The Radicals Among Us
Posted on February 18th, 2009 by Tariq Nelson
A long article from Philadelphia Magazine about “Jailhouse Islam” in Philadelphia
Last May, Philadelphians were stunned when police officer Stephen Liczbinski was shot in cold blood during an altercation with burqa-wearing robbers. But that murder, and other recent violent acts in the city, has its roots in a form of Islam being taught in our prisons — and being funded by Middle Eastern extremists
The City of Philadelphia had gone a decade without having a police officer killed in duty. Now two have been murdered in less than a year…
Filed under: Black American Muslims
I read all 10 parts and it is standard material “radical wahabbi taking over american prisons blah blah” the Saudi’s ARE NOT supporting the Black Salafi’s in America that’s one lie that needs to be stoped. Maybe are few of the celebrities are getting paid a little, but even they are not getting even a tiny percent that Saudi prince would lose in monaco gambling.
No what they are feeding into is a low life mindset that doesn’t want to be moral, up right with good character dedicated to hard work. So all you have say is you believe a few phrases and you good (sounds familiar) no good works, no moral character reform, no righteous conduct. Belief is the ONLY thing that matters and the rest is just sin.
Some of the most vocifious Salafi Masjids are not financially properous a few are not even solvent if the Saudi’s were supporting them this wouldn’t be a problem. I don’t want to see any Masjid in difficulty not even Salafi, I no pleasure in saying but it’s the truth.
They don’t give a damn about Black American Salafi they are just used to “deebo” the discussion away from society changing discussion of islah and tajdid to one of theology.
And this article is standard affair even with the requisite sufi group claiming to do battle against the radical wahabbi terrorist my question is where are either of these groups in the hood, actually benefiting people, feeding the people educating the children?
It’s not the fault of the scholars overseas either because they can only teach what they are allowed to teach by the government. So, the so-called da’i here just cherry pick the fatawa they use in order to justify the b-s they are already engaged in doing.
They have fostered an attitude here in Philly that as long as one is “on the haqq” it doesn’t matter what one does. A sinful person from Ahlus Sunnah is better than a noble person from Ahlul Bidah. I have heard drug dealers and other criminals say this so much that I want to puke when I hear someone say “Ahlul Sunnah”
@ Rasheed
they mentioned the polygamy case because a Muslim woman murdered her husband over it. Is that not fair to mention?
the problem is that honest dialogue is not what the Muslim community wants. They want a monologue — us evil kufarrs are going to get told the way it’s going to be and we just need to feel sympathy for the killers and not the cops and the widows and children they leave behind.
I must say that the author is brave to write this. People are afraid to criticize Muslims in any sort of way
Tim says: “People are afraid to criticize Muslims in any sort of way”
Yeah sure Tim, the LAST people on Earth to get criticized these days are MUSLIMS. You NEVER can pick up a paper or a magazine these days and find ONE article that has something to do with criticism of Muslims…..
Gimme a break.
****eye-roll****
Again people are failing to grasp the problem. The problem is OBVIOUSLY rooted in matters of DOCTRINE. First all, people need to get it straight: there is only ONE CORRECT BELIEF IN ALLAH. If a person doesn’t have the correct beliEf in Allah, then he is not Muslim to begin with. Believing Allah is a giant smiling-faced entity with large fingers, a pair of eyes, a tibia, and two big feet IS NOT THE BELIEF OF THE MUSLIMS. If such a creed were “Islamic,” then the Farrakhanis would also have to be considered Muslims.
As Ash-Shafi`i said: “The mujassimah (corporealists) are kuffaar.” Once the Muslims deal with these people on the basis of `Aqidah and demonstrate that anthropomorphism/corporealism is NOT THE BELIEF of the Muslims, then it makes it easier to alienate and isolate these menaces to the Ummah and humanity at large. Afterall, it is having the CORRECT BELIEF in Allah that makes a person a Muslim. Corporealism is NOT the correct belief in Allah.
In a discussion i had this morning with a Brother who did a stint in Philly years back, we discussed the level of mental illness that prevails in the black Wahhabi community. Insanity seems to be a natural extension of trying to hold on to numerous inherently contradictory beliefs about the Creator. It’s sort of like when meets old 5%ers who have been trying to convince themselves for decades that they are “God” . Claiming that Allah is inside of the heavens at night, but also over the `Arsh (sitting or hovering), traveling in the shadows of clouds–but also thinking Allah casts a shadow, or thinking that Allah is in the literal direction above–but then saying Allah literally surrounds the creation from all directions… and also thinking a part of Allah will allegedly be in Hell on the Judgment Day just isn’t healthy for one’s heart or mental condition.
Furthermore, the Wahhabi literalist intepretation of `Aqidah is going to spill over into matters of Fiqh. They are going to read Ayat (or at least Hilali/Khan) and Hadiths without any understanding of Islamic jurisprudence, and then call for the blood of people. This has been the history of Wahhabism from its inception 250 years ago. The only difference is that now it has a black ghetto spin on it.
Furthermore, if one deals with the Wahhabis from a doctrinal point of view, it affords one the opportunity to share with the non-Muslims (and reinforce in the minds of the general Muslims) the sublimity of the Muslim belief in the Creator: Allah is One, Allah is Unique, Allah is Free-of-Need and beyond (in status) being in time or space. Allah is absolutely unimaginable. Allah is not a body and does not have a volume, or a shape, or a size, for Allah is not similar to anything WHATSOEVER. This is the call of true Tawheed and is what liberates the mind from polytheism and tashbih (resembling Allah to the creations)–and this is the core means by which deviant factions can be repulsed. Expose the deviant factions on the matters of doctrine, and in-sha’ Allah they lose all credibility in the minds of the people. By showing the absurdities in the Wahhabi doctrine one will arm the Muslims at large with the means to defend themselves from adopting such blasphmemous beliefs, and save Muslims from being swept away by their extremism.
With Allah is the success.
swarthmoor.wordpress.com
@ fairuza
there is always a threat of violence when one makes the slightest criticism of Muslims because Muslims believe they have no problems and refuse to hear any sort of criticism whatsoever. Look at CAIR. They refuse to acknowledge that a single Muslim ever does anything wrong. For them, the only thing for non-Muslims to do is to surrender, bend over grab the ankles and allow them to wipe us out
@ Swathmoor
May Allaah guide you. The doctine of Ahlus Sunnah is that Allah has a real form, but not like a human form. Allaah describes HIMSELF as having two hands, two feet, two eyes, a shin and other such attributes. To DENY these attributes is KUFR. Bring me the narration of a single scholar of the SALAF that denied these things.
You are correct that as long as a Muslim has correct belief then it is ok, but the belief MUST BE CORRECT and not the DEVIANT and INVENTED ashari system
In 2008 there were 41 police officers nationwide shot and killed while on duty. I presume most of them were of Christian background. Yet, how often does the media link the perpetrators’ Christian background to the crime? Anytime a Muslim, does something, it is always linked to Islam. The media is biased because they fail to link the Christian theology of a lot of militia groups, that armed to the teeth and are virulently racist and anti-Semitic, in the same way they link any criminality or militant activity to Islam. Like Abu Usamah, I’m also so tired of people blaming wahabis for everything. People use that term like there is some boogeyman out there. If the Saudis and Gulf Arabs were supporting the ex-con contingent, we’d have nothing to worry about. They’d be rolling in doe with no need to rob banks or rely on multiple wives’ welfare checks. Wasn’t it the WD community and sections Harlem that got a major injection of cash from the Saudis in the mid 90s. They used it to create affordable housing and whatnot. Nobody’s complaining about that now, are they?
The reality is, that with the case of the Black crack-head Muslim shooting a police officer or some megalomaniac Desi business man decapitating his wife, all of us American Muslims have to deal with the stigma.
Yep, no problem. The Muslims are perfect. Nothing to see here…move along.
@ everyone
Please do not take my comments as Salafi bashing, for I have problems the so-called traditionalist who focus on theology/’aqidah to exclusion of everything else, or the sufi who focus on marifa/haqiqa/spirituality to the exclusion of everything else or those who place material wealth and social climbing above everything else. Each group neglecting politicial involvement and social transformation.
Bottom line Islam is a balanced way of life that includes belief in the heart , speech of the tongue and actions of the limbs, which includes belief, character, conduct, family life, private worship, community worship and community governance. The spiritual and political.
The enemies of Islam try to limit Islam to one or only few of these areas, when in fact Islam fully covers ALL of them.
Just as you have Black Salafi engaged in crimes you have Black Sufi who justify their crimes, or Black Muslims who don’t claim either group who also commiting the same crimes basically, fraud, robberies & drug dealing. Oddly, enough the same crimes typical uneducated Blacks commit.
To progress yes tawheed is primary, but it does not stop there. There must be character reform and an infusion of morality, we MUST put an end to the idea that belief alone negates the need for the importance of good character and hard self-sustaining work. And to affirm and promote education the religious and the academic sciences.
Bashing Salafi brothers will not get us there. Engaging in these endless “‘aqidah” debates will not sustain Islamic institutions.
@Aziza Margari,
You brought up an interesting point and that is gulf Arabs as a whole have given a lot (totaling millions) to Imam WD communities, not to mention all those Imams who have been getting stipends from rabita starting in the late sixties. Even Shaykh Bin Baz himself attempted to asist Imam WD just as he was doing with Shaykh Bilal Phililps. yet when the Saudi’s wanted Imam WD to make their precieved enemies his enemies he gave money back. So if it was all about money all these others would be wahhabi.
Like you said they are just being used as a boogeyman, and of course if there is a boogeyman you need the ghostbusters and with all of the back and forth they both just become a distractions rather than a catalyst for change.
LOL @ Tim’s comments.
As the new Attorney General said ” U.S. a nation of ‘cowards’ when it comes to race.” This is not a Muslim thing, it is a black thing. Muslims are an easy target for the media to attack, but not blacks.
The author was off on many points and the law-enforcement official, as I pointed out in my post, is engaging in conspiratorial thinking when he connects ghetto criminality to international terrorism.
There is also the issue that the reality of the situation is that there is no pouring of Saudi money into prisons or into the black Muslim community. Islam sells itself in prison and Christians are many times better funded than Muslims in prison as Abu Usama correctly points out.
Aboo,
Muslims do not pray to a body. Idol worshippers pray to things with a shape. There is no Qur’anic verse that says “Allah has a form.” That is why Ash-Shafi`i (who was from the Salaf) said that the body worshippers are kuffaar. Secondly, no one is denying the Attributes of Allah. Muslims, however, deny an anthropomorphic or corporeal INTERPRETATION of Allah’s Attributes; consequently, Muslims deny that Allah has a “real form”–or real actual limbs, appendages, and organs. That is why At-Tahawi, As-Salafi, whose `Aqidah is universally agreed upon by Ahlus-Sunnah said:
“Allah is supremely glorified from having boundaries, extremities, sides, ORGANS AND APPENDAGES. NONE of the six directions contain Allah, as is the case with all the created things.”
What the literalists are getting confused about is that the Qur’an is in the ARABIC LANGUAGE. The terms, “yad,” “`ayn,” “wajh,” “saaq,” etc. have MANY MEANINGS in the Arabic language. Only a pagan would insist on taking the literal meaning, while rejecting meanings that are appropriate to ascribe to Allah. Allah is the CREATOR OF FORMS–Allah is Al-Musawwir. Allah is NOT a form, for a form has limits, and a form cannot exist independent of space. Allah existed before space/place, limits, and after Allah created space/place/limits, Allah did not transform and materialize in a location. Allah is NOT A BODY–of any type. Allah does not occupy space. Use your common sense!
Again, it is the blind literalist interpretation of the Qur’an that prompted the Wahhabi sect to go on its murderous rampages 200 years ago. It is that same mindset that is behind the terrorism that has these people attacking Muslims all over the earth today. And it is that same mindset that is prompting these Ghettofied-Wahhabis to do what they’re doing in places like Philly. The problem is in their `Aqidah and their hatred for the Muslims at large. Expose and discredit the absurdities of the Wahhabi `Aqidah and the bulk of defeating extremist deviants realized.
@ swathmoor
All of your kalam is nothing but philosophy
all of the attributes you refer to were used by the Salaf in their real meaning and no such other meanings were given until the later Muslims ran into alien ideas from the kufaar. This aqeedah has existed since long BEFORE Abdul Wahaab and DURING the time of the Salaf and the Prophet (sal Allaahu alahi wa salam) himself
Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Prophet (sal Allaahu alayhi wa salam) said:
“Allah created Adam, on Adam’s own image, making him 60 cubits tall. When He finished his creation, He said to him, ‘Go and greet that group of angels, and listen to their reply, for it will be your greeting (salutation) and the greeting of your offspring.’ So, Adam said to the angels, ‘As-salamu ‘Alaykum (i.e. Peace be upon you).” The angels replied, ‘As-salamu ‘Alayka wa Rahmatu Allah (i.e. Peace and Mercy of Allah be upon you). The angels added to Adam’s salutation the expression’ Wa Rahmatu Allah’. So, any person who will enter Paradise will resemble Adam (in appearance and figure). People have been decreasing in stature since Adam’s creation until now’.”
We see NO proof from the Qur’an or Sunnah that this means anything else!
From these ahaadeeth we learn that it is proven that Allaah has an image (soorah in Arabic), in a manner that befits Him, may He be glorified and exalted. His image is one of His attributes which cannot be likened to the attributes of created beings, just as His essence cannot be likened to their essence.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: “The word soorah (image) in this hadeeth is like all the other names and attributes narrated (in the texts) where the words used may also be applied to created beings, in a limited manner. When these words are applied to Allaah, they carry a unique meaning, such as al-‘Aleem (All Knowing), al-Qadeer (All-Powerful), al-Raheem (Most Merciful), al-Samee’ (All Hearing), al-Baseer (All-Seeing), and such as His creating with His hands, rising above the Throne, etc.” Naqd al-Ta’sees, 3/396
Everything that exists must inevitably have a form or image. Shaykh al-Islam said: “Just as everything that exists must have attributes that, so too everything that exists by itself must have a form or image. It is impossible for something that exists by itself not to have a form or image.”
There was no dispute among the salaf of the first three generations that the pronoun in the hadeeth refers to Allaah, and it is narrated through many isnaads from many of the Sahaabah. The contexts of the ahaadeeth all indicate that, but when the Jahamiyyah (i.e.., THOSE LIKE SWATHMOOR!!!) became widespread in the third century AH, a group began to say that the pronoun refers to something other than Allaah, and this was transmitted from a group of scholars who are known to have knowledge and to follow the Sunnah in most of their affairs, such as Abu Thawr, Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu’l-Shaykh al-Asfahaani and others. Hence they were denounced by the imams of Islam and other Sunni scholars.”
… The Prophet’s words, “Adam was created in His image” means that Allaah created Adam in His image, for he has a face, eyes, hands and feet, and Adam had a face, an eye, a hand, and a foot… but that does not mean that these things are exactly the same.
As for Allaah having a “direction” then read the following hadith from Abu Dawood and WEAP!!
Narrated Al-Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib - I was sitting in al-Batha with a company among whom the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was sitting, when a cloud passed above them. The Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) looked at it and said: What do you call this? They said: Sahab. He said: And muzn? They said: And muzn. He said: And anan? They said: And anan. AbuDawud said: I am not quite confident about the word anan. He asked: Do you know the distance between Heaven and Earth? They replied: We do not know. He then said: The distance between them is seventy-one, seventy-two, or seventy-three years. The heaven which is above it is at a similar distance (going on till he counted seven heavens). Above the seventh heaven there is a sea, the distance between whose surface and bottom is like that between one heaven and the next. Above that there are eight mountain goats the distance between whose hoofs and haunches (hip and buttock) is like the distance between one heaven and the next. Then Allaah, the Blessed and the Exalted, is above that.
A definite direction given by our Messenger (Sal Allaahu alayhi wa salam). There was no other explanation given so we take it a its value. The other explanations were given centuries later
here they go again with the same debate like clock work, alhamdulillah, this proves that Tariq is providing a good service.
they could go on their own sites with this “theological” debate, yet they keep coming here in order to distract from central point of the conversation which is the criminality and other dysfuntional social issues that Tariq is trying to draw to the attention of the Muslims.
, this goes beyond discussion of theology.
Swarthmoor, Bashir, Serge all have alterior motives other than to contribute to the conversation at hand.
Swathmoor is upon the way of the Jahmiyyah, Muatazilah, and ashaariyyah. These groups make tashbih, liken Allaah’s to His creation then they deny them. They first draw the conclusion that Allaah’s Hands are like ours, or anything else created; then they say no, and reject Allaah’s statement that He has hands.
Allaah Himself and His Messenger (salallaahu alayhi wa salam) said He had hands: but they are not like we think they are because we do not know. Allaah said “there is nothing similar to him”.
Salaam all,
The theological discussions that have resulted from this article is very interesting, however I will restrain myself from adding any further to that, as it is largely unrelated to the original subject.
Whenever a religious or ethnic minority begins to grow, they become more visible and mainstream in a community. In Philadelphia, it is very common to see sisters wearing Niqaab. My first few visits there [I live in Ohio, but my wife is from Philly] were a real eye opener, to see Niqabis working as cashiers in Wal-mart. Thus, someone donning ‘Muslim clothing’ to commit crimes was bound to come.
Muslims are humans as well, with our good and bad. It has nothing to do with Salafi, Sufi or any other ‘minhaj’ or ‘Hizb’! In Egypt a few years ago there was an attack launched on a certain family leaving the Masjid, apparently they were feuding with another family. It had nothing to do with religion. It was just a crime. In time, society will see that and not focus on the criminals ethnic or religious identity,.
On “jailhouse Islam”, as someone who works as a Muslim chaplain, I can say that while I don’t see some conspiracy at work to turn all prisoners into terrorists, the great problem remains as to how these brothers and sisters, even after they have accepted Islam, can stay out of the street life. They may become Muslims, but are our Masjids capable of finding them jobs, and a new social system that allows them to make friends with other Muslims, and stay out of bars, drugs and the unwholesome life? Are we on the outside willing to not look at them with suspicion and accept them? That’s the issue, more so than ‘terrorism among prisoners’ or ‘radicalism’.
wassalaam,
S.Waheed
yes Swarthmoore the hidden khabeeth-asharee who has finally shown his ugly face…as he slandered Shaykhal Islam Abdul Wahab/…..Rahimahulaah……..qabahaka-laah ….ya sweat-moore…..ibn jawzee is maatrook(abandoned) in asmaa wa sifaat as many of the scholars have refuted him. and in “Talbis Iblis” he refuted the “Traditional Bida”- the goofy soofees and has also refuted the asha’eera in general……al-ASS-wad said:for I have problems the so-called traditionalist who focus on theology/’aqidah to exclusion of everything else….duuuuh… the salafi focuses on Aqeeda and manhaj……. This encompasses
the whole religion so why would you make a stupid statement like that ya abu usamah al-ASS-wad ???????????? study what manhaj means and then also what aqeeda means……..unlyysted2009…..
Salaam alaikum Shamsuddin,
I don’t think it is a matter of our communities accepting ex-convicts or not. Nor do I think there is a stigma against Muslims with criminal backgrounds. There is even one leader who boasts of a successful career as a drug dealer before accepting Islam. I think you bring up an important issue of trust, but it is important that we not be naive. We cannot assume that someone with a violent history will not resort to violence when in some theological dispute with another Muslim or dealing with their spouse (taking some liberties with the “beat them lightly” clause). Muslims have been too trusting thinking that just because someone takes shahadah, that their addiction to alcohol or drugs just disappears. What type of drug treatment programs do our communities provide? In fact, maybe we should have a better vetting process or provide counseling to new Muslims. I think the issue is really do our communities have the resources to provide the services that our society doesn’t provide for those who have been to the prison system. I have an example of my husband’s good friend who served his time, managed to get a scholarship and earn a degree. but cannot get a job for nothing. But there are places that are hopeful, my brother (who is not Muslim) does hire men who have records and trains them. He works in the same office building as a Muslim ex-police officer who has a job agency that specializes in finding employment for ex-convicts. This is only one area of many in which the Muslim community at large has failed to invest in human capital.
Dear Aziza,
As salaamu ‘alaikum. I do not suggest being naive, perhaps my wording was insufficient. What I mean is in terms of creating a social system, bonds that will influence those newly released from prison to never again go back, by never again going after drugs, never again hang out with the old crew and do the things they used to do, and so forth.
I’m not sure how domestic violence came into the picture, but I do agree with you on that.
My main point is that while the original article tells us the bogeyman of “Saudi/Wahhabi/Salafi/Extremism” is a great problem in the prison system, that all the people there are accepting Islam through that door, and are becoming a threat to America, ready to join Bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan somewhere, I disagree with that assertion. The great issue is integrating these people into society and keeping them away from the prior life, and not using religion for the wrong purposes. I run into brothers sometimes in the Masjid, and a while later see them on the street, high as a kite! While personal responsibility is a must, I have to wonder, again, if we fail sometimes to create the bonds that will keep them away from those sorts of activities.
wassalaam,
S.Waheed
@ Aboo,
The Hadith you quoted is referring to ADAM’s image–not Allah’s (alleged) image. Actually, the person who translated the Hadith translated it correctly. (The attached pronoun refers to the antecedent “Adam” and not “Allah.”) I know some of the corporealists believe as the Christians/Jews believe, that is, Adam has the image of Allah (which can’t be considered anything other than blatant tashbih–resembling Allah to the creations.)
ON ALLAH BEING ABOVE
In the old days, people used to refer to their kings as, “YOUR ROYAL HIGHNESS.” They didn’t mean that the king was in the most elevated location. They were refering to social status. This is a usage in the English language–and it is a usage in the Arabic language. Nothing complicated to understand. Aboveness–IN REFERENCE TO ALLAH–refers to Allah’s status. Just as the “closeness” to Allah (of the slaves) refers to the STATUS of the slave. Otherwise the verse, if we were to follow the literalist intepretation:
Laa tuTi`u wasjud waqtarib” (Al-`Alaq)
Means that the person gets “closer” to Allah in prostration.” Which, makes no sense according to your literalist methodology, because the corporealists believe Allah is going up and down somewhere above their heads–not somewhere under the ground where prostration is made.
One also need to check history. The Salaf, like the Companion, Abdullah Ibn `Abbas made EXTENSIVE ta’weel (non-literal interpretation–as the Prophet made du`a for Ibn Abbas to be knowledgeable of the Qur’an’s ta’weel), as did his student, Mujahid, as did At-Tahawi (who said EXPLICITLY: Allah is not in a direction), At-Tabari, Ahmad, etc. Let’s take for instance the Al-Qasas, 88 according to the literalists interpretation:
“Everything will be annihilated except the WAJH [lit. "face"] of Allah.”
Okay, now if we were to take it LITERALLY (and literal means “literal”–not literal in a “figurative” sense), that would mean that EVERYTHING would be annihiated–including Allah’s alleged 10-12 fingers, hands, feet, and tibia. The only thing that would remain of Allah–according to the literalist intepretation–would be the front part of Allah’s (alleged) head from the normal hairline and from ear to ear (afterall, that is the Islamic definition of “face”). Everyone can see what a vile absurdity such a claim is. This is why AL-BUKHARI made ta’weel for the verse. He said the Wajh of Allah refers to His Dominion (Mulkahu). The Salaf were not stupid; they understood the Arabic language; they understood the meaning of Laysa kamithlihi shay’; they were not anthropomorphic literalist.
Aboo,
Back to the Hadith referring Adam, i missed the second explanation you gave from the mushabbihah. Well, other than quoting fellow corporealists/anthropomophists you have no proof that the Hadith does NOT refer to Adam and not Allah. Furthermore, words have meanings. A LITERAL EYE, FOOT, HAND, etc. all refer to body parts and human characteristics. But Muslims believe that Allah is not similar to the creations… AT ALL. At-Tahawi said that Allah is clear of all organs, appendages, and devices. Again, Muslims do not pray to a giant body that lives in the Heavens. This is the belief of the Jews and the Christians–not the belief of the Muslims.
Regarding the claim that the Sunnis are Jahmiyyah, this is an example of the outright lies and slander of the Wahhabis. Why is it that the Wahhabis reference An-Nawawi (even translate his works into English), Ibn Hajar, As-Suyuti, Al-Bayhaqi, etc. when all of these scholars made ta’weel (which would make them alleged Jahmis)–and all of them refered to themselves as Ash`aris? They all said that Allah is not a body and that Allah exists without being in a literal direction or location.
When you look into the books of `Aqidah a taught throughout the centuries in the Sunni Muslim lands, they are Ash`ari/Maturidi. I know it is easier for the Wahhabis to call centuries of Muslim scholars and lay people Jahmis/kuffaar than it is for them to consider that believing Allah has a giant smiling face, and fingers could be wrong. This is the core of Wahhabi extremism (and arrogance), and this is the mentality behind many of those involved in “Islamic” extremism.
Brothers please have some restraint. Stop sabotaging this blog with your theological differences.
Salaam
Daud,
The word “hand” is an English word. The word “hand” has many meanings in the English language. The LITERAL MEANING of “hand” is: “the end of the arm beginning at the wrist.” That is the literal meaning of “hand.” You can’t say Allah has a “literal hand” but then say “Allah’s literal hand is not a literal hand.”
The word mentioned in the Qur’an is “yad.” “Yad,” like the word “hand” has MANY meanings. “Yad” can mean power, control, care, handle, influence, authority, assistance, etc. (Check Hans Wehr, and you’ll see about a page of definitions.) “Yad” can also mean that body part that begins at the wrist. No one is denying Allah is ascribed with “Yad;” afterall, it is mentioned in the Qur’an. Muslims are denying that the word “yad” means some sort of corporeal entity at the end of the arm. This is why At-Tahawi said:
“Allah is supremely glorified from all boundaries, extremities, sides, ORGANS, APPENDAGES, AND DEVICES.
This is very easy to understand. Allah is not like the creations. Allah is One–Allah is Indivisble and is not composed of body parts. Literal “hands” are body parts. Things with form. like body parts, cannot exist independent of space. Allah is not dependent upon space or any other creations. Any verse or Hadith that someone might think means that Allah is “in all places, next to us, in our throats, with Prophet Ibrahim, in all directions, between the person and the Ka`bah, in the wombs of the mothers, etc.” are all understood in a non-literal manner. That is so because Allah created all places and spaces. Allah was before places and spaces. Allah does not need or resemble the creations in any way whatsoever. Very easy to understand. It is consistent with the Qur’an and Sunnah, and it is consistent with common sense.
With Allah is the success.
Unlisted,
Actually, it was Sulayman Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab who exposed the Wahhabis before me. Again, only because of Saudi historical revisionism has it been that the Wahhabi methodology has been able to flourish. The Ash`aris/Maturidis are what Ahlus-Sunnah follow, and you will be HARD PRESSED to find anywhere in the Sunni world where their books have not been taught for centuries. Produce an isnaad without Ash`aris/Maturidis in it. That is why the Wahhabis publish the works of scholars like An-Nawawi. They are stuck, for they have no historical continuity in their method of learning. Investigate history and examine BOTH SIDES of the argument and you will see that Wahhabism is an INNOVATION that began 250 years ago and was furthered by petrol cash.
The ashaaris are a devitate sect. If you follow them you are upon misguidance, for sure. The biggest proof against you is the Abu Hasan Al Ashari made tawbah from that deviate belief and refuted it in a book called Al Ibaanah.
Daud,
You are aware that the Ash`aris/Maturidis historically have constituted the VAST MAJORITY of the Muslims. From Singapore to Senegal, the Sunnis have followed this methodology. You are aware that the greatest illuminaries of Islamic scholarship in the past 1,000 years have been Ash`aris and Maturidis. There is simply no denying this–at all.
It is far easier to believe that the methodology of the VAST MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS–the scholars, students of knowledge–is the Haqq than it is to believe that a quasi-hanbali anthropomophist sect that appeared 250 years ago is right. Simply investigate history: examine the theological arguments, and study what the Wahhabi slaughter of Muslims in Ta’if and Medinah and their segie of Mecca. The Wahhabis did not consider the Muslims to be Muslim–that is why they deemed it permissible to murder and pillage. It’s in the history books.
Furthermore, the Wahhabis are forced to quote from the Ash`ari/Maturidi scholars, for they are the people with isnaads back to the Prophet. The Wahhabis have no isnaad. There is Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab (who was refuted in his lifetime) and then there is Ibn Taymiyyah who lived 400 years before him. Ibn Taymiyyah was similarly refuted. The Muslims at large–the world over–did not follow the doctrines of these two people. Instead, the Saudis, with their petrol money they make from selling to the Western military industrial complex, had the funds to spread their doctrine–especially, in the African-American community/prisons. They resucitated this doctrine of Ibn Taymiyyah/Muhammad ibn `abdul-Wahhab (granted the Wahhabis don’t agree with Ibn Taymiyyah on all of his errors). This is simply the HISTORICAL REALITY of the issue–and this is what the Wahhabi propagandists don’t want African-American or other Muslims to know.
With Allah is the success.
Regarding Al-Ash`ari repenting from Tawheed, this is a claim of only the corporealists. The corporealists tamper with books–for as they do so often, they lie.
There were a sect of Christians (the Anthropomorphites) who believed that God had a physical body. They lived in Syria in the fourth century, and were condemned; like most heretical Christians, they were exiled outside the Byzantine empire. In fact, many conceptions of Christians found in the hadith and in the Quran reflect exiled heretical Christians such as these, rather than “orthodox” Christianity (Catholic, Orhodox, Protestant).
Anyway, it would be interesting to know if there is any historical continuity between the Christian monks who believed that God had a body and the Muslim corporealists.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says, “The Fathers who wrote against it dismiss (Anthropomorphism) almost contemptuously. In the time of Cyril of Alexandria, there were some anthropomorphites among the Egyptian monks. He composed a short refutation of their error, which he attributed to extreme ignorance.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01558c.htm)
Abu Usamah,
My motive is clear: to order the good and forbid the evil. There is confusion in the minds of many regarding the basic matters of the Creed. Some people believe that Allah is a giant body that lives above their heads, and the Muslims believe the Creator of space does not need or reside in space. These two beliefs are irreconcilable and the two groups can never be united.
Now, if Muslims wish to be united, well, they have to be united on the ONE AND ONLY CORRECT CREED. The Prophet did not teach two Tawheeds–the Prophet taught one. Having the correct belief in Allah is not difficult. Believe that your Lord is Eternal, not subject to development or change, that your Lord is Absolutely Incomparable, believe that your Lord is absolutely Free-of-Need. Anyone of a sound heart and mind isn’t going to find what i said objectionable.
Now when it comes to this particular topic, well, you have the pervasive mental illness in the inner city–afterall, many of these folks are the adult crack kids that were born back in the 80’s. Add to that, reading all kinds of deviant quasi-islamic/extremist literature with no sense of scholarly discipline while sitting in federal or state cages, and you are going to get a person, as my uncle used to say: “who’s not wrapped too tight.”
Now if you wish to smoke out the extremist elements in the BAM community that are making the mentally unbalanced more unbalanced, you talk about the Creed (put aside their bad manners and barking “bid`a” at everyone). Deal with them on the MOST IMPORTANT issue–`Aqidah. And what you will find about all of them is that they are fans of the Najdi, Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab. They are literalists-corporealists-anthropomorphists. And you will find that they are virulently and viciously anti-Ash`ari/anti-Maturidi–i.e., they consider the vast majority of the Muslims kaafirs or at least devaints in the extreme. Lastly, because of their literalist methodology in `Aqidah, they have a literalists methodology in Fiqh, and as a result, they misconstrue verses pertaining to Jihaad and apply them out of context (and to comply with their criminal proclivities).
There will be no unity among BAM until they stop compromising, they stop being lazy and actually put in the time to study, to research, and to ask the difficult questions. This is the path for the sincere–those who truly wish to know the Truth.
With Allah is the success.
Aspen,
Just for the record, a “Muslim corporealist” is an oxymoron. One of the famous Sunni scholars (someone the corporealists falsely claim as one of their own), Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said:
“A body is something with dimension, height, width, and depth, and Allah is clear of all that.”
More explictly Ahmad said:
“Whoever believes Allah is a body unlike other bodies blasphemes.”
And he obviously blasphemes if he claims Allah is a body LIKE other bodies, for the core of the Islamic Creed is:
LAYSA KAMITHLIHI SHAY’
(There is ABSOLUTELY nothing like Allah whatsoever.)
Allah is the Creator of space/place and does not reside in that which He created. Allah exists without a volume, and Allah exists without a location. This is the belief of the Muslims.
Swarthmoor, if you are against the “Mujassimah”, why does your Habashi group colloborate with the Alawi, Syrian government and praise Hafez al-Assad?
@swarthmoor gives us one narration from Prophet or the rightly guided khalifas who interpreted Allah’s attributes( istawaa,yed,wadj )like the ashaa’eera or maturidi do……unlyysted2009(kitab ilm Shaykh Uthaimeen)
@ Swarthmoor
Didn’t Abu Hasan Al Ash’ari himself write a book refuting the Ash’ari aqidah? He also publicly proclaimed that he was upon what Ahmad ibn Hanbal was upon.
The Ashari aqeedah at one time was wide-spread, but Ahlus Sunnah did NOT fall into it, rather they refuted it.
Unlisted,
There was usually no reason to do so (i.e., make non-literal interpretation)–the early Muslims REALLY understood Tawheed. They understood that Allah ABSOLUTELY does not resemble the creations. Furthermore they REALLY understood the language.
It’s like if a Muslim said to you: “You gotta be pulling my leg, if you want me to dress in a niqaab and rob a bank.” A native English speaker understands the phrase, but a first year Chinese student studying English would not understand what “pulling my leg” means.
Think of it this way: it’s like when you have to spend twenty minutes explaining to a Farrakhani or 5%er that the use of the term “We” in Yusuf Ali (or Muhammad Ali, Al-Qaadiyani) does not refer to tribes of Asiatic blackmen. Prior to their innovation, one did not have to go into such an explanation, for there was no need. Anyone who knows English (really knows it), knows about the “royal we,” which is used to signify status. And anyone not twisted up in their `Aqidah knows that the Creator is One and not a human or a group of humans.
Similarly, because the Arab Muslims became weaker in the Arabic language and not familiar with the depth of the Arabic lexicon (and a lot of new Muslims were not Arabs), they would be susceptible to misinterpretting Verses and Hadith. It’s kind of like English speaking people today trying to read “Hamlet” without the footnotes. Weakness in language, weakness in understanding Tawheed (and the spread of deviant ideas) led the scholars to explain in greater details, so that the Muslim masses would not get confused about the Creed.
Thirdly, if Allah literally “rose over” the `Arsh, then that would mean that Allah was at one time under the `Arsh, which would mean that at one time Allah was not (in the literalist methodology) the “Most High.” Instead, the `Arsh would’ve have been the “Most High”–and then Allah underwent development and transformation to become the “Most High”. Allah does not “become anything”–for Allah is Eternal and Perfect and clear of all that which indicates being temporal. The fact is Allah was before the creation and there was no space, place, or direction. Allah is not similar to anything at all.
Regarding what the Khalifahs said, what i know is what Imam `Ali said:
“Allah was and place was not, and Allah is as He was.”
and:
“Allah created the `Arsh as a sign of His Power and NOT AS A PLACE FOR HIMSELF.”
(Both are in Al-Farqu Baynul-Firaq)
I also provided you with the saying of Al-Bukhari regarding the Wajh of Allah in Al-Qasas, 88 (he said it refers to the Mulk (Dominion) of Allah). And the Tabi`een, Mujahid said regarding the “Wajh of Allah” in Al-Baqarah, 115 that it refers to the qiblah for the prayer (i.e., Sunnah prayer while riding the back of an animal). Now his teacher, the Companion Abdullah ibn `Abbas, who is the authority on explaining the Qur’anic Verses (afterall, the Prophet mae du`a for him to be knowledgable of the TA’WEEL of the Qur’an) “followed” the Ash`ari methodolgy, and made extensive ta’weel (non-literal intepretation) for terms, such as, “saaq,” “noor,” etc. Consequently, this was not a practice alien to the Salaf–or even to the Sahabahs. So one can’t have it both ways: either one has to deem Al-Bukhari, Mujahid, and Abdullah ibn `Abbas as deviants for “following” the Ash`ari method and making ta’weel (non-literal interpretation), OR one has to re-evaluate their methodology, investigate, and seek to understand this issue, for none of us can afford to die while praying to a creation.
@ Da’ud,
The Ash`aris and the (genuine) Hanbalis are not at odds with one another. The core of the Creed is the same:
There is One Perfect Eternal Creator, Who is the Creator of everything and absolutely does not need or resemble anything.
The misunderstanding today is in part linguistic and in part theological. If the person understands the Creed properly, he’s safe even if he does not understand the linguistic aspect. If he (really) understands the Creed as stated above, then he knows that any Verse or Hadith that some might misconstrue and claim that Allah is (allegedly) in all directions, in the body of Jesus, between the neck of one’s mount and the person, in the direction of the Ka`bah, inside the Heavens, under one in sujood, in the mothers’ wombs, in the Hellfire, etc., is not to be taken literally.
The reason why such Verses and Hadiths are not to be taken literally is because Allah is not something that occupies space. Allah is not a body, as Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said:
“The terms are taken from the language and from the Religion, and linguists applied ‘body’ to a thing that has length, width, depth, form, structure, and composition.”
and he said:
“A person commits kufr if he says Allah is a body, even if he claims: Allah is a body unlike other bodies.”
(Al-Bayhaqi, in his “Manaqib of Ahmad”)
So it is clear that Ahmad was not a worshipper of a spatial entity. What Imam Ahmad and the genuine Hanbalis generally did is say: “Allah is ascribed with Wahj, `Ayn, Yad, etc.,” and they left it at that. Full stop. All the while they were PERFECTLY CLEAR that they were not talking about organs, limbs, or appendages. They understood the the word, “Yad,” has several possible meanings that may be appropriate to ascribe to Allah (such as, power, support, and control)–and they were clear that Allah’s Yad is not a literal “hand” or “foreleg.” The Hanbalis (generally) did not assign a specific (acceptable) meaning to such terms, but chose the route of caution.
The Ash`aris/Maturidis generally explained in detail–for there was a need to do so. You had outrageous anthropomorphists who claimed that Allah has all the human parts except a stomach and a beard (others claimed all but a beard and private parts). They were coming to these conclusions because of their misunderstanding of the Mutashaabih (non-literal) Verses/Hadith. Also, even some of the Hanbalis made detailed non-literal interpretation, such as, Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali and, in particular, Ibnul-Jawzi in an effort to refute the corporealists/anthropomophists (who usually tried to hide disguise themselves as Hanbalis). As was said about Ja`far As-Sadiq and Imam Ahmad that the deviants (Shi`a/Corporealists) both shamed these honorable Imams of Ahlus-Sunnah.
Lastly, it is only because of petrol inspired propaganda that the claim the leading scholars of the past 1,000 years all repented from the Ash`ari/Maturidi `Aqidah shortly before their death. Furthermore, it would require MASSIVE HISTORICAL REVISIONISM to invent a past that does not place the Ash`ari/Maturidi methodology at the center of Ahlus-Sunnah ALL OVER THE MUSLIM WORLD. Again just investigate history: what were the books taught in Al-Azhar (before the British)? What did the Ottomans teach in their schools? What were the Muslims in Timbuktu learning at Sankore University? What did the (Sunni) Muslims of Maghrib, East Africa, India, Maylaysia, Central Asia learn in their institutions? You will find the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Muslims following the Ash`ari-Maturidi school, and the reason why is because the method it developed for explaining the Sunni Creed and repulsing the deviants is thorough and complete.
With Allah is the success.
The ash’ari find their origin with the Mutazilah and the jahmiyyah–who Ahmad ibn Hanbal said were kuffar. The Ashaariyyah/Maturidi’s are a deviate sect that is NOT upon the Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jam’aat.
Abu Hasan Al Asha’ri wrote a book called Al Ibaanah, in which he refuted the beliefs of the Jahmiyyah and Mutazilah and others who try to change the meanings of Allaah’s Names and Attributes, like the group that ironically bears his name, the “Asha’ris”. Al Asha’ri freed himself from the beliefs that the group took on; some people remained upon this deviation but took his name, Al Asha’ri and ascribed to it a school of thought.
Abu Hasan Al Asha’ri let it be known that he made tawbah from playing around with Allaah’s Names and attributes, and that he was upon the Aqeedah of Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahimahumullaah). Here are excerpts of what Abu Hasan Al Asha’ri said in his book “Al Ibaanah”:
and that there is no doubt regarding the Coming Hour; and that Allaah will raise up all those who are in the graves ;
and that Allaah (istiwaa) His throne (as He has said, “The Merciful is (istiwaa)on the Throne” - [20:4] ) ;
and that He has a face (as He has said, “but the Face of thy Lord shall abide resplendent with majesty and glory” - [55:27] ) ;
And that He has two hands, bila kaifa (without asking how?) (as He has said ” I have created with my two hands,” - [38:75] and he has said, “nay! Outstretched are both His hands” - [5:69]);
and that He has an eye, without asking how (as He has said “under Our eyes it floated on” - [54:14] ),
and that anybody who thinks that the names of Allaah are other than He is in error;
and that Allaah has Knowledge (as He has said, in His knowledge He sent it down,” - [4:164] ), and as He said, “And no female concieveth and bringeth forth without His knowledge” - [35:12] ),
we also assert that Allaah has hearing and sight, and we do not deny it as the Mu`tazila, the Jahmiyyah, and the Khaarijites deny it;…”
Our Salaf took Allaah’s Attributes at their clear and apparent meanings and didn’t ask “How?”.
Swathmoor, it is upon you to stop where the people stopped, that way you can get this right; because explaining away or disbelieving in Allaah’s attributes He described Himself with, and rejecting them is kufr.
Let’s not delude ourselves we are being pinched at both ends by the RADICALS, which appear in th guise of both the so-called Salafi and so-called Sufi , the extremist of both groups have the objective of hijacking the discussion through the use of obtuse pendant arguements, they seek to create inertia for any social activism or political mobilization.
They are each different sides of the same coin, but share common charateristics such as being apolitical and quiescent socially, not to mention both display undue forbearance and pusillanimous behavior towards oppressive and tyranical leaders.
And the governments (yes plural) are supporting both groups.
well well well… seems I happened across an interview in which the identity of unlissted is exposed follow the link to see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdtXQayYhRA
Regards to people who attack using fake or unknown name besides being pusillanimous, didn’t Shaykh Rabee say no one hides his name except a person of evil, if you come with the truth then provide your name?
Also, didn’t Shaykh al-Albani say those who hide behind pseudonyms to attack only do so because of his cowardice and lack of scholarly and literary courage.
I couldn’t agree more, if I had said it myself,
so keep on, eat some more…
Abu Usama
Mocking the Deen is an act of kufr. You need to relay that message to whoever made that stupid video link you posted.
No one mocked the deen stupid things Muslims say and do was mocked
would you like me to most more studpid things your ameer sword dancing with george ibn george al-hajjaj al-majnun al-amriykiy?
That Youtube video link you posted certainly mocks the Deen!
What is funny in the Words of Allaah!?!
9:65 If you ask them (about this), they declare: “We were only talking idly and joking.” Say: “Was it at Allâh, and His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger (SAW) that you were mocking?”
9:66 Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after you had believed…
What’s so funny?
@al-ASS-wad……the ebonics of those ghetto couch potatoes seems be your style and amount of interlect.and intelligence………al-ASS-wad…….The video is mockery and really stupid….al-ASS-wad …….from authentic islamic aqida we dont publicly or secretly slander the rulers…….(sharhus sunnah)…..Go study al-ASS-wad.. ….Unlizzted2009
Why can’t we ever stay on subject? As much as I benefit from discussions on ‘Aqeedah, this article was not about that. I encourage the posters who have taken this thread to a whole new subject to start their own blogs, and to please refrain from personal attacks or making fun of people’s names. That is certainly not from the Sunnah, and certainly not a behavior encouraged by the Qur’an.
Daud,
Part of the problem is the historical disconnect the Wahhabis are on. For one, Al-Ash`ari did not “repent.” The Wahhabis have a VERSION of “Al-Ibana” wherein they distorted and lied on Abu Hasan. Obviously, since the students of Al-Ash`ari are the ones who preserved and transmitted his methodology–which is the methodology of the Ash`aris for the past 1,100 years. For sure, Al-Ash`ari was not a body worshipping literalist.
Furthermore, you are confused about the difference between Ahlus-Sunnah (i.e., the Ash`aris/Maturidis) and the Mu`tazilah. The Mu`tazilah are kuffaar, just as the quasi-Hanbali-mujassimah are kuffar, as per the words of Ahmad himself. Let’s present the positions honestly and without distortion.
OF ISTAWAA’
Daud, the word “Istawaa” has more than a dozen meanings in the Arabic language. So instead of claiming Allah was beneath some of the creations and then had to “rise above them,” one could as well claim Allah “matured” or “ripened” on the `Arsh. Both “matured and “ripened” are meanings for “Istawa.” The Wahhabis don’t claim that Allah “ripened or matured” on the `Arsh because it is OBVIOUSLY unbefitting to believe such a thing about Allah. Similarly, the Sunnis don’t say Allah “rose above” or “sits upon” the `Arsh, because being in a body and undergoing change is unbefitting to attribute to Allah. That is easy to understand.
OF WAJH
Again, the word “Wajh” has more than a dozen meanings in the Qur’an. Hilali and Khan say in their Wahhabized distortion of theQuran’s meanings:
“Everything will perish except his Face.” (Al-Qasas, 88)
Okay let’s walk through this. If we take the verse “literally,” it says EVERYTHING (and “everything” means “everything”) will be annihiated EXCEPT the Face of Allah. That would mean–according to the corporealists–that Allah’s tibia (shin), fingers, hands, and feet would be annihilated. Anything that gets annihilated can’t be Everlasting.
Furthermore, there is the Verse 115 of Al-Baqarah, that if taken literally, it means “Wherever you turn is the ‘Face’ of Allah.” So what would a person in a slaughterhouse for hogs say? Wherever he turns is the “Face” of ….?!? The Salaf were not addle-minded literalists. AL-BUKHARI in his section on Tafseer said that the Wajh of Allah in Al-Qasas, 88 refers to Allah’s DOMINION. And MUJAHID (student of `Abdullah ibn `Abbas) said the Wajh of Allah in 2:115 refers to the Qiblah (while performing the Sunnah while riding on the back of an animal).
OF BILAA KAYF
I hope to show you here that you are being lied to by the so-called Salafis. The phrase “bilaa kayf” does not say “without ASKING how.” Bi = With, Laa = No, Kayf = How. The phrase is not “Bilaa SU’AALI [asking] kayf.” The phrase (bilaa kayf) is used by the Sunnis to convey that Allah does not have a kayfiyyah, i.e., a “howness,” modality, quiddity, or manner of being. Allah has no “how” to ask about, just as Allah has no weight, no temperature, no surface area or volume, and no color to ask about. “How” does not apply to Allah, for Allah is ABSOLUTELY unlike the creations.
OF `AYN AND YAD
Again, no one is denyng the Attributes of Allah, so please do not lie. What the Sunnis are doing is DENYING the literalist-anthropomorphic INTERPRETATION of the corporealists. The literal meaning of the word “eye” is “the ORGAN of sight.” At-Tahawi said that Allah is clear of of organs/appendages/devices. Muslims believe Allah is ONE and is not composed of body parts. That is, afterall, the meaning of Al-Ahad–Allah is Indivisible and not composed of a body, pieces, or parts. A “hand,” i already defined for you: it’s “the end of the arm beginning at the wrist.”
Now everyone who is a native speaker of English knows the literal meaning of “hand” and “face” refer to body parts. However they also know that those words also have MANY FIGURATIVE meanings. So if i say: “I have to FACE the facts that the situation is out of my HANDS” or “You’re in good HANDS with that Brother; i know he will keep an EYE on you belongings.” NO ONE of a SOUND MIND–who knows the language–is going to get what was said twisted up. The English language has non-literal usage, and don’t you think that the Arabic language, which is FAR MORE VAST AND RICH than the English language has non-literal usage?
From Hans Wehr (which is not a comprehensive dictionary, but just to show the vastness of meanings of the words “yad” and ‘`ayn.”)
YAD: hand, foreleg, handle, POWER, CONTROL, influence, AUTHORITY, ASSISTANCE, HELP. AID, etc. (that’s only a few of a PAGE FULL of meanings)
WAJH: countenance, face, front, outside, surface, intention, design, purpose, method, FOR THE SAKE OF GOD–and another PAGE FULL of meanings, in addition to the meanings that Mujaahid mentioned (Qiblah) and Al-Bukhari (Dominion). (You can look up the word `ayn for yourself and see its NUMEROUS meanings.)
In summary, if someone were to insist on taking all the Verses of the Qur’an in a literalist fashion, the reader would run into all sorts of contradictions–internal contradictions and contradictions that would belie the Oneness and Perfection of Allah. So the Qur’anic exegetes (Mufassirun) and scholars of `Aqidah made non-literal interpretation when necessary. This should be very easy to understand for the one who is willing to reason and USE THEIR COMMON SENSE.
With Allah is the success.
swarthmoor.wordpress.com
@Shamsuddin
as you can see you might as well have been asking the wind to cease blowing.
@swarthmoor…..this is something you cant substantiate or prove from statements of the Prophet Muhammad or his Sahaabas, endorsing or understanding the attributes the way ashaarees and maturidis do……Unlizzted2009
my response to those complaining about me posting the video, I see it as being absolutely appropriate as we have three cowardly nameless faceless CARTOONS who are jokes themselves continuously coming to this blog bringing distractions.
as has already been proven their own shuyukh say that those who hide behind pseudonyms to attack only do so because of his cowardice and lack of scholarly and literary courage. LOL
yet these cowards still attack from behind the niqab of anonymity without shame.
The ruing on the adab of discourse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iTViQJsN5A
As I was asked to “go study” I guess that is true because it is going to take some serious studying for me to explain how the public actions below are in agreement with the public rulings below. I need not add any commentary because the words of shuyukh and the actions their ameer are self explanatory
The rulings of their shuyukh / mashayikh
The ruling on loving and hating for Allah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3F_d7nf_Oc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IjuNCmGtHk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBnNWWm9pg
The ruling regarding Nasheeds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LIcqrYTfR0
Public Actions of Their Ameer
Singing, dancing and claping for the king
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ7F6ndEKQc
Dancing with george ibn george, notice to prominence of the US flag hanging high while the flag with the shahada is not
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoRHLrXmqbc
Exchanging tokens of love with the pope who insults Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmfZQ2Y08eo
Dancing with atheist putin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPVLMFkdN74
yeah, and I am STILL waiting on that mythical fatwa against the saudi nationalism day
so as shown many of points which are used to cause fitna here are not even the reality in ksa
@ UNlisted,
Isn’t Abdullah ibn `Abbas among the Companions of the Prophet? Didn’t he make non-literal interpretation? Didn’t the PROPHET make du`a for Ibn `Abbas to be knowledgable of the ta’weel of the Qur’an (Bukhari related)? In summary, the Muslims do not pray to a giant smiling faced body with a tibia and ten fingers that sits (or hovers) above our heads.
@ Shamsuddin
We have to address the problem from its root. As we know everything begins with the heart, and if the heart is corrupt, then the actions will also be corrupt. Regarding the mental instability of many of those calling themselves “Muslims,” it stems from several factors. One many of these people were conceived in crack saturated wombs in rock houses back in the 80’s and 90’s. Those crack kids went on to see their mothers turning $5 tricks for coke. That is not going to contribute to a child’s mental/emotional stability. I’ve done the hood dawah and worked in drug rehabs. Those folks need A LOT of help.
The Saudi propaganda was particularly prevalent before the age of the (mass) internet (say, 80’s-mid-90’s). What people had available was mostly the Wahhabi-literalist stuff. People who already had quite a few screws loose read that material. They were often uneducated (in any sense). Their chaotic worlds didn’t make sense, and they felt no need for rational consistency. It was enough for them to “hear and obey” from their Saudi overseers (or the literature they were reading). The fact that what they were reading was riddled with internal contradictions–and contradicted commons sense–did not phase them. Given that to be the case–that is, they believe in a doctrine that is contradiction filled and irrational is going to produce people whose behavior is contradiction filled and irrational.
Also, one has to consider the historical/reality disconnect in the mind of the so-called Salafi. He claims to follow the method of the Salaf, but there is NO SCHOLARLY LINK back to the era of the Salaf without Ash`ari/Maturidi scholars. So the works he reads (An-Nawawi, As-Suyuti, Ibn Hajar, Al-Qurtubi, Ar-Razi, Al-Bayhaqi, etc.) were all Ash`ari/Maturidi. That is, according to the so-called Salafi, the mass of Sunnis from Senegal to Singapore for the past 1,000 years have all been “Mu`tazili/Jahmi kaafirs. In order to deal with this reality, the so-called Salafi has to reconstruct a historical fantasy world that deems the Sunni Muslim scholars at large for a millenia to be deviant with the exception of a handful of controversial quasi-Hanbali corporealists and then a few hundreds years after that Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab/the Saudi regime. Again, living in a historical fantasy world is not healthy for the mind.
Also, we have to look at the reality of (quasi) Sunni extremism. It exists. It is not merely the concotion of the Zio-Cons. It’s roots go back to basically two characters: Sayyid Qutb and Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab. The former isn’t significant in black America, but the latter is. The Wahhabis do not consider the Muslims at large to be Muslims. Give you an example. Once i was in Pal Talk, and i heard the usual Wahhabi talk. I said: “This is a Wahhabi room, so please be warned.” They did the usual and said: “There is no such thing as ‘Wahhabis’ [although this is how the SUNNIS referred to this movement at its inception].” So i said: “For sure, there are Wahhabis, for they are the people who massacred the Muslims at Ta’if and Medinah c. 1802-03.” Their response: “Well, those weren’t Muslims–they were grave worshippers.” Similarly, i saw a Pakistani guy on PBS a few years back say that 99% of the people in Pakistan are non-Muslim. In the mind of the Wahhabi, the Sunni Muslims are either “attribute denying kuffaar/or grave worshipping kuffaar,” and since they are (in their minds) kuffaar, then they have the right to “slaughter them wherever you find them.”
(Recently i heard Yssir Qadhi (a “Wahhabi-lite”) say that the Ash`aris are deviants–but they are the closest to Ahlus-Sunnah. So to be fair not all of the Wahhabis take such a hardline position against the Sunnis, but HISTORICALLY, Wahhabis have considered the Sunnis at large to be kuffaar–and many Wahhabis still consider the Ash`aris/Maturidis to be kuffaar.)
The Wahhabis are literalist in `Aqidah and also Fiqh. So you combine a doctrine of believing the Creator of space and direction is inside the Heavens part of the night, but also sitting in person on the `Arsh, yet surrounding the creation from every direction, and has relatively tiny feet placed on the Kursiyy, Who smiles, has literal fingers, a literal shin, and two literal big eyes with a literalist understanding of the various Verses on Jihaad and NUMEROUS HADITHS on military matters (that SHOULD be understood at the feet of scholars–not fellow crackhead offspring) and you have a recipe for DISASTER! The Wahhabis do not want to listen to common sense (they call it “philosophy”). So if you have a people with criminal proclivities who disdain rational discourse and deem the Ummah (and its scholars to all be deviants/kaafirs), it should not be surprising these folks would commit acts of crime and terror.
The problem is fixed by Muslims propagating traditional Islamic knowledge, and in particular strengthening the Ummah in the knowledge of `Aqidah. By doing so, the hearts can be united, and Allah-willing, we will have the ability to work as one to address our problems.
With Allah is the success.
Abu Aswad,
It seems that you have an agenda to intentionally AVOID discussing the matters of the Creed–at almost all costs. If we want to understand who is who and what is what, the easiest way to do so is to examine the matters of the Creed. The belief of Ahlus-Sunnah not only complies with what Allah revealed and what the Prophet conveyed, it is rationally consistent. As a Brother once said of the `Aqidah: “It’s not like swiss cheese.” (That is, the Truth is not full of holes and contradictions.) When a Muslim learns this Creed, he can immediately identify the deviants, and if he learns more, he has a powerful weapon to refute ANY misguided group–from the idol worshippers, to the corporealists, to the atheists, to the philosophers. If a person loves the Muslims, then he would LOVE for them to have this knowledge, so they can defend themselves and the Deen.
If you want to talk about the condition of BAM, well Daud said it best: we are [intellectually] lazy and ignorant. BAM do not want to ask the difficult questions and get into the issues. Instead, there are the platitudes and calls for “unity”–but unity based upon what??? An agreement not to call each other out on their ignorance and deviance?!?
A sincere person would like to get down to the Truth–and he would like to unite the Muslims upon the Truth. Once the Muslims are united on the genuine `Aqidah, then the Muslims can move forward with a collective purpose. But as it is now with people calling themselves Muslims but holding the beliefs of the apologists, corporealists, and pseudo-sufis/pseudo-sunnis, there can be no unity with those truly following the Prophet, and there can be no lasting solutions until people are sincere and yearn to follow the right Creed.
With Allah is the success.
@swarthmoor
First off as I have written numerous times your conduct negates anything else you have of being worthy for a response. If you can’t be trusted with that simple sunnah how can you be trusted with anything else.
Secondly, simply because you can trounce the trio that are like the “washington generals” (forever losing) of Tariq’s blog doesn’t prove anything. That’s like a mediocre college player thinking he can turn pro because he out played some high schoolers.
Ok so you’ve picked up a book or two with the kalam of the khalaf. And…? Ok so you understand the concept of idiom in speech. And…? In all of this, is this how the Prophet (saws) gave dawah to people of the book? Did he command creed or doctrine inquisitions?
The Islamic creed is brief and to the point and if it takes more three minutes to deliver the message of that creed then the sender or the receiver or possibly both are majnun.
Prophet (saws), did not convey all of the scaffolding you just bombarded us with nor did he instruct others to do so.
What was the method of which he instructed the sahaba? To facilitate things for the people and do not make things difficult and give the people good tidings and do not repulse them.
When it comes to dawah to people of the book, first ask them to bear witness that there is no deity except Allah and to bear witness that Muhammad (saws) is the Messenger of Allah. If that is followed then instruct them in the obligatory prayers, then if that is followed then instruct the wealthy to give zakat which is to be given to the poor. Now where in that is the kalam to which you have devoted so much type?
Additionally, when the sahaba were asked by non-Muslims what did The Prophet (saws) teach, it was said he commanded honest speech, commanded faithfulness to promises, commanded kindness to kinsmen, commanded rights of neighbors, forbade slander of women. Again where is the creed and doctrine limus test?
Bottom line the creed is there is no deity except Allah, Allah is the One, Allah is the eternal Refuge, He does not beget, nor is He begotten nor for Him is there an equal and there is nothing like Him.
The Prophet (saws) was sent to proclaim tawheed and to perfect character, not to browbeat people with kalam.
For anyone interested in reading a comprehensive study of the Ash’ari Creed, which ‘Swarthmoor’ has taken to promoting here even though the thread is more related to sociological matters, refer to:
Studies in Contemporary Ash’ari Polemics, volume 1: The Ash’aris: In the Scales of Ahl us-Sunnah, by Shaikh Faisal al-Jaasim:
http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_AshariCreed.pdf
Abu Usamah,
At the time of the Prophet, the Muslims were united on Tawheed. The Sahabah understood the Shahadah and its implications. Later, when quasi-Muslim factions arose, the scholars WROTE EXTENSIVELY on the Creed to discredit kufri beliefs that INVALIDATE one’s Islam. Warning against those beliefs is not a bad thing. This was the practice of the Salaf and those who came after them.
(Regarding the da`wah given to Ahlul-Kitaab, you can do a search under Imam Ali + Jews + Abu Nuaym + Al-Hilya, and you will see that Imam `Ali gives a response that equals about two pages of text speaking about the Oneness and Perfection of Allah. He did not simply tell the Jews, “Allah is One.” He went into DETAIL. So what i am doing isn’t contrary to what the Sahabah did.)
If the people today understood the Belief correctly, you wouldn’t have the NUMEROUS kufri beliefs out there–whether they be those of the pseudo-sufis, the qadaris, mushabbihah, farrakhanis, etc. There is AN OBVIOUS NEED to clarify the distinctions between the groups, for many people are confused. Afterall, praying to a giant imaginary body with a smiling face, fingers, a tibia, and a pair of feet is not the same as saying Allah is One; Allah is absolutely Incomparable; Allah is beyond all needs; Allah is not body; Allah is not in space or time.
There are people who recite Al-Ikhlaas… and say that Allah was born to a white woman in 1877. There are people who say that they are atheist… and they claim to be Muslim. There are people who say Allah did not create everything–or that Allah IS everything and everything IS Allah. There is A LOT OF CONFUSION. These beliefs are KUFR–WITH NO DOUBT. Many people don’t know that, so there is nothing wrong with warning people and clearly delivering the Creed and demonstrating that what the Prophet taught (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) does not contradict itself.
For the SINCERE person, his only concern is WHO IS CORRECT? It cannot possibly be that all these different groups with all sorts of contrary and contradictory beliefs can all be correct. The Prophet taught ONE `AQIDAH. There is ONE God and there is only ONE CORRECT belief in God. As i said before, it seems to be the job of the quasi-traditionalists to obscure and confuse the masses of Muslims about what that correct Creed is. Instead, in the matters of `Aqidah–the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of the Religion–they have an “anything “goes” attitude. However, if one happens to be less than polite with a deviant then this makes the person an outcast. There is evidently some sort of ulterior agenda going on here… and it ain’t about defending the Deen.
Lastly, Abu Usamah, i know this issue not because i sat around and read a few books on `Aqidah. I know it because i have spent hundreds of hours sitting with my teachers learning this subject. And by the Mercy of Allah, i’ve spent hundreds of hours teaching this subject and speaking out against deviant beliefs/groups. Ordering al-ma`ruf and forbidding al-munkar is not a minor matter in the Deen. To the contrary. Sadly because so many Muslims did not learn their Deen well, and did not stand up and speak out against misguided factions, you have all sorts of deviants (and even radicals) among the Muslims, and that is why the Ummah is in the mess that it is currently in.
With Allah is the success.
Abu Yunus,
You cannot divorce sociology from theology. One’s behavior is largely based upon what one believes. When we look at the various black-gangster pseudo-Muslims terrorizing folks in the mosques, prisons, and the streets, we find that almost without exception (admittedly, there are a few exceptions) that they are fans of Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab and victims of Saudi propaganda. They are the literalists-corporealists-anthropomorphists. They have a proclivity for anti-social/violent behavior, and that is consistent with the Arab Wahhabis themselves from their inception back in Najd in the 1700’s. In summary, there is something about the WAHHABI CREED itself that encourages this brutal extremist behavior. Root out that creed, and one will go a long way in eliminating the deviant behavior.
Regarding the Ash`ari/Maturidi issue, again, you guys have to construct a fantasy world of historical revisionism. The Hanafis (whether of the Indian subcontinent, Central Asia, the Ottomans, and Muslims of Eastern Europe) have been Maturidis. The Malikis of North, West, Central Africa, and Sudan have been Ash`aris. The Shafi`is of Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria), Yemen, Egypt, East Africa, southern India, Indonesia and Maylaysia have been Ash`aris. The genuine Hanbalis EXPLICITLY rejected the corporeal/anthropomorphic doctrine of the quasi-hanbalis–the creed of the genuine Hanbalis is no different from that of the Ash`aris/Maturidis. So what you have is a handful of historical characters who think that the Creator of the Universe is a giant smiling faced entity that sits on top of the `Arsh with fingers, eyes, a tibia, and a relatively tiny pair of feet on the Kursiyy. This slander against Allah has been refuted time and time again by the Ash`aris/Maturidis, and this is why the corporealists hate the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah with such passion.
With Allah is the success.
swarthmoor.wordpress.com
Salaam alaikum Abu Usamah,
Here’s a quote that might be beneficial:
Note:
As a Muslim, I do not believe that Jesus is Divine. But I do hope it sheds light on the tone of the conversation and the futility of arguing with brothers like Swarthmore and Daud.
“Oddly, enough the same crimes typical uneducated Blacks commit.”
Why can’t we say “that’s typical of Muslims” but you can say that? Did I mention I just love the charming word “kufr”? I also love when Muslims talk about all the calamities happening to innocent Muslims but when it comes to 200,000 Christians/animists being killed in Sudan, well not so much. Apparently it never occurs to most Muslims to simply use the phrase “innocent people”. I wonder why that is?
This is why so many non-Muslims get offended by Muslims, their whole way of being, their manner of speech and interaction with others. It’s so insulting. Even here the supposedly moderate Muslims are always talking down to non-Muslims and we’re looking back at them thinking “I do not understand what they’re so proud of themselves for”.
I really don’t care what others believe but when I see every place that Muslims begin to gather in numbers being turned into a s***hole, and everyone having to be pushed aside and intimidated to accommodate what I personally consider to be an inferior belief system (yes, I read the Quran when someone I knew was aggressively trying to get me to convert) and inferior lifestyle, it concerns me.
Here’s another thing: why do Muslims say that other Muslims shouldn’t do certain things because it reflects poorly on Islam? How about, they shouldn’t do certain things because they’re crappy things to do to other people? I get this concept, but I’m the so-called kufr.
Azizah,
There is nothing futile here. I am very willing to reason. If i say something incorrect, i am quick to fix it. The question is: How did the Sunnis preserve and transmit their belief? Who were those people? And ABOVEALL what was that belief? It seems that most of the people here do not know the answer to these questions–or even care to know. As for the Wahhabi doctrine, it was innovated 250 (well, 275 years ago) years ago. No one disputes that. The Wahhabis, by their own admission, pray to a (imaginary) giant smiling faced entity with various limbs organs and appendages, that lives above our heads. This is NOT the Creed of the Sunnis. Afterall, Abu Ja`far At-Tahawi, the Salaf, in his `Aqidah said:
“Allah is supremely glorified from all boundaries, extremities, sides, ORGANS, APPENDAGES, and devices. NONE of the six directions contain Allah, as is the case with all the created things.”
What i have said is consistent with the Qur’an and Sunnah, the Ijma` of the Muslims, and the reality of history. You can INVESTIGATE IT if you have any doubt: the Muslim scholars time and time again REFUTED the corporealists/anthropomorphists. The Ash`aris/Maturidis are the ones who preserved and defended Sunni Islam. Making these clear and unambiguous statements about the most fundamental matter of the Religion, namely, the Creed, is not a sign of “insanity.” It is a means of DEFENDING the Religion from further factionalism and the confusion that is in the minds of so many people calling themselves “Muslim.”
With Allah is the success.
@ Swathmoor
You are misguided.
Al Waleed ibn Muslim (d. 194H rahimahullaah):
I asked Maalik, Al Awzaa’ee, Layth ibn Sa’d, and Ath Thawree, rahimahumullaah, concerining the reports related to the Attributes of Allaah; so they all said, “Leave them as they are without asking, How?”.
Imam Adh Dhahabi (d. 748 H rahimahullaah)said in Al Uluww #217:
“And in this is a clear proof from the Salaf that whatever Allaah has affirmed for Himself and what His Messenger (salallaahu alayhi wa salam) has affirmed for Him, then there is no tashbeeh (resembling the creation) in it whatsoever. And in this is an exposition and an uncovering of Ahlul Bid’ah amongst the Jahmiyyah, the Muatazilah, the Ash’aariyyah, and the Maturidiyyah and others like them who accuse those upon the Aqeedah of the Salaf, that they are those who liken Allaah to the Creation (Mushabbihah) and Anthropomorphist (Mujassimah). Rather, it is they who are the Mushabbihah and Mujassimah due to the disease in their hearts. It is not possible for them to affirm the Attrbutes of Allaah without their hearts resembling them to the creation and this is why ta’weel (interpolation) is one of their hallmarks, their claim being, “We are declaring Allaah free from defects, but in fact they are strippoing Allaah of His attributes…
Imam Al Juwaynee (d. 438 H, rahimahullaah) was a Shafi’ee faqeeh and initially follows the asha’ri madhab in Aqeedah. However he retracted from this and returned to the madhab of the Salaf as is attested in the book “Risaalah Ithbaatul-Istawaa wal-Fawqiyyah”. He said
“Know that I used to be confused about Allaah’s Attributes, Allaah being Above His creation, and the Qur’an being the Speech of Allaah…”
Then I found the books of the later scholars, from the mutakallimoon (people of theological rhetoric and innovated speech) their making ta’weel of Al Istawaa by saying that it meant qahr or Allaah dominated and isteelaa (Allaah conqured the throne); ta’weel of Allaah’s attribute an Nuzool by saying that it meant His command descends; ta’weel of the the attribute of Al Yadain (the Hands of Allaah) to mean His Power or His Favor; and ta’weel…and the likes of this. Along with this, I found that they clamed the at the Speech of Allaah, the Most High, meant a speech existent in His Self with word, but not with Voice. They claimed that these words are a mode of expression from the meaning existing with Himself? FROM THOSE WHO HOLD TO THESE SAYINGS WERE A GROUP OF PEOPLE, WHO HAD HIGH STATUS IN MY HEART, SUCH AS A GROUP OF ASH’ARI SHAFI’EE SCHOLARS—AND I AM UPON THE MADHAB OF ASHAFI’EE…”
Ya Swathmoor, this is where the genesis of your misguidance comes from. It begins with the Jahmiyyah, and know that Ahmad ibn Hanbal made takfir of the jahmiyyah; then the deviate Mu’tazilah, and then a group of misguided ash’ariyyah from the Shafi’ee madhab.
@ Swarthmoof
Shaykh Uthaymeen on the biography of Abul Hasan Al Ash’ari that is known to Ahlul Sunnah:
Abul Hasal Al Asha’ri and others were from the early Imaams of the Muslims who did not claim to be perfect. They did not become Imaams in the Religion until after they realized their own places and kept to them. They had such great honor in their hearts for the Book and the Sunnah, so much so that they deserved to be called Imaams.
32:24 And We made from among them (Children of Israel), leaders, giving guidance under Our Command, when they were patient and used to believe with certainty in Our Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.).
However, later generations that claim to follow him do not actually follow him in a way that is proper, Abul Hasan Al Asha’ri went through three stages of beliefs:
The first stage was the stage ofi’tizaal, when he had embraced the madhab of the Mu’tazilah and remained upon it for forty years, affirming it and debating on behalf of it. He later left this madhab and openly exposed the misguidance of the Mu’tazilah and wrote many refutations against them.
The second stage was when he was between i’tizaal and the Sunnah. During this stage, he followed the way of Abu Muhammad Abdullaah ibn Sa’eed ibn Kallab
Shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymiyyah said, “Al Asha’ri and those like him were in between the ways of the Salaf and the Jahmiyyah; the took some correct things from Ahlus Sunnah and they took some intellectual principles from the Jahmiyyah thinking them to be correct, but they were corrupt.”
The third stage was when he embraced the madhab of Ahlus Sunnah wa Hadith, following Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal as he explained in his own book Al-Ibaanah and Usoolid Diyaanah. This was one of the last books he wrote.
Those from the later generations that ascribe his name, calling themselves Asha’ris, only take from the second stage of his Aqeedah when he was between Ahlus Sunnah and the Jahmiyyah. They explained away almost all of the attributes (Note from Daud: these attributes are Ayaat or authentic hadiths that the Asha’ris want you to reject), only affirming the seven mentioned in a line of poetry
Living, Knowing, Capable, Speech,
A Will, He Has, Hearing and Seeing
With this they still have differences between themselves, and other differences between themselves and Ahlus Sunnah about their way of affirming the Attributes that they affirm.
And after referring to the Asha’ri and what is said about them, Shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymiyyah said, “and when they say Asha’ri, they mean those who negate the Attributes that have been affirmed in the Texts. As for Abul Hasan Al Ash’ari himself, the author of the book Al Ibaanah that he wrote in the last years of his life, and nothing came from him after that to contradict what is in this book, then he is to be considered from Ahlus Sunnah”.
Shaykh Uthaymeen continues, “as for Ashaariyyah, then it is the opposite of what they are upon…”
@ Swathmoor
Shaykh Uthaymeen (rahimahullaah) explains
1. So you mention that “many of the scholars were asha’ri, or that you mention Imam Nawawi and ibn Hajar (rahimahumullaah):
The truth is not to be judged by the people, rather the people are to be judged according to the truth.
This the correct way to measure things, even if the status and position of some people will cause their statements to be accepted easier. This is similar to how we accept the reports of a reliable person and we withhold from accepting and openly disobedient persons reports. However, this is not the rule for each and every affair. As a man is only a human being. He can not have complete knowledge nor can he have a firm understanding of all things. Even though he may be a religious man or a person of good character, his lack of knowledge or proper understanding may lead him away from the correct position upon some issues, based on the amount of information he is missing or the weakness of his understanding. Or he may have been raised in a place where a certain way or madhab is wide-spread, thus he is not able to know about other than it and believes that the correct position is his. (I say this is the case of Nawawi, ibn Hajar etc.
2. If we compared the scholars of the Asha’ri with the scholars who followed the way of the Salaf, then we would find those who are more outstanding, greater, more rightly guided, and more upstanding than those who took the way of the Asha’ri. The imams of the four madhabs, for example were not upon the way of the Asha’ris.
Then, if you were to go back to the those who came before the imams, the Tabi’oon (rahimahumullaah), you would find them upon the way of the Asha’ris either.
Then, if you went beyond that, to the time of the Companions and the four rightly guided khalifahs (radiyyallaahu anhum) you would not find even a hint of what the Asha’ris are saying about the names of Allaah, The Exalted, and His Attributes nor will you find any of their other ideas that have caused them to stray from the way of the Salaf.
We can not dispute the fact that some of the scholars who ascribe to the way of the Asha’ris put forth truthful work for Islaam, and defended the Religion, aiding the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (salallaahu alayhi wa salam) by their work with the narrations and their contributions to the different sciences of Islaam; being persistent in bringing benefit to the Muslims and guiding them. However, this does not mean they were protected from error or that we must accept their every statement, nor does it prevent us from exposing their mistakes and refuting them, since this is clarifying the truth for the people and guiding them.
Nor can we dispute that some of them had good intentions in the positions they took, and that the truth was not clear to them in those affairs. However, this is not a reason for us to accept their wrong statements, simply because they had good intentions in what they said. Rather, their statements must correspond with Allaah’s Legislation. If they do not, then we are obliged to reject their statements no matter who they were do to the statement of the Prophet (salallaahu alayhi wa salam),
“Whoever does something that is not in accordance with our affair, then it is rejected”
Furthermore, if he was well-known for is sincerity and truthfulness in seeking after the truth, then we make an excuse for him regarding this mistake of his. Otherwise, he is to be treated according to his bad intentions and according to his actions and statements that contradict the Religion.
@ Everyone
Swathmoor, Abu Usamah and many others committed a great evil by falsely trying to link the evil actions of irreligious niggas to the Aqeedah of the Salaf. I’m not even going to argue with you. If you are sincere in your Deen, and you want to seek the truth, then listen to these Youtube videos of a lecture given in Camden, N.J.; last week in response to the “The Radicals Among Us” Article…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WpQ6zTIPQA&feature=related
Y’all really need to make Tawbah!!!
I forgot to give the title of the lecture:
“Islam’s Condemnation of Crime and Murder in Society”. Listen to it because there is much benefit in it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brother the lecturer was Abul Hasan Maalik??? Come on brother!
@ Mustafa
So you mean to tell me that you are going to reject the proofs and evidence that he brings because you don’t like him? Hudhayfa learned Ayaatul Kursi from Shaytaan, took that information to the Messenger (salallaahu alayhi wa salam), who verified it as being the truth. Where is your stand from Islaam?
Well….the lecturer “Abu hasan malik has a disgusting track record for hanging out with criminals past and present and is also know for nastiness with muslim women and has recently confirmed his return to nastiness by working at “trenton state college” with women ……the crime he was fired from the germantown masjid………narrators must have ADAALAAA(being upright)………Unlizzted2009 abu hasan malik is a disgrace to the blessed dawahtus salafeeyah
unlissted took the words right out of my mouth. Daud you need to choose someone who is at least HONEST and has some credibility. The man has openly admitted to many that he has a “problem with the bints”
My da’wah ain’t to him, It’s to the proofs he brought from the Shar’eeah that refutes the crap people are saying on this board trying to link crime to Salafiyyah. Allaah said “if a fasiq comes to you with some information, then you verify it.” Therefore, just listen to it and take the proofs.
Besides, Maalik is the only one who responded to the article.
@Daud
stop lying on me I never attached the ‘aqidah of the Black Saudi Salafi’s to crime. I haven’t attacked the Saudi Salafi at all neither have I attacked the Wahhabis. What I have attacked is the innovated practice of neglecting character reform in Islam. I’ve also attacked fake phony cowards who hide behind screen names (as if they were a sister behind a veil) and disrespect others.
It is the lack of character that produces a punk who would wear niqab like modest sister and go rob a bank not to mention wearing niqab so that they can go in the sisters area!!!!! that straight punk ***, sisters wore niqab for decades in the Dar and this never happened. And the reason it is happening now is that the bida over looking the akhlaq and adab of Prophet (saws) for the sake of ‘aqidah is being promoted, me out of the fake debate
@ Daud
The very fact that you even promote a creep like Abu Hasan Malik speaks volumes. I thought that “muwazinah” was a Bidah brother?? Either the brother is THIQAH or he is not. And for you a creep like that is apparently thiqah. Here is a person who is the symbol of this problem and YOU are telling us to listen to him?????????
Daud,
Please do not confuse issues. I showed you that the Wahhabis LIE. They INTENTIONALLY alter the phrase “Bi-laa kayf” (Without a how) and say: “Without ASKING how.” This is CLEAR DISTORTION and TAHREEF–the very thing you accuse the Sunnis of. Allah has NO HOW (kayfiyyah) to ask about, for Allah is not like the creations… AT ALL.
If a person believes that Allah, the Creator of space and direction, exists in space and direction, this in itself entails likening Allah to the creations. As Imaam Ali said:
“Allah was and place was not, and Allah is as He was.” (Abu Mansur Al-Baghdadi)
You and i have a volume. We take up space–we cannot exists without it. The thing that is ascribed with volume cannot exist independent of the space it occupies. Allah is Al-Ghaniyy; Allah is not dependent upon ANY of the creations–including space or direction. Furthermore, the Prophet said himself:
“Allah was and there was nothing else.” (Bukhari, et. al.)
Allah was before space, place, time, distance, direction, light or darkness. Allah did not transform and materialize into a place after bringing the universe into being. Allah is NOT LIKE ANYTHING AT ALL!!! That is COMMON SENSE. The Creator is ETERNAL and does not undergo change or development.
OF NUZOOL
The literal meaning of Nuzool means: “To descend.” That means to go from a higher location to a LOWER location. One can’t claim Allah is the “Most High” in a directional sense and then claim that Allah is inside the First Heaven (consequently, far below Paradise and the `Arsh). Words/statements have meanings. If those words/statements (if taken at “face” value) contradict themselves, then we understand them in a non-literal fashion–again, that is common sense.
OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF ALLAH
A few years back a Brother (who at the time was under the Wahhabi influence) sat in a couple of sessions and then went back to the Wahhabis. After they found out he was learning the Creed of Ahlus-Sunnah, the Wahhabis went into a tirade saying that we deny the Attributes of Allah. He then thought about it–and realized what a BOLD FACED lie that is… so he left them altogether. I have other similar stories.
Daud, when you debate–and are sincere–you try to understand your oponents positions better than he does (and one does not lie on his opponent in an effort to realize the Truth). We say that Allah has INNUMERABLE ATTRIBUTES, such as, Mercy, Forgiveness, Creating Life, Creating Death, Resurrecting the Dead, Granting Guidance, Granting Misguidance, Raising the Status of the Slaves, and Degrading the Status of the Slaves, etc.
We also say that there are some Attributes of Allah that must necessarily be known (so as not to deny them), such as, Existence, Oneness, Eternality, Everlastingness, Power, Will, Life, Absolute Uniqueness, Absolute Freedom-from-Need, etc. We mention those attributes in particular, because ALLAH IS NOT ASCRIBED WITH THEIR OPPOSITES. And the one who denied any of those Attributes would be a kaafir–even if he recently said the Shahadah (for he would not have the correct belief in Allah). We do not say that Allah is limited to “Seven” Attributes (what i am familiar with is 13 or 20–although i have seen some mention seven as a part of the categorization of those Attributes). Again, we say, Allah has INNUMERABLE ATTRIBUTES. And we do not deny any of the Attributes of Allah that are confirmed to Him–however, we deny the literal-corporeal interpretation/distortion of the Resemblers and Corporealists.
OF UTHAIMEEN
On page 11 of the book of Uthaimeen (wrongly) entitled: “The Muslim’s Belief,” it says:
“‘Then He [allegedly Allah] settled Himself on the Throne; He mangaes everything’ His ’settling on the Throne’ means that He [allegedly Allah] is SITTING IN PERSON on His Throne.”
Yes, and some of the Wahhabis say that Allah is “Jaalisun bidhatihi” (literally, “sitting in person”) on the Ceiling of Paradise. Furthermore (on page 13) the book says that Allah has a “face” and a pair of eyes. And he says that the earth will be Allah’s HANDFUL. If the earth can (literally) fill Allah’s alleged “hand,” then Allah’s alleged “hand” most be relatively small, for the earth is like a drop in the sea in comparison to the size of the Arsh.
The one who believes that Allah literally “sits in person” or has His (alleged) hands “literally full.” Or believes that Allah will put His (alleged) literal foot in Hell IS BELIEVING IN ANTHROPOMOPHISM–even if he doesn’t realize it!!! When a person says that Allah has literal eyes, fingers, shin, face, etc., he is praying to a body that in composed of organs, limbs and appendages. Afterall, the words “eye, finger, shin, face”–IN THE LITERAL SENSE, in the English language, cannot refer to other than anthropomorphic qualities. Either a person understands these “attributes” in a literal anthropomorphic sense, which is kufr, or he USES COMMON SENSE, and realizes that the people translating these words into English are MAKING HORRENDOUS ERRORS!
Furthermore, At-Tahawi, whose Creed is universally rcognized by the Sunnis (and even the Wahhabis have translated it) said EXPLICITLY:
“Allah is supremely glorified from all boundaries, extremities, sides, ORGANS, APPENDAGES, and devices. NONE of the six directions contain Allah as is the case of all created things.”
Daud, i have taken the time out to show you the CONTRADICTIONS in the Wahhabi positions (such as, claiming that EVERYTHING will be annihilated except Allah’s alleged “face”–which would mean that Allah’s alleged feet, fingers, and shin would be annihilated). I’ve taken time out to show you the lies of the Wahhabis–such as, their distortion of the phrase “Bilaa kayf.” I’ve given you statements from the Salaf that show they did not believe Allah is a giant smiling faced entity with a tibia and fingers that lives above our heads. I ask you to reflect upon what was said with an open mind and a sincere heart devoted to knowing the truth.
In summary, the argument is easy to understand. First of all, Allah revealed:
“Laysa kamithlihi shay’” (”There is absolutely nothing like Allah whatsoever.”)
That means Allah REALLY does not resemble the creations. That means Allah is not a body. Allah does not occupy space. Afterall, we are bodies, and we occupy space, and Allah is not AT ALL similar to us. Allah was before space. Allah is the CREATOR OF SPACE. Allah does not need (or resemble) anything that exists within space, for Allah does not need or resemble the creations IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.
Secondly, any Verse or Hadith that some might misconstrue and attribute to Allah corporeal (bodily) qualities, we do not take them literally. Again, that’s easy to understand. Consequently, we do not literally believe that Allah is inside our throats, or inside the Ka`bah–or between the person and the Ka`bah, or literally everywhere, or under our faces when we make sujood, or that Allah is a giant illumination that fills up the Heavens and earth–nor do the wahhabis, for that matter. The Wahhabis, like the Sunnis, make ta’weel (non-literal interpretation) and rightfully so.
Similarly, when some anthropomophists started to insist that Allah is literally above our heads inside the First Heaven or above the `Arsh, the Sunnis demonstrated that these Verses and Hadiths were being MISCONSTRUED by the corporealsits/Mushabbihah (those who resemble Allah to the creations). The Sunnis demonstrated that to take such Verses and Hadiths literally would lead to a morass of contradictions with other Verses and Hadiths.
Also, the Sunnis demonstrated that the claims of the corporealists were not LINGUISTICALLY sound. The words “yad,” “wajh,” “`ayn,” etc. HAVE MANY MEANINGS. And such words–when used in reference to Allah–must not contradict the basic premise: ALLAH DOES NOT NEED OR RESEMBLE ANYTHING, and they must be interpretted in such a way that does not contradict other Qur’anic Verses and reliable Hadiths. Only an unreasonable person is going to insist that Allah literally (and literally–means literal-primary meaning of the word in the given language) has feet, a shin, and fingers. Afterall, a person cannot say that Allah has a “literal shin”, and then say that Allah’s (alleged) literal shin is not a bone in the lower leg. Either one is speaking about a bone in the lower leg (which is kufr)–or he is not. If he’s not talking about a bone in the lower leg, then he has denied Allah has a “shin.” Your Lord is REALLY not like the creations–Allah is not a body, is not of space, place, direction, time, or change. Allah alone deserves to be worshipped.
…Back on topic…
It is ironic that the Wahhabis would condemn criminal actions, when WAHHABISM SPREAD BY THE RAPE and SLAUGHTER OF THE MUSLIMS in Arabia. This is the historical disconnect i was talking about. The Wahhabis like to talk about the “Salaf”–but then ignore the 800 years of history between the end of the Salaf era and the start of Wahhabism (with the exception of their adulation of Ibn Taymiyyah).
Wahhabism began in the 1700’s with the marriage of Muhammad ibn `Adbul-Wahhab and the Saudi family. The early Wahhabis made takfeer on the Ummah at large, and consequently, they went about waging war on the Muslims. One can google: Fitnatul-Wahhabiyya or Wahhabism + Madina and see what is documented about Wahhabis and their slaughter of Muslims at Madina and Ta’if.
Somehow, the guy from Camden forgot to mention the HISTORICAL ORIGINS of Wahhabism. The reality is that Wahhabism–from its very inception–has been a movement of robbery, murder, and terror. Most of that violence throughout its history has been directed not at the kuffaar, but at Muslims in general. Then, the Wahhabis, in more recent times invite the kaafir armies into the LAND OF THE PROPHET to slaughter the Muslims in Iraq/Kuwait. It’s the Wahhabis today, who still, in essence, fuel with petrol the Western military industrial complex that is busy occupying Muslim lands and killing its people. This is who the Wahhabis are. May Allah protect us.
While the ashaareeyah are well known for their open sins like shaved beards , the worst of the imitation of the kufaar in dress and mannerisms,openly indulging in music,intermingling with women and openly worshiping graves…You dont have the books of binbaz… swaatmoore…so you dont know the ijjteehad that was made from him for inviting the kufaar…..I see your manhaj also is in line with the takfeerees/khawarij(the ones who did 9-11)…..why is soofism and ashaareeyah connected???????UNLIZZTED2009
Unlisted,
ON BEARDS and INVITING THE ARMIES OF THE KUFAAR INTO THE LAND OF THE PROPHET
The Muslims do not consider Ibn Baaz to be a Mujtahid. Ash-Shafi`i was a Mujtahid. Ash-Shafi`i said that shaving the beard is makruh (disliked) and not sinful. Now inviting the kuffaar–especially, an overpowering force of them–into “your” country (the land of the Prophet) to build military bases (and churches) to slaughter HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Muslims is not ijtihaad. It could be called treason, however.
ON MUSIC
I learned that music is haraam–as the Prophet forbade it. The exception is the duff/drums.
ON INTERMINGLING
Ironically, you bring that up. I remember when Margaret Thatcher visited Saudi back in the day, and the Wahhabi leaders were shaking hands with her (without gloves). You can peep this–this is only one example:
http://pro.corbis.com/images/HU031712.jpg?size=67&uid=%7BCD63BADB-DE53-43D5-B153-8A99A116BE95%7D
(If the thread doesn’t work just type Margaret Thatcher + Saudi in google images)
Oh, and here is Condie Rice getting some skin from her Wahhabi underling:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/094k7bZ9ka3pS/610x.jpg
ON WORSHIPPING GRAVES
Anyone who worships a body is not a Muslim–whether the person deems that body to be on earth or in the Heavens (or between his two ears).
ON MAKING TAKFEER
“Takfeeris” make takfeer promiscuously. Some say one is a kaafir for even voting. Muslims, however, make takfeer on explicit kufr, and we say as At-Tahawi said: “A Muslim does not blaspheme for commiting a sin UNLESS he deems the sin halaal.” Consequently, someone who claims Allah is like the creations, or denies the Attributes of Allah that one is obligated to know (such as, Knowledge, Will, Life, Power, Transcendence (of need), Uniqueness, etc), or belies what is necessarily known to be part of the Religion is not a Muslim. No Muslim doubts the one who holds the beliefs of Farrakhan is a kaafir.
ON ASH`ARIS/SUFIS
I’d advise you to take some time out and try to understand Islamic history and who is who. Islamic history is far more vast and rich than what the Saudis have selectively fed people over the years. There is more to history than Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab, the Saudi state, Ibn Taymiyyah, and the fabricated quotes the Wahhabis ascribe to the Salaf.
With Allah is the success.
Bring the statement of Imam Shafi’ee on the beard is makruh…..and let you study more before you speak understand in his book al-umm……. it is haraam …. and other shaf’iee agree with him…… and if you saw anything relating to the beard of makruh(tahreem) with the salaf …”Makhruh” meant haram…..Fa- alayka daleel…..swarthmoor…….Openly Criticising the ruler is prohibited from many hadeeth and it is only done by the khawarij……..refute Shaykh Bin Bazz in his majmuua fatawa not some newsclips you read bring text sonny……..UNLIZZTED2009
OF THE BEARD
I gave you what i learned. What i said is WELL KNOWN about the Shafi`iyy school, but i’ll give you some more daleel in the future. For the time being, you can look on-line and see what is said regarding the Shafiiy school and the beard.
OF CRITICISZING THE RULER
“Until when will you cease exposing the deviant person. Mention what is in him so the people will be warned.” (Hadeeth of the Prophet)
I guess you don’t have much to say about the Wahhabi leaders hanging out with women and given them skin. You’re trying to defend the indefensible. The Saudi rulers are deviant–even by Wahhabi standards! The wahhabi rulers OPENLY commit sins. Letting people know that their behavior does not conform with the Deen is not sinful (besides, the matters of their kufri creed). Again, it is ironic that you would be making an issue on this point given that the Sunnis called the Wahhabis the “Khawarij of the Era,” and that is the Wahhabis who openly rebelled against the Ottoman state in the early 1800’s, sieged Mecca, and slaughtered the Muslims of Ta’if and Madinah. So much for the fantasy of “peaceful Wahhabism.”
The prophet said:If any of you wants to advise the ruler then let him NOT do it in public…..(sahih bukhari) this is explicit and specific…..not like a general texT you brang.. and no collector of the hadeeth…..Swarthmoor you need to really study and stop busying yourself on your blog and this one!!!!! I’ve quoted from “Al Umm” which was actually one of the first fiqh books …which was authored from “Imam Shaf’iee” and you say:I gave you what i learned. What i said is WELL KNOWN about the Shafi`iyy school, but i’ll give you some more daleel in the future. For the time being, you can look on-line and see what is said regarding the Shafiiy school and the beard……..So it’s obvious your ignorant and dont have knowledge and spoke without knowledge…Swarthmoor said:OF CRITICISZING THE RULER
“Until when will you cease exposing the deviant person. Mention what is in him so the people will be warned.” (Hadeeth of the Prophet)……name the collector of the hadeth and then what the people of knowledge say about it……….There is ijmaa’aa from clear texts that criticizing the ruler is impermissible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ….Unlizzted2009..Incorporate this into the your manhaj..”ilm qablu qawl wa aml(knowledge before actions) it is a chapter in Imam-bukhari sahih and also an important principle too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unlisted,
The Saudi-Wahhabi gangster regime does not constitute a Caliphate and does not rule me–or the Muslims at large. Furthermore, the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) did not make it haraam to criticize Mushabbihah who masquerade as Muslims (that’s not to say that all Saudis are corporealists, but that is what is promoted by the corrupt regime).
Mentioning the Wahhabi open deviation–and mentioning the kufr promoted by the Saudis/Wahhabi crime family is not contrary to the teachings of the Prophet, and this is why the Sunni scholars have been speaking out against the Wahhabi/Saudi regime for more than 200 years. Muslims/non-Muslims need to know that Wahhabism does not represent Islam. This is part of ordering the good and forbidding the evil.
Again, i find it ironic that you would even want to talk about “respecting the rulers” when Wahhabism is based upon the slander and takfeer of the Muslims at large–and open REBELLION against the Muslim rulers. I guess after the Wahhabis managed to gain power, they don’t want anyone to criticize them–and they don’t have to be worried about being criticized… at least not by their blind followers.
The Hadith i mentioned is related by Al-Bayhaqi. I didn’t have the narrator of the Hadith in the front of my mind, so i didn’t say. That is, afterall, the safe route: in that regard, your advice is sound. One should not speak without knowledge.
You will agree with me, it is WELL KNOWN that shaving the beard is not forbidden in the Shafi`iyy school. I said what i learned. I did not invent the position, and that is why i said you can look on-line. As far as getting the details on the different ijtihaads of Ash-Shafi`iyy, as i said, i would get more information, in-sha’ Allah.
With Allah is the success.
Brothers,
instead of constantly putting brothers down why don’t you all do something for reverts to ease into Islam. I mean get real almost everything on this blog is negative and furthers self hate and after tonight Insha’Allah I will never be back.
We are Muslims’ and we must want for our brothers’ what we want for ourself. If you see a promblem do your best to fix it and clean our own house before we point out the dirt in another. Then we wonder why the ummah is so divided and the Christian ppl are strong. It burdens my heart to read some of the haraam on this blog but we call ourselves Muslim Don’t forget Allah(swt) doesn’t change the condtion of a ppl until they change themselves! Let us all including me focus on that instead of all this foolishness. Tariq forgive me if I am wrong but it seems you are focusing on all the negative with no solutions? Let us all follow the Qu’ran and the Sunnah.
It’s so sad that Philly is full of all these as-salaama-fake-ums, lil rough teenage girls in Kemars fighting, drug dealers with postration marks on their foreheads. I am so ashamed of what islam has become in Philadelphia!