ahadith of such a great number?

Besides, al Albani made thousands of mistakes that even Salafi's have shown these days! Beware of taking knowledge without re-checking the source Insha'allah.

Who were Albani's teachers in Hadith?

Wassalam

[muminah]

Point taken, but then there's no point in you saying so (that deobandis consider barelwis as ahl-ul-bid'ah ) as it would lead to fitna. It did seem in another thread that you considered those who think both to be equal (and in Basic aqeeda and basic fiqh they are) to be a 'slander and fabrication.' And Allah knows best.

well woudnt calling salafis from ahlul bid'ah also not cause fitnah ?? im not saying you said that. its not a matter of whether it will cause fitnah or not ; it is a matter of the حق

واللہ اعلم

[Mustafa]

It's a matter of how the majority of sunni ulema regard the salafis and how the majority of sunni ulema regard both the Barelwis and Deobandis as we are commanded to follow the majority.

Wa salam

[anti-bid'ah]

Salamu alaikum

Well, because it is said that al Albani did not even memorise the Holy Qur'an - so how could he have the capacity to memorise Ahadith of such a great number

i am not answering your actual question but i would like to say that your above comment is just not justified. shaykhul hadeeth hadhrat mawlana muhammad yunus jownpooree, khaleefa of hadhrat shaykhul hadeeth mawlana muhammad zakariyya (ra) is not a haafidhe qura'n but he is a great scholar of hadeeth and has also memorised many.

another thing is that no human is free of error. even our scholars made mistakes in past but we dont start calling them innovators. you dont have to agree with anything he says , but i advise everyone to refrain from saying bad about him. lets not forget the hadeeth ' man aadaa lee waliyyan faqad aadhantuhu bilharb'. we are unaware of who is the walee in allah's eyes.

[anti-bid'ah]

It's a matter of how the majority of sunni ulema regard the salafis and how the majority of sunni ulema regard both the Barelwis and Deobandis as we are commanded to follow the majority.

Wa salam


who would you say comes under the context of sunni 3lamaa???????

[Mustafa]

who would you say comes under the context of sunni 3lamaa???????

Scholars who belong to the four madhabs and the aqeedah related to those four madhabs (whether Ashari, Maturidi, or Hanbali/Athari). When dealing with groups, one must look at ulema from outside of those groups (to avoid bias).

For example, when the Wahhabis first appeared (and I'm only using this as an example and not to attack; plus the early Wahhabis were a lot different than those today) the ulema of Ahl us Sunnah wrote many fatawa regarding them and their place in relation to the sunnis.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[muslim786]

Are the Baraelvis a subset of Sufis? Seems like they call themselves followers of ‘Traditional Scholars’ or ‘Traditional Islam’. What is the difference between Sufis and mainstream Muslims?


Answer 11330 2004-04-02




Barelvis are also from the mainstream Muslims – Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa. However, the following beliefs regarding Rasulullah [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] are incorrect:

1. Rasulullah [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] coming to gatherings of Moulood.

2. Rasulullah [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] having absolute knowledge of the future.

3. The practise of Moulood and celebrating the birth of Rasulullah [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam].

All the abovementioned beliefs are incorrect. Rasulullah [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] does not come to gatherings. He is resting in his grave in Madinah Munawwarah. His knowledge of the future was not absolute. That is the sole quality of Allah Ta’ala. Rasulullah [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] himself or his Sahaaba [Radhiallaahu anhum] did not celebrate the birth of Rasulullah [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam].

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

NO barelvi bar possibly the lay ignorant believe in points 1 and 2. And as for point 3 then if ahle bidah were to be named due to this then you can call almost all pure sunni AHLE BIDAH.

[muslim786]

I urge all the people on this forum to learn about what proper barelvis really think before you mouth off. I know a deobandi who [has improper relations with women] and drinks so should I think ALL deobandis do this. I urge you people to ask Shaykh Abu Ammar, Shaykh Yazdani, Allama Mishbahi or Mufti Barakatullah what the barelvis really think, and I am sure you will get a suprise for the good.


[Words in brackets have been edited for subtleness]