Which schools of Aqeedah do you subscribe too?

[Haragwaafi]

@Haragwaafi I want you to answer this, but you probably won’t.

This is coming from an Athari as well. There is a lot of contradictions with Salafis which is why I’m no longer one. They’ll insult Asharis ect but take from them at the same time.

Incredibly illogical. At least be consistent and it’s hard to do so with that stance.

I already answered his question ad we're discussing about aqeedah not fiqh, I hope you understood that

 

[نور]

You see when your foundation isn’t sound what tends to happen is that a person ends up contradicting themselves just like what has occurred in your stances

This is what you stated “ We can’t expand on beliefs and we can’t for sure know what is in the hearts of the people, so we judge by the apparent and the apparent meaning/implications of what these Sufis do is shirk

So if a person says "Oh Gilani give us rain" this is shirk akbar. Do you agree? ”

In that statement you explicitly state that we judge by what’s apparent and this is why the example of making such a request above amounted to major shirk. With that in mind I wanted to see if you were going to be to consistent with your claim about judging by what’s apparent in the athar of ibn umar.

Ibn umar calls out the Prophet’s ﷺ name and is healed from his numbness. This action here according to your understanding of judging by what’s apparent and definition of dua al ibadah would be considered as major shirk laakin you didn’t view as major shirk thereby contradicting yourself

In the gilan example the apparent meaning was enough to establish that major shirk has occurred but not with the case of ibn umar because of your subjective assumptions about the former. You couldn’t think of any other reason other than the intention to commit shirk.

This is why when I questioned you about your silence you respond back by comparing it to “ he wasn’t told to pray to ”. The example of gilani and ibn umar had nothing to do with being asked to pray to someone other than Allah as this major shirk

The comparison was about calling out to others not praying to others. I wanted to get a gist of when such an action amounts to major shirk laakin unfortunately you weren’t able to defend nor explain your position at all.

Praying to others and placing intermediaries between yourself and Allah are all major shirk and we both agree on this. Where I disagree with you is your application of this hukm to the actions of muslims.

Due to you subscribing to najdi dawah you end up making false accusations of shirk & takfir on Muslims who commit haram actions and also on things that were never deemed as major shirk.

You claim that you’ve never accused anyone of shirk but weren’t you the one who also claimed that what sufis do was shirk ? It’s better to err on the side of caution than to make a false accusation of shirk so I suggest you stop making hasty judgements.

You are connecting dots that are not there. As I said the athar of Ibn Umar ra has nothing to do with Istighatha and is not similar to asking Gilani to give rain or forgiveness to sins.

> Abdullah ibn ‘Umar ra did not call on the messenger of Allah ﷺ as in asking to heal him, otherwise, he would have said ‘يا محمد اشفني’ (o Muhammad, cure me!). That would have been Shirk

> The man in the narration did not ask Ibn Umar ra to ask call rasullulah rather he said mention the most beloved person to you.

This is how the scholars understood this narration and explained it

وقوله: " يا محمد يا نبي الله " هذا وأمثاله نداء يطلب به استحضار المنادى في القلب، فيخاطب الشهود (٤) بالقلب: كما يقول المصلي: " السلام عليك أيها النبي ورحمة الله وبركاته " والإنسان يفعل مثل هذا كثيرا، يخاطب من يتصوره في نفسه، وإن لم يكن في الخارج من يسمع الخطاب.

As for his saying: “O Muhammad”, this and similar sayings are calls by which one makes the one called present in the heart, and he addresses him by witnessing him by the heart, as the praying person says: “Peace be upon you, O Prophet …)” and the human being does such a lot, he addresses those he conceives in his mind, even if there is no one outside his mind that listens to this address.

ص319 - كتاب اقتضاء الصراط المستقيم لمخالفة أصحاب الجحيم - التوسل إلى الله بالأعمال الصالحة - المكتبة الشاملة

ص319 - كتاب اقتضاء الصراط المستقيم لمخالفة أصحاب الجحيم - التوسل إلى الله بالأعمال الصالحة - المكتبة الشاملة

shamela.ws

Praying to others and placing intermediaries between yourself and Allah are all major shirk and we both agree on this. Where I disagree with you is your application of this hukm to the actions of Muslims.

Are you saying If a person who claims to be Muslim prays to others and places intermediaries between himself and Allah he is not mushrik. But if the person who does these actions does not ascribe himself to Islam then it's shirk. At least this is what I understood from your statement.

Due to you subscribing to najdi dawah you end up making false accusations of shirk & takfir on Muslims who commit haram actions and also on things that were never deemed as major shirk.

You claim that you’ve never accused anyone of shirk but weren’t you the one who also claimed that what sufis do was shirk ? It’s better to err on the side of caution than to make a false accusation of shirk so I suggest you stop making hasty judgements.

Due to you adopting the awni understanding of shirk Ibadah and following the massive super deviant Yasir Qadi, you commit many plunders and advance sinister ideas that are meant to modernise Islam and remove it from its pure monotheistic foundations. If you continue on this path and I hope you don't I expect you next to advocate for the abolishment of hudud punishments and the other heresies your seniors preach

 

[Haragwaafi]

You've made my point. Ibn Taymiyyah had to divert away from a literalist interpretation by concluding that في means على . All linguists and grammarians including the likes of Ibn Hisham and Sibawiy all agree that the base meaning of في is الظرفية meaning "in" and any usage of the harf to mean anything else is figurative.

Any other meaning is allegorical or figurative. في does not mean على unless you allow figurative discourse which Ibn Taymiyyah himself rejects. But that's not surprising since he contradicts himself multiple times.

You have poor knoweldge in Arabic. The word السماء means "above" in Arabic

قال الزجاج: السَّمَاءُ في اللغة يقال لكلّ ما ارتَفع و عَلا قَدْ سَما يَسْمُو .

قال ابن قتيبة: السماء كل ما علاك، فأظلك، ومنه لسقف البيت " سماء " وللسحاب " سماء ". قال عزوجل: " ونزلنا من السماء ماء مباركا ". يريد السحاب.والفلك: مدار النجوم الذي يضمها. قال عزوجل: " كل في فلك يسبحون ". سماه تعالى فلكا لاستدارته.ومنه قيل: فلك المغزل.والفلك قطبان: قطب في الشمال وقطب في الجنوب، متقابلان.انتهى.

Another one:

God also says:

فآتاهم الله من حيث لم يحسبوا
"God came to them from where they did not expect"

What is the literal meaning here? According to your principles do you believe God actually came in person to Banu Nadhir?

What does the next aya says?

وَقَذَفَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمُ الرُّعْبَ ۚ يُخْرِبُونَ بُيُوتَهُم بِأَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَيْدِي الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فَاعْتَبِرُوا يَا أُولِي الْأَبْصَارِ​

He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).​

Also, God says:
نسوا الله فنسيهم

"They forgot God, so He forgot them"

God attributes to Himself forgetfulness (نسيان), will you do ta'weel (interpretation) here or stick to Salafi principles in attributing to God what he attributes to Himself?

The word in here means that Allah swt abandonded them as the word النِّسْيانُ in arabic has 2 meanings

قال ابنُ فارسٍ: (النِّسْيانُ: التَّركُ؛ قال اللهُ جَلَّ وعَزَّ: نَسُوا اللَّهَ فَنَسِيَهُمْ)

قال ابنُ جريرٍ في تفسيرِ قَولِه تعالى: نَسُوا اللَّهَ فَنَسِيَهُمْ: (معناه: ترَكوا اللهَ أنْ يُطيعوه ويَتَّبعوا أمْرَه؛ فتَرَكَهم اللهُ مِن توفيقِه وهدايتِه ورحمتِه، وقدْ دلَّلْنَا فيما مضَى على أنَّ معنى النِّسيان: التَّركُ، بشواهدِه)

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

You are connecting dots that are not there. As I said the athar of Ibn Umar ra has nothing to do with Istighatha and is not similar to asking Gilani to give rain or forgiveness to sins.

> Abdullah ibn ‘Umar ra did not call on the messenger of Allah ﷺ as in asking to heal him, otherwise, he would have said ‘يا محمد اشفني’ (o Muhammad, cure me!). That would have been Shirk

> The man in the narration did not ask Ibn Umar ra to ask call rasullulah rather he said mention the most beloved person to you.

This is how the scholars understood this narration and explained it

ص319 - كتاب اقتضاء الصراط المستقيم لمخالفة أصحاب الجحيم - التوسل إلى الله بالأعمال الصالحة - المكتبة الشاملة

ص319 - كتاب اقتضاء الصراط المستقيم لمخالفة أصحاب الجحيم - التوسل إلى الله بالأعمال الصالحة - المكتبة الشاملة

shamela.ws

Let’s review the athar; ibn umar has a numb leg then is told to mention the person most beloved to him which is the prophet ﷺ. After doing just that his leg is healed. What is this ?

The man told ibn umar to do that because he saw he had a numb leg so his advice didn’t occur in vacuum there was a reason behind it. Which was to heal his numb leg this is what the athar is about. According to your statement we judge by what’s apparent this would mean this particular action is shirk as in other than Allah is called to heal

Laakin despite the apparent meaning of the athar you backtracked from your previous position and don’t view as shirk. You ended contradicting yourself due to your faulty understanding of what shirk & ibadah entails as you are focused only on actions.

Are you saying If a person who claims to be Muslim prays to others and places intermediaries between himself and Allah he is not mushrik. But if the person who does these actions does not ascribe himself to Islam then it's shirk. At least this is what I understood from your statement.

No I stated I disagreed with your application of the hukm ie your accusations of claiming a particular action done by a muslim amounts to praying to others or taking intermediaries with Allah.

 

[Angelina]

Personally I went from Salafi > Athari > Ashari.

When i first learnt about Islam in my teens i was given the perspective of Muhammad ibn abdul wahabb and Ibn taymiyyah. After a few years and doing research, i left the salafi sect and became athari. And recently i became Ashari alhamdulilah. I don't support the thinking of Ahmed ibn Hanbal/hanbalis and their fundamentalism/lack of reasoning.

I am now going in that direction. In the past two years, my thinking has changed drastically. I used to be a proper Salafi that would scream ‘Bid’ah!’

 

[reer]

I am now going in that direction. In the past two years, my thinking has changed drastically. I used to be a proper Salafi that would scream ‘Bid’ah!’

Asha'irah are the majority of Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jama’aa from the Maliki and Shafie schools of thought. As for the Hanifies, they are named Maturidiyya after their Imam Abu Mansour Al-Matiridee (333 AH).

Are Asha'irah Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jama`aa in Jordan?

Are Asha'irah Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jama`aa in Jordan?

www.aliftaa.jo

 

[نور]

Asha'irah are the majority of Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jama’aa from the Maliki and Shafie schools of thought. As for the Hanifies, they are named Maturidiyya after their Imam Abu Mansour Al-Matiridee (333 AH).

Are Asha'irah Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jama`aa in Jordan?

Are Asha'irah Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jama`aa in Jordan?

www.aliftaa.jo

Khawarij and Mu'taziala are ahlus sunnah too

 

[reer]

@Haragwaafi I want you to answer this, but you probably won’t.

This is coming from an Athari as well. There is a lot of contradictions with Salafis which is why I’m no longer one. They’ll insult Asharis ect but take from them at the same time.

Incredibly illogical. At least be consistent and it’s hard to do so with that stance.

example. saying asharis are not ahlu sunnah and deviant etc. but then teaching juwayni's book (ashari) on usul al fiqh. doesnt make sense.

 

[reer]

Khawarij and Mu'taziala are ahlus sunnah too

sh albani and sh ibn uthaymeen.

@World

albani

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

sh ibn uthaymeen the tafsir he wrote.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[reer]

@World was right. this is their view of ahlu sunnah.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Abdalla]

If you guys knew how deviant Asharis are in their essence, you’d run away from it. The fire base of their aqeedah is that you have to become kafir in order to become a true believer, you have to convince yourself first before becoming Muslim.

As for a lot of classic Hadeeth and fiqh scholars being Ashari, it was a widespread aqeedah and they are a product of their time. But they loved the Xaq, and when it reached them, they abandoned a lot of core believes of their Aqeedah. Imam Ibn Al-Asqalaani, one of my favorite classic scholars, refuted a lot of the core believes, like the one I mentioned before, of Ashari.

We Ahlu Sunnah, Ahlu Athari, give the scholars their due respect. If they error in some aspect it doesn’t mean they error in all aspects. The amount of literature the likes of Ibn Hajar, Imam Nawawi, Imam Suyuti and Imam Subki produced clearly indicates that they loved the sunnah. Some are surprised that we take knowledge from such knowledgeable scholars. One of the best fiqh books is Subul Al-Salaam, written by Sheikh As-san’aani, who was a Zayd Shia Scholar.

 

[geeljre49]

If you guys knew how deviant Asharis are in their essence, you’d run away from it. The fire base of their aqeedah is that you have to become kafir in order to become a true believer, you have to convince yourself first before becoming Muslim.

As for a lot of classic Hadeeth and fiqh scholars being Ashari, it was a widespread aqeedah and they are a product of their time. But they loved the Xaq, and when it reached them, they abandoned a lot of core believes of their Aqeedah. Imam Ibn Al-Asqalaani, one of my favorite classic scholars, refuted a lot of the core believes, like the one I mentioned before, of Ashari.

We Ahlu Sunnah, Ahlu Athari, give the scholars their due respect. If they error in some aspect it doesn’t mean they error in all aspects. The amount of literature the likes of Ibn Hajar, Imam Nawawi, Imam Suyuti and Imam Subki produced clearly indicates that they loved the sunnah. Some are surprised that we take knowledge from such knowledgeable scholars. One of the best fiqh books is Subul Al-Salaam, written by Sheikh As-san’aani, who was a Zayd Shia Scholar.

So as a somali salafi who is Ahlul athari, what madhab do you follow? Would you still consider yourself Shafici? @Keep it a boqol your input would be useful too.

 

[Abdalla]

So as a somali salafi who is Ahlul athari, what madhab do you follow? Would you still consider yourself Shafici? @Keep it a boqol your input would be useful too.

Yes, but if the Madhab goes against the Sunnah, I follow the Sunnah. For example according to the Shafi’i Madhab, a man break his wudhu if he touches his wife (even without lust). But that contradicts the Sunnah, as the prophet kissed his wives before heading to the mosque to lead the prayers.

But in terms of ijtihad matters, I tend to follow the Shafi’i Madhab as it’s ingrained in us.

 

[Abdalla]

The funny thing is that Ashari’a brag about Imam Nawawi, Ibn Hajr and the likes, but they hardly reference those sheikhs to justify their heretic believes. They always quote the likes of the discredited Ibn ‘Arabi. Another big, pinnacle deviation they have is that they refuse ahad ahadeeth. These are ahadeeth with a single chain of narration and they only accept muttawatir ahadeeth ( multiple chain of narrations). Imam Nawawi and ibn Hajr, as big ahadeeth scholars of course refuted that stance and accept ahad ahadeeth.

 

[Keep it a boqol]

So as a somali salafi who is Ahlul athari, what madhab do you follow? Would you still consider yourself Shafici? @Keep it a boqol your input would be useful too.

Yes, but if the Madhab goes against the Sunnah, I follow the Sunnah. For example according to the Shafi’i Madhab, a man break his wudhu if he touches his wife (even without lust). But that contradicts the Sunnah, as the prophet kissed his wives before heading to the mosque to lead the prayers.

But in terms of ijtihad matters, I tend to follow the Shafi’i Madhab as it’s ingrained in us.

Beautifully said @Abdalla.

 

[daljirkadahsoon]

Yes, but if the Madhab goes against the Sunnah, I follow the Sunnah. For example according to the Shafi’i Madhab, a man break his wudhu if he touches his wife (even without lust). But that contradicts the Sunnah, as the prophet kissed his wives before heading to the mosque to lead the prayers.

But in terms of ijtihad matters, I tend to follow the Shafi’i Madhab as it’s ingrained in us.

This is a non sequitur the madhab can't 'go against the Sunnah' how do you think the Madhab ruling came to be

100,000s of scholars have been collectively scouring the Sunnah and that is what the Madhabs are built and by the way each of the Imams knew at least 100,000 hadith with all their alternate chains and wording differences, etc and you're here telling if 'if it opposes the Sunnah I won't follow'

Who can determine what is the Sunnah- by reading 1,2 or even 10 hadith?

 

[Abdalla]

This is a non sequitur the madhab can't 'go against the Sunnah' how do you think the Madhab ruling came to be

100,000s of scholars have been collectively scouring the Sunnah and that is what the Madhabs are built and by the way each of the Imams knew at least 100,000 hadith with all their alternate chains and wording differences, etc and you're here telling if 'if it opposes the Sunnah I won't follow'

Who can determine what is the Sunnah- by reading 1,2 or even 10 hadith?

Waxaan jaahilsanaa

 

[daljirkadahsoon]

Waxaan jaahilsanaa

Says the one who believes they are better than a mutlaq Imam and 1000s of scholars at determining the Sunnah

Let me guess you have mastery of all Islamic sciences too?

 

[Keep it a boqol]

This is a non sequitur the madhab can't 'go against the Sunnah' how do you think the Madhab ruling came to be

100,000s of scholars have been collectively scouring the Sunnah and that is what the Madhabs are built and by the way each of the Imams knew at least 100,000 hadith with all their alternate chains and wording differences, etc and you're here telling if 'if it opposes the Sunnah I won't follow'

Who can determine what is the Sunnah- by reading 1,2 or even 10 hadith?

your wrong broski. for example abu hanifa ra didnt have as much access to authentic haditth compared to the other great imams such as imam shafii malik and imam hanbal who were well travelled and abu hanifa had to use logic more then hadith due to lack of resources. No disrespect to the great imam

this is why the hanafi madhab has more contridictions against the sunnah and staunch hanafi supporters who blindly follow the school go against the sunnah

 

[daljirkadahsoon]

your wrong broski. for example abu hanifa ra didnt have as much access to haditth the other great imams such as imam shafii malik and imam hanbal who were well travelled and he had to use logic more then hadith due to lack of resources

this is why the hanafi madhab has more contridictions against the sunnah and staunch hanafi supporters who blindly follow the school go against the sunnah

Ok so you a random in 2024 knows the Sunnah more than Imam Abu Hanifa???

I already explained before that madhab is the cumulative work of 10000s of scholars even if you allege that which is a very unfortunate statement, the Imam had many succesors such as Abu Yusuf etc