The Wahabi-type belief was that of a fringe group in hiding throughout most of this nation’s history
Ibn Jibriin, major wahabi, admits this in his book here stating:
When the third century of the Hijrah ended, the last of the best (three) centuries, these books (the books he likes[1]) were unfortunately left for dead, and were stored away without anyone recognizing, reading, or studying them except rarely, and only in hiding. The Asħˆariyy school and Muˆtazilite schools[2] were firmly established and people pored over their study everywhere.[3]
He admits here that his belief system was only taught in hiding! In other words, it was a baaţiniyy[4] type of sect, and not the majority Sunni sect at all. Then he says:
And by careful study of these centuries: the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, and most of the seventh, you do not find anyone that is upon the school of the Sunnah![5]
What is this “School of the Sunnah” that disappeared for 4 centuries?(!!!) We get an idea when he speaks about the books written in those centuries that are so terrible in his view. He takes the Creed of Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy as an example of the least worst of them (although Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy was actually among the Salaf, born in the 3rd century) He says about it:
Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy mentioned in it some terrible statements that were widespread in his time through the kalaam scholars, such as his statement: “Verily Aļļaah is clear of the having limits, extremes, corners, limbs or instruments. The six directions (up, down, front, back, left and right) do not contain Him (un)like all created things.[6]
What we can understand then, is that anthropomorphist creed of believing that Aļļaah is a bodily being, something to be pointed at in a direction, and with parts, and dimensions is what was only taught in hiding during those centuries.
So what, you may ask, happened in the 7th century? Well, who other than Ibn Tayimiyyah? Ibn Jibriin says about him:
He did not care about the people of his time, or about who opposed him. Rather, he spoke openly about what he believed, and renewed that belief of the Salaf, and wrote books that no one can oppose, and clarified in them what is more obvious than the sun…. No doubt, he spoke openly, because Aļļaah gave him knowledge, and ability to explain, so no one in his time could resist him. So he is the one that renewed the Sunni school.[7]
In short, he is telling us above that what he calls the “Sunni belief” was almost extinct for 4 centuries, and was only taught in hiding, due to fear of persecution. So the question then becomes, how can this be sect be called Sunnis in any reasonable persons vocabulary? Moreover, how does that fit with the majority of scholars being Sunnis?
Most importantly: How could this belief of Ibn Taymiyyah possibly be collaboratively, mass-narrated from the salaf, without possibility of perversions by mistakes or otherwise, when it was hidden for four centuries???
That is, how can they claim to know for sure that a belief system that went into hiding has been absolutely reliably narrated from the Salaf? It has only been narrated by a handful of Hanbali pretenders, and in hiding, so it is like the gospel of the christians during their persecution by the jews and the Romans. We all know what happened to their books.
Of course, after Ibn Taymiyyah’s demise in jail for heresy, the school once again became a hidden sect. So much for the, “books that no one could oppose,” and “no one could resist him.” In fact, even christians, who have one of the most irrational belief system on earth, cannot be fended off based on Ibn Taymiyyah’s belief principles. Why? Because his deity is a something with size, shaped by a border that can change, so why couldn’t this deity be Jesus or anything else proposed? This is what some christians are asking. They are of course right. There is no fundamental difference between them and Ibn Taymiyyah.
Ibn Al-Qayyim realized this, and that is why he put on an Asħˆariyy coat when arguing with the christians in his book Hidaayatu-l-Ĥayaaraa Fii ‘Ajwibatu-l-Yahuudi wa-Naşaaraa, “the guidance of the confused regarding answering the christians and jews”:
Fourth, verily Aļļaah does not change[8].[9]
As well known, Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al-Qayyim taught that Aļļaah brings things into existence in Himself, such as changing location and movement. This is one of their main contentions against the ‘Asħˆariyys, who are honest when they say they believe that Aļļaah does not change.
In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah hid his beliefs to a great extent, and that is why some scholars praise him – they did not know about his outrageous beliefs. For example, you find him in one place saying it is kufr to say Aļļaah is a body, then in another that it is not allowed to forbid saying it, and in yet another that Aļļaah has six boundaries and a shrinkable size!
The belief of Ibn Taymiyyah went into hiding again after his death. His books were burned and forbidden to teach, and anyone who spread his teaching faced punishment. Ibn Al-Qayyim, as an example, was jailed and almost executed at one point. That is why even for that period it is hard find books by scholars that support the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah.
To Read the rest of the article Click Here
Showing posts with label Salafi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Salafi. Show all posts
Saturday, 9 January 2010
The Wahabi-type belief was that of a fringe group in hiding throughout most of this nation’s history
Thursday, 10 December 2009
Ex Salafi Questions
As-Salaamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatullaahi wa Barakaatuh,
Bismillaah wal-Hamdulillaah was-Salaatu was-Salaamu 'alaa Rasoolillaah
Important: In no way is the following meant to offend anyone in any way, shape, fashion, or form but rather . I wrote this not to start a debate but for you my dear brother and sister to sit back and reflect deeply; to "wake" you up from your slumber and realize that the Islaam we practice today is NOT the Islaam of what our illustrious Sunni Imaams were upon. After you read these questions, ask yourself, what is going on and shouldn't we be adhering to the understanding of the majority of the scholars of the past? What happend to following the Jamaa'ah? Isn't the Jamaa'ah what the majority of our scholars agreed upon? Please read and reflect on the following:
Questions to our brothers and sisters of the Salafiyyah methodology from an X-Salafi:
1. Why is it that when a Muslim studies the history of Islaam that he/she finds a version of Islaam that is quite different from the Islaam preached and practised by todays Salafiyyah?
2. Why is it that a vast chunk of the Sunni Imaams throughout the history of the Ummah were madhhab-following Soofis and were of the Ash’aree, Maatureedee, and Atharee creeds?
3. One finds that if the Imaams were not of the Ash’ariyyah, they were of the Maatureediyyah, and vice-versa. If they were neither, they were of the Athariyyah; and if they were none of these three creeds they would be considered outside of the Sunni sect unless if their creeds coincided with any of the three creeds mentioned. How do the Salafiyyah reconcile this historical fact with their understanding of history?
4. Why is that the Salafiyyah praise Imaam an-Nawawee (Rahimullaah) and at the same time make Tadleel of the Ash’ariyyah and Soofiyyah when Imaam an-Nawawee (Rahimullaah) himself was of the Ashaa’irah and Soofiyyah?
5. Why is that the Salafiyyah praise Ibn Rajab al-Hanbalee (Rahimullaah) when it was known that he was of the Athariyyah and a Hanbalee Soofi?
6. Why is it that the Salafiyyah praise Imaams such as Hasan al-Basree (Rahimullaah) and other giants of the Sunnah and interestingly enough - after some investigation and research - one finds that they (the Imaams) were of the Soofiyyah after studying their biographies?
7. Why is it that the Salafiyyah praise Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimullaah) - whom they frequently love to quote - but himself was a Soofi, is known to have praised Shaykh 'Abdul Qaadir al-Jeelaani (Rahimullaah) in his books, and quite possibly of the Qaadiriyyah tareeqah?
8. If the Ash’ariyyah, Maatureediyyah, and Soofiyyah are deviant - as the Salafiyyah claim - then how do they reconcile this with the historical fact that the Ottoman Empire was a Sunni, Hanafee, Soofi caliphate and were proponents of the Ash’aree/Maatureedee creeds? Do we consider the Ottomans deviants and put them outside the fold of Islaam?
9. How do the Salafiyyah reconcile their anti-Soofi stance with the historical fact that Tasawwuf was incorporated into the educational curriculum of all the major Sunni institutions within the Muslim world such as the Qarawayn in Morocco, the Zaytoona in Tunisia, the al-Azhar in Egypt, the Deoband in Islamic India, etc? How do the Salafiyyah explain the rapid spread and acceptance of Tasawwuf and its many turuq within the Muslim world, from the times of the Umayyads, to the Abbaasids, to the Ayyoobis, to the Ottomans, etc? Did it take the Muslim Ummah over 1400 years to figure out that Tasawwuf was a reprehensible innovation (bid'ah)? Were all the Sunni Imaams tricked and deluded into accepting and propagating Tasawwuf, or do we treat Tasawwuf as the H1N1 virus of the Muslim world?
10. Is it conceivable to conclude that the Ummah went astray for over 1000 years in terms of scholarship and methodology and just in recent history the Sunni Muslims have been guided back to the so called "Salafi Manhaj"!? Are the Salafiyyah saying that the thousands of Imaams that have lived during the period of the Khalaf went astray and that Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhaab (Rahimullaah), after several centuries, brought us back to the correct understanding of our Deen!?
11. How do the Salafiyyah reconcile with the historical fact that many Mujahideen throughout the history of Islaam were of the Soofiyyah? What do the Salafiyyah say of the following Sunni Soofi Mujahideen:
a. Muhammad al-Faatih (Rahimullaah) : The Ottoman Sultan whom conquered Constantinople and is known to be a Hanafee, Maatureedee, Soofi (our Beloved Messenger, Sallallaahu 'Alayhi Wa Sallam, prophesied about him in a well known hadeeth).
b. Salaah ad-Deen al-Ayyoobee : The Warrior of Islaam that liberated the Holy Land of Palestine from the Crusaders and is known to be a Shafi'ee, Ash'aree, Soofi.
c. Imaam Shameel : The Naqshbandi Imaam whom fought the Russians in the Caucasus (Chechnya and Dagestan) and is known to be a Hanafee, Maatureedee, Soofi.
d. Abdul Qaadir Al-Jazaa`iree : The Algerian scholar whom fought the French invasion of Algeria and is known to be a Malakee, Ash'aree, Soofi.
e. 'Umar al-Mukhtaar : The Lion of the Desert whom fought the Italian invasion of Libya and is known to be a Malakee, Ash'aree, Soofi.
f. Izz ad-Deen al-Qassaam : Perhaps the first Muslim to fight the Zionist invasion of Palestine and is known to be a Shafi'ee, Ash'aree, Soofi of the Qaadiriyyah tareeqah.
Are all of the Sunni heroes of Islaam mentioned above deviants?
12. Why is it that the Salafiyyah tamper with classical Sunni texts of the Imaams of the past, for example erasing any mention of Ash’ariyyah or Soofiyyah, etc. when revising or translating classical works into other languages?
13. Why is it that the Salafiyyah claim to be following the Sunnah but many of them are known to sport the Saudi red chequered Kufiyyah when it is well known that the Prophet, Sallallaahu 'Alayhi Wa Sallam, wore a turban? Isn’t this contrary to the Sunnah?
14. Why have the Salafiyyah of Arabia forced the Najdi culture upon the people of Hijaaz when the Hijaazis have a distinct culture from the rest of Arabia?
15. Why are the Salafiyyah of Arabia systematically destroying historical Mecca and Medina? Why are the Salafiyyah of Arabia destroying the tombs, relics, and homes of the Companions and Ahl al-Bayt? Why aren't the Salafiyyah of Arabia investing in the preservation of the historical sites of Hijaaz for future generations? Is it in order to make way for luxuriant five star hotels or for fear of what they view as "shirk"? Accurate reports show that over 90% of historical Mecca and Medina have been wiped out of existence and to this day the destruction of the heritage of Hijaaz continues.
16. If the Salafiyyah of Arabia are going to destroy the graves and historical sights of Hijaaz for fear of Sunni Muslims committing "shirk" then why don't they destroy the ka'bah and the mosque of the Prophet, Sallallaahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam, in order to prevent what they think is "shirk"? May Allaah SWT forbid that from ever happening!
17. Why do the Salafiyyah condemn Sunni Muslims for celebrating the birth (Mawlid) of the Prophet, Sallallaahu 'Alayhi Wa Sallam, when history shows us that it had been celebrated and accepted by the vast majority of the Imaams of the Sunnah for almost 900 years? Today it is celebrated in many of the Muslim lands from Morocco in the west to Indonesia and Malaysia in the east. Are the Salafiyyah saying that it took our bright and illustrious Imaams 900 years to figure out that the Mawlid was a reprehensible innovation (bid'ah)!?
A Final Note:
Due to the many inconsistencies amongst the Salafiyyah I have come to the conclusion that there is a sinister agenda in wanting to re-write or even erase our history in order to reform our Deen underneath the slogan “Qur`aan wa Sunnah” when true historical facts clearly show that the methodology of our scholars and Imaams, from amongst the Salaf and Khalaf, were significantly different then what the Salafiyyah are upon today, unless if someone can prove otherwise.
Abdullah Rayan
SOURCE: Deenport
Thread
Bismillaah wal-Hamdulillaah was-Salaatu was-Salaamu 'alaa Rasoolillaah
Important: In no way is the following meant to offend anyone in any way, shape, fashion, or form but rather . I wrote this not to start a debate but for you my dear brother and sister to sit back and reflect deeply; to "wake" you up from your slumber and realize that the Islaam we practice today is NOT the Islaam of what our illustrious Sunni Imaams were upon. After you read these questions, ask yourself, what is going on and shouldn't we be adhering to the understanding of the majority of the scholars of the past? What happend to following the Jamaa'ah? Isn't the Jamaa'ah what the majority of our scholars agreed upon? Please read and reflect on the following:
Questions to our brothers and sisters of the Salafiyyah methodology from an X-Salafi:
1. Why is it that when a Muslim studies the history of Islaam that he/she finds a version of Islaam that is quite different from the Islaam preached and practised by todays Salafiyyah?
2. Why is it that a vast chunk of the Sunni Imaams throughout the history of the Ummah were madhhab-following Soofis and were of the Ash’aree, Maatureedee, and Atharee creeds?
3. One finds that if the Imaams were not of the Ash’ariyyah, they were of the Maatureediyyah, and vice-versa. If they were neither, they were of the Athariyyah; and if they were none of these three creeds they would be considered outside of the Sunni sect unless if their creeds coincided with any of the three creeds mentioned. How do the Salafiyyah reconcile this historical fact with their understanding of history?
4. Why is that the Salafiyyah praise Imaam an-Nawawee (Rahimullaah) and at the same time make Tadleel of the Ash’ariyyah and Soofiyyah when Imaam an-Nawawee (Rahimullaah) himself was of the Ashaa’irah and Soofiyyah?
5. Why is that the Salafiyyah praise Ibn Rajab al-Hanbalee (Rahimullaah) when it was known that he was of the Athariyyah and a Hanbalee Soofi?
6. Why is it that the Salafiyyah praise Imaams such as Hasan al-Basree (Rahimullaah) and other giants of the Sunnah and interestingly enough - after some investigation and research - one finds that they (the Imaams) were of the Soofiyyah after studying their biographies?
7. Why is it that the Salafiyyah praise Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimullaah) - whom they frequently love to quote - but himself was a Soofi, is known to have praised Shaykh 'Abdul Qaadir al-Jeelaani (Rahimullaah) in his books, and quite possibly of the Qaadiriyyah tareeqah?
8. If the Ash’ariyyah, Maatureediyyah, and Soofiyyah are deviant - as the Salafiyyah claim - then how do they reconcile this with the historical fact that the Ottoman Empire was a Sunni, Hanafee, Soofi caliphate and were proponents of the Ash’aree/Maatureedee creeds? Do we consider the Ottomans deviants and put them outside the fold of Islaam?
9. How do the Salafiyyah reconcile their anti-Soofi stance with the historical fact that Tasawwuf was incorporated into the educational curriculum of all the major Sunni institutions within the Muslim world such as the Qarawayn in Morocco, the Zaytoona in Tunisia, the al-Azhar in Egypt, the Deoband in Islamic India, etc? How do the Salafiyyah explain the rapid spread and acceptance of Tasawwuf and its many turuq within the Muslim world, from the times of the Umayyads, to the Abbaasids, to the Ayyoobis, to the Ottomans, etc? Did it take the Muslim Ummah over 1400 years to figure out that Tasawwuf was a reprehensible innovation (bid'ah)? Were all the Sunni Imaams tricked and deluded into accepting and propagating Tasawwuf, or do we treat Tasawwuf as the H1N1 virus of the Muslim world?
10. Is it conceivable to conclude that the Ummah went astray for over 1000 years in terms of scholarship and methodology and just in recent history the Sunni Muslims have been guided back to the so called "Salafi Manhaj"!? Are the Salafiyyah saying that the thousands of Imaams that have lived during the period of the Khalaf went astray and that Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhaab (Rahimullaah), after several centuries, brought us back to the correct understanding of our Deen!?
11. How do the Salafiyyah reconcile with the historical fact that many Mujahideen throughout the history of Islaam were of the Soofiyyah? What do the Salafiyyah say of the following Sunni Soofi Mujahideen:
a. Muhammad al-Faatih (Rahimullaah) : The Ottoman Sultan whom conquered Constantinople and is known to be a Hanafee, Maatureedee, Soofi (our Beloved Messenger, Sallallaahu 'Alayhi Wa Sallam, prophesied about him in a well known hadeeth).
b. Salaah ad-Deen al-Ayyoobee : The Warrior of Islaam that liberated the Holy Land of Palestine from the Crusaders and is known to be a Shafi'ee, Ash'aree, Soofi.
c. Imaam Shameel : The Naqshbandi Imaam whom fought the Russians in the Caucasus (Chechnya and Dagestan) and is known to be a Hanafee, Maatureedee, Soofi.
d. Abdul Qaadir Al-Jazaa`iree : The Algerian scholar whom fought the French invasion of Algeria and is known to be a Malakee, Ash'aree, Soofi.
e. 'Umar al-Mukhtaar : The Lion of the Desert whom fought the Italian invasion of Libya and is known to be a Malakee, Ash'aree, Soofi.
f. Izz ad-Deen al-Qassaam : Perhaps the first Muslim to fight the Zionist invasion of Palestine and is known to be a Shafi'ee, Ash'aree, Soofi of the Qaadiriyyah tareeqah.
Are all of the Sunni heroes of Islaam mentioned above deviants?
12. Why is it that the Salafiyyah tamper with classical Sunni texts of the Imaams of the past, for example erasing any mention of Ash’ariyyah or Soofiyyah, etc. when revising or translating classical works into other languages?
13. Why is it that the Salafiyyah claim to be following the Sunnah but many of them are known to sport the Saudi red chequered Kufiyyah when it is well known that the Prophet, Sallallaahu 'Alayhi Wa Sallam, wore a turban? Isn’t this contrary to the Sunnah?
14. Why have the Salafiyyah of Arabia forced the Najdi culture upon the people of Hijaaz when the Hijaazis have a distinct culture from the rest of Arabia?
15. Why are the Salafiyyah of Arabia systematically destroying historical Mecca and Medina? Why are the Salafiyyah of Arabia destroying the tombs, relics, and homes of the Companions and Ahl al-Bayt? Why aren't the Salafiyyah of Arabia investing in the preservation of the historical sites of Hijaaz for future generations? Is it in order to make way for luxuriant five star hotels or for fear of what they view as "shirk"? Accurate reports show that over 90% of historical Mecca and Medina have been wiped out of existence and to this day the destruction of the heritage of Hijaaz continues.
16. If the Salafiyyah of Arabia are going to destroy the graves and historical sights of Hijaaz for fear of Sunni Muslims committing "shirk" then why don't they destroy the ka'bah and the mosque of the Prophet, Sallallaahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam, in order to prevent what they think is "shirk"? May Allaah SWT forbid that from ever happening!
17. Why do the Salafiyyah condemn Sunni Muslims for celebrating the birth (Mawlid) of the Prophet, Sallallaahu 'Alayhi Wa Sallam, when history shows us that it had been celebrated and accepted by the vast majority of the Imaams of the Sunnah for almost 900 years? Today it is celebrated in many of the Muslim lands from Morocco in the west to Indonesia and Malaysia in the east. Are the Salafiyyah saying that it took our bright and illustrious Imaams 900 years to figure out that the Mawlid was a reprehensible innovation (bid'ah)!?
A Final Note:
Due to the many inconsistencies amongst the Salafiyyah I have come to the conclusion that there is a sinister agenda in wanting to re-write or even erase our history in order to reform our Deen underneath the slogan “Qur`aan wa Sunnah” when true historical facts clearly show that the methodology of our scholars and Imaams, from amongst the Salaf and Khalaf, were significantly different then what the Salafiyyah are upon today, unless if someone can prove otherwise.
Abdullah Rayan
SOURCE: Deenport
Thread
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
