Even the madkhalis have become jihadist??

[fatima_43]

jazakAllah khayran

[Ansari]

And who is better in speech than one who invites to Allah and does righteousness and says, "Indeed, I am of the Muslims." (Fussilat 33)

Dont see salafi or atharee or suroori or sufi or rafidi anywhere in the words of Allah... perhaps those who do other than the verses of Allah say are innovators themselves..

[abu_hafsa]

before he died ahmad deedat was in saudi so it wouldnt surprise anyone that he was surrounded by salafis (and that they would be trying to recruit him) and from wat i understand zakir naik is not a student of ahmad deedat (?). but im interested in proof from u to support ur claims. for clarity sake and in response to my original question which u failed to answer, wat are these salafi beliefs ahmad deedat adopted according to ur sources?

Please watch these clips. You will come to the conclusion that Zakir Naik is indeed a student of Shaykh Ahmed Deedat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGzQA9xyV8c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh6MD...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti0dX...eature=related

[abu_hafsa]

Dont see salafi or atharee or suroori or sufi or rafidi anywhere in the words of Allah... perhaps those who do other than the verses of Allah say are innovators themselves..

Brother, These groups were not there when the Quran was revealed. But Our prophet(sas) had mentioned about the sects and groups which will come out of his nation.

So we should be aware of the groups and should not be naive to claim that Najjads and Nasrallahs are our brothers.

[Ansari]

Brother, These groups were not there when the Quran was revealed.

Exactly my point brother...

[abu_azzam]

Exactly my point brother...

according to that line of argument we should also condemn the individuals belonging to the category of muhaddithuun, fuqahaa', mutakallimuun etc etc because these terms didnt exist in the time of revelation. i think u need to distinuguish between the titles of illegitimate sects and the titles of their adherents, as opposed to the titles given to legitimate fields of specializations and movements and the titles of their adherents. ahl-alhadith and ahl-ray were some of the earliest titles introduced in islamic history and members of the salaf belonged to both movements/schools and identified with them in their own times. using the quran out of context and to support baseless arguments is interpreting quran according to your desire.i advise u not to do that.

"as for the majority of the ummah and the people of hadith and fiqh and tasawwuf, they are adherents to what the prophets came with....."
(Fataawa of ibn taymiyyah vol 12 p36)


reading these forums one comes by the most ridiculous observations, both religious and secular ('literature is munkar and fahshaa' etc). i really feel sorry for young readers whose intellectual and moral development gets retarded by the many inexcusable things wriiten

[abu_azzam]

I can refer you to the people who have quoted it as to be honest I did not go into such matters of his 'Aqeedah, I was only mentioning what those who knew him had said.

Like as I mentioned, he wasn't a card-carrying member of any group, rather he was around many 'Salafis' before he passed away, may Allah have Mercy upon him, and was affected by their da'wah. I will have to ask those who were with him for more specifics on this.

You are very correct in saying that I am not a proponent of what you define as salafism, that cliquish mentality of superiority, I have nothing to do with it nor do I want to. I have no qualms in saying I love Ahmad Deedat, regardless of his views or affiliations, even if he was a whirling dervish Sufi. I am not going to dismiss all of his good because of a few differences, and I know that some 'Salafis' disagree with this.. They are the same ones who hate Salahuddin, they hate Muhammad al-Fatih, they hate Umar Mukhtar and Uthman dan Fodio because they were by name 'Sufis', they hate the Ottoman Empire and they hate anyone who differs with them. Yet they have nothing but love and respect for the kings and rulers who betray the Ummah and stand side by side with the disbelievers in fighting the Muslims. They are the Madkhalis or pseudo-Salafis or whatever you want to call them.

just mention wat zaik naik said as u said he was very clear concerning ahmad deedats beliefs

are u insinuating that wat i said about salafism is incorrect according to its own scholars? u need only peruse the books of its discursive author, mohamed bin abdel-wahab (May Allah forgive him), to identify the central role the need to stick to veritible sources plays in wahabi thought (although i do make a distinction between the founder's movement and later submovements, one of which is salafism) and vilification. this of course, and no surprise, is deduced from isolated and de-contextualised statements from the salaf. again, i am making essentializing claims about 'SALAFISM'. im not interested in what salafis say and i have previously clarified this obvious distinction. we start to sound awfully postmodern if we cant define and locate salafism and instead refer to personal expereince as the basis of wat Salafism represents ( also stances on corrupt rulers does not necessarily define different salafisms, but is rather an issue of fiqh premised upon complex considerations such as public interest etc).


"they were by name sufis"? its really surprising that people who have the ability to reasearch (although a lack of competency in classical arabic is an obvious impediment) are unable to overcome obvious contradictions. take tasawwuf and salafism. salafism takes ibn taymiyya and ibn qayyim to be key intellectual thinkers of the movement and has long publicised them as being diametrically opposed to tasawwuf and sufis. this position might have been understandable for the first generation due to ignorance, however it should have subsequently become vivdly clear the serious contradictions in such a position and an attempt should have been made to develop a new stance. ibn taymiyya makes it exceedinly clear that those he opposed:


"were the philosopher sufis (exponents of pantheism) and not the sufis of the people of knowledge, let alone the sheikhs of the Book and the Sunna such as......maruf al-karkhi and al-junayd May allah be pleased with them" (al-furqan)


as for ibn qayyim his praise of the 'qawm' (sufis) in his book madaarij as-saalikeen speaks for itself, a work which is in itself an explanation of the a sufi's (ismael al-harawi) treatise.


historically, all the islamic sciences emerged due to challenges facing the ummah. the science of tajweed emerged as a response to the influx of foreigners into the ummah and the incorrect recitations that were spreading throughout the newly islamicized areas of the burgeoning empire. likewise, the dimension of revelation concerned with purification and ihsan finally became formalised, in the science of tasawwuf, wen excessive wealth started entering the capitals causing increasng hedonism amongst muslim populations.


the reason, i am clarifying this is because of the opportunity everyone has to independently research controversial issues and the obvious lack of knowledge that underpins statements made


i suggest for all ur sake that wen u think about tasawwuf u start to make a distinction (as did scholars such as ibn taymiyya) between:


-tasawwuf and sufis

-the pillars of taswwuf and secondary thought within tasawwuf (based on ijtihaad)

-issues of tasawwuf and issues not of tasawwuf (eg, tawassul)

[abu_azzam]

this is an example of what im talking about concerning wat Salafism's logical response would be for someone like ahmad deedat. i mean in particular about the need, firstly, to verify if he is an innovator and of the 'manhaj' and ,secondly, if he is, the need to shun his materials

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmes...m=9&Topic=1660

[Musa]

Dear Akhi abu_azzam, I think you have somehow assumed the worst from what I said when there was no malevolence intended whatsoever? I did not say anything about your understandings of Salafism or what not..

All I stated was that what you have defined as Salafism (others will have their own explanations) I am not a proponent of.

[falah]

Ruling on saying “I am a Salafi”

I have come to know a person who follows the Salafi da’wah and I have read a book about this movement. I believe that the Salafi da’wah is correct and that those who follow it have the sound ‘aqeedah belief), but there are some matters I want to ask about How correct is it from an Islamic point of view to use the word “Salafi” and to describe oneself in this way?

If a person says that he is a Salafi, is he praising himself? Is this considered to be dividing the ummah?
If we tell the Sufis that their madhhab is not correct, and that neither the Prophet or his Companions taught it, they will respond that the Prophet or his Companions did not use the word “Salafi” either, so how should we reply to them?


Praise be to Allah.

We can answer this question with the following points:

Each person is obliged to follow the guidance of the Messenger of Allah and his Companions. This is the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah and the followers of the righteous predecessors (al-salaf al-saalih). Allah says (interpretation of the meanings):

“Say (O Muhammad): ‘This is my way; I invite unto Allah with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me with sure knowledge. And Glorified and Exalted be Allah (above all that they associate as partners with Him). And I am not of the mushrikeen (polytheists… those who worship others along with Allah or set up rivals or partners to Allaah).”
[Yoosuf v.108]

“And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way, We shall keep him in the oath he has chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil destination!”
[al-Nisa’ v.115]

Whoever follows the way of the Messenger of Allah belongs to the salaf al-saalih, even if the people call him something else; by the same token, whoever goes against it and deviates from the Sunnah is an innovator, even if he claims to be a Salafi.

If a person calls himself a Salafi to express his gratitude for having been guided to this way, or to clearly distinguish himself from innovation, then this is OK and is allowed in Islam. But if he says it only for the purpose of praising himself, then this is not allowed, because Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… therefore justify not yourselves…” [al-Najm v.32]. Similarly, it is not allowed if it is said in a spirit of tribalism or sectarianism, because such attitudes are forbidden, as is clear from the following story: Jaabir ibn ‘Abdullah said: “A man from the Muhajireen shoved a man from the Ansar from behind, so each man’s people gathered around him, saying ‘O Muhaajireen (come and help)!’ or ‘O Ansar (come and help)!’ News of this reached the Prophet and he said, ‘Stop this, for it is repulsive.’ Then he said, ‘What is this call of the people of jahiliyyah? What is this call of the people of jahiliyyah?’” (Reported by Imaam Ahmad, 14105; the hadeeth is also to be found in al-Saheehayn). The Prophet called it the call of the people of jahiliyyah and described it as repulsive, even though the words “Ansari” and “Muhajiri” are Islamic words, the first referring to those who supported Allah and His Messenger, and the second referring to those who left the land of kufr and migrated to Allah and His Messenger. Why were they described in this manner? Because in this instance, the words were not used in a permissible fashion; the usage was a sectarian and political one that could have led to fighting between the two groups. The same applies to the word “Salafi”.

If the Ahl al-Sunnah and the salaf draw a line between themselves and the innovators, this is not considered to be dividing the ummah, as those who criticize the use of this word think is the case, but this distancing of oneself has to be done in accordance with the degree of bid’ah – whether it is major or minor – and should be regulated by the overall interests of the Islamic da’wah.

The Sufi claims mentioned in the question are not valid. The denunciation is not merely because of the word “Sufi”, which is a general word that may be applied to things approved of in Islam, such as asceticism (zuhd) and fear of Allah, or it may be applied to innovations such as monasticism and extremism. Rather the denunciation is because of the various types of shirk, major and minor, that are connected with Sufism and its tareeqahs. The word Tasawwuf (Sufism) now refers to the Sufi tareeqahs and the kinds of innovations they have. Sufism – as is obvious from their books and how Sufis actually are – includes deviant ideas of kufr, such as hulool (incarnation or the belief that the Creator may be indwelling in His creation – exalted be Allah above what they say), ittihaad (union) and wahdat al-wujood (pantheism or the unity of existence, which is the belief that the Creator and His creation are the same thing, and that everything in existence is Allah – exalted be Allah above what they say), and going to extremes in what they say about the awliya’, in addition to their innovations in the matter of acts of worship and awraad (du’aa’s).

The one who is seeking salvation has to work hard to gain beneficial knowledge and do righteous deeds, and he should avoid vain arguments and futile discussions in which there is no benefit.

We ask Allah to help us and you to follow the truth and act upon it. May Alaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

[from water]

historically, all the islamic sciences emerged due to challenges facing the ummah. the science of tajweed emerged as a response to the influx of foreigners into the ummah and the incorrect recitations that were spreading throughout the newly islamicized areas of the burgeoning empire. likewise, the dimension of revelation concerned with purification and ihsan finally became formalised, in the science of tasawwuf, wen excessive wealth started entering the capitals causing increasng hedonism amongst muslim populations.

That's an interesting idea. I wonder if now we're seeing a rise in these "salafi" movements (whose scholars I do listen to) because people are deviating further and further from true Islam in light of these "modern" times.

[falah]

^ I see what you are saying. Salafism to Islam is like tajweed rules for Quran.

[Ansari]

so abstract abu azzam... I talk in apples, you talk in pears.. I am referring to those who claim titles for the particular groups they claim to belong with...

Same does go for fuqaha and muhadithuun, if someone claims to be a faqih or a muhadith do they deserve the title? It is something bestowed upon them not something they should claim for themselves..

[abu_azzam]

Ruling on saying “I am a Salafi”

I have come to know a person who follows the Salafi da’wah and I have read a book about this movement. I believe that the Salafi da’wah is correct and that those who follow it have the sound ‘aqeedah belief), but there are some matters I want to ask about How correct is it from an Islamic point of view to use the word “Salafi” and to describe oneself in this way?

If a person says that he is a Salafi, is he praising himself? Is this considered to be dividing the ummah?
If we tell the Sufis that their madhhab is not correct, and that neither the Prophet or his Companions taught it, they will respond that the Prophet or his Companions did not use the word “Salafi” either, so how should we reply to them?


Praise be to Allah.

We can answer this question with the following points:

Each person is obliged to follow the guidance of the Messenger of Allah and his Companions. This is the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah and the followers of the righteous predecessors (al-salaf al-saalih). Allah says (interpretation of the meanings):

“Say (O Muhammad): ‘This is my way; I invite unto Allah with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me with sure knowledge. And Glorified and Exalted be Allah (above all that they associate as partners with Him). And I am not of the mushrikeen (polytheists… those who worship others along with Allah or set up rivals or partners to Allaah).”
[Yoosuf v.108]

“And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way, We shall keep him in the oath he has chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil destination!”
[al-Nisa’ v.115]

Whoever follows the way of the Messenger of Allah belongs to the salaf al-saalih, even if the people call him something else; by the same token, whoever goes against it and deviates from the Sunnah is an innovator, even if he claims to be a Salafi.

If a person calls himself a Salafi to express his gratitude for having been guided to this way, or to clearly distinguish himself from innovation, then this is OK and is allowed in Islam. But if he says it only for the purpose of praising himself, then this is not allowed, because Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… therefore justify not yourselves…” [al-Najm v.32]. Similarly, it is not allowed if it is said in a spirit of tribalism or sectarianism, because such attitudes are forbidden, as is clear from the following story: Jaabir ibn ‘Abdullah said: “A man from the Muhajireen shoved a man from the Ansar from behind, so each man’s people gathered around him, saying ‘O Muhaajireen (come and help)!’ or ‘O Ansar (come and help)!’ News of this reached the Prophet and he said, ‘Stop this, for it is repulsive.’ Then he said, ‘What is this call of the people of jahiliyyah? What is this call of the people of jahiliyyah?’” (Reported by Imaam Ahmad, 14105; the hadeeth is also to be found in al-Saheehayn). The Prophet called it the call of the people of jahiliyyah and described it as repulsive, even though the words “Ansari” and “Muhajiri” are Islamic words, the first referring to those who supported Allah and His Messenger, and the second referring to those who left the land of kufr and migrated to Allah and His Messenger. Why were they described in this manner? Because in this instance, the words were not used in a permissible fashion; the usage was a sectarian and political one that could have led to fighting between the two groups. The same applies to the word “Salafi”.

If the Ahl al-Sunnah and the salaf draw a line between themselves and the innovators, this is not considered to be dividing the ummah, as those who criticize the use of this word think is the case, but this distancing of oneself has to be done in accordance with the degree of bid’ah – whether it is major or minor – and should be regulated by the overall interests of the Islamic da’wah.

The Sufi claims mentioned in the question are not valid. The denunciation is not merely because of the word “Sufi”, which is a general word that may be applied to things approved of in Islam, such as asceticism (zuhd) and fear of Allah, or it may be applied to innovations such as monasticism and extremism. Rather the denunciation is because of the various types of shirk, major and minor, that are connected with Sufism and its tareeqahs. The word Tasawwuf (Sufism) now refers to the Sufi tareeqahs and the kinds of innovations they have. Sufism – as is obvious from their books and how Sufis actually are – includes deviant ideas of kufr, such as hulool (incarnation or the belief that the Creator may be indwelling in His creation – exalted be Allah above what they say), ittihaad (union) and wahdat al-wujood (pantheism or the unity of existence, which is the belief that the Creator and His creation are the same thing, and that everything in existence is Allah – exalted be Allah above what they say), and going to extremes in what they say about the awliya’, in addition to their innovations in the matter of acts of worship and awraad (du’aa’s).

The one who is seeking salvation has to work hard to gain beneficial knowledge and do righteous deeds, and he should avoid vain arguments and futile discussions in which there is no benefit.

We ask Allah to help us and you to follow the truth and act upon it. May Alaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

the question sounds so contrived. The reversal is amusing. It is the salafis that are known for these types of simplistic observations. abu hafsa is an example above in the thread: “the term sufi wasn’t known in the time of the Prophet (saws)!”

most of the first half isn’t relevant to what we’ve been discussing but ive got the following observations on those points connected to our topic


-It is incorrect that whoever follows the Messenger of Allah belongs to the salaf. The salaf as-saalih is not a madhhab but a historical period. To the contrary, whoever follows the Messenger of Allah after the epoch of the salaf belongs to the khalaf as-saalih. Organized and formalised systems of thought did not emerge until the time of the Khalaf (with the exception of imam shafi’s legal methodology recorded in his work ‘Ar-Risaala’ and Imam Tahawi’s Aqeeda- which Salafism does not adhere to). I think the term he might of being looking for here was Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jamaa’ah. The whole Ummah claims to follow the Messenger of Allah (saws).

-I don’t think anyone considers the category of Ahlus-sunnah to be a divisive term, or at least not from a traditional perspective. The term Ahlus-Sunnah referred to the Maturidis and Asharis, the Sufis of the People of Knowledge and the scholars of the Four Madhhabs for a thousand years after the formalization of the thought of the Salaf had been completed. The Wahabi Movement (a couple of hundered years old) now attributes this title to themselves too. Furthermore, a bidah is not to be used to categorise issues upon which there is a difference of opinion. So it is those bidahs that are unanimously agreed upon by the scholarly community that distinguishes Ahlus-Sunnah from those who do not belong to it.

-Who in islamic scholarly history, past or contemporary, has used the term sufi to refer to the things the author of the article has mentioned (monasticism etc) and, more surprisingly, who uses or used the word Tasawwuf to refer to the tareeqahs etc. His statements expose his great ignorance on the issue and on Islamic history in general. Ibn Taymiyya was under no confusion that Tasawwuf was a science of Purification and that the Sufis of the People of knowledge were of Ahlus-Sunnah. The word tasawwuf, contrary to the author’s ignorance, still refers to a science whose aim is purification of the soul. For example, the subject content of the discipline, ‘Tasawwuf’ , taught in the Azhar is the ‘actions of the heart’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzj99di2XsQ). Which books on Tasawwuf is the author referring to as containing obvious innovations. For example, in North Western Africa the most widely taught text to students of knowledge is the Matn of ibn Ashir (A short treatise on Aqeeda, Fiqh and Tasawwuf, see below). Where are the innovations in this book that is still used widely. As for his attempt to confine the practice of tasawwuf to tareeqahs this is also inaccurate. Many scholars who have no immediate and formal allegiance to tareeqahs have taken tasawwuf and/or are sufis. For example, the most famous recent Ikhwani Islamic scholar, Saed Hawa (see his book ‘Our Spiritual Upbringing). As for his blanket condemnation of the Tareeqahs what is the problem with the tareeqah that the great modern Egyptian Mufassir Shiekh Sha’rawi belonged to (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igEkD...eature=related) and which still shares a strong relationship with the Azhar ( a group of the people of knowledge).

What is obvious from the article above is what I have previously mentioned in the thread concerning Salafism’s inability to escape their incorrect understanding of Ibn Taymiyyah’s position on Sufis. The writer tries to project to his readers the idea that he is aware of tasawwuf and Sufis in the modern age but what he actually describes is situations from the past and more specifically the prevailing situation in the time of Ibn Taymiyya. So you find the author talking about huluul and other ideas which were prevalent in Ibn Taymiyyas time but which no longer are significant issues. References are also made in the article to issues which were and which still are problems (tawassul and shirk) but which did not deter Ibn Taymiyya from recognizing the orthodoxy of tasawwuf and the Sufis of the people of knowledge. Regardless, it is obvious that the author is stuck in a certain narrative about Ibn Taymiyya and Sufis.

Like ive already said I think the author and salafis need to separate between:

-tasawwuf and sufis

-the pillars of taswwuf and secondary thought within tasawwuf (based on ijtihaad)

-issues of tasawwuf and issues not of tasawwuf (eg, tawassul)

Falah, Ibn Taymiyya said concerning those he opposed that they "were the philosopher sufis (exponents of pantheism) and not the sufis of the people of knowledge, let alone the sheikhs of the Book and the Sunna such as......maruf al-karkhi and al-junayd May allah be pleased with them" (al-furqan). Do you think the author of the article has a better understanding of what Tasawwuf is or Ibn Taymiyya?








Tasawwuf section of Matn of ibn Ashir

(Kitaab Mabaadii’ At-Tasawwuf wa Hawaadii’ At-Ta’arruf)

291 Book of the Beginnings of Tasawwuf and That Which Guides to the Knowledge of Allah (Kitaab Mabaadii’ At-Tasawwuf wa Hawaadii’ At-Ta’arruf)
Repentance from all misdeeds which are committed | is wajib right away without stipulations and is known as feeling sorry (for what one did).
292 (Repentance) has the preconditions of ceasing the act of disobedience and intending not to persist. | Let the person
cancel out the misdeed with as much asking for forgiveness as is possible (for him).
293 The upshot of god-fearingness is the avoidance (of prohibitions) and the following (of commands) | externally and
internally and with this it is obtained.
294 So, the divisions (of necessary actions in the Path) have come as four in number | and they are for the spiritual traveler
the ways which lead to benefit.
295 He must lower his gaze away from the unlawful. | He must restrain his ears away from verbal misdeeds,
296 Such as backbiting, tale-carrying, false witnessing, and lying. | And it is more proper that he restrain his own tongue
from engaging in these acts.
297 He must guard his stomach from intaking the unlawful. | He must leave what is doubtful considering it significant.
298 He must guard over his front private part and fear the ever-present Witness (i.e. Allah) | in what he reaches out
towards (with his hand) and what he hastens towards (with his feet) of what is forbidden.
299 He must avoid engaging in affairs until he knows | what Allah has ruled about them.
300 He must cleanse his heart from showing off (for people), | resentful envy, conceit, and all (other) diseases.
301 Know that the root of all calamities of the heart | is loving leadership and forgetting about the Coming Life.
302 The head of all misdeeds is loving the present world. | There is no (real) cure (for these diseases) except calling to
Allah while feeling extreme need.
303 He must keep the company of a Shaykh, a knower of the various paths. | The Shaykh will save him from the destructive
points in his Path.
304 The Shaykh will remind the disciple of Allah when he sees him | and will make the servant reach his Master.
305 He must reckon and take to account the lower self with each breath. | He must weigh his thoughts with the correct
balance.
306 He must guard over the wajib acts (of the din) which serve as his base capital. | The mandub deeds are their profit
which he successively obtains.
307 He must do plenteous Arabic verbal remembrance with a clear mind | and the help in doing all of this is from his Lord.
308 He must strive against the lower self for the Lord of the worlds. | He must embellish himself with the stations of
certainty:
309 Fear, hope, thankfulness, patience, repentance, | abstinence, dependence (on Allah), contentment, and love.
310 He must be true to Him Who sees him in all of his dealings. | He must become happy with what the One God decrees
for him.
311 He will become with this a knower of Allah | who is free and those other than Allah will vacate (leave) his heart.
312 So, the One God will love him and choose him | for His sanctified presence and make him among the elect.

[falah]

The term Ahlus-Sunnah referred to the Maturidis and Asharis, the Sufis of the People of Knowledge and the scholars of the Four Madhhabs

Who follows the 4 imams today? The sufis? How can the sufis claim to be ahlus-sunnah when they do not follow the 4 imams on the most important issue of aqeedah?


Imam Abu Hanifah

Mutee’ al-Balakhee asked Imam Abu Hanifah regarding his opinion of a person who does not know whether his Lord is in the heavens or on earth. Abu Hanifah replied, ‘He has disbelieved, because Allah has said,

"The Most Merciful is above the throne" (20:5)

and His Throne is above His Seven Heavens.’
(In the commentary of Aqeedah Tahawiyah by Abdul Izz al-Hanafi)

Imam Malik

Abdullah bin Nafi’ reported that Imam Malik said: ‘Allah is above the heavens, but His knowledge encompasses everything. Nothing escapes His Knowledge.’
(Reported by Abdullah Ibn Ahmad in As-Sunnah (p.5), Aboo Dawood in al-Masa’il (p.263), Al-Aajuree in ash-Sharee’ah (p. 289) and al-Lalika’ee (1/92/2))

Imam Shaf’ee

Imam Shaf’ee said: ‘The creed which I hold is the same creed the Muslims before me were holding, namely, the testimony of faith: ‘There is no god worthy of being worshipped except Allah, that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and Allah is above His ‘Arsh above the heavens..."
(Mukhtasar al-’Uluww)

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal

Imam Bin Hanbal was asked: ‘Is Allah above His ‘Arsh, above the seventh heaven, separate from His creatures, and His Knowledge and Power encompassing everything everywhere? He replied: ‘Certainly, He is above His ‘Arsh and nothing escapes His knowledge.’
[Reported by al-Khallal in al-Mukhtasar]

[Musa]

The word Sufi is inaccurate, ambiguous and essentially baseless..

As a word it means wearer of wool, yet the Sufis do not wear wool.

It is ambiguous because some claim it means other things and there is no consensus on its meaning, plus it defines such a wide range of things it becomes a catch-all term for a very different group of peoples who are a significant minority among Muslims.

Its baseless as unlike Sunnah (Sunni) Salaf (Salafi) Tawheed (Muwahhid) Iman (Mu'min) Sufi is not a word that is ever used in the Shari'ah, it is absent from the Qur'an and Sunnah and has no meaning in Islam. Therefore unlike Sunnah which can be debated and defined, Sufism can never be defined as it has no basis.

This is one of the problems of Sufism.. You will find over time it has meant very different things to different generations.

In its beginning Sufis were those who were known to be attached to asceticism (zuhd) and this is what distinguished them. There was no ideology attached to them such as Ashar'ism, Maturidism, belief in wahdat ul-wujood, belief in a golden chain, belief in saints (qutub) etc.

Over time some of these ascetics adopted different paths or tariqahs, and each tariqah differed. This of course is the case up until today where there is no one 'Sufi' path, rather there are many paths, many different beliefs, many myths and even different theologies (Aqeedah).

What happened was the zuhd was no longer there and they became known by the beliefs and paths that they held. Hence what made people Sufis in the beginning was no longer present, all that made them different was their tariqas. This is why you saw Sufis praised and also criticised by the Salaf. Those who were attached to zuhd were praised. Those who deviated in belief were criticised. Sufi became a catch-all term to describe all of these groups.

Up until our days you find Sufis who deviated greatly from their paths and even rebelled against their teachers and formed their own tariqas. Some of them differed greatly from the majority of the Ummah and some did not. You found Sufis like Muhammad al-Mahdi in Sudan who claimed he was the mahdi and criticised the Sufis who he was raised with, and claimed he was the mahdi and held many amazingly deviant beliefs. Sufis like Umar Mukhtar who were known for their fighting against invaders whilst others were known for something akin to pacifism. You will meet Sufis who insist that it is shirk to pray to the dead and those who will insist it is legitimate.

Perhaps most interestingly, you find among some of the Sufis followers of Ashar'ism and Maturidism who hold contradictory views in the fundamentals of theology (Aqeedah) and in essence hold different theologies. One group claims that Iman rises and goes down whereas the other group claims it is fixed and static. This fundamental of faith and the difference of it has caused some to label the others as disbelievers or for declaring children to be believers or disbelievers according to which view they hold.

This shows that Sufism is really an ill-defined and almost meaningless name that can be applied to so many different groups. movements, tariqahs and even theologies that it should barely be afforded any seriousness when wanting to talk about specific matters. One should define a Sufi not as being part of the large grouping known as Sufis, but rather as being specific members of their respective groupings.

Among those known as Sufis there are great heroes, some of the greatest that the ummah has seen. Uthman dan Fodio, Umar Mukhtar, Hassan al-Banna and so many more. Then there are grave-worshiping, polytheistic deviants who are the antithesis of what the original Sufis were. Regardless of whteher they wear wool or not

[abu_azzam]

That's an interesting idea. I wonder if now we're seeing a rise in these "salafi" movements (whose scholars I do listen to) because people are deviating further and further from true Islam in light of these "modern" times.

as far as a rise is concerned, i think wat we've witnessed is a rise in and dissemination of isolated wahhabi ideas amongst mostly uneducated muslim populations, which has always been the case with such ideas as anthropomorphism. however, the continuing existance of wahhabi movements is due mainly to the oil-rich state of Saudi Arabia and our post-colonial condition.

i dont know exactly wat u mean by people deviating further and further from true islam in our modern context and salafism being a corrollary of this. i think u were implying it is a positive corrollary. if u mean that salafism is a consequence of the social, intellectual etc dislocation of modern societies then i would i agree (by which i mean salafism as an escape/cop-out from the uncertainty induced by the constant transformation of the status quo). I also think it is pretty clear that people are gravitating towards islam rather deviating from it.

furthermore, it is clear that wahhabism is itself a very modern reading of islam and not an authentic expression. This is clear, but not limited, to the following observations:

-it is rationalistic in its outlook on man

-it represents a breakdown in the methodologies of the salaf and the khalaf. for example a rejection and non-adherence to the methodologies of the salaf in fiqh, of which only 4 remain. Edward Said was right when he said how we know what we know is just as important as what we know. so its a de-systemization and a discontinuation of islamic thought

-it relies on isolated and de-contextualised statements of past scholars and texts to support its pre-determined ideas. This is how it manages to project authenticity and appeal to its uneducated followers and unassuming listeners.

-its been a neo-kharijite movement since its beginning using divine texts out of their context to accuse muslims of apostacy etc

Further Reading

-Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab & the origin of the
Wahhabite movement
By Shaykh Seraj Hendricks
http://www.seekingilm.com/books/wahhabite.pdf

-Modern Salafism & Its Effect On Muslim Disunity (Skip to the intro)
By Shaykh Sa`id Foudah

http://www.marifah.net/articles/mode...saidfoudah.pdf

-Islamic Spirituality: the forgotten revolution
By Abdal-Hakim Murad
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/fgtnrevo.htm

-Wasīla, Circumambulating Graves & Accusing Others of Shirk and Kufr
Mufti ʿAlī Jumuʿah
http://www.marifah.net/jurisprudence...cles/fiqh/wasa

[abu_azzam]

No, that's what you are saying. what i would say is that Salafism to Islam is not like tajweed to the Quran because whilst Salafism is a de-systemitization of 'Islam', tajweed is a systemitization of the reading of the Quran.



.............................................

-Hilal bin Abi Maymuuna related from Ataa’ bin Yasaar from Mu'awiya bin Hakam:"I had a maid-servant...I slapped her(later I) said: Prophet of God, should I not grant her freedom?...He said to her: Where is Allah? She said: He is above the heavens. He said: Who am I? She said: You are the Prophet of God. He said: Grant her freedom, she is a believing woman."

(Related by Muslim)


-Ibn Jurayj related that Ataa’ bin Yasaar told him that a man had a maid-servant…..and that he slapped her and came to the Prophet of God (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him) and mentioned that he needed to expiate a believing slave and that he had considered making her his expiation after having slapped her and so the Prophet said to him ‘bring her to me’. Then the Prophet asked her “Do you testify that There is no God but God?’

She said ‘Yes’.

‘And that Muhammad is the servant of God and His Messenger?’

She said ‘Yes’.

‘And that Death and Resurrection are true?’

She said ‘Yes’.

‘And that Paradise and Hell are true?’

She said ‘Yes’.

When He had finished he said ‘Free or keep her’.

(Related by Abdur-Razzaq)

[abu_azzam]

Ansari: And who is better in speech than one who invites to Allah and does righteousness and says, "Indeed, I am of the Muslims." (Fussilat 33)

Dont see salafi or atharee or suroori or sufi or rafidi anywhere in the words of Allah... perhaps those who do other than the verses of Allah say are innovators themselves..

Abu Hafsa: Brother, These groups were not there when the Quran was revealed. But Our prophet(sas) had mentioned about the sects and groups which will come out of his nation.

So we should be aware of the groups and should not be naive to claim that Najjads and Nasrallahs are our brothers.

Ansari: Exactly my point brother...

Abu azzam: according to that line of argument we should also condemn the individuals belonging to the category of muhaddithuun, fuqahaa', mutakallimuun etc etc because these terms didnt exist in the time of revelation. i think u need to distinuguish between the titles of illegitimate sects and the titles of their adherents, as opposed to the titles given to legitimate fields of specializations and movements and the titles of their adherents. ahl-alhadith and ahl-ray were some of the earliest titles introduced in islamic history and members of the salaf belonged to both movements/schools and identified with them in their own times. using the quran out of context and to support baseless arguments is interpreting quran according to your desire.i advise u not to do that.

"as for the majority of the ummah and the people of hadith and fiqh and tasawwuf, they are adherents to what the prophets came with....."
(Fataawa of ibn taymiyyah vol 12 p36)

reading these forums one comes by the most ridiculous observations, both religious and secular ('literature is munkar and fahshaa' etc). i really feel sorry for young readers whose intellectual and moral development gets retarded by the many inexcusable things wriiten


IM SORRY BROTHER RE-READ UR WORDS AND THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT THAT YOUR WORDS MAKE. IF YOU READ UR WORDS YOU WILL SEE THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT THAT ADHERENTS OF GROUPS HAVING NAMES THAT ARENT MENTIONED IN THE QURAN ARE INNOVATORS ('PERHAPS').I RESPONDED TO THAT IDEA. YOUR LAST POST CONTAINS A NEW ARGUMENT DIFFERENT FROM UR INITIAL ONE. OBVIOUSLY YOU DIDNT EXPRESS YOURSELF ACCURATELY IN YOUR FIRST POST.

which points in my post were 'abstract'? i introduced a single idea and gave an example to explain it. please let me know so i can explain further if u dont understand after re-reading the post.

[abu_azzam]

^ I see what you are saying. Salafism to Islam is like tajweed rules for Quran.

No, that's what you are saying. what i would say is that Salafism to Islam is not like tajweed to the Quran because whilst Salafism is a de-systemitization of 'Islam', tajweed is a systemitization of the reading of the Quran.



.............................................

-Hilal bin Abi Maymuuna related from Ataa’ bin Yasaar from Mu'awiya bin Hakam:"I had a maid-servant...I slapped her(later I) said: Prophet of God, should I not grant her freedom?...He said to her: Where is Allah? She said: He is above the heavens. He said: Who am I? She said: You are the Prophet of God. He said: Grant her freedom, she is a believing woman."

(Related by Muslim)


-Ibn Jurayj related that Ataa’ bin Yasaar told him that a man had a maid-servant…..and that he slapped her and came to the Prophet of God (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him) and mentioned that he needed to expiate a believing slave and that he had considered making her his expiation after having slapped her and so the Prophet said to him ‘bring her to me’. Then the Prophet asked her “Do you testify that There is no God but God?’

She said ‘Yes’.

‘And that Muhammad is the servant of God and His Messenger?’

She said ‘Yes’.

‘And that Death and Resurrection are true?’

She said ‘Yes’.

‘And that Paradise and Hell are true?’

She said ‘Yes’.

When He had finished he said ‘Free or keep her’.

(Related by Abdur-Razzaq)