Salamu ‘alaykum,
Here is an audio file on youtube in which Shaykh Y. Qaradawi is asked about the creed of Al-Azhar. He clearly states that this Ummah’s majority is Asha’ri and the minority is pseudo-”Salafi”!
It is certainly beautiful to listen to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b2t2llTg6Q
The above video has been removed but this one works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l079VI5ifHE
Salaam. great site! here is a video i posted on youtube about Wahabism by. Dr. Umar Abdullah:
Part1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PceGAR108Sg
Part2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBd5Ue1BHO0&feature=related
Plz visite my account:
http://www.youtube.com/Maturidi333
Shaykh al Qaradawi’s statements makes it sound as if he is Ash’ari in aqidah as well. But I’ve read online that he is Athari.
Hasan he has said that he believes in tafwid of the ma’na to Allah. Such is one of the Asha’ri stances.
as-salamu `alaikum
the following book would confirm that:
http://www.marifah.net/forums/topic/3577-new-book-on-tafweed-and-the-madhhab-of-the-salaf/page__st__15
was-salam
p.s. glad to see you are back online with this site abul layth
Wa Alaykum Salaam
I just wanted to say that the majority of the Ummah is not upon the Aqeedah of the Ashaira. Because, the majority of the Ummah does not know the intricacies of bodies and accidents. Additionally, if something is correct it should be accessable to the majority of the people. Asharism is not. In addition to this the language of bodies and accidents is something dervied from the greeks.
Wallahu Alim
“Ummah” here means the ‘Ulama’ of Islam. Islam is not judged by the laymen, but by the inheritors of the Prophets – the ‘Ulama’. A good study of the Tabaqat will certainly show that the majority of the “Ummah” are indeed asha’ris.
One could also argue that the asker is upon the madhhab of the one he has asked. If this be the case then, the majority of the laymen are also asha’ris or maturidis.
As for its foundations in greek theory, then such was needed to refute aristotelian thoughts that emerged by the deviants of the time; an example of this would be the eternal state of the earth (ring a bell anyone!)!
What the messenger brought us is sufficient.
Like Al-Awzaa’i, may Allaah have mercy upon him, said: “Persevere on adherence to the Sunnah; stop where they (the companions of the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) stopped; refrain from what they refrained from and follow the way of the Salaf because what sufficed them will suffice you.”
Also as far as ummah is concerned then know may allah have mercy on all of us that some of the so called “ashari ulama” affirmed attributes that many “asharis” negate. Such as al uluww. This can be seen from scholars like Abu Bakr Al Baqilani and others who also affirmed the yadan for Allah. They stated that it could not be ni3ma. So there seems to be a disagreement amongst the asharis themselves. Majority of the contemporary ashari beliefs were not accepted by the first asharis. So which of the Asharis are correct?
Lastly I myself believe in everything the messenger affirmed and what Allah himself affirmed for himself in his book. I stop where the messenger stops.
Wallahu alim
Wa salaam walaykum ya ikhwati
admin (abu layth) said
“Hasan he has said that he believes in tafwid of the ma’na to Allah (SWT). Such is one of the Asha’ri stances.”
then that means some of the hanbalis who dismantled ash’ari thought were ash’aris. Merely adopting a stance by which the ash’aris concur has never made anyone an ash’ari.
again
““Ummah” here means the ‘Ulama’ of Islam. Islam is not judged by the laymen, but by the inheritors of the Prophets – the ‘Ulama’. A good study of the Tabaqat will certainly show that the majority of the “Ummah” are indeed asha’ris.”
under this auspice, the argument thus remains, who from the ulema are ash’ari. You cannot name to us an ash’ari, nor will you be able to name an ash’ari outside of
Ghazali, Baqilani, Sanusi, Taftazaani, Bayjuri, Razi, Haythami, Ibn Furak,Ibn Asaakir and the only ahlul-hadeeth alim to have ever championed the heretic madhaab of the ash’aris al-Bayhaqi.
There is none from the ulema of ahlu-sunnah of any school of the ahlul-hadeeth to have ever been an ash’ari. Yes, we find a splinter here and there who opined to a viewpoint of the ash’aris, but thats it. Therefore, under your own principle, the ummah is as Ghazali deemed it prior to reneging from your own heretic madhaab by claiming that they are upon the religion of “old ladies” i.e. the simple and pure sound creed of the salaf where the Qur’an and the sunnah is the basis for understanding Allah and not Aristotelian dialectics
lastly, ironically speaking, even these deemed champions of the invented ash’ari cult are declared muujassim by your fellow jahmi comrads for literally affirming eyes, hands, and rising for Allah Azawajal. None of the original ashaa’irah mutaqadimoon rejected the sifaat khabariyyah unlike your current co-madhaabists do today
admin (abu layth) further said
“As for its foundations in greek theory, then such was needed to refute aristotelian thoughts that emerged by the deviants of the time; an example of this would be the eternal state of the earth (ring a bell anyone!)!”
thats a stupid and preposterous reasoning. So Allah’s kalaam and the kalaam of the messenger was not enough to render useless the ideas of neo-platonic thought so they had to utilize their own kalaam to defeat them.
secondly, the ummah or its polemical encounters does not need to rest on how to derive their aqeedah by usurping the ideas and principles of the pagans. The Muslim is he who belittles their thought, not giving it grandeur
and no, the affirmation of infinite regress does not match the philosophical argument of creations eternal being so it does not ring a bell, but minds afflicted with defunct logic cannot decipher between them.