Abul Hasan, al-Hanbali, any takers?

[OneLife]

A brother who often posts here (Danishalhydro) posted this on another board, and his generalizations were very troublesome to me. Since he will see this, can someone who has more knowledge explain where he err's in explaining his stance:

You can make those statements but I could use the same logic against you for other ahadith where - Why would the Prophet (SAW) say "Allah smiles" or Allah is angered" or "Allah is above" if he didnt mean it. So your argument is futile. But the examples given by me are not the issue here.

A few questions need to be addressed before we continue on the issue of majority. Please only engage if you know or else you can say i dont and end the discussion.

First of all one has to show that the majority of the scholars of fiqh and hadith were Ashari in the true sense. Meaning that they had to hold opinions completely in agreement with 1. the Methodology of approaching aqeedah according to the Asharees 2. Also agree with the opinions in aqeedah of the Asharees. From Methodology i mean the way of the Aristotelian-Neoplatonic philosophy. So before we even proceed further you have to define what you mean by Ashari Aqeedah as well. Also to note that the majority of the schoalrs belonging to each or the other group didnt find each other to be the saved sect, so there is a fallacy in your statement when you state - "that majority of the schoalrs were ashari and maturidi" and they both are the saved sect.

Secondly the 4 Imams of Fiqh - the major schoalrs of hadith were not ashari even a little bit nor even maturidee as these people lived after them. Imam Ashari and MAturidee had a predecessor that used the same methods as them to deal with aqeedah during their time who was Ibn Kullab. You can go look up what the salaf said regarding Ibn Kullab yourself or shoudl I inform you about him as well??

The majortiy of the salaf and schoalr all the way up to the 5th and 6th century were definitely traditionlists or atharee and no where close to being ashari or maturidee. and the schoalrs past that might and actually i can say were ashari or maturidee int he majority even then the atharee scholars after them were many and well known lke Abdul Ghani Al Maqdise, Ibn Qudama, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Al Qayyim, Ibn Katheer, Al Bazzar, Al Mizzee, Ad Dhahabee, basically the Hanbali school was exclusively atharee therefore the last bastion up until today and there were Traditionalists spread out over the other schools.

We can say or claim that post 5th/6rh century the schoalrs of ashaa'ira and amturidiyyah were the majority even then, amongst them there were many that didnt hold fast tot the methodology of the ahl ul kalaam, specially the schoalrs of hadith. Allahu ALim

As you see the issue of majority can easily be dealt with. But you have provide me with a definition of the ashari school.

Not to forget that Taj As Subki even said that the Ashari way shoudlnt be used to define an aqeedah rather it is a methodology and not a set code of creed.

Because for an ashari to make taqleed of aqeedah it is equivalent to fisq and according to some kufr.

So in the word sof Imam Ghazzali from Faysal- "So if one is flustered by questions and scrambles for answer then he is not a thinker, rather one making taqleed. And it is not permissible for him to engage in intellectual discussions."

Allahu Alim

[jinnzaman]

his argument has a lot of holes in it.

its logically incoherent and he doesn't substantiate each statement.

this is one of the major problems in refuting salafis: they start off with weak or blatantly false premises and then make an argument.

you can't make a refutation of something that:
1. isn't true
2. cannot be refuted or affirmed (i.e. it is not falsifiable)

the issue isn't what danish al hydro, an american muslim born in the 21st century thinks of the ashari aqeedah, but what the 'ulema say of the ashari aqeedah.

this is an epistemological problem.

the only way danish al hydro can prove that the salafi aqeedah is truly the aqeedah of the sahabah is by showing, with a chain of ijazehs, to the sahabah (ra).

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

Imam Ali, karamallahu wajh, said (something along these lines):


"Give me a group of ulema to debate with, and i can win the debate. Give me a set of stupid people and they will win every time"

[an-nepalee]

you can't make a refutation of something that:
1. isn't true

ajeeb! So if a xtian states his belief you say "sorry mate can't actually refute anything which isn't true.

We should be able to show at least the falsehood of a claim.

wa ALLAHU A'lam

[jinnzaman]

ajeeb! So if a xtian states his belief you say "sorry mate can't actually refute anything which isn't true.

We should be able to show at least the falsehood of a claim.

wa ALLAHU A'lam

Thats not what I meant.

For example, if something is attributes to the Asharis which isn't something that they accept, you cannot refute this because it is irrelevant.

The problem with Salafis is that they make outrageous hypothesii and don't substantiate their claims. If they quote texts, they usually take the literal wording and do not look at the context. They often twist or tamper with texts.

Instead of debating with Salafis as to the substance of their argument, we should first ensure that they make an argument worth refuting.

I remember debating with Danish al Hydro and he claimed that certain Sufis or Asharis ( I can't remember which one) were influenced by Lucretius. I requested that he back up his claim and the position which he declared the Sufis or Asharis to hold was actually in complete contradiction with what Lucretius advocated.

My point is that before we debate, lets make sure we're debating topics that are at least what Asharis truly believe and lets ensure that the information being presented is at least falsifiable.

Furthermore, irrespective of the amount of verses of Qu'ran or hadeeth the Salafis quote, the Asharis can respond to each and every claim with their own verses of Qur'an and hadeeth. The most the Salafis can present is an alternative (albeit weaker) interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah. They can never portray themselves as the sole unique interpreters of the text especially in the absence of a chain of transmission.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that the Salafis can be refuted on epistemological grounds as well as with textual proofs and rational arguments. Epistemological refutations of Salafi arguments may prove more useful because textual proofs and rational arguments don't seem very effective against their sectarian mindset.

[ahmedqman]

Thats not what I meant.

For example, if something is attributes to the Asharis which isn't something that they accept, you cannot refute this because it is irrelevant.

The problem with Salafis is that they make outrageous hypothesii and don't substantiate their claims. If they quote texts, they usually take the literal wording and do not look at the context. They often twist or tamper with texts.

Instead of debating with Salafis as to the substance of their argument, we should first ensure that they make an argument worth refuting.

I remember debating with Danish al Hydro and he claimed that certain Sufis or Asharis ( I can't remember which one) were influenced by Lucretius. I requested that he back up his claim and the position which he declared the Sufis or Asharis to hold was actually in complete contradiction with what Lucretius advocated.

My point is that before we debate, lets make sure we're debating topics that are at least what Asharis truly believe and lets ensure that the information being presented is at least falsifiable.

Furthermore, irrespective of the amount of verses of Qu'ran or hadeeth the Salafis quote, the Asharis can respond to each and every claim with their own verses of Qur'an and hadeeth. The most the Salafis can present is an alternative (albeit weaker) interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah. They can never portray themselves as the sole unique interpreters of the text especially in the absence of a chain of transmission.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that the Salafis can be refuted on epistemological grounds as well as with textual proofs and rational arguments. Epistemological refutations of Salafi arguments may prove more useful because textual proofs and rational arguments don't seem very effective against their sectarian mindset.

Aha! Good post!

[an-nepalee]

Thats not what I meant.

For example, if something is attributes to the Asharis which isn't something that they accept, you cannot refute this because it is irrelevant.

The problem with Salafis is that they make outrageous hypothesii and don't substantiate their claims. If they quote texts, they usually take the literal wording and do not look at the context. They often twist or tamper with texts.

Instead of debating with Salafis as to the substance of their argument, we should first ensure that they make an argument worth refuting.

I remember debating with Danish al Hydro and he claimed that certain Sufis or Asharis ( I can't remember which one) were influenced by Lucretius. I requested that he back up his claim and the position which he declared the Sufis or Asharis to hold was actually in complete contradiction with what Lucretius advocated.

My point is that before we debate, lets make sure we're debating topics that are at least what Asharis truly believe and lets ensure that the information being presented is at least falsifiable.

Furthermore, irrespective of the amount of verses of Qu'ran or hadeeth the Salafis quote, the Asharis can respond to each and every claim with their own verses of Qur'an and hadeeth. The most the Salafis can present is an alternative (albeit weaker) interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah. They can never portray themselves as the sole unique interpreters of the text especially in the absence of a chain of transmission.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that the Salafis can be refuted on epistemological grounds as well as with textual proofs and rational arguments. Epistemological refutations of Salafi arguments may prove more useful because textual proofs and rational arguments don't seem very effective against their sectarian mindset.

yes, i agree but lets ensure this is on both-sides, i.e. salafis and asha'ris should not accuse eachother of things that they are not, nor accusse them of saying things which they don't say, or at least seek what they mean first and then take it from ther innsha'ALLAH

[jinnzaman]

yes, i agree but lets ensure this is on both-sides, i.e. salafis and asha'ris should not accuse eachother of things that they are not, nor accusse them of saying things which they don't say, or at least seek what they mean first and then take it from ther innsha'ALLAH

Most Asharis I know don't go around starting fights with Salafis but merely respond to Salafi claims.

Whereas a lot of Salafis seem to think it to be their divine duty to "refute" anything that doesn't conform to their paradigm.

The problem is that they have adopted a dialectical understanding of history. Philosophers --> Mu'tazila --> Asharis --> and now the Neo Hanbalis.

This conception of the ideological history of the Ummah is not only simplistic, but utterly false. Philosophy was taught in various sections of the Ummah up to the 1400s. The remnants of the mu'tazila aqeedah have been absorbed in the shi'i aqeedah. Even the khwaraaj are still in existence today in the form of the ibadis.

The point is that the evidences Salafis use isn't the problem, but their mindset; their psychology. They believe they are absolutely correct and they don't try and coherently organize islamic knowledge.

If no Asharis existed anymore the Salafis would still be a thorn in the side of the Ummah.