Re: Madhabism not Wahabism!
|
Re: Madhabism not Wahabism! |
|
Posted by Student of Islam on November 25, 19100 at 14:49:32:
In Reply to: Madhabism not Wahabism! posted by Sultan on November 23, 19100 at 18:28:43:
Wahabism has been one of the greatest ways to cause fitna (division) in the
Muslim community. By regarding everything different from their own heretical set
of beliefs (not my opinion, but the opinion of the scholars of Ahlul Sunnah who
do not classified wahabis among them), they have caused much death and
destruction in Islam in order to purify it according to their own set of beliefs
(again, not supported by the Ahlul Sunnah). Irrespective of their backward un-
Islamic beliefs in terms of not allowing women to drive or function in society,
irrespective of their persecutation and rampant civil rights abuses towards the
shia community in Saudi Arabia, irrespective of their support for the completely
un-Islamic brutal Taliban regime in Afghanistan, they are wholeheartedly
rejected by the entire Islamic community for their backward interpretation of
Islam and the implementation of practices.
Sultan> It has not escaped me in the least they you have failed to address any
of the points raised in my initial posting regarding the heretical beliefs of
Ibn Taymiyyah versus those of the Ahlul Sunnah, who put him in jail for these
beliefs which ascribe voice and body to Allah (SWT) (may Allah protect us from
such thoughts).
:From what I have read, Ibn Taymiyyah was a follower of Hambali school of fiqh,
:which is also the fiqh of the Saudi dynasty. Now 'wahabism' was a movement for
:the purification of Islam (by ridding it of the biddah practices that later
crept in).
:THe founder of Wahabism, Muhammad abd-alwahab was an adherent of the
:hambali school, whose teachings are not in conflict with that fiqh. In
:fact 'wahabism' is used as an insult by muslims who do not adhere strictly to
any
:of the four schools of thought to those that do!
:What you are discussing about is MADHABISM. Now madhabism got to such a
:ridiculous state up until the Saudi conquest of Mecca, that followers of each
school
:were allocated their own places in the Meccan masjid, seperate from others!
:There is so much petty bickering between different followers of fiqh that the
:shariah law should now be rationalised to finally bring an end to this
division!
:At least the Saudis (whom you would refer to as wahabis) tried their bit to
help
:islamic unity by ending this stupid division during the Hajj.
:
::Assalaamu alaikum Brother/Sister
::I agree - but the posting about NATIONALISM being HARAM !!! is true - we are
::Muslims not arab muslims .. turkish muslims african muslims etc
:::The Islamic pseudoscholars bin Baz and Ibn Taymiyyah "Shaikh al-Islam" are
the
:::people of least repute to quote in such a discussion.
:::Ibn Taymiya and his writings and those of his students have recently
:::been used by "Wahabbis" and "Reformists" to provide evidence against
:::madhaib and the Aqueedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamaat (The Four Schools). In
:::"The Reliance of the Traveller" which is an AUTHENTIC book of fiqh, Ibn
:::Taymiya (Rahim-ullah) was considered an innovaitor and a heretic and
:::some scholars went so far as to declare his writings as Kufr.
:::(Reliance of the Traveller (`Umdat al-Salik): A Classic Manual of Islamic
::Sacred
:::Law (Fiqh) By Ahmad ibn al-Naqib al-Misri (d.769/1386)
:::What follows are some examples of the anthropomorphic nature of the neo-
:::'Salafite' Aqeedah, and how it varies from the actual Aqeedah transmitted
:::to us by the earliest generations of the Muslim Ummah. Today's 'Salafiyya'
:::claim to have the original and pristine Aqeedah of the first three pious
:::generations of Islam; but in reality it is the Aqeedah of the likes of Ibn
:::Taymiyya and his disciple Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah when it comes to
:::describing Allah and His attributes and so on. The following four points
:::points have derived directly from the works of the "Salafi" scholars (al-
:::Harras and al-Uthaimin) themselves. In comparison to these points I have
:::also quoted from the Aqeedah of Imam Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi's [d. 321 AH;
:::Rahimullah] and others for you to compare and contrast. Imam Tahawi's
:::Aqeedah represents the Aqeedah as transmitted by the scholars of his
:::Madhab (which represents in the main the Aqeedah of the Salaf-us-Salihin) -
:::Imam al-Azam Abu Hanifa, Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam al-Shaybani (Allah
:::mercy be upon them) - three of the greatest Ahl al-Sunnah scholars.
:::1 The Vision of Allah in the Hereafter
:::Imam al-Tahawi (Rahimullah) said with regard to this issue in "al-Aqeedah
:::at-Tahaweeah" [English trans. by I.A. A'zami, under the title 'Islamic
:::Belief'], "Belief of a man in the 'seeing of Allah by the people of the
:::Garden' is not correct if he imagines what it is like, or interprets it
:::according to his own understanding, since the interpretation of his
:::'seeing' or indeed, the meaning of any subtle phenomena which are in the
:::realm of Lordship, is by avoiding its interpretation and strictly adhering
:::to the submission. This is the din of Muslims. Anyone who does not guard
:::himself against negating the attributes of Allah, or likening Allah to
:::something else (anthropomorphism), has gone astray and has failed to
:::understand Allah's glory, because our Lord, the Glorified and the Exhalted,
:::can only possibly be described in terms of Oneness and Absolute Singularity
:::and no creation is in anyway like Him."
:::In contrast, Muhammad Khalil Harras (a 'Salafi' scholar) said in his "Sharh-
:::ul-Aqeedat-il-Wasitiyyah (of Ibn Taymiyya, pg. 73): "The Mutazila deny the
:::vision. This denial is based on refusing to accept Allah in any direction
:::for it is necessary for a thing being seen to be in the direction of the
:::seer.." Thus, al- Harras claims that for Allah to be seen in the Hereafter,
:::He (Allah) must have a direction!! In comparison, Imam al-Shahrastani [d.
:::1153 CE; Rahimullah] said in his "Kitab al-Milal wa'l Nihal (Muslim Sects
:::and Division, trans. by A,K, Kazi and J.G. Flynn, pg. 85): "Imam Ash'ari
:::(Rahimullah) says, however, that the vision of God does not entail
:::direction, place, form, or face to face encounter either by impingement of
:::rays or by impression, all of which are impossible."
:::2 The Speech of Allah
:::Imam al-Tahawi (Ramimullah) said: "The Qur'an is the word of Allah. It
:::came from Him as speech without it being possible to say how...(next
::: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:::paragraph): It is not created, as is the speech of human beings, and anyone
:::who hears it and claims that it is human speech has become an unbeliever.
:::Allah warns him and censures him and threatens him with Fire when He says,
:::Exalted is He: 'I will burn him in the Fire.' [al-Muddaththir 74:26] When
:::Allah threatens with the Fire those who say 'This is just human speech' [al-
:::Muddaththir 74:25] we know for certain that it is speech of the Creator of
:::mankind and it is totally unlike the speech of mankind."
:::In contrast al-Harras stated in "Sharh-ul-aqeedat-il-wasitiyyah of Ibn
:::Taymiyya" [pg. 87]: "His statement, voice and speech take place with
:::letters
:::and sounds. One to whom He (ie Allah) speaks he hears. This includes the
:::refutation of the stand taken by the Ash'aria (e.g. Imam al-Ghazali,
:::Rahimullah, in his 'Ihya 'ulum al-din') that speech of Allah is primeval
:::and is
:::without letter or sound."
:::NB- Imam ibn Tahir al-Baghdadi (d. 429/1037; Rahimullah) said with regards
:::to this issue: "Another group (of anthropomorphists) is represented by
:::those who draw a resemblance between God's Word and the word of His
:::creatures. They hold thatGod's speech consists of sounds and letters
:::belonging to the same species as the sounds and letters which are ascribed
:::to mankind." (vide: 'al-Farq bayn al-firaq', English trans. by A.Halkin: as
:::'Moslem Schisms and Sects', v2, p35)
:::3 Allah's Hands
:::al -Harras stated without any definite proof (pg. 44, above reference):
:::"How can 'hand' be interpreted to mean power when the text proves
:::mentioning of palm, fingers, right and left, closing, opening, etc. which
:::can happen only in the case of a real hand."
:::Imam al-Tahawi said [no.34 in his above mentioned book]: "Anyone who
:::describes Allah as being in anyway the same as a human being has become an
::: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:::unbeliever. All those who grasp this will take heed and refrain from saying
:::things such as unbelievers say, and they will know that He, in His
:::attributes,
:::is not like human beings."
:::^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:::^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:::4 Allah's establishment on the Throne
:::Imam Malik (Rahimullah) was asked about Allah's establishment on the
:::Throne; he said: "Establishment (Istiwa) is known, the how of it is
::: ^^^^^^^^^^
:::unknown, belief in it is obligatory, and questions about it are
:::reprehensible innovation (bid'ah)." (see Reliance of the Traveller, pg.
:::854). In contrast, Muhammad as- Saleh al-'Uthaimin (a leading 'Saudi'
:::scholar) said in 'The Muslim's Belief' (pg.11, this work was heard and
:::approved by the foremost 'Saudi' Mufti - Abd al-Aziz ibn B'az, trans. M.H.
:::al-Johani): "'His (Allah's) settling on the Throne' means that He is
:::sitting in person on his Throne in a way that is becoming His majesty and
:::Greatness. Nobody except He knows exactly how He is sitting." Imam al-
:::Shahrastani (Rahimullah) stated that the leader of the heretical sect
:::called the 'Karramites - Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Karram declared: "God is
:::firmly seated on the Throne and that he is sitting in person on the upper
:::side of it..." (Muslim Sects and Divisions, pg. 92 trans. A.Kazi and
:::J.Flynn).
:::The above are CLEAR proofs that the 'Salafi/Wahabi' interpretation of Allah
:::(swt) is in essence athropomorphic, the claim that indivduals like Ibn
:::Taymiyya, Bin Ba'z and al-Albani have the same Aqeedah as Ahl al-Sunnah
:::wa'l Jama'ah is blatantly untrue and misleading to Muslims in genral.
:::May Allah (SWT) protect us from such beliefs