Sidi Abu Adam subtitles this work with: “A refutation of Anthropomorphist Missionary Yaser Qadi’s “The Theo-logical Implications of the Story of Ibrahim & the Stars (Ibn Taymiyyah vs. the Mutakallimun).” (download by clicking)
The article’s intent, as it seems to me, is to prove that the Imams of Islam were Mutakallimin. His argument stems from a brief excerpt that he translates taken from Shaykh Abdul-Qahir Al-Baghdadi’s Usulud-Din. The fact isy, anyone who picks up a book titled “Tabaqat” will find that the Imam’s of Islam utilized Kalam to defeat the opponents of the Sunnah.
Sidi Abu Adam also responds to the pseudo-salafi Yasir Qadhi, and explains Yasirs’ simpleton misunderstandings of kalam and creed. The fact is, Abu Adam has done this more times than I can recall in one sitting, and at each time Yasir Qadhi and crew delete his comments without a legitimate response or simply refuse to allow the comment through. This issue is really about Yasir Qadhi, in that he is ignorant of the nomenclature as well as intent of the Mutakallimun. Why is he ignorant of these things on may ask, considering he is a graduate of Medinah University? It is because he has not studied the science of ‘Aqidah beneath one of the Imams of the Maturidi or Asha’ri way. Instead, he takes second hand knowledge through pseudo-salafi commented-upon works as well as ignorant individuals who attempt to understand a deep science without going to its doctors. The effect of all of this is ignorant youth at Maghrib institute who take Yasir’s pathetic course on creed, yet are unable to legitimize their creed from any of the Imams of the past, nor are they even able to stand toe to toe with a child who has studied basic Asha’ri doctrine. General these followers of Yasir Qadhi make blatant tabdi‘ of the Sunnis, while having little knowledge of what they say. They are parrots, taught that taqlid in ‘aqidah is legitimate, and so to them they can make taqlid of say Ibn Taymiyyah, yet in a more minor field – that of Fiqh, which necessitates proper creed to even validate one’s actions – they claim to be mujtahideen and that they follow the “hadith“, a science they know nothing about and a science their master Al-Albani blundered in more times than has been written about.
The article of Sidi Abu Adam explains basic Kalami premises. However, it is not indepth, and at times I think he could have gone into the science with more references. It is a good read though and I recommend you take a look!
As-Salaamu ‘Alaykum to all,
I would like to share something with all of you just to show you how the Pseudo-Salafis disrespect the great scholars of this ummah and in how they try to cover up our tradition. Al-Manhaj.com or the The Salafi Society of North America translated one of Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbalee’s (rahimahullaah) works titled Kashf-ul-Kurbah fee wasfi Haali Ahlil-Ghurbah (Alleviating Grievances in Describing the Condition of the Strangers) which is a book that describes the Strangers (al Ghurabaa) whom will appear during the last days. In the introduction the Pseudo-Salafi translator Isma’eel Alarcon praises the Imaam and even considers Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbalee’s (rahimahullaah) as being on the “Salafee Methodology”. Then he condemns the Imaam for having “Sufi ideas” which in his own words “were prevalent during his time”…. subhanallaah! In an ironic way the Salafis show us how tasawwuf was indeed fully ingrained in the Islamic tradition! LOL… WOW… you can never cover haqq! Haqq will always manifest no matter how much people try to cover up the truth!
Whats even more astonishing is that they refused to translate the end of the book because the Imaam basically talks about “inward strangeness” in how the inner spiritual states of the Sufis make them from amongst the Ghurabaa! It is if the Pseudo-Salafis are trying to cover up or censor that fact in order to hijack or steal the tile of al-Ghurabaa for themselves lol… caught red-handed! How sad and pathetic of an attempt. We don’t even have to refute the Pseudo-Salafis because they do a pretty good job in refuting themselves! They even left a note at the end of the book and this what they had to say:
[This is where we will end the translation of the treatise. As stated in the introduction, the Imam
goes into discussion of themes founded upon Sufi concepts which have no basis in Islaam and
which have little benefit, so All praise is due to Allaah through whose Grace all good deeds are
completed.]
WOW… what a perfect example of Pseudo-Salafi censorship! Anyhow here are some excerpts taken from the introduction [ for those interested you can download the entire e-book from the al ghurabaa website - alghurabaa.org in the hadith section]:
INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK
All praise is for Allaah and may the peace and blessings of Allaah be on His Final Messenger, his family
and those who follow him in goodness until the Day of Recompense. To Proceed.
This book is a translation of a short treatise entitled Kashf-ul-Kurbah fee wasfi Haali Ahlil-Ghurbah, or
Alleviating Grievances in Describing the Condition of the Strangers, written by the great Imaam, Al-
Haafidh Zayn-ud-Deen Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbalee, rahimahullaah.
In this treatise, Ibn Rajab deals with the topic of the Strangers, or Al-Ghurabaa…
And towards the end of his
treatise, he begins to divert from the topic by going deep into the issue of inner strangeness, sometimes
focusing on aspects that have no basis in Islaam, such as talk about the ‘Aarif, wajd, khulwah, etc. These
were Sufi ideas that were prevalent during his time…
Shaikh Saleem Al-Hilaalee said: “Ibn
Rajab (rahimahullaah) treaded the Manhaj of the Salaf with regard to the issues of Eemaan and
acquiring knowledge. And he supported it and defended it from the false arguments of the opponents.
His books are loaded with that. And he wrote some treatises specifically on this topic such as his book
‘Bayaan Fadlu ‘Ilm-is-Salaf ‘alaal-Khalaf.’ However, there can be found traces of Sufism in his books,
may Allaah protect him from inclining towards it’s dangerous paths, due to what Allaah has given him
from vast knowledge of the Narrations and a clear Salafee Methodology.” [Iqaadh-ul-Himam: pg. 9]
They refuse to translate the works of Ibn Rajab but yet they try and tell us that the “Sufis” of old were not like the sufis of today! If they are not like the Sufis of today, as they claim, then why don’t they translate their works?
may Allah remove deviants like yasir qadhi from misguiding the youth of the nation of sayidina Muhammad sallahu aliye wasalam. these people are most disgusting human beings on the surface of the earth. They distort Allah’s Final revelation, are haughty and phobic towards the truth, and wish to corrupt people’s minds in knowing their Creator truely and properly, and thus have their entire lives based on foundations weaker than the house of spider, thus never having true tranquility and experiencing peace with the absence of the correct confirmation and conviction in Allah
wallahi “salafism” is one of the worst diseases to ever plague our Ummah. As soon as you take Tasawwuf (the science of Ihsan) out of Islam, there is no more Islam. They have made Islam an empty shell of nothingness, a’udo billah. I refuse to worship a far away “god” who lives in the sky, the “god” that wahhabism calls to doesn’t even exist. Glorified is Allah above the falsehood that people attribute to Him.
As-salamu alaykum,
JazakAllah khayran. And thus, one can give the likes of you, sidi Abul Layth, nothing but credit. I have read most of the articles on SI, and when you deal with the pseudo-salafis and the refutation of them and their positions, you let them through and they are able to comment, unlike Yasir Qadhi and his crew it seems.
When you know you have got the Haqq, why not let them in for a while? How can you deal with people and let the Muslims know the Haqq if you do not let them see the falsehood? Though, we know that, even if Yasir Qadhi did let the likes of shaykh Abu Adam comment, the former would not be refuting falsehood, since Abu Adam does not have any in his creedal positions. Still, I hope my point is clear.
My Allah Ta’ala reward all of you! Amin.
Salam
as salamu alaykum wa rahmatullah,
I am coming with a “Pseudo-Salafi” background; the reason why is because quite frankly that happened to be the first brand of Islam (if you will) that I was introduced to.
Recently (the past year) I have been studying and trying to take knowledge from different sources (such as this site, which I really do enjoy-jazakAllahu Khayr- and sites like Sunnipath). Despite initially learning Athari Aqidah I approached Ash’Ari and Maturidi Aqidah with an open mind and open heart.
I have come to appreciate and recognize the use of Kalam against the likes of the Mu’tizilites and its application in modern times.
My objectives are simple: purify my intention and try to take beneficial knowledge from where ever I can while being respectful and tolerant of the people of knowledge, regardless of their differences of opinions.
I recently saw a great video on many of the Muslim leaders in the West united for Malaria, including Hamza Yusuf, Yasir Qadhi, Faraz Rabbani, Zaid Shakir etc. I hope us Muslims in the West learn to respectfully disagree and think the best of those who hold different opinions. Their differences of opinions are based on knowledge they acquired. These differences of opinions are inevitable.
While it is well known that many of the “Pseudo-Salafi” youth are known for making crude attacks against those who oppose their methodology, I must say it is equally sad to find people here saying Yasir Qadhi is a “complete joke” and among the “most disgusting human beings on the surface of the earth”.
Is that really the proper etiquette? Someone makes a sacrifice to study the Deen, and because they hold a different opinion based on their academic schooling, they are labeled with such name-calling?
As they say “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
The Ummah will never get anywhere with such rhetoric. We can respectfully disagree, but if everyone keeps playing “tit-for-tat” and fighting over the Mutashabihaat and stooping to name calling, how can we complain when we see what is happening to our Muslims in the lands of Palestine in the likes.
ma’salam
Respectfully,
Amar
Assalamu Alaikum
Amar, you are right in saying that there is no benefit in name-calling to people such as Yasir Qadhi. However, if you have ever listened to Qadhi’s lectures, you would realize why there are such strong feelings about him.
He is extremely arrogant in his beliefs, and does not stop at any means to disprove his point. Even many of his faithful followers will accept that. As mentioned above, he posts articles online, and then if someone refutes his positions, he simply deletes what is not convenient, and what he cannot reply back to. He manipulates information. Once while taking an Al Maghrib class that I really regret wasting my money on, he asked the class what was the most famous Shafi’i muhaddith. Someone replied Imam Bukhari. His reply was, “Na’udhu billah. Na’udhu billah. Imam Bukhari a Shafi’i? May Allah protect us. Imam bukhari was an independent mujtahid.” This, even when many scholars consider Imam Bukhari to be a Shafi’i. One need not show such an extreme reaction to a difference in opinion. Of course, the Pseudo Salafi has a major problem when trying to explain why all the major muhaddithin were muqallids of a maddhab, when the Pseudo Salafi claim to follow only the hadith (hence the term Ahl-i-Hadith).
One can adopt a Salafi position towards Islam. That is the person’s decision to make (although undoubtedly the wrong decision). But when one starts manipulating information to prove a point, then there is a problem.
as salamu alaykum wa rahmatullah,
Akhi Kareem Hasan,
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Please don’t get me wrong, it is certainly inevitable for heated discussions to take place. We have a history rich of it as we know, from stances early in Islamic history as to whether Abu Bakr (ra) should fight those refusing to pay the Zakah to whether the Qur’an was created.
I just feel that if we can illustrate the main points we have against someone, without calling them names, it will make for better dialog.
You expressed quite succinctly some of the points you had with Sheikh Qadhi and you did so, masha’Allah, without insulting him. You merely stated the issues. I think that is better than name calling
Consider how one might feel if I approached some of the Sufi words written in Sheikh Nuh Keller’s Reliance and I spouted off insults towards him like many of the arrogant Pseudo-Salafi youth do, students of Sheikh Nuh would have no interest in ever speaking with me.
But we were commanded not to be divided, so each one of us has an obligation to act responsibly, for the pleasure of Allah and to clear ourselves. I know from experience that talking to many of the Pseudo-Salafi youth is like talking to a table, there is no way of compromise. But even if the whole Ummah has fallen victim of name calling it does not mean it is a proof that it is liked or even lawful.
Just a quick point concerning Imam Bukhari,GF Haddad mentions at http://www.livingislam.org/maimh_e.html
“Ibn al-Subki included al-Bukhari and Muslim among the Shafi`is while Ibn Abi Ya`la included them among the Hanbalis.
In truth, al-Bukhari was neither Shafi`i nor Hanbali but a Mujtahid Mutlaq with his own madhhab, which did not survive him as he was uninterested in other than his Sahih for a school, and the Sahih is truly a complex and concise fiqh manual.”
@ Amar
Mashallaah, your words are very beautiful, filled with wisdom and love, I really felt your words, baarakallaahu feek Sidi! May Allaah SWT in this blessed supreme month of Ramadaan guide us on the straight path, the path of the prophets and His Awliyaa, and protect us from baatil and evil. May Allaah SWT guide the Pseudo-Salafis and make manifest to them their errors, and bring them into the noor of the Ahl As-Sunnah, and if there are any amongst us whom have committed mistakes then I ask Allaah SWT to make manifest to us our errors and guide us to what is right and better, ameen.
JazakAllahu Khayr Abdullah and thank you brother!
Assalaamu Alaykum wa Ramadan Mubarak!
I hope this finds you all in the best of Eaman.
I cannot help but to post my agreement with Amar. While scrolling down I was about to post a similiar statement, until I saw his eloquent response. I am not a regular to this website, though I have been recently re-evaluating the Islamic theological methodology I have currently been studying. I only just thought to look here for some ideas on what this site represents.
I wish I could say I was shocked to see my brothers and sisters in faith speaking so ill of a fellow Muslim. Unfortunately it is today so common. Is this what sufism teaches? I do not need to take the time to write a response to the backbiting that has been made of our brother in faith(Shaykh Yasir Qadhi)because Allah, subhanahu wa ta’Ala will call you to account for it (so please save yourself and make tawba).
Whether we agree or disagree with any Muslim, especially one so devoted to Islam (even if it is how he understands it), we should still try to love him or her for the sake of Allah. If there is anyone who should be able to do so it should be those who focus on tazkiyah; and let them then be an example for all.
Jazaak Allaah Khair
As Salaamu alaykum
I have been doing my own personal research over the last year going on “traditional islam” websites, getting books, thinking deeply on the subject. At this point I must admit everything in the “salafi manhaj” doesn’t add up. I do know what to do now, I am rather confused as to who is telling the truth.
as Salamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
Confused Salafi, you have to keep in mind that the majority of the scholars have agreed on the core issues. I believe Imam an-Nawawi mentioned that the schools of jurisprudence (the four mathaahab) have agreed on nearly 75% of all issues.
With regards to Aqidah, then you have to keep in mind that many of the differences are with regards to the “mutashaabihat” verses (i.e. those verses that Allah knows the true meaning). We have to adhere primarily to what is incumbent upon us. Namely, worshiping Allah without partners, and fulfilling the obligatory acts.
With regards to the mutashaabiat, then do not get overly caught up with them. For example, only Allah knows truly what “Alif Laam Meem” means. Likewise, only Allah knows truly what “istiwah” means (rising over the throne).
The various opinions, either from the Ash’ari, Maturidi or Athari, have all attempted, in the most sincere of efforts, to address some of these questions. The point is we should not dispute and let these matters disrupt our unity.
Shaykh Faraz Rabbani answered this question quite well, please read: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4856&CATE=24
My sincere advice is to study the various positions from the Ash’ari/Maturidi/Athari scholars. Take courses at Al-Maghrib AND take courses at SunniPath. Keep increasing your knowledge, be patient, be tolerant.
With regards to some salafi who claim there is no need to follow a mathab, then this I do not agree with. I studied under Dr. Bilal Philips for nearly 3 years and I never heard him endorse abandoning a mathab.
Allah knows best, and all help is from Allah alone
Wa `alaykum as salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
I suggest that you take a close look at many of the articles available on websites like masud.co.uk, shadhiliteachings.com, shadhilitariqa.com, sunnah.org, marifah.net, zaytuna.org, lamppostproductions.com, and other such websites benefiting proper understanding and contextualisation of the Sunnah. Simultaneously you might also look into registering for a course with sunnipath.com, seekersguidance.com, or themedinaway.org. Also keep in mind that whatever differences we have, the Salafis and Wahhabis are still to be given the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions and understanding. We accept their Islam and count them among our brothers (as we would with “modernist”, Shia, Ibadi/Khawarij, or Ahmadi Muslims) so long as they do not cross the line from heresy to disbelief by rejecting or insulting the fundamentals of our faith.
As Salamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
Dear Brother Rafael,
The Khawarij made the killing of Muslim (Sahaba) lawful. Some of the Shia (depending on the sect)have called the majority of the Sahabah (with the exception of a few) as disbelievers (including Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Aisha may Allah be pleased with all of them). The Ahmadi have claimed that the Prophet (p) was not the final Prophet. The Ibaadiya considered the Qur’an the creation of Allah, despite the fact that the Ummah has agreed upon it being the speech of Allah.
Both the Salafi/Sunni rely on many of the same works of Aqaaid, including al-Aqida at-Tahawiya – though they differ on some finer points in the text, no one disputes its position in Islamic history which has won approval as one of the most authentic books in creed for over 1000 years.vImam at-Tahawi refuted many of the errant sects.
If you read al-Aqida at-Tahawiya at one of the links you mentioned (http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/tahawi.htm)
It reads at the end:
“We ask Allah to make us firm in our belief and seal our lives with it and to protect us from variant ideas, scattering opinions and evil schools of view such as those of the Mushabbihah, the Mu’tazilah, the Jahmiyyah the Jabriyah, the Qadriyah and others like them who go against the Sunnah and Jama’ah and have allied themselves with error. We renounce any connection with them and in our opinion they are in error and on the path of destruction.”
Dear brother, one of the things that the Salafi/Sunni have agreed upon were that groups such as the Khawarij, the Mu’tizilite, the Modernists, the Qur’aaniyoon, the Ahmadiya, the Mur’jia, the Qadariyah and so and so forth have erred, greatly.
While Salafi/Sufi may not see eye to eye on points of tasawwuf or finer parts of aqeedah, they do not disagree upon the sects mentioned above.
Here are specific points in al-Aqida at-Tahawiya refuting the groups you mentioned:
31. Every claim to prophethood after Him is falsehood and deceit.
33. The Qur’an is the word of Allah. It came from Him as speech without it being possible to say how.
48. It is necessary for the servant to know that Allah already knows everything that is going to happen in His creation and decreed it in a detailed and decisive way.
72. We do not recognize rebellion against our Imam or those in charge of our affairs even if they are unjust, nor do we wish evil on them, nor do we withdraw from following them.
93. We love the Companions of the Messenger of Allah but we do not go to excess in our love for any one individual among them nor do we disown any one of them.
And all success is from Allah alone.
Wa `alaykum as salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
We accept their Islam and count them among our brothers (as we would with “modernist”, Shia, Ibadi/Khawarij, or Ahmadi Muslims) so long as they do not cross the line from heresy to disbelief by rejecting or insulting the fundamentals of our faith.
Wa’alaykum Salam wr wb,
I too was once in your shoes. It sucks, I know! Honestly, the advice of Amar will only cloud your way even more. To mingle with Maghribites, especially Yasir Qadi may Allah guide him and us amin, is only futile to the intellect as well as soul. They, and by that I am painting the broad brush of the pseudo-salafi da’wah of our tried era, are a people who have abandoned the creed & Manhaj of the mass majority of this Ummah.
They are the ‘sons’ and descendants of those who faught the Ottoman Caliphate, made mass takfir of the Muslims, and slaughtered the Muslims for years, even attacking the caravans of the Muslims as they tried to enter the Haram for Hajj and ‘Umrah – a fact that has been and always will be recorded in the manuscripts of the Ottomans and others. One only has to look at the destruction and malice their da’wah has spread amongst this ummah to see its inherent satanic state. The slogans they parrot sound nice – Tawhid, Qur’an and Sunnah – But the sad reality is they have abandoned the prophetic way and usurped the rights that our righteous forefathers have upon us.
With books calling away from the following of the four schools, works that malign the Imams of whom the scholars have unanimous consent upon following, manipulating sacred canonical texts (many examples of such we have on SeekingIlm), weakening or authenticating narrations that the Imams of old did not (ex.s mentioned within the above article), the da’wah of the pseudo-salafis is a plague – a disease that the Ottoman Imams realized was spiritually corrupt, and for that the Muslims gathered against the pseudo-salafi/wahhabi movement in the 1800′s and sent their cult fleeing, while their Imam Abdullah Sa’ud was hung outside the courts of Istanbul.
Their revival, one that started in the early 1900′s and is now on the decline with the common “salafi-burnout” – a symptom of their pathetic anti-ittiba’ manhaj and their contempt for the “greatest science of Islam”, as stated by the Mujtahid Shafi’i Imam As-Suyuti; Tasawwuf, only shows that they can no longer bully the masses into following their ridiculous opinions. Their abuses are now being met with knowledge, and a revival of Sunnism is on the rise again!
Brother, you have no idea how many emails seekingilm.com gets, as well as how many individuals our team meets, who declare their amazement to find out that these pseudo-salafis, in their claim of following the Imams of Islam, have abandoned their way! Simple issues such as Bida’ah (http://seekingilm.com/archives/41), an issue which they use as a measuring stick to fight Muslims with, have been misrepresented.
What then is the solution to this spiritual chaos that they have inflicted upon the innocent masses of Muslims? It is very simple indeed! It is to follow the schools of either Imam Abi Hanifah, Malik ibn Anas, or Imam Ash-Shafi’i (rahmatullah ‘alayhim). I have left out the school of Ahmad ibn Hanbal simply because it has been hijacked in our time by the pseudo-salafis and was hijacked before by the hashawiyya, Mujassimites: http://seekingilm.com/archives/440 , though the fiqh works of Imam Al-Bahuti and Ibn Qudaamah are certainly worth following!
The simple works of creed in the above said three schools, as well as their simple works on fiqh, are sufficient for spiritual safety and success! You cannot possibly go to hell for following these agreed upon schools of thought – as even if they are “wrong”, and none are wrong based upon the principles that they utilize, you are following the ijtihad of one who is qualified and allowed to be asked and followed!
Compare such a state to the sad state of Ibn Uthaymin (rahimahullah) who says Allah literally SITS on a throne (http://seekingilm.com/archives/105), while having not a single ijaazah in creed that goes to the Imams who have written on creed. Compare the stable states of the past scholars of hadith to the sad state of the pseudo-salafi Al-Albani who has blundered and forged falsehoods upon the Imams of Hadith!
Examples:
http://seekingilm.com/archives/729
http://seekingilm.com/archives/376
(and more if you search)
So the conclusion is simple! Follow the Imams of the above said schools, those Imams whom the schools have consent upon following within the schools themselves, and you certainly will be safe from fitnah and fasaad.
My last advice is to do what every person in your state ever did, weep over your sins, beg Allah’s pardon, purify your heart for Allah and beg of Him to show you the clear way, and He will certainly answer you, as he says:
“And whomever calls upon Me, I answer him!”
and May Allah shower His immense blessings upon our Nabi, His family, and those who follow him amin!
was-Salam,
Abul Layth
as salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,
Dear brother confused salafi,
My advice again is to be patient, be tolerant, and continue to increase in knowledge. And of course, as Abul-Layth mentioned, supplicate
As I mentioned earlier, you should follow a mathab from a qualified teacher. We simply cannot take 1000+ years of orthodox teaching with authentic transmissions back to the Prophet (p) and discard it.
For a person to say “You follow Abu Hanfia (or any Imam) while I follow the Prophet (p)” is absurd. The Imams and their students have tried their utmost to explain (not necessarily legislate) the teaches of the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
All that has reached us of knowledge (Qur’an, hadith etc.) have reached us through men (and women) in a line of transmission between the Prophet (pbuh) and us. Can anyone claim he is receiving something directly from the Prophet (pbuh) without a chain of narrators?
With regards to issues on Aqaaid, then know that Ash’ari, Maturidi and Athari are inside the realm of the Sunnah. I do recommend studying them to be tolerant to the differences. But dear brother, keep in mind that what is sufficient for you to know is clear. Namely:
1. You were created to worship Allah and obey Him and His Messenger (i.e. the obligatory acts).
2. You will be tested, both in the grave and on the Judgment Day.
3. Allah knows all that you do. Whether one believes Allah is literally above the throne or independent of time or space, this is of the unseen, and Allah knows best – but what you MUST know is that nothing is hidden from Allah and you will be brought back to Him. The Bedouin Arabs during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) did not discuss this nor would they be considered blameworthy.
4. The companions differed over some matters, however they did not allow their differences to break their unity. They collectively fought against those who went outside the lines, such as the followers of false prophets (Musaylamah al-Kathaab) and those who rejected to pay the zakat.
This is a segway to brother Rafael,
Yes, I read your quote the first time (i.e. “so long as they do not cross the line from heresy to disbelief by rejecting or insulting the fundamentals of our faith.”).
I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I am interested in where you received this quote from. People adhere to groups and titles because of the core beliefs that their groups promote.
One cannot say we accept the “Khawaarij” (i.e. the people who killed the sahaba and those who came after and defended such actions) so long as they don’t cross the line from heresy to disbelief. Killing or cursing the companions and defending it = insulting the fundamentals of our faith. If the majority companions went astray, then nothing of what reaches us from them from the Qur’an and Hadeeth could be considered reliable.
Nor can one say we accept the “Ahmediyya” (i.e. the people who claim there was another prophet after the Prophet [pbuh]) so long as they don’t cross the line from heresy to disbelief.
If a person says “I belong to a group that believes that the companions became apostates, and I advocate cursing them and the wife of the Prophet (pbuh)” then he has surely already crossed the line.
The very fact that a person associates to such a group and advocates its teachings (i.e. that Abu Bakr was a disbeliever or that a major sin makes a Muslim a disbeliever entering him in hell for eternity)has surely rejected the fundamentals of our deen! If they haven’t dear brother, then who have?
Imam at-Tahawi refuted such claims.
Imam Ahmed refuted the claims that the Qur’an was created.
Ibn Qudaamah (whom Abul Layth mentioned) refuted such claims in his classical work lum’atul ‘ittiqaad. And countless others.
It was sufficient for many great scholars to refute and censor such groups with clear terms, not ambiguous terms such as “We accept them as long as they do not cross the line” because it is very clear the line has been crossed.
Had it been beneficial, these great scholars of such status would have included caveats such as “Reject them, ONLY if they cross the line.”
But instead they were clear and straightforward so as not to allow any room for misunderstanding.
And Allah knows best
– To Amar
Wa `alaykum as salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
Brother, honestly, what is hard about this:
We accept their Islam and count them among our brothers (as we would with “modernist”, Shia, Ibadi/Khawarij, or Ahmadi Muslims) so long as they do not cross the line from heresy to disbelief by rejecting or insulting the fundamentals of our faith.
My brother Rafael,
as salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,
It is not a matter of hard or easy – the point is that you gathered a number of specific groups (who hold fundamental beliefs alien to orthodoxy Islam) and you say you accept their Islam “so long as they do not cross the line from heresy to disbelief by rejecting or insulting the fundamentals of our faith”.
Who decides what constitutes and defines “crossing the line from heresy to disbelief by rejecting or insulting the fundamentals of our faith”? Do you and I, dear brother?
The scholars of the past and present have said that such characteristics (belonging to some the groups you have mentioned) have already made a person “cross the line”, and therefore, their Islam is not accepted.
Brother, consider this:
A person can be Athary/Ashariy/Maturdy, and this is fine.
A person can follow Hanafia/Malik/Shafi’i/Ahmad, and this is fine.
A person can say he is “salafi/Athari” (though people may not agree), and this is fine in the sense that it keeps a person within the umbrella of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama’ah.
However, when a person says “I believe there was another prophet (i.e. the Ahmadiyya) after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)”, then this is NOT fine.
Although there are differences of opinion within Orthodoxy/Sunni Islam, whether or not there was another prophet after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is NOT one of them.
Recall that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with all of them) fought against Musaylamah and his followers for claiming to be a prophet.
They did not say “We accept the followers of Musaylamah so long as they do not cross the line from heresy to disbelief by rejecting or insulting the fundamentals of our faith.” Because that would make no sense, its not even a logical statement.
This is why groups such as the Qadianis (Ahmediyya) are considered outside the fold of Islam. This is not decided by me, this is rather what the scholars of the sunnah have practically reached consensus of. I’ll give you two popular sources (one “sunni” one “salafi”), Please see:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=113&CATE=24
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/6153/Qadiani
My brother in Islam, there are certain fundamentals that have been within the creed of Sunni Islam for over 1000 years. These include loving the companions and speaking well of them and rejecting the one who curses them or harms them.
The Khawarij took up arms against the companions. They killed blessed companions of the blessed Prophet (peace be upon him), including az-Zubayr ra). As a result, Ali (ra) led the companions and fought against them.
Ali did not say: “We accept the Khawarij so long as they do not cross the line from heresy to disbelief by rejecting or insulting the fundamentals of our faith.”
Now, if a person insults, slanders and rejects the companions, namely the khulafah, such as the Rafidis, then this too entails crossing the line.
This is been explained by many scholars including al-Tabari and Ibn Aabideen. Now, I am not saying one should run around making takfir, because this is a serious matter.
But one should know and study what the Muslims (I mean the Imams of the Mathahib, the Imams of Aqidah etc.) have agreed upon with regards to what causes one to exit the fold of Islam.
In short,if a person says “Hey look at me I am Ahmediya and believe the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not the final Messenger!” – then he’s out!
If a person says “Hey, I like to curse and slander the beloved companions and wife of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and I don’t see anything wrong with it!” – then he’s out too!
So saying one accepts their Islam so long as they do not cross the line makes no sense. It is like saying something crazy like “I accept members of KKK as civil rights activists so long as they do not hold racist and hostile beliefs to non-whites.”
And Allah knows best
– To Amar
As salam `alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
I suppose you’re simply not able to see why it might be problematic to excommunicate as outside of Islam people who profess the Shahada for merely following what they’ve been raised with as Islam. I’m not too certain how that is different from what the Wahhabis did, or how it’s even justifiable in light of Imam Ghazali’s opinion that even pagans might be under Divine Amnesty if that’s the only thing they’ve known.
Let’s think about this: who is more worthy of Divine Amnesty, pagans or heretic Muslims? But if you think I’m still pulling this out off my turban, perhaps you might want to read the Amman Message where it says:
This is signed by 552 of our Ummah’s brightest and most influential figures, in case you were still wondering who has right to weigh in an opinion on the matter.
So I repeat again, what is so hard about this, brother?
As Salamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
Brother, your initial post said:
“We accept their Islam and count them among our brothers (as we would with “modernist”, Shia, Ibadi/Khawarij, or Ahmadi Muslims) so long as they do not cross the line from heresy to disbelief by rejecting or insulting the fundamentals of our faith.”
To this I replied that “some” of the groups you mentioned have beliefs that are considered to have crossed the line. Namely:
1) Those who claim there was another prophet after our Prophet (peace be upon him)
2) Those who fought and killed the companions (i.e. the khawarij) and those who defend them.
3) Those who curse, slander and insult the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his wife (may Allah be pleased with all of them).
Now, you have included three items:
1. The al-Azhar Fatwah (Amman Verdict);
2. Muslims who profess and merely follow what they were born with;
3. Non-Muslims who die without having heard the message of Islam;
Lets take these one at a time insha’Allah.
Point 1
Al-Azhar Fatwah (Amman verdict)
Dear brother, the Azhar verdict does not include the Qadiani and Ahmediyya nor does it support any group that claims there was another “Rasool or Nabi” after the Prophet (peace be upon him). Furthermore, the Azhar verdict does not support the Khawaarij, nor does it give a blanket approval to all “Shi’a”.
You however have grouped the Khawarij, Qadiani and the Ahmediya in the same group.
With regards to the Shi’a
I never mentioned excommunicating Shi’a, rather I mentioned specific characteristics, such as those who curse, abuse, slander or insult the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), namely Abu Bakr, Umar and ‘Uthman, and his wife Aisha, may Allah be pleased with all of them. I mentioned in fact the Rafid who are a sect known for this abuse.
The Shi’a mentioned in the Azhar Fatwah are sects within the Twelvers (Ithnā‘ashariyyah) who do not possess the same characteristics as the Rafid.
So you see brother, you made a blanket statement and included the “Shi’a”, but in fact the Shi’a can be divided into two main groups (although there are many sects).
Imam Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) stated:
1. There is no doubt in the disbelief (kufr) of those that falsely accuse Sayyida Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) of adultery, deny the Companionship of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr ( Allah be pleased with him), believe that sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) was God or that the angel Jibril mistakenly descended with the revelation (wahi) on the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give peace), etc which is apparent Kufr and contrary to the teachings of the Qur’an (Radd al-Muhtar, 4/453).
Therefore, shi’as that hold such beliefs are without a doubt out of the fold of Islam.
2. Those who do not hold beliefs that constitute Kufr such as believing that Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) was the rightful first Caliph after the demise of the Messenger of Allah, slander other Companions (sahaba) belief in the twelve Imams, etc
Ibn Abidin then went on to say “Such Shi’as can not be termed as out of the fold of Islam, rather they are considered to be severely deviated and transgressors (fisq).”
Please see: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=1898&CATE=164
This is what I was saying (the Radid fit the first description) and this is in alignment with the Al-Azhar Fatwah. So respected brother, the Al-Azhar verdict does not provide a green light to just gather people and declare them all the same.
Point 2, you mentioned:
“I suppose you’re simply not able to see why it might be problematic to excommunicate as outside of Islam people who profess the Shahada for merely following what they’ve been raised with as Islam.”
Brother, perhaps you have dealt with extreme brothers who run around making takfir (may Allah guide such ignorant people), and so that is why you made that statement. But dear brother, please recall that I only mentioned two types of people (i.e. those who I mentioned already). Furthermore, I even said:
“Now, I am not saying one should run around making takfir, because this is a serious matter.”
There is however some difficulty in your statement. For example, the Nation of Islam has practically no remnants of Sunni Islam. One would never consider them of Sunnah and Jama’ah, and then use the Al-Azhar Fatwah to support it.
This is why, right after I mention that one should not run around making takfir, I mentioned:
“But one should know and study what the Muslims (I mean the Imams of the Mathahib, the Imams of Aqidah etc.) have agreed upon with regards to what causes one to exit the fold of Islam.”
Point 3
With regards to non-Muslims who have never heard the message, then the scholars have differed. Only Allah knows who heard the message and rejected it. This really is beyond the pale of this discussion and its inclusion is not really necessary.
Some final points:
1. Dear brother, none of the scholars of the Sunnah, nor the al-Azhar Fatwah, considers the Islam of one who claims there was another prophet after Muhammad (peace be upon him) as valid.
What does this mean though? In our time, does this mean we go around insulting, ridiculing, arguing or even fighting with such people?
No it does not, rather it means we call them to the proper guidance JUST as we would call anyone else. We call with wisdom and beautiful manners.
Why? To make things difficult for them? Of course not! But this is for their benefit, so that they follow the guidance of Muhammad (peace be upon him), so that they insha’Allah have success in this life and in the next life. May Allah grant all of us that, Ameen!
The companions fought against such people, so that they (the companions) could protect the masses of the people from their misguidance, to ensure their safety on the Judgment Day.
In our times, we must educate and call people to the true Sunnah of Muhammad (pbuh).
But if we say we accept the Islam of everyone and anyone and everything is ok, while the scholars (through history and till now) have reached agreement of what takes a person outside, then there are problems. The Scholars are in agreement on one point, and we are calling to another point. How will we fare on the Judgment Day if Allah asks the follower Ghulam Ahmed as to why he took another Prophet along with Muhammad (peace be upon him), and he says “So and so considered it ok and told me the Muslims are in agreement as to the validity of my Islam” This is a serious matter.
2. None of the scholars of the Sunnah, nor the al-Azhar Fatwah, considers the Islam of one who claims that the mass of the companions apostated from Islam as valid.
Why? Because the Qur’an, the Hadeeth – nay, everything that has reached us from authentic Islam has reached us from them. If they were not upright, then it means that our entire Deen has been given to us from the enemies of Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him).
And Allah knows best
– To Amar
1. Ibadi are (for all intensive purposes) descendent of the Khawarij and are mentioned. Not that it really matters to you I suppose.
2. I don’t know why you insist on refering the Amman Message at an Azhar fatwa.
3. And I don’t know what you mentioned specifically about the Shia, because I don’t have time & patience to read several hundred words of this and that from you every three hours.
4. At this point I don’t care. At least someone who does care to read your persistent and superfluous treatise can have another opinion to compare it to based on what contemporary and reliable scholars have found easy to agree to. Whatever you want around your neck before Allah is now off my hands I hope. لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ
Wa `alaykum as salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
One quick point, I used the Amman Message and Azhar Fatwah interhcangebly because in fact the Azhar Fatwah is much older; it was initiated in 1959 and included the Shi’a Twelvers in the fold of Islam.
Furthermore, if you go to the actual website of the Amman Message, Taqi Usmani gives a 7 page fatwah (unfortunately it is written in Arabic) expressing that the agreement is not a blanket statement.
http://ammanmessage.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=42&limit=1&limitstart=2
Read the top of the page, the translation is:
“First type: Are those who claim to be Muslim, but reject something which has been necessarily known to be from the religion. They hold firmly, for example, that the Prophethood is continued after Nabi Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and they believe in the prophethood of one of the Dajjals who has claimed prophethood after our Noble Prophet, seal of the prophethood sallallahu alayhi wasallam, like the Qadîyânîs; or they hold firmly that the Noble Quran which we have today is changed, Al’Iyaazubillah. And that our Quraan is not the real on, like what some of the extremists among the Shîas say; or they hold firmly (in the aqeeda of ) Aloohiya or some of the specific attributes of it being in one of the humans, like what is attributed to Alawiyeen(Alawis) and others besides them. Then these all are not Muslims and it is necessary to make Takfir of them.”
And FYI, there is some confusion as to who actually signed the agreement. Please read the below link with regards to Taqi Usmani.
http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/islam/amman
As Salamu Alaykum Rafael,
Please stop trying to give the impression that contemporary scholars have agreed that all Muslims are brothers, regardless of their creed (i.e. Qadiani/Ahmediya etc.). This is around your neck.
You are completely misunderstanding the boundaries of the scholars, but apparently you are too busy and do not have the time to read or want to understand the details. It is a 5 minute read brother.
Why don’t you ask some respectable people of knowledge if you are unsure. Throw out everything I said, I do not mind, but sincerely ask people of knowledge from the sites endorsed by Seekingilm, such GF Haddad or Faraz Rabbani. Ask if the Qadiani/Ahmediyya/Rafid/NOI are considered in.
I can comment on the Ibaadiyah, being that I am living next door to Oman. To you, the Khawarij of the old and the Ibaadiyah of today might be considered “the same” in your world – not because they really are, but because you are too busy to bother reading about it. Who cares, its only a matter of Aqidah.
Finally, I wish you well my brother. I read your profile and see you are in South Fla, I am born and raised in South Florida. I am a Canes fan in fact. I’m overseas studying Usool, I’ll be back in the US inshaAllah next summer, maybe we can meet up.
ma’salam
Amar
Edited
*We do not allow copy and paste jobs on SeekingIlm.com*
*we do not allow copy & paste jobs on SeekingIlm.com*
As-Salaamu ‘Alaykum,
It looks like the Wahhabis are desperate in keeping their anthropomorphic ‘aqeedah alive to the point of twisting and turning the sayings of the Ash’aree Imams thus the end result is more confusion. This is what their good at when it would have been better if they just suppressed their nafs/egos, acknowledged their errors, and abandoned their baatil creed.
Wa `alaykum as salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh, Amar.
No, I’m not trying to give the impression that you accuse me, what I am trying to say is that individuals should be treated as individuals, not every Shia or every Wahhabi or every Ahmadi (yes, they have their own divisions, look it up) or every Ibadi might believe and accept tenets that contradict the fundamentals of Islam. You started this tirade over false pretences as my original statement was that members of heretic groups are still Muslims so long as to do not negate the foundation of our religion (basically everything listed in the Hadith of Jibril). Now, are the beliefs of people who say that so-and-so was a prophet after Saydina Muhammad (saws), or people who say that so-and-so was God incarnate, acceptable for any Muslim to hold? Of course not, and I’m not saying anything to the contrary if you look at what I wrote, and I have never said anything to the contrary to the best of my recollection. Stop putting words in my mouth or twisting what I say beyond what is so readily apparent. I don’t care if you’ve studied usul (I’ve studied a primer or two myself) or that you’re a canes fan (I’ve never watched a UM sports event or any football game and I never intend to). And yes if you’re around in the summer, find my email via my blog and tell me if you want to talk (however I often come to Miami armed with some weapon or another). Tawfiq. Wasalam.
Asalamu Alaykum,
Amar on what basis you accept the Salafis/Wahhabis as part of ahl sunnah wal jamaa? You rightfuly criticized Rafael for the Khawarij, yet you fail to understand that the Wahhabis are even worse than the Khawarij, and that they have quit the ijma on many issues including, aqeeda and fikh. In other words, you would hire a Wahhabi to become a imam in the mosque, or give your daughter to a Wahhabi, or even take your din from a wahhabi, and allow your kids to go to a wahhabi, since if you claim they are ahl sunnah, on that basis it is forbiden from you to take defensive measures against them… yet why this double standard is applied here? By the way lets see what you have to say about the Barelvis, if you accept them as ahl sunnah as you accept the wahhabis? I am not a Barelvi, but I must say I now understand why they call you wahhabis.
Shame!
Wa alaykum as salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
I never said the Khawarij, or or that matter the Shi’a or the Wahhabis, were Sunni Muslims. I never said that and inshaAllah I never will. Rather, there are groups among them that are considered Muslims, albeit heretical, and groups that are not accepted as Muslims. However I also do not believe in making pre-judgemental generalizations that condemn an individual on the suspicion that he might belong and adhere to the putrid doctrine of putrid groups as there is the possibility that he might not agree or at least fully agree with the heretical nuances. Hence I can still pray behind someone without having to investigate what his views are on anthropomorphism in the Quran. That does not mean I am not going to take reasonable precautions concerning these groups. It’s not a very controversial stance and I’m not alone in it, and I wanted to clarify that.
assalamu alaikum,
is Sidi Abu Adam an-Naruiji a reliable scholar? Although he refutes it many call him a habashi and he has been criticised by mufti hussain from sunniforum.com.
Other than Gibril F Haddad who has stated that certain comments of ibn taymiyya were “pure apostasy” (even if he did later repent) – Abu Adam is the only alim i know of who makes takfir of ibn taymiyya.
Both their opinions diverge from that of other ulema like mufti muhammad ibn adam al kawthari
Advice would be appreciated.
Jazakallahu khairan
Wassalam