Difference between Salafis(Arabs) and Ahle Hadees(Sub-Continent)

[PeaceSeeker]

As for dancing,the sahaba used to sing collectively religious material,as well as dance out of religious happiness.

They also used to make dhikr in groups.

Amr ibn Yahya narrated his father told him, "We used to sit at Abdullah Ibn Masood’s house before Fajr prayer. If he exited we would follow him to the musjid. Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari then came to us and asked us, ‘Did Abu Abur-Rahman (Abdullah Ibn Masood) come out yet?’ We said, ‘No’, so he sat with us till he emerged. We all stood up when he exited.


He (Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari) said, ‘O Abu Adur-Rahman, I just saw something which I did not recognize, and I did not see, all thanks to Allah, but good.’ He (Ibn Masood) said, ‘What is it?’ He (Abu Musa) said, ‘If you live you will see it. I saw in the musjid people sitting in circles waiting for the prayer. In each circle there is a leader, and they have stones in their hands. He (the leader) would say, ‘Say Takbir (Allahu Akbar) 100 times’, so they say Takbir 100 times. He (the leader) would then say, ‘Say Tahil (La Ilaha Illa Allah) 100 times’, so they say Tahil 100 times. He (the leader) would then say, ‘Say Tasbih (Subhana Allah) 100 times’, so they say Tasbih 100 times.


Ibn Masood said, ‘Did you not order them to count their evil deeds, and guarantee them that none of their good deeds will be lost?’ Then he and us left till we reached one of the circles. Then he (Ibn Masood) stood next to the circle and said, ‘What are you doing?’ They said, ‘O Abu Abdur-Rahamn, (these are) stones that we count our Takbir, Tahil, tasbih, and Tah’mid (Alhumdu’lillah).’


Ibn Masood said, ‘Count your evil deeds, for I guarantee that none of your good deeds will be lost. What is the matter with you, O nation of Muhammad? How soon you come to your destruction! The companions (of Muhammad) are still many, these are his clothes still not worn out and his cookware did not break yet. By whom my soul is in His Hands, you are either following a religion better than Muhammad’s or followers of a way of evil.’


They said, ‘By Allah, O Abu Abdur-Rahman, we sought only what is good.’ Ibn Masood said, ‘Many people seek good, but they do not reach it. The Messenger told us some people who read the Qur’an will not have the Qur’an leave their throats (to their hearts). By Allah I do not know if most of you are from them.’ Then he left them. Amr Ibn Salamah said, ‘We saw most of those people fighting against us, in the battle of Nahrawan with the Khawarij.’" (Tirmidhi)

[baytul-herz]

Erm, you really do have your own agenda tbh.

Really why is that? Because I follow the majority of the scholars?

Yeah that's why Imam Malik, Imam AshShafi and Imam Ahmed all warned so extensively against kalam...

Imam Al Ghazaliyy,Ihya ulum ad din.

SECTION II
On the Introduction to Religious Instruction and the
Stages of Belief :


Thus the traditionists among the Fathers have been unanimous (in their condemnation of scholastic theology). The many strictures which came down to us from them are innumerable. They have said that the companions refrained from scholastic theology only because of their knowledge of the evils it would breed, although they were better informed and more eloquent phrase-makers than anyone else. For this reason the Prophet said, “The hairsplitters are doomed; they are doomed to destruction.” By this he meant those who are extravagant in investigation and research. [The traditionists among the Fathers] also protested that if [scholastic theology] were an integral part of religion the Apostle of God would have commanded [his Companions to address themselves to] it, and would have taught [them] its ways.

The Companions, too, used to debate and dispute with the unbelievers, but only in the time of need.

Ali ibn-abi-T?lib when he dispatched ibn-‘Abb?s to the Kh?rijites. Ibn-‘Abb?s argued with them saying, “Would you rebel against your im?m?” But they replied, “He has fought, but did not capture any prisoners or booty.” Ibn-‘Abb?s explained to them that prisoners and booty are taken only in war against unbelievers, adding, “Would any of you, if ‘A’isha had been taken captive on the Day of the Camel21 and had fallen to his lot, have deemed it lawful to deal with her as he would have dealt with his own property [and forgot] that she was, according to the express word of the Qur’r?n, your mother?”cf.S?rah XXXIII. They answered “No,” and consequently two thousand of them surrendered.

It was also related that al-Hasan (a1-Bas?ari) once debated with a Qadarite23 with the result that the latter renounced his error. Similarly, ‘Ali ibn-abi-T?lib once debated with a Qadarite. It is also related that ‘Abdull?h ibn-Mas‘?d debated with Yaz?d ibn-‘Am?rah24 on the subject of belief.


This is practically all that can be said on behalf of the two groups, [the proponents and the opponents of speculation]. If you ask me what I think of this, I will say that the truth of the matter is that those who condemn it absolutely and under all circumstances as well as those who praise it absolutely and unreservedly are wrong.


We turn now to the science of scholastic theology (‘ilm al-kal?m) to say that it has advantages and disadvantages, usefulness and harm. With regard to its usefulness, whenever it is useful it is either lawful, or commendable, or obligatory, as the occasion demands. As to its harm, whenever it is harmful it is unlawful. Its harm lies in raising doubts and undermining the articles of faith by moving them out from the realm of certitude and determination. These things are lost at the beginning and their restoration by means of proof is doubtful; further more it varies with the individual.


To sum it up, the early fuqaha banned it for certain reasons. The harm it would bring to the Muslims unnecessarily,and the fact that only the heretics at that time would use it.


The time after the salaf,the need to refute heretics arose,heretics such as a hashawiyya,mu'tazilah,jabariyyah,jahmiyyah,etc.

Thus our creed was codified to protect it from the heretics.

Dancing? come on... I am talking about Ibadah, any dancing you speak of was simply a moment of joy or happiness or cultural sword dancing, Allah knows best.

How is dancing a bid'ah,when the companions danced? So you are saying that it becomes a bid'ah to say "Allahu akbar" when I'm dancing out of happiness?

istighatha? that's not even something I am going to bother with - has been debated enough and I think the evidences speak for itself ...

Imam al-Bayhaqi relates with a sound (sahih) chain:

It is related from Malik al-Dar, `Umar's treasurer, that the people suffered a drought during the successorship of `Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said:

"O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished," after which the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: "Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!"

The man went and told `Umar. The latter said: "O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!""


The salafi response to this hadith.

1.Malik ad dar is a mushrik (outhibillah)

http://alharary.com/vb/t4165.html

2. The companion was corrected.

They say that the companion did shirk(outhubillah),and that the companion was corrected by rasulallah SAW just because he told him to told umar "be clever".

Arab Salafis are of the view that the sifaat Allah are simply taken upon their dhaahir and their reality is left as mutashabihat and tafweedh is done, I seriously don't see why this is even an issue. It is just left as it is without even going into it, just accept it as it is as Allah knows best and there is no need to go beyond what the Sahabah, tabieen and taba'tabieen did.

Dhaahir (apparent) and literal (haqeeqi) are two different words and are used to mean different things.

The ashariyyah take all verses upon their dhahir.

As Ibn tamiyyah says

كثير من هؤلاء يقولون : تجري على ظاهرها فظاهرها مراد مع قولهم : إن لها تأويلا بهذا المعنى لا يعلمه إلا الله ، وهذا تناقض وقع فيه كثير من هؤلاء المنتسبين إلى السنة

Many from amongst them (i.e. Mufawwidha) say that they (passages on Sifaat) are to be passed along upon their Dhaahir. Their Dhaahir is what is intended, while they say: "It has an interpretation, which only Allah knows". And this contradiction has been committed by many of those who ascribe themselves to the Sunnah. (Majmu' Al-Fataawa, Volume 5, page 35)

If you mean that the Arab wahabis take the meanings such as "yad" upon their literal meaning,then tell us "peace maker",what is the literal meaning of yad?

We take it upon its dhahir,but that doesn't mean its literal.

i.e. Affiring Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is above the throne by His self and is with us by His knowledge. This statement is affirmed and accepted and only Allah knows its reality.

Indeed,but we do not say that he is in the "above" direction. We affirm the texts wording and we leave the meaning AND howness to Allah SWT.

Imam Abu Hanifa (d. 150) says in his Wasiyya: "Had He been in a place and needing to sit and rest before creating the Throne, then the question 'Where was Allah?' would have applied to Him, which is impossible... We assert that Allah is established on the throne without His need (haja) nor settlement (istiqrar) upon it, for He it is Who preserves the Throne and other than it without needing any of them."

He said in his al-Fiqh al-akbar: "Allah has no limits, nor any rivals... He who says: 'I do not know if my Lord is in the heavens or on the earth' is a disbeliever, and he who says: 'He is on the Throne, and I do not know whether the Throne is in the heaven or on the earth,' he is also a disbeliever." Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi explained this to mean: "The reason is that by such words he suggests a place for Allah and this is idolatry."

Others who list the verse of istiwa' among the mutashabihat are Imam Malik ibn Anas, the fuqaha' of Madina, and al-Asma`i according to Abu Mansur `Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi in Usul al-Din.

Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310) said in his Tafsir: "Allah made himself exalted over the heaven with the exaltation of sovereignty and power, not that of displacement and movement."

Imam Fakhr al-Din Razi (d. 606) in his al-Tafsir al-kabir says in his commentary to verse 19:93: "Since it is affirmed by this verse that "All those in the heavens and the earth must come to Allah as His slave," and since it is obligatory that Allah is clear of being a slave, He is therefore clear of being in a place or direction, or on the Throne or the Chair."

Ibn al-Jawzi said: "Whoever says: He is established on the Throne "in person" (bi dhatihi), has diverted the sense of the verse to that of sensory perception. Such a person must not neglect that the principle is established by the mind, by which we have come to know Allah, and have attributed pre-eternity to Him decisively. If you said: We read the hadiths and keep quiet, no one would criticize you; it is only your taking them in the external sense which is hideous. Therefore do not bring into the school of this pious man of the Salaf -- Imam Ahmad -- what does not belong in it. You have clothed this madhhab with an ugly deed, so that it is no longer said "Hanbali" except in the sense of "anthropomorphist"....

- this affirms Allah is not mixed in with His creation and He is far beyond and far exalted above it.

If you believe Allah is in the above direction then answer me this,if I am in china and you are in america and we both point up,are you saying we are both pointing in the same direction?

Ijmaa on taraweeh!? What are you talking about??

Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani (RA) related from Imam Rafi (RA) : The Prophet prayed 20 Rakats in Taraweeh on two consecutive nights with a congregation in Ramdhan. On the third night many more people gathered (for a congregation) but the Prophet (Sallaho Alaihe Wassallam) did not appear before them. In the morning the Prophet (Sallaho Alaihe Wassallam) stated: ‘It occurred to me that this prayer (20 Rakats in Ramadhan) could become compulsory (Fard) upon you, and you would not be able to bear it.’ This narration related by Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani, after relating it, he used to state: ‘There is a consensus amongst all the Muhadditheen that this narration is sound (Sahih).’ (Talkeesul Habeer Fe Takhreej Ahadith Rafi ul Kabeer vol 1, p119)

You're wrong about the madhahib, Arab Salafis follow the Madhhab by taqlid to a local scholar typically and this scholar typically is well training in fiqh and usually takes the strongest opinions in the madhab wa Allahu alim as this is usually the safest course of action, citing early ijmaa. Wa Allahu alim. I'm only speaking from my experience, one country for example is Libya which is Maliki with a large number of Ahlus sunnah upon the Athari creed wa Allahu alim. (People you would attack as being "Salafi" for some strange reason).
First of all,only mujtahids can make ijithad,and only mujtahids in the madhab can make ijithads in the madhab.

So how are you now saying to me that you make ijithad?

Are you a mujtahid? Is Albani,uthaymeen,bin baz,are these scholars mujtahideen? And if they are please tell us which madhab.

And if they don't follow a madhab please tell us how they became mujtahid mutlaq.

[baytul-herz]

You have MANY unfounded claims, I warn you to fear Allah when you speak of the Sahabah and the Salafus saliheen. May Allah guide us all to the straight path.

and I warn you to leave your sect and come back to the majority of the ulema,stop ascribing things to Allah which do not befit him.

Imam Abu Hanifa also spoke of Allah's Two Hands and Face wa Allahu alim, affirming Allahs Speech, Hearing, Sight, Knowledge is not kalam, this is simply affirming the dhahir of the Hadeeth and Qur'an upon textual evidences.

Lets go step by step and explain it to you.

Imam Abu Hanifa's Fiqh Al Akbar (a direct attack on those who use kalam);

So I guessed him using kalam is wrong now to? He is using kalam to defeat the people who use it to attack ahlus sunnah.

[I]"He has knowledge, not as our knowledge. He has power, not as our power. He sees, not as our seeing. He hears, not as our hearing. And He speaks, not as our speech.

Very well,moving on.
...

He has a hand, a face, and a self. So what He, High is He, mentions in the Qur’an of the mention of the face, hand, and self, are all attributes of His with no modality (or description).

The arabic goes as follows .


-28 وله يد ووجه ونفس آما ذآره الله تعالى في القرآن , فما ذآره الله تعالى في القرآن من ذآر الوجه واليد والنفس
فهو صفات له
بلا آيف

When the scholars of the salaf said "bila kayf",they are referring the meaning and howness to Allah SWT.

Ibn Qudama in his al-Luma al-I’tiqad said:


وكل ما جاء في القرآن أو صح عن المصطفى عليه السلام صفات الرحمن وجب الإيمان به وتلقيه بالتسليم والقبول وترك التعرض له بالرد والتأويل والتشبيه والتمثيل وما أشكل من ذلك وجب إثباته لفظا وترك التعرض لمعناه

Whatever of [these reports that we find] difficult [to comprehend] it is required to affirm its wording and to forsake delving into its meaning.

Moving on to your next quote .

It is not said that His hand is His power or His blessing, since such would be a nullification of the attribute. And such is the statement of the People of Qadar and ‘Itizaal.[8]

This is a wrong translation.


-29 ولايقال : إن يده قدرته أو نعمته , لأن فيه إبطال الصفة ] وهذا رد على من أراد تحديد معنى اليد وتفسيرها على
أنها القدرة أو النعمة حصراً , والإمام يشير إلى أن الآية التي ورد فيها ذآراليد هي من الآيات المتشابهة التي لايعلم
حقيقتها وآنهها إلا الله , وسبيل النجاة في ذلك هو تفويض المعنى مطلقاً إلى الله مع تنزيهه جل وعلا عن مشابهة
المخلوقات فلايقال يدٌ حقيقيةٌ ولاجارحة ومن قال بأنها عضو من آل أو جزء من جسم مرآب أو جارحة فقد آفر ,
ولايقال آيف [. وهو قول أهل القدر والاعتزال .
29- It should not be said that His Yad definitively means His power or His bounty (exclusively), because such a definitive (and exclusive) interpretation may negate the meaning (Allah willed). This is the method of the (Qadariyyah) and the Mu'tazilah.



The ashariyyah do not say that "yad" is definitely power,as this word is mutashabbih.

We say one of the possible meanings may be power,one possible meanings out of many.


Wallahu 3lam

[baytul-herz]

Amr ibn Yahya narrated his father told him, "We used to sit at Abdullah Ibn Masood’s house before Fajr prayer. If he exited we would follow him to the musjid. Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari then came to us and asked us, ‘Did Abu Abur-Rahman (Abdullah Ibn Masood) come out yet?’ We said, ‘No’, so he sat with us till he emerged. We all stood up when he exited.


He (Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari) said, ‘O Abu Adur-Rahman, I just saw something which I did not recognize, and I did not see, all thanks to Allah, but good.’ He (Ibn Masood) said, ‘What is it?’ He (Abu Musa) said, ‘If you live you will see it. I saw in the musjid people sitting in circles waiting for the prayer. In each circle there is a leader, and they have stones in their hands. He (the leader) would say, ‘Say Takbir (Allahu Akbar) 100 times’, so they say Takbir 100 times. He (the leader) would then say, ‘Say Tahil (La Ilaha Illa Allah) 100 times’, so they say Tahil 100 times. He (the leader) would then say, ‘Say Tasbih (Subhana Allah) 100 times’, so they say Tasbih 100 times.


Ibn Masood said, ‘Did you not order them to count their evil deeds, and guarantee them that none of their good deeds will be lost?’ Then he and us left till we reached one of the circles. Then he (Ibn Masood) stood next to the circle and said, ‘What are you doing?’ They said, ‘O Abu Abdur-Rahamn, (these are) stones that we count our Takbir, Tahil, tasbih, and Tah’mid (Alhumdu’lillah).’


Ibn Masood said, ‘Count your evil deeds, for I guarantee that none of your good deeds will be lost. What is the matter with you, O nation of Muhammad? How soon you come to your destruction! The companions (of Muhammad) are still many, these are his clothes still not worn out and his cookware did not break yet. By whom my soul is in His Hands, you are either following a religion better than Muhammad’s or followers of a way of evil.’


They said, ‘By Allah, O Abu Abdur-Rahman, we sought only what is good.’ Ibn Masood said, ‘Many people seek good, but they do not reach it. The Messenger told us some people who read the Qur’an will not have the Qur’an leave their throats (to their hearts). By Allah I do not know if most of you are from them.’ Then he left them. Amr Ibn Salamah said, ‘We saw most of those people fighting against us, in the battle of Nahrawan with the Khawarij.’" (Tirmidhi)

The report of Ibn Mas`ud comes only through `Amr ibn Yahya al-Hamadani who is da`if.

Al-Darimi in the Muqaddima of his Sunan, narrated from al-Hakam ibn al-Mubarak who narrates from `Amr ibn Salama al-Hamadani. This `Amr ibn
Yahya ibn `Amr ibn Salima al-Hamadani is da`if. Ibn Ma`in saw him and said: "his narrations are worth nothing"; Ibn Kharrash: "he is not accepted"; al-Dhahabi listed him among those who are weak and whose hadith is not retained in al-Du`afa' wa al-Matrukin (p. 212 #3229), Mizan al-i`tidal (3:293), and al-Mughni fi al-Du`afa' (2:491); and al-Haythami declared him weak (da`if) in Majma` al-Zawa'id, chapter entitled Bab al-`Ummal `ala al-Sadaqa.

As for the claim that Imam al-Bukhari said anything to authentify this report or to declare `Amr reliable, then where did they make such a claim? All Bukhari said in al-Tarikh al-Kabir (6:382 #2708) is: "`Amr ibn Yahya ibn `Amr ibn Salama ibn al-Harith al-Hamadani al-Kufi, he heard hadith from his father, and Sa`id ibn Sulayman heard from him, and he is nicknamed Sinan." This does not constitute a commendation nor a discreditation. In fact, al-Bukhari was not even clear who this narrator was since he apparently confused him with the trustworthy narrator `Amr ibn Salama ibn al-Kharib al-Hamdani al-Jarmi as shown by the words of Ibn Abi Hatim in al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dil (6:235 #1302): "My father [Abu Hatim] said that al-Bukhari made a mistake over `Amr ibn Salama by confusing him with someone else called by that name whereas the latter is al-Jarmi while this one is al-Hamdani." This was confirmed by al-Khatib in Mawdi` Awham al-Jam` wa al-Tafriq (1:333), a book on the errors of the hadith masters caused by resemblance in names. Elsewhere (6:169 #1487) Ibn Abi Hatim narrates from his father, from Yahya ibn Ma`in, the grading of thiqa (trustworthy) for him. However, both Ibn al-Jawzi in al-Du`afa' wa al-Matrukin (2:233 #2601) and Ibn `Adi in al-Kamil fi al-Du`afa' (5:122 #1287) narrate two opposite verdicts from Yahya ibn Ma`in concerning him, and this is what al-Dhahabi retains in Mizan al-I`tidal (5:352 #6480) and al-Mughni fi al-Du`afa' (2:491 #4729) as well as Ibn Hajar in Lisan al-Mizan (4:378 #1128). Both ignore Ibn Hibban's inclusion of `Amr among the trustworthy narrators in al-Thiqat (4:480 #14547).


Further, its authenticity was questioned by al-Suyuti in al-Hawi (2:31); al-Hifni in Fadl al-Tasbih wa al-Tahlil as cited by al-Lacknawi, Sibahat al-Fikr (p. 25 and 42-43);

Further, it is belied by Imam Ahmad's narration in al-Zuhd from Abu Wa'il who said: "Those who claim that `Abd Allah [= Ibn Mas`ud] forbade dhikr [are lying]: I never sat with him in any gathering except he made dhikr of Allah in it." Cited by al-Munawi in Fayd al-Qadir (1:457), al-Suyuti in Natijat al-Fikr fi al-Jahr bil-Dhikr in al-Hawi, al-Nabulusi in Jam` al-Asrar (p. 66), al-Hifni in Fadl al-Tasbih wa al-Tahlil as cited in al-Lacknawi, Sibahat al-Fikr (p. 25).
rgds

[brother19791]

Please cite me the source where the fuqaha have differed on the number of rakat for tarawih.

Because they all agreed it was 20.

Ibn taymiyya is not a good source for Islamic information.

As for dancing,the sahaba used to sing collectively religious material,as well as dance out of religious happiness.

They also used to make dhikr in groups.


As for istigatha,istigatha was done by the companions all the time. They always would ask for his assistance and help.

Even when he was in the grave,the companions used him as a means by asking him to make dua.

As for "Kalam",then Ali ibn abi talib,and Ibn abbas used to debate the khawarij.

Abu hanifa raheemullah spoke about attributes,speech,free will,etc.

I agree with what you have said ...
Even if you look at the scholar's who the ahlul-Ibless follow their scholars of the past ar ent even accepted whole heartily by the Majority of Ahlus sunnah wal jamah. Be it Ibn taymiyah or Albani . All controversial figures.

I call them ahlul-Ibless , because they reject following an Imam they dont have an Imam / Guide .
and who soever does not have a guide "Shaytan is his guide "

They are ahlul Ibless "Followers of Satan"

brother19791@hotmail.com

[AimeSi]

Please cite me the source where the fuqaha have differed on the number of rakat for tarawih.

Because they all agreed it was 20.

Ibn taymiyya is not a good source for Islamic information.

It's like quoting "Ibn Taymiyya" is such a red flag nowadays...
So, the scholars which are obviously not salafis nor from the ahl-hadith of the subcontinent and who quote Ibn Taymiyya are doing it wrong ?

So, what's your opinion about what it is related from Ibn Hibban and Ibn Khuzayma (8 rak'ats) or Ash-Shafi'i or Imam Malik (where he said that he've seen the people of Madinah making up to 39 rak'ats...) in Fath'ul Bari ? (The french article give for reference the volume 3 of Fat'h ul-Bâri page 19; volume 4 page 320 and 322)
Let's be clear, I'm not salafi and I'm not claiming that making 20 rak'ats is bid'ah, rather I'm just saying that from what I've come to learn, different practices have occured at the time of the prophet and after that, within the companions and the salafs (rahimahummulah). So backing up on those narrations, the salafis consider that there is no ijma' on this issue. And I just want to remember that the salafis differed on this issue, some goes to the extend of saying making 20 rak'ats is a bid'ah and obviously this is wrong but many others don't go to such extend.

As for dancing,the sahaba used to sing collectively religious material,as well as dance out of religious happiness.

They also used to make dhikr in groups.

As for dancing "out of religious happinnes", can you provide us with some narrations about it ? Because it seems like since very the beginning of Islam a whole part of the Umma have fall in the trap of not practicing an act of 'ibadah done by the companions...
The salafis, as far as I've understand their proofs, made a distinction between the cultural dance which have may, or still, exist and which is not a part of 'ibadah nor done as a form of zikr and the "dance" which is done for zikr which they consider to be unlawful.
By "sing collectively religious material" what do you mean ? To done this in a single voice ? Is so why the maliki scholar Ash-Shatibi class this act as a bid'ah idhafiyyah.

As for istigatha,istigatha was done by the companions all the time. They always would ask for his assistance and help.

Even when he was in the grave,the companions used him as a means by asking him to make dua.

As for istighatha, at least, we are far from having an ijma' on this issue. The position of the deobandis (amongst other) is well-known.

As for "Kalam",then Ali ibn abi talib,and Ibn abbas used to debate the khawarij.

Abu hanifa raheemullah spoke about attributes,speech,free will,etc.

As for "Kalâm", neither 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, nor Ibn 'Abbas nor Abu Hanifa made it in the way of the later scholars like Al-Ash'ari or Al-Maturidi or Al-Ghazali (rahimahummulah).


Furthermore you quote some interesting part from the Ihya.

"As to its harm, whenever it is harmful it is unlawful. Its harm lies in raising doubts and undermining the articles of faith by moving them out from the realm of certitude and determination. These things are lost at the beginning and their restoration by means of proof is doubtful; further more it varies with the individual."

To sum it up, the early fuqaha banned it for certain reasons. The harm it would bring to the Muslims unnecessarily,and the fact that only the heretics at that time would use it.

Does the need for kalâm still exist ? Does the mu'tazila still exist for example ?
What's your opinion about the attitude of Imam Ahmad when the khalif of his time oppressed him ? Did he use kalâm to answer ? If not, so is it possible to not use kalâm and stick to the text to answer to the deviant sects ?

[PeaceSeeker]

Asalamu`aleikum,

Subhan Allah - Brother! I really don't know why you seem very angry.

I'm not really into debates and auguring I'm simply writing what I know.

I don't really get what your problem is, all of these people throwing insults like Ahlul Iblees and other disgusting horrible nick names is really not nice.

All I am saying is that I prefer to base my Islam off of sound practices of the early scholars and early Muslims.

I really don't agree with dancing, singing, clapping, jumping, going to the graves to make du'a to Allah or try and ask the dead to make du'a for me etc. and I am sure there are a plethora of scholars to back me up on these points, wa Allahu alim.

With aqeedah my position is simply to accept what ever the Qur`an says or whatever rasul Allah salAllahu aleihiwasalem says, this is the safest position I feel I don't see anything wrong with this.

You see I don't need to go into crazy in depth arguments about theology because this is what I believe to be genuine bid`ah. If Allah states in the Qur`an that He is Above the heavens then I believe this without question, if we are told we will see Allah then I believe this, only Allah knows how this is, if Allah states that He created Adam aleihisalam with His own two hands then I just believe this without even thinking about it because Allah does as He wills and I hear and obey. The sahabah may Allah be pleased with them, didn't speak over these, they didn't go out of their way to explicitly negate or affirm as people who support kalam do as far as I know Allahu alim.

I'm not sitting here telling anyone anything different but this is just what I feel is correct - I am not a member of any sect apart from Ahlus sunnah, I am a sunni Muslim and I try and study and follow Hanbali fiqh and I'm interested in learning Maliki fiqh one day insha Allah.

I believe my aqeedah is Athari in its classical sense, affirming the dhahir and negating the reality as mutashabihat. Even Sheikh Suhaib Webb the Maliki scholar had a little article about this a while ago on his website. Even Sheikh Abu Ghuddah rahimullah the Hanafi scholar wrote about this. Even Sheikh Qaradawi wrote about Sheikh Bin Bayyah's Athari aqeedah.

I accept these on the basis that I believe;

Allah existed as He always existed pre eternally and continues to exist as He always has unaffected by any of His creation
the creation is limited and separate to Allah as Allah is transcendent and exalted far above it.
I also affirm He is above the heavens and above the throne as He wills and only He knows the reality as I only affirm the texts and Allah knows best.

And the sixth: The saying of at-Tabaree, Ibn Abee Zayd, al-Qaadee Abdul-Wahhaab and a group (jamaa'ah) of shuyook (scholars) of hadeeth and fiqh (jurisprudence) and it is apparent (from) some of the books of the qaadee, Abu Bakr [al-Baqillani] - may Allaah be pleased with Him, and [also] Abul-Hasan [al-Ash'ari]. And al-Qaadee Abd ul-Wahhaab quoted this from him, I mean from al-Qaadee Abu Bakr, textually - which is that He, the Sublime, ascends over His Throne with His Essence (bi dhaatihi) - and in some places they applied (the words) "above His Throne (fawqa arshihi)".

The Imaam, Abu Bakr (Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Hadramee al-Qayrawaanee) said: "And that which I say is [what is] correct [ Allah being above the Throne, making istiwaa with His Essence], without confinement, nor fixing in a place, nor being inside of it, and without touching".

I [al-Qurtubi] say: This is the saying of al-Qaadee Abu Bakr in the book of his "Tamheed ul-Awaa'il". And we have mentioned it. And this has also been said by the teacher, Abu Bakr bin Fawrak in "Sharh Awaa'il il-Adillah", and it is the saying of Ibn Abdul-Barr, and at-Talamankee and others from amongst the Andulusians, and [also] al-Khattaabi in the book "Shi'aar ud-Deen", and that has already preceded.

With regards to tassawuf I simply try and engage in tazkiatul nafs and I believe I should try and work on my zuhd, in the way that the Salafus saliheen did. Sheikh Abu Ghuddah rahimullah has a beautiful book about the tassawuf of the early pious Muslims of Ahlus sunnah, the early sufi scholars that engaged strictly in accordance with the sunnah.

If a mujtahid came to the conclusion on a particular matter then may Allah reward him and forgive him for any of his mistakes, I'm not here to judge anyone I'm just presenting my view which believe is legitimate.



- Oh and just fyi I never said that 20 rakah was bid`ah - where on earth did you get this from!!?!? I simply said I don't recall seeing ijmaa on this and as far as I know most Arab salafis have no problem praying 20 rakah or 8 rakah, just to follow whatever the Imam does, wa Allahu alim.

And also Ibn Taymiyyah rahimuhallah is Sheikhul Islam of the Hanbali Madh`hab and he is a very reliable source of information in regards to fiqh (and Aqeedah I personally believe).

[baytul-herz]

It's like quoting "Ibn Taymiyya" is such a red flag nowadays...
So, the scholars which are obviously not salafis nor from the ahl-hadith of the subcontinent and who quote Ibn Taymiyya are doing it wrong ?

People who quote Ibn taymiyya often do it to go against the majority of the scholars.

They quote him to give direction to Allah,give literal hands,feet,fingers,etc.

This is why it is such a disaster for people to even consider him as a valid source of Islamic information.

So, what's your opinion about what it is related from Ibn Hibban and Ibn Khuzayma (8 rak'ats) or Ash-Shafi'i or Imam Malik (where he said that he've seen the people of Madinah making up to 39 rak'ats...) in Fath'ul Bari ? (The french article give for reference the volume 3 of Fat'h ul-Bâri page 19; volume 4 page 320 and 322)
Let's be clear, I'm not salafi and I'm not claiming that making 20 rak'ats is bid'ah, rather I'm just saying that from what I've come to learn, different practices have occured at the time of the prophet and after that, within the companions and the salafs (rahimahummulah). So backing up on those narrations, the salafis consider that there is no ijma' on this issue. And I just want to remember that the salafis differed on this issue, some goes to the extend of saying making 20 rak'ats is a bid'ah and obviously this is wrong but many others don't go to such extend.

No.

All agree is 20,the extra rakat you seem them doing are nawafil.

Shaykh Riyudal haq explains this nicely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw99jkZboPA

As for dancing "out of religious happinnes", can you provide us with some narrations about it ? Because it seems like since very the beginning of Islam a whole part of the Umma have fall in the trap of not practicing an act of 'ibadah done by the companions...

Do a search on it akhi,there are a few narrations.

The salafis, as far as I've understand their proofs, made a distinction between the cultural dance which have may, or still, exist and which is not a part of 'ibadah nor done as a form of zikr and the "dance" which is done for zikr which they consider to be unlawful.

This is an issue of usool,how are salafis creating their own precepts and types of dance now?

Akhi this goes into another matter,I'll explain it using my very limited knowledge Inshallah.

In fiqh we have usool and furu. Usool means seed or base/fundemental,and furu means branch or that which stems from that usool.

So if we establish that dancing was done out of religious happiness,then its furu saying allahu akbar or other forms of dhikr would directly stem from that usool.

By "sing collectively religious material" what do you mean ? To done this in a single voice ? Is so why the maliki scholar Ash-Shatibi class this act as a bid'ah idhafiyyah.

There is no debate that the companions used to sing collectively poems and religious material.

Even the salafies agree.

As for istighatha, at least, we are far from having an ijma' on this issue. The position of the deobandis (amongst other) is well-known.

I study under deobandi ulema,but that doesn't mean that they are correct on every single issue.

We have to be balanced akhi.

As for "Kalâm", neither 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, nor Ibn 'Abbas nor Abu Hanifa made it in the way of the later scholars like Al-Ash'ari or Al-Maturidi or Al-Ghazali (rahimahummulah).

Akhi,no one said it was the "way" of the scholars. Rather we use it t codify our deen and defend it when the need arose.

Kalam was only rejected for a specific reason at the time of the salaf.

Does the need for kalâm still exist ? Does the mu'tazila still exist for example ?
What's your opinion about the attitude of Imam Ahmad when the khalif of his time oppressed him ? Did he use kalâm to answer ? If not, so is it possible to not use kalâm and stick to the text to answer to the deviant sects ?

He didn't use kalam? Really who told you that?

He used to debate the mu'tazilites on a regular basis.

As regards for there still being a need,the need is now more than ever.

Atheists,christians,wahabis,etc.

[baytul-herz]

Asalamu`aleikum,

Subhan Allah - Brother! I really don't know why you seem very angry.

Wa 3laykum salam,

Ofcourse you don't debate.

You don't debate when someone gives you evidences you suddenly change your tone and become buddy buddy and start using terms like "akhi".

But honestly akhi I'm far from angry.

I'm not really into debates and auguring I'm simply writing what I know.

I see.

I don't really get what your problem is, all of these people throwing insults like Ahlul Iblees and other disgusting horrible nick names is really not nice.

He is banned,don't worry about him.

All I am saying is that I prefer to base my Islam off of sound practices of the early scholars and early Muslims.

If you wish to base your Islam off of sound practices,then you must understand that the ulema used systems to extract and authenticate information.

If I was you I would study these branches of Islam and their usool with a logical mind you have the foundation and understanding.

Fiqh,aqeedah,tasawwuf.

Study their usool first,then go on to what they actually are saying and you'll heart and mind will be completely clear of any doubt.

You cannot debate about a car akhi if you don't know how it works.

I really don't agree with dancing, singing, clapping, jumping, going to the graves to make du'a to Allah or try and ask the dead to make du'a for me etc. and I am sure there are a plethora of scholars to back me up on these points, wa Allahu alim.

Lets be logical on this.

Asking rasulallah SAW to make dua when he is alive isn't shirk,now that he is in his grave still alive,are you saying that this fact changes it into shirk?

With aqeedah my position is simply to accept what ever the Qur`an says or whatever rasul Allah salAllahu aleihiwasalem says, this is the safest position I feel I don't see anything wrong with this.

Everything that I have mentioned can be traced directly back to the sunnah or Qur'an.

You see I don't need to go into crazy in depth arguments about theology because this is what I believe to be genuine bid`ah. If Allah states in the Qur`an that He is Above the heavens then I believe this without question,

So if Allah SWT says he is "fi as sama" "in the sky" ,will you believe this literally without question?

Or if Allah SWT says he is closer to you than your jugular vein,will you believe this literally without question?

So how your precepts run you into issues.

All Muslims believe in the above 2 verses,but what we disagree on is its intended (dhahir) meaning.

So why do you take on verse literally and another not when it suits you? Where is your methodology? Why such inconsistency?

if we are told we will see Allah then I believe this, only Allah knows how this is, if Allah states that He created Adam aleihisalam with His own two hands then I just believe this without even thinking about it because Allah does as He wills and I hear and obey.

This is the correct position,but you are keeping out some information of your position.

Rather your position is you give a meaning to the mutashabbih,you do indeed make taweel and try to explan allah SWT attributes by giving them a definite literal meaning.

In contrast to us we say we believe in them without going into the meaning nor howness,this is only in regards however to the mutashabbih. In this methodology comes from the Qur'an,word for word.

The sahabah may Allah be pleased with them, didn't speak over these, they didn't go out of their way to explicitly negate or affirm as people who support kalam do as far as I know Allahu alim.

The sahaba also didn't create usul al hadith,or usul al fiqh,or tashkeel,so are you saying that all of these are bid'ah?

The sahaba r.a. didn't do these things because the need didn't arise,however that doesn't mean it doesn't come from the religion.

I'm not sitting here telling anyone anything different but this is just what I feel is correct - I am not a member of any sect apart from Ahlus sunnah, I am a sunni Muslim and I try and study and follow Hanbali fiqh and I'm interested in learning Maliki fiqh one day insha Allah.

Tell me,why is it that every single person who says to me "allah has literal hands", mostly comes from the hanbalis?

Rather the hanbalis are not like this,the salafis do not follow the hanbali madhab and actually contradict them using their own personal ijithad.

I believe my aqeedah is Athari in its classical sense, affirming the dhahir and negating the reality as mutashabihat. Even Sheikh Suhaib Webb the Maliki scholar had a little article about this a while ago on his website. Even Sheikh Abu Ghuddah rahimullah the Hanafi scholar wrote about this. Even Sheikh Qaradawi wrote about Sheikh Bin Bayyah's Athari aqeedah.

We have no problem with affirm dhahir,but you understand dhahir to be "literal hands,feet" ,this my friend isn't dhahir .

Careful,don't say you "negate the reality of the mutashabbih",the salafis will call you deviant .

If you mean you negate how the reality of the attributes are then I also agree.

What I disagree with you on is giving "yad",a literal meaning. So in fact you don't negate the howness of reality,rather you do indeed give it an interpretation that is "a hand,but we don't know what it looks like".

I accept these on the basis that I believe;

Allah existed as He always existed pre eternally and continues to exist as He always has unaffected by any of His creation
the creation is limited and separate to Allah as Allah is transcendent and exalted far above it.
I also affirm He is above the heavens and above the throne as He wills and only He knows the reality as I only affirm the texts and Allah knows best.

If you believe that Allah SWT is in a direction ,than I'm sorry you are not a sunni.

[PeaceSeeker]

x

In all honesty brother I haven't seen any convincing evidences from yourself or anyone else really on this forum, every single point you've raised I have already gone through arguments for and against and I have seen the clearest of evidences backed with sound undeniable narrations in hadeeth and athar texts and based on those I have formed my opinions and believe soundly in them wa Allahu alim.

May Allah forgive me if I am wrong and may He forgive you if you are wrong and Allah knows best.

- My research was objective, I spent time with a sufi sheikh for a while, I took classes from him and attended a few suhbas of Sheikh Keller - I spent a lot of time reading endless explanations on all of the topics and came to my own conclusions based off of the soundest of opinions. I then studied (and continue to study insha`Allah) under a Sheikh who is teaching me the Hanbali madh`hab.


- My firm belief is that the soundest aqeedah is the classical Athari creed which funnily enough the Sheikh you mentioned (Sheikh Riyadh ul Haq) is known for, why don't you check up on what his belief regarding the istawa of Allah is Another Sunni scholar would be Sheikh Akram Nadwi who I believe was a student of Sheikh Abu Ghuddah rahimuhalla who also was a strong advocate for the Athari creed.

- My belief in affirming the dhahir is based on the classical works of the sunni scholars who explain the question you are asking;

'dunak' means: near, meaning nearer in knowledge.

Ibn Jarir At-Tabari (d. 310 H.) said: “and His saying {Adh-Dhahir}, He is saying: And He is dhahir over everything below Him, and He is High above everything, nothing is higher than Him. {Al-Batin} He is saying: and He is the batin of everything, nothing is nearer to anything than Him, as He said: {And We are nearer to him than his jugular vein} [50:16].” (2)
At-Tabari says in the Tafsir of that ayah [50:16] : “With knowledge of what his own self whispers to him.”
Ibn Abi Zamanin (d. 399 H.) said: “ Adh-Dhahir is the High above everything He created, and Al-Batin is His inward knowledge of His creation (i.e His knowledge of the hidden), {And He is All-Knower of every thing} [Al Hadid: 3].” (3)

Insha`Allah I hope we can all work towards being more open minded and study Islam objectively. We must achieve conclusions based on rationality and the soundest of evidences.

Also please don't insult me with tossing me aside from being of the Ahlus sunnah wa'l Jamah, this is not your choice.

I do not believe Allah is contained within the six directions. Allah exists without place for place is created.

However Allah has `uluw and is 'Above' all things 'Above' the seven heavens, Above the throne by His self.
The modality, howness or reality of this is known only to Allah and is incomprehensible as Allah is transcendent.

On the authority of Sadaqah, [who] said: “I heard Sulaymaan at-Taymee saying: “If I was asked where is Allah?” I would say above the Heaven”. (Mukhtasar al-Uluww” of adh-Dhahabi, (p. 133), Al-Laalikaa’ee reported this also (2/92). )

and "Fi Sama", the dhahir is explained as;

Abu Bakr Ahmad As-Sibghi (d. 342 H.) said: «The Arabs would sometimes use the word 'fi' to mean 'alaa' (on; above). Allah the Exalted said: {So travel 'fi' the earth} [9:2] and {I will crucify you 'fi' the trunks of palm trees} [20:71]. The meaning is 'on the earth' and 'on the trees'. The phrase 'fi as-samaa' is used in the same way, meaning: on the throne, above the heavens, as it has authentically been reported from the Prophet peace be upon him.» from “Al Asmaa was Sifaat” by Al Baihaqi (p.324). He said: "Abu Abdillah Al
Hafidh said: The Shaikh Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Ishaq ibn Ayyub al Faqeeh said: ..."
and then he mentioned his statment. The chain is saheeh.