“Say: call upon those who you claim besides Him” that is because the polytheists were afflicted by a severe drought until they ate dogs and carrion, so they sought help (istighatha) with the Prophet (peace be on him) to make dua for them.
So Allah said: “say” to the polytheists “call upon those who you claim besides Him” that they are deities “they dont possess the removal of harm”, the drought or hunger, “from you nor change it” to someone else, or change the hardship to easiness, “those who you call upon, they themselves seek wasilah (nearness) to their Lord”, those who the polythiests claim are deities that they worship. Ibn abbas and mujahid said: they are jesus and his mother, uzair, the angels, the sun, the moon and the stars, “they seek” meaning they seek to their Lord wasilah; nearness.
Abdullah ibn Masood said: This verse was revealed about a group of arabs who worshipped the jinn, so the jinns accepted islam and they (arabs) who worshipped them, did not realise that the jinn accepted islam, so they continued worshipping them, so Allah condemned them, hence this verse was revealed.” -(End quote from tafsir baghawi).
Again, this is not ‘wahabism’, but rather islam itself! Supplication is for Allah alone. It is Shirk to supplicate or seek help with those who aren’t able nor alive. Nor is Shirk the worship of idols alone as is evident from this tafsir.
-Abu Abdillah Ehsan.
Statistics: Posted by AbuAbdillah — Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:42 pm
]]>
Imam Maalik رحمه الله when asked about how Allaah rose over the Throne (Istiwaa’), said: “Istawaa’ is known, its manner is unknown, believing in it is obligatory, and asking about it is a Bid`ah (religious innovation).”
[Majmoo` al-Fataawa of Ibn Taymiyyah (3/58)]
Yahya Ibn Yahya said: A man came to Imaam Maalik and said: O Abu `Abdullaah! (Allaah says)
الرَّحْمَـٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَىٰ
{The Most Beneficent (Allaah) Istawaa (rose over) the (Mighty) Throne (in a manner that befits His Majesty)}
[Surah Taha (20): 5]
How did Allaah rose over the Throne (Istawaa)? Yahya said: I did not see Imaam Maalik as furious and angry as I saw him that day because of what the man had said, and his forehead was sweating, and he bowed his head down, and distress was visible on him, then he replied: “The Kayf (how of Allaah rose over the Throne) is incomprehensible, and Istawaa is not unknown*, believing in it is Waajib (obligatory), and asking about it is Bid`ah (religious innovation), and I do not think that you are anything but an innovator.” Then he ordered that the man be expelled.
[Mukhtasar al-`Uloo of al-Dhahabee with the checking of Shaikh al-Albaanee (132) and al-Laalikaa’ee in “al-Sunnah” (664) and the wording is his. This was graded as “Saheeh” al-Dhahabee and Shaikh al-Albaanee. This was also reported by Ibn al-Qudaamah in al-`Uloo (88)]
* “not unknown” meaning: the meaning of the word Istawaa is known to everyone who understands Arabic.
Rabee`ah who was the Shaikh of Imaam Maalik also had a similar response:
Sufyaan al-Thawree said: I was with Rabee`ah Ibn Abee `Abdul-Rahmaan and a man asked him,
الرَّحْمَـٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَىٰ
{The Most Beneficent (Allaah) Istawaa (rose over) the (Mighty) Throne (in a manner that befits His Majesty)}
[Surah Taha (20): 5]
How did Allaah rose over the Throne (Istawaa)? Rabee`ah replied: “Al-Istawaa is not unknown, and the Kayf (how of it) is incomprehensible, and the message is from Allaah, and upon the Prophet ﷺ was to convey, and upon us is to believe in it.”
[Mukhtasar al-`Uloo of al-Dhahabee with the checking of Shaikh al-Albaanee (111). Shaikh al-Albaanee said: “chain of this narration from Sufyaan is Saheeh. And al-Laalikaa’ee also reported this in his “al-Sunnah” from the narration from Ibn `Uyaynah that Rabee`ah was asked…” Ibn Taymiyyah in al-Hamawiyyah said: “This was reported by al-Khallaal with the chain in which all of its narrators are Imaam in reliability.”]
Shaikh `Abdul Rahmaan al-Mahmood said in his explanation of Lum`atul-I`tiqaad:
“Imaam Maalik was born in the year 93H and died in the year 179H. He faced some of the Bid`aat (religious innovations) that became widespread during his time. During one such day, a man came to Imaam Maalik while he was teaching in the Masjid and said: “O Abu `Abdullaah! How did Allaah rose over the Throne (Istawaa)?”
Here we have two issues:
The first issue: The questioner knows that the Qur’aan affirms al-Istawaa’, and he himself is pointing to it by reciting the Aayah.
The second issue: The question is about the “How” of it because he asked: “How did Allaah rise over the Throne?”
We say this because the response of Imaam Maalik exposes the opposers of the Creed of Ahl al-Sunnah, he exposed those who did the wrong Tafseer (exegesis) of this Aayah.
Imaam Maalik said: “al-Istiwaa’ is not unknown”. (In some narrations it is mentioned that he said: “al-Istiwaa’ is known, and the “how” of it is not known”). And he further said: “How of it is incomprehensible, and believing in it is Waajib (obligatory), and asking about it is Bid`ah (religious innovation).”
The saying of Imaam Maalik: “al-Istiwaa’ is not unknown”, means: The meaning of al-Istawaa’ is, as what has been mentioned in the Qur’aan, and we are being addressed in the Arabic language, the meaning of al-Istawaa’ is known to us and not something unknown. But what is the thing that we are unaware of and do not comprehend?
The thing that which we are unaware of, and which is unknown to us is, how Allaah did it. We have not seen Allaah, therefore we do not know how His Attributes look like (but we affirm our belief in Allaah’s Beautiful Names and Lofty Attributes that have been mentioned in the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Prophet ﷺ).
But some of the deniers of al-Istawaa’ of Allaah over the Throne, and who misinterpret it by saying “al-Istai`laa’” (meaning: Allaah conquered the Throne), respond to this saying of Imaam Maalik by saying: “His saying that al-Istawaa’ is known, means that it has been mentioned in the Qur’aan.”
We respond to them by saying: If Imaam Maalik intended as they are claiming, then he would have agreed with the questioner. Because the questioner said: “O Abu `Abdullaah! {The Most Beneficent rose over the Throne}. How did He rise?” Then the response of Imaam Maalik that al-Istawaa is mentioned in the Qur’aan would have no value because the questioner already knows that. The questioner would have responded by saying: “I did not ask you about this because I already know that al-Istawaa’ is mentioned in the Qur’aan.” But what Imaam Maalik really intended was to affirm and proclaim the Methodology of the Salaf (al-Saalih) رحمهم الله, i.e. al-Istawaa’ is known, meaning: we know the meaning of al-Istawaa’ because it has been addressed to us (in the Qur’aan) in the Arabic language. Al-Istawaa’ has several meanings: `Alaa (علا - Exalt), Irtafa` (ارتفع – Ascend), Istaqir (استقر – Establish), Sa`da (صعد – Rise), all these words have been reported from the Salaf رحمهم الله. So, it is clear that al-Istawaa’ is known, and since it is already mentioned in the Qur’aan (numerous times), then this matter is axiomatic (i.e. no further evidence is required), and it was not possible that Imaam Maalik was ignorant about it, rather, the questioner himself mentioned it that his question is about the “how” of it. And how Allaah rose over the Throne is incomprehensible.
This is the methodology of the Salaf رحمهم الله. They affirm the Attributes of Allaah سبحانه وتعالى, affirming it in a literal sense (and not metaphorical. Affirming without discussing “how”, or likening Him to His creation, and without denying any of His Attributes, or interpreting them in a way different from the apparent meaning). And they (the Salaf) said: “How Allaah rose over the Throne, then no one knows about this except Allaah سبحانه وتعالى” (i.e. Allaah تعالى mentioned that He rose over the Throne, but He تعالى did not describe how He تعالى did it. So, we affirm what is mentioned in the Texts and we stop where it stops, without misinterpreting the meaning).
And the saying of Imaam Maalik: “To believe in it is Waajib (obligatory)”, meaning: it is obligatory from the Methodology of the Salaf (al-Saalih) رحمهم الله to affirm al-Istawaa’, and it is not permissible to interpret it in a way different from the apparent meaning.
And the saying of Imaam Maalik: “and asking about it is Bid`ah”, meaning: questioning about how Allaah did it is Bid`ah, and not about affirming it. Because it has been reported that the Prophet ﷺ said: ❝If my Companions are mentioned, then keep quiet; if the stars are mentioned, then keep quiet; and if the divine decree is mentioned, then keep quiet.❞
[Narrated by al-Tabaraanee in al-Kabeer (1427, 10448) and graded as “Saheeh li ghairihee” by Shaikh al-Albaanee in al-Saheehah (34), and Saheeh al-Jaami` (545)]
So, does this Hadeeth mean that we do not speak about having Faith in al-Qadr (Divine Decree), and that we do not speak about the merits of the Companions? The answer: No! Rather, it means that when al-Qadr is mentioned and people fall into dispute and falsehood, then refrain from speaking about it, and that we should refer the matter back to Allaah سبحانه وتعالى. Affirming belief in al-Qadr is from the foundation of the Religion, rather, it is one of the Pillars of Imaan, as the Prophet ﷺ said: ❝and you affirm your faith in the Divine Decree about good and evil.❞
[Saheeh Muslim (1)]
Therefore, ❝refrain from speaking❞, here means not to dispute about it upon falsehood. And a similar thing has been mentioned about the Companions. So, does that mean that we never mention (the merits of) the Companions? The answer is: No! What is intended in this narration is not to speak ill of the Companions as many of the Ahl al-Bid`ah do. We either speak good about them or remain silent, and we should not dispute about what took place between them.
“Then Imaam Maalik ordered that the man be expelled”, meaning: Imaam Maalik ordered that he be expelled to discipline him, and as a lesson for his students. It is important to try to stop the Ahl al-Bid`ah from spreading their Bid`ah among the masses, and this has been the Methodology of the Salaf al-Saalih. Some people think that opening channels for discussions leads to an increase in knowledge and in understanding the reality, and that people should be willing to have a discussion with every Bakr and Zaid that comes along with a notion, (and this is against the Methodology of the Salaf). What is required from those who are upon the Methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah is not to be complacent with the Ahl al-Bid`ah, and to try to prevent them from spreading their Bid`ah. (During the Khilaafah of `Umar Ibn al-Khattaab رضي الله عنه, a person by the name Sabeegh Ibn `Asal began to spread misconceptions and doubts about the religion), so, (when this person came to) `Umar رضي الله عنه, he did not let him speak, but rather he commanded that he be whipped, and he was beaten till he said: “O Ameer al-Mu’mineen! By Allaah! All my doubts have gone.”
But if a situation arises where the Bid`ah became widespread and the Muslims have been put to trials by it, and Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah are not able to suppress it, then, in that case, it becomes permissible to debate with Ahl al-Bid`ah, but that does not mean that we give them the opportunity to speak about and spread their Bid`ah freely. Many men fell into Bid`ah because they could not find answers, so they were overtaken by doubts and suspicion, this was the case of many learned men, then what about the common people? And what about the women and children?
So, from the Methodology of the Salaf رحمهم الله is to proclaim the truth, and to teach the matters pertaining to `Aqeedah with proofs and evidence, so that the soul feels satisfied, and that the Imaan gets stronger, and not to engage in debates except when there is a necessity, and when there is a danger which cannot be removed except through this.”
[Tayseer Lum`atul-I`tiqaad of Shaikh `Abdul Rahmaan al-Mahmood]
Statistics: Posted by AbuDahlia — Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:28 am
]]>
الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وأصحابه أجمعين
This is going to hurt and cause some damage to the people of Shirk (barelwis and co).
Allah says:
وإذا مسكم الضر في البحر ضل من تدعون إلا إياه فلما نجاكم إلى البر أعرضتم وكان الإنسان كفورا
"And when harm touches you at sea, lost are [all] those you call upon except for Him. But when He delivers you to the land, you turn away. And ever is man ungrateful." -Surah 17:67.
Iman Tabari (رحمه الله) says:
"You've lost those who you call upon besides Allah from the rivals (unto Him) and deities...-ولم تجدوا غير الله مغيثا يغيثكم دعوتموه -and you will not find besides Allah any helper who can help you when you call upon Him..."
Need we say anymore? Where does this belief, that tabari has demonstrated quite clearly, stand with those who believe that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), Ali, Abdul-Qadir Jilani and others can help when called upon in times of hardship and distress?! Did imam tabari not know that they too can supposedly help?! For the people of Shirk, they seek help from Allah's creation in times of distress and hardship which only Allah can alleviate, as for the people of Tawheed, then they single out Allah in worship by seeking help (istighaatha) in Him alone!
Then imam tabari beautifully concludes that it is Allah who solely helps in these situations and saves the people, but the polytheists are ungreatful and resort back to their Shirk and turn away from what Allah has commanded them with from abandoning their deities and their refusal to (as per tabari’s words):
إفراده بالألوهة كفرا منكم
"Single Him out in uluhiyyah (worship) due to their disbelief."
Wahabism you say? No, by Allah, this is the very essence of Islam!
Statistics: Posted by AbuAbdillah — Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:18 am
]]>
This is a poem about the mental condition and the understanding of the religion by many who claim to be practicing Islaam. This is based on an Urdu poem by the prose writer, Altaf Hussain Haali. His book, “Mussadas-e-Haali” was the most famous book of the 20th century in Muslims of India during the reign of the British. The book examines the state of social and moral degradation prevalent in the contemporary Muslim society, for it contained the mistakes and the reasons for the downfall of the Muslim empire in India. This book was used for upraising the morale of Muslims. But in our age this is not limited to India alone, this can be widely applied everywhere, throughout the world, wherever the Muslims live. (Disclaimer: This is not an exact translation but I relied on that extensively with a few additions and modifications).
Poem:
(Please also read the notes for the explanation)
Whoever worships an idol – is a Kaafir
…whoever attributes a son to Allaah – is a Kaafir
…whoever prostrates to the fire – is a Kaafir
…whoever seeks blessing through the stars – is a Kaafir.
But as for the “Believers”, the paths for them are wide open,
…worshiping whatever they desire, and whomever they’ve chosen.
Whoever so pleases turns the Prophet ﷺ into God,
…while the level of the Qutub is one with the Lord.
Allaah is just there to fulfill the Prophet’s ﷺ request,
…and the status of the Imaams is greater than his ﷺ is what they suggest.
Presenting the offerings at the shrines – days and nights,
…and beseeching the dead and the martyrs devotedly for their rights.
This neither corrupts the Tawheed nor harms their Islaam - is their claim,
…nor does it diminishes their Imaan - is what they proclaim.
The Qur’aan, in which there is guidance, healing, and Noor,
…has been left on the bookshelves for the dust while they daydream for a Hoor.
…the Prophet ﷺ will complain against them on the Day of Judgment,
…what excuses will they give and what lies will they invent?
Those lamps through which Islaam spread throughout the lands,
…by Allaah’s permission, illuminating the paths wherever they went,
…have now become only a footnote in the people’s thoughts and minds,
…for the people about their own knowledge are proud and confident.
The Treasure, the Shahaadah, for which Islaam was always full of pride,
…the teaching of which these “Believers” could not abide.
Explanation:
*Their confining the meaning of Shirk*
Whoever worships an idol – is a Kaafir
…whoever attributes a son to Allaah – is a Kaafir
…whoever prostrates to the fire – is a Kaafir
…whoever seeks blessing through the stars – is a Kaafir.
Note: Many do not learn about Tawheed and Shirk and show no interest in learning and their knowledge about Islaam is limited. Many of them know that idol worship is Haraam, yet they still worship the ones in the graves, do Tawaaf around them, offering sacrifices near the graves with the belief that the one in the grave will answer their prayers, while they hang amulets as protection from evil and Harm. And on the other hand, we have those who belittle the matters pertaining to `Aqeedah, saying that it can be learned in a matter of a few minutes, even though the Prophet ﷺ taught Tawheed and warned against Shirk for ten years, before the five daily prayers were made obligatory.
*All paths lead to one*
But as for the “Believers”, the paths for them are wide open,
…worshiping whatever they desire, and whomever they’ve chosen.
Note: Another misconception that most of them have is that they can worship Allaah in whatever way they want. They do not know that when it comes to `Ibaadah, the actions are Tawqeefiyah, i.e. one should not worship Allaah except as mentioned in the Qur’aan and as taught by the Prophet ﷺ. Another falsehood which many people follow is that all religions are equal and that all the paths lead to the same destination; this is clear misguidance. In the Qur’aan [Surah al-An`aam, (6): 153; and Surah Yusuf (12): 108] and in many Ahaadeeth we have been informed to follow only one path, the path of the Prophet ﷺ, and we have been warned not to tread the other paths because on every path there is a devil who invites people to follow it and thus mislead and misguide them [Sunan al-Tirmidhee and Sunan Ibn Maajah]. There are people who are slaves of wealth - worshiping wealth day and night; then there are those who have taken their desires as their gods; then there are those who have made the Auliyaa into gods, others made the “saints” as their gods, making Halaal what they said is Halaal, and making Haraam what they said is Haraam. Even among the Sufees there are many sects – the Chishti, Naqshbandi, Qadiree, Qalandaree, etc, and every sect has a different set of Auliyas, each one trying to outshine the other. They have no criteria to judge who is a Walee and who is not. Fornicators, drug addicts, those who do not pray, those who blaspheme, dogs, parrots, etc. - anyone can become a Walee.
*Equating the creation with the Creator*
Whoever so pleases turns the Prophet ﷺ into God,
…while the status of the Qutub is one with the Lord.
Note: This is so rampant among the Sufees, it is like Sufism is here to take the people back to paganism - from the worship of the Creator to the worship of the creation. Some of them directly supplicate to the Prophet ﷺ for their every need, and sometimes they beseech Allaah by saying: “O Allaah! By the rights that the Prophet has on You…” Then the Sufees have in their hierarchy of their “Auliyaa” who are Abdaal (controlling the continents of the world), then the Awtaad (the pegs – those who are holding the four corners of the world), the head of them all is Qutub (the pole or axis, sometimes also known as Ghawth (source of help), and he is the one who is running the affairs of the entire realm and without whom the whole system would collapse). This is utter blasphemy. Glory be to Allaah, He is free of what they ascribe to Him. He is not in need of any help in running His affairs.
*Depicting Allaah as a punisher and the Prophet ﷺ as a savior*
Allaah is just there to fulfill the Prophet’s ﷺ request,
…and the status of the Imaams is greater than his ﷺ is what they suggest.
Note: Many people indirectly belittle Allaah, and portray Him as someone who does not see, or hear, or has mercy. They always say that one cannot supplicate to Allaah directly, one needs a Waseelah (intermediary) between him and Allaah. They give pathetic examples to support their claim, none of which is supported by the Text (Qur’aan and Sunnah). They depict Him as someone who is full of vengeance and that He is only there to punish His creation, while they depict the humans as more merciful than Him and that is why they supplicate to others than Him. What they forget is that from the Hundredth part of Allaah’s Mercy is that He sent Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as a mercy for us, and as for the remaining ninety-nine parts of His Mercy He has stored for His creation on the Day of Judgment. Moreover, when it is said to them to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ, they reject the Ahaadeeth saying that it goes against their Madhhab, or that their Imaam said to the contrary, or that it goes against their logic. Taqleed (blind following) is the worst excuse for not following the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ.
*Many do not know the meaning of worship*
Presenting the offerings at the shrines – days and nights,
…and beseeching the dead and the martyrs devotedly for their rights.
Note: Many only consider the Salaah (prayers) as an act of worship. Other than that, they do not mind bowing or prostrating to other than Allaah, or sacrificing for other than Allaah or at the altars or near the shrines. They deem it completely permissible to supplicate to the dead and ask them for help in the hours of need. They are worse than the Mushriks of Makkah in their `Aqeedah because when calamities struck, the Mushriks would leave off all the other deities and would turn to Allaah alone for help, but these people turn towards Tijaanee, Jilaanee, Dusookee, etc. for help during calamities. There are three conditions that should be fulfilled when we seek help from someone: “He is alive, he is able to hear (or see), and he has the means to help.” But as for those who are in their graves, they are dead, cannot hear or see, and are not able to help or remove a calamity, rather they themselves are in need of help and our supplications.
*The dangerous affair: the `Aqeedah of the Murji’ah*
This neither corrupts the Tawheed nor harms their Islaam is their claim,
…nor does it diminishes their Imaan, this is what they proclaim.
Note: One of the most dangerous affairs facing the Ummah is that knowingly and unknowingly, a lot of people are treading the path of the Murji’ah. They are living a life of sin and disobedience, yet dream about attaining the highest station in the Jannah without ever repenting for their sins. Like the Murji’ah, they say that having intension is sufficient or they say: “you don’t know what is in the heart”. The Murji’ah hold the view that Imaan is nothing but to affirm it with the heart only. They claim this acceptance of the heart never wavers, so according to them, the wicked and the just are both at the same level of Imaan, concluding that the level of Imaan of the Prophets and the common Muslims is the same. It is from the `Aqeedah (Creed) of the Murji’ah who believe that: (a) Imaan is nothing but a belief of the heart only, (b) the actions of the limbs and statement of the tongue are not a part of Imaan, (c) Imaan neither increases with obedience nor decreases with disobedience, (d) and that it remains constant. Whereas the Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah believe that Imaan is to believe in the articles of Faith with: (a) firm conviction of the heart, (b) statement of the tongue (saying the Shahaadah), (c) and actions of the limbs. (d) it increases with righteousness and obedience and decreases with sins and disobedience. Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah worships Allaah based on love, hope, and fear. They pray to Allaah out of love for Him and to seek His pleasure, they abandon sins out of fear of Him and His punishment, and they repent to Him full of hope that He will accept their repentance and admit them into Jannah.
*Deserting the Qur’aan*
The Qur’aan, in which there is guidance, healing, and Noor,
…has been left on the bookshelves for the dust while they daydream for a Hoor.
…the Prophet ﷺ will complain against them on the Day of Judgment,
…what excuses will they give and what lies will they invent?
Note: The Qur’aan is the speech of Allaah, from Him it originated, and to Him it will return before the Day of Judgment. It is a great miracle through which the Prophet ﷺ will have the most followers on the Day of Judgment, more than any other Prophet [Saheehain]. But it is a sad state of affair that the Qur’aan is the most read Book without understanding, this is one form of abandonment. Another form of desertion is to not read it at all, leaving it on the bookshelves for ages with dust piling on it. The only time many of them think about reading the Qur’aan is in Ramadhaan or upon the death of someone. The Prophet ﷺ will complain about such people to Allaah on the Day of Judgment [Surah al-Furqaan (25):30]. What excuses will people put forth, when Allaah is the Judge and the Prophet ﷺ will be bearing witness against them? In the Qur’aan, there is guidance for the misguided, healing for the sick soul, and light for the blind heart!
*Belittling the Sahaabah and the Manhaj of the Salaf*
Those lamps through which Islaam spread throughout the lands,
…by Allaah’s permission, illuminating the paths wherever they went,
…have now become only a footnote in the people’s thoughts and minds,
…for the people about their knowledge are proud and confident.
Note: From the falsehood which the people say is: “the Manhaj (methodology) of the Salaf (the first three generations) is safer and the Manhaj of the Khalaf (those who came after them) is more knowledgeable and more precise and wiser.” This is the means of opening the door for misguidance, misinterpretation, Kalaam (a discipline that searches for answers to creedal issues using logic), etc., and is used by the Jahmiyyah and Mu`tazilah (two deviant sects) and many have adopted this from them. Many of today’s celebrity speakers are trying to reinvent the wheel. They say that the Text (Qur’aan and Ahaadeeth) needs to be reinterpreted to suit modern times and that the old interpretations are outdated, obsolete, and not suitable for modern times. This principle in its apparent meaning is contradictory and in its profound meaning is heresy. Contradictory because saying “it is safer” necessarily means that it is also more knowledgeable and wiser. If not, then how can it be safer? And it is a heresy because it is vilifying the praises of Allaah تعالى and His Prophet ﷺ for the Companions. Did not `Umar’s statements agree with the Divine Revelations? And the Prophet ﷺ said to Sa`d Ibn Mu`aadh: ❝You have judged according to the King’s (Allaah’s) judgment❞ [Saheehain]. How can the inheritors of the Prophet ﷺ be less knowledgeable than those who came after them?!
*The meaning of the Shahaadah they know not*
The Treasure, the Shahaadah, for which Islaam was always full of pride,
…the teaching of which these “Believers” could not abide.
Note: Many people who claim to be Muslims regrettably do not know the meaning, the pillars, and the conditions of the Shahaadah (لا إله إلا الله – Laa Ilaaha Illallaah), and this is why they fail to implement its teaching in their lives. They do not know that worship belongs to Allaah alone. When a person does not understand the meaning, he can then neither accept what it implies nor can he act in accordance with its teachings. If one tries to teach the correct meaning, they say: {Has he made the Aalihah (gods) as One Ilaah (God – Allaah)?} [Surah Saad (38):5; See also Surah al-Saaffaat (37): 35-36]. Remember, the Prophet ﷺ clearly warned us when he said: ❝…The Last Hour will not come until some groups of my nation worship idols…❞ [Sunan Abu Dawood] Now you understand why it is important to learn Tawheed and warn against Shirk?!
Statistics: Posted by AbuDahlia — Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:48 pm
]]>
However, upon reading the rest of his statements in Lum’at al-I’tiqad, as well as his other books in theology, it is clearly noticed that he affirms the dhahir of the texts, and therefore, by the term tafwidh, he means tafwidh of the kayf and not negation the dhahir.
The following examples will prove beyond doubt that Ibn Qudama affirmed the dhahir, and he was not a mufawwidh.
Ibn Qudama says in Lum’at al-I’tiqad: ‘From the verses that have come in relation to Allah’s attributes is the saying of Allah, ‘the Face of your Lord…’, and His saying, ‘Rather His two Hands are outstretched’. He then mentions a number of verses affirming a self for Allah, His Coming, His Pleasure, His Love, His Anger and Dislike. He then mentions the Hadeeth about Allah’s descent every night, His Amazement, and His Laugh, and considering it all from His Attributes. He then says:
‘These texts and the like, the chain of which has been authenticated, and the narrators of which are upright, we believe in them, and do not reject them nor deny them, nor do we give them a ta’wil which opposes their dhahir.’
From this we deduce, a) If he had negated the dhahir of the texts, he would not have affirmed the Face and Hands of Allah as His Attributes, and b) his objection to any ta’wil which opposes the dhahir of the texts clearly shows that he does not negate the dhahir, rather he affirms it, and therefore, he is not a mufawwidh.
2) He then quotes various textual proofs from the Quran and the Sunnah about Allah being above the heavens and clearly makes ithbat of the dhahir implications of such texts and believes that Allah is literally above the heavens. If he was a mufawwidh, he would have sufficed at simply narrating the texts as they are, without affirming the dhahir, which he did. In fact, he wrote a whole book called al-‘Uluw, dedicated to affirming the dhahir of the texts pertaining to Allah’s literal highness over the creation, and thus he says in its introduction:
اما بعد فإن الله تعالى وصف نفسه بالعلو في السماء ووصفه بذلك رسوله محمد خاتم الانبياء واجمع على ذلك جميع العلماء من الصحابه الاتقياء والأئمة من الفقهاء وتواترت الأخبار بذلك على وجه حصل به اليقين وجمع الله تعالى عليه قلوب المسلمين وجعله مغروزا في طباع الخلق اجمعين فتراهم عند نزول الكرب بهم يلحظون السماء باعينهم ويرفعون نحوها للدعاء ايديهم وينتظرون مجئ الفرج من ربهم وينطقون بذلك بألسنتهم لا ينكر ذلك الا مبتدع غال في بدعته
‘As for what follows, then surely Allah Ta’ala has described Himself with being Elevated in the Heavens, and similarly He has be described by His Messenger Muhammad, the last of the prophets; something upon which all of the scholars from the pious companions held a consensus, as did the Imams from the jurists. The reports concerning that became so numerous, that a level of certainty was achieved. Allah Ta’ala united the hearts of the Muslims on this issue, and made it a part of the natural instincts of Allah the creation, and therefore, you notice them when some calamity befalls them that they look with their eyes to the sky, and raise their hands towards it, waiting for alleviation of calamity from their Lord, while their utter [this belief] with their tongue. No one denies this except a heretic, fanatic in his heresy…’
This clearly shows that Ibn Qudama certainly affirmed the dhahir of the texts pertaining to Allah’s elevation over His creation, and therefore, he was not a mufawwidh.
3) He says about Allah’s speech and affirms that Allah speaks with a sound, a further proof that he affirmed the dhahir of the texts, which confirm that Allah Speaks with a sound. In fact, in his violent rebuttal of Ash’aris in his time, he calls them heretics for saying Allah speaks without sound and letters.
4) He then has a whole section about the Quran being the Speech of Allah, consisting of letters, words, ayat, surahs, in the Arabic language, a belief that a mufawwidh would never hold.
5) In his work Dham al-Ta’wil (Censure of Ta’wil), Ibn Qudama states:
ومذهب السلف رحمة الله عليهم الإيمان بصفات الله تعالى وأسمائه التي وصف بها نفسه في آياته وتنزيله أو على لسان رسوله من غير زيادة عليها ولا نقص منها ولا تجاوز لها ولا تفسير ولا تأويل لها بما يخالف ظاهرها
‘The Madhab of the Salaf is to have Iman in the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala and His Names, with which He described Himself… without giving explanation, or a ta’wil that opposes its dhahir.’
It clearly implies that Ibn Qudama affirms the dhahir, due to which he opposes any ta’wil that contradicts the dhahir. For if he was a mufawwidh, he would have negated any type of ta’wil, irrespective of whether or not it opposes the dhahir.
6) Ibn Qudama then explains exactly what the Salaf meant when they negated the ‘meaning’:
وعلموا أن المتكلم بها صادق لا شك في صدقه فصدقوه ولم يعلموا حقيقة معناها فسكتوا عما لم يعلموه
‘[The Salaf] knew that the one who conveyed to us [the information about Allah’s Attributes] is truthful, with no doubt in his truthfulness. Hence, they believed him, without knowing the reality of the meaning, and remained silent over that which they did not know.’
Hence, Ibn Qudama declares that the Salaf made tafwidh of the reality of the meaning, and not the dhahir itself, and therefore, he was not a mufawwidh.
7) In the same book he quotes the statement al-Hafidh Abu Bakr al-Tayyib in his support, without showing any discontent or disagreement:
أما الكلام في الصفات فإن ما روي منها في السنن الصحاح مذهب السلف رضي الله عنهم إثباتها وإجراؤها على ظاهرها
‘As for the subject of Allah’s Attributes, then whatever has been narrated in the authentic collections of Sunan, the Madhab of the Salaf is to affirm them and accept the dhahir of it.’
This further proves that Ibn Qudama affirmed the dhahir, and therefore, was not a mufawwidh.
8) He also comments on Imam Malik’s statement on Istiwa, that ‘Istiwa is not unknown’, saying:
وقولهم الاستواء غير مجهول أي غير مجهول الوجود لأن الله تعالى أخبر به وخبره صدق يقينا لا يجوز الشك فيه ولا الإرتياب فيه فكان غير مجهول لحصول العلم به وقد روي في بعض الألفاظ الاستواء معلوم
Their statement: ‘al-Istiwa is not unknown’, meaning, its existence is not unknown, because Allah Ta’ala informed about it, and His information is certainly the truth, and it is not permissible to doubt it, nor to waver therein, and hence, it [the rising] was not unknown, for the knowledge thereof has been achieved. It has also been narrated in some of the wordings: ‘The Rising is known’.
The mufawwidha explain this statement of Malik saying: the fact that al-Istiwa is mentioned in the verse is known, but what it actually means is not. While Ibn Qudama affirms more than the wording, for he affirms that The Rising actually took place, and therefore he was not a mufawwidh.
9) Ibn Qudama says in Dham al-Ta’wil:
فإن قيل فقد تأولتم آيات وأخبارا فقلتم في قوله تعالى ( وهو معكم أين ما كنتم ) أي بالعلم ونحو هذا من الآيات والأخبار فيلزمكم ما لزمنا
قلنا نحن لم نتأول شيئا وحمل هذه اللفظات على هذه المعاني ليس بتأويل لأن التأويل صرف اللفظ عن ظاهره وهذه المعاني هي الظاهر من هذه الألفاظ بدليل أنه المتبادر إلى الأفهام منها وظاهر اللفظ هو ما يسبق إلى الفهم منه حقيقة كان أو مجازا
‘If it is said: ‘You made ta’wil of verses and reports, for instance, you said with respect to Allah’s statement: ‘He is with you wherever you are’, meaning: with His knowledge, and the like of these verses and reports, and therefore, your arguments are as much applicable to you as us.
We say: We did not make ta’wil of anything, for to hold such texts in these meanings is not at all ta’wil, because ta’wil is to change the meaning of a word from its dhahir, and what we say here is the dhahir of the wording, that is, what comes first to the mind from that text, irrespective of whether it is haqiqa or majaz.’
Hence, Ibn Qudama explicitly states that he believes in the dhahir of these texts, and therefore he is not a mufawwidh.
10) He says in his rebuttal of Ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali, Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub al-Kalam:
‘There is no need for us to have knowledge of what Allah meant with His Attributes. For no action is required of us based on that [the meaning of His Attributes], nor is there any legal responsibility (taklif) attached to it, except to have Iman therein. It is possible to have Iman therein, without knowing the meaning, for Iman in that which is unknown is correct. For Allah Ta’ala ordered us to believe in His angels, His books, His messengers, and what He revealed to them, even if we do not know of the aforementioned except names.’
Therefore, Ibn Qudama likens our belief in the verses about Attributes of Allah, like our belief in Angels, Books etc. Hence, just as we affirm the existence of Angels, literally, by accepting the dhahir of the texts, we also accept the verses and narrations about Allah’s Attributes, literally, acknowledging the dhahir of the text. This also proves beyond doubt that Ibn Qudama was not a mufawwidh.
11) In the same book, Ibn Qudama presents his argument against Ta’wil saying:
‘The muta’awwil combines between (two errors, a) describing Allah with an Attribute, Allah did not describe Himself with, nor attributed to Himself, (and b) denying the Attribute He attributed to Himself. So if one says: The meaning of Istawa (rose over) is Istawla (took control), then he has described Allah Ta’ala with istila (taking control), while Allah has not described Himself with that; as He has also negated the Attribute of Istiwa (rising over), even though Allah Tabarak wa Ta’ala mentioned it in the Quran in seven different instances.’
If Ibn Qudama negated the dhahir meaning of the text, he would not have condemned the muta’awwila for negating the Attribute Allah which He attributed to Himself, which is the dhahir of the text. For the mufawwidha negate the dhahir, and therefore, do not affirm any Attribute for Allah, whereas Ibn Qudama believes in the dhahir, and therefore, affirms the attribute.
12) In the same book Ibn Qudama says:
I heard some of our (Hanbali) colleagues say: A people said to us: ‘The Hanbalis say, ‘The Most Merciful Rose over the Throne!’ So I said to them: Dear people! For Allah’s sake! You are attributing to the Hanbalis something they are not worthy of! This is the statement of Allah, and you attributed it to the Hanbalis and elevated their status!’
If Ibn Qudama didn’t believe in the dhahir of these texts, he would have said in reply: In fact, we do not believe that Allah Rose over the Throne, we simply affirm the wording. But Ibn Qudama showed no qualms about affirming the dhahir, and that is: Allah literally Rose over the Throne.
13) In the same book Ibn Qudama says about Ibn ‘Aqil:
‘He clarified that if one asks us about the meaning of these words (with respect to sifat), We would say: We do not add more to the wording anything that will give a meaning. Rather, its recitation is in fact its meaning (tafsir), without any particular meaning or tafsir.’
Therefore, Ibn Qudama clearly believes that the texts about sifat have a tafsir, and that is the dhahir of the wording.
14) Ibn Qudama then says: ‘But we do know that these texts generally do have a meaning, known by the one who spoke these texts, and we believe in those meanings. Hence, if one took such stance, how can he be asked about the meaning, when he says: I do not know? How can he be asked of the kayfiyya, when he regards the question to be an innovation’. He then makes a reference to Malik’s statement about Istiwa.
This clearly shows that by the terms, ‘meaning’ and ‘tafsir’, he is referring to the ‘kayfiyya’, and not the tafsir/ma’na which is the recitation itself, i.e. the dhahir.
15) He then speaks about the Speech of Allah, and that He Speaks with a sound; then mentions the Quranic verse about Musa: ‘He was called out (nudiya): Indeed, I am your Lord’, to prove that Allah speaks with a Sound, and further says: ‘The Sound has been explicitly mentioned in the narrations’.
If he was a mufawwidh, he would have affirmed the wording ‘nudiya’ (he was called), without using that to affirm a sound for Allah. However, because he affirms the wording and the dhahir, he deduces from the word nida’, that Allah Speaks with a sound.
If he was a mufawwidh, he would have said that only the wording of ‘sound’ has been mentioned, although we negate the dhahir thereof, and simply do not know what it means. Nor would he have made a big deal out of Ibn ‘Aqil denying that Allah speaks with a Sound. However, Ibn Qudama is a muthbit, and not a mufawwidh, and hence, his fierce attack on Ibn ‘Aqil.
16) As for his book: Hikayat al-Munadhara fil-Qur’an Ma’a Ba’dh Ahl al-Bid’a, his rebuttal of the Ash’aris in the issue of Sound and Letters, then the book in its entirety proves that he is a muthbit and not a mufawwidh.
In light of the above quotes and references, it becomes more than clear that when Ibn Qudama affirms the wording, he affirms the dhahir of it as well, because ‘its recitation is in fact its tafsir’.
An important point to note is that one would only perform tafwidh, in the Ash’ari sense of the word, if he finds the dhahir problematic and contradictory to his kalami principles. For example, the Ash’aris negate any movement from Allah, because movement is an accident that comes into being from nothingness, and any object that allows movement to subsist in itself, then that object must also have a beginning.
If Ibn Qudama subscribed to this view, then it would make sense for him to negate the dhahir. But if he doesn’t subscribe to this view, which clearly is the case because he is not a mutakallim, why then would he find problematic affirming the dhahir of the texts that Allah Rose over the Throne, or that He descends to the lowest heaven, or that He will come on the Day of Judgement?
Another equally important point to note is that when the Salaf said: ‘transmit these narrations as they have been narrated’, they did not at all mean negating the dhahir of those traditions. Rather, ‘transmitting them as they have come’, while negating the dhahir, was a relatively new phenomenon, at least according to al-Dhahabi who says in his book al-‘Uluw: ‘The latter ones from Ahl al-Nadhar (people of Kalam), came up with a newly invented belief. I do not know of anyone who preceded them in that. They said: These Attributes are to be accepted as they are, and not made ta’wil of, while believing that dhahir is not the intent.’
This shows that the Salaf never negated the dhahir of these texts, and that to negate that was something newly introduced. Ibn Qudama, as shown above, was no different to the Salaf in his approach, and to him, the recitation was itself the tafsir, meaning the dhahir.
Source: https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/09/0 ... on-tafwid/
Statistics: Posted by AbuAbdurRahman — Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:56 pm
]]>
Q : What is the meaning of Tawhid-ul-Rububiyyah (Oneness of Allah's Lordship), Tawhid-ul-Uluhiyyah (Oneness of Worship), and Tawhid-ul-Asma' wal-Sifat (Oneness of Allah's Names and Attributes)?
A: Tawhid-ul-Rububiyyah is to believe in Allah's Omnipotence; He Alone is the Originator of creation, maintenance, life, death, etc.
As for Tawhid-ul-Uluhiyyah, it is the sincerity of devotional acts e.g. Salah (Prayer), Sawm (Fast), Zakah (obligatory charity), vows and sacrificial animals.
Tawhid-ul-Asma' wal-Sifat is to talk of Allah's Names and Attributes in the same manner He and His Prophet (peace be upon him) did; giving Him the same Names and Attributes He calls Himself therewith free from Tashbih (comparison), Tamthil (likening Allah's Attributes to those of His Creation), Tahrif (distortion of the meaning), or Ta`til (denial of Allah's Attributes).
May Allah grant us success. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and Companions.
The Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta'
https://www.alifta.gov.sa/En/IftaConten ... 1&BookID=7
Statistics: Posted by Abdurrahman — Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:27 am
]]>
فإن الله تعالى وصف نفسه بالعلو في السماء ووصفه بذلك محمد خاتم الأنبياء، وأجمع على ذلك جميع العلماء من الصحابه الأتقياء والأئمة من الفقهاء، وتواترت الأخبار بذلك على وجه حصل به اليقين، وجمع الله تعالى عليه قلوب المسلمين، وجعله مغروزًا في طباع الخلق أجمعين، فتَرَاهم عند نزول الكرب بهم يلحظون السماء بأعينهم ويرفعون نحوها للدعاء أيديهم، وينتظرون مجئ الفرج من ربهم، وينطقون بذلك بألسنتهم لا ينكر ذلك إلا مبتدع غال في بدعته، أو مفتون بتقليده واتباعه على ضلالته
“Allāh has described Himself with ‘ulūw (elevation) above the heavens, and similarly He has been described by this by Muḥammad — the Seal of the Prophets — something upon which all of the scholars from the pious Companions held a consensus, as did the Imāms from the fuqahā’. It has been massively transmitted that a level of certainty has been reached, and Allāh has united the hearts of the Muslims upon this, and made it a natural disposition in all of His creation, and therefore you see them when some calamity befalls them that they look with their eyes towards the heavens, and raise their hands towards it, waiting for alleviation of calamity from their Lord, and they utter this with their tongues, no one denies this except a heretic, a fanatic in his heresy, or someone who is infatuated with blindly-following him and following him in his innovation.”
• Ithbāt Ṣifāt al-‘Ulūw (p. 63)
Statistics: Posted by AbuAbdurRahman — Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:33 pm
]]>
Statistics: Posted by AbuKhuzaimahAnsari — Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:12 pm
]]>
(Sīr Aʿlām an-Nubalā 20/442)
"It is upon you to follow (the Qurʾān and Sunnah) and not commit to Bidʿah and you should follow the Madhab of the Salaf Ṣālīhīn and this is the straight path which you should walk upon."*
(Al-Fath ur-Rabānī: Al-Majlis ul-ʿĀshir pg no.35)
"It is upon the believer to follow the Sunnah and the group who acts according to the Sunnah . The Sunnah is what the Prophet (Sallalāhū ʾAlayhī Wa Salam) declared and the group is what the Sahābah agreed upon."
(Al-Gunyah 1/165)
"Our Aqīdah is that Imān comprises of testifying it on the tongue, accepting it in the heart and acting upon the pillars of Islām. Imān increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience. It is strengthened with knowledge and is weakened with ignorance. Whilst all this is only obtained due to the power of Allah."
(Al-Gunyah 1/135)
"Whosoever wants to enter Islām then that individual should pronounce the testimony of faith (Kalima) and should announce of being free from all religions except the religion of Islāmand should accept the Wahdaniya of Allah in the heart."
(Al-Gunyah 1/13)
"(In regards to the names and attributes of Allah) we do not go outside the Qurʾān and Sunnah. We recite the āyah or Hadīth and have Imān in it and leave the knowledge of how it is to Allah."
(Al-Gunyah 1/127)
"Our Aqīdah is that the Qurʾān is the kalām of Allah..."
(Al-Gunyah 1/127)
"The whole of the people of Islām agree that Muhammad (Sallalāhū ʾAlayhī Wa Salam) Bin ʿAbdullah Bin Abdulmutalib is the Messenger of Allah. He is the Imām of all the Messengers and the last Prophet."
(Al-Gunyah 1/127)
"It is obligatory to have Imān in the resurrection from the grave and the day of judgement."
(Al-Gunyah 1/146)
"The humankind should praise Allah, send Durūd upon the Prophet (Sallalāhū ʾAlayhī Wa Salam) and then ask their needs from Allah."
(Al-Gunyah 1/92)
"It is Makrūh (meaning haram) to swear an oath on ones father, grandfather (ancestors) or anyone other than Allah. Therefore if one wants to swear an oath then the individual should swear by Allah or remain silent."
(Al-Gunyah 1/92)
"When you go to visit the grave then the individual should not touch the grave and neither kiss it because this is the custom of the Jews. Neither should the individual sit on the grave....then ask Allah for your needs."
(Al-Gunyah 1/91)
"Superstition is Harām however there is no harm in fāl (saying good things i.e encouragement)."
(Al-Gunyah 1/92)
"Do not look at the condition (actions and sayings) of the Ṣālīhīn but rather look at that which is narrated from the Messenger of Allah (Sallalāhū ʾAlayhī Wa Salam) and trust upon it (the Hadīth) even if that means one becomes alone and unique in doing so compared to other people."
(Al-Gunyah 2/149)
Compiled by Abu Ubaydah
Statistics: Posted by Abu Ubaydah — Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:56 am
]]>
Working and being the vice president for the education religious board has nothing to do with cooperating with the people of innovation and compromising principles and all the other personal opinions being imposed on the Manhaj of Ahl al-Hadith and as usual there seems to a clear void in understanding.
Shaykh Ubaydullah being a member of and vice president of a Muslim body is also not problematic and has nothing to do with his view and cooperating with the people of innovation and compromising principles. All of these affairs are with welfare, the cooperation we are taking about is Dawah, in compromising principles and rules of Ahl al-Sunnah and neglecting Manhaj.
For example, the scholars of Saudi Arabia also have religious bodies and organisations which serve particular purposes for the Muslims of Saudi Arabia and thus the numerous other Muslim countries also have Bodies that serve the betterment of the Muslims in their respective countries. Shaykh Saleh al-Suhaymi mentioned that these bodies are set by the government and there is no harm in participating in them. They had one body where the scholars would go and speak to people in prison who had ideas of takfir and terrorism.
Similarly, the Muslims in and scholars in various countries are a part of national bodies that affect and are for the welfare of the Muslims of that country, and there is nothing wrong in this and this always been the way of the Ahl al-Hadith. The issue is cooperating with the people of bidah on their terms and on their issues. I know people have misunderstood this and people have been writing on this for a while and as soon as I write one thing on it, its as if they have to defend their position and somehow justify it with obscure and irrelevant points, when they forget they have been writing on this for months.
Other points are far fetched and poor understanding of what cooperation entails. For example, during Shaykh Ubaydyllah’s time the Ahl al-Hadith in India did not stand in the government elections and they, the Ahl al-Hadith have always stayed away from the elections. Having a Jamiyyah of the Ahl al-Hadith is the same like Ansar al-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah, which many scholars belonged to as well as many other such groups in Indonesia and elsewhere.
In the subcontinent they also have Ruy’ah Hilal Committees where all people of the different sects participate in order to maintain unity and this is all due to the understanding the texts of hadith of making Eid in their own respective country.
Not all of the scholars were active participants in the various groups of the Ahl al-Hadith and they are much different to the groups today, who have fractioned out into over 3-4 groups of the jamiyyah. So saying their manhaj is Shadh due to elections is misleading, because in the UK and India, they have not stood in elections. Cooperation in government bodies as appointment by the ruler and government is also not a problem and I have explained this in detail in the previous post. Eg, Wamy and other such organisations.
For example, Shaikh Rabi ibn Hadi al-Madkhali taught in the Jamiyyah Ahl al-Hadith associated Jamia Salafiyyah Banaras and Shaykh Muhammad Aman al-Jami taught in Jamia Salafiyyah Faisalabad, so they for example co-operated with the Jamiyyah? Subhanallah they even went and lectured in the MAsajid of the Sufis and Ahl al-Bidah. The point is what is acceptable and appropriate for scholars should not be drawn out and presented the norm to the average people, as these muqallids know, the scholar is not the same as the lay person.
This is the Manhaj of the Akabarin, the Akabarin from every country not just the indopak scholars or fringe views. Some of the scholars of Pakistan themselves avoided any form of partisanship or working with the Jamiyat as members, like for example Shaykh Abdul Manan Nurpuri, but he would work with them, there was no party spirit. Likewise, Shaykh Safi ur Rehman Mubarakpuri was even the Amir of the Jamiyyah in India yet he wrote a book on Hizbiyyah and party spirit, whereas some of these people are hizbis to names, organisations and their own ideas because they want to cause unity with juhal, who oppose the Salafi Manhaj on a daily basis and sit in the lap of the innovators. There are so many other scholars in many similar situations.
Inshallah, we shall show the correct manhaj of these elder scholars of the Ahl al-Hadith, when and how they worked with government bodies and organisations for the betterment of the Muslims in their respective countries and what their cooperation was. For example, when Madinah university were looking for a replacement for Shaykh Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani they first went to Shaykh Ismail al-Salafi, who declined the offer and directed them to Shaykh Muhammad Ghondalwi and said to them, “I am more needed in my country and my country needs me due to my people, i.e. the Ahl al-Hadith.” One of my Shaykhs narrated this to me and he said the elder scholars of Ahl al-Hadith were concerned with the welfare of the Ahl al-Hadith, preserving their heritage. So they were preserving their creed, manhaj and fiqh. All this while Ahl al-Bidah were busy trying to wipe the Ahl al-Hadith off the face of the earth.
Another example, in 1947 when Pakistan became independent and it was an Islamic republic, Jinnah gave the role of Islamising Pakistan to Shaykh Dawud Ghaznawi, although he was involved in politics he declined and then it was given to others like Mawlana Shabbir Uthmani.
From a historical point of view just on the onset on the century, the Ahl al-Hdith were being persecuted in the indopak region, beaten and ostracised from society and the communities on account of their belief and manhaj, for what? For people wo come now and claim they were upon unity and open and blind cooperation with them, is that why the elders of our dawah were persecuted and the masajid washed if an Ahl al-Hadith prayed in a Masjid?
For example, siyasah according to the Ahl al-Hadith in their respective books was only and specific for jihad and active struggle against the colonial rule of the British, as Shaykh Qadi Aslam Fayruzpuri has his book on Ahl al-Hadith and Siyasah, Shaykh Salah al-Din Yusuf and his book on the Ahl al-Hadith and Ahnaf on the struggle for independence and last but not least the book of Shaykh Nazir Ahmad Rehmani, Ahl al-Hadith and Siyasat.
The history of the Ahl al-Hadith and the Jamiyyah is beyond 1948, it was before that and way before the dawah of Shaykh Nazir Hussain Muhadith Dehlawi. I refer the reader to Haji Shariat Allah (d.1830) and his dawah. The Anjuman Ahl al-Hadith was already set up before 1910 in Delhi and had a branch in Bengal-Assam which branched out in later by Shaykh Abdullah Kafi (d.1960) who set The Nikhil Banga O Assam Jamiyat-e-Ahl-e-Hadith in Calcutta. These Ahl al-Hadith were publishing Ahl al-Hadith newspapers around 1910. It was Shaykh Abdullah Kafi, he published a work in Bangla Maulana Kafi that was published from Calcutta before the partition of India was his critique of the Deoband Ulama for their cooperation with the Congress Party, arguing that an independent Muslim state of Pakistan will end all kinds of social and economic inequalities (See Shaykh Imam Khan Nawshahrawi’s Hindustan Mein Ahl al-Hadith Ki Ilmi Khidmat, p.216) He later focused on teaching and writing books with over 28 books to his name in Arabic and Urdu on various matters.
What about the major Ahl al-Hadith scholars with the Jamat Ghuraba Ahl al-Hadith, Shaykh Abdul Sattar and his father and the current scholars with them today, why are they overlooked, shunned and pushed to a side?
Yes, what was the active role of the elder scholars of hadith, quoting one or two lines of these scholars does not establish their view in party politics, elections and blind or mutual cooperation. Yes what was the view of the elders of Shaykh Ataullah Hanif, Shaykh Abdul Haq Multani, Shaykh Abdul Tawwab Multani and Shaykh Malik Abdul Aziz, Shaykh Abdullah Bhawalpuri, Shaykh Sharf al-Din Dehlawi, The Ulama of Northwest and Hazara, Shaikh Muhibullah, Shaykh Badi al-Din and their family, Shaykh Abul Hasan Siyalkoti Shaykh Aziz Zubaydi, Shaykh Abdullah Rowpari and his family, Shaykh Faydh al-Rehman al-Thawri, Shaykh Abul Barkat, Shaykh Muhammad Ali Janbaz, Shaykh Muhammad Hussain Shaykhupuri, Shaykh Sadiq Khalil, Shaykh Khalid Gharjakhi, Shaykh Muhammad Abduh Falah and many more.
I know what the Manhaj of my teacher Shaykh Mahmud Ahmad Mirpuri was, I studied under him, spent time with him, spent time with those who spent time with him and from the Ahl al-Hadith elders, my family members as well as his other students. For example, his political stance on Kashmir and Azad Kashmir was that it should be independent from India and Pakistan and other such views. He was very close to the elders of my family especially Advocate Abdul Khaliq Ansari, who also introduced Shaykh Fazal Karim Asims book. So, I know his manhaj personally and not from a few lines from a magazine or book.
Statistics: Posted by AbuKhuzaimahAnsari — Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:17 pm
]]>
]]>
They say, if the dead do not hear our calls, requests or pleas, then why have we been ordered to recite the following supplication while visiting the graveyard.
السَّلامُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الدِّيَارِ مِنَ المُؤْمِنِيْنَ وَالمُسْلِمِيْنَ، وَإِنَّا إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ بِكُمْ لاحِقُوْنَ، نَسْأَلُ اللَّهَ لَنَا وَلَكُمُ العَافِيَةَ
‘Peace be upon you all, O inhabitants of the graves, amongst the believers and the Muslims. Verily we will, Allah willing, be united with you, we ask Allah for well-being for us and you
As this dua is indicative of the dead hearing.
Shaykh Muhammad Nāsir al-Dīn al-Albānī (d.1420H) answered this and said:
"Giving Salam in this way does not indicate the dead hear, rather this is usage and the nature of the Arabic language. An example of this is when the companions would recite Assalamu alaykum ayyuhan-Nabiyu wa rahmarullahi wa barakatuhu during the life time of the Messenger of Allah Sallalahu Alayhi Wasallam. This did not mean that whenever the companions recited this salutation in the prayer, the Messenger of Allah Sallalahu Alayhi Wasallam would hear them because the companions would pray in different locations.
(Fatāwa al-imarāt, no.85)
Statistics: Posted by AbuKhuzaimahAnsari — Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:27 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ee (d.204) said,
“My ruling regarding the people of Kalaam (theological rhetoric) is that they should be beaten with palm leaves and shoes and be paraded amongst the kinsfolk and the tribes with it being announced, ‘This is the reward of the one who abandons the Book and the sunnah and turns to theological rhetoric (kalaam).“
[Sharh ‘Aqeedatut-Tahaawiyyah og Ibn ‘Abdil-‘Izz, p. 75]
Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr said, “The people of Fiqh and Aathaar in all the various towns and cities are agreed unanimously that the Ahlul-Kalaam (People of theological rhetoric) are but Ahlul-Bida’ waz-Zaigh (the People of Innovations and Deviation). And they are not considered, by all of the above, to be amongst the ranks of the Scholars (in truth).“
[Reported by Ibn Qudaamah in his Burhaan Fee Bayaanil-Qur’aan]
Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ee said, “That a person is pout to trail with everything that Allaah has forbidden, besides Shirk, is better than that he looks at Kalaam (theological rhetoric).“
Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ee also said, “If people knew what (misleading and destructive) desires are contained within theological rhetoric they would certainly flee from it as they would from a lion.“
Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ee also said, “Whoever showed boldness in approaching theological rhetoric will never prosper.“
[Reported by Ibn Qudaamah in his Burhaan Fee Bayaanil-Qur’aan]
One of the Scholars of Ash-Shaash said:
“Every knowledge except that of the Qur’aan is a pre-occupationExcept for the Hadeeth and Fiqh (understanding) of the deenKnowledge is only that about which it is said,‘Haddathanaa…” (So and so narrated to us (a hadeeth))And what is besides thatAre but whisperings of the Shaytaan (Devils)”
Aboo Yoosuf, the companion of Aboo Haneefah, said,“Whoever sought knowledge by Kalaam (theological rhetoric) will turn a heretical apostate.“
Imaam Ahmad (d. 241) said, “The person of theological rhetoric will never prosper. And never do you see anyone looking into theological rhetoric except that in his heart is a desire for creating mischief.“
[Both the above narrations are reported Ibn Qudaamah in his Burhaan Fee Bayaanil-Qur’aan]
[Taken from “Foundations Of The Sunnah” Pp. 16-17]
Imam al-Barbahaaree (rahimahullah):
“Rhetoric (kalaam) causes disbelief, doubts, innovations, misguidance and confusion. May Allah have mercy upon you! Know that heresy, disbelief, doubts, innovations, misguidance and confusion about the religion have never occurred except through theological rhetoric (Kalam) and because of the people of theological rhetoric, argumentation, debating and disputation. How can a man plunge into argumentation, disputation and debatingseeing that Allah, the Most High, said: ‘None dispute regarding the Aayaat (revelations, signs, proofs) of Allah except those who disbelieve.’
(Soorah Ghaafir 40:4) You should submit to and be pleased with the narrations and the people of narrations, withhold and remain silent.”
(The Explanation of The Creed of Imaam Al Barbahaaree)
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah):
“There is no analogical reasoning in the Sunnah and examples or likenesses are not to be made for it. Nor is it grasped and comprehended by the intellects or the desires. Rather it [consists of] following [and depending upon] it and abandoning the hawaa [desire].” (Foundations of the Sunnah)“The person of theological rhetoric will never prosper. And never do you see anyone looking into theological rhetoric except that in his heart is a desire for creating mischief.’
(Reported by Ibn Qudaamah in his Burhaan fee Bayaanil-Qur’an)
“ For indeed, (indulging in) theological rhetoric (kalaam) in the matter of Qadar, the Ru’yah (seeing Allaah in the Hereafter), the Qur’aan and other such issues are among the ways that are detested and which are forbidden. The one Who does so, even if he reaches the truth with his words, is not from Ahlus-Sunnah, until he abandons (using) this mode of argumentation, [and until he] submits and believes in the Aathaar (the Prophetic Narrations & those of the Companions).”
(Foundations of the Sunnah)
Imam Sufyaan ath-Thawree (rahimahullah):
repeated thrice: “This religion is based upon narrations not opinions, This religion is based upon narrations not opinions, This religion is based upon narrations not opinions.”
(Sharaf Ashaabul Hadeeth)
Imam al-Awzaa’ee ( rahimahullah):
“Hold fast to the narrations of the Salaf, even if people were to abandon you. (And) Beware of the opinions of the people, no matter how much they beautify it with their speech.”
(Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa vol. 12, p. 497)
Statistics: Posted by Shehzad Sattar — Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:47 pm
]]>