Ahl As Sunnah vs The Salafi Movement

[newsX]

Mohamed, in my study of the matter, I came across this article that seems to support your stand that there is a distinct difference between the Ahl As Sunnah and the Salafists.


Muhammad Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab was born in 1111 and died in 1207 (1699-1792 CE). At the outset of his career, he used to go back and forth to Mecca and Madina in quest of knowledge. In Madina, he studied with Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Sulayman al-Kurdi and Shaykh Muhammad Hayat al-Sindi (d. 1750). These two shaykhs as well as others with whom he studied early on detected the heresy of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's creed. They used to say: "God will allow him be led astray; but even unhappier will be the lot of those misled by him." Circumstances had reached this state when his father `Abd al-Wahhab, a pious scholars of the religion, detected heresy in his belief and began to warn others about his son. His own brother Sulayman soon followed suit, going so far as to write a book entitled al-Sawa`iq (the thunderbolts)ft3 to refute the innovative and subversive creed manufactured by Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab.

Famous writers of the day made a point of noting the similarity between Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's beginnings and those of the false prophets prominent in Islam's initial epoch like Musaylima the Prevaricator, Sajah al-Aswad al-Anasi, Tulaiha al-Asadi and others of their kind.4 What was different in `Abd al-Wahhab's case was his concealment in himself of any outright claim to prophecy. Undoubtedly, he was unable to gain support enough to openly proclaim it. Nevertheless, he would call those who came from abroad to join his movement Muhajirun and those who came from his own region Ansar in patent imitation of those who took flight from Mecca with the Prophet Muhammad in contrast to the inhabitants of Madina at the start of Islam. Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab habitually ordered anyone who had already made the obligatory Pilgrimage (Hajj) to Mecca prior joining him to remake it since God had not accepted it the first time they performed because they had done so as unbelievers. He was also given to telling people wishing to enter his religion: "You must bear witness against yourself that you were a disbeliever and you must bear witness against your parents that they were disbelievers and died as such."

His practice was to declare a group of famous scholars of the past unbelievers. If a potential recruit to his movement agreed and testified to the truth of that declaration, he was accepted; if not, an order was given and he was summarily put to death. Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab made no secret of his view that the Muslim community had existed for the last six hundred years in a state of unbelief (kufr) and he said the same of whoever did not follow him. Even if a person was the most pious and God-fearing of Muslims, he would denounce them as idolaters (mushrikun), thus making the shedding of their blood and confiscation of their wealth licit (halal).

On the other hand, he affirmed the faith of anyone who followed him even though they be persons of most notoriously corrupt and profligate styles of life . He played always on a single theme: the dignity to which God had entitled him. This directly corresponded to the decreased reverence he claimed was due the Prophet whose status as Messenger he frequently depreciated using language fit to describe an errand boy rather than a divinely commissioned apostle of faith. He would say such things as "I looked up the account of Hudaybiyya and found it to contain this or that lie." He was in the habit of using contemptuous speech of this kind to the point that one follower felt free to say in his actual presence: "This stick in my hand is better than Muhammad because it benefits me by enabling me to walk. But Muhammad is dead and benefits me not at all". This, of course, expresses nothing less than disbelief and counts legally as such in the fours schools of Islamic law.5

Returning always to the same theme, Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab used to say that prayer for the Prophet was reprehensible and disliked (makruh) in the Shari`a. He would prohibit blessings on the Prophet from being recited on the eve of Friday prayer and their public utterance from the minbar, and punish harshly anyone who pronounced such blessings. He even went so far as to kill a blind mu'adhdhin (caller to prayer) who did not cease and desist when he commanded him to abandon praying for the Prophet in the conclusion to his call to prayer...

more (http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/fajr.html )



I find it intriguing that while there are many sunni shaikhs, right from the time of abdel wahab's appearance, who has disassociated salafism from traditional islam, the salafists themselves claim to be part of Ahl As Sunnah, or at least, the only 'orthodox' manifestation of it. The saved sect mentality cannot mean anything else, can it?

What is your opinion on this, bro?

PS: I'm still trying to get my friend to return the singapore muslim book, moderation on islam. I am certain i came across the ruling that tasawuf forms an integral part of Ahl As Sunnah.

Bro Mohamed, I am curious though. Is it conceivable that some sufi followers in the past had gone overboard? I think it's entirely possible, given the wide spectrum of salafists that exist today.

[syedhs]

newsx,

to make job easier, who dont you delete ur reply here and move it to your other thread?

[mohamed]

There are many salafist today i think due to ignorance of the verses in the koran regarding shirk as i explained in the " aqeedah of the pagan arabs thread" and massive petro dollars spent in propogating that.

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

Another Hadith i wonder about, maybe somebody could explain to me, is the one that is found in Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9 in the 6th chapter of the book of obliging the reverters from Islam which says:

وكان ابن عمر يرهُمْ شرارخَلق ا للّه : وقال : انِّهُم
انْطلقوالى ا يات نزلت فى الكفَّار فَجعَلوها على المومين


And Ibn Umar (radwiyallah anhu) used to consider them (the khawarij) the worst of Allahs creation and he said: 'Indeed they took verses from the Qur'an revealed about the kuffar and interpreted them as desribing the believers.' ( Sahih Bukhari Vol 9 pages 49 and 50 )

I do find that Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahabs material doing the same, applying the verses about the idols upon the Muslims at large, maybe there is a sound explaination, i would like to know your thoughts.

Wasalam

[hlatif]

Salaam all,

The way I look at it is that Muslim thought has always been pulled in three main directions and all the three have Qur'anic background to them:

1- Spirituality and the relationship between the individual and GOD and how to make it stronger. This is abundantly clear in the Qur'an. This provides the background for Sufi thinking. however, many of the Sufis went too far in that direction.

2- Reason and logic and there are many AYAT in the Qur'an that call for that. The Mutazilla took that route to an extreme as well.

3- Law and again there are many Ayat that ask people to obey GOD which is the law. this is the background for traditionalists in general and especially the school of thought of Wahhabism. They also applied laws on who is a Kafir.

The Salaf had evidence of trying to keep the balance between the three, but then people grew apart. there are elements of the three in Shia Islam as well.

The extremes of the three groups forget that Islam is about the balance of all the three and not one or the other. The excesses of each group was when they concentrated on one aspect and forgot about the others. This is what I find objectionable about the Wahhabism and that is the concentration on where do you stand now in the law and ignoring the other two. I find them to be lacking in spirituality and in reason. Evidens is that if you ask questions then you may be Kafir or that sort of thing

I end with this Aya
2:143. Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful.

This is our challenge always is to keep the balance of all the three.

Salaam all


Hussein

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

Sorry Brothers, i can not let this one sink, i need to get knowledge of how brothers interpret this, no offence intended,


Another Hadith i wonder about, maybe somebody could explain to me, is the one that is found in Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9 in the 6th chapter of the book of obliging the reverters from Islam which says:

وكان ابن عمر يرهُمْ شرارخَلق ا للّه : وقال : انِّهُم
انْطلقوالى ا يات نزلت فى الكفَّار فَجعَلوها على المومين


And Ibn Umar (radwiyallah anhu) used to consider them (the khawarij) the worst of Allahs creation and he said: 'Indeed they took verses from the Qur'an revealed about the kuffar and interpreted them as desribing the believers.' ( Sahih Bukhari Vol 9 pages 49 and 50 )

I do find that Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahabs material doing the same, applying the verses about the idols upon the Muslims at large, maybe there is a sound explaination, i would like to know your thoughts.

Wasalam

[Brother Andrew]

sorry for my impatience, its just a very important topic

[mohamed]

I don't think that it is a simple case like that. Maybe abdel wahab had hidden intention. But unless you understood what was the aqeeda of the arab pagans. You can easily believe that they believed God controls the affairs of world but were still mushriks because they prayed to other gods to get close to God. I myself believed that. I don't think i was a khwariji. I think the crime is not following the jama' and trying to interpret serious stuff like shirk on your own. This is what abdel wahab did. As the sheikhs of mecca told him, if you are not qualified do not make ijtihad. Abdel wahab was not a learned scholar and he rebelled against the jama'. The beduins could not have realised his faults, after all i did not. I think people just believed that the arab pagans believed God alone brings down the rain, and not other gods by what they thought the verse says. The verse did not say God alone, but its easy to miss it. I know i did.

[hasan]

The diminishing will to be scholars lead to diminishing amount of scholars lead to the ignorant easily led & later "..held by their forelock..". However our Beloved Prophet instilled the notion that "History is Wisdom"; a precursor of attaining Knowledge for all & sundry.

[Hashim]

Aslaam Alaykum

Salaam akhee andrew. I understand your impatience regarding this imortant issue. From the limited knowledge i think inshallaah i can help you understand slightly more the hik'maah (meaning/wisdom) behind this hadeeth you quoted. Akhee, ask yourself what is the qur'aan, the noble Qur'aan is a reminder, a guide, the last testamant, the devine book. If you bear in mind the belief we alll share regardless of creed, we all believe the Qur'aan is a reminder, and a universal message for all mankind, and for all time, inshalaah'ta'allaah. When Allaah subhanhu'wa'tallaah talks about in the qur'aan the mushrik makkans, think to yourself why Allaa most high mentions this. Subhanallaah, when later generations come, like us for example, we could very much fall into the same mistakes as them, as some sects of the muslims have fallen into. When Allaah most gracous states in the noble Qur'aan, that even though the pagan makkansm acknolegeded there was one supreme being, Allaah, but they belived in idols as intercessers to reach Allaah so to speak. So us muslims today can read the Qur'aan and see the mistake they comited, learn from it, and be reminded. Now, as for your direct question, you claim or suspect that Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahhaab using the verses of the qur'aan to relate to muslims today, and this is a practise of the khawirij you claim. My brother, if the Qur'aan is a reminder, than of course if Abdul Wahaab uses verses of qur'aan to use as a example for muslims today, what is the problem? Look at this example, the pagan makkans as i explained belived in Allaah, but they gave attributes of Allaah to idols, and they worshipped other dietes besides Allaah, now look at some muslims today, like the sufi and the brevli for example. Do they not belive in praying, worshipping, asking dead saints etc for assitance or intercession? So what Ibn Wahaab did and what the khawij did was complelty differnt.

[mohamed]

Now hash you said:

the same mistakes as them, as some sects of the muslims have fallen into. When Allaah most gracous states in the noble Qur'aan, that even though the pagan makkansm acknolegeded there was one supreme being, Allaah, but they belived in idols as intercessers to reach Allaah so to speak. So us muslims today can read the Qur'aan and see the mistake they comited, learn from it, and be reminded. Now, as for your direct question, you claim or suspect that Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahhaab using the verses of the qur'aan to relate to muslims today, and this is a practise of the khawirij you claim. My brother, if the Qur'aan is a reminder, than of course if Abdul Wahaab uses verses of qur'aan to use as a example for muslims today, what is the problem? Look at this example, the pagan makkans as i explained belived in Allaah, but they gave attributes of Allaah to idols, and they worshipped other dietes besides Allaah, now look at some muslims today, like the sufi and the brevli for example. Do they not belive in praying, worshipping, asking dead saints etc for assitance or intercession? So what Ibn Wahaab did and what the khawij did was complelty differnt. End Quote

The pagan meccans did not believe in one supreme being, Allah. They were mushriks. they believed in this:

In contrast, paganism among the sedentary societies of Arabia had developed from its earlier and simpler manifestations into a complex form of neo-animism, providing a host of divine and semi-divine intermediaries who stood between the creator god and his creation. This creator god was called Allah, which is not a proper name but a contraction of the word al-ilah, meaning simply "the god." Like his Greek counterpart, Zeus, Allah was originally an ancient rain/sky deity who had been elevated into the role of the supreme god of the pre-Islamic Arabs. Though a powerful deity to swear by, Allah's eminent status in the Arab pantheon rendered him, like most High Gods, beyond the supplications of ordinary people. Only in times of great peril would anyone bother consulting him. Otherwise, it was far more expedient to turn to the lesser, more accessible gods who acted as Allah's intercessors, the most powerful of whom were his three daughters, Allat ("the goddess"), al-Uzza ("the mighty"), and Manat (the goddess of fate, whose name is probably derived from the Hebrew word mana, meaning "portion" or "share"). These divine mediators were not only represented in the Kaaba, they had their own individual shrines throughout the Arabian Peninsula: Allat in the city of Ta'if; al-Uzza in Nakhlah; and Manat in Qudayd. It was to them that the Arabs prayed when they needed rain, when their children were ill, when they entered into battle or embarked on a journey deep into the treacherous desert abodes of the Jinn -- those intelligent, imperceptible, and salvable beings made of smokeless flame who are called "genies" in the West and who function as the nymphs and fairies of Arabian mythology. End Quote.

They also believed this, which is what they acknowledged in the koran:

Despite Allah's minimal role in the religious cult of pre-Islamic Arabia, his eminent position in the Arab pantheon is a clear indication of just how far paganism in the Arabian Peninsula had evolved from its simple animistic roots. Perhaps the most striking example of this development can be seen in the processional chant that tradition claims the pilgrims sang as they approached the Kaaba:

Here I am, O Allah, here I am.
You have no partner,
Except such a partner as you have.
You possess him and all that is his.

This remarkable proclamation, with its obvious resemblance to the Muslim profession of faith -- "There is no god but God" -- may reveal the earliest traces in pre-Islamic Arabia of what the German philologist Max Muller termed henotheism: the belief in a single High God, without necessarily rejecting the existence of other, subordinate gods. End Quote

[Hashim]

okay, so what is your point?

[mohamed]

The pagans believed that the DIVINE daughters were the DIVINE mediators. This is shirk. They were gods who ran the affairs of this world.

Is this the same as visiting a tomb and asking this helpless dead saint to ask God and God only to help you? This is shirk? This makes your life and property lawful? This is what the arab pagans believed? Whats the similarity? They are miles apart. Is anybody saying these saints are divine, they run the affairs of the world. Do people make salat to them? Do people make shukr to them? Do people fear their wrath?

[Hashim]

The pagans believed that the DIVINE daughters were the DIVINE mediators. This is shirk.

Is this the same as visiting a tomb and asking this helpless dead saint to ask God and God only to help you? This is shirk? This makes your life and property lawful? This is what the arab pagans believed? Whats the similarity? They are miles apart. Is anybody saying these saints are divine, they run the affairs of the world. Do people make salat to them? Do people make shukr to them? Do people fear their wrath?

Mohammad we explain this to you a million times but it goes in one ear and out the next! If you ask a deda saint this in it self is shirk cant you see this! And it defintly leads to shirk! Look how wrong your statement is, how can you ASK a dead 'saint', can the saint hear you? No! He is dead! Only Allaah has the ability of all hearing, this is his attribute, as sa'mee! You are giving the atributes of Allaah to the creation, this is shirk, and this is the central practise and belief of the brevli and sufi!

[mohamed]

There are many hadith that says the dead can hear. You know what your problem is hash, you are not a deep thinker. How can you say that is in itself shirk. I don't know, may God guide you one day.

[abubakr]

brother just becuase the dead can hear that doesnt mean they can act and respond to your call i have said in the previous thread and i will say it again:

another point that i would like to make regarding asking dead saints to ask allah swt for soemthing. is that at the graves of theses saints you will find hundreds of people visiting them at once and people will will ask them in a number of different languages and they will ask them simultaneously. now how can these saints undertstand so many different languages and and deal with requests simultaneously???

surely this is only an attribute of allah swt who understands every single language and and can listen and deal with requests simultaneously.

i will also like to note that by tawassul if you mean asking allah swt through the virtue or status of a pious person for example "oh allah i ask you through the virtue of your servant..." then this is a bidah not shirk

[abubakr]

brother orignally nabi saw forbid muslims from visitng the graves at all then he allowed them for 2 reasons the main reason was to remind us for the hereafter and the second was to make dua for the inhabitants. no where did nabi saw say that we shud go to graves and seek intercession or that our duas are more likely to be answered if we say them next to a grave of a pious person this is all falsehood.

also the barelvis beleive that the saints can help them as allah swt has given them power and authority to help people. this is still shirk as this is no different from the mushriks of pre-islamic arabia asking their deities as they still beleived everything was in the control of allah swt.

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu Alaykum

I am starting to see holes in some peoples arguements and to be blunt it is not a matter of shirk, it is a matter of whether the dead can hear or not, it could be shirk depending on what you was asking for, if you was asking for something that Allah gives, like sons then yep i agree they are committing shirk, but if they are asking for a dua from the inhabitant of the grave, who are we to say they havent the ability to do that dua, subhan-Allah, you want to start digging up graves to prove youre point? it is important to note that the inhabitant of the grave is powerless and isnt that what dua consists of? our powerless and needliness, and our turning to Allah? what is the difference between the living and the dead? why is it not shirk to ask your living brother to do dua for you? why is it shirk when you ask the dead to do dua from you? where are you taking your authority to classify the act of asking for the dua of the dead as shirk? and if the dead cant hear the why did the Prophet of Allah reccomend us to to say salam to the inhabitant of the grave and why is it that the dead can hear the footsteps in the graveyard? the life of the grave is a reality, and i feel that some speculate by saying the dead cant hear, the Quran ayah that you may be thinking about pasting up right now refers to the living dead, Muhammad [s] spoke to the dead after the battle of badr after they had been chucked in the empty well, and when asked about it he said they could hear, who are we to say who can hear who cant hear, when you can only speculate on the life of the grave? asking dua from the inhabitant of the grave is not bidah as Bilal Ibn Harith the Sahaba did so by asking for the Prophet [s] to do dua for rain, or was the sahaba doing shirk or am i a fat liar?

if you want the references all you have to do is agree that i am a big fat liar :teethysha

Some evidences have been very well, but i am sorry brothers on this issue you have put forth a poor case, as i am sitting here looking at evidences that permit asking for dua of the living and the dead, and Allah is the accepter of dua the helper when we are in need, somebody said to me dont underestimate the power of dua, it sounded weird, due to the fact the dua has no power but Allah has every power to forfill the dua.

I think we are going to have to narrow down what we mean by dua as well because the accusation that muslims do dua to saints asking them this and that , even though it is true with some misguided sufis , but what is a dua?
does it not mean to call and invoke someone? why does Allah use dua in a different context than worship? in 24:63? when we speak to one in the grave is that still termed as dua? keeping in mind Allah bestows and we should not ask saints for the things we should be dependant on Allah for can we now? and besides it would be kufr to ask Allah to do dua for me now wouldnt it?

Sorry if i sounded offensive, i have indeed beeen blunt in order to provoke thought because it seems to me once again that people are talking past each other.

Wasalams

[abubakr]

first of all the hadiht of bilal ibn harith is weak.when a hadith doesnt exist in the sahih sittah (6 books of hadith) you have to question its authenticity. im not saying that nay hadiht outside the sahih sittah is weak but i am saying we have to be cautious. and is this the only evidence which you can bring???

also where is the saying of nabi saw that we can visit graves for sake of intercession. remember nabi saw forbid us to visit graves then he permitted it in order to remind us of hereafter and to make dua for the inhabitants. as far as making salams to the inhabitants of the graves then this is like a dua for them it doesnt necessarily mean that they can hear it. howver i would like to add that there is a difference of opinion on whther the dead can hear or not. howver just becuase the dead can hear that doesnt mean that they can respond and act on our duas. for acts of worship we need evidence from the quran and sunnah we cant just start speculating and start saying that oh the dead can hear that means they can ask allah for us. if thas was the case then we would have clear evidence from the quran and sunnah. where are the hadiht which show that after the prophet (saw) died that sahabah and people use to flock to the grave of nabi saw and seek intercession.

if we look at the 4 imams we find a smilar story. if tawassul was such a praiseworty action then why isnit it mentioned in their books for exmaple muwatta of imam Malik or kitab Al-Umm of imam shafi or why isnt it mentioned by any of te students of these imams. in fact imam abu hanifah spoke against tawassul. as far as imam ahmed is concerned well there is one narration which permits tawassul through a pious person (not by seeking intercession by vsiting grave). howver there is another narrtaion from him which states that it is wrong.

so we can see how the evidence for seeking intercession through the pious by asking them to make dua has no real basis in shariah. for all acts of worship we need evidence.

[abubakr]

brother Andrew what are your thoughts on the following:



another point that i would like to make regarding asking dead saints to ask allah swt for soemthing. is that at the graves of theses saints you will find hundreds of people visiting them at once and people will will ask them in a number of different languages and they will ask them simultaneously. now how can these saints undertstand so many different languages and and deal with requests simultaneously???

surely this is only an attribute of allah swt who understands every single language and and can listen and deal with requests simultaneously.

[mohamed]

It depends on what God reveals to them. If He wishes they hear or understand so be it. We are not saying whether it is koran or sunna that supports tawassul through the dead. What i am saying that it is not shirk as the wahabis claim. The wahabis claim is dependent on the fact the arab pagans believed God control the affairs of this world but were still mushriks. They believe people worship gods not because these gods controlled the affairs of this world but to intercede for them to God. So they say, same with tawassul. Even though this dead person is not a god, he is still interceding and so it is the same as idol worshiping. This is their false argument.

What i am saying that the arab pagans worshiped these gods like allat and others due to their belief that these gods controlled the affairs of this world along with God(hence associating partners) and can be called upon to bring down rain or offer protection. That they made sallat and zakat and pilgrimage and other rituals to these gods like we muslims do to God. They offer shukr and revered them as we muslims do with God. This is worship. And not calling out " yah so and so" at a grave yard . The wahabis say this is dua to other than God and is shirk. They equate it with the arabs and their dua to allat and al uzza and so on.

The wahabis sheikh, mohamed abdul wahab says:

And they gave us their strongest oaths, without it being asked from them, of the broadening of their understanding and the certainty of their conscience, that they no longer held the slightest doubt that the one who says: "Yaa Rasoolallaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam)", or: "Yabna 'Abbaas", or: "Yaa 'Abdal-Qaadir", or other than them from the creations, seeking by that to avert an evil or bring a good from anything that Allaah ta'aalaa alone is capable of doing, such as healing the sick, or granting victory over the enemy, or guarding from a misfortune, or the like: that he is a mushrik guilty of major shirk, whose blood may be shed and whose wealth is lawful, even if he believes that the ultimate controller of the universe is Allaah ta'aalaa alone but he turned to the creations with du'aa', seeking intercession from them, and drawing closer to them, in order to fulfill his need from Allaah by virtue of their "secret" and by their interceding with Him for them while they are in the barzakh;END QUOTE

The sheikh of mecca answers him with this:

Does a Muslim go out of Islam if he visits the grave of a Sahabi or a pious servant of Allahu ta'ala, vows something for him, cuts an animal near a grave, prays making a mediator of a dead person, takes some soil from such a grave to receive blessings or asks help from Rasulullah or a Sahabi to get redeemed from danger? Is it permitted to kill such a Muslim even though he says, 'I do not worship the dead person and do not believe that he has the power to do anything. I make an intercessor, mediator, of that person with Allahu ta'ala to make me attain my wish, because, I believe that he is a beloved servant of Allahu ta'ala.' Does a person go out of Islam if he swears by something [or somebody] other than Allah? END QUOTE

So who is right? In fact i think we should make a poll on this.

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

Brother Abu Bakr, As for your reply with no Salam i will take it that you consider me, either one of the kuffar or the ahl ul bidah which renders it impermssible to give me salam, it doesnt affect the topic at hand, so i will pass it by without kbr and move on.

As for the weakness in the hadith as you claim this must also mean that Ibn Kathir رحمة اللّه عليه is weak when he says when quoting that hadith from Bayhaqi رحمة اللّه عليه 'isnaduhu sahih' (Ibn Kathirs al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya)
i mean Sunhan-allah Brother Abu Bakr i really respect your scholarship and i must give it precedence over Imam Ibn Kathir and Bayhaqi, well done for noticing the weakness in the Hadith which they were not able to identify.

Ibn Hajar رحمة اللّه عليه is another scholar who says about the Bilal Ibn Harith in his fath al bari, (i suspect you have this ?abu bakr? on your shelve as i suspect you quoted something from it in respect to najd being Iraq) anyways Ibn Hajar says that Ibn Abi Shayba رحمة اللّه عليه related it with a sound isnad (Ibn Hajar fath al bari in the chapter of the peoples request for istisqa in time of dought) and i am sure you are of much greater scholarship to disagree.

As for the Prophets صلي اللّه عليه وسلم saying to seek help from graves or intercession, as you would have it, i didnt say that he did, so there is no burden of proof upon me. My question of the concept of dua and whether asking the dead for dua is it shirk and upon which authority? remains unanswered. I am talking about asking for dua and you are talking about asking for intercession, a prime example of talking past each other.

The burning question can the dead hear and respond to our duas? As you said there is a difference of opnion. But once again speculation is problematic when its comes to your condemnation of asking for dua, you even go further to implicate that to ask a for a dua of the dead, by classing it as an act of worship and that we need evidence from the quran and sunnah, the way you put the argument forth, you make it sound like shirk, in reality this is a straw man argument by saying I believe in seeking their intercession, when its not what I am saying, basically you set up a straw man making it look like my argument and then you proceed to knock it down so you can beat your chest and do the victory dance, nope!

Simple as, how is asking for dua from the dead shirk? Where does it condemn that in the Qur’an and the sunnah? What is the diffenrece between the dead and the living? By introducing your red herring arguments, these still remain unanswered. Keep I mind I am not talking about intercession! So again there is no burden of proof to present hadith showing where sahaba flocked to the Prophets grave asking for intercession, why should I have to defend a position I am not taking? It’s a bit silly really, another prime example of talking past each other.

finally you asked me a question

Well as I don’t agree with asking saints, flocking to their graves but I draw the line of the idea of asking for their dua and go no further, the question doesn’t apply but I will answer one thing about that question like a politician, with another question LOL how does Muhammad صلي اللّه عليه وسلم see all our deeds every Friday?

Wasalams , please take note that I have greeted you as a brother in Islam and not as a brother outside the Islam, Adab goes far in conversations and salam spreads love and without salam the conversation gets harsh

Once again wasalams

[abubakr]

aslamu laykum (i apologise for not making salam in my previous post may allah swt forgive me for i am only mortal).

now brother andrew as far as the hadiht of Bilal ibn harith is concerned it is weak from a number of angles. as far as Imam ibn kathir declaing its chain as sahih this has to be looked into as the sufis are well know to twist and lie. (this is not drected to you brother andrew). i would also like to make the point that even though imam ibn kathir was a great scholar especially in tafsir and history but as far as hadiht is oncerned there were better scholars than him in this regard. please note that imam ibn kathir is still a great scholar.

now as far as Imam ibn hajr Asqalani declaring the hadiht to be authentic then if you actually look into fath al-bari imam ibn hajar only delcares a part of the chain to be sahih not the whole chain. (this will be made clear later).

the following is the hadiht which brother andrew is referring to. i will copy this hadiht exactly how it is mentioned in fath-albari of imam ibn hajra Asqalani:

"Ibn abi Shaybah reorts wiht an authentic chain of narration, from the narration of Abo saalih as-saman from Malik ad-dar who was the treasurer for Umar he said " the people suffered from a drought in the time of Umar, so a man came to the garve of the prophet and said :" O messenger of Allah pray for rain for your ummah becuase they are being destroyed." so someone came to the man in his dream and said : " Go to Umar...' the hadiht." Then Sayf reports in Al-futooh that onewho saw the dream was Bilal ibn hariht one of the companions." ( Fath Al-bari 2/397)


first of all the narrator of this hadith Malik ad-Darr is unknown in terms of his reliabilty and precision. and these are two principle condiitons necessary for the authentecity of any narration as is affimred in the science of hadith.

Imam Ibn abee Haatim mentions him in al-jarh Wat-ta'deel (4/1/213) and mentons how he is unknown and the only person who narrates from him is abu salih. however there is no report on his reliabilty.

the hadith master al-haafidh Al-Mundhiree reports another story from the narration of Maalik ad-darr from Umar in at-targheeb (2/41-41) and says after it: "at-tabranee reports it in al-kabeer. its narrators up to Maalik ad-Darr are famous and reliable but as for Malik ad-darr then i do not know him."

Imam ibn hajar al-haythami says the same in his Majmu uz-Zawaaid (3/125).

now lets go back to the original hadith mentioned by imam ibn hajr Asqalani and lets see what the Imam said himself. imam ibn hajar said " with an authenitc narration from abu saalih" notice how imam doesnt say authenitc narration from Maalik dar he says from Abu salih. and we know from looking at the orignal hadiht as mentioned by imam ibn hajar that mailk dar was the first narrator. so if the whole chain was authentic then why didnt imam ibn hajar say an authenitc chain from Maalik-dar. so it seems that imam ibn hajar Asqalani himself has doubts over the narrator malik dar as he is unknown as has preceded from Al-mundhiree,al-haytami and ibn abee Haatim.

now lets look at this hadiht form a different angle. lets say for argumens sake that the hadiht is authentic still there would be no proof in it since the man in the story who came ot the grave of nabi saw is not named andthen therefore unknown. the only person who mentions the man as Bilal ibn Harith is Sayf ibn umar at_Tamimi. now the scholars of hadiht are agreed that he is severely weak as you will see.

imam ibn Hibban says about him: "he reports fabricated things from reliable narrators and they say he used to fabrciate hadith."

Imam dhahabi said in his al-Meezan " a narrator of historical reports he is worthless and cannot be relied upon"

Imam ibn abee Haatim in jarh wa tadeel also mentions him to be abandoned as does imam Daruquteenee.
there also many other top scholars of hadith which said similar things about this narrator.

so it is obvious that the man who came to the grave was unknown as the narrator Sayf is a fabricator.

so brother andrew it is obvious that this hadiht cannot be used for evidence for it has major deficiencies and thereforeis weak. it alos shows how thsese sufis are very good at twisting and misintepreting information.

i hope this helps brother andrew.

[abubakr]

aslamu laykum

brother i will also like to make another correction you seemed to infer that there is a difference between asking a dead saint for intercession and asking the dead saint for his dua.
brther actually there is no difference because if you ask a dead saint to interced for you, you are basically asking for his dua. so there is actually no difference. i think what you meant was a difference between asking for intercession (dua) and calling upon saints directly.

i hope you are not offended. please forgive me if i have.

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum


I would like to point something out, in your very first post you said:


asalamu alaykum

brother andrew first of all the term sawad al-azam

http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?t=1720&page=2&pp=15

its a bit weird really because on this page you have mispelt the salam as 'aslamu laykum' not once but twice, which brings that into question and owing to the fact you know Arabic as indicated by your statement:


as the sufis are well know to twist and lie.

so i take it that you know Arabic, because on order to check up on the scholars you have quoted you need to go to the classical Arabic texts, or you could be copy and pasting another persons article or refuatation which would come under 'blind following' which is haram when it comes to theology, this is definately something you have to know yourself.

But by saying the sufis twist and lie, then you see with your very own eyes how they twist and lie from the Arabic i suppose or you blindly follow either way , there is no excuse because when we bring it back to the salam we will notice something somebody without the knowledge of Arabic would not notice.

The fact you said 'aslamu laykum' very deceptive, and i doubt it was a mistake due to the fact you made the same 'mistake' twice and as quoted before you can spell it correctly, when we translate your statement into english it means 'Accept Islam, twist you' do you know this is why the Prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم used to say wa laykum to the jews that used to try to play clever?

Back to the main point, all those Scholars you have quoted, i will be able to check the classical texts and verify for myself if your statements are true so you might as well start giving me the names of the books and the chapters so i can research fairly and come back once i have done so.

ma salam

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

Rolling to the next question in which i gave hint of (notice how you failed to answer the question i put forth bro)

Q: does the Prophet see our deeds every friday and does he not do dua for us?

Im sure - Brother Hasan - will post the Hadith up for us

Wasalams

[Hashim]

Aslaam Alaukum

Before you ask the question bring the hadeeth so we know fully before answering. On fridays the malaa'ikaah (angels-happy now yahya :D ) convey our salaams to the prophet Muhammad (sallallhualayi'wa'salaam), is this what you mean brother andrew.

[abubakr]

asalamu alaykum

first of all brother Andrew you are quite right i dont know arabic and yes i have looked in the books of scholars to get this information but i alos have freinds who are quite fluent in arabic and i have got them to check the references. brother you are free to check the references which i have already provided. although it is pretty clear that the hadiht of malik dar is weak as i have shown.

as far as the hadith of nabi saw knowing the deeds of this ummah every friday well i have asked a very knowledgable brother and he will getr more information on this.

if brothers izzari, dhabhi and others have informtaion then they can post it otherwsie soon inshallah i will get the necessary information.

brother it looks as if the hadith is weak as i can provide many authenitc evidences from sahih bukhari which prove how nabi saw didnt know many things about his ummah. inshallah i will post that soon as well.

brother andrew it would also be helpful if you could post the entire hadith and references. jazakallah

[abubakr]

brother mohammed said


What i am saying that the arab pagans worshiped these gods like allat and others due to their belief that these gods controlled the affairs of this world along with God

brother you have given your own scholarly explanation of the beliefs of the pagan arabs. now let me present to you the saying of one of the best scholars of tafsir and history and give you what he said regarding the beleifs of the pagan arabs.

Imam Ibn Kathir said:

Allah states that the fact that He is One and that He is independent in His creation, control, dominion and guides one to realize that there is no God except Him and that none should be worshipped except Him Alone, with no partner or associate. He tells His Messenger Muhammad to say to the idolators who worship others besides Him, even though they admit His Lordship, that He has no partner in Lordship. But despite this they still attributed partners in divinity to Him, and worshipped others besides Him even though they recognized the fact that those whom they worshipped could not create anything, did not own anything, nor do they have any control over anything. However, they still believed that these creatures could bring them closer to Allah,

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=23&tid=35222

brother mohammed pay careful attention to the last sentence imam ibn kathir says that the mushriks believed that their idols had no control over anything but they only worshipped them to bring them closer to allah swt like intercessors. please read that full link.

notice the stark contrast in what mohammed says and what Imam ibn Kathir says. brother mohammed said that the pagans beleived that their idols shared control with allah swt and they had control of certain things wihtout the permission of Allah swt. well everyone can see how for themselves the truth.

[abubakr]

brother andrew the following are some hadith from sahih bukhari which prove how nabi saw didnt know certain things about his ummah.

Sahih Bukhari Afflictions and the End of the World

Volume 9, Book 88, Number 172:

Narrated Asma':

The Prophet said, "I will be at my Lake-Fount (Kauthar) waiting for whoever will come to me. Then some people will be taken away from me whereupon I will say, 'My followers!' It will be said, 'You do not know they turned Apostates as renegades (deserted their religion).'" (Ibn Abi Mulaika said, "Allah, we seek refuge with You from turning on our heels from the (Islamic) religion and from being put to trial").

Volume 9, Book 88, Number 173:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount (Kauthar) and some men amongst you will be brought to me, and when I will try to hand them some water, they will be pulled away from me by force whereupon I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' Then the Almighty will say, 'You do not know what they did after you left, they introduced new things into the religion after you.'"
Volume 9, Book 88, Number 174:

Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd:

I heard the Prophet saying, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount (Kauthar), and whoever will come to it, will drink from it, and whoever will drink from it, will never become thirsty after that. There will come to me some people whom I know and they know me, and then a barrier will be set up between me and them." Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri added that the Prophet further said: "I will say those people are from me. It will be said, 'You do not know what changes and new things they did after you.' Then I will say, 'Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me! "


inshallah i will provide more evidences.

[Al-Boriqi]

asalamu alaikum ya ayu ahlil-ikhwaa
I see that through the misconstruence of some noble brothers here, mainly mohammad, brother andrew, that there is a miscostruence in the matters.

The whole arguement between, me, ansaar, hash, haroon, and a couple others against mohammad, and whoever else, is that tawassul is shirk or not. This was the whole of our difference. We, say that it is not shirk unless it falls outside the three legislated types. Mohammad views that tawassul is not shirk, point blank, ever, despite the statements of Allah, His messengers, and of the Imaams of ahlu-sunnah of every age until now.

The miscontruence that has taken place was (and Im making husn adhaan) out of ignorance or unintentional. The statement of the misconstruence was


I am starting to see holes in some peoples arguements and to be blunt it is not a matter of shirk, it is a matter of whether the dead can hear or not,

Andthat is the miscontruence.

The real matter is that the two are different. the first
1. Tawassul, is it shirk or not. I have already explained.
2. can the dead hear or not. This is totally different. There are hadeeth that Muhammad brought which supported his view that the dead can hear in the grave.

So you have mistakenly intertwined the two which gave the impression that the two maters are the same. The graveness of it is that what may be halaal, or permissible to beleive in (of the dead hearing) and the actual arguement of mohammad's view on tawassul is not permissible and condemned.

So I ask, respectfully to my brothers that they keep a clear distinction between the two matters even though they may interact in life (meaning the proof for holding haraam tawassul would be the arguement of the dead hearing)


as for the loopholes brother andrew, then show me where are the loop wholes in this
http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?t=1784

AKhee Abu Bakr, jazakallahu khair for your proofs and evidences. This was truely great as my takhreej skills (of looking up maters) is not so great. jbarakallahu feek for these evidences.

Also for a reflectional matter, mohamamd
You hate In Taymiyya, and I know you didnt state that specifcially, but your statements point towards a total negativeness about theis great Imaam rahimahullah

What do you have to say baout Ibn Katheer, who the whole fo the ummah of Muhammad accepts his tafseer as ebing the most authentic and accurate tafseer in the religion form the modern clasisical works, (meaning modern than Tabari and Qurtubee). Truely I say this with a sense of joy and surity that if it wasnt for the masses of oceans of knowledge that Ibn Taymiyyah had, the tafseer of Ibn Katheer would not have been around. Of course this is since the fountain form which Ibn Katheer drank was form none other than the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah. Actually to be honest much of the ummah accept Ibnul-Qayyim and al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee as well, who were also student of Ibn Taymiyyah. So from ibn Taimiyyahs efforst in aiding the religion and purifying it from that which is alien form it has actually produced Oceans of knowledge who also aided the religon. So I dont see how can anyone make statements as you have regaridng him, yet I disagree with him in some aspects, which is a clear sign of no taqleed of him for whcih you accuse anyone who even acceptts or take from him form the truth he spoke about.

asalamu alaikum

asalamu alaikum

[mohamed]

Well ibn Taymia was never eleveated to the status you mentioned when he was alive. It is wahabism and saudi arabia that gave him this status. They made him a super star when he was just another well learned scholar. Every week that Sudaisi in mecca preaches his name in TV. Ibn Taymiya had views, such as God having hands that went aginst the ahl ul sunna wal jama'. His views about tawassul also went aginst ahl ul sunna wal jama'. Abdul wahab had an obsession with ibn taymiya, but that does not mean that ibn taymiya was the super star cleric. The saudi as of yet have spent 87 billion dollars to promote wahabism over seas, this is what gave ibn taymiya this status he has today. A status he never had equally when he was alive.

You did not answer me izaree, bin baz says that the koran acknowledges the tawheed of the pagan arabs. Do you believe the pagan arabs practiced tawheed but were still mushriks because they did not practice tawheed in their worshiping so they are mushrik. Do you believe that a person who believes God is the only controller or sustainer of the universe can still be mushrik. Do you believe that the pagans also believed that God is the only sustainer of the world, yet they were still mushrik. Do you believe that in history and present has there been mushriks who believed that God is the only sustainer of the world.

[abubakr]

asalamu alaykum

brother mohamed lets not start stwisting information sheikh bin baz mentioned that they affirmed in tawhid ruboobiyah therefore they affirmed Allahs lordship and he had no parnters in lordship. they believed he was the sole creator and provider. however their shirk was in the worship of Allah swt not in his lordship. please see the tafsir of imam ibn kathir where he states the same he has a big title saying the "pagans believed in tawhid ruboobiyah but that requires them to beleive in tawhid uluhiyyah" (tafisr ibn kathir)

[Haroon]

Salaam Mohamed.

Regardless of how small of a super star cleric he was, you must agree that the man leaves you and your knowledge in the dust of his own? Just another well learned scholar? What are you talking about? From where i come we call this a contra-dic-tion.

Just another well learned scholar LMAO:

Regards

[Hashim]

Yes akhee haroon, abu bakr and al izzaree well said. Yet, when the brevli scholars come, these taqleed followers like mohammad go over the top with he praise and start worshipping them! Yet when the real scholars come, like Ibn Taymiyaah (rahee'mull'aah) they just say 'another well learned scholar', subhanallaah.

[Brother Andrew]

asalamu alaykum

Firstly I have to say thankyou to brother Abu Bakr for clarifying his mistake in the salam, even though you made it twice I will accept it as a valid mistake due to your Arabic, and by the looks of your posts some of the words are spelt putting the letters opposite way round, as we all do, from fast typing, limited time and so forth.

Even though time was short, I found it quite hard to imagine you carrying these books around to people you know to verify the statements therein, keeping in mind its hard to know where to find these references unless, you took them from a website, another scholars book and so forth, you was probably prepared and Allah knows best.

However, you will still be blindly following until you translate the references and look to the lexicons for yourself, because being quite fluent in Arabic is not good enough due to the fact that some Arabic words have changed meaning and are used in a different context today than how they was understood by the early generations, therefore you will need to look to classical Arabic and how the early generations understood it and not modern Arabic and how people in this time frame understood it, you will need to look to lexicons such as the 7 volume Lisaanu Arab by Imam Monsur.

As for the references I you have put forth insha’allah I will start my research but what is more important to note right now is the fact that our orthodox Scholars Imam Ibn Kathir رحمة اللّه عليه and Bayhaqi رحمة اللّه عليه have accepted the isnad of this hadith as Sahih, Ibn Abi Shayba رحمة اللّه عليه has cited it with a Sahih isnad and Ibn Hajar رحمة اللّه عليهconfirmed that, so the hadith that Bilal Ibn Haith رضي اللّه عنه asked to Prophetصلي اللّه عليه وسلم to supplicate from his grave for rain, has been accepted by the above mentioned scholars.

In relation to this I posed several questions, such as is it shirk to ask for the dua of the dead and I have seen much hesitance for brothers to answer that, instead I feel brothers have tried to introduce new issues and take the topic elsewhere because maybe the subject is getting a little bit too much to swallow.

It does not matter if brothers say ‘no the hadith is weak and other scholars say this this and this’ the fact of the matter is that a few of our orthodox forefathers accepted this so are they guilty of agreeing and confirming shirk practices?

I would appreciate if the issue was not swept under the rug so easily by red herring tatics, as for the Hadith about the Prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم having the deeds of his Ummah presented to him every week and then he supplicates to Allah for our forgiveness will be discussed shortly, as I like to sqeeze the juice out of such juicy topics until the last drop, so I want to stay focused on what I have put forth, without moving on which causes many key points to be lost.


I think for Brother Iz , As-Salamu alaykum by leveling a charge against me about miscontruence, giving mis interpretation on things, firstly I have given nothing from myself but Scholars, the first post I encountered with you , you somehow found the audacity to disagree with Imam Nawawwi رحمة اللّه عليه, so if I go on presenting evidence after evidence from orthodox scholars you claim to respect youre only going to say ‘no he is wrong in this and that so forth blah blah’ so excuse me if I pass you by, sorry but if we cant agree on our Scholars even if we both accept them as authority’s then we are only going to get into wild dogfights.

But I say this, how is asking for dua from the dead shirk (ding dong) do I have to repeat myself and become senile in the process? Tell me by tawid al rubbiyyah, taheed ul hakimiyyah and how many other tawheeds you want to bring into this, judging by that standard how is asking a dead person to do dua for you shirk?

Dua is worship, but is asking somebody to do dua worship? And you cant say by asking to dua do we are in fact doing dua to the dead, this is silly and it has been put forth 2 times and swept under the rug due to brothers inability to answer, if dua, every dua is worship to Allah then why does Allah say ‘ don’t you make dua to the Messenger like you do dua to one another (Qur’an 24:63)

as for the link http://forums.understanding-islam.o...read.php?t=1784it is another red herring tatic ,but I read it, deal with my issue not yours, I haven’t got time for a wild goose chase. And I feel you are finding me problematic due to the fact I am not a sufi nor a brelvi, so most of the stuff you are putting forth does not apply to me, and their position of asking from graves is not mine, bear that in mind, I am only taking from orthodox scholars, not Imam Raza.

As for Ibn Taymiyyah رحمة اللّه عليه, one scholar reports and I will get back to people on this insha’Allah , but one scholar saw Ibn Taymiyah رحمة اللّه عليه in a dream and it is an orthodox scholar that had the dream and Ibn taymiyyah رحمة اللّه عليه said he had been forgiven due to one book he had wrote, I feel that brother Muhammad has been tainted by the people that spread hatred. Ibn Taymiyyah رحمة اللّه عليه was given much status and take into account that the orthodox scholars, debated him on a few issues and if they found him deviant so much so they would have excuted him and not imprisoned him, take that into consideration, ibn Taymiyyah رحمة اللّه عليه was imprisoned only because he tried to make ijtihad in thelogical issues.

Wasalams

[mohamed]

Ibn kathir was the student of ibn taymiya, ibn taymiya was the one who came with this shirk stuff. What ibn kathir said i think is the same mistake that ibn taymiya made. They understood that verse wrong. They should have studied the belief of the pagan arabs. No where does the verse say they believed God is the only sustainer. So it is quiet obvious it is this verse where everything started from. Now from the article i brought about the pagan arabs, the author is an expert in the field of ancient religions. We know that the koran says " To you are sons, and to Me are daughters?", and it also says in another verse that they believed God(subhanahu) had daughters. Its hard for me to see how the author will have it wrong. People like ibn kathir may not have studied the pagan arab belief. He translated from what he understood it. Maybe you can dig up information on your own regarding the aqeedah of the pagan arabs. Get some info and then post them here. But its very hard for me to believe that they can believe God(subhanahu) had daughters but these daughters were powerless and their job was just to transmit people's prayers to their father.

[Haroon]

Salaam Brother Andrew/Mohamed

I think you might like to see what the other translators think of this verse:


YUSUFALI: Deem not the summons of the Messenger among yourselves like the summons of one of you to another: Allah doth know those of you who slip away under shelter of some excuse: then let those beware who withstand the Messenger's order, lest some trial befall them, or a grievous penalty be inflicted on them.
PICKTHAL: Make not the calling of the messenger among you as your calling one of another. Allah knoweth those of you who steal away, hiding themselves. And let those who conspire to evade orders beware lest grief or painful punishment befall them.
SHAKIR: Do not hold the Messenger's calling (you) among you to be like your calling one to the other; Allah indeed knows those who steal away from among you, concealing themselves; therefore let those beware who go against his order lest a trial afflict them or there befall them a painful chastisement.Obviously, this du'a that the ayah is talking about, is summons and calling, yes?

Check out the ayah before, to see its complete context:

Only those are believers, who believe in Allah and His Apostle: when they are with him on a matter requiring collective action, they do not depart until they have asked for his leave; those who ask for thy leave are those who believe in Allah and His Apostle; so when they ask for thy leave, for some business of theirs, give leave to those of them whom thou wilt, and ask Allah for their forgiveness: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.This is clearly showing that it isn't the type of du'a that we make to Allah. This is a call, a summon to obey the Messenger.


Dua is worship, but is asking somebody to do dua worship? And you cant say by asking to dua do we are in fact doing dua to the deadOK, i think i should make it as clear as possible.

1) It is a fact that Allah accepts the du'a of the living.

2) It is either ambiguous or incorrect that He accepts the du'a of the dead. This is proven clearly when every soul will want to ask for forgiveness at the time of death, but it won't be able to.

3) How can you ascertain that the being you are asking to make du'a for you, actually has the authority to make that du'a? I mean, the Prophet (pbuh) has the authority of interceding for those that Allah wills, on the Day of Judgement. Regarding the grave there is no such directive. Since this asking for du'a is meant to be a religious practice, it goes into the boundaries of bid'ah.

4) The so called saints that one spends so much time asking to make du'a, might not even be able to help you!
a) how do you know that they aren't in torment?
b) how do you know that they were actually righteous in God's Sight?

5) Why waste your time seeking their du'as when there are so many living people you can ask to pray for you :confused:? (And don't forget the fact that they are actually allowed to make du'a which Allah will hear out, since they havent died yet, therefore it makes more sense to ask them instead, right?

Mohamed, what if you found out that the people you are slandering were actually great people? Then you're in trouble aren't you? Does your hatred mean so much to you?

Regards

[mohamed]

I mean personally i don't think too much of ibn taymiya. He has fatwas that even makes killing muslims permissable. I think he was a tatar invasion reactionary and got carried away. When he died 200,000 people attended his funeral. If he was to die today i think 2 million will attend his funeral.

[Haroon]

Including you?

[mohamed]

Thats funny! Only to see you and hash there and see if you are guys look as crazy as you sound(just kiddin)

[mohamed]

But seriously remember that saudi journalist's story i posted some time who got fired because he criticised ibn taymiya. So saudi's also realise he has dangerous fatwas.

[mohamed]

I got it here in fact:

It recently became known that the last straw that led to Khashoggi's termination was an op-ed on the Riyadh bombings that appeared in the May 22 edition; the op-ed criticized Ibn Taymiya (1268-1328), the spiritual father of Wahhabism, which is the Saudi kingdom's official stream of Islam. [1]

'The Words of Ibn Taymiya are the Real Problem'

The following are excerpts from the article, titled "The Individual and the Homeland Are More Important than Ibn Taymiya," by Khaled Al-Ghanami: "It is superfluous to note that understanding how the bloody murderers who perpetrated the accursed crime of May 12 think is the quickest way to infiltrate and uproot their modus operandi – or, at the very least, to restrict it. It will never suffice to use demagoguery and the usual superficial preaching. The problem will not be solved unless we put our finger on the wound and try to heal it."

"Why did they wave the banner of Jihad…? The answer is this: Ibn Taymiya... said… that if the ruler does not observe the commandment of promoting virtue and preventing vice, this obligation is incumbent upon the clerics… It is these words [of Ibn Taymiya] that are the real problem. We must stop cajoling and say: These words are a mistake, and a true disaster, that lead to anarchy, and to a threat to national unity, and the return of the Jahaliya, [2] because anyone who thinks himself a cleric will try to remove everything he considers vice. Anyone who thinks music is forbidden will blow up stores that sell tapes; anyone who thinks smoking a N arghile is forbidden will blow up shops offering them for sale, and so on. This is no exaggeration; the day is not far off when they open fire on satellite dishes."

'They Attribute No Value to Human Life if It is Not Muslim'

"How did they permit the blood of the non-Muslims?"

"The answer is: Because they attribute no value to human life if it is not Muslim, and because they ignore the words of Allah: 'There is no coercion in Islam.' Another reason is that they think that non-Muslims' presence in the Arabian Peninsula is sufficient reason to kill them. They forget that the Jews were in the Arabian Peninsula during the life of the Prophet and also after his death. Proof of this is that his shield was left in the hands of a Jew from whom he bought food. They ignored the words of Jabber bin Abdallah: '...None must come near the Al-Haram mosque unless he be a slave or of the Dhimmis [i.e. Jew or Christian].' Examine this tradition and you will see that it permitted those with whom there was a protection agreement to enter even the Al-Haram mosque."

"In the collection of traditions of Al-Bukhari it is written that Abd Al-Rahman bin 'Auf threw himself upon Umayya bin Khalef to protect him from the swords of the Muslims at the battle of Badr, and that Abd Al-Rahman was wounded in the leg because of this. [3] The child-murderers must look at how this man, to whom Paradise was promised, did not renounce his humanity or his love for his 'infidel' friend.

"What is the reason for [their] hatred of humanity?"

"The reason is that they misunderstand the rule of 'loyalty and renunciation.' [4] This rule is a fundamental Islamic rule, but the meaning of 'renunciation' is to renounce the attacking, fighting infidels, and to refrain from helping them [act] against the Islamic state. Their claim that you must hate anyone who is a non-Muslim cannot be true. The Prophet loved Abu Taleb, who died while still clinging to idol worship… Proof that Islam came to spread love among people is that Islam permitted a Muslim to marry a Jewish or Christian woman…"

"How did these murderers permit the blood of Muslims and children?"

"They did this based on a Fatwa of Ibn Taymiya in his book 'The Jihad, 'that says that if the infidels take shelter behind Muslims, that is, if these Muslims become a shield for the infidels, it is permitted to kill the Muslims in order to reach the infidels. Ibn Taymiya did not base this Fatwa on an actual text from the words of Allah or from the words of His Prophet. I do not think that this Fatwa leads to realization of the supreme intentions of Islamic religious law; on the contrary, it is a mistaken Fatwa that contradicts the way of the Prophet Muhammad, who is proven to have recommended to the Jihad warriors: 'Do not kill a woman, a child or an old man.'"

'The Homeland is a Million Times More Precious to Us Than Ibn Taymiya'

"Let us say this honestly: Our problem today is with Ibn Taymiya himself."

"Some of our clerics have turned [the words] of Ibn Taymiya the Hanbali [imam] from Haran, into a border that must never be crossed. In our time, and in our country, they have elevated him to a status he never had in his own land and own time. Some, unwittingly, even relate equally to Ibn Taymiya's writings and the basic writings of Muslim religious law. They tell you that Ibn Taymiya is not immune to mistakes, yet most never disagree with his words and are unwilling to permit you to disagree with his words. Why do we complain to our Shi'ite brethren for claiming that their imams are immune to mistakes, while in practical terms we are no different?"

"Ibn Taymiya was wonderful, brilliant, and amazing. People are captivated by him because of his unequivocal, decisive, and confident approach, and because he sees those who think otherwise as simpletons. Ibn Taymiya is a maximalist, and one-dimensional, and he does not permit other opinions. He is not like the clerics who hand down different opinions without deciding amongst them, or who decide [in favor of one] but with reservations and relativism. Therefore, we find no one else with Ibn Taymiya's presence in the thought of Islamist thinkers today."

"But at the same time, despite his great knowledge and although he was well read, [Ibn Taymiya] was emotional and inclined to sentimentality. His Fatwas were sometimes issued as an unbalanced response…"

"I think that we, the intellectuals who know with certainty where the problem lies, must raise our voices and declare: The individual, Muslim or non-Muslim, is more important to us than criticizing a cleric. The homeland, which we fear may become a second Algeria, is a million times more precious and important to us than Ibn Taymiya."[5]

[Haroon]

Only to see you and hash there and see if you are guys look as crazy as you soundHaha! I reckon I look crazier than i sound, right Hash?:D:D

[Brother Andrew]

As-salam alakum

Brother Haroon, congratulations, for putting the ayah forth with how the transalters understood it however let us now look to the arabic


لَا تَجْعَلُوا دُعَاء الرَّسُولِ بَيْنَكُمْ كَدُعَاء بَعْضِكُم بَعْضًا قَدْ يَعْلَمُ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ يَتَسَلَّلُونَ مِنكُمْ لِوَاذًا فَلْيَحْذَرِ الَّذِينَ يُخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِ أَن تُصِيبَهُمْ فِتْنَةٌ أَوْ يُصِيبَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

Make not the calling دُعَاء of the Messenger among yourselves like the calling دُعَاءof one of you to another. Allah doth know those of you who slip away under shelter of some excuse; then let those beware who withstand the Messenger's order, lest some trial befall them, or a grievous penalty be inflicted on them. (24:63)

the word دُعَاء is used which means to call or invoke, when دُعَاء is directed at Allah it is worship, however when دُعَاء is directed at created things it is not worship but a simple call, but i would be worried if somebody was doing دُعَاء with their hands raised as they do for دُعَاء to Allah, this would deeply worry me as that form of دُعَاء worship as The Prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم did say:
الدعاء مخ العباده the Du'aa is worship. (Sunan Abu Dawood vol.1 p387 no.1474)

thank you brother Izaree for the reference and it will be intresting to remember we have in our possession the same translation of Abu Dawud translated by Prof: Ahmad Hasan printed by Ashraf publishers, same page no and everything, its just it pity it has not got the Arabic.

Any way that is the point I was trying to make Brother Haroon, now considering the points you have put forth


1) It is a fact that Allah accepts the du'a of the living.

Allah does indeed accept the Dua of the living, well some of them anyways, not all living people get all their duas accepted, even one dua from the Prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم was not accepted by Allah, but most of the time the Prophets duas were accepted and of course he is the leader of the son of Adam and no of created being has a hihere station than the Prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم.


2) It is either ambiguous or incorrect that He accepts the du'a of the dead. This is proven clearly when every soul will want to ask for forgiveness at the time of death, but it won't be able to

O.k lets say Allah does not accept the dua of the dead, the burning question is, is the asker committing shirk, that is the main point I am trying to tackle here, not whether the dead can hear or not, not whether they can do dua in the grave, bit is it shirk to believe they can do dua? And besides what if they can and what if Allah accepts their dua and Allah can do whatever He pleases His dominion.

As for people asking for repentance before dying again the evidence refers to the kuffar. What about the pious believer who gets his sins forgiven who says astagfirullah all throughout and then Allah doesn’t accept that last astagfirullah before he passes? Sounds a bit silly doesn’t it, this is what happens when ayahs of the Qur’an are tried on as socks, it doesn’t fit the foot and its disrespectful to use ayah’s in such ways, excuse the parable, I hope it makes sense.


3) How can you ascertain that the being you are asking to make du'a for you, actually has the authority to make that du'a? I mean, the Prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم has the authority of interceding for those that Allah wills, on the Day of Judgement. Regarding the grave there is no such directive. Since this asking for du'a is meant to be a religious practice, it goes into the boundaries of bid'ah.

Well as you see from the hadith that is being currently discussed, both hadiths that are going to be discussed in this thread indicates the the Prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم has the ability to do dua from where he is, and there is more evidences to come but I don’t want people to reject them all at once, but analyse them one by one and so we can do some thinking as to what is the orthodox position.

As for the first part of your question how do you know they haven’t been given the authority to do that dua? Condemning on mere speculation and as some do call it shirk is a dangerous ground to be treading, salvation is not a thing to be taken for granted, and indeed salvation is at stake when we have brothers calling each other kuffar over such issues as this one, some of them will die as kuffar, serious thinking now! Is that a risk we want to be taking?

As for your view you have stated it falls into bidah or goes into the boundaries as bidah, I don’t know if you have been reading the whole post but a brother has presented an hadith where a companion (Bilal Ibn Harith) went to the Prophets صلي اللّه عليه وسلم grave and asked him to do supplication to Allah for rain, they have called this hadith weak but orthodox scholars such as Ibn Hajr has classed this hadith as sahih, so this is either false information or the Sahaba and orthodox scholars delved into the boundaries of bidah, or the hadith is sahih and it is not bidah? Your choice.


4) The so called saints that one spends so much time asking to make du'a, might not even be able to help you!
a) how do you know that they aren't in torment?
b) how do you know that they were actually righteous in God's Sight?

What if somebody was to ask their mother that has passed away? It does not nessescarily mean it has to be a saint or a prophet and besides what harm is there in asking for dua from the dead, why are you people making a mountain out of a mole hole, do we believe in a Just God or a merciless god who wants to punish us by plucking out our fingernails for asking somebody for their supplication?

You also said ’how do you know that they aren't in torment? Wow I can not believe you said that, o.k they might be in torment, that could be a possibility but I am sure that is not the view of Bilal Ibn Harith when he asked for the dua of the Prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم and even more do we condemn asking for the Prophets صلي اللّه عليه وسلم dua because he may be in torment, tread carefully bro, I really have faith you didn’t have intention of thinking like that,I really hope that was not the case


5) Why waste your time seeking their du'as when there are so many living people you can ask to pray for you ? (And don't forget the fact that they are actually allowed to make du'a which Allah will hear out, since they havent died yet, therefore it makes more sense to ask them instead, right?

What are the living people compared to the Prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم? Of course we can ask living people but it still hasn’t been established that we can not ask for dua of the dead, so far nobody has bought one hukm from sharia forbidding us from doing so. So really without offending, the arguments so far have no foundation.

And Muhammad if you want to get along in conversation, you do not abuse the scholars, you will find that mainstream scholars have a level of respect for ibn tamiyyah, and he wrote brilliant books, have you ever read his books or are you just going by what the next man says, I had that with brelvis ‘don’t read this don’t read that’ brother sincere advice you can be ahlus Sunnah without being a brelvi or a wahabi, take the middle way, bite on to the roots of a tree and that tree is the orthodox scholars from the early generations, you cant go wrong then, really,

as-Salamu Alaykum

[mohamed]

Well then why won't you accept ibn taymiya's fatwas, wasn't he an orthodox traditional scholar? Anyways many traditional scholars were critical of him. A sample of ibn taymiya's autobiography from masud.co.uk site :

About ibn Taymiyya



Ibn Taymiya is Ahmad ibn Abd al-Salaam ibn Abdullah, Abu al-Abbas Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiya al-Harrani, born in Harran, east of Damascus, in 661/1263. A famous Hanbali scholar in Qur'anic exegesis (tafsir), hadith and jurisprudence, Ibn Taymiya was a voracious reader and author of great personal courage who was endowed with a compelling writing style and a keen memory. Dhahabi wrote of him, "I never saw anyone faster at recalling the Qur'anic verses dealing with subjects he was discussing, or anyone who could remember hadith texts more vividly." Dhahabi estimates that his legal opinions on various subjects amount to three-hundred or more volumes.
He was imprisoned during much of his life in Cairo, Alexandria, and Damascus for his writings, scholars of his time accusing him of believing Allah to be a corporeal entity because of what he mentioned in his al-aqida al-Hamawiyya and al-Wasitiyya and other works, such as that Allah's 'hand', 'foot', 'shin' and 'face' are literal (haqiqi) attributes, and that He is upon the Throne in person. The error in this is suggesting such attributes are literal is an innovation and unjustifiable inferance from the Qur'anic and hadith texts that mention them, for the way of early Muslims was mere acceptance of such expressions on faith without saying how they are meant, and without additions, subtractions, or substituting meanings imagined to be synonyms, while acknowledging Allah's absolute transcedence beyond the characteristics of created things, in conformity with the Qur'anic verse "There is nothing whatsoever like unto him" [Qur'an 42:11]. As for figurative interpretations that preserve the divine transcendence, scholars of tenents of faith have only had recourse to them in times when men of reprehensible innovation (bid'a), quoting hadiths and Qur'anic verses, have caused confusion in the minds of common Muslims as to whether Allah has attributes like those of His creation or whether He is transcendently beyond any image conceivable to the minds of men. Scholars' firmness in condemning those who have raised such confusions has traditionally been very uncompromising, and this is no doubt the reason that a number of the Imams of the Shafi'i school, among them Taqi al-Din Subki, Ibn Hajar Haytami and al-Izz ibn Jama'a, gave formal legal opinions (fatawa) that ibn Taymiya was misguided and misguiding in tenents of faith, and warned people from accepting his theories. The Hanafi scholar Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari has written "Whoever thinks that all the scholars of his time joined in a single conspiracy against him from personal envy should rather impugn their own intelligence and understanding, after studying the repugnance of his deviations in beliefs and works, for which he was asked to repent time after time and moved from prison to prison until he passed on to what he'd sent ahead."

While few deny that ibn Taymiya was a copious and eloquent writer and hadith scholar, his career, like that of others, demonstrates that a man may be outstanding in one field and yet suffer from radical deficiencies in another, the most reliable index of which is how a field's Imams regard his work in it. By this measure, indeed, by the standards of all previous Ahl al-Sunna scholars, it is clear that despite voluminous and influential written legacy, ibn Taymiya cannot be considered an authority on tenents of faith ('aqida), a field in which he made mistakes profoundly incompatible with the beliefs of Islam, as also with a number of his legal views that violated the scholarly consensus (ijma) of Sunni Muslims. It should be remembered that such matters are not the province of personal reasoning (ijtihad), whether Ibn Taymiya considered them to be so out of sincere conviction, or whether simply because, as Imam Subki said, "his learning exceeded his intelligence." He died in Damascus in 728/1328.

Quoted from Reliance of the Traveller ['Umdat as-Salik] by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

Brother Haroon i am actually thinking about to come to birmingham this week, as there is an Arabic bookshop of coventry road, but i do not know exactly where it is, i still have to locate it, it has Arabic only do you know where it is?

Wasalams

[mohamed]

A less biased article(the earlier were by shafi' sufis i think since Nuh Keller is in that category) :

Ibn Taymiya

Arabic: 'ibnu taymîya


(1263- 1328) Islamic conservative theologian and jurist, representing the first founding father of Wahhabism and to a great degree modern Islamism.
Ibn Taymiya belonged to the pietistic Hanbali school of Sharia. By using the theological techniques different from other Hanbali theologians, he would come to add a number of clarifications and new definitions to this orientation. Ibn Taymiya used methods like reasoning by analogy, but he rejected related methods like taqlid (imitation of a case law) and ijmac (consensus). He claimed to adhere strictly to the content of only the Koran and the Hadiths, and rejected all new inventions (bidca).

The most known doctrine of his is the condemnation of the cult of Muslim saints and prophets, very popular in the Muslim world in his time as well as in ours. Other conclusions of Ibn Taymiya were to allow holding an opinion contrary to the ijmac, stating that the payment of non-compulsory taxes frees a man from paying zakat and that divorce stated towards a women while she was in her menstrual period was void.

Ibn Taymiya met much resistance from other Islamic scholars because of his statements indicating a corporeal quality of God. While most Islamic orientations propagated the transcendency of God, Ibn Taymiya wrote about God's "hand", "foot", "shin" and "face" as they were literal attributes. Mainstream Islam then, before and ever since consider such ideas as heresy, and Ibn Taymiya spent much time in prison for these ideas, but also for ideas that fitted mainstream Islam.

Ibn Taymiya was also involved in hefty debates with all non-Sunni Islamic orientations, but of special attention to him were the Shi'is of Mount Kasrawan in Lebanon, the Rifa'yah Sufis and the Ittihadiya school.
Ibn Taymiya's courage was so strong that he publicly stated that several of the most central leaders of early Islam had made mistakes. Among the many he claimed had made numerous mistakes were Ali and Umar, as well as later theologians like al-Ghazzali.

Ibn Taymiya also attacked other religions like Judaism and Christianity, and he propagated strongly against both the building of and the maintenance of churches and synagogues. Moreover, he accused both these religions of having changed the meaning of word and passages in their own sacred texts, hence he accused them of heresy.

Despite his controversial ideas in some fields, Ibn Taymiya was generally admired for his eloquent writing and his enormous factual knowledge. In his time, hardly any Islamic scholar could recall Koranic verses dealing with the subjects he was discussing as fast as him.
BIOGRAPHY

1263 January 22: Born in Harran, Mesopotamia (corresponding to modern Iraq).
1268: Ibn Taymiya's family flees the hardship of the Mongols in Mesopotamia, and takes refuge in Damascus.
1278: Completes his studies.
1282: Upon his father's death, Ibn Taymiya succeeds his father as professor in Hanbali law.
1292: Makes his pilgrimage to Mecca.
1293: Challenges the juridical authorities for their condemnation of a Christian who had insulted the prophet Muhammad.
1298: Is accused of ascribing human characteristics to God.
1306: As part of a campaign against his understanding of Islamic law, Ibn Taymiya is sent to Cairo.
1313: Returns to Damascus, as part of a campaign to aid the city which was under grave threat from the Mongols. He returns to his position as professor.
1318: Is forbidden by the sultan to issue fatwa on the question of repudiation of someone's wife.
1320: Is sentenced to imprisonment for not following the command of the sultan.
1321: After spending 5 months in prison, Ibn Taymiya is released.
1326: Issues a fatwa negative to the popular activity of cult around the tombs of holy men and women.
1328 September 27: Dies in Damascus after 3 weeks of illness. About 200,000 men and 15,000 women attend his funeral.

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

Brother Muhammad, in all sicerity you need to check those refereences for yourself and plus i never said or implicated i accept Ibn taymiyyah as an authority in that respect but what i am saying is he was a great hanbali scholar, who had a few runnings with other schoalrs of his time, what we are not told by brelvis is that those problems were resolved, water under the bridge, but what we find is people dragging up the past, leave the man alone, you will find that only the hardcore brelvis bash him, and the brelvis are a small minority of this huge Ummah.

Wasalams

[mohamed]

Who by the way are the brelvi? I never heard of them.

Don't you think ibn taymiya is the one behind all the problems we have with this wahhabism? I don't understand you. It is his teachings that led to the killing of many muslims. I don't see your logic forgive me for saying.

Once again who are those brelvis? Mayby they are attacking him because it is his fatwas that are being used to justify killing them. Ibn taymiya caused a lot of harm and fitna. I don't know why you , like Vinod, are being apologetic. Anyways we all have our different ways of seeing things. Anyways as i told vinod before, just because you are not a sufi and thus are not relevant regarding ibn taymiya's fatwas does not mean you should not feel alarmed by his teachings. We are all muslims, and when any muslims is being attacked or his faith questioned we should all stand up and speak with firmness. We must defend them sincerily. I myself have never been a sufi or visited a tomb, but i am firm in defending muslims. My legacy in this forum testifies to that. Whether they are sufis, shias or secular muslims, i defend them.

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

Brother Muhammad it is also intresting to note that Ibn taymiyah is used as an authority when it comes to exegisis and you will find that in sh. nuh ha meem kellers reliance of the travellor p75.24 in Imaam Dhahabis book of enormities which is also include with umdat as salik within the same compilataion.

Wasalams

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

Brother Muhammad skaykh Nuh ha meem keller holds alot of books of Ibn Taymiyah in high regard and so does Imam Hamza Yusif, Zaid Shakir and alot of Orthodox Scholars, the claim is that he made slips in creed and theology due to studying grek philosophy which is haraam in the Hanbali school, it is also doccumeted that he repented from those views and wrote books to clear his statements.

the Brelvis are a bunch of village idiots who make Islam look more like Alladin and the lamp, 3 wishes and magic carpet type thing, they claim to follow Imam Raza Khan but i find them to contradict him in every step, they do alot of dependance of the miracle of the saints and in this aspect, they are more like sikhs or hindus, they over decorate graves and seek blessings from the inhabitants of the grave, bearing in mind they are still a minority, and not the majority, they have bought many a bidah into Islam including the act of shaving, they mistakenly think that if you grow your beadr you are a wahabi and i tend to find some of them classing secular knowledge as more important than sacred knowledge, like i said ; village idiots.

Wasalams

[mohamed]

Where are they located at? I never heard this before. They seem to be very ignorant

[Haroon]

Salaam Brother Andrew.


not whether they can do dua in the grave, bit is it shirk to believe they can do dua?No it is not shirk, it is bid'ah.


And besides what if they can and what if Allah accepts their dua and Allah can do whatever He pleases His dominion.Exactly, it is a "what if", it is not part of the religion. Any religious practice not authenticated by the Prophet or the Qur'an, is bid'ah. The whole point of asking for du'a is revolved around religion is it not?

The boundaries of shirk may be breached, when someone knows that it is not in the religion to ask from grave dwellers, but still do it. This is challenging the complete word of God, and this is where the shirk may come in.


As for people asking for repentance before dying again the evidence refers to the kuffar. What about the pious believer who gets his sins forgiven who says astagfirullah all throughout and then Allah doesn’t accept that last astagfirullah before he passes? Sounds a bit silly doesn’t it, this is what happens when ayahs of the Qur’an are tried on as socks, it doesn’t fit the foot and its disrespectful to use ayah’s in such ways, excuse the parable, I hope it makes sense.I think the evidence actually refers to sinners. Every soul without exception will regret on the Day of Judgement that it had not done more to please Allah. Think about how that fits. It is full of meaning, even for the believers.


As for the first part of your question how do you know they haven’t been given the authority to do that dua?Such an authority would certainly have been mentioned in the Qur'an were it true. Why would Allah hesitate from giving us more ways to gain forgiveness?


they have called this hadith weak but orthodox scholars such as Ibn Hajr has classed this hadith as sahih, so this is either false information or the Sahaba and orthodox scholars delved into the boundaries of bidah, or the hadith is sahih and it is not bidah? Your choice.I dont recall Allah ever saying that the sahaba were ever free of making errors, likewise I dont recall Allah ever saying that Ibn Hajr (r.a) would classify things correctly, likewise I dont recall Allah saying that we derive our ways and laws from the ahadith. Afterall they are just pieces of historical sources. Reliable or not, they dont contain the religion.


What if somebody was to ask their mother that has passed away? It does not nessescarily mean it has to be a saint or a prophet and besides what harm is there in asking for dua from the dead, why are you people making a mountain out of a mole hole, do we believe in a Just God or a merciless god who wants to punish us by plucking out our fingernails for asking somebody for their supplication?Please, let us stick to the topic in discussion. This has nothing to do with the mercy of God. If it really was the mercy of God, He would have told us about it in the Qur'an so that we could gain more blessings. Also, i think you should know that the people in the graves need our du'as more than we need theirs (whilst we're on the Earth).

You also said ’how do you know that they aren't in torment? Wow I can not believe
you said that, o.k they might be in torment, that could be a possibility but I am sure that is not the view of Bilal Ibn Harith when he asked for the dua of the Prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم and even more do we condemn asking for the Prophets صلي اللّه عليه وسلم dua because he may be in torment, tread carefully bro, I really have faith you didn’t have intention of thinking like that,I really hope that was not the caseOk, now you are getting silly. Read what i wrote in the point you are addressing. And btw, Bilal Ibn Harith hasnt been given any authority by Allah to preserve the religion either.


so far nobody has bought one hukm from sharia forbidding us from doing soAny action which is passed off as religious, or is religious in nature, which has NOT been authenticated by the Qur'an or Sunnah, is a bid'ah, therefore against the shari'ah. Any action which the Shari'ah has not mentioned as being Islamic, is not part of the religion.


So really without offending, the arguments so far have no foundation.I dont think you are really understanding what I am saying. Think about it.


bite on to the roots of a tree and that tree is the orthodox scholars from the early generations, you cant go wrong thenJust out of curiousity, since when did Allah give them this authority?


tread carefully broThanks for the advice.

Regards

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

o.k i am glad Haroon has established the act as a bidah due to the fact the Prophet (peace be upon him) didnt do it, so it is not shirk, Abu bakr , Brother Izaree, hash, Muhammad, are you all in agreement with Haroons conclusion because if so we have broken down one barrier and we can move on to the next.

Brother Haroon, really i dont have to answer your reply, mainly directed at me but i have got something established through you al hamdu Lillah, i am just waiting on the agreement of the other brothers before we move on and tackle the next issue. Which will be asking supplication from the dead is it a bidah? i think thats appropiate right now and also we can chuck in the issue of whethere the dead can hear and supplicate.

I think what would be good if brothers call clasify waht is bidah, open a new thread if you have to, or discuss here, because looking at the title of this thread we will see that most of the problems actually fall within the ahlus sunnah versres whatever sect you wish to name.

Only through such disscussions as these will we come to know what being from the ahlus sunnah really means, everey jope bloggs nowdays seems to be throwing this term around claiming to be ahlus sunnah in which they beat there chest out of kbr in some frenzy, with this group metality type thing, im right always right and evereybodys wrong , why? because my peersaab says so or bin baz says so, i think we need to look at the facts preseneted in following disscussions with a careful eye and use our every resource to put the evidence under the microscope to check it with the Salaf, the orthodox scholars and so forth.

when using such methods we do not want to be hearing from scholars of today, you see the old checks the new, so lets go back to the scholars who understood the Quran and the Sunnah the way it should be understood.

are we ready to move on?

Wasalams

[abubakr]

asalamu alaykum

brother andrew the borhters who i have asked to verify the evidences are actually students of knowledge most of them are in the the jamiah islamic university in lahore. in lahore there is a very big famous islamic library whihc has a lot of islmaic literrtaure from scholars. brother as for you saying that my evidences need to be chekced so do the books of imam ibnn kathir and ibn abi shaybah. as for imam ibn hajar asqalani authenticating the hadith of billa hariht then brother i have shown that he only authenitcated part of the chain not the whole hadiht and i aslo showed from top scholars of hadith that there are deficncies with certain narrators.

brother this hadith is aslo very inconsistent with the rigoroulsy authenticated hadith in the shariah. this hadith contradicts the practice of the companions as after nabi saw death whenever there was a calamity they would ask a righteous person to make dua they would never go the grave of nabi saw and asked him as they knew it was not permissable.

Sahih bukhari

Volume 2, Book 17, Number 123:
Narrated Anas:

Whenever drought threatened them, 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, used to ask Al-Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib to invoke Allah for rain. He used to say, "O Allah! We used to ask our Prophet to invoke You for rain, and You would bless us with rain, and now we ask his uncle to invoke You for rain. O Allah ! Bless us with rain."And so it would rain.

so brother from this hadith it is blatantly obvious that after nabi saw death they would stop asking him instead they would ask a pious person.

there are also many other hadiht after nabi saw death whihc show how during calamities they would ask a pious person

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

So you are blindly following still Abu Bakr, and will continue to do so until you check the sources for yourself and you have presnted the hadith where they would ask for rain but you have come empty handed of a prohibition from the Quran and Sunnah prohibitng the act of asking for the dua of the dead, so again we are at square one.

Wasalams

[Hashim]

Subhanallaah brother! Excellent point! (the last point, after nabi (saaw) died they never asked him (saaw) to ask allaah for rain). Now here is the time, were i ask Mohammad, the salaf, the companions, were the best of creation, our role model! Our example, they lived with the prophet Muhammad (sallallhualayi'a'salaam) himself! Now, these peer saabs and brevli and sufi and their imaams and sheikhs came hundreds of years arefter the salaf, if the salaf never asked the prophet (sallallhualayi'wa'salaam) to ask for rain, when he was dead, then what right have these people got to ask their 'saints'?!!! Who knows more, who has more knowledge? The companions who drank firsthand from the virtuous fountain of knowledge of the prophet Muhammad (sallallhualui'wa'salaam) or these innovaters?

[abubakr]

now brother andrew as for your question as to whether asking a dead person for his dua. well brother the scholars themselves have had varying fatwas. some have lablled it as a bidah others have labelled minor shirk and others have gone ot the extent of calling it major shirk.

now as for my view i think that in certain cases this can be blatant shirk. for exmaple i have mentioned before that if you see the tombs of saints in the subcontinent and also in places in iraq for exmaple the grave of sheikh abdul qadir Jilani and in Egypt at the grave of Mostafa Badawi you will find hundreds if not thousands of people gathering there at once each of them may be addressing the saint asking him to make dua. and they will be doing this is many different languages and people will be asking simultaneously (at the same time). now this in my opinion is clear major shirk as only Allah undertsands all languages and only he can listen to hundreds of people at once and act according to that. so therefore in this case it becomes shirk. unfortunatley this is the case these days.

in another scenario there are people who live hundreds if not thousands of miles away from the graves and they ask the saints to make dua to allah for them. this is also shirk as the attribute of all-hearing is only suitable for Allah swt.

so brother i have detailed these problems with asking people at their graves. now from a shariah perspective this is clear bidah and and an ugly innovation it is. howver in my opinion it is minor shirk and a stepping stone to major shirk.

i hope that answers your question brother andrew

[abubakr]

brother andrew a prohibition is not needed from quran and sunnah this act of worship is something whihc is not prescribed from shariah and therefore is a bida. we cant just make up our own acts of worship and say this is religion

[Hashim]

As-salamu alaykum

So you are blindly following still Abu Bakr, and will continue to do so until you check the sources for yourself and you have presnted the hadith where they would ask for rain but you have come empty handed of a prohibition from the Quran and Sunnah prohibitng the act of asking for the dua of the dead, so again we are at square one.

Wasalams

You are asking for clear proof pf prophibition of asking the dead du'aa, in the qur'aan and sunnah. There are dozens of proofs, first of all. Answer me one question, does the qur'aan or sunnah approve or reccomend this, did the prophet (sallallhualayi'w'salaam) practise or preach this. No so it is a bidaah, and this is prohibted, so hear froma single point brother i have shown you how it is prophibited.

[Brother Andrew]

As-Salamu Alaykum

there is no blessing if one does not deliver Salam, this is one thing that winds me up, everybody has their dislike, somepeople hate it when you spell something wrong to the point it annoys them, with me it is people who dont give salam and i will tell you simply, if you intend salam then it would be stated, there are a few reasons why a person doesnt give salam.

1. he hates himself and other people
2. he thinks the person is too deviant to deserve the Islamic greeting
3. he is not a follower of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him so it is not in him to deliever salam

keep that in mind at all times when dialouging with me, if i dont get my salam i get annoyed and it is a permissable anger because the Prophet (peace be upon him) oredered us to do so and not giving salam is against the sunnah and therefore a bidah within itseslf.

Anyway half an hour later after the discussion on salam and having to remind myself what are we talking about...ah here we are ...o.k i prefer to see evidence of prohibitions , simple one point not good enough , Abu Bakr doesnt agree he is still in the satge of is it shirk or is it bidah, i guess everybody else is in agreement that it is bidah.

Sorry fellas i refuse to move on until Abu Bakr agrees it is a 100% bidah and not shirk, he said some scholars say its minor shirk, some say its major shirk, now why hasnt he mentioned the names of these scholars? i would be very intrested in seeing which scholars issued what and what fatwas.

dont feel i have to answer your questions hash, the topic is still if it is shirk or not until Abu Bkr declares it bidah and then we can discuss your question, i am refusing to be pulled at the joints like my name is strech armstrong, im dealing with one thing at a time, i know how disturbing these forums can get, how fast the whole topic can change, so have a little patience i will come to that shortly.

As for now i would appreciate if Abu Bkar shows me the list of who said what.

Wasalams

[Hashim]

As-Salamu Alaykum

dont feel i have to answer your questions hash, the topic is still if it is shirk or not until Abu Bkr declares it bidah and then we can discuss your question, i am refusing to be pulled at the joints like my name is strech armstrong, im dealing with one thing at a time, i know how disturbing these forums can get, how fast the whole topic can change, so have a little patience i will come to that shortly.

Wasalams

Aslaam Alaykum

HA! :D Okay akhee sorry for ganging up for you, i will let abu bakr soften you up, and then i will polish you off! Only joking brother, okay wa'salaam.

[abubakr]

asalamu alaykum

first of all brother it is bidah yes but one cannot rule out the possibilty of shirk especially in certain cases whihc i have mentioned. now in the event of an unlikey scenario where just one person goes up the grave and asks saint to make dua on his behalf then this is bidah not shirk. however i would like to say that this is very unlikely as you will not see this near the graves of saints instead you will find gatherings. i would aslo like to state that this is a bidah whihc leads to shirk. no in most cases this action of asking the dead saints t make dua would probably be classed as shirk as i have explained earlier. in fact non-salafi scholars such as Mufti Ebrahim Desai even though saying that in theory there is nothing wrong with this action he has given a fatwa on his website advising people to stay away from it since there is a fear people would commit shirk. this can be seen on his website.

now as for scholars who said it was shirk well on the tawassul thread i think bro Izzari mentioned a saying from imam ibn izz abdus salam and he said it was shirk. the opinion which i agree with is that of sheikh abu ammar yasir qadhi who is a prominent scholar in the USA and he said it was minor shirk. i will inshallah post more sayings from scholars.

it is also important to note that none of the 4 imams or their students mentioned anything about the practice of people asking dead people to make dua for them neither did any of the other early scholars of islam. it is obvious that this practice was basically non existent in the earlier generations.

[Brother Andrew]

asalamu alaykum

Thank you for your reply Brother Abu Bakr, after this we cam move on and i can start by answering hash's question, though it will be slow moving for a week due to my studys, at weekend i get plenty of time to disscuss and socialise.

You have admitted it is bidah but the possibility of shirk can arise from that matter from asking for dua to doing dua upon the inhabitant of the grave i understand that point clearly, Ibn Taymiyah rahmatulah alayhi too tryed to prevent people from going to the grave asking for dua from the inhabitant due to his fear that it could lead to shirk, when questioned he told the man about the peoples fear of shirk and he wanted to cut of that evil so it wouldnt happen, and the man very bluntly put 'why dont you cut of the penis of all the men and the faces of women to stop adultery from happening' Ibn Taymiyyah laughed because he understood the mans point. something to dwell on.

I am happy at the fact we have came to the understanding that if a person goes up a grave and asks saint to make dua on his behalf then this is not shirk.

Whether there are gatherings around graves doing other stuff than asking for duas, going to extremes asking for things that one can only ask Allah for, you dont go to a car show room and ask for a big mac with fries, excuse the parable, now Brother Izaare quoted a very important hadith:


On the authority of Abdullah bin Abbas, who said : One day I was behind the prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم and he said to me: "Young man, I shall teach you some words [of advice] : Be mindful of Allah, and Allah will protect you. Be mindful of Allah, and you will find Him in front of you. If you ask, ask of Allah; if you seek help, seek help of Allah. Know that if the Nation were to gather together to benefit you with anything, it would benefit you only with something that Allah had already prescribed for you, and that if they gather together to harm you with anything, they would harm you only with something Allah had already prescribed for you. The pens have been lifted and the pages have dried."

p narrated by Termithi, who said it is true and fine hadith

In a version other than that of Tirmithi it reads:

p "..Be mindful of Allah, you will find Him before you. Get to know Allah in prosperity and He will know you in adversity. Know that what has passed you by was not going to befall you; and that what has befallen you was not going to pass you by. And know that victory comes with patience, relief with affliction, and ease with hardship."

(Nawawwis 40 ahadith hadith 19)

And i take this as my validity of not asking saints for anything, except a dua in which i can not ask Allah for, it would be kufr to do so due to the fact it is the servant that calls and we are al-ebaadulullahi the servants of Allah, not the servants of saints.

Mufti Ebrahim Desai is in fact a deobandi scholar who has a salafisitic aqeed due to the fact taqweetul emaan is the plagurised version of Muhammad Ibn abdul Wahabs kitab ut tawheed. as for his condemnation and advice to stay away from graves due to his fear the the same example from above about Ibn Taymiyah applys in this circumstance to.

now never mind all these new age scholars, we seem to be forgetting that i quoted early orthodox scholars with the Bilal Ibn Harith hadith which can not be swept under the rug easily, the old scholars check the new, the new scholars dont supercede the old, so i really dont care what any modern day scholars say, if it does not match what the orthodox forefathers say, then their books are no more than dog food. sorry to be blunt but im sure if you are in tune with the orthodox agreed upon scholars then you will agree that we give the old scholars precedence over the new. so when you quote those scholars i am hoping that there will be orthodox quotes.

You also said that the 4 imams and their students never mentioned anything about asking dead people to make dua, brother, keep in mind you said this as we will come back to it much later in this thread plus you add that this practice was not around in the early generation, i think youre trying to sweep the fact that bilal ibn harith asked the Prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم under the rug, i will repeat the Ibn Harith hadith shortly with a line of orthodox scholars but now we are going to deal with the issue of bidah.

Hash your question, let us now look at that you said


Answer me one question, does the qur'aan or sunnah approve or reccomend this, did the prophet (sallallhualayi'w'salaam) practise or preach this.

then without giving me chance to answer you said


No so it is a bidaah, and this is prohibted, so hear froma single point brother i have shown you how it is prophibited.

Brother why shoot yourself in the foot with this approach?

Did Bilal Ibn Harith do bidah? and let us take this verse for example

Had they, when they had wronged themselves, come to you and asked Allah's forgiveness and the Apostle had asked forgiveness for them, they would certainly have found Allah Most-Propitious, Most-Merciful. (Holy Qur'an 4: 64).

heres what the orthodox scholars say about this verse:

Imam Nawawi writes about the incident where Al-`Utbi said: "As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم , a Beduin Arab came and said: "Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah صلي اللّه عليه وسلم ! I have heard Allah saying: "If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful" (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord."

The pilgrim should face the shrine of the Messenger of Allah صلي اللّه عليه وسلم, make him a means towards reaching God and seek his wasilah as intercession (dua), in the same manner as the Bedouin who visited the Prophet's صلي اللّه عليه وسلم shrine and standing beside it said: Peace unto you O Messenger of Allah صلي اللّه عليه وسلم , I have heard Allah has said:...Had they, when they had wronged themselves, come to you and asked Allah's forgiveness and the Apostle had asked forgiveness for them, they would certainly have found Allah Most-Propitious, Most-Merciful. (Holy Qur'an 4: 64). Therefore, I have come to you for forgiveness of my sins and seeking your intercession (dua) with Allah.

(al Majmu', vol. 8, Fayd al-Qadir, vol. 2, Adhkar and his I'anah al-Talibiyyin)

Imam Malik upon being asked a question by Abu Ja`far al-Mansur: "Shall I face the qibla with my back towards the grave of the Messenger of Allah صلي اللّه عليه وسلم when making du`a ?" He replied: "How could you turn your face away from him when he is the means of your and your father Adam's forgiveness to Allah on the Day of Resurrection? Nay, face him and ask for his intercession (his dua) so that Allah will grant it to you as He said: "If they had only, when they were wronging themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful (4:64)."

This narration is used by so many othodox scholars one of them being 5th century scholar Qadi`Iyad who cites in his ash shifa with a sahih isnad and take note that Ibn Jama`a says "It is related by the two hafiz Ibn Bashkuwal and al-Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa' after him, and no attention is paid to the words of those who claim that it is forged purely on the basis of his idle desires." (Hidayat al-salik) so according to this orthodox scholar, if anybody here wishes to say 'yeh but that hadith is weak and blah blah' in a frantic huff and puff them, no attention should they receive

Ibn Kathir wrote about this verse

"Allah guides the sinners and neglectful , if they do something sinful or corrupt, to come to the Prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم , take him as a means, and ask forgiveness from Allah, and to ask the Prophet to also request Allah's forgiveness for them. If they do this, Allah will forgive them, bless them and have mercy on them. "

So here again we have the narration of the bedioun who seeked the Prophets dua mentioned by orthodox scholars, go and check this up for yourself do not take my word for it, seeing is beliveing.

Wasalams

[Al-Boriqi]

asalamu alaikum ya ayu ahlil-saliheen

mohammad

Well ibn Taymia was never eleveated to the status you mentioned when he was alive. It is wahabism and saudi arabia that gave him this status. They made him a super star when he was just another well learned scholar. Every week that Sudaisi in mecca preaches his name in TV. Ibn Taymiya had views, such as God having hands that went aginst the ahl ul sunna wal jama'. His views about tawassul also went aginst ahl ul sunna wal jama'. Abdul wahab had an obsession with ibn taymiya, but that does not mean that ibn taymiya was the super star cleric. The saudi as of yet have spent 87 billion dollars to promote wahabism over seas, this is what gave ibn taymiya this status he has today. A status he never had equally when he was alive.

Yet he had 200 thousand for his janazah just in damascus alone, even his enemies. One of the Imaamd os the sunnah in our time has explained that the actual distinction between the mubtadiah and the Imaams is in the peoples attendance of their janaza's.

as for his stattus, his status was truely realized after his time. Just as the saying goes of the healthy person "only the sick person sees the crown on the healthy person". The meaning is that no one knows the depth and reality of what something is until it is lost. But as for his status raising due to saudi is truely baseless.

brother andrew

I think for Brother Iz , As-Salamu alaykum by leveling a charge against me about miscontruence, giving mis interpretation on things, firstly I have given nothing from myself but Scholars, the first post I encountered with you , you somehow found the audacity to disagree with Imam Nawawwi رحمة اللّه عليه, so if I go on presenting evidence after evidence from orthodox scholars you claim to respect youre only going to say ‘no he is wrong in this and that so forth blah blah’ so excuse me if I pass you by, sorry but if we cant agree on our Scholars even if we both accept them as authority’s then we are only going to get into wild dogfights.

But I say this, how is asking for dua from the dead shirk (ding dong) do I have to repeat myself and become senile in the process? Tell me by tawid al rubbiyyah, taheed ul hakimiyyah and how many other tawheeds you want to bring into this, judging by that standard how is asking a dead person to do dua for you shirk?

Dua is worship, but is asking somebody to do dua worship? And you cant say by asking to dua do we are in fact doing dua to the dead, this is silly and it has been put forth 2 times and swept under the rug due to brothers inability to answer, if dua, every dua is worship to Allah then why does Allah say ‘ don’t you make dua to the Messenger like you do dua to one another (Qur’an 24:63)

as for the link http://forums.understanding-islam.o...read.php?t=1784it is another red herring tatic ,but I read it, deal with my issue not yours, I haven’t got time for a wild goose chase. And I feel you are finding me problematic due to the fact I am not a sufi nor a brelvi, so most of the stuff you are putting forth does not apply to me, and their position of asking from graves is not mine, bear that in mind, I am only taking from orthodox scholars, not Imam Raza.


Man. Subhanallah. Do you practice husn adhaan akhee. Your whole post was nothing but a bash on me and saying that you have misconstrued a matter as if you are above the deficient attribute of misconstruence.

First of all you should have practice husn adhaan as I do not find you problematic at all. And now I swaer by Allah that I held you in high esteem and respected many of your post and wallahi billah any of the post that i have showed a criticism towards was only to look at the topic in a different angle and to better yourself or understand.

2. WHen did I ever disagree with Nawawee. First of all Everyone's statement is accept or rejected except the messenger. So in relaity the one who says what you have said is the one who has the audacity to say that someone like Nawawee cannot be disagreed with as if he himself is a hujjah. NO Imaam of the salaf is a hujjah. Alamaah Muqbil bin Hadee gave a powerful reply on this topic about the statements of the salaf as being hujjah or not.

as for many of the scholars of the middle ages akhee, I dopnt know if you know that they were or had ahsaree creed. Nawawee was asharee in creed, Haafidh ibn Hajar was asharee in creed, Ibn Jawzee, Imaam al_Qurtobee and many many others. I think Bayhaqee was also another one, khateeb al-Baghdadee, and mnay others. So definately many of the Imaams who were not affeected with tashreeh clarified many of the errors of these notable Imaams of hadeeth.

Then you say that I will not have denied the adeela you brought about the statements of some of the Imaams. Akhee, his critetion goes both ways. How do you judge? You claim I do this yet when I brought Ibn Taymiyyah and I beleive someone else on another topic you just bluffed it by like "well" and blah blah blah. There is not double standard in this akhee. What you have claimed I did, you also have done, and forgive me for being blunt but this speech was kind of offensive to me.

as for the differing of ulema then first of all many of the issue have khilaaf in them. Those matters pertainin to aqeeda there is no lhilaaf. Rather if there is a khilaaf then one is automatically clearly wrong. Example, when Nawawee speaks concerning Allah's Attributes, then by default, no wuestions asked, his tafseer of them is rejected by ahlu-sunah due to his being asharee in this field. The same with the issue of emaan from Imaam Abu Haneefa rahimahullah because he was from the fuqahatul-murjia. so we do no accept the mistakes of the scholars and run with it as if it is a proof.

as ofr me presenting my tread I did so to show the actual matter of the variance between me and mohammad and two see the other side as you claimed that our side was having "loop holes" even though I did bring the Imaams of the sunnah concerning this matter, talking about denying the statements of scholars.

as for the issue of calling the dead as being shirk. Yes That was shirk, our salaf were upon this so we as muslim are upon this. Those who spoke with this are left form this aspect. In know there is an Imaam by Abdur-Razzaq as-Sanaanee form the 3rd century who use to practice this tasawuf and tawasul stuff greatly. The reason why he was considered to be an imaam of ahlul-hadeeth was due ot his knowledge of hadeeth. The same goes for al-Izz ibn Abdi-Salaam who use to practice some of this stuff yet not as great. That is why whenever one errs, we leave it. Just because a shcolar or Imaam have a position on a matter does not automatically santicfy it as an action or practice of Islam. Im not going to bring the adeela as its just a waste of time in regards to why asking to the dead is shirk despite the ultimate reality that Allah utterly humiliated the intelegence of these people by saying "They do not hear you nor can they bring benefit or harm to you" . The quraan the sunnah and the practice of the salaf was so clear as the daylight sun on this that I dont even see why there is even a discussion on this. "WHenver ALlah and His messenger decided on a matter, it is for the beleivers to accept it with full admission without any resistance in their hearts"


They should have studied the belief of the pagan arabs
what is wrong with you mohammad.
1. from the attributes of the ulema is that they do not speak accept with FULL knowledge. so saying they shoulod have knowledge or studied is saying they spoke without knowledge and for the likes of these two, they definately did not speak except with full knowledge

2. they knew the aqeeda of the mushrikeen. The primary source for that was non other than the quraan. so really you have a problem with how Allah described the mushrikeen as you know darn well the mushrikeen of their time and those who practice shirk now form among the muslims are like twin brothers.

3. The tafseer of ibn Katheer, if you knew, was an extension of the tafseer of Tabaree rahimahullah in the third century. So their understanding lead back all the way to his time and his understadning all the way back to the primary source. You see, there is an isnaad for what they claim but there is no isnaad for what you are claiming.

brother andrew

And Muhammad if you want to get along in conversation, you do not abuse the scholars, you will find that mainstream scholars have a level of respect for ibn tamiyyah, and he wrote brilliant books, have you ever read his books or are you just going by what the next man says,

actually akhee the harder part to beleive is that he knows arabic, but I dont know if he is arab. subhanallah there is definately no excuse for him as he understands the luga clearly. This is the astonishment I am still awed at.

also MOhammad

you have brought the views of the mubtadiah that Ibn Taymiyyah beleived in antrhopomorshism. his is definately an issue you can be scratched upon as the whole naion of our salaf viewed that Allah had hands, eyse, and all that He the Most High affimred for himself and all, all, all of them (who were not affected with ashariyyah) testified that their meanings are carried upon the literal sense. So He has hands but not like ours and so on and so forth. The reason for the charge of antropomorphism is because of 1 matter that the prophet said would happen.

The prophhet said "there will be a time when the sunnah is bida and bida will be sunnah" I beleive in another narration somehting to the effect of "the sunnah will become strange, so toobaa for the ghurabaa". Since the 3rd century the whole of the muslim wolrd fell in the lethal plague in creed of ashariyyah and itizaal from the muatazilah. So when Ibn Taymiyyah brought back that which was with our predecessors, the sunnah that was with them was lost and strange. SO in this issue they were all ashari. That is why he was charged with it.

braother andrew

o.k i am glad Haroon has established the act as a bidah due to the fact the Prophet (peace be upon him) didnt do it, so it is not shirk, Abu bakr , Brother Izaree, hash, Muhammad, are you all in agreement with Haroons conclusion because if so we have broken down one barrier and we can move on to the next.



yes it is bida, even mohamamd agreed in one statement that this was not with the sahaba. And we, ahlu-sunnah (who were not infected with it) viewt hat it is shirk (asking to the dead) and of course a practice of jahiliyyah. This is why the notable Imaam Abdul-Wahhab broght the clear proofs regarding this issue in many of his books and a good book is kashf ash-shubahaat.

asalamu alaikum

[Brother Andrew]

As-Salamu alaykum

does anybody else have anything to say? before i bring forth the next issue?

wasalams

[vinod]

Salam Andrew

Yup, I do have somethings to say to moderate the discussion, but am worried that you'll misunderstand. Anyhow, it's got to be said.

The absence of salam, that irks you, well, it is bordering on paranoia. You said -

, if you intend salam then it would be stated, there are a few reasons why a person doesnt give salam.

1. he hates himself and other people
2. he thinks the person is too deviant to deserve the Islamic greeting
3. he is not a follower of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him so it is not in him to deliever salam

Well, there is another reason why people may not give salam. That is, to maintain conversational flow and style. Sometimes, members are logged on at the same time and posting in the same thread, replying to each other almost immediately. In such a case, it's more like a chat-in-progress and it is perfectly fine if the salam is omitted. I trust you understand what I'm saying. If, let's say, I post in a thread only occasionally or after a long gap, then yeah..it makes sense to start of with a greeting.

So, pls take that thing easy ok? Don't get into 'you think I'm kaafir' and all that stuff.

you said -

So you are blindly following still Abu Bakr, and will continue to do so until you check the sources for yourself

Hmm.. are you saying until one knows classical Arabic, one is a blind follower? I disagree. There is a certain amount of reliability allowed on other individuals, when we know them personally or know their qualifications. If Abu bakr is confident of the qualifications of the madrasah that his friends study in and in their own credibility as well, he can take it (quotations/references) from them. This is a level of "blindness", so to speak, that is perfectly pragmatic. That is not to be faulted. Otherwise, we might as well shut this forum down coz there's hardly anybody here who knows Arabic. Just something to loosen out that "blindness" constraint to practical levels...

I've got one item on the subject matter now...

On the bilal ibn harith hadith, I thought abu bakr specifically said that the isnaad is strong only till 2 steps below Ayesha. The link between Ayesha and the first narrator is not established. I thought you've ignored that criticicm on the hadith.

Was-salam

[abubakr]

asalamu alaykum

first of all I would like to make the point that no scholar apart from our beloved nabi saw is free from mistakes. if the scholars contradict the quran and sunnah then we leave their saying. e are not saying they are bad scholars no way Imam ibn kathir, imam nawawi and imam ibn qudamah are great scholars and they had their particular strengths.
i would also like to point out that Imam ibn qudamah, imam nawawi and imam ibn kathir were later scholars. you will not find a single hadiht from the compnaions of nabi saw who engaged in the practice of asking the dead to make dua. not even once. similarly you will find none of the early scholars of Islam propogating this practice. the hadiht of bukhari where hadrat umar ask abbas to make dua instead of nabi saw is enough proof coupled wiht the fact that there is no evidence for this act.

another point whihc I would like to make is that when a scholar makes a ruling we have to see on what evidence that scholar has gone by. if the evidence that particular has used is weak then we cannot possibly accept the ruling.

now i will begin to answer and refute the narrations one by one just as brother andrew has mentioned.

the first saying was from Imam nawawi:


The pilgrim should face the shrine of the Messenger of Allah صلي اللّه عليه وسلم, make him a means towards reaching God and seek his wasilah as intercession (dua), in the same manner as the Bedouin who visited the Prophet's صلي اللّه عليه وسلم shrine and standing beside it said: Peace unto you O Messenger of Allah صلي اللّه عليه وسلم , I have heard Allah has said:...Had they, when they had wronged themselves, come to you and asked Allah's forgiveness and the Apostle had asked forgiveness for them, they would certainly have found Allah Most-Propitious, Most-Merciful. (Holy Qur'an 4: 64). Therefore, I have come to you for forgiveness of my sins and seeking your intercession (dua) with Allah.

(al Majmu', vol. 8, Fayd al-Qadir, vol. 2, Adhkar and his I'anah al-Talibiyyin)

now imam nawawi used the narration of imam Utabi as evidence which was:


Imam Nawawi writes about the incident where Al-`Utbi said: "As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet صلي اللّه عليه وسلم , a Beduin Arab came and said: "Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah صلي اللّه عليه وسلم ! I have heard Allah saying: "If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful" (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord."


this narration first of all is not a hadith it is not found in any of the books of hadith it is not reported by any of the companions.

now lets have a closer look at the narration itself which is actually very weak. i would aslo like to make the point that Imam nawawi mentions this narration from imam Utabi without any isnaad. it is possible that imam nawawi did not receive information regarding its narrators and and the position of jarh wa tadeel.

There is no known authentication of this Utba however very little is know about him except that he was a historian as is mentioned in Taareekh Baghdaad 2/324, al-Ibar 1/413 and Shadhraat adh-Dhahab (2/65) but none of the authors of this book mentioned any praise of authentication of him.
for more details on this once can also see the following link:

http://feqh.al-islam.com/Display.asp?Mode=1&DocID=24&MaksamID=3323&ParagraphID=1245&Sharh=0&HitNo=0&Source=1&SearchString=24%23%C7%E1%DE%C8%D1%230%231%230%23%2 3%23%23%23

Secondly
There is another narrator in the chain, Muhamamd bin Harb al-Hilaalee, who again is unknown and there is no recollection as to who he is.

The chain upto these two narrators is also unknown so how can an unknown chain be accepted.

Shaikh Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abdul-Haadee al-Hanbali said, “This incident as some people have mentioned and have narrated it from Utba without a chain, some narrate it from Muhammad bin Harb al-Hilaalee and some from Muhammad bin Harb from Abul-Hasan Za’afaraanee and he from the bedouin arab. Biahaqee has transmitted in Shu’bal Eemaan with a defective chain from Muhammad bin Rooh bin Yazeed Basree who said mentioned to me Abu Harb al-Hilaahee and then he mentioned the narration as above. Some liars have even raised the chain to Alee bin Abee Taalib just as will be mentioned. The summary of this incident of the bedouin is not worthy to be deduced from as evidence, its chain is defective and differing and its wording is fabricated.” (as-Saarim al Munkee pg.212)

Thirdly
In different wordings and differing chains of this incident another narrator is Haitham bin Adiyy and he was not trustworthy and also an arch liar as stated by Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Yahyaa ibn Ma’een and Imaam Abu Dawood. Imaam Nasaa’ee and other said, Munkar al-hadeeth, abandoned in hadeeth.

For more details refer to Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (7/111-112 no.9319),
see also al-Mughnee (2/717)
adh-Dhu’afaa Wal-Matrookeen (3/179)
al-Majrooheen (3/92)
al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel (9/85).

The narrators from Haitham bin Adiyy in this chain are Muhammad bin Haitham and Ahmad bin Muhammad, ie the son and grandson of Haitham bin Adiyy and their affair (of reliability) is not known ie they are majhool.

So this narration is fabricated, no matter who cites it.

[abubakr]

as for the narration of Imam ibn qudamah then this has to be looked into. brother andrew have you looked into this?
even if this is true whihc is possible we have to look at the evidence the scholar uses. now brother Andrew gave us the following evidence:


Had they, when they had wronged themselves, come to you and asked Allah's forgiveness and the Apostle had asked forgiveness for them, they would certainly have found Allah Most-Propitious, Most-Merciful. (Holy Qur'an 4: 64).

now there is no evidence to suggest that this refers to after the death of nabi saw. if you look at the sayings of companions, the 4 imams and the other early scholars of Islam you will find thatnone of them said that. in fact if you look at the hadith it is clear that it refers to during nabi saw lifetime also if you look at hadith after nabi saw death you will know that the companions never use to go the grave of nabi saw and ask for forgiveness. please bring one hadiht to prove that.

now lets say for arguments sake that asking the dead for dua is permissable. now if you looka the arguments of imam nawawi and imam ibn qudamah they have only presented evidence for going to nabi saw grave in order to seek forgiveness. they have not said it is permissable to go to nabi saw grave and ask him to make dua for other things whihc people nowdays do.
another point is that both these scholars have only mentioned going to grave of nabi saw and not the graves of saints which people do today. because the verse:


Had they, when they had wronged themselves, come to you and asked Allah's forgiveness and the Apostle had asked forgiveness for them, they would certainly have found Allah Most-Propitious, Most-Merciful. (Holy Qur'an 4: 64).

this verse applies to nabi saw and not anyone else. so what is the justification of going to graves of saints and asking them to make dua for other things??

[abubakr]

asalamu alaykum

now brother andrew to your last narration of Imam Malik this is also a fabrication as proven by Imam muhiydeen Barkawi al-Hanafi in his Zyaratul Qubur.

the narration is:


Imam Malik upon being asked a question by Abu Ja`far al-Mansur: "Shall I face the qibla with my back towards the grave of the Messenger of Allah صلي اللّه عليه وسلم when making du`a ?" He replied: "How could you turn your face away from him when he is the means of your and your father Adam's forgiveness to Allah on the Day of Resurrection? Nay, face him and ask for his intercession (his dua) so that Allah will grant it to you as He said: "If they had only, when they were wronging themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful (4:64)."



here are the details:

first of all this narration is weak in a number of different ways. first of all it is weak from its wording.

Imam Barkawi al-Hanafi says in his Zyaratul Qubur:

"Salamah ibn Waradan said : I saw Anas ibn Malik doing salam on the Prophet saw then he put his back towards wall of grave and did du’a, and this is from which there is no dispute between scholars, and the dispute is only in time of salam. Abu Hanifa sais one should also face qiblah during salam and he should not face the grave, and other than him said one should face grave during salam only, and none of the 4 Imams said to face the grave during du’a, except a lied story from Malik, and his madhab is opposed to that, and the same for the story reported from Shafi’I that he made purpose of du’a at Abu Hanifa’s grave, this is from clear lie, rather they said to face Qiblah during du’a and not to face grave so that du’a is done on graves, because du’a is worship as it is established from Tirmidhi in marfu’ form ( words of Prophets) : “ Du’a is worship” and salaf from Sahabah and Tabi’I made singled ibadah for Allah, and theyd id not do anything on the grave except what the Prophet saw permitted from salam to his companions and istighfar for them and mercy for them."

so here brother we know that to face the grave of nabi saw when making dua is gainst the maliki madhab and other madhabs. so here is an indication from the wording that it is weak.

now if we look at the actual isnaad itself:

It should be noted here that Qaadhi A’yaadh transmits this report in his ash-Shifaa but does not authenticate it but he weakens it in another of his books.

Qaadhi A’yaadh the Maalikee authored a book titled Ziyarah of the Prophets grave and in it he brings authentic narrations how one should visit the Prophets grave. Then he goes onto mention the weak ones, and from them is the one mentioned above which is a lie.

One of the narrators of this report is Muhammad bin Humaid, who is extremely weak according to the majority of the scholars of hadeeth.

Haafidh Dhahabee brings in his book, “Ya’qoob bin Shaybah said he narrates many rejected narrations. Bukhaari said look into him. Abu Zur’ah said he was a lair. Fadhlak Raazee said Humaid has 50,000 ahadeeth but I do not take a single letter from him. Ishaaq bin Mansoor said I testify he is a liar. Saaleh Jazrah said we consider Ibn Humaid to be accused in everything he would narrates to us and I have not seen anyone bolder upon Allaah, he would take ahadeeth from people and then mix them up and I have not seen anyone more expert in lying on Allaah than Ibn Humaid and Shaazkoonee. Ibn Kharaash said By Allaah he lies and it has been mentioned by more than one scholar that Ibn Humaid would thief in hadeeth. Nasaa’ee said he is not trustworthy. Abu alee Neesaabooree said, I said to Ibn Khuzaimah to take the chains of Ibn Humaid as Ahmad bin Hanbal has praised him, he replied, he did not know him and if he got to knew him as we know him then he would have not praised him at all. Abu Ahmad al-As’aal said I heard Fadhlak Raazee say I entered upon Ibn Humaid and I found him adding chains to texts.” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal 6/126 no.7459) see also Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb 9/108-111, Imaam Dhahabee also held him to be weak.

Haafidh Ibn Hajr mentions in his book, “Abu Nu’aym bin Adiyy said, “I heard Abu Haatim ar-Raazee in his house when Ibn Kharaash and a group of Scholars of ar-Rayy were with him and Ibn Humaid was mentioned and they all agreed upon his being weak in hadeeth, as he would mention something to be hadeeth that which he did not hear. He would narrate ahadeeth from the people of Basrah and Koofah to the Raaziyyeen. (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb 9/110 no.6081)

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said, “He is alone in reporting confusing and confounded things from trustworthy narrators.” (Kitaab al-Majrooheen Minal Muhadditheen 2/321 no.1005), refer also to Kitaab al-Waseelah pg.71). Ibn Warrah also said he was weak Kitaab adh-Dhu’afaa Wal-Matrookeen (3/54 no.2959)

Secondly
This narration is disconnected because Muhammad bin Humaid a-Raazee did not meet Imaam Maalik specifically during the reign of Abu Ja’afar Mansoor. As Abu Ja’afar died in 158H in Makkah and Imaam Maalik in 179H and Muhammad ibn Humaid in 248H who was a khurasaanee. Muhammad bin Humaid did not leave his homeland to seek knowledge except in the later years of his life when he was older, with his father. So from the dates it is not possible the narrator of this incident ie Muhamamd bin Humaid was in Makkah to witness this incident.

The last narrator of Muwatta from Imaam Maalik was Abu Mus’ab who died in 242H and the last narrator from all of his books was Abu Hudhaifah Ahmad bin Ismaa’eel as-Sahmee who died in 259H, none of them narrated this incident and in addition to this there are narrators in the chain who are unknown. Nor do any of the well known companions of Imaam Maalik narrate this incident. (refer to al-Qaa’idatul Jadeedah Fit-Tawassul wal-Waseelah (pg.71) of Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah).

So this narration is weak on the account of disconnection and Muhammad bin Humaid being weak. Even if he was not weak the narration has to be mursal and in such a position the companions of Imaam Maalik hold such narrations are not reliable enough for them to be used in issues of fiqh.

Thirdly
There are a number of unknown narrators in this chain for example, Alee bin Fahr, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Faraj and Abdullaah bin al-Muntaab. All three individuals are unknown and therefore this narration is false.

Haafidh Ahmad ibn Abdul-Haadee said, “This chain is oppression and disconnected and is based on narrators who are not reliable enough to be used as evidence and they did not hear anything from Maalik nor did they meet him rather this narration from him is disconnected and is not continuous or connected.” (as-Saarim al-Munkee (pg.218).

And lastly Qaadhi A’yaadh also holds this narration to be weak. At this point it would be interesting to say the least that although Qaadhi A’yaadh brings this report in ash-Shifaa he does not authenticate it, and in the same book he reports an opinion of Imaam Maalik that he did not like that an individual come back and forth to the grave of the Messenger. (see ash-Shifaa (2/82).

so brother i have shown from a number of different angles how this narration is fabricated. another point whihc indicates this si the fact that nowhere does imam malik mention this action in his any of his books suhc as his Al-Muwatta and nothing is reported by his students either. so it really is an isolated and fabricated narration.

i hope this helps.

[abubakr]

asalamu alaykum

brother andrew you are free to check all the refernces i have provided

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

Infact i was doing just that brother Abu Bkar,


And lastly Qaadhi A’yaadh also holds this narration to be weak. At this point it would be interesting to say the least that although Qaadhi A’yaadh brings this report in ash-Shifaa he does not authenticate it, and in the same book he reports an opinion of Imaam Maalik that he did not like that an individual come back and forth to the grave of the Messenger. (see ash-Shifaa (2/82).

Sorry, i have looked and looked and looked at this reference, maybe you could offer an explaination more itno what you was saying on this point with exactly what Qadi Iyad said with reference, which book and so forth, before i start jumping to conclusions,

it just so happens that the first book i looked into, i couldnt even find what you was talking about, but i did find Imam Malik held the view to have respect for the Prophet [s] when he is dead by having the same respect for him when he was alive, quoting 49:2 about lowering the voices in the presence of the Messenger, and thats the only censuring i find, then Qadi Iyad rolls on to mention the happening of the bedioun which you say is fabricated, its also intresting to note that Qadi Iyad does not say this narration is weak, fabricated and so forth, so it cuts both ways.

If you like i am willing to sit here and type the whole thing in Arabic, so you can print it out and take it to your super fast reference friends to have it checked with their print, their copys, also i sure there are a few brothers here that would be intrested to go throught the Arabic and verify what it says.

As for checking references brother Abu Bakr, i am not super flash speedy gonzales, it actually supprises me that you have friends who study in dar us nizami or dar ul uloom, that find these references for you superfast in the snap of a finger then less than 24 hours time you have the answer pasted right here, as for my research, i know its not an overnight thing, so i can not commit myself to some sort of deadline to get back to you on the rest of the references. it will take time.

In the meanwhile lets deal with what we have , Ash shifaa and see how far we can strech that, as i have a original copy of ash shifa, untranslated in my possessionm, so it would only be right to scrutunise that.

As for all other irrelevance, sorry brothers i havent the time to answer and plus if i did i feel it would totally sidetrack the issue where the topic would become about me, sorry.

Wasalams

[Brother Andrew]

As-Salamu Alaykum

Brother Abu Bakr you said


here are some quotes from raza khans books:

“if you are embarrassed in your affairs, seek help from the inmates of the tombs” (Wal Ula, page 46)

http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?p=36937#post36937 27-06-2005, 18:30 post number 23




It is intresting to note that Ibn Taynmiyyah also said the same thing in his Iqtidhaa as-Siraat al Mustaqeem page 88 of the english translation, dar us salam publications. Now heres the problem, you made the quotation look like it was the saying of Imam Raza Khan, now as we know Ibn Taymiyyah came way before Imam Raza! This is NOT a statement of Imam Raza like you have tried to imply, but if we look to Ibn Taymiyyah’s book we will find it is a hadith, in which hes says it is fabricated!

I question your trustworthyness for referencing and indeed I will be checking them through all the way now, my advice to you –DON’T BLINDLY FOLLOW- as you will see it gets you into trouble, always do your own research. and excuse me if i dont trust your referencing. sorry but thats the way it is, it doesnt mean that i am not going to look into the rest of the references.

Wasalams

[abubakr]

asalamu alaykum

brother andrew you wanted to know what I meant by the following statement.


And lastly Qaadhi A’yaadh also holds this narration to be weak. At this point it would be interesting to say the least that although Qaadhi A’yaadh brings this report in ash-Shifaa he does not authenticate it, and in the same book he reports an opinion of Imaam Maalik that he did not like that an individual come back and forth to the grave of the Messenger. (see ash-Shifaa (2/82).

brother if you read what i said before i meant that qadhi iyadh mentions the narration from Malik but he does not authenticate ie he does not says its isnaad is sahih. in another book about visitng the grave of nabi saw (inshallah i will get the name of book in arabic with exact reference) he mentions it along with the other weak narrations and in that book he indicates its weakness.

as far as the hadith of the bedouin brother i have already presented how it is a fabrication. the scholars who have mentioned have not brought its isnaad and if they hav declared it sahih they have not said on what basis they have said it is sahih. i have mentioned it is fabricated by usuing the sayings of top scholars of hadith who have criticsed those narrators in the chain. so on what basisi can it be sahih.

as far as Imam Malik sayin one must be respectful and queit when visiting the grave of nabi saw well brother this has got nothing to do wiht the narration itself. all the scholars are agrred that one must be quiet when visiting the grave of nabi saw.

brother you also expresed your surprise at how I got the brothers to check references. brother they have actually had this infromation well before as they themsleves a while back were investigaing the sayings.

as far what imam ahmed raza khan said brotherif you read ahmed raza khansbook you will actually know that raza khan actualy said that.

i hope that asnwers your questions brother. i hope to resume this dialogue since i find it very beneficial and i think everyoe finds it beneficial when having an open minded discussion wiht islamic adab

[Brother Andrew]

As-salaamu Alaykum

As i have said Brother, this is an hadith that Imam Raza Khan quoted which Ibn Taymiyyah classed in his book as fabricated, to misuse a quote like that is a no no and totally dishonest! and its destroys credilbilty of those who pursue with that type of arguementation.

For Example i say i my book


Paul daniels says that it is permissable to eat pork sausages with a glass of wine after beaitng the wife.

and then you come along and proclaim to the world, look evereybody! Brothere Andrew said in his book:


it is permissable to eat pork sausages with a glass of wine after beaitng the wife (page blah blah blah in the book of blah blah blah)

That type of thing does not go well in an Academic dialouge, this is more like playground behaviour , he said she said type stuff.

As for whatever else you said saying you have bouhgt evidence forth, full stop stamped and subject closed, no! the evidence will be triple checked so i wouldnt bother doing the victory dance just yet brother, it was far easyier to admit you was wrong the way you used that quotation.

I am all up for healthy discussions, but when somebody misuses evidence i have to really look to what that brother has to say and triple check everything, i would advice people to do the same, dont wave your victory flags cheering for brother abu bakr or me, open up microsoft word copy and paste our references and find a libary and check them out.

Truth always demolishes falsehood.even if Abu Bkr is the truthful one.

Wasalam

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

I reallty dont know if you are playing me around or you are just making a another mistake in your writing...

in one post you said


...Qaadhi A’yaadh brings this report in ash-Shifaa he does not authenticate it, and in the same book (ash shifaa) he reports an opinion of Imaam Maalik that he did not like that an individual come back and forth to the grave of the Messenger. (see ash-Shifaa (2/82).

yet in another post you said


... in another book about visitng the grave of nabi saw (inshallah i will get the name of book in arabic with exact reference) he mentions it along with the other weak narrations and in that book he indicates its weakness.

Brother, it really does not matter what book of Qadi Iyads it is in, just be more accurate, get the reference and get back to me so i can look for myself.
We will look at Qadi Iyads works first as i take him as one of my favourate orthodox scholars and have a great love for his books.


my main point is that this of what you claimed could not be found and i am ready to show you it is not there when i post the reference you made to it up. can you back your statement? or is it another misuse of a reference?


he reports an opinion of Imaam Maalik that he did not like that an individual come back and forth to the grave of the Messenger. (see ash-Shifaa (2/82).

Where is this? are you making slips or are you trying to pull the wool over my eyes?



Wasalams

[abubakr]

asalamu alaykum

brother i will find the exact reference for qadhi iyadh mentioning the narration of imam malik amongst the weak ones. as for qadhi iyadh mentioning a narration of dislking going back and forht from the grave of nabi saw then brother I will get to the bottom of that. however, i have to say that this was a minor point of my argument as the essence of my argument was that the narrations of the bedouin and the narration attributed to Imam Malik are fabrications. you have failed to acknowledge or comment on that.

i also have a question for you brother did Qadhi Iyadh in shifah say the narration of Imam Malik was authentic?? did he authenticate the narration?

as regards to misuisng quotes of raza khan well first of all brother this is from his very own words i have presneted these words to barelvis before and they have not denied that raza khan actually said that. if you want me to bring more narrations proving the shirk of raza khan then i can bring them.

the truth is clear for everybody to see as regards to asking the dead to make dua. this has no origin in shariah.

[Brother Andrew]

As-Salamu Alaykum

Myabe i am being a bit harsh on you brother abu bakr, if the references check out then you have a case, but so far the ones i have looked into have been either misused or not there, i am asking you to be precise, because checking references means i have to go here and there borrowing books and it is a quite painful task, especially when i open the book not to find it there

Wasalams

[abubakr]

first of all brother which references have u checked just qadhi iyadh?

[Brother Andrew]

Hmmm we must of posted at the same time, i think you should produce the evidence where Qadi Iyad says its weak, the fact that he put forth the naration and said nothing much about it except he used it for his chapter on respecting the Prophet even after his death (peace be upon him)...no why did Qadi Iyad use it if it was fabricated material? i want the evidence in which Qadi Iyad says its fabricated.

As for the statement of course he said that, but (ding dong) so did Ibn Taymiyyah! you have missed that for the 200th time, if you havent caught on, it is a fabricated hadith!!!!!!!! and Imam Raza quoted it in his book!

Wasalams

[abubakr]

brother andrew you said this:


the fact that he put forth the naration and said nothing much about it except he used it for his chapter on respecting the Prophet even after his death (peace be upon him)...no why did Qadi Iyad use it if it was fabricated material?

brother the lies of the sufiyyah have been unveiled they claim qadhi iyadh said it was sahih. no where does qadhi iyadh state that?? that was my point that qadhi iyadh mentioned it but did not authenticate it.

an brother andrew you said :


This narration is used by so many othodox scholars one of them being 5th century scholar Qadi`Iyad who cites in his ash shifa with a sahih isnad

as i have mentioned before qadhi iyadh reports this narration in his book on ziyarah of the prophets grave and he mentions it along with other weak narrations. therefore this implies its weakness.

lets say for arguments sake that qadhi iyadh authenticates it(whihc he did not as has preceded) where is his evidence and on what basis has he declared it sahih. i have shown how this narration is a lie as has been shown in by imam Barkawi Al-Hanafi and imam ibn adul hadi al-Hanbali.

so how can this narration be used as evidence. as to your question why qadhi iyadh mentions this narration in his book then only Allah knows why he did. but nowhere does he authenticate it. in fact he weakens it in another book. so i dont know how i am misusing quotes.

[Brother Andrew]

As-Salamu Alaykum

Subhan-allah , i have been called a lying sufi! thats a first, Hasan i am laughing all the way, seriously, i am in the middle of printing up the arabic, be back shortly.

Wasalams

[mohamed]

Brother andrew what are u trying to prove here? First of all to be honest i have been following your posts for a while. You are the one that the wahabi uncle tom vinod believes is the right way of debating. What i find amusing is you are assuming this people you are debating give a hoot about the " orthodox scholars". Sorry andrew but i have to say it. You are a fool!!

Thats right, a fool!!

These people you are debating don't give a damn about no " ahl ul sunna wal jama'. The only thing you are doing is giving them a "yawn". These people smart guy have a belief in one madhab only called the madhab of the salaf, the saved sect. How many times i have to post the debate between abdul wahab and the sheikhs of mecca!!

I will do it one more time smart guy!!

They don't recognize the 4 madhabs. Get it. Half the stuff you said in this forum if you said it to their sheikh abdul wahab, you would have your head chopped off a long time ago. They don't care about what you are saying.

Listen SMART GUY!! to what sheikh madani says. I will put if for you and the wahabi uncle tom vinod in BOLD and italics letter so you can finally understand and stop wasting your time. Read for a change.


Extracts from Sheikh Mohamed Abdel Wahab's letter to the Muftis of Mecca:

Quote:
And they gave us their strongest oaths, without it being asked from them, of the broadening of their understanding and the certainty of their conscience, that they no longer held the slightest doubt that the one who says: "Yaa Rasoolallaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam)", or: "Yabna 'Abbaas", or: "Yaa 'Abdal-Qaadir", or other than them from the creations, seeking by that to avert an evil or bring a good from anything that Allaah ta'aalaa alone is capable of doing, such as healing the sick, or granting victory over the enemy, or guarding from a misfortune, or the like: that he is a mushrik guilty of major shirk, whose blood may be shed and whose wealth is lawful, even if he believes that the ultimate controller of the universe is Allaah ta'aalaa alone but he turned to the creations with du'aa', seeking intercession from them, and drawing closer to them, in order to fulfill his need from Allaah by virtue of their "secret" and by their interceding with Him for them while they are in the barzakh;

And that the structures built over the graves of the righteous people have become in this age idols to which people turn for the fulfillment of needs, and at which acts of devotion are performed, and whose inhabitants are called upon in difficulties, as the people of Jaahiliyyah used to do.

And among them were the mufti of the Hanafiyyah, Shaykh 'Abd al-Malik al-Qala'i, and Husayn al-Maghribi the mufti of the Maalikiyyah, and 'Aqeel ibn Yahyaa al-'Alawi.

So thereafter we demolished all that was worshipped by glorification and belief in it, and due to which benefit and aid were hoped for, from all of the structures built over the graves and other than them, until there did not remain in that purified land a single taaghoot to be worshipped, so all praise is due to Allaah for that. (End Quote)

Now the refutation of abdel wahab's fatwas by the sheikhs in medina:

The following is a translation from the book Ashadd al-jihad:


Muhammad ibn Sulaiman al-Madani ash-Shafi'i (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih), [who passed away in Medina in 1194 A.H. (1780),] was questioned about Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab an-Najdi. He said, "This man is leading the ignoramuses of the present age to a heretical path. He is extinguishing Allahu ta'ala's light. But Allahu ta'ala will not let His light be extinguished in spite of the opposition of polytheists, and He will enlighten everywhere with the light of the 'ulama' of Ahl as-Sunnat." The [collection of the] questions and his answers at the end of Muhammad ibn Sulaiman's fatwas are as follows:


"Question: Oh great 'ulama', the stars who lead to the path of the Best of Creatures (the Prophet)! I ask you: Is a person to be permitted to disseminate his ideas if he says that this umma has wholly dissented from the essence of Islam and from the path of Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam), just by measuring with his short sight and narrow mind the knowledge he has gathered from various religious books, and if he says that he is mujtahid and, therefore, is able to derive knowledge on Islam from Allah's Word and Rasulullah's hadiths, although he does not have any of the qualifications stated as necessary by the 'ulama' of Islam for being a mujtahid? Should he not give up this claim of his and follow the 'ulama' of Islam? He says that he is an imam, that it is necessary for every Muslim to follow him and that his madhhab is necessary. He forces Muslims to accept his madhhab. He says that those who do not obey him are unbelievers, that they should be killed and that their possessions should be confiscated. Does this man tell the truth? Or, is he wrong? Even if a person fulfilled all the requirements necessary for making ijtihad and founded a madhhab, would it be jaiz for him to force everyone to adopt this madhhab? Is it necessary to adopt a certain madhhab? Or, is everyone free to choose any madhhab he like?

Does a Muslim go out of Islam if he visits the grave of a Sahabi or a pious servant of Allahu ta'ala, vows something for him, cuts an animal near a grave, prays making a mediator of a dead person, takes some soil from such a grave to receive blessings or asks help from Rasulullah or a Sahabi to get redeemed from danger? Is it permitted to kill such a Muslim even though he says, 'I do not worship the dead person and do not believe that he has the power to do anything. I make an intercessor, mediator, of that person with Allahu ta'ala to make me attain my wish, because, I believe that he is a beloved servant of Allahu ta'ala.' Does a person go out of Islam if he swears by something [or somebody] other than Allah? END QUOTE

GET IT !!!

They don't follow the 4 madhabs unless it agrees with their madhab. Stop wasting your time. If you say the stuff you are saying in saudi arabia, that tawassul is not shirk, at best you will be deported and at worst you will be executed. These guys you are debating think right now you are a kafir who should be killed. Even if Immam hanbal said that tawassul is not shirk, they will kill him!! Abdul wahab makes it clear, either its his madhab, the madhab of izaaree, hash, ameen, abu bakr, ansar al batil, and tabari or death!! They don't care about imaam nawawi or al qadi or other wise. Get It !!!

If you don't believe me, then just ask them whether they agree with the bolded italics words mentioned by the sheikh of the shafi', Al Madani or not. Ask them what they think of someone who does not believe tawassul is shirk! They will tell you what abdul wahab says, they should be killed!!

Get It!!!!

[Marat786@hotmail.com]

.................................................. ......

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

Brother Muhammad when you have dwelt on your post, im sure you will come correct, or you could repeat it for the third time, if you wish, as for them thinking i am a kafir these are your own assumptions, keep them to yourself dont want to hear it, they havent called me a kafir, or condemned me to kufr, infact they have been quite well behaved,

I they think that that havent exposed their thoughts, however you have, what you think about a brother has been laid out in the open

قال رسول اللّه صلي اللّه عليه وسلم المسلم من سلم المسلمون من لسانه ويده

Wasalams

[Al-Boriqi]

asalamu alaikum ikhwaan

Brother Muhammad when you have dwelt on your post, im sure you will come correct, or you could repeat it for the third time, if you wish, as for them thinking i am a kafir these are your own assumptions, keep them to yourself dont want to hear it, they havent called me a kafir, or condemned me to kufr, infact they have been quite well behaved,

I they think that that havent exposed their thoughts, however you have, what you think about a brother has been laid out in the open


RAISED, barakallahu feek

anyways I have nejoyed both yours and abu baklrs discussion and is exactly how our salaf would have differed in matters in a polite manner.

as for the issue, then If you both dont mind can you both summerize exactly in one or two sentences what your actually looking for form each other. I ask becuase inshallah I may be able to be of service bi ithnillah.

asalamu alaikum,

[mohamed]

Just ask them then. I have been in this forum long enough to know what i am saying. You are wasting your time.

[Haroon]

Mohamed.


Does a Muslim go out of Islam if he visits the grave of a Sahabi or a pious servant of Allahu ta'ala, vows something for him, cuts an animal near a grave, prays making a mediator of a dead person, takes some soil from such a grave to receive blessings or asks help from Rasulullah or a Sahabi to get redeemed from danger?For the most part, yes. What you have described here is not Islam (submission to Allah), in fact it seems like another religion. Have you named it yet?

Regards

[abubakr]

Asalamu alaykum

brother andrew you said:
Subhan-allah , i have been called a lying sufi! thats a first

first of all I wasnt calling you a lying a sufi I was calling people such as Hisham Kabbani, GF Haddad and others who start bringing the narration of Imam Malik and then satrt saying oh QAdhi Iyadh said the isnaad was sahih when in actual fact he did not. Brother I think you were at first deceived by these words but when You checked the reference yourself you found out that he did not actualy say that. that was my point.

as for brother Mohammed I think the moderators perhaps need to take some action he is going too far without thinking he is labelling people fools etc. then he accuses salfis of having an extremist takfeeri attitude.

[abubakr]

brother Izaree said


as for the issue, then If you both dont mind can you both summerize exactly in one or two sentences what your actually looking for form each other. I ask becuase inshallah I may be able to be of service bi ithnillah.

well brother I am looking for brother andrew to realise that asking the dead to make dua actually has no real proof from the quran and sunnah and I want him to realise this action can easily lead to major shirk.

[Hashim]

Aslaam Alaykum

Very well said akhee abu bakr, if brother andrew can reply with proof from the Qur'aan and sunnah that it is okay to ask the dead, if he cant, maybe he will relaise that it is a BID'AAH, and a path to shirk.

[Marat786@hotmail.com]

...............................

[Brother Andrew]

As-Salamu alaykum

O.k this is very easy for me, here we go... there is no proof in the Qur'an or the sunnah that i can think of that actually permits to ask the dead for dua, except the evidences i have quoted, i did look in Ash Shifaa and it doesnt say anything about a Sahih Isnad, i was wrong about that, maybe elsewhere it might, i did take from another Scholar and i am still checking the references for myself, i will keep researching until the truth is estabalished to me, and i am not afraid of the truth, this is a matter still under study withy a few other topics, i cant go any where further just yet, however i am not dismissing asking dua from the dead as being bidah or a road that leads to shirk until, i have of course looked at the angles, i am still upset about 2 references that Abu Bakr has put forth it would be could if he could, A) Check the one about Imam Raza and do the honest thing and come clean B) get the reference right in regards to Imam Malik disliking people going to the grave or something along those lines, as for Muhammad, Subhan-Allah guys hes wants me to ask you guys...so i will ,AM I A KAFIR? he expects Brother Abu Bakr, Hash, Izaaree and Haroon to answer that one.

Wasalams

[mohamed]

I said(now u r playing the games) ask them if they agree with the abdul wahab's fatwa regarding the killing of those who practice tawassul. And his fatwa that anyone who does not agree with him should be killed. Since you fall into that category of not following abdul wahab but the 4 madhabs, you according to abdul wahab should be killed as now you have left the fold of islam. Ask them if they agree to that.

[mohamed]

Aslaam Alaykum

Very well said akhee abu bakr, if brother andrew can reply with proof from the Qur'aan and sunnah that it is okay to ask the dead, if he cant, maybe he will relaise that it is a BID'AAH, and a path to shirk.

T A W A S S U L

TAWASSUL: SUPPLICATING ALLAH THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY.
From
Reliance of the Traveller

by

Allamah Nuh Ha Mim Keller




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAWASSUL (definition)

Supplicating Allah by means of an intermediary, whether it be a living person, dead person, a good deed, or a name or Attribute of Allah Most High. The scholar, YUSUF RIFA'I, says: I here want to convey the position, attested to by compelling legal evidence, of the orthodox majority of Sunni Muslims on the subject of supplicating Allah through an intermediary (tawassul), and so I say (and Allah alone gives success) that since there is no disagreement among scholars that supplicating Allah through an intermediary is in principle legally valid, the discussion of its details merely concerns derived rulings that involve interschool differences, unrelated to questions of belief or unbelief, monotheism or associating partners with Allah (shirk); the sphere of the question being limited to permissibility or impermissibility, and its ruling being that it is either lawful or unlawful. There is no difference among groups of Muslims in their consensus on the permissibility of three types of supplicating Allah through an intermediary (tawassul):

(1) TAWASSUL through a living righteous person to Allah Most High, as in the hadith of the blind man with the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as we shall explain;

(2) The TAWASSUL of a living person to Allah Most High through his own good deeds, as in the hadith of the three people trapped in a cave by a great stone, a hadith related by Imam Bukhari in his "Sahih;"

(3) And the TAWASSUL of a person to Allah Most High through His entity (dhat), names, attributes, and so forth.

Since the legality of these types is agreed upon, there is no reason to set forth the evidence for them. The only area of disagreement is supplicating Allah (tawassul) through a righteous dead person. The majority of the orthodox Sunni Community hold that it is lawful, and have supporting hadith evidence , of which we will content ourselves with the Hadith of the Blind Man, since it is the central pivot upon which the discussion turns.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE HADITH OF THE BLIND MAN

Tirmidhi relates, through his chain of narrators from 'Uthman ibn Hunayf, that a blind man came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and said, "I've been afflicted in my eyesight, so please pray to Allah for me." The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Go make ablution (wudu), perform two rak'as of prayer, and then say:


"Oh Allah, I ask You and turn to You through my Prophet Muhammad,
the Prophet of mercy; O Muhammad (Ya Muhammad), I seek your intercession with my Lord for the return of my eyesight [and in another version: "for my need, that it may be fulfilled. O Allah, grant him intercession for me"]."

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) added, "And if there is some need, do the same."


Scholars of Sacred Law infer from this hadith the recommended character of the "prayer of need," in which someone in need of something from Allah Most High performs such a prayer and then turns to Allah with this supplication together with other suitable supplications, traditional or otherwise, according to the need and how the person feels. The express content of the hadith proves the legal validity of "tawassul" through a living person (as the Prophet - peace be upon him - was alive at that time). It implicitly proves the validity of tawassul through a deceased one as well, since tawassul through a living or dead person is not through a physical body or through or through a life or death, but rather through the positive meaning (ma'na tayyib) attached to the person in both life and death. The body is but the vehicle that carries that significance, which requires that the person be respected whether dead or alive; for the words "O Muhammad" are an address to someone physically absent - in which state the living and dead are alike - an address to the meaning, dear to Allah, that is connected with his spirit, a meaning that is the ground of "tawassul," be it through a living or dead person.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE HADITH OF THE MAN IN NEED






Moreover, Tabarani, in his "al-Mu'jam al saghir," reports a hadith from 'Uthman ibn Hunayf that a man repeatedly visited Uthman ibn Affan (Allah be pleased with him) concerning something he needed, but Uthman paid no attention to him or his need. The man met Ibn Hunayf and complained to him about the matter - this being after the death (wisal) of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and after the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar - so Uthman ibn Hunayf, who was one of the Companions who collected hadiths and was learned in the religion of Allah, said: "Go to the place of ablution and perform ablution (wudu), then come to the mosque, perform two rak'as of prayer therein, and say:


'O Allah, I ask You and turn to You through our Prophet Muhammad,
the Prophet of mercy; O Muhammad (Ya Muhammad), I turn through you to my Lord, that He may fulfill my need,' and mention your need. Then come so that I can go with you [to the caliph Uthman]." So the man left and did as he had been told, then went to the door of Uthman ibn Affan (Allah be pleased with him), and the doorman came, took him by the hand, brought him to Uthman ibn Affan, and seated him next to him on a cushion. 'Uthman asked, "What do you need?" and the man mentioned what he wanted, and

Uthman accomplished it for him, then he said, "I hadn't remembered your need until just now," adding, "Whenever you need something, just mention it." Then, the man departed, met Uthman ibn Hunayf, and said to him, "May Allah reward you! He didn't see to my need or pay any attention to me until you spoke with him." Uthman ibn Hunayf replied, "By Allah, I didn't speak to him, but I have seen a blind man come to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and complain to him of the loss of his eyesight. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, "Can you not bear it?' and the man replied, 'O Messenger of Allah, I do not have anyone to lead me around, and it is a great hardship for me.' The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) told him, 'Go to the place of ablution and perform ablution (wudu), then pray two rak'as of prayer and make the supplications.'" Ibn Hunayf went on, "By Allah, we didn't
part company or speak long before the man returned to us as if nothing had ever been wrong with him."


This is an explicit, unequivocal text from a prophetic Companion proving the legal validity of tawassul through the dead. The account has been classified as rigously authenticated (SAHIH) by Baihaqi, Mundhiri, and Haythami.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AUTHENTICITY OF THE HADITH OF THE BLIND MAN

Tirmidhi has stated that the hadith of the blind man is "a hadith that is well or rigorously authenticated but singular, being unknown except through his chain of narrators, from the hadith of Abu Ja'far, who is not Abu Ja'far Khatmi," which means that the narrators of this hadith, despite Abu Ja'far being unknown to Tirmidhi, were acceptable to the degree of being well or rigorously authenticated in either case.

But scholars before Tirmidhi established that Abu Ja'far, this person unknown to Tirmidhi, was Abu Ja'far Khatmi himself. Ibn Abi Khaythama said: "The name of this Abu Ja'far, whom Hammad ibn Salama relates from, is 'Umayr ibn Yazid, and is the Abu Ja'far that Shu'ba relates from," and then he related the hadith by the channel of transmission of 'Uthman from Shu'ba from Abu Ja'far.

Ibn Taymiya, after relating the hadith of Tirmidhi, said: "All scholars say that he is Abu Ja'far Khatmi, and this is correct."

Reflect on this.

The hadith master, Ibn Hajar, notes in "Taqrib al-tahdhib" that he is Khatmi, and that he is reliable (saduq).

Ibn 'Abd al-Barr likewise says that he is Khatmi, in "al-Istii'ab fi ma'rifa al-ashab." Moreover, Baihaqi related the hadith by way of Hakim and confirmed that it was rigorously authenticated (SAHIH), Hakim having related it by a chain of transmission meeting the standards of Bukhari and Muslim, which the hadith master Dhahabi confirmed, and Shawkani cited as evidence. Dhahabi and Shawkani, who are they? The meaning of this is that all the men of the hadith's chain of transmission are known to top Imams of hadith such as Dhahabi (and who is severer than he?), Ibn Hajar (and who is more precise, learned, or painstaking than he?), Hakim, Baihaqi, Tabarani, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Shawkani, and even Ibn Taymiya.

This hadith was recorded was recorded by Bukhari in his "al-Tarikh al-kabir", by Ibn Majah in his "Sunan", where he said it was rigorously authenticated (SAHIH), by Nasa'i in "Amal al-yawm wa al-layla", by Abu Nu'aym in "Ma'rifa al-Sahaba", by Baihaqi in "Dala'il al-nubuwwa", by Mundhiri in "al-Targhib wa al-tahrib", by Haythami in "Majma' al zawa'id wa manba' al-fawa'id", by Tabarani in "al-Mu'jam al-kabir", by Ibn Khuzayma in his "Sahih", and by others. Nearly 15 hadith masters ("huffaz", hadith authorities with more than 100,000 hadiths and their chains of transmission by memory) have explicitly stated that this hadith is rigorously authenticated (sahih). As mentioned above, it has come with a chain of transmission meeting the standards of Bukhari and Muslim, so there is nothing left for a critic to attack or slanderer to disparage concerning the authenticity of the hadith. Consequently, as for the permissibility of supplicating Allah (tawassul) through either a living or dead person, it follows by human reason, scholarship, and sentiment, that there is flexibility in the matter. Whoever wants to can either take tawassul or leave it, without causing trouble or making accusations, since it has been this thoroughly checked ("Adilla Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a , 79-83).

It is well to review some salient features of the proof that was given , such as:

(1) that there are 2 hadiths, Tirmidhi's hadith of the "blind man" and Tabarani's hadith of the "man in need" to whom Uthman ibn Hunayf related the story of the blind man, teaching him tawassul that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) had taught the blind man.

(2) Tirmidhi's hadith is rigorously authenticated (sahih), being the subject of the above investigation of its chain of narrators, the authencticity of which is established beyond a reasonable doubt and attested to by nearly 15 of the foremost hadith specialists of Islam. The hadith explicitly proves the validity of supplicating Allah (tawassul) through a living intermediary, as the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was alive at the time. The author of the article holds that the hadith implicitly shows the validity of supplicating Allah (tawassul) through a deceased intermediary as well, since:

The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) told the blind man to go perform ablution (wudu) pray two rak'as, and then make the supplication containing the words, "O Muhammad, I seek your intercession with my Lord for the return of my eyesight," which is a call upon somebody physically absent, a state of which the living and the dead are alike.

Supplicating Allah (tawassul) through a living or deceased intermediary is, in the author's words, "not tawassul through a physical body, or through a life or death, but rather through the positive meaning attached to the person in both life and death, for the body is but the vehicle that carries that significance.

And perhaps the most telling reason, though the author does not mention it, is that everything the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) ordered to be done during his lifetime was "legislation" valid for all generations until the end of time unless proven otherwise by a subsequent indication from the Prophet himself (Allah bless him and grant him peace), the tawassul he taught during his lifetime not requiring anything else to be generalized to any time thereafter.

(3) The authenticity of Tabarani's hadith of the man in need during the caliphate of Uthman (Allah be well pleased with him) is not discussed by the article in detail, but deserves consideration, since the hadith explicitly proves the legal validity of supplicating Allah (tawassul) through the deceased, for 'Uthman ibn Hunayf and indeed all the prophetic Companions, by scholarly consensus (ijma'), were legally upright ('udul), and are above being impugned with teaching someone an act of disobedience, much less idolatory (shirk). The hadith is rigorously authenticated (sahih), as Tabarani explicitly states in his "al-Mu'jam al-saghir." The translator (Nuh Ha Mim Keller), wishing to verify the matter further, to the hadith with its chain of narrators to hadith specialist Sheikh Shu'ayb Arna'ut, who after examining it, agreed that it was rigorously authenticated (sahih) as Tabarani indicated, a judgement which was also confirmed to the translator by the Morrocan hadith specialist Sheikh 'Abdullah Muhammad Ghimari, who characterized the hadith as "very rigorously authenticated," and noted that hadith masters Haythami and Mundhiri had explicitly concurred with Tabarani on its being rigorously
authenticated (sahih). The upshot is that the recommendedness of tawassul to Allah Most High - through the living or the dead - is the position of the Shafi'i school, which is why both our author Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, and Imam Nawawi in his "Al-Adhkar (281-282)", and "al-Majmu" explicitly record that "tawassul" through the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and asking his intercession are recommended. A final article below by a Hanafi scholar concludes the discussion.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CALLING UPON THE RIGHTEOUS

The Hanafi scholar, Muhammad Hamid says: As for calling upon (nida') the righteous (when they are physically absent, as in the words "O Muhammad" in the above hadiths), tawassul to Allah Most High through them is permissible, the supplication (du'a) being to Allah Most Glorious, and there is much evidence for its permissibility.

Those who call on them intending "tawassul" cannot be blamed. As for someone who believes that those called upon can cause effects, benefit, or harm, which they create or cause to exist as Allah does, such a person is an idolator who has left Islam - Allah be our refuge! This then, and a certain person has written an article that tawassul to Allah Most High through the righteous is unlawful, while the overwhelming majority of scholars hold it is permissible, and the evidence the writer uses to corrobrate his viewpoint is devoid of anything that demonstrates what he is trying to prove. In declaring tawassul permissible, we are not hovering on brink of idolatory (shirk) or coming anywhere near it, for the conviction that Allah Most High alone has influence over anything, outwardly or inwardly, is a conviction that flows through us like our very lifeblood. If tawassul was idolatory (shirk), or if there were any suspicion of idolatory in it, the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would not have taught it to the blind man when the latter asked him to supplicate Allah for him, though in fact he did teach him to make "tawassul" to Allah through him. And the notion that tawassul is permissible only during the lifetime of the person through whom it is done but not after his death is unsupported by any viable foundation from Sacred Law ["Rudud 'ala abatil wa rasa'il al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Hamid]

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

Whoopsy Brother Muhammad, call it clumsy water ski reading, anywyas to change the question, because i follow the Shafee Madhab does that mean i should be killed? keeping in mind the 4 Imams were of the salaf, so in reality, we are the salafi (followers of the salaf), and i am not talkinf about the madhab that exploded out of the desert around 200 years ago.

Wasalams

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaylum

Whos the joker that gave me the red card? ha ha ha, i am just laughing, when did arrogance become laughing, besides i am not a sufi, i dont dance in cirlces nor listen to music, nor believe that Allah is everything, i really hate it when people start hanging labels around peoples necks.

Wasalams

[mohamed]

I am talking about the ones you are debating with. they follow the abdul wahab madhab. They call themselves salafis. They believe they are the ahl ul sunna wal jama'. They claim to be the ones following the koran and sunna and the salaf. They don't give a damn about what you are saying. The declaration of shirk was done by their understanding of koran and sunna. Their premium sheikh, bin baz talks about it. He does not mention any scholars from the past except ibn taymiya when it comes to shirk. He believed the arabs were monotheist in uloohiyah but mushriks in their worship. He claims that the arabs prayed to the gods for tawassul. That these gods had no control over the affairs of this world but were prayed to for intercession to God. Hence they claim the same with tawssul of the dead.

He says, bin baz:

Tawheed al-'Ebaadah (Maintaining The Unity of Worship)

"If you asked them who created them, they would surely say, 'Allaah' "

"If you asked them who brings down water from the sky and with it brings the earth to life after its death? They will most certainly say, 'Allaah'."

In spite of the Makkans' confessions of Tawheed and their knowledge of Allaah, Allaah classified them as disbelievers (Kuffaar) and pagans (Mushrikoon) simply because they worshipped other gods along with their worship of Allaah.

Consequently, the most important aspect of Tawheed is that of Tawheed al-'Ebaadah, maintaining the unity of Allaah's worship. All forms of worship must be directed only to Allaah because He alone deserves worship, and it is He alone who can grant benefit to man as a result of His worship. Furthermore, there is no need for any form of intercessor or intermediary between man and God. Allaah emphasized the importance of directing worship to Him alone by pointing out that this was the main purpose of man's creation and the essence of the message brought by all the prophets. Allaah says:

"I did not create the Jinn and Mankind except for My worship."

"Verily, We have sent to every nation a messenger (saying), 'Worship Allaah and avoid false gods'."

In Soorah al-Faatihah, which every Muslim is required to recite in his or her prayers at least seventeen times daily, verse four reads, "You alone do we worship and from You alone do we seek help". A clear statement that all forms of worship should only be directed to the One who can respond, Allaah.

If someone prays to the Prophet (saws), to so-called saints, Jinns or angels asking for help or asking them to request help from Allaah for them, they have also committed Shirk. The concept of "Ghaus-i-Azam" (al-Ghawth al-A'dHam), a title given by the ignorant to 'Abdul-Qaadir al-Jeelaanee, is also an expression of Shirk in this form of Tawheed. The title literally means "the greatest source of rescue; the one most able to save someone from danger" and such a description only belongs to Allaah. When misfortune occurs, some people call on 'Abdul-Qaadir by this title seeking his aid and protection even though Allaah has already said:

"If Allaah allows harm to befall you none can. remove it except Him."
According to the Qur'aan, when the Makkans were questioned about directing their prayers to their idols, they answered,

"We only worship them so that they may bring us closer to Allaah." END QUOTE

And i showed that the arabs indeed recognized God but not alone. Here is the difference. The arabs were henotheist, God was recognized but not alone in running the affairs of this world. This is why they were mushriks.

The henotheism aqeedah of Arabia before Islam.

In contrast, paganism among the sedentary societies of Arabia had developed from its earlier and simpler manifestations into a complex form of neo-animism, providing a host of divine and semi-divine intermediaries who stood between the creator god and his creation. This creator god was called Allah, which is not a proper name but a contraction of the word al-ilah, meaning simply "the god." Like his Greek counterpart, Zeus, Allah was originally an ancient rain/sky deity who had been elevated into the role of the supreme god of the pre-Islamic Arabs. Though a powerful deity to swear by, Allah's eminent status in the Arab pantheon rendered him, like most High Gods, beyond the supplications of ordinary people. Only in times of great peril would anyone bother consulting him. Otherwise, it was far more expedient to turn to the lesser, more accessible gods who acted as Allah's intercessors, the most powerful of whom were his three daughters, Allat ("the goddess"), al-Uzza ("the mighty"), and Manat (the goddess of fate, whose name is probably derived from the Hebrew word mana, meaning "portion" or "share"). These divine mediators were not only represented in the Kaaba, they had their own individual shrines throughout the Arabian Peninsula: Allat in the city of Ta'if; al-Uzza in Nakhlah; and Manat in Qudayd. It was to them that the Arabs prayed when they needed rain, when their children were ill, when they entered into battle or embarked on a journey deep into the treacherous desert abodes of the Jinn -- those intelligent, imperceptible, and salvable beings made of smokeless flame who are called "genies" in the West and who function as the nymphs and fairies of Arabian mythology.

There were no priests and no pagan scriptures in pre-Islamic Arabia, but that does not mean the gods remained silent. They regularly revealed themselves through the ecstatic utterances of a group of cultic officials known as the Kahins. The Kahins were poets who functioned primarily as soothsayers and who, for a fee, would fall into a trance in which they would reveal divine messages through rhyming couplets. Poets already had an important role in pre-Islamic society as bards, tribal historians, social commentators, dispensers of moral philosophy, and, on occasion, administrators of justice. But the Kahins represented a more spiritual function of the poet. Emerging from every social and economic stratum, and including a number of women, the Kahins interpreted dreams, cleared up crimes, found lost animals, settled disputes, and expounded upon ethics. As with their Pythian counterparts at Delphi, however, the Kahins' oracles were vague and deliberately imprecise; it was the supplicant's responsibility to figure out what the gods actually meant.

Although considered the link between humanity and the divine, the Kahins did not communicate directly with the gods but rather accessed them through the Jinn and other spirits who were such an integral part of the Jahiliyyah religious experience. Even so, neither the Kahins, nor anyone else for that matter, had access to Allah. In fact, the god who had created the heavens and the earth, who had fashioned human beings in his own image, was the only god in the whole of the Hijaz not represented by an idol in the Kaaba. Although called "the King of the Gods" and "the Lord of the House," Allah was not the central deity in the Kaaba. That honor belonged to Hubal, the Syrian god who had been brought to Mecca centuries before the rise of Islam.

Despite Allah's minimal role in the religious cult of pre-Islamic Arabia, his eminent position in the Arab pantheon is a clear indication of just how far paganism in the Arabian Peninsula had evolved from its simple animistic roots. Perhaps the most striking example of this development can be seen in the processional chant that tradition claims the pilgrims sang as they approached the Kaaba:

Here I am, O Allah, here I am.
You have no partner,
Except such a partner as you have.
You possess him and all that is his.

This remarkable proclamation, with its obvious resemblance to the Muslim profession of faith -- "There is no god but God" -- may reveal the earliest traces in pre-Islamic Arabia of what the German philologist Max Muller termed henotheism: the belief in a single High God, without necessarily rejecting the existence of other, subordinate gods.

END QUOTE.

You see!

[Brother Andrew]

i am tired of brothers claiming to be guided upon the pure path of Islam whilst looking down on other people, claiming that a great majority of Muslims are mushriks kuffar and so forth, they may be doing bidah, even bidahs that can lead to shirk, but with this attitude of im guided and your the dirty mushrik type thing, it scares me, in reality thats arrogant, i call it beating your chest, Allah calls it kbr 'pride' and owing to the fact somebody gave me a red card saying im arrogant, Allah knows best , maybe i am, maybe that was constructive criticism, however when somebody looks down upon another brother, starts calling him names, or having thoughts he is deviant or having this i am holier than thou attitude, danger for the person who has that mindframe lurks very near, only to find themselves worser and more corrupt than the people they were pointing fingers at. i put forth a very intresting hadith of Ibn Umar at the very beginning of this thread as to who the worst of Allahs creation are, i dont think anybody answered that.

Wasalams

[mohamed]

Relax, i got a bunch of red cards too. Do u expect people to agree with you all the time?

This subject we are talking about, is by its nature sensitive. Let me tell you something, when i was living in america(hmm from 17 to 29 years old) i spend most of it following that 5th madhab because the saudi controlled the mosques and the literature in it . Our imaam was saudi, paid by the saudi government. His friday sermons was sent to him by fax from riyadh. We were told their madhab was ahl ul sunna wal jama'. The communities in america was like this. It is now changing as alternative opinions are raising their heads. My mission(if only vinod will let me) is to "rescue" other muslims living in the west not to fall in the same trap as i did. Islam is a beautiful religion, a moderate and tolerant religion, but most people were shown and taught a beduin rebelious version of islam. Backed by enormous funding, it has managed to create a new madhab in saudi arabia and the west. But since 9 11 its begining to be exposed. Hopefully, it will diminish in influence and become the madhab of a few die hard wahabis. People when presented with the evidence will respond with juhood(stubborn denial).

[Hashim]

Aslaam Alaykum

Just like how you are responding with juhood(stubborn denial)? The path you follow, is not ahle sunnah wal jamaah, it is ahlul bid'ah, the enenmy of the 'muwa'hedeen and the mu'meem muslims.

[mohamed]

So where is your proof from the koran and sunna that i follow bida' and deviation. From all i see you like abu bakr are throwing literalist interpretation of verses. Show me a hadith that says tawassul is shirk. I mean says, and not implies or can be interpreted or literalised like you always do. Lets see your huja.

[abubakr]

asalamu alaykum

i really do find brother Mohammed's questions and accusations laughable. I mean i have nver accused anyone on this forum of being a mushirk or even a kafir. and I dont see brother Andrew as a kafir he is my brother in Islam. also the claim that Sheikh Abdul Wahab decalred the majority of muslims as kafir is also laughable. sheikh wahab never said that in fact I am going to prove it from his very own books.

sheikh Abdul Wahab has said the following:

"as for the charge that my enemies have accused me of: that i perform takfir merely by associaion or that I perform takfir on an ignorant person who has not had the evidences presented to him, verily this is a fabricated slander."
(Mu'alafat al-shaykh (3/10)

"As for ruling someone to be kafir, then I consider a kafir to be the person who knows the religion of the prophet (saw) then after suhc knowledge curses it and prevents people from following it and shows enmity to whoever follows it. so this is the one whom I consider to be a kafir. and the majority of this nation-by Allah's blessings are not like this." (Al-Durrar al-Saniyyah (1/73)

"As for the lies that are spread aainst us in order to cover the truth and to confuse people that we consider all muslims to be disbeleivers the people of our times and all the people for the last 6 centuries except for those who follow us and the lie based upon this lie taht we do not accept anyones's allegiance until he testifies that he was a pagan beofre joining us and that both his parents were pagans (this slander is mentioned in the book "the doctrine of ahlus sunnah versusu the salfi movement by jamal effendi pg 23-27 Al-sunna foundation 1996) then all of these slandes have absolutely no baisi whatsoever. everytime we heard something of these reples we repled subahank this is indeed a grave salnder so whoever narrated this from me or accusses me of these matters then he has indeed lied and slandered me."
(Al-Hadiyyah al-Suniyyah pg 40)
so this shows how sheikh abdul wahab was not a takfiri. as for ahmed raza khans saying brother even if he is simply quoting the hadiht it is well known that he has endorsed it and I can bring many other sayings of raza khan which show his mushrik beliefs.

and brother moahmmed why have you just copy and pasted an article by nuh ha mim keller on tawassul. we are talking about asking the dead to make dua not using the status or virtue of a person. brother mohammed if you want to talk about this then we can do so on another thread.

[Hashim]

Aslaam Alaykum

Subhanalalah back to tawussal! Okay, i will play the game by your rules, but first, kindly show me were i said tawussal is shirk, please. I have over 2000 post i thinkm inshallaah somi must have said it at least once if you make the allegation i said tawussal is shirk. There are permissable forms of tawussal, as me and Al Izzaree explained. So please show me, i am waiting.

[mohamed]

You just said you supported abdul wahab's fatwa that tawssul from the dead is shirk and punishable by death. Brother andrew follows the ahl ul sunna wal jama', so does nuh keller. they are both shafi' madhabs. None of the 4 madhabs in islm says tawassul from the dead is shirk. The 5th madhab, the wahabi madhab says so. I dealt with this isuue in the thread" the aqeedah of pre islam arabia".

As far as you abu bakr, this is what abdul wahab says to his beduin ignorant followers. Its obvious that what he tells the sheikhs is very different then what he tells the masses. I have presented many evidence to proof the aqeedah of the wahabis. It is based on claiming tawassul from the dead is shirk. You went on to say that it was bida', but then you backed off to the shirk part. Where is the evidence that tawassul from the dead is shirk?

[Hashim]

As-salamu alaykum

Whoopsy Brother Muhammad, call it clumsy water ski reading, anywyas to change the question, because i follow the Shafee Madhab does that mean i should be killed? keeping in mind the 4 Imams were of the salaf, so in reality, we are the salafi (followers of the salaf), and i am not talkinf about the madhab that exploded out of the desert around 200 years ago.

Wasalams

Aslaam Alaykum

Could you explain to me how the 4 imaams were of the salaf, none of the 4 imaams were in the first 3 generations, the salaf.

[Hashim]

Aslaam Alaykum

Akhee mohammad this is the problem with taqleed deviants like yourself, you have problems with bringing da'leel, i have over 2,174 post, well after this one inshallaah 2,175. Surely if you are saying i am saying tawussul is shirk, you can produce at least one post were i state this assumption! I eagrly await your response. I also gave you a detailed answer if you recall regading tawussal derived from the teachings of salafiyaah based on Qur'aan and sunnah. If you canr find any post of mine were i say, 'tawussul is shirk', dont worry, read through that answer of mine and you must find it in their if you are so sure akhee! Dont give up!

[abubakr]

asalamu alaykum

LOL :biggrin: brother moahmmed i am finding it very hard not to laugh at your posts. you obviously dont have a clue about sheikh abdul Wahab, salafiyyah or tawassul. what evidence have you brought against "wahabis" i have seen no suhc evdience all you have done is copy and pasted articles and you really do make no sense.

[Brother Andrew]

Hashim Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Andrew
As-salamu alaykum

Whoopsy Brother Muhammad, call it clumsy water ski reading, anywyas to change the question, because i follow the Shafee Madhab does that mean i should be killed? keeping in mind the 4 Imams were of the salaf, so in reality, we are the salafi (followers of the salaf), and i am not talkinf about the madhab that exploded out of the desert around 200 years ago.

Wasalams



Aslaam Alaykum

Could you explain to me how the 4 imaams were of the salaf, none of the 4 imaams were in the first 3 generations, the salaf.

As-salamu Alaykum , yes sure Brother with pleasure:

Imam Abu Hanifa رحمة اللّه عليه al Nu'man Ibn Thabit born 80 years after the hijra, studied at the feet of the blessed companion Ibn Masud رضي اللّه عنه .

Imam Malik born 93 after the hijra (whom he studied from im not sure, used to meet with Imam Abu Hanifa and discuss though)

Imam Shafee رحمة اللّه عليه born 150 years after the Hijra, studied at the fet of Imam Malik رحمة اللّه عليه.

Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal رحمة اللّه عليه born 164 years after the Hijra, Studied at the feet of Imam Shafee رحمة اللّه عليه .

all four Imams fall within the first 3 generations

Wasalams

[mohamed]

I see brother andrew you are still trying. I honestly gave up! I have spent months and days but i feel i am getting no where with them. They refuse to believe, its like they pop one isue after another. I'm tired! They can go to???

I rest my case!

May God give you the strength!

Cause i lost mine.

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum

Brother i simply answered the question, i fthey want to debate about it then i am not going to answer, simple as, however i will read what they have to say and judge accordingly. and plus a little bird told me you know Arabic is that true? because if so i got some really good book reccomendations that you might already have or know of, infact i will open up a book thread and disscuss there.

Wasalam

[mohamed]

Yes i know arabic. What book is that?

[Brother Andrew]

http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?p=38154#post38154

[mohamed]

Oh, these are straight fiqh books. Don't you think only people interested in fiqh should read those books?

[Hashim]

As-salamu Alaykum , yes sure Brother with pleasure:

Imam Abu Hanifa رحمة اللّه عليه al Nu'man Ibn Thabit born 80 years after the hijra, studied at the feet of the blessed companion Ibn Masud رضي اللّه عنه .

Imam Malik born 93 after the hijra (whom he studied from im not sure, used to meet with Imam Abu Hanifa and discuss though)

Imam Shafee رحمة اللّه عليه born 150 years after the Hijra, studied at the fet of Imam Malik رحمة اللّه عليه.

Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal رحمة اللّه عليه born 164 years after the Hijra, Studied at the feet of Imam Shafee رحمة اللّه عليه .

all four Imams fall within the first 3 generations

Wasalams

As'alaam Alaykum

I am sorry brother, yourself admit that the oldest of the imaams was Imaam Abu Hanifa, and he was born 80 years afer the hijraah! In no way was he nor any of the 4 imaams part of the salaf. This is the problem when people start elevating the status of our imaams and sheikhs, the prophet (sallallhualayi'wa'salaam) warned us about this yet do we listen, no.

[mohamed]

I think 80 years does fall under the salaf. The salaf if i am correct are the generation after the 4 caliphs. So imam abu hanefa was taught by a sahabi, that definently salaf. The salaf i think goes to 2 generation AFTER the 4 caliphs. I think.

[Hashim]

Aslaam Alaykum

Subhanallaah unfortuntly you are not correct, very much wrong. The salaf is the first three generations, the companions, the taa'bee'een and the taa'bee'oon, the first three generations, this is common knowlege akhee.

[mohamed]

Well imam abu hanefa was taught by a sahabi. So abu hanefa most definently was from the salaf generations. I will get more info.

[mohamed]

i got this info:

The book Qamus al-alam states: Al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa's name was Numan. His father's name was Thabit. His grandfather's name was Numan, too. He was the first of the four great imams of the Ahl as-Sunnat. 'Imam' means 'profoundly learned scholar.' He was one of the main pillars of the brilliant religion of Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam). He was a descendant of a Persian notable. His grandfather had embraced Islam. He was born in Kufa in 80 (698 A.D.). He was born early enough to see Anas ibn Malik, 'Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa, Sahl ibn Sad as-Sa'idi and Abu al-Fadl Amir ibn Wasila, four Sahabis (radi-Allahu ta'ala anhum). He learned 'ilm al-fiqh from Hammad ibn Abi Sulaiman. He enjoyed the companionship of many notables of the Tabiin, and of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih). He memorized innumerable hadiths. He was brought up so as to become a great judge, but he became an imam al-madhhab. He had a superior, and amazingly keen intellect. In 'ilm al-fiqh, he attained an unequalled grade in a short time. His name and fame became world-wide.

[mohamed]

Another info:

As-Salaf us-Salih (or briefly: the Salaf) refers to the first and best three generations of Muslims. They are the Companions (Sahabah) of the Prophet (S), their immediate followers (Tabiun), and the followers of the Tabi'in. The meaning in the Arabic language is "Those who precede, have gone before". It is a word used by the earliest scholars for "The first three generations of Muslims" and those who are upon their way in accordance with the Ahaadeeth of the Messenger Muhammad (sallAllaahu` alayhi wa sallam) which is reported in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree: The best of people/mankind is my generation, then those that follow them, then those that follow them. END QUOTE

So this means that since abu hanifa was around sahabas, he definently is from the salaf. So does malik as he was from the next generation after the sahaba. Obviously most sahabas died but some still were there during abu hanifa's times. So malik will also fall under the salaf.

Or rather to be more accurate, abu hanifa was from the tabieen generation, and malik and maybe al shafi also were from the followers of the tabieen generation.

[Brother Andrew]

As-Salamu alaykum

Brothers i always took it that 3 generations meant the first 300 years of Islam , i am open for correction.

Wasalams

[Osman]

Salaam,

Salaf also means predecessors or pious predecessors so I would have thought that Predecessors and early generations in this context would be synonymous in their meanings.

Alternatively, you can get a dictionary definition of generations. All of the people living at the same time or approximately the same age. Ok, now I'm just getting cheaky. :o

In sum, I have no idea, someone else will answer :confused::o

Wasalaam

[Hashim]

Aslaam Alaykum

Mohammad, none of the four imaams were from the salaf, i can not even dare to think of even the most extreme and tapped brevli or sufi making this assumption, it is very suprising that you would even think such a thing. And brother Mohammad, just becuase ' Imaam Hanifa was taught by a sahaabi', this not mean Imaam hanifa is a from the salaf! If i learn from the saudis am i saudi?!!! And just out of curiousty akhee, which 'sahabi' taught Imaam Hanifa?

[mohamed]

He was from the generation of the sahabas and tabi'en. How can i explain it. If you were around the sahabas generation, how can you not be a salaf. He met sahabas, so how can he not be from their generation?

[Brother Andrew]

Salam

Just wondering, so we must follow the salaf right? and for almost 1300 years this Ummah has been on misguidance until the pure monotheistic Islam rose out of the desert around 200 years ago? Was the four Imams misguided? did they invent various bidahs? what does the lexicon say about what the word salaf means? because according to the concise encyclopedia of Islam the defintion of salaf is the predecessors , the companions of the Prophet [s] the successors who knew the companions (in which Imam Abu Hanifa [r] falls) and the successors of the successors which in that case would include Imam Malik, we would have to take into consideration that Ibn Taymiyah [r] was a Hanbali and according to the above Imam Ahmed Hanbal was not a salaf, i find this a bit confusing.

Wasalams

[Al-Boriqi]

The salaf is

1. first generation and the best and foremost, the people of the first affair.

There era ended at 37 after hijraah
of course the sahab lasted l;onger than this but after this time other than the sahab entered the scene of al-Islam. The Imaams have agreed upon that the first era ended here.

2. Second generation. From 37 after hijrah throuhg 90 hijrah. I beleive it is 90 or somewhere in the 90s and I forget.

3. Third generation. From 90 hijrah through 190 hijrah. My statements concerning the last two are or maybe slightly off I wil have to checj if I get another chance inshallah

so here is a list of Imaams that hwere of the era of the actual as-salafu-saalih


95H Sa’eed ibn Jubayr
Ibraaheem an-Nakha’ee (69)
100 After Hijrah
100H Abu Tufayl
101H Umar ibn Abdil-Azeez
103H ash-Sha'bee
104H Mujaahid ibn Jabr
Qataadah
Aboo Qilaabah
106H Saalim ibn ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Umar
Al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abee Bakr
Taawoos ibn Kaysaan
107H Ibn Shawzab
110H al-Hasan al-Basree
Muhammad ibn Seereen
114H Ataa ibn Abee Ribaah
Muhammad ibn Alee ibn Husayn
117H An-Naafi‘
Qataadah
Ibn Abee Mulaykah
124H az-Zuhree, Ibn Shihaab
126H Amr ibn Deenaar
127H Abdullaah ibn Deenaar
130H Maalik ibn Deenaar
131H Ayoob as-Sakhtiyaani
Muhammad Ibn al-Munkadir
132H Aboo Zinaad
136H Zayd ibn Aslam
Rabee’ah ibn Abee Abdir-Rahmaan
139H Yoonus ibn Ubayd
148H Jaafar as-Saadiq
Al-’Amash
150H Abu Haneefah
Ibn Jurayj
151H Abdullaah ibn ‘Awn
157H al-Awzaa'ee
160H Shu’bah ibn al-Hajjaaj
Ibraheem ibn Adham
164H Ibn al-Maajishoon
167H Sufyaan ath-Thawree
Hammaad ibn Salamah
175H Al-Layth ibn-us-Sa’d
177H Qaadee Shareek ibn Abdullaah
179H Maalik
Hammaad ibn Zayd
181H Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak
182H Abu Yusuf
186H Mu'aafi bin Imraan
187H Fudayl bin 'Iyaad
189H Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ash-Shaybaanee
191H Al-Ma’mar ibn Rasheed
193H Aboo Bakr ibn Ayyaash
197H Sufyaan bin 'Uyainah
Wakee’ ibn-ul-Jarraah
198H Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Mahdi
Yahyaa ibn Sa’eed al-Qattaan
Abdullaah ibn Wahb (53)


asalamu alaikum

[Al-Boriqi]

asalamu alaikum

however when somebody looks down upon another brother, starts calling him names, or having thoughts he is deviant or having this i am holier than thou attitude, danger for the person who has that mindframe lurks very near, only to find themselves worser and more corrupt than the people they were pointing fingers at.


and plus a little bird told me you know Arabic is that true?

[Hashim]

Aslaam Alaykum

Is Imaam Abu Hanifa in that list Al-Izzaree?

[hlatif]

Salaam all,

brother Izaree said:

3. Third generation. From 90 hijrah through 190 hijrah. My statements concerning the last two are or maybe slightly off I wil have to checj if I get another chance inshallah
This does not make sense that they come 60 years after the second generation and last a 100 years. In scientific terms a generation is a 20 year period and each generation has to overlap the one before it. Havin the third geration come 90 years after hijra and lasting a 100 years is way against logic.

Take care brothers

Hussein

[hlatif]

Salaam again brothers,

another point against the list of generations after the prophet is this:

A person that was born the year 10 hijri which is around the date of the death of the prophet cannot be a Sahabi for he/she did not learn from the Sahabi. Therefore the second generation has to start at the year of the prophet's death or even up to five years before that.

Another point to make is that the Imaams were not misguided. however, their decisions were not as binding. You can choose to follow them and you can choose to question them and both situations you have to use your brain and find what for you is more in line with the Qur'an.

One thing that becomes not very binding is the principle of accepting Hadeeth according to isnad only as opposed to the living Sunna as practiced and which was the way of the Salaf. This came from Imam Shafiee who was born 150 years after Hijra. This to me puts him clearly outside the Salaf. This is not to say that he was wrong and misguided, I am Shafiee myself, but I don't have to follow all he had to say.


Salaam


hussein

[Hashim]

Another point to make is that the Imaams were not misguided. however, their decisions were not as binding. You can choose to follow them and you can choose to question them and both situations you have to use your brain and find what for you is more in line with the Qur'an.




Aslaam Alaykum

My point exactly, well said akhee i agree here. I must admit i was very suprosed when i heard mohammad say Imaam Abu Hanifa was part of the salaf, i have never this in my life!

Wa'Alaykum'Salaam

[Brother Andrew]

As-salamu alaykum Brother Izaaree

Allahu Akbar lol bro, youre really out to pick my nits, im not sure your familar with english, its a figure of speech, i wasnt calling you names, plus look on the bright side, birds are blessed creatures, they praise Allah continously, i mean have you ever heard them at fajr? Subhan-allah and plus lets make reference to the matyrs who are described as green little birds, so no worrys, would it be o.k if i called you tweetie pie? just joking

Wasalams

[mohamed]

Imam abu hanifa met sahabis. The whole point of this salafism is that they were able to learn from the examples of the sahabas. As far as the scientific terminology of 20 years, this is not whats meant here. Where did abu hanifa get his understanding of islam. He was surrounded by sahabas and tabi'een, so he was able to learn from their example. Plus the 10 hijra example is not whats meant, as there were many sahabas who lived way passed the prophet, such as ali, aisha and others. Its when the vast amount of the sahabas died, that their example was not available that the generation after them came, the tabi'een.

As far as saying the 4 imamas are not binding, by themselves, no. But ahl ul sunna wal jama' means you at least follow one of them on any given issue. You don't have to follow anyone of them exclusively, but you must be following any one of them . If you have a belief or a understanding that NONE of them supported then you are not following ahl ul sunna wal jama'. The ummah has made an ijma' on those 4 imams as representing the ahl ul sunna wal jama'.If you don't then you are practicing ijtihad. You must have the scholarly knowledge necessary to do so. To say i am not going to follow any one of them, then this is not ahl ul sunna wal jama'. Unless i said you are doing ijtihad, then you mut make it clear that your opinion is outside the fold of ahl ul sunna wal jama' and then give the evidence from the koran and sunna to support your opinion. If you are not qualified by the standards of ahl ul sunna wal jama' to do ijtihad, then following your opinion will be outside the fold of the jama'.

[Hijabi]

When will this thread ever end...? (for crying out loud) :lol:

[newsX]

Imam abu hanifa met sahabis. The whole point of this salafism is that they were able to learn from the examples of the sahabas. As far as the scientific terminology of 20 years, this is not whats meant here. Where did abu hanifa get his understanding of islam. He was surrounded by sahabas and tabi'een, so he was able to learn from their example. Plus the 10 hijra example is not whats meant, as there were many sahabas who lived way passed the prophet, such as ali, aisha and others. Its when the vast amount of the sahabas died, that their example was not available that the generation after them came, the tabi'een.

As far as saying the 4 imamas are not binding, by themselves, no. But ahl ul sunna wal jama' means you at least follow one of them on any given issue. You don't have to follow anyone of them exclusively, but you must be following any one of them . If you have a belief or a understanding that NONE of them supported then you are not following ahl ul sunna wal jama'. The ummah has made an ijma' on those 4 imams as representing the ahl ul sunna wal jama'.If you don't then you are practicing ijtihad. You must have the scholarly knowledge necessary to do so. To say i am not going to follow any one of them, then this is not ahl ul sunna wal jama'. Unless i said you are doing ijtihad, then you mut make it clear that your opinion is outside the fold of ahl ul sunna wal jama' and then give the evidence from the koran and sunna to support your opinion. If you are not qualified by the standards of ahl ul sunna wal jama' to do ijtihad, then following your opinion will be outside the fold of the jama'.


Interesting points...;)

[mohamed]

Imam Malik

Dr. G.F. Haddad

Malik ibn Anas ibn Malik ibn `Amr, al-Imam, Abu `Abd Allah al-Humyari al-Asbahi al-Madani (93-179), the Shaykh of Islam, Proof of the Community, Imam of the Abode of Emigration, and Knowledgeable Scholar of Madina predicted by the Prophet. The second of the four major mujtahid imams, whose school filled North Africa, al-Andalus, much of Egypt, and some of al-Sham, Yemen, Sudan, Iraq, and Khurasan. He is the author of al-Muwatta’ ("The Approved"), formed of the sound narrations of the Prophet from the people of the Hijaz together with the sayings of the Companions, the Followers, and those after them. It was hailed by al-Shafi`i as the soundest book on earth after the Qur’an, nearest book on earth to the Qur’an, most correct book on earth after the Qur’an, and most beneficial book on earth after the Qur’an according to four separate narrations. Malik said: "I showed my book to seventy jurists of Madina, and every single one of them approved me for it (kulluhum wâta’ani `alayh), so I named it ‘The Approved’." Imam al-Bukhari said that the soundest of all chains of transmission was "Malik, from Nafi`, from Ibn `Umar." The scholars of hadith call it the Golden Chain, and there are eighty narrations with this chain in the Muwatta’.

Among those Malik narrated from in the Muwatta’: Ayyub al-Sakhtyani, Ja`far ibn Muhammad (al-Sadiq), Zayd ibn Aslam, `Ata’ al-Khurasani, al-Zuhri, Ibn al-Munkadir, `Alqama, Nafi` the freedman of Ibn `Umar, and others. Among those who narrated from Malik: al-Zuhri, Ibn Jurayj, Abu Hanifa, al-Awza`i, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shu`ba, Ibn al-Mubarak, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, `Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi, Waki`, Yahya al-Qattan, al-Shafi`i, Ibn Wahb, Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi, `Abd al-Razzaq, and many others.

The Prophet said: "Very soon will people beat the flanks of camels in search of knowledge, and they shall find no-one more knowledgeable than the knowledgeable scholar of Madina." Al-Tirmidhi, al-Qadi `Iyad, Dhahabi and others relate from Sufyan ibn `Uyayna, `Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn Mahdi, Ibn Ma`in, Dhu’ayb ibn `Imama, Ibn al-Madini, and others that they considered that scholar to be Malik ibn Anas. It is also related from Ibn `Uyayna that he later considered it to be `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-`Aziz al-`Umari. Al-Dhahabi said of the latter: "He possessed knowledge and good fiqh, spoke the truth fearlessly, ordered good, and remained aloof from society. He used to press Malik in private to renounce the world and seclude himself."

Abu Mus`ab said: "Malik did not pray in congregation [in the Prophet’s mosque] for twenty-five years. He was asked: ‘What is preventing you?’ He said: ‘Lest I see something reprehensible and be obligated to change it.’" Another narration from Abu Mus`ab states: "After Malik left the [Prophet’s] mosque he used to pray in his house with a congregation that followed him, and he prayed the Jum`a prayer alone in his house." Ibn Sa`d narrates from Muhammad ibn `Umar: "Malik used to come to the Mosque and pray the prayers and the Jum`a, as well as the funeral prayers. He used to visit the sick and sit in the Mosque where his companions would came and saw him. Then he quit sitting there, instead he would pray and leave, and he quit attending the funeral prayers. Then he quit everything, neither attending the prayers nor the Jum`a in the mosque. Nor would he visit anyone who was sick or other than that. The people bore with it, for they were extremely fond of him and respected him too much. This lasted until he died. If asked about it, he said: ‘Not everyone can mention his excuse.’"

Ibn `Abd al-Barr said that Malik was the first who compiled a book formed exclusively of sound narrations. Abu Bakr ibn al-`Arabi said: "The Muwatta’ is the first foundation and the core, while al-Bukhari’s book is the second foundation in this respect. Upon these two all the rest have built, such as Muslim and al-Tirmidhi." Shah Wali Allah said something similar and added that it is the principal authority of all four Schools of Law, which stand in relation to it like the commentary stands in relation to the main text. Malik composed it in the course of forty years, having started with ten thousand narrations until he reduced them to their present number of under 2,000.

[mohamed]

And yet there are those who dispute the 4 imams:

Start Quote:
Dawat-us-Salafiyyah (Call of those who preceeded us) According to Quran and Sunnah Dawah - literally means "call", and in this sense it refers to calling to the Truth through preaching and propagation. Salaf - literally means "those (from history) who precede, have gone before". As-Salaf as-Saalih - The people of the past, namely the first three generations of pious muslims during and after the revelation of the Qur'an, i.e.the Sahabah (companions) of the Prophet, saaws , the Taabi'een (followers) and the Taabi Taabi'een (followers of the followers).

Islam teaches that As-Salaf as-Saalih are superior in their understanding of the Revelation of Al-Qu'ran.

The Prophet, saaws, said: "I am leaving you two things and you will never go astray as long as you cling to them -- they are the Book of Allah and my Sunnah." [Reported by Al- Haakim - Sahih]. Tirmidhee and Haakim - Sahih] Salafi - means "of the salaf". Using correct arabic grammar, the word "salafi" can only be used in association with words that are of that which is truly from the far past. In order to be a salaf, you had to exist generations prior to the current one. Referring to oneself as a salafi* is permissible in Islam so long as the intention is for identification with the salafi minhaj and this identification does not replace your identification as being MUSLIM, as this is what Allah swt has commanded us in The Qur'an to call ourselves.

"Verily those before you from among the People of the Book split into seventy-two sects and verily this religion . . . ", and in another narration, " . . . this Ummah will split into seventy-three sects: seventy-two will be in the Fire and one in Paradise and that is the Jamaa'ah." [Reported by Abu Daawood - Sahih]

When questioned by his Companions about those who will be saved from the Fire, the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) replied: "They are those who are upon what I and my companions are upon." [Reported by at-Tirmidhee from Amr ibn al-Aas - classified as Hasan.]

"And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allâh (i.e. this Qur'ân), and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allâh's Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islâmic Faith), and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allâh makes His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.,) clear to you, that you may be guided." [Surah Al-Imrân 3:103].

Whereas a person of a sect may improperly refer to himself as a Shia, Sufi, etc., those who adhere to dawat-us-salafiyyah describe themself as a "Muslim" whose minhaj (methodology/system) is Qur'an and Sunnah and madhdhab (way) is that of the salaf.

As Muslims, we must not dispute over the proper use of the word "salafi." As Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid has said, "The one who is seeking salvation has to work hard to gain beneficial knowledge and do righteous deeds, and he should avoid vain arguments and futile discussions in which there is no benefit." What is important is that we implement the way of the salaf as-saalih in our daily lives.

One can refer to himself as "muttaqi" (male) or "muttaqiyyah" (female) meaning of the muttaqun, but should not make a sunnah of calling himself a "muslim muttaqi". A person alive today can be muttaqi but cannot be salafi because s/he is not of the past.

Those who adhere to the sunnah of the Prophet, saaws, are sadly known as "strange", "odd", etc., to those who have abandoned such adherence. They (muslims on a misguided path) even get to the point that they find it odd that someone would just call themselves a MUSLIM and attach no special group name to the word muslim. Surely the people who deviate are the people who must find a new label for their group. The label "muslim" is the purest word and all we need, insha'Allah, i.e. it is the only identifying label that we should have as a tradition or sunnah for calling ourselves when refering to our faith.

The Prophet, saaws, has mentioned in his saying: "Islam began as a stranger and shall return as a stranger as it began. So give glad tidings to the strangers." [Reported by Muslim - Sahih].

Madhdhab Salafi- means the way (madhdhab) of the salaf (first three generations of pious muslims after the revelation of the Qur'an).

Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) says: "There is no blame on the one who manifests/proclaims the way (madhdhab) of the Salaf, who attaches himself to it and refers to it. Rather, it is obligatory to accept that from him by unanimous agreement (Ittifaaq), because the way (madhdhab) of the Salaf is nothing but the Truth (Haqq)." [From Majmoo al-Fataawaa, 4:149.]

Following the madhdhab of the salaf is unlike following one of the madhdhabs (schools of thought) of today. Today when a person says they follow a madhdhab, they mean they follow one of the four Imams (Maliki, Hanafi, etc..), often to the point that even if the Imam's chosen position on any topic is clearly in error, they will follow it anyway, just for the sake of consistency in following the same Imam. In the true use of the word "madhdhab", the way of the salaf is a madhdhab. In the modern sense of the word "madhdhab", the way of the salaf is not a madhdhab, meaning it does not require or encourage blind adherence to a single leader like the practice of muslims who follow any one of the four major madhdhabs of today.

Minhaj Qur'an wa Sunnah- means methodology of Qur'an and Sunnah.

Shaikh Saalih al-Fawzaan said, " The reasons for disunity are many. From amongst the main causes are: Firstly, opposing the minhaj (methodology) of the Salaf, the Companions of Allaah's Messenger and those who follow them. So the Salaf had a minhaj that they adhered to; a manhaj in aqeedah (creed), a manhaj in da'wah (calling to Allaah), a minhaj in enjoining good and forbidding evil, a manhaj in how to judge between people. This minhaj, in all situations, was based upon the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of our Messenger." [Wujoob ut-Tathabbut fil-Akhbaaar p.18]

Bid'a- Innovation in ibaddah [worship], to be avoided!

The Prophet, saaws, has said: "If anyone introduces into this affair of ours (i.e. the religion of Islam) anything which does not belong to it, he will have it rejected." [Reported by Muslim - Sahih]. The Prophet, saaws, said: "Whoever does an action which we (Allah and His Messenger) have not commanded it will be rejected." [Reported by Muslim - Sahih]

Shirk- To associate a partner with Allah swt. The greatest sin.

Tawheed- The Oneness of Allah, swt.

Tawheed-ar-Ruboobiyya (Oneness of the Lordship of Allah). To believe that there is only one Lord for all the universe, its Creator, Organizer, Planner, Sustainer, Maintainer, etc., and that is Allah swt. Tawheed-al-Uloohiyya (Oneness of the worship of Allah). To believe that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah. Worship comes in the form of praying, invoking, asking for help from the unseen or anything believed to be a deity (i.e. idols), swearing, slaughtering sacrifices, etc. "And the mosques are for Allâh (Alone), so invoke not anyone along with Allâh." [Surah Al-Jinn 72:18]. "Say (O Muhammad SAW): "I am only a man like you. It has been inspired to me that your Ilâh (God) is One Ilâh (God i.e. Allâh). So whoever hopes for the Meeting with his Lord, let him work righteousness and associate none as a partner in the worship of his Lord." [Surah Al-Kahf 18:110]
END QUOTE



Brother Andrew, did you see now?

[Al-Boriqi]

hlatif


This does not make sense that they come 60 years after the second generation and last a 100 years. In scientific terms a generation is a 20 year period and each generation has to overlap the one before it. Havin the third geration come 90 years after hijra and lasting a 100 years is way against logic.


Right I understand where you are coming from but this issue has no relevance concerning the era of the muslims.

From my knowledge the Imaams have made the generations to be that the prophet's generation was considered technically and islamically "the first" generation throuhgout the time they were abundant.

Then once the the tabi'een became the dominant category of people throuhgout the Islamic world then that was the age of the tabi'een. And then so on in the third generation as well. So as you see it is not a point blank scientific breakdown of 20 years.

and yes if you look on that list Hasim Abu Haneefah is on there at 150 hijrah

Some of the ulema have said that Ibnul-Mubarik isform the ones bron in the second generation and the Imaam and Haafidh of the Third generation and you can see from the list that he comes after Imaam Abu Haneefa rahimahumullah.

mohammad

Imam abu hanifa met sahabis. The whole point of this salafism is that they were able to learn from the examples of the sahabas. As far as the scientific terminology of 20 years, this is not whats meant here. Where did abu hanifa get his understanding of islam. He was surrounded by sahabas and tabi'een, so he was able to learn from their example. Plus the 10 hijra example is not whats meant, as there were many sahabas who lived way passed the prophet, such as ali, aisha and others. Its when the vast amount of the sahabas died, that their example was not available that the generation after them came, the tabi'een.


Akhee you might be confused about a matter. The era of the shabah as the majority of the ummah ended around 40 hijrah. Of course there were many others who lasted longer but by around 90 hijrah most, and I mean nearly all of the shabah have passed away. At this same time Abu Haneefah was just born. So I dont see how he elarned form any of the sahaba. It is correct and included in his biography that he learned with the4 great tabieen but Inever heard that he learned with the companions. Unless you can name one sahabi that he literally sat and took knowledge form as a full grown man, I must leave your ssumption that he was taught by the companions.


As far as saying the 4 imamas are not binding, by themselves, no. But ahl ul sunna wal jama' means you at least follow one of them on any given issue. You don't have to follow anyone of them exclusively, but you must be following any one of them . If you have a belief or a understanding that NONE of them supported then you are not following ahl ul sunna wal jama'. The ummah has made an ijma' on those 4 imams as representing the ahl ul sunna wal jama'.If you don't then you are practicing ijtihad. You must have the scholarly knowledge necessary to do so. To say i am not going to follow any one of them, then this is not ahl ul sunna wal jama'. Unless i said you are doing ijtihad, then you mut make it clear that your opinion is outside the fold of ahl ul sunna wal jama' and then give the evidence from the koran and sunna to support your opinion. If you are not qualified by the standards of ahl ul sunna wal jama' to do ijtihad, then following your opinion will be outside the fold of the jama'.

this is incorrect akhee mohammad. The reason is that during their time there were muchy much more madhahib than just the four Imaams. In all honesty the only reason why these four servived is because they actually survived throuhg the onslouhgt of the muslim rulers. Sufyaan ath-Thawree, Al-Awza'ee, Bukharee, Darimee, Muhammad bin Yahya adh-Dhulalee and many many others had there own madhab in applying usoolu-fiqh. The four Imaams are and is considered part of ahlu-sunnah wal-jamah but not limited and exclusive to just them. This is the prime reason why our four Imaams made clear statements that if there is a hadeeth then that is their madhaab and sothers like "if the sunnah says something contrary to my view, then throw my view to the wall. This is because the realized that 1. they were not the hujjah 2. everone's statement is accepted or rejected 3. there was as much possibility of others outside of themselves tobe correct and them wrong just as vice versa.

so the madhaab of ahlu-sunah is not limited to just the four Imaams. Of course there is nothing wrong in accepting one fo their principles just as long as their statements do not become hujjah like the quraan and sunnah.

This is all because they were not the only Imaams of their time nor before them nor after. to be honest none of them could even reach the ankle of those like Ibraheem an-Nakhaiee and Mujaahid. Yet there is no madhaab for them is there. yet we accept from what they came with in the islamic sceinces wal-hamdulillah

asalamu alaikum

[hlatif]

SAlaam brother Izaree,

The moment the prophet (pbuh) Died, at the year 10 Hijri, stops the production of the first generation and from there on the second generation starts. The second generation overlaps the first genertion and learn from them. The moment the last of the first generation dies then there will be no more production of the people from the second generation and the only production is from the third generation.

So, if the last of the Sahaba died at the year 60 Hijri, then at the moment of death of the last of the second generation will mark the end of the creation of the third generation.

Let us assume that the last of the second generation will have to be born at least 10 years before the death of the last of the sahaba, then the youngest of the 2nd generation would have been born at the year 50 Hijri. That person will have to be 110 year old at the time of his death in order to teach Imam Shafiee and make Shafiee of the third generation and that is very unlikely.

Therefore, I can understand that someone like imam Malik or Abu Hanifa being considered of the third generation, but I will have great difficulty believing that someone born after the year 120 Hijri being of the third generation. Therefore extending the third group to 190 Hijri is a stretch that is made to include people that are not supposed to be there.

Salaam and have a great day


Hussein

[Al-Boriqi]

asalamu alaikum

akhee

as for the issue then Im really not going to argue with this as 1. no Imaam of the sunnah has ever spoken with the idea that the end of the prophets death marks the beginning of the second generation and 2. all of the Imaams of the sunnah have agreed upon with a minute microscopic variance on the issue so who am I to even oppose the already 1400 years of whast they have said on who were the salaf.

alao on a tip many of their generations lived at an average of 90. and many above this.

asalamu alaikum

[mohamed]

Wait a minute now, when we talk about the salaf, i am talking about the so called salafi understanding of who the salaf where. So lets not assume that their understanding who the salafs were is the accurate one. I was going along with the salafist dawa' argument. As far as orthodox islam:


Who or what is a Salafi?
Is their approach valid?
©Nuh Ha Mim Keller 1995



The word salafi or "early Muslim" in traditional Islamic scholarship means someone who died within the first four hundred years after the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including scholars such as Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Anyone who died after this is one of the khalaf or "latter-day Muslims".
The term "Salafi" was revived as a slogan and movement, among latter-day Muslims, by the followers of Muhammad Abduh (the student of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani) some thirteen centuries after the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), approximately a hundred years ago. Like similar movements that have historically appeared in Islam, its basic claim was that the religion had not been properly understood by anyone since the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the early Muslims--and themselves.

In terms of ideals, the movement advocated a return to a shari'a-minded orthodoxy that would purify Islam from unwarranted accretions, the criteria for judging which would be the Qur'an and hadith. Now, these ideals are noble, and I don't think anyone would disagree with their importance. The only points of disagreement are how these objectives are to be defined, and how the program is to be carried out. It is difficult in a few words to properly deal with all the aspects of the movement and the issues involved, but I hope to publish a fuller treatment later this year, insha'Allah, in a collection of essays called "The Re-Formers of Islam".

As for its validity, one may note that the Salafi approach is an interpretation of the texts of the Qur'an and sunna, or rather a body of interpretation, and as such, those who advance its claims are subject to the same rigorous criteria of the Islamic sciences as anyone else who makes interpretive claims about the Qur'an and sunna; namely, they must show:

1. that their interpretations are acceptable in terms of Arabic language;

2. that they have exhaustive mastery of all the primary texts that relate to each question, and

3. that they have full familiarity of the methodology of usul al-fiqh or "fundamentals of jurisprudence" needed to comprehensively join between all the primary texts.

Only when one has these qualifications can one legitimately produce a valid interpretive claim about the texts, which is called ijtihad or "deduction of shari'a" from the primary sources. Without these qualifications, the most one can legitimately claim is to reproduce such an interpretive claim from someone who definitely has these qualifications; namely, one of those unanimously recognized by the Umma as such since the times of the true salaf, at their forefront the mujtahid Imams of the four madhhabs or "schools of jurisprudence".

As for scholars today who do not have the qualifications of a mujtahid, it is not clear to me why they should be considered mujtahids by default, such as when it is said that someone is "the greatest living scholar of the sunna" any more than we could qualify a school-child on the playground as a physicist by saying, "He is the greatest physicist on the playground". Claims to Islamic knowledge do not come about by default. Slogans about "following the Qur'an and sunna" sound good in theory, but in practice it comes down to a question of scholarship, and who will sort out for the Muslim the thousands of shari'a questions that arise in his life. One eventually realizes that one has to choose between following the ijtihad of a real mujtahid, or the ijtihad of some or another "movement leader", whose qualifications may simply be a matter of reputation, something which is often made and circulated among people without a grasp of the issues.

What comes to many peoples minds these days when one says "Salafis" is bearded young men arguing about din. The basic hope of these youthful reformers seems to be that argument and conflict will eventually wear down any resistance or disagreement to their positions, which will thus result in purifying Islam. Here, I think education, on all sides, could do much to improve the situation.

The reality of the case is that the mujtahid Imams, those whose task it was to deduce the Islamic shari'a from the Qur'an and hadith, were in agreement about most rulings; while those they disagreed about, they had good reason to, whether because the Arabic could be understood in more than one way, or because the particular Qur'an or hadith text admitted of qualifications given in other texts (some of them acceptable for reasons of legal methodology to one mujtahid but not another), and so forth.

Because of the lack of hard information in English, the legitimacy of scholarly difference on shari'a rulings is often lost sight of among Muslims in the West. For example, the work Fiqh al-sunna by the author Sayyid Sabiq, recently translated into English, presents hadith evidences for rulings corresponding to about 95 percent of those of the Shafi'i school. Which is a welcome contribution, but by no means a "final word" about these rulings, for each of the four schools has a large literature of hadith evidences, and not just the Shafi'i school reflected by Sabiq's work. The Maliki school has the Mudawwana of Imam Malik, for example, and the Hanafi school has the Sharh ma'ani al-athar [Explanation of meanings of hadith] and Sharh mushkil al-athar [Explanation of problematic hadiths], both by the great hadith Imam Abu Jafar al-Tahawi, the latter work of which has recently been published in sixteen volumes by Mu'assasa al-Risala in Beirut. Whoever has not read these and does not know what is in them is condemned to be ignorant of the hadith evidence for a great many Hanafi positions.

What I am trying to say is that there is a large fictional element involved when someone comes to the Muslims and says, "No one has understood Islam properly except the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and early Muslims, and our sheikh". This is not valid, for the enduring works of first-rank Imams of hadith, jurisprudence, Qur'anic exegesis, and other shari'a disciplines impose upon Muslims the obligation to know and understand their work, in the same way that serious comprehension of any other scholarly field obliges one to have studied the works of its major scholars who have dealt with its issues and solved its questions. Without such study, one is doomed to repeat mistakes already made and rebutted in the past.

Most of us have acquaintances among this Umma who hardly acknowledge another scholar on the face of the earth besides the Imam of their madhhab, the Sheikh of their Islam, or some contemporary scholar or other. And this sort of enthusiasm is understandable, even acceptable (at a human level) in a non-scholar. But only to the degree that it does not become ta'assub or bigotry, meaning that one believes one may put down Muslims who follow other qualified scholars. At that point it is haram, because it is part of the sectarianism (tafarruq) among Muslims that Islam condemns.

When one gains Islamic knowledge and puts fiction aside, one sees that superlatives about particular scholars such as "the greatest" are untenable; that each of the four schools of classical Islamic jurisprudence has had many many luminaries. To imagine that all preceding scholarship should be evaluated in terms of this or that "Great Reformer" is to ready oneself for a big letdown, because intellectually it cannot be supported. I remember once hearing a law student at the University of Chicago say: "I'm not saying that Chicago has everything. Its just that no place else has anything." Nothing justifies transposing this kind of attitude onto our scholarly resources in Islam, whether it is called "Islamic Movement", "Salafism", or something else, and the sooner we leave it behind, the better it will be for our Islamic scholarship, our sense of reality, and for our din.

[abubakr]

asalamu alaykum

first of all I would like to say that we shouldnt start making a mountain out of a molehill. the 4 Imams were great early scholars of Islam who made very valubale contributions to the deen. so it doesnt matter if they were from the first 3 generations or not.

to brother Moahmmed I dont know what you want o acheive by copy and pasting articles by the nuh mim keller. I personally dont rate him and I think I speak for most people on this forum.

[mohamed]

He is very qualified and has the credentials and thats the only way you rate a 'alim other than sincerity to his job.

.
Nuh Keller, born in 1954 in the northwestern United States, was educated in philosophy and Arabic at the University of Chicago and UCLA. He entered Islam in 1977 at al-Azhar in Cairo, and later studied the traditional Islamic Sciences of hadith, Shafi'i and Hanafi jurisprudence, legal methodology (usul al-fiqh), and tenets of faith (`Aqidah) in Syria and Jordan, where he has lived since 1980. His English translation of `Umdat al-Salik [The Reliance of the Traveller] (1250 pp., Sunna Books, 1991) is the first Islamic legal work in a European language to receive the certification of al-Azhar, the Muslim world's oldest institution of higher learning. He also possess ijazas or `certificates of authorization' in Islamic jurisprudence from sheikhs in Syria and Jordan.

His Other translations and works include: Al-Maqasid: Imam Nawawi's Manual of Islam; The Sunni Path: A Handbook of Islamic Belief; and Tariqa Notes. He is currently translating Imam Nawawi's Kitab al-Adhkar [The Book of Rememberance of Allah], a compendium of some 1227 hadiths on prayers and dhikrs of the prophetic sunna.

His forthcoming book "The Re-Formers of Islam" examines modern calls to replace traditional Islam with an ostensible `return to the way of the early Muslims' unearths some astonishing facts about the claims made by would be reformers.

[abubakr]

brother he is a sufi heretic and barelvi sympathiser he is not trustworthy at all. I can post refutation after refutation of him.

[Haroon]

Please do go on Abu Bakr, i am most curious to hear this:).

[abubakr]

Asalamu alaykum

do get a glimpse of this innovator and the enemy of the sunnah go on the following link whihc outlines nuh ha mim kellers lies against the salafis (ahle sunnah).

http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~islamic/ilm/creed/asharipage/keller.html

These lies can be found in various articles of mr keller some of which our dear brother mohammed has posted.

Nuh Ha mim Keller has alos encouraged many bidahs for example cite the following:

An example of Bidah (innovation) by Nuh Ha Mim Keller

This is an example of how some Sufis start with something that is indisputable but end up with a Bid’ah. Also, please note how the names of reputable scholars are being used to give legitimacy to innovation.



In page 12 of the Tariqa Notes, Nuh Ha Mim Keller said:

[B]“ La ilaha illa Llah is recited three times aloud, slowly, following each obligatory prayer after saying the Istighfar. In tajwid terms, one draws out the initial La for a space of six harakas (vowels) and the alif of the final Llah for four. At the third time, one says Muhammadun rasulu Llah(i): Salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam once, and then one’s other post-salat dhikrs. It is recited out loud together as a group after prayers with tariqa members, but may be recited to oneself when praying with others. Nawawi mentions the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr from Sahih Muslim that ‘the prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to say La ilaha illa Llah after every prayer’ (al-Majmu’,3.485)”

comment:

Let’s contemplate the hadith in Sahih Muslim that imam Nawawi mentions:

“ The prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to say La ilaha illa Llah after every prayer”

The hadith is simple and self-explanatory. Let’s now consider what the Shadhili order proponents like Keller have added to the Sunnah of the Messenger SAAWS:

1. La ilaha illa Llah is recited three times aloud,

2. Slowly,

3. In tajwid terms,

a. one draws out the initial La for a space of six harakas (vowels) and

b. the alif of the final Llah for four.

4. At the third time, one says Muhammadun rasulu Llah(i): Salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam once,

5. It is recited out loud together as a group after prayers with tariqa members, but may be recited to oneself when praying with others

There is no evidence for any of the above. Such clear straying away from the path of the Prophet SAAWS forces one to question the loyalty and love of such Sufis for the prophet SAAWS and his Sunnah (way)! When in fact they not only innovate in his path, but rather attempt to better his Deen. His way is simple, as the Hadith above explains.

Also, the reader is kindly requested to pay attention to the fifth point above. In a mosque that has members of the tariqa, the real life impact is that you will have a group of people making dhikr together while others (fellow Muslims) are excluded. It seems that some Sufis are not satisfied until they divide the Ummah down to the root level of individual mosques. Those who have had the chance to visit parts of the Muslim world where Sufism is strong must have noticed its evil effect of breaking individual Muslim communities into isolated groups (tareeqas), which end up being at odds with one other.

If the above Bid’ah (innovation) and alike were not introduced or innovated, all Muslims would stick to and recite this and other Dhikr in the way of the Prophet SAAWS.

[abubakr]

NUH HA MIM KELLER ON DANCING AND SINGING

Nuh Ha Mim Keller mentions in his Tariqa Notes[1] that sacred dance is one of the rituals of the Shadhili order. According to him, the sacred dance is a type of dancing performed by Sufis in unison while they make Dhikr (remembrance of Allah). To show the permissibility of it, Keller argues that sacred dancing has 3 components:

Dhikr
The dancing itself
Performing it in congregation
Since each of the above components is permissible if not recommended in its own, therefore –Keller concludes- combining them yields a permissible act of worship.

Although, the fallacy of this argument is so evident, we will – Allah willing- contest it hoping that some of his followers might see the truth. We’ll approach this from 2 angles:

By reasoning:
If we follow the logic Keller uses, then we can say the following:

It is an established religious fact that praying 4 rak’ahs in Dhuhr is obligatory. So this act has its roots in the Sacred Law.

It is also well known that praying 2 rak’ahs as a Nafl (voluntary) is recommended, and again it has its roots in the Sacred Law.

Based on the above, one can produce a praise-worthy Bid’ah[2] which states that it is recommended to pray Dhuhr prayer as six rak’ahs instead of four. Keller can’t argue this is a blame-worthy Bid’ah if he is to use the logic and textual evidence he provides in his works[3]..

One can provide another example regarding prayer. Keller tries to prove that the companions invented many acts in prayer and it is the Sunnah of the beloved prophet SAAWS to accept that newly invented acts. So by the same line of reasoning, one can argue:

a. Since Nafl (voluntary) prayer is recommended under the Sacred Law.

b. Dancing is permissible under the Sacred Law according to Keller.

c. The Sunnah of the prophet SAAWS is to accept the newly invented matters in prayer so long as they fall under some principle in the Sacred Law, again according to Keller[4].

One can safely say that dancing while praying is permissible if not recommended.

We do not think that a Muslim in his/her right mind will accept this conclusion which indicates that there is a fundamental error in the premises upon which the reasoning process was established. The flaw in Keller’s reasoning is that combining several recommended ( or permissible) acts of worship does not necessarily yield a religiously permissible act. Acts of worship can’t be invented but rather they are extracted from the textual evidence provided in the Quran and the Sunnah. The reader is reminded that the discussion here does not address mundane matters but rather is confined to acts of worship. It is a well accepted general rule that when it comes to acts of worship everything is haram unless specifically proven halal (permissible) by a textual evidence from the Quran or the Sunnah. However, for actions other than worship, everything is halal (permissible) unless proven otherwise[5].

Also, all people are in agreement that it is very disrespectful to dance when addressing an elder or any person of a higher status. If this (Adab) is true for addressing other fellow humans, then how can one argue that it is recommended or even acceptable to dance when addressing Allah SWT the Lord of the universe and all its creation!



Textual evidences from the works of Muslim scholars:
In this section, statements of early Muslim scholars about dancing are presented. The list is not meant to be extensive but rather good enough to refute Keller’s concept of a sacred dance.

a. Izz bin Abud salam (d 660 H ) RA: He is a Shafi scholar who was famous with enjoining good and forbidden evil. Keller rightly said about him:

A Shafi’i scholar and mujtahid Imam…though his main and enduring contribution was his masterpiece on Islamic legal principles Qawa’id al-ahkam fi masalih al-alanam [The bases of legal rulings in the interests of mankind][6].

We extract the following quote about dancing from that very book:

“Concerning dancing and clapping, they are considered acts of Khiffah immaturity and foolishness similar to the foolishness of females[7] which is only done by a foolish or a phony person…the prophet SAAWS has said: ‘the best of generations is my generation, then the one that comes after them, and then the one that comes after them’ and none of those –whom people take as role models- used to do any of this (clapping and dancing)[8]. In fact, Satan has taken over people who think that the excitement they experience when listening to singing is concerning Allah ‘Azz wa jalla but verily they lied about this.”

Izz continues:

“It is not becoming from one -who fears Allah and has some respect to Him- to clap or dance. These two (clapping and dancing) originate only from a foolish ignorant. They do not originate from sane and pious. As an evidence of the ignorance of whoever does them is that the Shari’ah (Sacred Law) did not legislate them neither in the Quran nor in the Sunnah, and none of the prophets had done them, nor any of their real followers. They are only performed by the ignorant immature people who confuse truth with desires. Allah SWT said: ‘We have We have not neglected anything in the Book, then to their Lord shall they be gathered’ (Surah 6, verse 38). The early Muslim generations and the pious among the late generations had proceeded without embracing any of that (clapping and dancing)”

The above quote is exceptionally clear and shows beyond any question that Sheikh Izz ibn Abdul Salam completely opposed any form of dancing as worship.

Ironically Keller quotes Sheikh Izz ibn Abdul Salam's statement where he divided Bid'ah into five categories as a basis to prove the legitimacy of Sufi Dhikr (litany). However the statements of Izz mentioned above show that Izz’s concept of Bid’ah is completely different from what Keller made it out to be. Detailed discussion of this, will be provided soon in the Bid'ah section.

b. Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah (Islamic rulings issued in India):

al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah is a collection of Islamic rulings issued and compiled by a group of Hanafi scholars from India. This scholarly work was in response to a request by the Muslim king of India and a Islamic scholar in his own standing, Muhammad Aurangzeb. In this collection of Fatawa (Islamic rulings) one finds the following:

“The Sama’ (listening to singing), singing poetry, and dancing that Sufis do these days are impermissible; both going to it and attending it are not permissible. These actions are similar to singing and music[10].



c. The encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence

This is a huge work of Islamic Jurisprudence put together by a host of contemporary Muslim Jurists. The following is a quote from their work under the title “Dancing, whirling, drums and using wind instruments”:

“Some people of Bid’ah add to Dhikr –besides what has been discussed earlier- other things.

Al-Shatibi[11] (d 790 H) said: ‘I wish they stopped at this –which in itself is blameworthy- but on top of that they have progressed into dancing, using wind instruments, whirling, and beating their chests; some bang their heads. How similar this is to the laughable acts of the foolish ones! This is so because these actions of theirs belong to kids and insane, it causes sane people to cry in sympathy for them since this can’t be taken as a path to Allah, and a way to resemble the pious ones.’

Al-Ajiry (d 360 H) said: ‘it has to be said to whoever did this (dancing, whirling, etc): know that the most truthful when admonishing, the most sincere to his Ummah, and the one with the softest heart[12] and the best among the people who came after him[13] -with no doubt- never screamed when they were admonished, nor cried out loudly or danced. If these acts were acceptable then they (the companions) are the most entitled to do them in front of the Prophet SAAWS, however (they did not) because it is Bid’ah, falsehood, and evil.’ ”



The evidences mentioned above should be sufficient to a reader who seeks the truth. We refuted Keller’s argument, concerning dancing and singing as an act of worship, by reasoning first and then by providing clear statements by renowned scholars of Islam.

Footnotes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Tariqa Notes by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, page 19

[2] The correct opinion is that no such thing as praise-worthy Bid’ah. We are using Keller’s terminology for the sake of argument only. For detailed discussion about Bid’ah, go to our page on Bid'ah.

[3] & [4] See the section about Bid’ah in Reliance of the Traveler. If the book is not accessible, then the reader may see our article about Bid’ah in the link mentioned in 2 above. It is a refutation of Keller’s arguments in his book.

[5] The only exceptions for this according to scholars are: human life, assets, having sexual relationship, and meat.

[6] Reliance of the traveler, page 1064.

[7] With all due respect to Imam Izz bin Abdul salam, we –humbly- disagree with this generalization. Many men commit all types of foolishness.

[8] This is another proof that Izz considers the actions of the early 3 generation as the measuring stick to gauge the legitimacy of a new invented matter. This issue is explained into a great length in the article about Bid’ah.

[9] Reliance of the traveler, page 915 and 916

[10] He assumes the reader knows that these are impermissible by the Shari’ah

[11] Imam al-Shatibi is a very distinguished Maliki scholar of Islamic Jurisprudence and principles of Jurisprudence. He is from Andalusia. Among his outstanding work is al-‘Itisam ( a two volume of scholarly work about the Sunnah and Bid’ah) and al-Muwafaqaat ( a four volume book in principles of Jurisprudence).

[12] He means the prophet SAAWS

[13] He means the companions RA

[mohamed]

How would you respond to the Claim that Sufism is bid'a?
©Nuh Ha Mim Keller 1995

I would respond by looking to see how traditional ulama or Islamic scholars have viewed it. For the longest period of Islamic history--from Umayyad times to Abbasid, to Mameluke, to the end of the six-hundred-year Ottoman period--Sufism has been taught and understood as an Islamic discipline, like Qur'anic exegesis (tafsir), hadith, Qur'an recital (tajwid), tenets of faith (ilm al-tawhid) or any other, each of which preserved some particular aspect of the din or religion of Islam. While the details and terminology of these shari'a disciplines were unknown to the first generation of Muslims, when they did come into being, they were not considered bid'a or "reprehensible innovation" by the ulema of shari'a because for them, bid'a did not pertain to means, but rather to ends, or more specifically, those ends that nothing in Islam attested to the validity of.
To illustrate this point, we may note that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) never in his life prayed in a mosque built of reinforced concrete, with a carpeted floor, glass windows, and so on, yet these are not considered bid'a, because we Muslims have been commanded to come together in mosques to perform the prayer, and large new buildings for this are merely a means to carry out the command.

In the realm of knowledge, books of detailed interpretation of the Qur'an, verse by verse and sura by sura, were not known to the first generation of Islam, nor was the term tafsir current among them, yet because of its benefit in preserving a vital aspect of the revelation, the understanding of the Qur'an, when the tafsir literature came into being, it was acknowledged to serve an end endorsed by the shari'a and was not condemned as bid'a. The same is true of most of the Islamic sciences, such as ilm al-jarh wa tadil or "the science of weighing positive and negative factors for evaluating the reliability of hadith narrators", or ilm al-tawhid, "the science of tenets of Islamic faith", and other disciplines essential to the shari'a. In this connection, Imam Shafi'i (d. 204/820) has said, "Anything which has a support (mustanad) from the shari'a is not bid'a, even if the early Muslims did not do it" (Ahmad al-Ghimari, Tashnif al-adhan, Cairo: Maktaba al-Khanji, n.d., 133).

Similarly ilm al-tasawwuf, "the science of Sufism" came into being to preserve and transmit a particular aspect of the shari'a, that of ikhlas or sincerity. It was recognized that the sunna of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was not only words and actions, but also states of being: that a Muslim must not only say certain things and do certain things, but must also be something. The shari'a commands one, for example, in many Qur'anic verses and prophetic hadiths, to fear Allah, to have sincerity toward Him, to be so certain in ones knowledge of Allah that one worships Him as if one sees Him, to love the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) more than any other human being, to show love and respect to all fellow Muslims, to show mercy, and to have many other states of the heart. It likewise forbids us such inward states as envy, malice, pride, arrogance, love of this world, anger for the sake of one's ego, and so on. Al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi relates, for example, with a chain of transmission judged rigorously authenticated (sahih) by Ibn Main, the hadith "Anger spoils faith (iman) as [the bitterness of] aloes sap spoils honey" (Nawadir al-usul. Istanbul 1294/1877. Reprint. Beirut: Dar Sadir, n.d., 6).

If we reflect upon these states, obligatory to attain or to eliminate, we notice that they proceed from dispositions, dispositions not only lacking in the unregenerate human heart, but acquired only with some effort, resulting in a human change so profound that the Qur'an in many verses terms it purification, as when Allah says in surat al-Ala, for example, "He has succeeded who purifies himself" (Qur'an 87:14). Bringing about this change is the aim of the Islamic science of Sufism, and it cannot be termed bid'a, because the shari'a commands us to accomplish the change.

At the practical level, the nature of this science of purifying the heart (like virtually all other traditional Islamic disciplines) requires that the knowledge be taken from those who possess it. This is why historically we find that groups of students gathered around particular sheikhs to learn the discipline of Sufism from. While such tariqas or groups, past and present, have emphasized different ways to realize the attachment of the heart to Allah commanded by the Islamic revelation, some features are found in all of them, such as learning knowledge from a teacher by precept and example, and then methodically increasing ones iman or faith by applying this knowledge through performing obligatory and supererogatory works of worship, among the greatest of latter being dhikr or the remembrance of Allah. There is much in the Qur'an and sunna that attests to the validity of this approach, such as the hadith related by al-Bukhari that:

Allah Most High says: ". . . . My slave approaches Me with nothing more beloved to Me than what I have made obligatory upon him, and My slave keeps drawing nearer to Me with voluntary works until I love him. And when I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he seizes, and his foot with which he walks. If he asks me, I will surely give to him, and if he seeks refuge in Me, I will surely protect him (Sahih al-Bukhari. 9 vols. Cairo 1313/1895. Reprint (9 vols. in 3). Beirut: Dar al-Jil, n.d., 5.131: 6502)
--which is a way of expressing that such a person has realized the consummate awareness of tawhid or "unity of Allah" demanded by the shari'a, which entails total sincerity to Allah in all one's actions. Because of this hadith, and others, traditional ulama have long acknowledged that ilm or "Sacred Knowledge" is not sufficient in itself, but also entails amal or "applying what one knows"--as well as the resultant hal or "praiseworthy spiritual state" mentioned in the hadith.
It was perceived in all Islamic times that when a scholar joins between these aspects, his words mirror his humility and sincerity, and for that reason enter the hearts of listeners. This is why we find that so many of the Islamic scholars to whom Allah gave tawfiq or success in their work were Sufis. Indeed, to throw away every traditional work of the Islamic sciences authored by those educated by Sufis would be to discard 75 percent or more of the books of Islam. These men included such scholars as the Hanafi Imam Muhammad Amin Ibn Abidin, Sheikh al-Islam Zakaria al-Ansari, Imam Ibn Daqiq al-Eid, Imam al-Izz Ibn Abd al-Salam, Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi, Sheikh Ahmad al-Sirhindi, Sheikh Ibrahim al-Bajuri, Imam al-Ghazali, Shah Wali Allah al-Dahlawi, Imam al-Nawawi, the hadith master (hafiz, someone with 100,000 hadiths by memory) Abd al-Adhim al-Mundhiri, the hadith master Murtada al-Zabidi, the hadith master Abd al-Rauf al-Manawi, the hadith master Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, the hadith master Taqi al-Din al-Subki, Imam al-Rafii, Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Zayn al-Din al-Mallibari, Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, and many many others.

Imam al-Nawawi's attitude towards Sufism is plain from his work Bustan al-arifin [The grove of the knowers of Allah] on the subject, as well as his references to al-Qushayri's famous Sufi manual al-Risala al-Qushayriyya throughout his own Kitab al-adhkar [Book of the remembrances of Allah], and the fact that fifteen out of seventeen quotations about sincerity (ikhlas) and being true (sidq) in an introductory section of his largest legal work (al-Majmu: sharh al-Muhadhdhab. 20 vols. Cairo n.d. Reprint. Medina: al-Maktaba al-Salafiyya, n.d., 1.1718) are from Sufis who appear by name in al-Sulami's Tabaqat al-Sufiyya [The successive generations of Sufis]. Even Ibn Taymiyya (whose views on Sufism remain strangely unfamiliar even to those for whom he is their "Sheikh of Islam") devoted volumes ten and eleven of his Majmu al-fatawa to Sufism, while his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya wrote his three-volume Madarij al-salikin as a detailedcommentary on Abdullah al-Ansaris Manazil al-sairin, a guide to the maqamat or "spiritual stations" of the Sufi path. These and many other Muslim scholars knew firsthand the value of Sufism as an ancillary shari'a discipline needed to purify the heart, and this was the reason that the Umma as a whole did not judge Sufism to be a bid'a down through the ages of Islamic civilization, but rather recognized it as the science of ikhlas or sincerity, so urgently needed by every Muslim on "a day when wealth will not avail, nor sons, but only him who brings Allah a sound heart" (Qur'an 26:88).

And Allah alone gives success.

[Al-Boriqi]

Now thats someone with knowledge!!


Now thats some ignorance displayed by Keller.

Akhee Mohammad. Why do you perceive him to be a scholar. Our prophet told us concerning one of the signs of the hour is that the people will trust the liar and dispariage the truthful one (example, many muslims take kellar and leave the poeple of knowledge) and that the ruwaibida will speak (the insignificant and ignorant ones) which is a perfect description most truthful concerning Keller.

Al-Haafidh Taqee ud-Deen Abu Muhammad Abdul-Ghaniyy al-Maqdisee (d. 600H) - may Allaah have mercy upon him - said: "And know - may Allaah have mercy upon you - that Islaam and its people are attacked and destroyed by three groupings:

1) A group who reject the hadeeth pertaining to the Attributes of Allaah and who reject their narrators. They are more harmful to Islaam and its adherents than the Disbelievers.

2) A group who speak with the authenticity of these hadeeth and accept them, but they perform Ta'weel (figurative interpolation) of them. They are mightier in their harm than the first group.

3) And the third group, those who avoid the above two sayings, and begin - as they claim - to purify Allaah from all imperfections (tanzeeh) - but in fact they are liars, and this leads them to the very same above two sayings. So they are more harmful than the first two groups."[2]

Abu Uthmaan as-Saaboonee (d. 449H) - may Allaah have mercy upon him - said: "And along with that they [the Salaf who have passed before him] unanimously agreed with their saying about the Ahl ul-Bid'ah, that they should be subdued, humiliated and disgraced, banished and driven away. That [one must] keep away from them, from those who associate with them and from those who are intimate with them. And to seek nearness to Allaah by avoiding them and fleeing from them."[3]

He also said: "...That they should not occupy themselves with these newly-invented matters from among the innovations, which have become widespread amongst the Muslims [and likewise, the detestable things which] have appeared and become popular [amongst the people]. And if a single one of these matters appeared upon the tongue of anyone in the time of those Scholars, then they would have forsaken him, would have declared him an innovator, called him a liar and would have attributed to him, every evil and loathsome thing.

Let not my Brothers - may Allaah protect them - be deceived by the abundance of the Ahl ul-Bid'ah (the People of Innovation) and their large numbers [for verily, the abundance of the people of falsehood and the small number of the people of Truth is a sign of the approach of the Day of Truth], since the Chosen Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed, amongst the signs of the Hour and its being close at hand, is that knowledge will diminish and ignorance will be widespread."[4]

And knowledge is the Sunnah and ignorance is Bid'ah."

And Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) - may Allaah have mercy upon him - said: "And such as the People of Innovation among the people of the [innovated] sayings that oppose the Book and the Sunnah or the acts of worship opposing the Book and the Sunnah - for exposing their condition and warning the Ummah about them is obligatory by unanimous agreement of the Muslims - until it was said to Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal: "Is it more loved to you that a man fasts, prays and peforms tawaaf or that he speaks about the People of Innovation [i.e. exposes them and warns about them]?" He replied: "When he stands, prays and performs tawaaf that is for himself but when he talks about the People of Innovation then that is for the Muslims and this is more excellent." So he explained that the benefit of this is for the Muslims in general - for [the protection of] their religion - and it is a form or jihaad in the Path of Allaah because the purification of the Path of Allaah, His Deen, His Minhaaj (methodology) and His Sharee'ah, repelling the oppressors and having enmity towards them is obligatory with kifaayah (i.e. there must be some amongst the Muslims who do this otherwise all of them are sinful for neglecting this duty). And if it had not been for the one whom Allaah had made to undertake this duty of repelling the harms of these people the Deen would have been corrupted and destroyed. And this corruption is greater than the corruption resulting from the domination of the enemies - amongst the people - who fight against the Muslims (i.e. Disbelievers) - and this is because these people (the disbelievers) when they dominate and conquer the Muslims, do not corrupt the hearts or whatever faith is contained within them except as a consequence, after time. As for these (the People of Innovation) then they corrupt the hearts right from the very beginning (i.e. since they corrupt the Deen itself)."[6]

And Zaa'idah bin Qudaamah said: " I said to Mansoor bin al-Mu'tamir: When I am fasting can I revile the Ruler? He said: No. I then said: Then can I revile the People of Desires (i.e. Innovators)? He said: Yes."[7]

Al Hasan al-Basree (d. 110H) said: "There are three - in the backbiting of whom there is no inviolability - one of them being a person of innovation who is immersed in his innovation, propagating it.

It will become clear - by the permission of Allaah - that the Jahmiyyah - as they have always been, and in whatever way they disguise themselves - are either ignorant or pretending to be ignorant of the Arabic language, seeking to deny what Allaah, the Most High, and His Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) affirmed with regard to His Attributes, and wickedly inventing lies against those whom Allaah has favoured with knowledge - attributing their own Jahmee beliefs to them and seeking to refute the truth with falsehood in order to misguide the common folk, vilify the Salaf and the People of Knowledge and to raise high the banner of innovation:

And Allaah will certainly perfect His light even though the Disbelievers may detest it [Soorah Saff 61:8]

The person in question - about whose being a Jahmee there is no doubt - it is clear that he is merely transmitting what others with these wicked beliefs have said, such as Muhammad Alee Saaboonee, Abdullaah al-Habashi, Muhammad Sa'eed Ramadaan al-Bootee and others at the present time. Many works have been written in refutation of these deviant beliefs from the earliest times until the present day. This Jahmee seeks - by giving false and baseless examples - to justify the madhhab of ta'weel and tafweedh with respect to the Attributes of Allaah and then to describe them as being the way of the Salaf in understanding the Attributes - examples whose futility and falsehood is evident to those whom Allaah has favoured with the path of Ahl us-Sunnah, the Ashaabul-Hadeeth, the Salaf us-Saalih.

What this Jahmee has propounded is nothing new - but only a regurgitation of the Ahl ul-Bid'ah of old - those accusing the Salaf of being anthropomorphists on account of their acceptance of, and faith in the narrations of the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), as they have came, without rejecting them or distorting them. The accusation of anthropomorphism against the Salaf is an ancient legacy, and the Scholars of the Salaf refuted it and spoke about it in the earliest of times.

Imaam Abu Haatim ar-Raazee (d. 277H) said: "A sign of the Jahmiyyah is that they call the Ahl us-Sunnah 'Mushabbihah' (Anthropomorphists)."[9]

Abu Uthmaan as-Saaboonee (d. 449H) stated - about the distinguishing signs of Ahl ul-Bid'ah: "...naming them [i.e. Ahl us-Sunnah]with Hashawiyyah (Worthless People), Jahalah (the Ignorant), Dhaahiriyyah (Literalists) and Mushabbihah (Anthropomorphists)..."[10]

(note: as you see the Imaam and Shaykhul-Islam as-Saboonee has clearly deistinguished the signs of the people of desires is that they accuse the people of the sunnah, who are the salaf and who follow them (salafees) by saying they are dhahiriyyah or the literaists and you seem them in our times that they say "Islam is beyond this and that" and fools like mohammad called me and others, and threw accusations on Ibn Taymiyyah that he had the beleifs of the anthropomorphists may Allah sever the affairs and thoughts of these people of rhetoric and falsehood ameen.)

Alee bin al-Madeenee - the teacher of Imaam Bukhaaree - said: "When someone says so and so is an anthropomorphist (mushabbih) we come to know he is a Jahmee".[11]

Therefore, the path of this neo-Jahmite whose condition we shall discuss, is but a legacy of the Jahmiyyah of old. But this will be hidden to the unsuspecting common person, who lacks knowledge and realisation, thereby thinking that this neo-Jahmite is rightly guided and that he guides others. But in reality the path of this Jahmee leads directly to the home of torment and punishment because the Jahmee is in fact standing by the gates of Hellfire, inviting the common-folk to it that they maybe its inhabitants. And whoever considers what is to follow in uncovering the treachery and deception of this ignoramus and makes comparison between the words and statements of this Jahmee with those of the Imaams of the Salaf of the earliest times will see clearly that this Jahmee is but a caller to mere innovation, folly, foolishness and misguidance.


And an explanation of some of the proofs that the aforementioned Jahmee used for his false claims and conclusions is as follows:

Firstly: The Jahmee's Allegation about the saying of Allaah the Most High:

Those who take their deen as play and amusement and whom the life of this world has deceived, then this day shall We forget them as they forgot the meeting of this day of theirs [A'raaf 7:51]

That it means that Allaah forgets, i.e. suffers from forgetfulness - High is Allaah above what the Innovators attribute to Him - and that this is a saying of the Salafees, or something necessitated by their methodology in understanding the texts of the Book and the Sunnah[12] - then this a lie against them and against Allaah, rather this is an explanation invented by the Jahmee and the Salaf and their followers are free from it.

If the Jahmee tries to claim: But the Salafees say that they only accept the manifest, apparent meaning of aayaat and reject (mis)-interpretation (ta'weel), then the reply is that if the Jahmee was not so ignorant or did not pretend to be so ignorant of the Arabic language then he would know that the manifest meaning of the aayah is not the evil saying that he insinuates would be necessitated by the methodology of the Salaf. Rather the word nansaahum (We shall forget them...) comes from the root nasiya, yansaa which can mean either to deliberately leave/abandon, or to forget and fail to remember. The meaning in this aayah is very clear and manifest and it is not ta'weel (figurative interpolation) to say that the aayah means that Allaah abandons them - rather this is the manifest (dhaahir) meaning of the aayah, in full agreement with the Arabic language - as anyone with knowledge of it will know.[13]

This is naturally the tafseer given by the aayah by at-Tabaree: "We will abandon them in the punishment which cuts them off, leaving them hungry and thirsty without any food or drink, just as they abandoned action for the meeting on this Day, and they rejected preparation for it by wearying their bodies in obedience to Allaah, and we have explained clearly the meaning of His saying 'nansaahum' previously along with its witnesses, so there is no need to repeat it."

Amongst the narrations which he then quotes from the Salaf with this meaning is:

Muhammad ibn Abdul A'laa narrated to us saying: Muhammad ibn Thawr narrated to us: from Ma'mar: from Ibn Abee Najeeh: from Mujaahid: that he said: "We will abandon them just as they abandoned this meeting of theirs" and Muhammad bin Amr narrated to me saying: Aboo Aasim narrated to us saying: Eesaa narrated to us: from Ibn Abee Najeeh: from Mujaahid: who said: "We will leave/abandon them in the Fire" The same meaning is made clear in al-Baghawee and Ibn Katheer in their tafseers

However, the aforementioned Jahmee seeks to claim that at-Tabaree's explanation of the meaning of 'nansaahum' as being 'We shall forget them, so as to say, We shall abandon them to their punishment' is an instance of ta'weel.[14] And this is clear deception, since - as has been explained above - the meaning giving by at-Tabaree is actually from the Arabic language and is not a matter of figurative interpolation which the Jahmee has wickedly and unashamedly ascribed to at-Tabaree - innocent is at-Tabaree from this Jahmee as the innocence of Aa'ishah - may Allaah be pleased with her - from the slander perpetrated against her.[15]

Secondly, the point that Ibn ul-Qayyim - may Allaah have mercy upon him - explains in Ijtimaa ul-Juyoosh and in Mukhtasaarus-Sawaa'iq (1/34-37) that Allaah has two Eyes.

Then he explains that this is the position of the Salaf. He quotes Abu Hasan al-Ash'aree who states:

"And He has two eyes without any mention of how, just as He said:

Floating under Our Eyes [Soorah Qamar 54:14]"[16]

There is much more I can post in refutations of the Jahmee Sufee Mubtadi but for the sake of space I end here unless osmeone wishes more of it.

The person in question above was Nuh Hameem Keller

May Alah guide the muslims away form his destructive dawah and that He aloows his followers and accepters to peirce throuhg and relaize his falsehood and that Allah guide him away form that which he has been calling the people towards AMEEN.

asalamu alaikum warahamtullah

[Hashim]

Aslaam Alaykum

Al Izaree what is this muqalid mohammad saying i am so confused, he is still saying the 4 imaams were part of the salaf?!!! I said this befoe, the oldest imaam was Imaam Hanifa was born 80 hijraah! What surrowneded by sahabaahs? Which companions are you talking about Mohammad?

[Al-Boriqi]

As for his claim that sahabas surrounded Abu Haneefa rahimahullah and leanred from them then I dont where on earth he got this from.

as for his claim brouhgt forth by the Nuh Hameem Keller that the salaf were the first four hundred years of Islam then I say in truth, NO sunni scholar, No Imaam of the sunnah has veer spoken with this statement and it stands that i dont know where on earth or mars or wherever did he get this notion from.

as for calling him muqalid akhee he is just a mere follower. he is not on the same state as someone like Nuh Hameem Keller or other mubtadiah. So leave the revilements and insults to come by way of him instewad of us. That is because our revilement of them is in the matter of leaving the sunnah and their revilement of us in in our exposing what they are upon like who like and hate it who hate it.

asalamu alaikum

[mohamed]

This is abu hanifa, now tell us about mohamed abdul wahab's qualifications!

AL-IMAM AL-AZAM ABU HANIFAH
(rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih)


The book Qamus al-alam states: Al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa's name was Numan. His father's name was Thabit. His grandfather's name was Numan, too. He was the first of the four great imams of the Ahl as-Sunnat. 'Imam' means 'profoundly learned scholar.' He was one of the main pillars of the brilliant religion of Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam). He was a descendant of a Persian notable. His grandfather had embraced Islam. He was born in Kufa in 80 (698 A.D.). He was born early enough to see Anas ibn Malik, 'Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa, Sahl ibn Sad as-Sa'idi and Abu al-Fadl Amir ibn Wasila, four Sahabis (radi-Allahu ta'ala anhum). He learned 'ilm al-fiqh from Hammad ibn Abi Sulaiman. He enjoyed the companionship of many notables of the Tabiin, and of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih). He memorized innumerable hadiths. He was brought up so as to become a great judge, but he became an imam al-madhhab. He had a superior, and amazingly keen intellect. In 'ilm al-fiqh, he attained an unequalled grade in a short time. His name and fame became world-wide.

Yazid ibn 'Amr, Governor of Iraq during the time of Marwan ibn Muhammad, the fourteenth and last Umayyad Khalifa, who was a grandson of Marwan ibn Hakam (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih) and was killed five years after assuming the caliphate in Egypt in 132 (750 A.D.), proposed to Abu Hanifa (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih) to become a judge for the law-court of Kufa. But, since he had as much zuhd, taqwa and wara' as he had knowledge and intellect, he refused it. He was afraid of not being able to safeguard human rights because of human weaknesses. With a command from Yazid, he was given a whipping, hundred and ten blows to the head. His blessed face and head swelled. The next day, Yazid took the Imam out and oppressed him by repeating his offer. The Imam said, "Let me consult," and obtained permission to leave. He went to the blessed city of Mecca and stayed there for five or six years.

The 'Abbasid Khalifa Abu Jafar Mansur (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih) commanded him to be the chief of the Supreme Court of Appeal in 150 A.H. [767 A.D.]. He refused it and was put into jail. He was subjected to whipping, ten blows more every following day. When the number of whipping reached one hundred, he attained martyrdom. Abu Sad Muhammad ibn Mansur al-Harizmi (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih), one of the viziers of Malikshah (447-485 A.H., the third Saljuqi Sultan and the son of Sultan Alparslan), had a wonderful dome built over his grave. Afterwards, Ottoman emperors embellished and had his tomb restored several times.

Abu Hanifa (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih) was the first who compiled and classified 'ilm al-fiqh, and he gathered information for each branch of knowledge. He wrote the books Fara'id and Shurut. There are innumerable books describing his extensive knowledge on fiqh; his extraordinary ability in qiyas; and his dumbfounding superiority in zuhd, taqwa, mildness and righteousness. He had many disciples, some of whom became great mujtahids.

The Hanafi Madhhab spread far and wide during the time of the Ottoman Empire. It almost became the official Madhhab of the State. Today, more than half of the Muslims on the earth and most of the Ahl as-Sunnat perform their 'ibada according to the Hanafi Madhhab. Citation from the book Kamus-ul alam ends here.

The book Mir'at al-ka'inat states:

The ancestors of al-Imam al-azam (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih) come from the province of Faris, Iran. His father, Thabit, had met Imam 'Ali (radi-Allahu 'anh) in Kufa and Hadrat 'Ali had pronounced a benediction over him and his descendants. Al-Imam al-azam was one of the greatest among the Tabiin and saw Anas ibn Malik (radi-Allahu 'anh) and three or seven more of the as-Sahabat al-kiram. He learned hadith-i sharifs from them.

A hadith ash-Sharif, which al-Imam al-Harizmi reported from Abu Huraira (radi-Allahu 'anh) through isnad muttasil (an uninterrupted chain of reporters), states: "Among my Umma, there will come a man called Abu Hanifa. On the Day of Resurrection, he will be the light of my Umma." Another hadith ash-Sharif states: "A man named Numan ibn Thabit and called Abu Hanifa will appear and will revive Allahu ta'ala's Religion and my Sunnat." And another one states: "In every century, a number of my Umma will attain to high grades. Abu Hanifa will be the highest of his time." These three hadiths are written in the book Mawduat al-'Ulum and in Durr al-mukhtar. This hadith ash-Sharif is also well-known: "Among my Umma, a man called Abu Hanifa will appear. There is a beauty-spot between his two shoulder blades. Allahu ta'ala will revive His Religion through his hand."

[Preface to Durr al-mukhtar writes: "A hadith ash-Sharif states: 'As Adam ('alaihi 's-salam) was proud of me so I am proud of a man of my Umma named Numan and called Abu Hanifa. He is the light of my Umma.' " Another hadith ash-Sharif states: "Prophets ('alaihimu 's-salam) are proud of me. And I am proud of Abu Hanifa. He who loves him will have loved me. He who feels hostility towards him will have felt hostility towards me." These hadiths are also written in the book Al-muqaddima by the profound scholar Hadrat Abu 'l-Laith as-Samarqandi and in Taqadduma, which is a commentary to the former. In the preface to the fiqh book Al-muqaddima by al-Ghaznawi hadiths praising him are quoted. In Diya' al-ma'nawi, a commentary on it, Qadi Abi 'l-Baqa said, 'Abul-Faraj 'Abd ar-Rahman ibn al-Jawzi, based on the words of al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, said that these hadiths were mawdu'. Yet this remark of his is bigotry, for these hadiths were reported by several chains of transmitters. Ibn 'Abidin, in his commentary on Durr al-mukhtar, proved that these hadiths were not mawdu' and quoted the following hadith ash-Sharif from the book Al-khairat al-hisan by Ibn Hajar al-Makki: "The ornament of the world will be taken away in the year 150." He went on, "The great fiqh scholar Shams al-aimma 'Abd al-Ghaffar al-Kardari (d. 562/1166 A.D.) said, "It is obvious that this hadith ash-Sharif refers to al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa, since he passed away in 150." A hadith ash-Sharif given by al-Bukhari and Muslim says, "If iman went to the planet Venus, a man of Faris (Persian) descent would bring it back." Imam as-Suyuti, a Shafi'i alim, remarked, "It has been communicated unanimously that this hadith ash-Sharif refers to al-Imam al-azam." Numan Alusi writes in the book Ghaliyya that this hadith ash-Sharif refers to Abu Hanifa and that his grandfather descended from a Faris family. 'Allama Yusuf, a Hanbali scholar, quoted in his work Tanwir as-sahifa from Hafiz 'Allama Yusuf ibn 'Abd al-Barr (b. 368/978 and d. 463/1071 in Shatiba), Qadi of Lisbon, Portugal, 'Do not slander Abu Hanifa and do not believe those who slander him! I swear by Allahu ta'ala that I know not a person superior to him, having more wara', or being more learned than he. "Do not believe what al-Khatib al-Baghdadi said! He was antipathetic towards the 'ulama'. He slandered Abu Hanifa, Imam Ahmad and their disciples. The 'ulama' of Islam refuted al-Khatib and censured him. Ibn al-Jawzi's grandson, 'Allama Yusuf Shams ad-din al-Baghdadi, wrote in his forty-volume book Mirat az-zaman that he was astonished to know that his grandfather had followed al-Khatib. Imam al-Ghazali (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih), in his Ihya', praises al-Imam al-azam with such words as ''abid', 'zahid' and 'al-'arifu bi'llah'. If the Sahabat al-Kiram and the 'ulama' of Islam had different points of view from one another, it was not because they did not approve of each other's words or because they were unsociable to one another or because they disliked one another; mujtahids (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaihim ajmain) disagreed with one another concerning ijtihad for Allahu ta'ala's sake and to help the religion."1]

An alim dreamt of Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) and asked him, 'What would you say about Abu Hanifa's knowledge?' He answered, 'Everybody needs his knowledge.' Another alim asked in his dream, 'O Rasul-Allah! What would you say about the knowledge Numan ibn Thabit has, who lives in Kufa?' He answered, "Learn from him and do as he says. He is a very good person." Imam 'Ali (radi-Allahu 'anh) said, "Let me inform you of a person called Abu Hanifa, who will live in Kufa. His heart will be full of knowledge and hikma (wisdom). Towards the end of the world, many people will perish because of not appreciating him, just as the Shiites will perish because of not having appreciated Abu Bakr and 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anhuma)." Imam Muhammad al-Baqir ibn Zain al-'Abidin 'Ali ibn Husain (rahmat-Allahi 'alaihim, b. 57 A.H. in Medina and d. 113, buried in the shrine of Hadrat 'Abbas [radi-Allahu 'anh] in Medina) looked at Abu Hanifa and said, "When those who destroy the religion of my ancestors increase in number, you will revive it. You will be the savior of those who fear and the shelter of those who are confused! You will lead the heretics to the right way! Allahu ta'ala will help you!" When he was young, al-Imam al-azam (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih) studied 'ilm al-kalam and marifa and became very skillful. Then after serving Imam Hammad for twenty-eight years, he attained maturity. When Hammad passed away, he took his place as a mujtahid and Mufti. His knowledge and superiority became known far and wide. His virtue, intelligence, sagacity, zuhd, taqwa, trustworthiness, readiness of wit, devotion to Islam, righteousness and his perfection in every respect as a human being were above those of all others of his time. All the mujtahids and those who succeeded him and noble people -even Christians- praised him. Al-Imam ash-Shafi'i (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih) said, "All men of fiqh are Abu Hanifa's children." He said once, "I get blessings (tabarruk) from Abu Hanifa['s soul]. I visit his tomb every day. When I am in difficulty, I go to his tomb and perform two rak'as of salat. I invoke Allahu ta'ala, and He gives me what I wish." Al-Imam ash-Shafi'i was a disciple of Imam Muhammad.2 He remarked, "Allahu ta'ala bestowed knowledge upon me through two persons. I learned the Hadith ash-Sharif from Sufyan ibn 'Uyayna and fiqh from Muhammad ash-Shaibani." He said once, "In the field of religious knowledge and in worldly affairs, there is one person to whom I am grateful. He is Imam Muhammad." And again, al-Imam ash-Shafi'i said, "With what I learned from Imam Muhammad I have written a pack-animal-load of books. I would not have acquired anything of knowledge had he not been my teacher. All men of knowledge are the children of the 'ulama' of Iraq, who were the disciples of the 'ulama' of Kufa. And they were the disciples of Abu Hanifa."

Al-Imam al-azam acquired knowledge from four thousand people.

The 'ulama' of every century wrote many books describing the greatness of al-Imam al-azam.

In the Hanafi Madhhab, five hundred thousand religious problems were solved and all of them were answered. [editor's note: It is to be noted that that number is close to doubled in the present-day era.]

Al-Hafiz al-kabir Abu Bakr Ahmad al-Harizmi wrote in his book Musnad,

"Saif al-aimma reports that when al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa derived a matter from Qur'an al-karim and Hadith ash-Sharif, he would propound it to his masters. He would not give the answer to the inquirer unless all of them confirmed it." One thousand of his disciples attended all his classes when he taught in the mosque of Kufa city. Forty of them were mujtahids. When he found the answer for a matter he would propound it to his disciples. They would study it together and, when they were all in agreement that it was consistent with Qur'an al-karim and Hadith ash-Sharif and with the words of the Sahabat al-kiram, he would be delighted and say, "Al-hamdu li'llah wallahu akbar," and all those who were present would repeat his words. Then he would tell them to write it down."
It is written in the book Radd al-Wahhabi 3: [THE FOLLOWING IS A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFORMATION!!!]
"Being a mujtahid requires first being specialized in the Arabic language and in the various linguistic sciences such as awda', sahih, marwi, mutawatir; ways of radd; mawdu' vocabulary; fasih, radi and mazmun forms; mufrad, shadh, nadir, mustamal, muhmal, mu'rab, marifa, ishtiqaq, haqiqa, majaz, mushtarak, izdad, mutlaq, muqayyad, ibdal and qalb. Next you must be specialized in sarf, nahw, ma'ani, bayan, badi', balaghat, 'ilm al-usul al-fiqh, 'ilm al-usul al-hadith, 'ilm al-usul at-tafsir, and have memorized the words of the imams of jarh and tadil. Being a faqih requires, in addition to these, knowing the proof for every matter and studying the meaning, the murad and tawil of the proof. Being a muhaddith, that is, a scholar of hadith, requires only memorizing the hadiths as one heard them; it is not compulsory to know the meanings, murads, tawils, or to understand the proofs for the rules of Islam. If a faqih and a muhaddith disagree with each other about a hadith ash-Sharif, e.g. if the former says that it is sahih and the latter says that it is daif, the faqih's word will be valid. Therefore, al-Imam al-azam's word or decision is more valuable than all the others because he was the first mujtahid and the highest faqih due to his having heard many hadiths directly from the Sahabat al-kiram without any intervention. A hadith ash-Sharif that was said to be sahih by this exalted imam was said to be sahih by all Islamic scholars. A muhaddith cannot be in the grade of a faqih. And he can never reach the grade of an imam al-madhhab."
'Abdulhaq ad-Dahlawi, a scholar of hadith, wrote in his book Sirat-i mustaqim,
"Some hadiths which al-Imam ash-Shafi'i took as documents were not taken as documents by al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa. Seeing this, the la-madhhabi used it as an opportunity for traducing al-Imam al-azam and claimed that Abu Hanifa had not followed the hadith ash-Sharif. However, Hadrat al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa found and took other hadiths which were more sahih and dependable in documenting the matter."
A hadith ash-Sharif states: "The most beneficial ones of my Umma are those who live in my time. The next most beneficial ones are those who succeed them. And the next most beneficial ones are those who will come after them." This hadith ash-Sharif shows that the Tabiin were more beneficial than Taba' at-Tabiin. The Islamic 'ulama' all agree that al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa saw some of the as-Sahabat al-kiram, heard hadiths from them, and, therefore, was one of the Tabiin. For example, al-Imam al-azam heard the hadith, "A person who builds a mosque for Allahu ta'ala's sake will be given a villa in Paradise," from 'Abdullah ibn Awfa, who was a Sahabi. Jalal ad-din as-Suyuti, a Shafi'i scholar, wrote in his book Tabyid as-sahifa that al-Imam 'Abdulkarim, one of the Shafi'i scholars, wrote a complete book describing the Sahabis whom al-Imam al-azam had seen. It is written in Durr al-mukhtar that al-Imam al-azam saw seven Sahabis. Among the four aimmat al-madhahib, only al-Imam al-azam was honored with being one of the Tabiin. It is a rule in 'ilm al-usul that the view of those who admit something is preferred to the view of those who refuse it. It is obvious that al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa, being one of the Tabiin, is the highest of the aimmat al-madhahib. The la-madhhabis' denying al-Imam al-azam's superiority or their trying to vilify this exalted Imam by saying that he was weak in the knowledge of hadith, is similar to their denying the superiority of Hadrat Abu Bakr and Hadrat 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anhuma). This perverse negation of theirs is not a sort of illness that can be cured by preaching or advice. May Allahu ta'ala cure them! The Muslims' Khalifa 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anh) said during his khutba: "O Muslims! As I tell you now, Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) told us during his khutba: "The most beneficial people are my Sahaba. The most beneficial after them are their successors. And the next most beneficial are those who will come after them. There will be liars among those who will come after these.' " The four Madhhabs which Muslims have been following and imitating today are the Madhhabs of those beneficial people whose beneficence was corroborated by Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam). The Islamic 'ulama' declare in consensus that it is not permissible to adopt a Madhhab other than these four Madhhabs.
Ibn Nujaim al-Misri (rahmat-allahi ta'ala 'alaih), author of the book Bahr ar-ra'iq, wrote in his work Ashbah, "Hadrat al-Imam ash-Shafi'i said that a person who wanted to be a specialist in the knowledge of fiqh should read Abu Hanifa's books." Abdullah Ibn Mubarak said, "I have not seen another specialist as learned as Abu Hanifa in the knowledge of fiqh. The great alim Mis'ar used to kneel in front of Abu Hanifa and learn what he did not know by asking him. I have studied under a thousand 'ulama'. Yet, had I not seen Abu Hanifa, I would have slipped into the bog of Greek philosophy." Abu Yusuf said, "I have not seen another person as profoundly learned as Abu Hanifa in the knowledge of hadith. There is not another alim who can expound hadiths as competently as he did." The great alim and mujtahid Sufyan ath-Thawri said, "In comparison with Abu Hanifa, we were like sparrows with a falcon. Abu Hanifa is the leader of the 'ulama'." 'Ali ibn Asim said, "If Abu Hanifa's knowledge were to be measured with the total knowledge of all the 'ulama' contemporary with him, Abu Hanifa's knowledge would prove to be greater." Yazid ibn Harun said, "I studied under a thousand 'ulama'. Among them I did not see anyone who had as much wara' as Abu Hanifa did or who was as wise as Abu Hanifa (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih)." Muhammad ibn Yusuf ash-Shafi'i, one of the Damascene 'ulama', praises al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa much, explains his superiority in detail, and says that he is the leader of all mujtahids in his book Uqud al-jaman fi manaqibi'n-Numan. Al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa said, "We esteem and love Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) hadiths above all. We search for the words of the Sahabat al-kiram, choose and adopt them. As for the words of the Tabiin, they are like our words. Translation from the book Radd-i Wahhabi ends here. This book was printed in India and in Istanbul, in 1264 (1848 A.D.) and in 1401 (1981 A.D.), respectively.

In the book Sayf-ul-muqallidin ala a'nak-il-munkirin, Mawlana Muhammad 'Abd al-Jalil wrote in Persian: "The la-madhhabi say that Abu Hanifa was weak in the knowledge of hadith. This assertion of theirs shows that they are ignorant or jealous. Al-Imam az-Zahabi and Ibn Hajar al-Makki say that al-Imam al-azam was an alim of hadith. He learned hadiths from four thousand 'ulama'. Three hundred of them were among the Tabiin and were 'ulama' of hadith. Al-Imam ash-Sharani says in the first volume of al-Mizan, 'I have studied three of al-Imam al-azam's Musnads. All of them transmit information from the well-known 'ulama' of the Tabiin.' Hostility which the la-madhhabi people bear against the Salaf as-salihin and their jealousy towards the mujtahid imams, particularly towards their leader al-Imam al-Muslimin Abu Hanifa, must have obstructed their perception and conscience to the extent that they deny the beauty and superiority of these Islamic 'ulama'. They are intolerant of the fact that pious people have what they do not have. It is for this reason that they deny the superiority of the imams of Islam and thus venture into the shirk (polytheism) of jealousy. It is written in the book Hada'iq: "When al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa memorized hadiths he wrote them down. He kept the hadith books he wrote in wooden boxes, some of which he always kept at hand wherever he went. His quoting only a few hadiths does not show that the number of hadiths he memorized was small. Only bigoted enemies of Islam may say so. This bigotry of theirs proves al-Imam al-azam's perfection; an inept person's slandering the learned indicates the former's perfection." Founding a great Madhhab and answering hundreds of thousands of questions by documenting them with ayats and hadiths could not have been done by a person who was not deeply specialized in the sciences of tafsir and hadith. In fact, bringing forth a new, unique Madhhab without a model or an example is an excellent proof for al-Imam al-azam's expertise in the sciences of tafsir and hadith. Because he worked with extraordinary energy and brought forth this Madhhab, he did not have time to quote the hadiths or to cite their transmitters one by one; this cannot be grounds for denigrating that exalted imam by jealously casting aspersions on him by saying that he was weak in the knowledge of hadith. It is a known fact that riwaya (transmitting) without diraya (ability, intelligence) has no value. For example, Ibn Abd al-Barr said, "If riwaya without diraya were valuable, a dustman's quoting a hadith would be superior to Luqman's intelligence." Ibn Hajar al-Makki was one of the 'ulama' in the Shafi'i Madhhab, but he wrote in his book Qala'id: "The great alim of hadith A'mash asked al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa many questions. Al-Imam al-azam answered each of his questions by quoting hadiths. After seeing al-Imam al-azam's profound knowledge in hadith, A'mash said, 'O, you, the 'ulama' of fiqh! You are like specialized doctors, and we the 'ulama' of hadith are like pharmacists. We cite hadiths and their transmitters, but you are the ones who understand their meanings.' " It is written in the book 'Uqud al-jawahiri 'l-munifa: "While 'Ubaidullah ibn 'Amr was in the company of the great alim of hadith A'mash, someone came up and asked a question. As A'mash thought about the answer, al-Imam al-azam joined in. A'mash repeated the question to the Imam and requested an answer. Al-Imam al-azam immediately answered it in detail. Admiring the answer, A'mash said, "O Imam! From which hadith do you derive this?' Al-Imam al-azam quoted the hadith ash-Sharif from which he derived the answer and added, 'I heard this from you.' " Al-Imam al-Bukhari knew three hundred thousand hadiths by heart. He wrote only twelve thousand of them in his books because he feared very much the threat in the hadith ash-Sharif, "If a person quotes, in the name of hadith, what I have not uttered, he will be tormented very bitterly in Hell." Having much wara' and taqwa, al-Imam al-azam imposed very heavy conditions for the transmitting of hadiths. He would quote only those hadiths fulfilling these conditions. Some 'ulama' of hadith transmitted numerous hadiths because their branch was wider and their conditions were lighter. The 'ulama' of hadith never belittled one another on account of differing conditions. Had this not been so, Imam Muslim would have said something to offend al-Imam al-Bukhari (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaihima). Al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa's transmitting only a few hadiths because of his circumspection and taqwa could only be a good reason for praising and lauding him."4

The book Mirat al-ka'inat goes on: "Al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih) performed morning prayer in a mosque and answered his disciples' questions until noon every day. After noon prayer, he taught his disciples again until night prayer. Then he would go home and, after resting for a while, return to the mosque and worship until morning prayer. Mis'ar ibn Kadam al-Kufi, one of the Salaf as-salihin, who passed away in 115 (733 A.D.), and many other great people reported this fact.

He earned his living in a halal way by trading. He sent goods to other places and with his earnings he met the needs of his disciples. He spent much for his household and gave an equal amount as alms to the poor. Moreover, every Friday he distributed twenty gold coins to the poor for his parents' souls. He did not stretch his legs towards his teacher Hammad's (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih) house, though he lived at a distance of seven streets away. Once he found out that one of his partners had sold a large amount of goods incompatibly with Islam. He distributed all the ninety thousand aqchas earned to the poor, not taking one penny of it. After brigands had raided the villages of Kufa and had stolen sheep, he, thinking that these stolen sheep might be slaughtered and sold in the town, did not eat mutton for seven years, for he knew that a sheep lived seven years at the longest. He abstained from the haram to that degree. He observed Islam in his every action.

For forty years al-Imam al-azam (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih) performed the morning prayer with the ablution he had made for the night prayer [that is, he did not sleep after the night prayer.] He performed hajj fifty-five times. During the last one, he went into the Kaba, performed a prayer of two rak'as and recited the whole Qur'an al-karim during the prayer. Then, weeping, he invoked, "O my Allahu ta'ala! I have not been able to worship Thee in a manner worthy of Thee. Yet I have understood very well that Thou cannot be comprehended through intelligence. For this understanding of mine, please forgive the defects in my service! At that moment a voice was heard, "O Abu Hanifa! You have acknowledged Me very well and have served Me beautifully. I have forgiven you and those who will be in your Madhhab and follow you until the end of the world." He read Qur'an al-karim from the beginning to the end once every day and once every night.

Al-Imam al-azam had so much taqwa that for thirty years he fasted every day [except the five days of a year on which it is haram to fast]. He often read the whole Qur'an al-karim in one rak'a or two. And sometimes, during salat or outside it, he read an ayat describing Heaven and Hell over and over again and sobbed and lamented.5 Those who heard him pitied him. Among the Umma of Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam), reciting the whole Qur'an al-karim in a single rak'a of salat fell to the lot of only 'Uthman ibn 'Affan, Tamim ad-Dari, Sad ibn Jubair and al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa. He did not accept any presents from anyone. He wore clothes like those of the poor. Yet at times, in order to exhibit the blessings of Allahu ta'ala, he wore very valuable clothes. He performed hajj fifty-five times and stayed in Mecca for several years. Only at the place where his soul was taken, he had read the whole Qur'an al-karim seven thousand times. He said, "I laughed once in my life, and I regret it." He talked little and thought much. He discussed some religious matters with his disciples. One night, while leaving the mosque immediately after performing the night prayer in jamaat, he began to talk with his disciple Zufar on some subject. One of his feet was inside the mosque and the other was outside. The conversation continued until the morning adhan. Then, without taking the other step out, he went back in for the morning prayer. Because Hazrat 'Ali (radi-Allahu 'anh) had said, "It is permissible to have a personal allowance of up to four thousand dirhams," he distributed to the poor what was more than four thousand dirhams of his earnings.

The Khalifa Mansur revered the Imam very much. He presented him ten thousand aqchas and a jariya. The Imam did not accept them. At that time one aqcha was worth one dirham of silver. In 145 A.H., Ibrahim ibn 'Abdullah ibn Hasan ibn 'Ali was recruiting men in order to help his brother Muhammad (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaihim ajmain), who had proclaimed himself the Khalifa in al-Madinat al-munawwara. When he came to Kufa, it was rumored that Abu Hanifa was helping him. Mansur heard this and had the Imam taken from Kufa to Baghdad. He told him to tell everybody that Mansur was rightfully the Khalifa. He offered him the presidency of the Supreme Court of Appeal as a recompense. He imposed on him very much. The Imam did not accept it. Mansur imprisoned him and had him thrashed with a stick thirty strokes. His blessed feet bled. Mansur repented and sent him thirty thousand aqchas, only to be refused again. He was imprisoned again and thrashed ten strokes more every day. [According to some report] on the eleventh day, for fear that the people might rebel, he was forced to lie down on his back and poisonous sherbet (a sweet fruit drink) was poured into his mouth. As he was about to die, he prostrated (sajda). Some fifty thousand people performed janaza salat for him. Because of the enormous crowd, it was performed with difficulty and finished not before the late afternoon prayer. For twenty days many people came to his tomb and performed janaza salat for him near his tomb.

He had seven hundred and thirty disciples. Each of them was famed for his virtue and pious deeds. Many of them became Qadis or Muftis. His son Hammad (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala alaih) was one of his notable disciples. Passages from the book Mirat-ul-kainat ends here.

They have been leaders guiding the ahl-i din,

rahmat-Allahi 'alaihim ajmain.

There were some disagreements between al-Imam al-azam and his disciples on the information that was to be deduced through ijtihad. The following hadith ash-Sharif declares that these disagreements were useful: "Disagreement (on the 'amal, practices) among my Umma is [Allahu ta'ala's] compassion." He feared Allahu ta'ala very much and was very careful in following Qur'an al-karim. He said to his disciples, "If you come across a document (sanad) inconsistent with my words on a subject, ignore my words and follow that document." All his disciples swore, "Even our words inconsistent with his words surely depend on a proof (dalil, sanad) we had heard from him."

Hanafi Muftis have to issue fatwas agreeable with what al-Imam al-azam said. If they cannot find his word, they should follow Imam Abu Yusuf. After him, Imam Muhammad should be followed. If the words of Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad are on one side and those of al-Imam al-azam on the other, a Mufti may issue a fatwa according to either side. When there is darura (a pressing difficulty), he may issue a fatwa suitable with the words of the mujtahid who showed the easiest way. He cannot issue a fatwa that does not depend on the words of any of the mujtahids; such an issue cannot be called a fatwa.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES
1. It is explained in the second fascicle of Endless Bliss that a mawdu' hadith does not mean 'false, made-up hadith' in 'ilm al-usul al-hadith.

2. Al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa's two leading disciples were al-Imam Muhammad bin Mubarak al-Shaybani and Al-Imam Abu Yusuf al-Ansari (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaihim).

3. First published in India in 1264 (1848 A.D.); reprinted in Persian in Istanbul in 1401 (1981 A.D.).

4. Saif al-muqallidin 'ala a'naqi 'l-munkirin.

5. Crying out of love for Allah ta'ala in salat does not break the salat in the Hanafi Madhhab.

[mohamed]

Now give us abdul wahab's qualification.

[mohamed]

Now give us abdul wahab's qualification.



:toofunny:



By the way izaree, aren't you a suspect in the bombings???

[newsX]

Okay, I finally got back the Singapore-published book, "Moderation in Islam". There is a Charter within its pages, and some points I'd like to highlight.

1. In matters related to fiqh, we recongnise Hanafi, Maliki, Asy-Syafi'i and Hanbali as schools of thought that may be practised by Muslims in Singapore. Similarly, we recognise the views of the respected and mujtahid ulama of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jemaah.

2. Sufism and tasawuf are accepted as practices which aim to purify the soul and bring oneself closer to Allah. Since there is khilaf among the ulama on this subject; any opinion from the recognised ulama may be adhered to, except when there is a fatwa prohibiting it.

====

Are the ulama in Singapore committing misguidance? Apparently, the book has the audit and backing of Singapore's high mufti, and the International Islamic University of Malaysia.

[razwan1979]

"By the way izaree, aren't you a suspect in the bombings???"

For someone who likes to post about the benefits of tawassuf and how it brings one closer to God, you seem to show delight in "winning" arguments. I don't know many Sufis who involve themselves in what they regard as useless argumentation. As for what you've just said to al-Izari, this seems to show no sign of adab. All knowledge becomes useless without a modicum of adab. If you really were concerned to uphold "the truth", you would show the connections between yourself and al-Izari, and try and persuade him "in ways which are best". I see the opposite, sadly.

As for Abdul Wahhab, the father of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, he was a respected and learned individual in the Najd.

assalamu 'alaykum

[mohamed]

"By the way izaree, aren't you a suspect in the bombings???"

For someone who likes to post about the benefits of tawassuf and how it brings one closer to God, you seem to show delight in "winning" arguments. I don't know many Sufis who involve themselves in what they regard as useless argumentation. As for what you've just said to al-Izari, this seems to show no sign of adab. All knowledge becomes useless without a modicum of adab. If you really were concerned to uphold "the truth", you would show the connections between yourself and al-Izari, and try and persuade him "in ways which are best". I see the opposite, sadly.

As for Abdul Wahhab, the father of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, he was a respected and learned individual in the Najd.

assalamu 'alaykum

He most certainly was. Akhee i will say it one more time. This can be frustrating. Akhee:

I AM NOT SUFI, GET IT! :(

[hlatif]

Salaam all,

I am pasting the web address of the Amman communique that was signed by 180 muslim scholars including the represenatatives of the FIQH academy in Riadh. This communique says that "true Sufism" is part of Islam as well as Shiism of the Zayfi and Jaafari (twlever) schools. This same statement prohibits the Takfir of people right and left

http://www.petra.gov.jo/nepras/2005/Jul/06/26117100.htm


Hussein

[razwan1979]

"I AM NOT SUFI, GET IT!"

That's immaterial. You are citing quotes in defence of tawassuf as a body of Islamic practices as opposed to al-Izari who dismisses them (as innovations I assume). As such one would have thought that *something* of what tawassuf teaches would have rubbed off on you? Maybe not. In any case, yes I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE NOT SUFI :)

salaam

[Al-Boriqi]

I AM NOT SUFI, GET IT!


"the man in on the deen of his friends". This is our sunnah.

asalamu alaikum

[Al-Boriqi]

Mohamed, in my study of the matter, I came across this article that seems to support your stand that there is a distinct difference between the Ahl As Sunnah and the Salafists.



I find it intriguing that while there are many sunni shaikhs, right from the time of abdel wahab's appearance, who has disassociated salafism from traditional islam, the salafists themselves claim to be part of Ahl As Sunnah, or at least, the only 'orthodox' manifestation of it. The saved sect mentality cannot mean anything else, can it?

What is your opinion on this, bro?

PS: I'm still trying to get my friend to return the singapore muslim book, moderation on islam. I am certain i came across the ruling that tasawuf forms an integral part of Ahl As Sunnah.

Bro Mohamed, I am curious though. Is it conceivable that some sufi followers in the past had gone overboard? I think it's entirely possible, given the wide spectrum of salafists that exist today.


here's the answer your looking for (http://www.freewebs.com/manhajassalafee/Ahlu-Sunnah%20vs%20Ashari%20Sufi%20Movement.pdf)

a direct reply to each and every point Kabbani says az-Zahawee said