Difference between contemporary Salafis and classical Atharis with regard to Aqeedah.

[Sulaiman84]

It seems you are suggesting as though one has to compromise with shariah just to refute Mulhid and philosophers. Ibn Taymiyyah also refuted philosophers, mu'tazila and mulhids, he never saw any need to resort to ta'weel in the matters related to unseen. Anyways, i don't see any benefit of continuing here... This will rather turned out to be useless argumentation.

No compromises necessary. There were those who took the Athari approach before the time of Ibn Taymiyyah . We take example from them (the Salaf), as he (Ibn Taymiyyah ) was and is not the fountainhead for all Atharis.

you've beaten the rest of us by seeing no benefit in these kinds of discussions online and therefore, choose to remain quiet. I will follow suit.

A request for the future: please use titles of respect when mentioning Ulamaa' like Ibn Taymiyyah etc. It's part of adab in Islam.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

On page 38 of the same book, Zaghlul 'Ilm, Adh Dhahabi also said about his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah:

وقد تعبت في وزنه وفتشته حتى مللت في سنين متطاولة ، فما وجدت قد أخره بين أهل مصر والشام ومقتته نفوسهم وازدروا به وكذبوه وكفروه إلا الكبر والعجب ، وفرط الغرام في رياسة المشيخة والازدراء بالكبار ، فانظر كيف وبال الدعاوي ومحبة الظهور ، نسأل الله تعالى المسامحة ، فقد قام عليه أناس ليسوا بأورع منه ولا أعلم منه ولا أزهد منه ، بل يتجاوزون عن ذنوب أصحابهم وآثام أصدقائهم ، وما سلطهم الله عليه بتقواهم وجلالتهم بل بذنوبه ، وما دفعه الله عنه وعن أتباعه أكثر ، وما جرى عليهم إلا بعض ما يستحقون ، فلا تكن فى ريب من ذلك. أهـــ

"And I have tired myself from weighing him and examining him, until over the long years I became exausted. At last, what I found to be holding him back among the scholars of Egypt and Syria (Shaam), caused their souls to loathe him, and them to disdain him, and call him a liar and accuse him of disbelief was nothing else but arrogance (kibr), self admiration ('ujb), the ardent desire to be the "head shaikh", and belittling the eminent (figures in Islam)! So look at the outcome of false claims and love of fame! We ask Allah, the Exalted, for pardon. For indeed, the people who confronted him were not more pious than he, or more knowledgeble or more ascetic. On the other hand, they would overlook the sins of their companions and the misdeeds of their friends. Allah did not afflict him with them due to their piety (taqwa) and their nobility, but because of his sins. And what Allah deflected from him and his followers was even greater. And nothing befell them except for some of what they deserved, so do not be in doubt concerning this."

If you want to talk about Ibn Taymiyyah please open a new thread and talk about him there, this thread is not specifically about him, and your statements really have nothing to do with the Aqeedah that we're talking about. If you mention specific points about the Aqeeda of the "Salafis" that differs with the Atharis fine, but don't attack ibn taymiyyah personally because it's off topic.

[al_Zayn]

So you're saying the Mutakalimeen were more wise than Allah and His Messenger and the Companions? Because that is what it insinuates.

Poor line of argument, i could use that against you by saying the Salafis invented name "Salafi", these Mutakallimun know better?

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

Poor line of argument, i could use that against you by saying the Salafis invented name "Salafi", these Mutakallimun know better?

Actually no... that makes no sense.... I already said names are just names, I never said calling yourself Salafi is waajib or anything of that sort.

I for sure didnt say "Salafi" is Ahkam of "Muslim"....

You are specifically saying the Sahaba were doing tafweedh which was Aslam and saying that later generations were ahkam... So again you're saying that Allah and his Messenger and the companions were less wise in how they dealt with Aqeedah... or not?

Even from the point of view of language "Salafi" has a definition, using words as a description is not haram automatically and completely... because if you haven't noticed under your name it Says Hanafi...

[aMuslimForLife]

Abu Salma@ A lot of other Ash'ari/Maturidi scholars consider Athari to be among ahlussunnah. Its just that you pick and choose according to your own liking. Besides, if this is all about taqleed then there is no need to indulge in debates arguing who is Ahlus-Sunnah and who is not. Or else you may end up saying ''how dare you oppose the Fatwa of such and such Shaykh''.

Abu Salma@ A lot of other Ash'ari/Maturidi scholars consider Athari to be among ahlussunnah. Its just that you pick and choose according to your own liking. Besides, if this is all about taqleed then there is no need to indulge in debates arguing who is Ahlus-Sunnah and who is not. Or else you may end up saying ''how dare you oppose the Fatwa of such and such Shaykh''.

Historically, there are two Athari schools as the early creeds of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah... this would be Hanafi as evidence by Aqidah Tahawi and the Hanbali as evidence by Usul Sunnah by Imam Ahmad....

These are the two different codified schools of the Salaf in regards to creed, Hanafi.. and Hanbali... anything other that is just random reports... from this scholar and that scholar....

The Hanafis have produced a whole text which is Athari based Aqidah Tahawi.... written the great Imam Tahawi.... You also have Fiqh Akbar by Imam Abu Hanifa....

The Hanbalis have produced a whole text which is Athari based Usul Sunnah... written by the great Imam Ahmad...

In regards to Athari creeds the Hanbalis were actually the ones who were more innovative in their creed adding things like taking the Attributes upon the dhahir etc. etc.

The Asharis/Maturidis are more inclined toward Imam Tahawi's text because it is more comprehensive than Imam Ahmad with regards to creed... Imam Ahmad while Imam... his text is not as encompassing as Imam Tahawi's text in creed...

So to parade around as if one has to follow the Hanbali school in regards to creed in order to follow the Salafus Saleh and be Athari is a false notion that the neo-Salafis are promoting... which holds no weight in reality....

And Allah knows best...

[Ahlussunnah]

Sulaiman@ sorry brother I didn't mean to insult Shaykhul Islam Hafiz Mujtahid Qudwah Abul 'Abbas Ibn Taymiyyah... It is very much prevalent among students to just write names instead of praiseworthy titles.. In arabic literature they wont even use these titles for Sahaba on regular basis. You may find even the learned people of this forum not using those titles everytime. Anyways, let me give some input in relation to the actual topic... The topic is Athari vs Salafis... So anyone interested in contributing should provide the quote from an Athari scholars according to them, then prove how it is in contradiction with current aqeedah of Salafis. It is as simple as that. There are lots of material on Ibn Jawzi Vs Hanbali, Ibn Jawzi vs Ash'ari, Ibn Aqeel vs Hanbali etc. So follow the same way in concluding the differences between Atharis vs Salafis.

[al_Zayn]

Actually no... that makes no sense.... I already said names are just names, I never said calling yourself Salafi is waajib or anything of that sort.

I for sure didnt say "Salafi" is Ahkam of "Muslim"....

You are specifically saying the Sahaba were doing tafweedh which was Aslam and saying that later generations were ahkam... So again you're saying that Allah and his Messenger and the companions were less wise in how they dealt with Aqeedah... or not?

Even from the point of view of language "Salafi" has a definition, using words as a description is not haram automatically and completely... because if you haven't noticed under your name it Says Hanafi...

just to make things clear, "Salafis" have spent millions of petro-dollars printing books, pamphlets trying to prove their "Salafi" saved sect way, even to the extent of justifying their group name; i.e. "Salafis" / "Ahlul Hadith", whereas we people who ascribe to the Madh-habs don't, well not that i know of. So me as a Hanafi in the strictest sense is an ascription to the Fiqh i follow, which is not exclusively saved (because there are other Madh-habs.) Thats the difference how i use it (Hanafi) and how a Salafi uses it (Salafi).

So again, your line of argument is poor i could use that against you by saying the Salafis invented name "Salafi", these Mutakallimun know better?

[Sulaiman84]

Actually no... that makes no sense.... I already said names are just names, I never said calling yourself Salafi is waajib or anything of that sort.

I for sure didnt say "Salafi" is Ahkam of "Muslim"....

You are specifically saying the Sahaba were doing tafweedh which was Aslam and saying that later generations were ahkam... So again you're saying that Allah and his Messenger and the companions were less wise in how they dealt with Aqeedah... or not?

Even from the point of view of language "Salafi" has a definition, using words as a description is not haram automatically and completely... because if you haven't noticed under your name it Says Hanafi...

C'mon man! You gotta make more effort in trying to make people feel guilty and twist what they say. Tafwidh is the best approach because this is what the majority of the Salaf did. Ta'wil is more "judicial" because Ulamaa' used it (according to a different time and circumstance) when philosophers and other deviant groups tried to attack the belief system in Islam. There was no pressing need for it in the earlier generations because there was no large scale philosophical attack on Islam and no fear for the common Muslim's Imaan.


See the difference?


I wanna follow suit and be quiet, as the other brother is doing. Can I be excused now?

[warea]

Contemporary Salafis belong to the filthy mujassima and are in no way connected to the classical Atharis. They were mufawwida and remained silent on the attributes of Allah.

Comtemporary Salafis believe Allah is

-in a place,
-in a direction,
-has literal attributes and claim to know its meaning,
-condemn negating that Allah has body parts,
-has a boundry (hadd)
-literally above the arsh
-literally moves from one point to another
-remain silent when He wants
-qur'an is haadith

And many more evil beliefs. In an Islamic state they would receive lashes.

- they believe Allah has temporal events occurring in Himself with temporal attributes, while creation as whole is eternal.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

C'mon man! You gotta make more effort in trying to make people feel guilty and twist what they say. Tafwidh is the best approach because this is what the majority of the Salaf did. Ta'wil is more "judicial" because Ulamaa' used it (according to a different time and circumstance) when philosophers and other deviant groups tried to attack the belief system in Islam. There was no pressing need for it in the earlier generations because there was no large scale philosophical attack on Islam and no fear for the common Muslim's Imaan.


See the difference?


I wanna follow suit and be quiet, as the other brother is doing. Can I be excused now?

No matter how you word it I don't agree.

Firstly I don't agree that the First Gen. did Tafweedh.

Secondly, I don't agree the later Gens. were more Judicial in understanding Allah, no matter how you word it, it's problematic and insinuates that The Messenger of Allah and his Companions lacked knowledge that some how arose after they passed away.