Re: Where is Allah?
Originally Posted by arqadri
Hmm.. sounds like Mr. Abul Hussein who fled last year on this matter also. Anyway, AR Qadri was refuted with his friend just named in Shaykh Abul Hasan's gem of a 1000 pictures and though it is short in length it brought in many Fawa'id on the games of the Hashwiyya sect and their own infighting and even slander of the Sahaba. Quotes below are taken from the following work that Qadri remained aloof upon:
http://www.4shared.com/office/ElsxB5...us_qadri_.html
------------------------------
A look at their fanatical support for Ibn Taymiyya:
With regard to the following thread - http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...-Hussain-Ahmed – where either Qadri or his side kick known as “Abul Hussain” (who someone else thought resembled the posts of another individual called Faqeer Khan who I recall more than 10 years back as saying he was from Hyderabad) was attempting to defend Ibn Taymiyya with little relevance that was nicely refuted by other posters. I recall Faqeer Khan being a one time Barelwi who later flipped over to the Deobandi way.
Important point:
One pertinent point that shows how amateur in knowledge these people are was the point from “Abul Hussain” in the last web link where he said:
“may be you need to do more research on Mullah Ali Qari and see all that he is in agreement with Ibn Taymiyyah and all that he is not.”
http://www.archive.org/download/ALKAREE/ALKAREE1.pdf
http://www.archive.org/download/ALKAREE/ALKAREE2.pdf
---------------
The above two download links were provided by “Abul Hussain” in his attempt at doing away with the following points transcribed by Studentofthedeen:
“In regards to Ibn Taymiyya, why do you choose to be biased? Why not mention what all the great scholars from all the Sunni Madhhabs have said against him too? Why quote selectively?
Did these scholars you've quoted really agree with Ibn Taymiyya in all matters that the latter espoused in creedal matters? Did they have ALL of his works at hand to investigate at full length the creedal statements that others objected to from the pen of ibn Taymiyya? Are you trying to say that all Hanafis had access to all of Ibn Taymiyya's works and that all the scholars of the past are in total agreement with him? Can you go via Umdatul Qari of Imam al-Ayni and quote what he has to say on creedal matters and see if he is totally inline with ibn Taymiyya? Then, do the same for al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani from his Fath al-Bari.
Since you mentioned Mulla 'Ali ul-Qari, we know he praised Ibn Taymiyya in some places, However:
[quote - article: 'Changing Views of Ibn Taymiyya' - by Khaled El-Rouayheb, who said]:
'In any case, al-Qari' al-Harawi was far from being a "Taymiyyan". His own theological works show this clearly. In his Sharh Bad' al-amali, completed towards the end of his life, al-Qari' al-Harawi showed little or no traces of being influenced by Ibn Taymiyya. God, he wrote, is not in any direction, in explicit contrast to the claims of the mushabbiha and Karramiyya who claim that He is above His throne. God's speech, he wrote, does not consist of words and sounds, in explicit contrast to the Karramiyya and Hanbalis ['Ali al-Qari' al-Harawi, Sharh bad' al-amali (Istanbul: Matba'at al-Haydari, 1295AH) 7-9]. Literalist interpretation was rejected in favour of the two options of tafwid and ta'wil. Al-Qari' al-Harawi preferred the option of tafwid, and his justification of this preference again took on a mystical tone:
"To leave the meaning (tafwid) to God and believe in the truth of what He says without knowing it's meaning is the ultimate servitude. This is the reason it was the chosen option of the salaf. To explain the problematic passages and reinterpret it as the khalaf do, while not insisting that is what He means, is an act of worship ('ibada) on the part of the servant. However, servitude is more elevated than worship, for servitude is contentment with what the Lord does, while worship is to do what pleases the Lord. Contentment is more elevated than action, so that not being content is unbelief, while not doing sin." [Ibid, 11].
As in the case of al-Sanusi, the preference for the option of tafwid meant suspension of judgement, not literalism. Against the Karramiyya and the mujassima who appealed to the literal sense of the Qur'anic verses stating that God is on the throne, al-Qari' al-Harawi wrote: "they have no argument here, for istawa has many meanings such as istila' ...and there can be no argument when the possibilities are many." [Ibid, 11]. It is hard to imagine the historical Ibn Taymiyya agreeing to all of this.' [end quote]
[quote - article: 'Changing Views of Ibn Taymiyya' - Khaled El-Rouayheb]
'In his commentary on the same work, 'Ali al-Qari' al-Harawi was almost as unsympathetic to the claims of Ibn Taymiyya:
"Amongst the Hanbalis Ibn Taymiyya has gone to an extreme by prohibiting travelling to visit the Prophet--may God bless him and grant him salvation--just as others have gone to the opposite extreme in saying: the fact that the visiting is a pious deed is known with certainty and he who denies this is an unbeliever. Perhaps the second position is closer to the truth, for to prohibit something that scholars by consensus deem commendable is unbelief, since it is worse than prohibiting what is [merely] permissable, in regards to which there is agreement [i.e. there is agreement that the prohibition of what is permissable by consensus is unbelief]." ['Ali al-Qari' al-Harawi, Sharh al-Shifa' (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 2001), 2:152].' [end quote].
Do you agree with Imam al-Qari now, especially his point on Istiwa that it can mean Istila? Or will you be frank and call him a Jahmi!?
Since you've also mentioned Ibn Hajar, could you quote to us where he criticises Ibn Taymiyya in Fath al-Bari too?
In the book you're quoting from; Radd al-Waafir by ibn Nasir al-Din there's a quotation of Ibn Rajab praising Ibn Taymiyya. Would it surprise you if I could show you that even he had left Ibn Taymiyya's way later on in life? Also, if you are trying to imply in any way that all Hanafis were in agreement with Ibn Taymiyya, then you need to justify your claim. Indeed, Radd al-Wafir is not about what scholars knew of the creed of Ibn Taymiyya but an endorsement that the one who calls Ibn Taymiyya Shaykh al-Islam can not be called a Kafir. Why did you not mention that a leading Hanafi Usuli known as Imam Alaud-Din al-Bukhari wrote a work to verify that the one who calls ibn Taymiyya Shaykh al-Islam is a Kafir and this is what led Ibn Nasirud-Din to write his Radd. This is enough to show that there is no unanimity on Ibn Taymiyya being Shaykh al-Islam, or that his aqeeda was perfectly inline with the real Salafi creed.
If you wish to do justice then go ahead and quote all the well known scholars of the past alone who criticised Ibn Taymiyya so that the readers can see that there is no unanimity on Ibn Taymiyya having the perfect Salafi creed and even Ahnaf have criticised him.”
----
What is for the most part hilarious is how “Abul Hussain” posted two archive.org links to download a work on the Aqeeda of Imam Ali al-Qari, but if one carefully reads via just a few pages of this two volume MA level thesis, one cannot fail to notice how the writer (Masa’id al-Matrafi) himself showed examples of Imam Ali al-Qari in some places affirming some attributes, while other times he made either Ta’wil (figurative interpretation) or Tafweed (of the meaning)! So it is clear that this thesis demonstrated abundant examples of how Imam Ali al-Qari stands at odds with the Taymiyyan way of the past and present as advocated by those who call themselves “Salafi.” Here is an example of the author mentioning Ali al-Qari and his view on “Ayn” (“Eye”) after mentioning that his late Shaykh – Ibn Uthaymin affirmed “Aynayn” (p. 518-519):
Bookmarks