Albani and his Mubtadi Imams exposed - Scanned evidence

**UmmIbrahimIsa** · 13-10-2004, 03:10 AM

ERR..Keeping quiet as I should have known to say something good or keep silent. cuz if you dont you just get shot at and insulted...subhan'Allah.

**Abul Hasan** · 13-10-2004, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Yusuf

Bro Abul Hasan> Why dont you address the likes of Shaykh Nuh and Sidi Faraz with the titles they deserve? Its disrespectful and incorrect aadaab not to.

I mean no disrespect to them, but it is not bad adab not to label someone with the epithet "Shaykh". Many of the Salaf did not address each other with titles like "Shaykh, Imam etc". How many people even address the great Sahaba with epithets these days, like: "Hadrat" etc? Yes, i would agree that it is better to honour those who deserve it with ranked titles, but as for dropping them on occassions like i have done - then i don't consider it disrespect according to the Sources of Shari'a - and that's what counts. Shukran

Wassalam

**Abul Hasan** · 13-10-2004, 08:26 AM

Typo has been ammended, as for "disrespect" - then see the answer given to Yusuf.

**Abul Hasan** · 13-10-2004, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by Yusuf

Wa'alaikumusalaam.

The salaf were similar in piety and learning and the sahaabah have been honoured by Allah, "Allah is pleased with them, and they with Allah." To mention this after their names, is sufficient. Afwan.

Akhi Yusuf and al-Ukhti UmmIbrahimIsa, i had hoped that this thread would not digress onto unconnected issues. It would have been far more productive to have stuck to the contents in the initial thread I provided. I was accused by both of you of "disrespect" - because i "failed" to add titles like "Shaykh" to those you deem it to be incumbently necessary upon.

Seriously, this is such a petty issue that you both raised. I didn't want to take this too far, but no one likes to be accused of what is truly false. Naturally, you both do not know me personally.

(I don't wish to sound like I'm bragging so this point will remain as a sideline comment in brackets - but I first met Shaykh Nuh in 1992 at al-Nur bookshop, London, where he gave me a free copy of "The Reliance of the Traveller". He has also been to our family house on 2 occassions and partaken dinner with us. I also helped in organising his first speaking tour in the UK, back in Jan. 1995). Enough said.

Anyway, leave that aside, I hope I don't have to accuse you both of double standards, but will you dare accuse Shaykh Nuh or his young student, The Talib al Ilm: Faraz Rabbani of being "disrespectful" for failing to call greater Imams by grand titles?! If you have both read their articles you should have observed how they too did not always epithetise great Imams with the title: "Shaykh". Take this example found here:

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq3.htm

In it you will see a number of Sunni Imams whom Shaykh Nuh mentioned but didn't give them instant titles infront of their names, like: Shaykh Ahmad Sawi, Imam al-Suyuti, Imam al Mahalli, Shaykh Abu Hayyan, Imam Taqi al-Subki. And have you ever come across Shaykh Nuh calling ibn Taymiyya or ibn Qayyim as "Shaykh's" when addressing them in his articles? I know personally that Shaykh Nuh is no ardent admirer of ibn Taymiyya's, and By Allah, I still have in my possession a lengthy piece on Ibn Taymiyya that Shaykh Nuh was going to enclose in one of the last sections to "The Reliance" - but he left it out due to some Nasiha he received.

Refer also, to al-Akh Faraz Rabbani's answers at sunnipath.com. Take for example the article entitled: "What Does A Latecomer Do? Also: About Durr al-Mukhtar, & Imam al-Haskafi"

You will Insha'allah see that he didn't give the title of Shaykh to the following great Hanafi Imams, despite the fact they deserve it more than most Hanafi Ulama living today: Imam Ala' al-Din al-Haskafi, Imam Tumurtashi, Imam Babarti, Imam Kamal ibn al-Humam, Imam Ibn Nujaym, Imam ibn Abidin and his son, Shaykh Ala' al-Din Abidin.

So please, let us leave of puerile comments if it leads to the claimant being cornered into the label of possessing double-standards. Rather, if you have any comments to make on the scanned documents on the initial link provided - then go ahead and comment if it is conducive to spreading true Sunni knowledge. And Allahu a'lam.

Wassalam

**Yusuf** · 13-10-2004, 08:33 PM

Wa'alaikumusalaam

Hey, sorry akhi al aziz abul hasan. You yourself possess ijaazah in hadith, and are much more knowledgable, walhamdulillah. Ramadhan Mubarak, afwan.

**Muawiyah** · 13-10-2004, 08:36 PM

Ok, about the "Qu'ood and Juloos" allegation, Allamah Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah is merely saying that this word has occurred with respect to Allah Ta'ala in many narrations, is that kufr?

**Abul Hasan** · 14-10-2004, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Muawiyah

Ok, about the "Qu'ood and Juloos" allegation, Allamah Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah is merely saying that this word has occurred with respect to Allah Ta'ala in many narrations, is that kufr?

Question is: What narrations mention those 2 phrases specifically? The Asma wal Sifat of Allah are Tawqifiyya.

Wassalam

**Muawiyah** · 14-10-2004, 06:17 PM

He has mentioned two narrations where various forms of the word jalasa have occurred with respect to Allah, it's on the same page.

**Abul Hasan** · 15-10-2004, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Muawiyah

He has mentioned two narrations where various forms of the word jalasa have occurred with respect to Allah, it's on the same page.

Akhi Muawiyah i take it you are referring to this page:

http://www.geocities.com/fatawa_alba...ya_juluss.html

Did you not see in the footnotes that the editor showed the weakness of these 2 narrations? In fact the second one has been declared forged by some Ulama, and I know that the Hafiz of Sham in his day: Ibn Asakir - wrote a specific work to expose the problems with that narration entitled: Bayan al-Wahm wa al-Takhlit fi Hadith al-Atit ("The Exposition of Error and Confusion in the Narration of the [Throne's] Groaning").

As for the references that contain the alleged proof for qu'ud and julus, one footnote showed it was reported with a da'eef chain (attributed to Jafar, radiallahu anhu, by al-Darimi - this man was declared a deviant by later Sunni Imams, the second one attributed to Umar (radiallahu anhu) was reported in a book known as al-Sunna, which is disputedly reported by Abdullah ibn Ahmad. This latter work is also unreliable and the chain going back to Abdullah contains a majhul narrator, and in that book is great slander against Imam Abu Hanifa. Read this by Shaykh Nuh:

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

Hence, for ibn Taymiyya to base his aqeeda on da'eef or even forged narrations - is a deviation from the way of the major Aqeeda masters of the Salaf. If any pseudo-Salafiyya are reading this - then tell us why their Imams did this (take da'eef narrations in aqeeda).

Have you not seen how his blind followers amonst the pseudo-Salafiyya attack the Muqallidun of the 4 Madhhabs for allegedly basing fiqh on "da'eef hadith" - but they and their Imams went further than this and made points of aqeeda out of weak or even baseless narrations. This is a great deviation in Manhaj - May Allah guide them! Amin.

Wassalam

**faqir** · 15-10-2004, 06:53 PM

Asalamu alaykum, obviously there are serious problems in some of sh. Ibn Taymiyyah's creedal works. What I would like to ask akhi Abul Hasan is that as Ibn Taymiyyah was considered by the Hanbalis to be a mujtahid within their madhab will he not be pardoned for making independent ijtihad on these issues even though his conclusions differed from that of the majority of Sunnis in general (and even the majority of Hanbalis)?