Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The I-SOC (Islamic Society) (IV)

Announcements Posted on
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by In2deep)
    Don't worry, it's just T-Ros (as usual).
    Who is T Ros?

    (Original post by joytosee)
    again really this needs to stop bro/sis

    I get asked, so I gotta reply :dontknow:
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    Who is T Ros?




    I get asked, so I gotta reply :dontknow:
    loool okay you can have you little fun and gamesssss
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    ‎"The bigger desire you have for a sin, the greater your Imaan is if you leave it." - [ Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen]
    • 90 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    ahh i just saw the mose disturbing thing
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    ‎"The bigger desire you have for a sin, the greater your Imaan is if you leave it." - [ Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen]
    May Allah(swt) bless Shaikh Uthaymeen. I benefited tremendously from his works.

    Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen (rahima-hullaah) mentions:

    "There is no comparison between one who has knowledge and one who does not, just as there is no comparison between the living and the dead, and one who hears and one who is deaf, and one who can see and one who is blind.

    Knowledge is light with which one is guided, and with it removes one from the darkness (of ignorance) to the light (of knowledge, i.e. Islaam).

    With knowledge, Allaah raises the ranks of whom He wishes from His creation:

    {Allaah will exalt in degree those of you who believe, and those who have been granted knowledge}, [Soorah al-Mujaadalah, Aayah 11]."

    Kitaabul-'Ilm
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    So tell me how do you differentiate between a non-salafi Hanbali, and a salafi Hanbali? :lolwut:
    Well that's my point - I was doing rough figures. Forget that, it's not relevant, my point is that I was guestimating numbers and wasn't doing an in-depth study of Madhhab and stuff.

    (Original post by mel0n)
    I still don't know what you're getting it. What was the Ahle-Sunnah wal Jamah defined as before Asharism came about, seeing as Asharis seem to be what make up the ahle-sunnah in your opinion? As I already said, the dominance of a certain aqidah (though this dominance will probably be in schools alone and not in the whole ummah, tbf) says nothing about the truth, does it?
    I didn't even mention Asharis, that was you. I wasn't talking about what the truth is, I was merely justifying use of the word 'mainstream', after you questioned it. No theological debate...

    (Original post by mel0n)
    ...I would say he was quite far from a Mu'tazilite :indiff: Lol! What have you been reading? :p:
    Okay I've looked into it further, but there seems to be a substantial difference in Salafi Aqidah and others. Namely, everywhere I've looked, there are references to a Salafi belief in a direction of Allah (swt), as well as His Attribute of 'sitting' and stuff. I could give you direct quotes from Salafi sholars after a bit of searching but I don't think you'll find it hard to find the same stuff if you wish to investigate my claims, if you don't already know about it.

    (Original post by mel0n)
    The belief that A) the Prophet is alive, doesn't entail belief B) you can pray to Allah and seek intercession. If you believe both then fair enough but I'm jus' sayin one doesn't necessary have the other as a consequence. As far as I am aware, someone correct me if I'm wrong, salafis don't have a problem with tawassul when done correctly.
    I know this (Tawassul is encompasses a lot of stuff, including the undisputed Tawassul through good deeds), but Tawassul is often used (at least by a lot of Sufis/Sufi-admirers) as a shorthand for the aspect of Tawassul that you list as number 5 below, and sometimes 4 as well. I hope this fact about my usage of the term goes some way to explaining my language, and my seeming ignorance of the Salafi position on Tawassul.

    (Original post by mel0n)
    To break it down - 1) It's shirk to call on other than Allah and ask for something, believing that the one you're asking will answer. 2) To call on other than Allah asking for something even though you believe only Allah will answer, is shirk. 3) To call upon other than Allah, asking them directly to intercede for us is shirk as far as I know. 4) To call directly on the prophet and ask him to fulfill our du'a or ask him to ask Allah for something for us is shirk (we should just ask ourselves!) and 5) To call on Allah alone and ask him by his prophet has a difference of opinion - and I assume this is the type of tawassul you are referring to when you say 'on account of your Love for him and Mercy for him'
    This isn't strictly true. First of all, you've made no distinction between that which various schools of thought enlist as shirk and that which they list as (the bad kind of) bid'ah. (Of course, both are Haram.) This is a minor point though. The less minor point is that, for example, part 4) is considered by many to be allowed. They cite Hadith, it's not just random obviously. Indeed, the Deobandi's allow part 5) (within reason, presumably - I haven't looked into it sufficiently), if you are saying, for example,
    (Original post by Hakim al-Nishaburi, Al Mustadrak, 1:519)
    ‘O Allah! Indeed I ask You and turn to You through Your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad! Indeed I turn through you to my Lord that He may restore to me my sight. O Allah, grant him intercession for me and grant me intercession for myself.’
    This is taken from the official Deobandi website. Considering that the Deobandis are themselves fairly strict on these matters in the grand scheme of Sunni Islam around the world, well, you get the idea. In other words, there are more differences than you think on this matter, throughout Sunni Islam.

    (Original post by mel0n)
    Can you show me narrations from the four imams on such matters? I'm not favouring them over Qur'an and Hadith but it'd be interesting to see what the four imams said, seeing as they were themselves interpreting hadith and qur'an a lot (some more than others etc). Because, as far as I'm aware, they believed quite the contrary.
    This should suffice. You should note that Sufism and Tasawwuf are linguistically interchangeable in Arabic, and so they were treated as much in the past. There are references so you can look them up. I think Imam Malik says it best. It points to the inextricability of Sufism from 'Ilm, giving it the same importance as he does to academic learning (i.e. Theology etc.). Regarding the Prophets (pbut) being alive in their graves, there are countless Hadith and Tafsir interpretations that point to this, including the narrations of the great Anas ibn Malik (ra). A famous verse of Surah Al Baqarah, no 154, has been interpreted throughout the ages as alluding to this. If you are to just have a look for yourself of what the Sahaba and the Four Imams said specifically about Tawassul, Sufis, and the matter of life after death, from non-Salafi sources (sunniforum.com usually provides a lot of links and references to serious scholarly works), I'm sure it'll be eye-opening to you. Here's a start: http://www.ilmgate.org/are-the-proph...-their-graves/

    (Original post by mel0n)
    You're not differentiating between different types of tawassul. Is that from his Kitab at-Tawheed or a different book?
    I'm not 'not differentiating' at all. If anyone, it's Ibn Abdul Wahhab who isn't differentiating seeing as it's his quote. However, I believe he does differentiate, namely with the bit in brackets, by which he rejects type 5) of Tawassul in your list. Not sure tbh. But it's rather easy to find similar quotes from him elsewhere. I should point out that I do not accept that ibn Abdul Wahhab condemned Sufism as a whole - on the contrary, I know that he encouraged Sufism in a very broad sense.

    (Original post by mel0n)
    Noooo not that :p: The one before it :o:
    'Most Muslims believe in at least a bit of that stuff which the movement rejects are heretical, since their Imams profess it.' I'm postulating that most Muslims believe in at least some of what Salafis reject as being disallowed. Going to graves, per se, is not banned in Turkish, Egyptian, Syrian, Hindustani and other schools of thought (and certainly not in Shia places...), for example. On the other hand Ibn Abdul Wahhab commissioned (or at the very least his students, after his death, can't remember if he did so himself) for plenty of tombs to be demolished, including that of a Sahabi. (But not that of the two Sahaba who are buried next to the Prophet (saw) apparently, or that of the Prophet himself (saw). Just thought I'd get that in!)

    I'd like you to note three things:
    1. I never intended to offend you nor to condemn Salafism, as I recognise its existence at high levels of scholarship, and it would go against the believes of traditional Sunni Islam to condemn it, since the fundamentals of Deen are Islamically correct and therefore a Salafi is a Muslim. All of the stuff that is argued about between the different schools of Sunni Islam is of high importance, but it isn't to be used to delegitimise anyone's Islam. What I have a problem with is the harsher kind of Salafism, which belittles and insults Sufis and so on, and sometimes amongst certain TV scholars (and self-taught non-scholars), there seems to be a serious effort to condemn non-Salafi thought on national television. This is not the way that scholarship should be - Shaykhs are supposed to present their own madhhab, make it clear that there are other legitimate views, and then let people choose their own views.

    2. If we go any deeper, I'm likely to be taken out of my depth. I'm no expert, especially on Salafism. My angry and intolerant comments in the other thread were actually directed towards people like Bilal Philips and Yusuf Estes, whom I've personally witnessed actively discouraging people from following anything that resembles Sufism, and these sorts of people like to reject elements of spirituality quite openly. Furthermore, they have trained some young and impressionable Muslims, particularly in the West (and in Saudi Arabia), into being really hostile towards anything that is a complicated issue, and, if the matter sounds foreign to their belief system, to presume it's Shirk. A handful of visits to Salafi websites like 'ahlalhdeeth.com' and 'salafitalk.com' have suggested to me that the number of Salafis who take these extreme opinions is not negligible. My vitriol is targeted towards them and to no one else.

    3. I'm sorry for another essay...
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady_123)
    May Allah(swt) bless Shaikh Uthaymeen. I benefited tremendously from his works.

    Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen (rahima-hullaah) mentions:

    "There is no comparison between one who has knowledge and one who does not, just as there is no comparison between the living and the dead, and one who hears and one who is deaf, and one who can see and one who is blind.

    Knowledge is light with which one is guided, and with it removes one from the darkness (of ignorance) to the light (of knowledge, i.e. Islaam).

    With knowledge, Allaah raises the ranks of whom He wishes from His creation:

    {Allaah will exalt in degree those of you who believe, and those who have been granted knowledge}, [Soorah al-Mujaadalah, Aayah 11]."

    Kitaabul-'Ilm
    :yy: Masha'Allah
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I've looked, there are references to a Salafi belief in a direction of Allah (swt)
    What is the problem when there are tonnes and tonnes of evidences from Quran + sunnah that affirm a direction ( him being above creation) ?

    For example :

    1) “Then He rose over the throne” – as it occurs in many places in the Quran

    2) “Do you feel secure from the one who is in the heavens” in two places

    3) “To Him do ascend the good words and the good deeds”

    4) “He plans the affairs from the heaven to the earth, then it will ascend to Him”

    5) “The angels and the spirit ascend to Him”

    6) “When Allah said: Isa, I will take you back and raise you up to Me”

    7) “Rather, Allah raised him up to Him”

    8) “(The Pharaoh said) O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means- The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!” Meaning: I believe Musa is lying when he tells me that there is a God in the heavens.

    9) al-Bukhari’s narration that Zaynab used to say to the other wives of the Prophet: “You were married off by your families. I was married of by Allah from above the seven heavens”

    10) Muslim’s famous narration about the Prophet asking the slave girl: Where is Allah? To which the slave girl responds: In the heavens. In response to this the Prophet says: Free her, for she is a believer.

    11) The ascent of the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – to the heavens, famously known as al-Isra wal-Mi’raj. Where did he go, if not UP TO THE HEAVENS?

    12) The fact that Allah descends in the last third of the night to forgive, as explicitly mentioned in the ahadeeth.

    13) The fact that the angels and His revelation, descend from Him. ‘We have sent down…’ is an often ‘blasphemous’ occurrence in the Quran.

    14) The Hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ud about the day of judgement when Allah will gather the creation and everyone will be looking UP towards the heavens, waiting for Allah’s judgement. Al-Dhahabi declared it Hasan.

    15) ‘Umar said: the order comes from here – pointing to the sky (sahih)

    16) Ibn Mas’ud said: The Throne is above water, and Allah is above the throne. Nothing is hidden to him from your actions (Sahih)

    17) ‘Aisha said: Allah knows, from above the Throne, that I did not like the killing of ‘Uthman. (Sahih)

    18) Ibn ‘Abbas said: Allah was above His Throne before He had created anything (Sahih). He also said to ‘Aisha: Allah, from above the seven heavens, revealed the fact about your innocence. (Sahih)

    19) Masruq would say whenever he related a hadeeth from ‘Aisha: I was informed by the truthful woman, beloved to Allah, the one who was declared innocent from above the seven heavens. (Sahih)

    20) al-Dhahhak said: Allah is above His throne, whilst His knowledge is with them wherever they may be. (Sahih)

    part 4) is considered by many to be allowed. They cite Hadith, it's not just random obviously.
    All the hadiths regarding this are either not authentic or taken out of context. Like the hadith of the blind man and the hadith of Umar going to the uncle of the prophet (saws)

    5) To call on Allah alone and ask him by his prophet has a difference of opinion - and I assume this is the type of tawassul you are referring to when you say 'on account of your Love for him and Mercy for him'
    Yes Immam Ahmed allowed this type of tawassul since it's Allah(swt) being asked and not the deceased. This type of tawwasul is a fiqh issue and not an aqidah issue.


    Considering that the Deobandis are themselves fairly strict on these matters in the grand scheme of Sunni Islam around the world
    Deobandi and salafis are both in agreement with the types of tawassul you're allowed and the types which are considered shirk.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Narrated Abu Huraira (Radi-Allahu 'anhu):

    The Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) said, "Allah likes sneezing and
    dislikes yawning, so if someone sneezes and then praises Allah, then it is
    obligatory on every Muslim who heard him, to say: May Allah be merciful to
    you (Yar-hamuka-l-lah). But as regards yawning, it is from Satan, so one
    must try one's best to stop it, if one says 'Ha' when yawning, Satan will
    laugh at him."

    Bukhari Vol. 8 : No. 242
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rupertj)
    Well that's my point - I was doing rough figures. Forget that, it's not relevant, my point is that I was guestimating numbers and wasn't doing an in-depth study of Madhhab and stuff.

    I didn't even mention Asharis, that was you. I wasn't talking about what the truth is, I was merely justifying use of the word 'mainstream', after you questioned it. No theological debate...


    You didn't need to mention them by word for it to be obvious that that was what you were referring to. It's not like the Deobandis, Sufis and Brelwis follow the Athari creed, is it.



    I know this (Tawassul is encompasses a lot of stuff, including the undisputed Tawassul through good deeds), but Tawassul is often used (at least by a lot of Sufis/Sufi-admirers) as a shorthand for the aspect of Tawassul that you list as number 5 below, and sometimes 4 as well. I hope this fact about my usage of the term goes some way to explaining my language, and my seeming ignorance of the Salafi position on Tawassul.

    This isn't strictly true. First of all,
    you've made no distinction between that which various schools of thought enlist as shirk and that which they list as (the bad kind of) bid'ah. (Of course, both are Haram.) This is a minor point though. The less minor point is that, for example, part 4) is considered by many to be allowed. They cite Hadith, it's not just random obviously.


    The aqidah of the four schools is, or at least was, the same and since shirk is an aqidah issue, it should be the same across all four schools. So if what I listed was shirk for one school then it should in fact be shirk in all four. Unless you can provide me with another sort of list that is universal across all four then I don't see why we can't agree on that one. Point 5 does not require calling out to anyone other than Allah and as far as I'm aware, whether it's allowed or not, is a fiqh issue and a difference of opinion is therefore valid across the four schools.

    This should suffice. You should note that Sufism and Tasawwuf are linguistically interchangeable in Arabic, and so they were treated as much in the past. There are references so you can look them up. I think Imam Malik says it best. It points to the inextricability of Sufism from 'Ilm, giving it the same importance as he does to academic learning (i.e. Theology etc.).
    Regarding these quotes - Abu Hanifa's supposed quote won't be found in any Sunnah books and is actually a fabrication. Imam Malik's quote is questionable because it hasn't been reported by any of his students who quoted his fatwas and statements, nor is it in any of his own written books, and apparently it's been said without a sanad too. Here's something that, as far as I'm aware, is agreed on to have been said by Imam Malik, which you might not accept on the basis that it probably came from a Saudi-publishing house :rolleyes: (which I doubt):

    Ibn al-Jawzi narrates in his book "Talbees Iblees" (the Deceptions of Satan) p. 392 that 'Abdul-Malek ibn Zeyad al-Naseebi said:

    We were with [Imam] Malik when I mentioned to him the Sufis in my state, I said: They wear the most luxurious garments from Yemen, and they do so and so. He said: Woe to you, are these Muslims?! He said: He then laughed until he lied on his back.

    One of his companions sitting with him said to me: O you, we never saw any who is a greater of a calamity on this Shaykh [i.e. Imam Malik] then you, this is the first time ever we see him laugh.


    A similar story was mentioned in the book "Tarteeb Al-Madarik wa Taqreeb Al-Masalik" (2/54) by Al-Qadi 'Iyad, from the narration of 'Abdul-Allah ibn Yusuf al-Taneesi, who was present during this story, and is one of the famous companions of Imam Malik.

    Al-Taneesi said:
    We were with Malik, and his companions were around him when a man, from the people of Nasibeen, said: O Abu 'Abdullah (i.e. Imam Malik) we have people that are called al-Soufia (the Sufis) that eat a lot, then recite poetry, and then stand up and dance.

    Malik said: Are they small kids?
    The man replied: No.

    He then asked: Are they Madmen (crazy or insane)?
    The man replied: No, they are old people and over that they are sane

    Malik said: I never heard that anyone of the people of Islam would do such a thing.

    The man added: They eat, and then stand up and dance, some of them hitting their heads, and others slapping their faces.

    Imam Malik laughed, and then stood up, and entered his house.

    Imam Malik's companions said to the man, you were a misfortune on our companion, we sat with him for thirty-something years and never saw him laugh except on this day
    .
    Regarding Imam Shaafi'ee's quote, I've seen it being discussed and apparently it has been translated wrong - which I can't comment on. And Imam Ahmad's statement hasn't even been attributed to him but is mentioned in none other than a Sufi book years after his death! So where did he get the statement from?! In the same book the author apparently says: ''Some of the sheikhs (i.e. from the sufis) said, 'Allaah assigns to the grave of the Waliy (sufi saint) an angel to carry out the requests (i.e. of those who call upon the dead). Sometimes the waliy gets out from his grave and fulfills the needs by himself."(An-Naqshbandiyyah p55 qouting Tanweer Al-Quloob p534), and also ''He should not object to what the sheikh does even if it appears to be haraam (forbidden). (ibid p83 from Tanweer Al-Quloob p529)'', so please don't blame me for not trusting a quote from such a book. - And I therefore hope that you accept the fact that it's hard to accept quotes off a link you give me when a number of them are suspicious to say the least.

    Regarding the Prophets (pbut) being alive in their graves, there are countless Hadith and Tafsir interpretations that point to this, including the narrations of the great Anas ibn Malik (ra). A famous verse of Surah Al Baqarah, no 154, has been interpreted throughout the ages as alluding to this. If you are to just have a look for yourself of what the Sahaba and the Four Imams said specifically about Tawassul, Sufis, and the matter of life after death, from
    non-Salafi sources (sunniforum.com usually provides a lot of links and references to serious scholarly works), I'm sure it'll be eye-opening to you. Here's a start: http://www.ilmgate.org/are-the-proph...-their-graves/
    You said yourself that tawassuf and sufism are interchangeable terms. Sufism has changed so much from what it used to be and in fact I have respect for the science of sufism in itself, but not really for its practices. The sufism that a lot of the classical scholars refer to is the "old" sufism, the type that existed before these new practices became a 'norm' in them. Ibn Taymiyyah distinguishes between the different types of sufis in his writings and I think his distinction is quite helpful in way of seeing what 'kind' of 'sufism/tasawwuf' other scholars were often talking about at the time. Regarding whether the prophet is alive in his grave or not, I guess there's no point discussing. I don't want to have a particular debate about it, because, well, I can't. I'm far from knowledgeable, but I have read through what you pasted and even if I don't agree, it was interesting, so thanks for providing it (as I did ask for it, didn't I?)

    I'm not 'not differentiating' at all. If anyone, it's Ibn Abdul Wahhab who isn't differentiating seeing as it's his quote. However, I believe he
    does differentiate, namely with the bit in brackets, by which he rejects type 5) of Tawassul in your list. Not sure tbh. But it's rather easy to find similar quotes from him elsewhere. I should point out that I do not accept that ibn Abdul Wahhab condemned Sufism as a whole - on the contrary, I know that he encouraged Sufism in a very broad sense.
    Taken from Sayyid Muhammad bin 'Alawi al-Maliki's book "Mafahim Yajib An Tusahhah (Notions that Must be Corrected)", pg. 141:

    Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab said: "Sulayman bin Sahim has fabricated on me statements which I never said, nor have they ever came to my mind. and from amongst it: that I do takfir of those who perform Tawassul by the righteous, and that I do takfir of [al-Imam] al-Busayri because he said: "O most gracious of the creation", and that I burn Dala'il al-Khayrat. "And my reply to this issue: Glory be to Allah! This is awful slander!"
    ["Rasa'il al-Shaykh Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab", the eleventh epistle, pg. 64.]

    On the preceding page, he expresses his opinion on Tawassul by saying: "
    The correct position according to us is the statement of the majority, that is it is makruh. Therefore, we do not detest those who perform it, and there is no detestation with regards to the issues of ijtihad. However, we do detest those who invoke the created objects in a much more serious manner than he who calls upon Allah but really intends by that the grave [of a righteous person], praying near the shrine of Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani or his likes and requests therein protection from sorrow and assistance in ones yearnings and the giving of sustenances. So where is [the seriousness of] this act in comparison to he who calls upon Allah, bearing their religion to Him in sincerity, not calling upon anyone save Allah, but he says in his Du'a: I ask you by your Prophet or by the Messengers or by your righteous slaves, or he goes to a known grave [of a saint] and prays therein, but does not call upon anyone save Allah, bearing their religion to Him in sincerity..."
    [Fatawa al-Shaykh Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab, the third section pg. 68, printed by The University of Muhammad bin Sa'ud]

    As already said, type 5) (in my list) has a difference of opinion, and where there is a valid difference of opinion, in fiqh, then even if you accept one view over the other, the other should be tolerated. I wouldn't personally go down route 5) either, but if you want to then that's up to you because there's, as I said, a valid difference of opinion over it.



    'Most Muslims believe in at least a bit of that stuff which the movement rejects are heretical, since their Imams profess it.' I'm postulating that most Muslims believe in at least some of what Salafis reject as being disallowed. Going to graves, per se, is not banned in Turkish, Egyptian, Syrian, Hindustani and other schools of thought (and certainly not in Shia places...), for example. On the other hand Ibn Abdul Wahhab commissioned (or at the very least his students, after his death, can't remember if he did so himself) for plenty of tombs to be demolished, including that of a Sahabi. (But not that of the two Sahaba who are buried next to the Prophet (saw) apparently, or that of the Prophet himself (saw). Just thought I'd get that in!)
    The following by Abdul Wahab should clear up some more things, inshaAllah:


    “Lies are told about us to conceal the truth and confuse the people, so that they will think that we want to undermine the status of our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and (that we say) that he has no power of intercession and that it is not recommended to visit him (his grave), and that we do not lend any weight to the views of the scholars, and that we denounce all people as kaafirs , and that we forbid sending blessings on the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and that we do not respect the rights of Ahl al-Bayt (the members of the Prophet’s houshold).
    Our response to all of that is: Glory be to You, this is a grave lie! Whoever attributes anything of this sort to us is telling lies and uttering fabrications against us.”

    (‘Ulamaa’ al-Najd Khilaal Sittat Quroon by ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Saalih al-Bassaam, 1/51)


    Regarding tombs being demolished, then, I won't give you 'salafi' fatwas on this, but a/will some general Hanafi one(s) do?


    A student of the Deobandi scholar Mufti Ebrahim Desai:


    It has been narrated in a Hadeeth“Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) has prohibited from hardening the grave, sitting upon it and from building upon it” (Sahih Muslim, vol.1, pg.312, Qadeemi)
    It is for this reason our illustrious ***aha have prohibited from hardening the grave or to build around it unless there is a dire need to do so.
    Leaving the grave simple is more beneficial to the deceased person and will be more deserving of drawing the Noor (light) and mercy of Allah Ta’ala. Furthermore, in leaving the graves simple, there will be a greater impact on those who visit the graveyard by reminding them of death and removing the love of the world from their hearts.
    It is not a sign of love to the deceased to build around the grave or to beautify it. The Sahabah (Radiyallahu anhum) reached the pinnacle of love for Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) that the water he should use to make wudhu would not touch the ground. They used to collect it and pass it over their faces. Despite their extreme love for Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam), they left his blessed grave simple. We should also follow in their path.
    If the sand gradually gets washed off from the grave, then from time to time it should be maintained by placing more sand on it, keeping the grave distinguished.
    If by placing a small plate/board stating the name of the deceased, together with the date of birth and demise of the deceased will assist in preserving the allocation of the grave and other administrative issues as well, then it will be permissible to do so.
    Seriously, I would think that Abdul Wahab having the shrines atop the graves of the sahaba demolished would be the least of anyone's worries who hate Salafis, considering that the prophet s.a.w himself commanded for any grave taller than a handspan to be leveled. Regarding his 'salafi aqidah' then he had the same aqidah as Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, which is also the aqidah of the other three imams of Sunni Islam.

    Finally, I'm not offended at all by your comments. It's actually good, in my opinion, to discuss things. Through doing so I learn myself
    and as you said, the 'harsh' salafis aren't a representation of salafis at large in my opinion. Or at least they're not representative of the ones I have come across who are accepting of differences of opinions in matter where a difference of opinion is valid. One thing that bugs me is, and I've seen this a few times on a fatwa website, where the person answering shrugs anything off as 'difference of opinion and therefore it can't be argued', even when it's an issue that isn't a difference of opinion.
    • 90 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Wow^^
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)


    You didn't need to mention them by word for it to be obvious that that was what you were referring to. It's not like the Deobandis, Sufis and Brelwis follow the Athari creed, is it.





    The aqidah of the four schools is, or at least was, the same and since shirk is an aqidah issue, it should be the same across all four schools. So if what I listed was shirk for one school then it should in fact be shirk in all four. Unless you can provide me with another sort of list that is universal across all four then I don't see why we can't agree on that one. Point 5 does not require calling out to anyone other than Allah and as far as I'm aware, whether it's allowed or not, is a fiqh issue and a difference of opinion is therefore valid across the four schools.

    Regarding these quotes - Abu Hanifa's supposed quote won't be found in any Sunnah books and is actually a fabrication. Imam Malik's quote is questionable because it hasn't been reported by any of his students who quoted his fatwas and statements, nor is it in any of his own written books, and apparently it's been said without a sanad too. Here's something that, as far as I'm aware, is agreed on to have been said by Imam Malik, which you might not accept on the basis that it probably came from a Saudi-publishing house :rolleyes: (which I doubt):

    Regarding Imam Shaafi'ee's quote, I've seen it being discussed and apparently it has been translated wrong - which I can't comment on. And Imam Ahmad's statement hasn't even been attributed to him but is mentioned in none other than a Sufi book years after his death! So where did he get the statement from?! In the same book the author apparently says: ''Some of the sheikhs (i.e. from the sufis) said, 'Allaah assigns to the grave of the Waliy (sufi saint) an angel to carry out the requests (i.e. of those who call upon the dead). Sometimes the waliy gets out from his grave and fulfills the needs by himself."(An-Naqshbandiyyah p55 qouting Tanweer Al-Quloob p534), and also ''He should not object to what the sheikh does even if it appears to be haraam (forbidden). (ibid p83 from Tanweer Al-Quloob p529)'', so please don't blame me for not trusting a quote from such a book. - And I therefore hope that you accept the fact that it's hard to accept quotes off a link you give me when a number of them are suspicious to say the least.

    You said yourself that tawassuf and sufism are interchangeable terms. Sufism has changed so much from what it used to be and in fact I have respect for the science of sufism in itself, but not really for its practices. The sufism that a lot of the classical scholars refer to is the "old" sufism, the type that existed before these new practices became a 'norm' in them. Ibn Taymiyyah distinguishes between the different types of sufis in his writings and I think his distinction is quite helpful in way of seeing what 'kind' of 'sufism/tasawwuf' other scholars were often talking about at the time. Regarding whether the prophet is alive in his grave or not, I guess there's no point discussing. I don't want to have a particular debate about it, because, well, I can't. I'm far from knowledgeable, but I have read through what you pasted and even if I don't agree, it was interesting, so thanks for providing it (as I did ask for it, didn't I?)

    Taken from Sayyid Muhammad bin 'Alawi al-Maliki's book "Mafahim Yajib An Tusahhah (Notions that Must be Corrected)", pg. 141:

    Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab said: "Sulayman bin Sahim has fabricated on me statements which I never said, nor have they ever came to my mind. and from amongst it: that I do takfir of those who perform Tawassul by the righteous, and that I do takfir of [al-Imam] al-Busayri because he said: "O most gracious of the creation", and that I burn Dala'il al-Khayrat. "And my reply to this issue: Glory be to Allah! This is awful slander!"
    ["Rasa'il al-Shaykh Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab", the eleventh epistle, pg. 64.]

    On the preceding page, he expresses his opinion on Tawassul by saying: "
    The correct position according to us is the statement of the majority, that is it is makruh. Therefore, we do not detest those who perform it, and there is no detestation with regards to the issues of ijtihad. However, we do detest those who invoke the created objects in a much more serious manner than he who calls upon Allah but really intends by that the grave [of a righteous person], praying near the shrine of Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani or his likes and requests therein protection from sorrow and assistance in ones yearnings and the giving of sustenances. So where is [the seriousness of] this act in comparison to he who calls upon Allah, bearing their religion to Him in sincerity, not calling upon anyone save Allah, but he says in his Du'a: I ask you by your Prophet or by the Messengers or by your righteous slaves, or he goes to a known grave [of a saint] and prays therein, but does not call upon anyone save Allah, bearing their religion to Him in sincerity..."
    [Fatawa al-Shaykh Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab, the third section pg. 68, printed by The University of Muhammad bin Sa'ud]

    As already said, type 5) (in my list) has a difference of opinion, and where there is a valid difference of opinion, in fiqh, then even if you accept one view over the other, the other should be tolerated. I wouldn't personally go down route 5) either, but if you want to then that's up to you because there's, as I said, a valid difference of opinion over it.



    The following by Abdul Wahab should clear up some more things, inshaAllah:


    “Lies are told about us to conceal the truth and confuse the people, so that they will think that we want to undermine the status of our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and (that we say) that he has no power of intercession and that it is not recommended to visit him (his grave), and that we do not lend any weight to the views of the scholars, and that we denounce all people as kaafirs , and that we forbid sending blessings on the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and that we do not respect the rights of Ahl al-Bayt (the members of the Prophet’s houshold).
    Our response to all of that is: Glory be to You, this is a grave lie! Whoever attributes anything of this sort to us is telling lies and uttering fabrications against us.”

    (‘Ulamaa’ al-Najd Khilaal Sittat Quroon by ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Saalih al-Bassaam, 1/51)


    Regarding tombs being demolished, then, I won't give you 'salafi' fatwas on this, but a/will some general Hanafi one(s) do?


    A student of the Deobandi scholar Mufti Ebrahim Desai:


    Seriously, I would think that Abdul Wahab having the shrines atop the graves of the sahaba demolished would be the least of anyone's worries who hate Salafis, considering that the prophet s.a.w himself commanded for any grave taller than a handspan to be leveled.

    Finally, I'm not offended at all by your comments. It's actually good, in my opinion, to discuss things. Through doing so I learn myself
    and as you said, the 'harsh' salafis aren't a representation of salafis at large in my opinion. Or at least they're not representative of the ones I have come across who are accepting of differences of opinions in matter where a difference of opinion is valid. One thing that bugs me is, and I've seen this a few times on a fatwa website, where the person answering shrugs anything off as 'difference of opinion and therefore it can't be argued', even when it's an issue that isn't a difference of opinion.
    I have no issue with any of the three accepted Sunni schools of Aqidah to be honest. I can't even remember how Aqidah became an issue here (!). Presumably you'd read into something I'd said more so than I'd anticipated. There certainly are differences of opinion in part 4 of your 5-point list though; I'm 100% certain of it. I can refer you to Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi as being one of the legitimate modern scholars who believe in the permissibility of directly calling upon the Prophet (pbuh) to intercede for us. He cites, as one of his demonstrations of its acceptability (obviously he references Hadith and so on), the fact that in the salaat, we say 'Assalamu Alaiyka Ayyuhan-Nabiyyu wa Rahmatullahi wa barakaatu' in the sitting position. (This is more directly to do with the Prophet (saw) being alive than it has with intercession, but I mention it nonetheless). If you want an insight into the genuine true Sufi beliefs, I strongly recommend this erudite scholar. I don't follow his madhhab or anything but his lectures can be great, and they don't have to be about sensitive issues, if that worries you: he truly is an extremely bright guy with a lineage of great scholars who trace their bloodline very directly back to the Prophet (pbuh) on both his mother's and his father's side, for what it's worth. He has memorised and studied a mad number of great Islamic texts that most modern Muftis only indirectly reference through other later books, is educated with PhD's and stuff in Western academia, and is one of Damascus' most senior clerics.

    I'll have another look at those quotes - I'm sorry if it nearly mislead you, or if it has mislead someone else, as anything to do with the Naqshbandi Haqqani order is highly questionable, and of no value to genuine Sufis. I will make a general point here though, on the importance of Minhaj here. Hadith scholars of Sufi-influenced schools are a little less strict in throwing away Hadiths than Salafis tend to be. Salafis tend to reject Da'eef Hadith without a second look (correct me if my understanding is too simplistic here) whereas others usually look for other signs before totally rejecting them. For example, even if chains can be weak, sometimes a single Hadith has multiple, independent chains which are considered weak individually, but which many consider to be strong when combined. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case with these quotes I provided to you, and I'll look into where the hell I got them from if the Naqshbandi Haqqanis are involved(!), but methodology is usually an issue when Sufi-leaning and Salafi scholars differ on these matters of Hadith. Another thing I've noted, although I don't know whether it plays a part in the issuing of fatawa or academic writings or whether those are more objective, is that with Sufis, they place a similar kind of emphasis on chains of narrations that date back to great scholars as one might with Hadith. Not as trusting in what scholars have to say as the Sahaba and Hadith, obviously, but someone who is a prominent student of a student of Imam Shafi'i, for example, is trusted more on a certain matter related to Imam Shafi'i than some disconnected student of Imam Shafi'i. It seems to me - and I may be wrong - that Salafis place less emphasis on this notion of passing knowledge down in chains.

    Non-Sufis have this image of Sufism as being a case of group Dhikr in which everybody is screaming and there are wacky people jumping and crying - this is much rarer than you think. The quote of yours of Imam Malik is nothing that would surprise me. I don't even need to look it up to believe it, because a normal and correct Sufi would certainly see things that way. Just as in those times, and in Ibn Abdul Wahhab's time, there are two Sufis: the Ahl al-Sunnah, pious Muslim who does a lot of Dhikr (of varying kinds), and who believes strongly in Tawassul as a means to gain closeness to the Pious people, and then the typical wackos you find who do all kinds of Shirk. Ibn Abdul Wahhab was clearly very set on eradicating the obvious Shirk. Some believe he went a little too far, and most of the scholars of most of the madhhabs most of the time would agree, but there are a lot of 'mosts' there, leaving quite a very important percentage who say he went just far enough. Thanks for reminding me of that thing about Ibn Abdul Wahhab's letter, where he claims that people have slandered him - I nearly forgot that, which would have been unfair to him.

    I still question the Salafi policy that there is no virtue in visiting shrines whatsoever, even if you avoid the clearly Mushkrikful acts (I'm no Arabic scholar...). I'm really not sure either about what is meant where Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab says that Tawassul is makruh owing to 'Ijma - I just don't see how he claims that the majority agreed with him considering that he'd started out as an outcast, even in his own family. 'Ijma leaned towards the other end on Tawassul, no?

    I also don't know what is meant by 'graves taller than handspan to be levelled'. (Nor am I particularly aware of Ebrahim Desai, sorry.) For example, the grave of the Prophet (saw) in Madinah is presumably not raised more than a handpsan. However, there is a large fence, and a ceiling built over it, turning it essentially into a room. There is no contradiction in that, obviously, because it is the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw) himself. I'd like to see some detailed interpretations of the Hadith which that writing is based on to conclude that it bans shrines.

    You know, the great danger in inter-school dialogue, whose importance is well beyond the relatively meagre set of exchanges of ours on this forum, is that extreme sections of both schools, which not even the schools themselves approve of, hijack the debates and charge emotions. In the case of this age-old Sufi-anti-Sufi question, generations and generations of Muslims, both Sufis and non-Sufis alike, appear to have ignored the truth about the lives of the real Saints of Islam. People like Sayyidina Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani, who was near the centre of a lot of Sufi orders (some of which have diverged from mainstream Islam and some of which haven't, others of which have broken further into good and bad branches) and co. were extraordinarily pious persons who succeeded in converting mad numbers of Muslims, literally hundreds of thousands each sometimes, if not more. They were spiritual masters who, through legitimate Dhikr, achieved statuses that most of don't get close to. It has to be clear that the people whom Imam Malik laughed about are not real Sufis - in fact half the time they are con artist fake Pirs who make money of the generosity of uneducated or foolish people that want to believe really strongly that what they're witnessing is a person with the power to make anything happen. The Sufi scholars I respect, like Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi, shun material excesses, fast on days throughout the year like the Prophet (saw) used to, to loads of Tasbeeh and Qur'anic recitation, have exquisite manners, and to top it all of, are first class scholars of Hadith and the like. We can't put the two in the same category. Syria is a great source of modern Sufi scholars who are superb people. Pakistan, unfortunately, is not.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Out of interest, where are you from, and what lead you to your current beliefs?
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rupertj)
    you'd read into something I'd said more so than I'd anticipated. There certainly are differences of opinion in part 4 of your 5-point list though; I'm 100% certain of it. I can refer you to Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi as being one of the legitimate modern scholars who believe in the permissibility of directly calling upon the Prophet (pbuh) to intercede for us. He cites, as one of his demonstrations of its acceptability (obviously he references Hadith and so on), the fact that in the salaat, we say 'Assalamu Alaiyka Ayyuhan-Nabiyyu wa Rahmatullahi wa barakaatu' in the sitting position.
    It's made clear that it's the angels that convey our salaam to the prophet, and not that he hears by his own will as such. But I'm in no position to debate this even though I can't understand how people who use this as an example miss out the importance of the angels.

    (This is more directly to do with the Prophet (saw) being alive than it has with intercession, but I mention it nonetheless). If you want an insight into the genuine true Sufi beliefs, I strongly recommend this erudite scholar. I don't follow his madhhab or anything but his lectures can be great, and they don't have to be about sensitive issues, if that worries you: he truly is an extremely bright guy with a lineage of great scholars who trace their bloodline very directly back to the Prophet (pbuh) on both his mother's and his father's side, for what it's worth. He has memorised and studied a mad number of great Islamic texts that most modern Muftis only indirectly reference through other later books, is educated with PhD's and stuff in Western academia, and is one of Damascus' most senior clerics.
    How about a reputable non-Sufi scholar who has said something similar? In the same way that you probably wouldn't trust salafi scholars and would think their opinions are heavily biased, I'm sure you'll understand why I feel the same towards your choice of scholar. Saying this, I am familiar with him and have watched a few videos by him.

    I'll have another look at those quotes - I'm sorry if it nearly mislead you, or if it has mislead someone else, as anything to do with the Naqshbandi Haqqani order is highly questionable, and of no value to genuine Sufis. I will make a general point here though, on the importance of Minhaj here. Hadith scholars of Sufi-influenced schools are a little less strict in throwing away Hadiths than Salafis tend to be. Salafis tend to reject Da'eef Hadith without a second look (correct me if my understanding is too simplistic here) whereas others usually look for other signs before totally rejecting them. For example, even if chains can be weak, sometimes a single Hadith has multiple, independent chains which are considered weak individually, but which many consider to be strong when combined. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case with these quotes I provided to you, and I'll look into where the hell I got them from if the Naqshbandi Haqqanis are involved(!), but methodology is usually an issue when Sufi-leaning and Salafi scholars differ on these matters of Hadith.
    As far as I know, and I hope I'm not wrong, da'eef hadith are used but the use of them is rejected unless it has the right conditions with it. There are different conditions for using such hadiths and I don't know what they are exactly, but the point here is that da'eef hadiths aren't outright rejected. Also, this feels so far removed from anything that was being discussed I'm unsure why it's relevant.

    Another thing I've noted, although I don't kanow whether it plays a part in the issuing of fatawa or academic writings or whether those are more objective, is that with Sufis, they place a similar kind of emphasis on chains of narrations that date back to great scholars as one might with Hadith. Not as trusting in what scholars have to say as the Sahaba and Hadith, obviously, but someone who is a prominent student of a student of Imam Shafi'i, for example, is trusted more on a certain matter related to Imam Shafi'i than some disconnected student of Imam Shafi'i. It seems to me - and I may be wrong - that Salafis place less emphasis on this notion of passing knowledge down in chains.
    Of course they place emphasis on the chain, they just don't go on about it as much as some other scholars might. The opinons of great scholars, and opinions that the great scholars adhered to, especially the four imams and the others around them who helped shape each madhab, are of high importance. If you place a lot of emphasis on chains then here is one attributed to 'salafis':

    ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Aqil
    1. Nasir al-Sa’di
    2. Ibrahim b. Salih b. ‘Isa
    3. Ahmad b. Ibrahim b. ‘Isa
    4. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Hasan Aal al-Sheikh
    5. ‘Abdullah b. Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab
    6. Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab

    7. ‘Abd al-Wahhab b. Sulayman
    8. Muhammad b. Nasir
    9. Nasir b. Muhammad
    10. Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Qadir
    11. Ahmad b. Yahya b. ‘Atwa
    12. ‘Ali b. Sulayman al-Mardawi
    13. al-Zayn ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Sulayman Abu Sha’r
    14. Ibn al-Lahham
    15. Ibn Rajab
    16. Ibn al-Qayyim
    17. Ibn Taymiyya

    18. ‘Abd al-Haleem Ibn Taymiyya
    19. al-Majd Ibn Taymiyya
    20. Ibn al-Minni
    21. Abu Bakr al-Dinawari
    22. Abu al-Khattab al-Kalwadhani
    23. al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la
    24. Ibn Hamid al-Warraq
    25. Ghulam al-Khallal
    26. al-Khallal
    27. al-Marrudhi
    28. Ahmad b. Hanbal
    29. Sufyan b. ‘Uyayna
    30. 'Amr b. Dinar
    31. ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar
    32. The Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam
    You can check it as well, if you wish, to make sure there's no broken links between either of the scholars and if there are then I am really sorry!

    Non-Sufis have this image of Sufism as being a case of group Dhikr in which everybody is screaming and there are wacky people jumping and crying - this is much rarer than you think. The quote of yours of Imam Malik is nothing that would surprise me. I don't even need to look it up to believe it, because a normal and correct Sufi would certainly see things that way.


    What do you mean? See things in what way? In posting Imam Malik's saying, I was reconciling his *potential* statement about sufis with his reaction towards the ones that he was told about, which suggests that he was talking about the 'classical' type of sufism and not the crazy type that you're talking about lol. I'm glad we agree on the different types of sufism lol.

    Just as in those times, and in Ibn Abdul Wahhab's time, there are two Sufis: the Ahl al-Sunnah, pious Muslim who does a lot of Dhikr (of varying kinds)
    What do you mean by varying kinds?

    and who believes strongly in Tawassul as a means to gain closeness to the Pious people, and then the typical wackos you find who do all kinds of Shirk. Ibn Abdul Wahhab was clearly very set on eradicating the obvious Shirk. Some believe he went a little too far, and most of the scholars of most of the madhhabs most of the time would agree,
    Whenever you make such general claims like 'scholars of the madhabs would most of the time agree' I get the feeling you refer specifically to Sufi scholars, but still you don't substantiate it .

    but there are a lot of 'mosts' there, leaving quite a very important percentage who say he went just far enough. Thanks for reminding me of that thing about Ibn Abdul Wahhab's letter, where he claims that people have slandered him - I nearly forgot that, which would have been unfair to him.
    The point of the letter was to show you that he denies many of these claims made against him.

    I still question the Salafi policy that there is no virtue in visiting shrines whatsoever, even if you avoid the clearly Mushkrikful acts (I'm no Arabic scholar...). I'm really not sure either about what is meant where Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab says that Tawassul is makruh owing to 'Ijma - I just don't see how he claims that the majority agreed with him considering that he'd started out as an outcast, even in his own family. 'Ijma leaned towards the other end on Tawassul, no?


    What kind of virtue do you see in it? If the prophet spoke out against building shrines and prohibited it, then even if there is some good that some people perceive in the matter, shrines should not be built, right? Yes he started out as an outcast in his area - when he says scholars agree by majority it seems that he's not referring just to scholars in his area, but it's a wider demographic.

    I also don't know what is meant by 'graves taller than handspan to be levelled'. (Nor am I particularly aware of Ebrahim Desai, sorry.) For example, the grave of the Prophet (saw) in Madinah is presumably not raised more than a handpsan. However, there is a large fence, and a ceiling built over it, turning it essentially into a room. There is no contradiction in that, obviously, because it is the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw) himself. I'd like to see some detailed interpretations of the Hadith which that writing is based on to conclude that it bans shrines.


    Ebrahim Desai is a well known Deobandi scholar, as far as I'm aware. I asked a question to him once but never got a reply, lol :sad: Here is something quite LONG on the impermissibility of building atop a grave, I hope you read through it: http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=872 It is just a compilation of opinions and of course you're free to double check them. Even if you don't like the website in general I hope you agree that the content of that thread is fairly objective. (The stance may not be objective even though it should be, but the thread is in that it is merely providing opinions of scholars that the ahle sunnah hopefully agree with, including a lot of hadiths)

    People like Sayyidina Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani, who was near the centre of a lot of Sufi orders (some of which have diverged from mainstream Islam and some of which haven't, others of which have broken further into good and bad branches) and co. were extraordinarily pious persons who succeeded in converting mad numbers of Muslims, literally hundreds of thousands each sometimes, if not more. They were spiritual masters who, through legitimate Dhikr, achieved statuses that most of don't get close to. It has to be clear that the people whom Imam Malik laughed about are not real Sufis - in fact half the time they are con artist fake Pirs who make money of the generosity of uneducated or foolish people that want to believe really strongly that what they're witnessing is a person with the power to make anything happen.


    Salafis acknowledge the likes of Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani (Ibn Taymiyyah who I earlier mentioned includes him in his category of the permissible practitioners of sufism). However, they don't see the need to single people out as 'pious' over other shaykhs and leading figures at the time. Whenever I think of this I always wonder, the four imams of sunni Islam were brilliant ambassadors for the religion and had such a big impact, yet noone calls them saints :rolleyes:

    The Sufi scholars I respect, like Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi, shun material excesses, fast on days throughout the year like the Prophet (saw) used to, to loads of Tasbeeh and Qur'anic recitation, have exquisite manners, and to top it all of, are first class scholars of Hadith and the like. We can't put the two in the same category. Syria is a great source of modern Sufi scholars who are superb people. Pakistan, unfortunately, is not.
    Okay so what about al-Yaqoobi's speech where he says "again in a sound hadith, [the prophet] explained to us that 'all your prayers are displayed to me'. He, saw [...] on Friday he hears the prayers we send upon him by his own ears, and he answers by his own tongue" - where is this hadith? I've read threads where people are looking for it and noone has found such a hadith. I would paste you the video I just quoted but it is quite an aggressive video in its wording and so on. For someone who is such a top scholar of hadiths, I just don't understand why he would 'narrate' one that can't be found anywhere. He is
    probably a nice guy but I personally will not trust him on this basis if he doesn't narrate an accurate hadith. ( It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Allah has angels who go around on earth, conveying to me the salaam of my ummah.” Narrated by al-Nasaa’i, 1282; classed as Sahih by al-Albaani in Sahih al-Targheeb, 1664. )

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Out of interest, where are you from, and what lead you to your current beliefs?
    Irrelevant :p: Have I made my beliefs really obvious? I have no problem with salafis at all but that doesn't mean I am one. As I said, I sent a question to Ebrahim Desai too and he's a Deo, lol! Your replies are huge, maybe if I reply again I'll stick it in a spoiler.
    • Thread Starter
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    x
    (Original post by rupertj)
    x
    Can you move this on to this thread, also, there is quite a lot I (and probably many others) would like to add but you're talking about many topics at the same time, writing out paragraphs, why not focus on one single point at a time?
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Ok sorry! I've been trying not to go off on tangents
    • 90 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    I don't know if there's any point going into it. I'm far from knowledgeable and I just read what I can and base my opinion on what is the most reliable to me. The main thing that makes that quote, imo, unreliable is the second point suggesting that Allah is everywhere: ''...then how can we work out the direction of the face of the Creator, as He is limitless)''. Also wouldn't the answer to the third simply be that Allah does what He wills? I read that Ibn Jawzi said this.
    I don't understand how Allah being everywhere is an issue? This may be related to something I read in your discussion with rupertj - do you believe Allah can't be everywhere? Is this the accepted belief? I was not aware of this :/

    I don't really know about the last Q, tbh I don't think "God does what he wants" sorta thing goes down well with people who aren't willing to believe in the first place, so maybe he was trying to make the person understand in a different way?
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tpos)
    I don't understand how Allah being everywhere is an issue? This may be related to something I read in your discussion with rupertj - do you believe Allah can't be everywhere? Is this the accepted belief? I was not aware of this :/

    I don't really know about the last Q, tbh I don't think "God does what he wants" sorta thing goes down well with people who aren't willing to believe in the first place, so maybe he was trying to make the person understand in a different way?
    God does not dwell inside his creation and is not inside it. Ahle Sunnah are generally agreed upon this fact as far as I'm aware, apart from perhaps a few, but differ as to describing where he therefore is. This would also differ depending on who you include as being part of the Ahle Sunnah I guess :dontknow: Allah swt is everywhere in His Knowledge and His Power but He does not physically dwell inside his creation as this would be considered imperfection, and Allah swt is perfect. Alhamdulillah.

    Anyways, fair does on the last point. I don't know.

    Anyways, I have a class to go to Wassalaams.
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    God does not dwell inside his creation and is not inside it. Ahle Sunnah are generally agreed upon this fact as far as I'm aware, apart from perhaps a few, but differ as to describing where he therefore is. This would also differ depending on who you include as being part of the Ahle Sunnah I guess :dontknow: Allah swt is everywhere in His Knowledge and His Power but He does not physically dwell inside his creation as this would be considered imperfection, and Allah swt is perfect. Alhamdulillah.

    Anyways, fair does on the last point. I don't know.

    Anyways, I have a class to go to Wassalaams.
    That doesn't go against what Imam Abu Hanif (supposedly?) said though

    wasalaam.
    • Thread Starter
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tpos)
    That doesn't go against what Imam Abu Hanif (supposedly?) said though

    wasalaam.
    Be careful now sis, the matters you're discussing are the aqeedah of a Muslim, the fundamental structure of our religion, we can't risk getting this wrong!

    Question 1: Where is Allah?



    Amazing speaker and provides all the different views and their rebuttals.


    Question 2: Was the Qur'an Created or is it the speech of Allah?



    Watch all the parts, the speaker, Sheikh Kamal El-Mekki is amazing mashallah.



    (Original post by mel0n)
    Ok sorry! I've been trying not to go off on tangents

    No problem! I've joined in now
Updated: December 1, 2012
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.