Rational, Historical, and Linguistic Refutation of Salafi 'Aqidah and Usul...

[YousefAbusSafar]

This is the main thing that Salafis (Neo-Hanbalis, Wahabis) don't understand. They are not affirming the Haqiqa meaning according to the Arabic Language, they are in reality engaging in tawil.

Salafi Aqidah has its own techinical vocabulary, their definition of Haqiqa, Dhahir - isn't the Haqiqa and Dhahir of the linguist, the scholars of the Arabic language, in other words you can't find the Salafi definition of Yad, in any Arabic dictionary. Because they have their own technical vocabulary.

Al hamdu lillah akhi, that explains a lot.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

This is the main thing that Salafis (Neo-Hanbalis, Wahabis) don't understand. They are not affirming the Haqiqa meaning according to the Arabic Language, they are in reality engaging in tawil.

Anyone proclaiming I'm "Neo" has never read any thing from the Hanabilah, or the Salaf.

Salafi Aqidah has its own techinical vocabulary, their definition of Haqiqa, Dhahir - isn't the Haqiqa and Dhahir of the linguist, the scholars of the Arabic language, in other words you can't find the Salafi definition of Yad, in any Arabic dictionary. Because they have their own technical vocabulary.

The meaning of Dhaahir is, that the word can have 2 or meanings and one of them is more clear than the other. I accept this.

The meaning of Haqeeqi is: Is that which is the origins of the thing in question.

Everything is Haqeeqi unless you have proof for it being Majaaz..

So, Allah has a hand.... the apparent meaning of hand is it, similar to the apparent meaning of "tom built a house" is that Tom built a house, and Allahs hand is Real-not metaphorical- and it's origin and "kayfiyah" is Majhool.

You are not talking about "meanings" you are talking about "defintions"- We do not "Define" Allahs attributes, we believe they have meanings. The meanings that the Salaf understood, didn't negate or change, and still said it is what it is...

The defintion of a salafi and a salaf is the same for hand, in that it is what it is, without tashbeeh. If you don't like their definition, or you don't like the fact that they didn't go past the Qur'an and Sunnah.... I don't really care, getting a defintion out of a dictionary is similar to getting a talking concerning the Modality.... we don't know the Modality, so we stay quiet....

[YousefAbusSafar]

Akhi, please clarify the difference between meaning and definition according to salafi's.

Aside from that, are you saying the salafi's are doing pure tafwidh (as if to say they don't affirm or negate either the haqiqi or majazi meanings) as if they are just saying haqiqi because it's sounds safer but really don't intend it technically?

Aside from that, the difference between an sunni school and a non sunni school is one of quality (accuracy and ability to deal with new problems (masa'il) and acceptance by the jama'ah.

The jama'ah had universal acceptance of the maturidi and ash'ari schools, they have isnads with tawatur, are soundest available schools with sunni sanads textually and rationally.

I don't believe they are correct in everything they differ with other schools in or that the salafi's are wrong in everything they differ with other schools in.

The question is one of ijtihad and taqlid.

1.) there are no new mujtahid mutlaqs nor should there be.

2.) a muqallid's position is to follow qualified scholarship which is available in the maturidi and ash'ari schools.

3.) the athari hanbali school as the salafi's claim to follow is in the very least, ahad in riwayah, but if their isnad must of necessity pass through Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdil Wahhab (ra) then it is clearly disconnected in riwayah. As for Shaykh ibn Taymiyah, please let me know, did he learn his 'aqidah from his teacher or from reading books (in all honesty)? Did his teachers hold the same 'aqidah as him and just not publicise it or was it something that cannot be traced back to his teachers but to him (making it disconnected).

4.) either way it is a problem with quality and acceptance by the jama'ah for the muqallid, there are and shouldn't be new mujtahids except in contemporary issues (fardh kifayah fulfilled) and outside of that, the only valid excuse for following another school would be clear cut ilham from Allah which is not valid except for the person who recieves it and it must be clear to that person not just guesswork or whims ascribed to Allah.

I don't believe anyone should follow 'arifs 'aqidah by reading books. If they get it from Allah and it is clear then they have to otherwise they are saying no to Allah, but otherwise they should follow the sunni schools.

Aside from that, please tell me what the difference is between definition and ma'ana.

[Ansari]

Akhi, 1st of all, it sounds like you are making takfir of me (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). You said that my beliefs are kufr. To my knowledge their is no such thing as kufr asghar when beliefs are declared kufr, so I assume you are excommunicating me from my ummah and sentencing me to hell for eternity on that grounds, not falsely accusing me of zandaqah and temporary hell (unless Allah pardons) but falsely accusing me of something that is equivelant to treason and the death penalty in my religion (riddah/apostacy).

Do you believe in some kind of anarchical form of Islam and laymen vigilante excommunications and death sentences or are you speaking without knowledge.

Have you studied fiqh enough to know the process that must occur before performing takfir on someone?

I took shahadah 11 years ago as a salafi. No qualified or even unqualified mufti has made takfir on me since. Are you a qualified enough jurisprudent (mufti) to make sound ijtihad only then requiring a qualified qadhi (judge) to sentence me to the death penalty? If you are, then present your case or uskut.

Hell is eternal for disbelievers.

I said your beliefs were kufr, i refrained from branding you as a kaafir. Just mention your beliefs described in your other posts, and I know plenty of solid muftis who would brand you a disbeliever. Tell them that you believe that God is "deep inside" you, that you believe in reincarnation and believe that angels and jinn are figuratively intended. Tell them that the signs are also figurative (coming back of Isa? Mahdi? etc.):

Here is a list of some of my creeds which would be deemed controversial:

1.) that Allah exists deep within the soul of all living creatures (in the sense He intended for this life)

2.) reincarnation - that spirits have been alive at more than one time, in more than one form and even split spirits meaning a spirit could be split and thus alive in two different places at the same time.

3.) that the many ayat and ahadith pertaining to mala'ikah and jinn are, on vary levels, more majazi than haqiqi, because spirit itself can be either angels or jinn, and all living beings have a spirit in them, even the lowest life forms, like plants.

4.) that almost all of the righteous people who ever lived have come back reincarnated as women of Kush (Ebony Angels loosely) giving them the most perfect surah (material form) to match their perfect sirah (spiritual form).

5.) That the ayats pertaining to the signs of the day of judgement were largely metaphorical.

6.) That the denizens of the nar will not have physical bodies, as their spirits are where pain sensors come from and all their perceptions and Allah has nothing to gain from constantly remaking physical bodies, but will rather forget them on this day as they forgot him, thus the ayats indicated specific punishments for ahl al nar, requiring physical forms were majazi, taking the general meaning of severe punishment over the specific details.

7.) That after the seperation of good and evil for eternity, the Ebony Angels will be the leaders of the earth and in the supreme positions (will elaborate in more detail insha'allah) having been the most exploited and oppressed in spiritual lineage, tribal lineage and gender they will inherit the earth and will collectively and individually be Hawa (the proper name for Allah, Elohim etc.) being the manifestation of Allah in it's most perfect form, the rest of existence, being excluded from this.

8.) That the Bible in it's current form is predominately sound, being a combination of verses from Allah and isra'iliyat hadith both qudsi and nabawi, predominately sound and only in minute historical details is there some room for errors, thus making it, after the Quran and Hadith, the most sound and well preserved body of knowledge and it's interpretations by catholic/orthodox priests and monks, being the soundest interpretations of it as sunni's shuyukh are for Qur'an and hadith, thus these are the purest spring to drink from, after sunni Islam along with it's sources (Quran and Hadith). This doesn't contradict the way of many companions and tabi'in and Islamic historians, but is not popular amongst more recent theologians. (I forgot to mention that when I first posted this)

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...idah..../page4

[abul_hussain]

was Imam Hafidh Ishaq ibn Rahawaih a salafi/wahhabi too ?

A very good narration by Imam Bayhaqi on a discussion between the Ruler/Amir of Khurasan Ibn Tahir ( Abu Yacoub ) and Imam Ishaq ibn Rahawaih .

الْأَسْمَاءُ وَالصِّفَاتُ لِلْبَيْهَقِيِّ >> بَابُ مَا جَاءَ فِي قَوْلِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ : هَلْ يَنْظُرُونَ >>
الطرف :بَعَثَ إِلَيْنَا نَبِيًّا ، نُقِلَ إِلَيْنَا عَنْهُ أَخْبَارٌ بِهَا نُحَلِّلُ الدِّمَاءَ ...

902 أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ ، قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ أَبَا زَكَرِيَّا الْعَنْبَرِيَّ ، يَقُولُ : سَمِعْتُ أَبَا الْعَبَّاسِ مُحَمَّدَ بْنَ إِسْحَاقَ الثَّقَفِيَّ يَقُولُ : سَمِعْتُ الْحَسَنَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ الْجَرْوِيَّ ، يَقُولُ : سَمِعْتُ قَاضِيَ فَارِسٍ يَقُولُ : قَالَ إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ رَاهَوَيْهِ : دَخَلْتُ يَوْمًا عَلَى عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ طَاهِرٍ فَقَالَ لِي : يَا أَبَا يَعْقُوبَ ، تَقُولُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَنْزِلُ كُلَّ لَيْلَةٍ ؟ فَقُلْتُ لَهُ : وَيَقْدِرُ . فَسَكَتَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ . قَالَ أَبُو الْعَبَّاسِ : أَخْبَرَنِي الثِّقَةُ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ إِسْحَاقَ بْنَ رَاهَوَيْهِ يَقُولُ : دَخَلْتُ عَلَى عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ طَاهِرٍ فَقَالَ لِي : يَا أَبَا يَعْقُوبَ ، تَقُولُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَنْزِلُ كُلَّ لَيْلَةٍ ؟ فَقُلْتُ : أَيُّهَا الْأَمِيرُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى بَعَثَ إِلَيْنَا نَبِيًّا ، نُقِلَ إِلَيْنَا عَنْهُ أَخْبَارٌ بِهَا نُحَلِّلُ الدِّمَاءَ ، وَبِهَا نُحَرِّمُ ، وَبِهَا نُحَلِّلُ الْفُرُوجَ ، وَبِهَا نُحَرِّمُ ، وَبِهَا نُبِيحُ الْأَمْوَالَ وَبِهَا نُحَرِّمُ ، فَإِنْ صَحَّ ذَا صَحَّ ذَاكَ ، وَإِنْ بَطَلَ ذَا بَطَلَ ذَاكَ . قَالَ : فَأَمْسَكَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ *






الْأَسْمَاءُ وَالصِّفَاتُ لِلْبَيْهَقِيِّ >> بَابُ مَا جَاءَ فِي قَوْلِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ : هَلْ يَنْظُرُونَ >>
الطرف :النُّزُولُ بِلَا كَيْفٍ . قَالَ أَبُو سُلَيْمَانَ الْخَطَّابِيُّ : هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ ...

905 أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ الْحَارِثِ الْفَقِيهُ ، أنا أَبُو مُحَمَّدِ بْنُ حَيَّانَ أَبُو الشَّيْخِ الْأَصْبَهَانِيُّ ، قَالَ : وَفِيمَا أَجَازَنِي جَدِّي يَعْنِي مَحْمُودَ بْنَ الْفَرَحِ قَالَ : قَالَ إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ رَاهَوَيْهِ : سَأَلَنِي ابْنُ طَاهِرٍ عَنْ حَدِيثِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ـ يَعْنِي فِي النُّزُولِ ـ فَقُلْتُ لَهُ : النُّزُولُ بِلَا كَيْفٍ . قَالَ أَبُو سُلَيْمَانَ الْخَطَّابِيُّ : هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ وَمَا أَشْبَهَهُ مِنَ الْأَحَادِيثِ فِي الصِّفَاتِ كَانَ مَذْهَبُ السَّلَفِ فِيهَا الْإِيمَانَ بِهَا ، وَإِجْرَاءَهَا عَلَى ظَاهِرِهَا وَنَفْيَ الْكَيْفِيَّةِ عَنْهَا . وَذَكَرَ الْحِكَايَةَ الَّتِي *

http://www.sonnaonline.com/Search.as...A7%D9%87%D8%B1

now, was Imam Bayhaqi also a wahhabi/salafi for reporting such narrations and endorsing it ?

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

Akhi, please clarify the difference between meaning and definition according to salafi's.

There is no such thing as salafi meanings, i gave the meaning of dhaahir and haqeeqi and majaaz according to the scholars of Usool...

The meaning of Meaning is: Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.

The meaning of definition is: A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.

The reason we know the meaning of the attributes rather than the definition is because knowing the definition is going into the Modality, knowing the meaning is accepting it as it comes and not talking concerning it, while negating anything like that which Allah has.

Just like Allah has a real Dhaat and we have real Dhaat.

Tom built a house. The "Haqeeqi Dhaahir" meaning of this is that top built a house, you don't need a dictionary. What is a house? A House is a House.

We have pomegranate, there are pomegrantes in heaven. The pomegranates in heaven are real, just like ours are real. But the are not the same, yet they are called with the Same name.

Children, when growing up do they use dictionaries to know house is house? No, so we don't need dictionaries to know what Allah meant either.

Similarly Allah has a hand, befitting for him, that is a hand and it is nothing like what we know of hand.

Aside from that, are you saying the salafi's are doing pure tafwidh (as if to say they don't affirm or negate either the haqiqi or majazi meanings) as if they are just saying haqiqi because it's sounds safer but really don't intend it technically?

I said we confirm the haqeeqi meaning that Allahs hand is real and not Majaaz. Allah exist and his existence is not metaphorical.

Pure tafweedh is saying the letters H a n d, or Y D in Arabic, have absolutely no meaning when they come together, and only Allah knows what he meant.

We say there is tafweedh, but it is in the Modality. While believing that Allah knows how to choose which words to talk with, and meant exactly what he said.

Aside from that, the difference between an sunni school and a non sunni school is one of quality (accuracy and ability to deal with new problems (masa'il) and acceptance by the jama'ah.

The jama'ah had universal acceptance of the maturidi and ash'ari schools, they have isnads with tawatur, are soundest available schools with sunni sanads textually and rationally.

Wrong, the "Jama'a" includes every scholar of any particular time to come together to agree on an issue, their has never been complete ijma on this, because there have always been Mujtahideen scholars rejecting this.

Secondly, if the ijma of the salaf was that there can be no divisions in belief, and that the belief of the salaf was "Athari" it is not permissible to overwrite a previous ijma with a new ijma in the same issue...

But you knew that right?

3.) the athari hanbali school as the salafi's claim to follow is in the very least, ahad in riwayah, but if their isnad must of necessity pass through Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdil Wahhab (ra) then it is clearly disconnected in riwayah. As for Shaykh ibn Taymiyah, please let me know, did he learn his 'aqidah from his teacher or from reading books (in all honesty)? Did his teachers hold the same 'aqidah as him and just not publicise it or was it something that cannot be traced back to his teachers but to him (making it disconnected).

You forgot about Muwafiq u deen ibn Qudaama, was he on that isnaad?

or Abdul Qaadir al-jilani when he said Allah is above the throne in his essense?

or ibn rajab when he said anyone who asked how allah can descend in the third of the night when its always the 3rd of the night some where, is misguided innovator, who would have been beaten by the companions and would have been considered a liar and a Munaafiq. Are they on that isnaad?

You're a joke.

Allahs religion does not need an isnaad for us to be considered believers, which is that we believe in exactly what Allah and his Messenger said.

[YousefAbusSafar]

You're a joke.

No, you are.

Who cares what you understand, other than you and your mother?

And the only people who care what you think are you and your momma.

Ma'as salamah.

Abul Hussein, Ishaq ibn Rahawaih was in no way a salafi or a wahhabi because salafi's and wahhabi's didn't exist at that time.

He was following similar 'aqidah to the salafi's and wahhabi's of today, but was not salafi or wahhabi.

Ansari, appreciate the reply. While I'm absolutely certain their are many some mufti's who would make takfir on me, I'm also certain there are some who wouldn't.

It depends on how biased they are and how open they are to listening to my disputing of their arguments against me.

Whether or not they would make takfir on me would depend wholly on how unbiased or biased they are beforehand and how much time I have to think of the best words to explain my views so they can understand how they do not contradict what Allah intended in the nusus.

An unbiased scholar bringing his case to me online or through e-mail would find ample reason to have husn al dhann and consider me sunni, a less unbiased one would feel safer not making takfir but mistakenly make tabi', and a biased one would likely make takfir.

Since I'm not a hafidh and am weak in memorization but recieved understanding from Allah, it depends on how unbiased they are and how well I explain myself, the latter being much better done when I have time to contemplate before responding rather than being on a timer as in a court situation where, being a non scholar, i would get tongue twisted and condemned.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

While I'm absolutely certain their are many some mufti's who would make takfir on me

Okay as long as you admit you are a kaafir I'm happy.... Good day sir!

[YousefAbusSafar]

Okay as long as you admit you are a kaafir I'm happy.... Good day sir!

Abu Zakariya, I changed my profile to non muslim. I hope that makes you happier.

Wal 'aqibat lil muttaqin

Ma'as salamah.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

Abu Zakariya, I changed my profile to non muslim. I hope that makes you happier.

Wal 'aqibat lil muttaqin

Ma'as salamah.

What I really want you to do is.

Go see a professional psychiatrist.

Or go to see a sheikh to get satan out of your head.

then, believe in the Qur'an and Sunnah without adding or deleting.

Good luck.