Jaysh, the modernist:

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

Is Islam Imperialistic? (http://www.islamicaweb.com/forums/religion-spirituality/6075-islam-imperialistic.html)

We need to give Jaysh (Salahadeen) some Daw'ah.

[abu_ibrahim]

On this site, he has not made such comments, but feels more free to say what he wants at Islamicaweb?

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

I think Jaysh is afraid to deny offensive Jihad here,

[Mustafa al-Muhaajir]

I think Jaysh is afraid to deny offensive Jihad here,Hehe.
BUSTED.

[Mustafa al-Muhaajir]

Wow, Jaysh you don't need to practice any taqiyyah on there huh. So this is one of the places where you mentioned that you go at it with "moderates". What kind of a forum can it be when your considered harsh and radical ... lol

Dude, you even mentioned me in a couple of your posts. I'm feeling all warm knowing that you think of me. Even if you referred to me as a dog.

Jokes.

[Um Abdullah M.]

It doesn't sound like he denies it completely
thought I didnt' understand his opinion clearly.

Many months ago or maybe a year ago I posted a question in an Arabic forum for studnets of knowledge asking if there is offensive jihad today, and I wanted statements from scholars.

but they deleted my post, I tried again and they deleted it again.

I guess I will have to research it myself.

[Salahadeen]

On this site, he has not made such comments, but feels more free to say what he wants at Islamicaweb?

I say what I want anywhere. The issue did not come up here on Islamic Awakening, and hence I did not share my views on the matter.

I think Jaysh is afraid to deny offensive Jihad here,

I never denied Offensive Jihad. I am opposed to wars of aggression, what I have termed as "Aggressive Jihad". Here is a non-exhaustive list of scholars who agree with me:

Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq
Sh. Yusuf Qaradawi
Sh. Yasir Qadhi
Sh. Hânî al-Jubayr
Sh. Abd al Wahab al Khalaf
Sh. Abd al Allah Bin Zayd Al Mahmud (head of Islamic courts in Qatar)
Sh. Salman al-Oudah
Sh. Jalal Abualrub
Grand Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut
Muhammad Asad
Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazzali
Dr. Muzamil Siddiqui
Dr Amir Ali
Imam at-Tahawi
and many others...

Wow, Jaysh you don't need to practice any taqiyyah on there huh.

I don't practice taqiyyah anywhere.

[Mustafa al-Muhaajir]

I don't practice taqiyyah anywhere.Then call me a dog right here in my presence or else take the comment back. You had no reason to call me that.

[Salahadeen]

Then call me a dog right here in my presence or else take the comment back. You had no reason to call me that.

I've called you a dog pretty openly here on this forum, although I've cooled down in my language here now.

Having said that, if I called you a dog by name on Islamica, then this would be backbiting and wrong of me. I apologize if I did that, although I am not sure if I took you by name, but I may be wrong. Wallahu Aalim.

And I also apologize for calling you a dog in public as well. Things had gotten heated between us, whereas at least now we can have a somewhat civil conversation. Let us agree to disagree insha-Allah.

[Salahadeen]

So Abd al-Haqq al-Marshall, I see you have a new user name...do you have a new madhab and ideology too? Which is the madhab of the week!? I think you really should try shafi'i now...

[Salahadeen]

http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=312&main_cat_id=15

[Mustafa al-Muhaajir]

Jazaa'kallah Khayr

And forgive me inshaa'Allah, if I transgressed any bounds.

I'm a TL and your a Defeatist/Apologist but that doesn't mean we can't sort of get along. If the pilgrims and Indians did (lol), why can't we ?

[Salahadeen]

Jazaa'kallah Khayr

And forgive me inshaa'Allah, if I transgressed any bounds.

I'm a TL and your a Defeatist/Apologist but that doesn't mean we can't sort of get along. If the pilgrims and Indians did (lol), why can't we ?



Very kind of you. Jazakh-Allah Khairan.

I think maybe it is a bit my fault, since it took me awhile to get acclimated to this forum. I think now I am getting along a bit better with people.

Take care.

[Mustafa al-Muhaajir]

If the pilgrims and Indians did (lol), why can't we ?... btw, for those of you ignorant of American history -- the Indians were later slaughtered.

[Abu Maysara]

hmm...thats not strange that some ppl deny offensive Jihad, we have the situation of today where unfortunately many so called scholars deny that there is a situation of defensive Jihad today where brothers can go and defend Muslim lands and the honor of our sisters....not surprised

[Abu Maysara]

If the pilgrims and Indians did (lol), why can't we ?
... btw, for those of you ignorant of American history -- the Indians were later slaughtered
i like this one..ma sha Allah..how to trick the defeatists/modernists

[Salahadeen]

i like this one..ma sha Allah..how to trick the defeatists/modernists


And *I* was the one who was accused of taqiyyah, eh?

[Abu Maryam PK]

... btw, for those of you ignorant of American history -- the Indians were later slaughtered.
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1101410998.shtml

[Abu Maysara]

And *I* was the one who was accused of taqiyyah, eh?

War is deception...

[Abu Maryam PK]

War is deception...
and that decption means you can pretend that u were banned, and then ur side-kick ibn salul II can cry over it that dear ibn salul I was banned by the tyrannical forum admin, and then u show ur shameless face munafiq face again

[Abu Maysara]

Originally Posted by MustafaAlMuhajir http://forums.islamicawakening.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?p=115517#post115517)
... btw, for those of you ignorant of American history -- the Indians were later slaughtered.
Abu Maryam PK
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1101410998.shtmlof course you deny that your masters,americans, slaughtered indians, just as you are of the opinion that americans came to the arabian peninsula to protect the apostate regimes from sadam...they are still there until this day..to distribute candys and flowers and your dear king is doing the sword dance with his brother in kufr Bush...and the comment below is not surprising me at all, coming from american paki living in the land of Al saloul...usually guys like you clean the streets or toilets over there...be careful so they dont practice their Salouli laws on you..especially paki heads and hands are loose over there..you dont even need to commit a crime over there...you little defender of taghout and their false scholars..


and that decption means you can pretend that u were banned, and then ur side-kick ibn salul II can cry over it that dear ibn salul I was banned by the tyrannical forum admin, and then u show ur shameless face munafiq face again

[Abu Maryam PK]

paki living in the land of Al saloul...

no i am not living in a land ruled by taghoot ibn salul I aal saloul, i.e. you. U r such a cheapster, y did u ban urself ibn salul I?

[Salahadeen]

War is deception...

So you are at war with me?

[Abu GG]

Funny boys

[Abu Maysara]

So you are at war with me?
still dreaming about a church wedding?
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=12983
im still laughing at m.muhajir's comment
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=115514&postcount=12
and your response was hilarious
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=115516&postcount=13
goes on to show that defeatists/modernists have a tunnel-vision way of thinking, fox news is their mufti, cause the brain is not used to think, if they got to use the brain they usually get head ache out of it.

[Brother_Mujahid]

So, that jinnzaman character is trying to imply that Islam is an "imperialistic" religion? I despise it when people start a conversation on a topic, but don't clearly state their stance and just interrogate others without providing anything of their own. Though I don't really expect otherwise from the collectivist jinnzaman who tried to give me a white guilt trip for my alleged complacency in black slavery.

[Magoo]

no i am not living in a land ruled by taghoot ibn salul I aal saloul, i.e. you. U r such a cheapster, y did u ban urself ibn salul I?

i second that, why did you ban yourself?

did you need some attention?

were you feeling unwanted and wanted people to talk about you?

was this part of your deceptive war?

or are you not going to answer the question like a coward?

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

still dreaming about a church wedding?
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=12983
im still laughing at m.muhajir's comment
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=115514&postcount=12
and your response was hilarious
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=115516&postcount=13
goes on to show that defeatists/modernists have a tunnel-vision way of thinking, fox news is their mufti, cause the brain is not used to think, if they got to use the brain they usually get head ache out of it.

Why don't you answer his question?

So you are at war with me?

[Salahadeen]

still dreaming about a church wedding?
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=12983
im still laughing at m.muhajir's comment
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=115514&postcount=12
and your response was hilarious
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=115516&postcount=13
goes on to show that defeatists/modernists have a tunnel-vision way of thinking, fox news is their mufti, cause the brain is not used to think, if they got to use the brain they usually get head ache out of it.

Are you at war with me?

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

So Abd al-Haqq al-Marshall, I see you have a new user name...do you have a new madhab and ideology too? Which is the madhab of the week!? I think you really should try shafi'i now...

Look who's talking.

You used to be a "Salafi in fiqh, Ash'ari in aqeedah" (the weirdest combination I've heard of), then you were a Madkhali, then you were a Sahwi (at one point you said that the Madkhalis and Sahwis were the "true Salafis"), now you're some sort of weird combination of a modernist Ikhwani and a Dhahiri.

The only constant has been your hatred of the Mujahideen and your quesiness about jihaad.

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

Fitnah as usual.

[Salahadeen]

Look who's talking.

You used to be a "Salafi in fiqh, Ash'ari in aqeedah" (the weirdest combination I've heard of), then you were a Madkhali, then you were a Sahwi (at one point you said that the Madkhalis and Sahwis were the "true Salafis"), now you're some sort of weird combination of a modernist Ikhwani and a Dhahiri.

The only constant has been your hatred of the Mujahideen and your quesiness about jihaad.

How many lies will you say in one go?

I was *never* a madkhali *ever*. I have *always* hated Spubs, Salafi-talk, etc. I am not nor have I ever been ikhwani or a dhahiri. (Where the hell do you get this from? Do you normally lie like this? I didn't even know what a dhahiri was until recently...and all I know about them comes from a thread on multaqa!) As for being Sahwi / Suroori, that depends if you think that every non-Madhkali and non-SalafiJihadist is a Sahwi/Suroori. Otherwise, I have no actual affiliation with any group known as Sahwis or Surooris.

In my life, I've only changed ONE time, unlike you who changed one million times in the course of a few months. My ONLY change was about two years back when I changed from being aqeedah-less to Salafi.

When I was 'aqeedah-less', I was the weird combination of Ashari in Aqeedah and Salafi in fiqh... in reality, I had no clue what the Ashari aqeedah was (just like most Asharis).... Yes, that was totally weird, but it was two years ago, and I've been Salafi ever since, and I've since learned about proper aqeedah from the feet of scholars.

So one change in my life, and relative stability after that...unlike you who wears a new madhab every day like a cheap suit.

Tell me, when are you going to play Shafi'i ? It's the only madhab left!

[Abu Ma'mar]

Tell me, when are you going to play Shafi'i ? It's the only madhab left!

lol..... ( no offense Abd al-Haq but that was funny)

[mosa]

Another thread about member on forum.
Will Jaysh get reward for people talking abt him?

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

as salaamu alaykum,

I dont think people changing madhahib is really so bad. Imam abu jafar at tahawi rahimahullah changed from shafii to hanafi. This doesnt mean he was a bewildered lost person. As far as aqeedah, many of the ulama had slipped in the past and returned to the right way. al-juwayni rahimahullah left tawil though he ended up only making tafwid the point is though he switched. Ibn qayyim rahimahullah corrected his aqeedah when he met shaykh ul islam ibn taymiyah rahimahullah. Fitnah happends in life. Doesnt mean someone is awfull.

[Salahadeen]

as salaamu alaykum,

I dont think people changing madhahib is really so bad. Imam abu jafar at tahawi rahimahullah changed from shafii to hanafi. This doesnt mean he was a bewildered lost person. As far as aqeedah, many of the ulama had slipped in the past and returned to the right way. al-juwayni rahimahullah left tawil though he ended up only making tafwid the point is though he switched. Ibn qayyim rahimahullah corrected his aqeedah when he met shaykh ul islam ibn taymiyah rahimahullah. Fitnah happends in life. Doesnt mean someone is awfull.

Changing a madhab once in a few years...that's understandable. But bouncing around back and forth is strange, but it's criminal when you do that and each time you bounce to one stage, you bash those of the stage you just left, only to bounce again in a month to bash another stage you just left, and so on and so forth...

[Nu7]

Fitnah as usual.

P. Diddy said it best: "Can't stop, won't stop. eh eh, eh eh".

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

Changing a madhab once in a few years...that's understandable. But bouncing around back and forth is strange, but it's criminal when you do that and each time you bounce to one stage, you bash those of the stage you just left, only to bounce again in a month to bash another stage you just left, and so on and so forth...

I don't "bounce around" every month. You're greatly exaggerating my changes in madhhabs.

There was a long period when I was a Hanafi, due to the influence of the people at my local masjid.

There was a long period when I called myself a Hanbali (although I was really just Salafi).

There was another long period where I was a Maliki. You say that I became Maliki a few months ago, but in reality I was following Maliki fiqh for about a year. I just didn't talk about it here until a few months ago.

[hshad]

There was another long period where I was a Maliki. You say that I became Maliki a few months ago, but in reality I was following Maliki fiqh for about a year. I just didn't talk about it here until a few months ago.

Weren't you a Hanbali late last year? Khair, there is no point debating this. I don't particularly care how many times you change, but then you go ahead and write immature statements against those you don't agree with (at the moment). And, this is where people take issues with you.

[Salahadeen]

I don't "bounce around" every month. You're greatly exaggerating my changes in madhhabs.

There was a long period when I was a Hanafi, due to the influence of the people at my local masjid.

There was a long period when I called myself a Hanbali (although I was really just Salafi).

There was another long period where I was a Maliki. You say that I became Maliki a few months ago, but in reality I was following Maliki fiqh for about a year. I just didn't talk about it here until a few months ago.

Let's break it down.

How many years ago did you convert to Islam?

Then how long were you a hanafi for?

After how long did you decide that being hanbali / salafi was cooler?

Then after how many months did you decide to go to maliki ?

And why do you support Sufis?

[mosa]

brothers all these are unnecessary..... :)

[Skillganon]

brothers all these are unnecessary..... :)

It is neccessary, let all the feeling come out to the open.

Pour out your heart guys. :D

[Magoo]

i second that, why did you ban yourself?

did you need some attention?

were you feeling unwanted and wanted people to talk about you?

was this part of your deceptive war?

or are you not going to answer the question like a coward?

are you ever going to answer this question?

or are you doing "amniyaat"

[Um Abdullah M.]

Let's break it down.

How many years ago did you convert to Islam?

Then how long were you a hanafi for?

After how long did you decide that being hanbali / salafi was cooler?

Then after how many months did you decide to go to maliki ?

And why do you support Sufis?

brother just let it go
there is no benefit in this

it only causes enmity between each other.

[Um Abdullah M.]

Look who's talking.

You used to be a "Salafi in fiqh, Ash'ari in aqeedah" (the weirdest combination I've heard of), .

That is not correct akhi
I saw him in sunniforum, his posts leaned towards salafiyyah, except for issue of Allah's attributes he was confused, and when he read their (asharis') posts on the topic he was leaning towards their belief because of his ignorance regarding salafi beliefs and the shubuhat that asharis were posting.

so then he came to this forum and started to ask and read, then he accepted the correct belief of ahl assunnah wal jama'ah (athari).

alhamdulillah

[melo061]

That is not correct akhi
I saw him in sunniforum, his posts leaned towards salafiyyah, except for issue of Allah's attributes he was confused, and when he read their (asharis') posts on the topic he was leaning towards their belief because of his ignorance regarding salafi beliefs and the shubuhat that asharis were posting.

so then he came to this forum and started to ask and read, then he accepted the correct belief of ahl assunnah wal jama'ah (athari).

alhamdulillah


What do you mean? Who on earth have you ever seen who says " I'm salafi in Fiqh but Ashari in Aqeedah? It is the weirdest combo of all time. I'm not sure how it will even exist. What is Salafi in Fiqh? How can you be a salafi in Fiqh?


Jaysh, you went off at me for questioning your genuinity. You've been exposed as even being a modernist on those sites you claim you are a tough on. Time to man up.

[Salahadeen]

That is not correct akhi
I saw him in sunniforum, his posts leaned towards salafiyyah, except for issue of Allah's attributes he was confused, and when he read their (asharis') posts on the topic he was leaning towards their belief because of his ignorance regarding salafi beliefs and the shubuhat that asharis were posting.

so then he came to this forum and started to ask and read, then he accepted the correct belief of ahl assunnah wal jama'ah (athari).

alhamdulillah

This is exactly true. Jazakh-Allah Khairan.

I was never really Ashari. I just agreed with Asharis on attributes, like you said, and that was because I misunderstood the Salafi position. But otherwise, I was a strong supporter of the Salafi opinions on shirk, tawassul, bidah, etc. I agreed with them on all things except the attributes.

What do you mean? Who on earth have you ever seen who says " I'm salafi in Fiqh but Ashari in Aqeedah? It is the weirdest combo of all time. I'm not sure how it will even exist. What is Salafi in Fiqh? How can you be a salafi in Fiqh?

This was more than two years ago, and even then, when I used to say that I am Ashari in aqeedah and Salafi in fiqh, I used to *also* say that I *know* that this doesn't make sense. I was in a state of flux, knowing full well that it doesn't make sense. I certainly wasn't preaching to anyone to become half Ashari and half Salafi. And in retrospect, I realize that I was never Ashari to begin with, because like most laypersons I don't know what Ashari aqeedah is, since they are so ultra-secretive about it. And the KEY point is that I never claimed that I was going to be half-Ashari and half-Salafi my whole life...rather, at that time I was furiously researching such issues in order to find out which side was right. I found both sides had some convincing arguments, and that is why I was one foot in one camp and the other foot in the other. But then I finally read the appropriate refutations and my heart became convinced.

If you notice my very first post on Islamic Awakening, it is asking bro Abu az-Zubayr and others if it would be considered Sunni to take the Ashari stance on the attributes. The fact that I was *asking* this shows that I was never adamant in my views, nor dogmatic. I was just confused. My criticism of Abd al-Haqq al-Marshall was *not* that he was confused, but it was that he refuses to even acknowledge that he was confused, and on top of that, would become dogmatic in his views. I, on the other hand, was never ever dogmatic about the Ashari position with regards to attributes, but rather I was asking for assitance in understanding the issues. And there is nothing wrong with asking and not knowing, as bro Abu az-Zubayr always say. What there *is* something wrong with is when you pretend you know when you don't, and when you become dogmatic even though you are still confused about issues yourself.

In any case, I am not the only one who used to joke that he was half Ashari and half Salafi. The respected brother with the user name "Ashari Salafi" was also in the exact same situation. And the blame for this is partly on the Salafis themselves, for not properly explaining their position to the masses. This has changed now, Al-Hamdu Lillah, with many excellent websites (like Um Abdullah's website, Saheefah.org, Abu Zubayr's work, etc) coming to counter the Asharis.

But what exactly is your point? This was two years ago, and things have changed. I am consistently Salafi now, nor have I bounced around anywhere. Are you cogitating that a person cannot go from error to correctness? Not everyone is born with Salafi aqeedah. I certainly was not. I came up hearing about how evil the Wahhabis were. Yet, I came to Salafiyyah. So what is there in this for me to be embarassed about?

Again, *one* change in life doesn't constitute bouncing around.

Jaysh, you went off at me for questioning your genuinity. You've been exposed as even being a modernist on those sites you claim you are a tough on. Time to man up.

Oh, shut up. You are just basing this on one thread of mine. Click on my user name and search *all* my posts, and you will see that I am known as Islamica's fundamentalist.

In any case, like I told you, my views on almost everything match up with Sh. Yassir Qadhi. So if you consider him a modernist, then I guess I am one too. Depends on how you use the word 'modernist'. Just because I disagree with Al-Qaeda does *not* make me a modernist!

Tell me which view of mine is 'modernist', and I will show you that Sh. Yasir Qadhi or Sh. Salman al-Oudah would probably have a similar view. If you think of them as modernists, then I don't really care what you think. If you can't pinpoint which view of mine is 'modernist', then shut your mouth.

[I_Am_A_Hermit]

Bro Salahadeen,

you don't need to prove yourself to anybody.

[Salahadeen]

Bro Salahadeen,

you don't need to prove yourself to anybody.

Thanks.

Anyways, this is probably my last post on islamic-awakening for a few months, as I will now become very busy. So if someone is insulting me on islamic-awakening, well, I'll come defend myself in a few months, insha-Allah. I kindly ask that nobody back bite about me...you can voice your complaints against me when I come back in a few months.

Good bye for now, IslamicAwakening.com !

Fi Aman Allah

[Abuz Zubair]

Tell me which view of mine is 'modernist', and I will show you that Sh. Yasir Qadhi or Sh. Salman al-Oudah would probably have a similar viewlol, and you think you are vindicating yourself, here?

[Um Abdullah M.]

excuse my ignorance
but could someone give me a definition for a "modernist" ?

[Sawtul Islam]

Brother Salahadeen seems to be the only person actually discussing the issue with evidence. Why is it that eveyone who disagrees with him just use insults instead of actually trying to refute him?

The answer seems to be that you dont have any evidence, especially since what Salahadeen says is based on the Qur'an while what you guys say is based on... probably nothing or maybe some weak narrations.


As for my view on this issue, I believe if a Kafir country attacks Muslims , then the Muslims have the obvious right to fight back and also to then wage an offensive Jihad against those who had invaded them.

Some claim that the wars of the Khulafa Rashidin was not like this, and the example that is often given is the war with Persia... however Persia was fighting against Arabs even before Islam.

Just because the Persians didn't expect to be conquered by Muslim Arabs (as they saw them as being "inferior", insignificant and too weak) doesn't mean the war was "aggressive".

[Abuz Zubair]

excuse my ignorance
but could someone give me a definition for a "modernist" ?
Modernism is in essence inferiority complex that develops into an independent theological and legal school. Muslims who consider certain Western values as perfection and never question them, look back at Islam and naturally assume that most of the Islamic laws that contradict certain Western values or are generally abhorred by the West are primitive and need to be revisited.

With this sort of mindset, they feel uncomfortable with offensive (aggressive) Jihad, slavery, polygamy, Hudud laws, etc. This is what triggers them to look for odd opinions in Islamic heritage to invent opinions that are palatable to Western civilisation. When they are unable to find an odd opinion, they invent one by themselves. This is all what modernism is about. Defeatist mindset. One of the greatest tools they use to promote their agenda is Maqasid al-Sharia, which they misuse and abuse to reshape Islam to suit the Western civilisation, just as we had in the past the Mu'tazila and the Ash'aris who wanted to reshape the legal texts to suit Greek philosophy.

In short, it is a symptom of a conquered nation trying to imitate the conqueror as Ibn Khaldun stated.

[Sawtul Islam]

excuse my ignorance
but could someone give me a definition for a "modernist" ?

The terms "modernist" and "extremist" are used by people who are either incapable of arguing logically or are afraid of expressing their actual views knowing how easily they can be refuted if they do so.

I myself have been called both an extremist and a modernist by various people.

It's funny how the term "modernist" seems to mean a good thing to some and an insult to others. It seems to mean anything from being a hypocrite to being logical.

[William Wurkmun Fosterr]

There Are Pearls In The Past Which We Extremists Must Preserve. There Are Pearls In The Present Which We Modernists And Innovators Must Preserve. There Are Pearls In The Future Which We Must Be Ready To Preserve. ...And We Can Trust In Allah To Preserve ALL Of Them.

[Mustafa al-Muhaajir]

Anyways, this is probably my last post on islamic-awakening for a few months, as I will now become very busy. So if someone is insulting me on islamic-awakening, well, I'll come defend myself in a few months, insha-Allah. I kindly ask that nobody back bite about me...you can voice your complaints against me when I come back in a few months.

Good bye for now, IslamicAwakening.com !

Fi Aman Allahmay Allah guide you and us all ...

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

Let's break it down.

How many years ago did you convert to Islam?

Around four years ago.

And why do you support Sufis?

I hate Sufis and Sufism in general. I am one of the most anti-Sufi people on this board.

If you are referring to my signature, quoting a Sufi doesn't mean I support Sufism.

[Nu7]

Well, you did support sufis not so long ago I believe.

Anyway, there is nothing with changing your opinions so long as you don't attack the other opinions when you adopt a new one only to regret moments later.

I personally enjoy reading your posts on Sufism/Ash'arism though.

[melo061]

Tell me which view of mine is 'modernist', and I will show you that Sh. Yasir Qadhi or Sh. Salman al-Oudah would probably have a similar view. If you think of them as modernists, then I don't really care what you think. If you can't pinpoint which view of mine is 'modernist', then shut your mouth.

In case you don't know Jaysh, Salman Awdah has delved into modernism lately. Yasir's opinions aren't exactly clean either as can be seen with his opinion that we can shake Women's hands. Whatever the case it, attaching yourself to mere men like that to defend yourself does not vindicate yourself. They are men and have flaws, not all of their opinions are saheeh.

However, I know for a fact that Salman does not refer to Al-Qaeda supporters and Al-Qaeda as Terrorist,s khawaraij and evil brothers. So why don't you take his opinion and drop the terminology?

[melo061]

The terms "modernist" and "extremist" are used by people who are either incapable of arguing logically or are afraid of expressing their actual views knowing how easily they can be refuted if they do so.

I myself have been called both an extremist and a modernist by various people.

It's funny how the term "modernist" seems to mean a good thing to some and an insult to others. It seems to mean anything from being a hypocrite to being logical.

That's an over exaggeration. Sometimes the description is perfect and is all that is needed. Sometimes, simple discussion is futile as the person who you are arguing with will not budge.

Muhammad SAW said that he Extremists are perished. This includes modernists as they are extremists also. Why argue with people who are perished?

[Sawtul Islam]

That's an over exaggeration. Sometimes the description is perfect and is all that is needed. Sometimes, simple discussion is futile as the person who you are arguing with will not budge.

Muhammad SAW said that he Extremists are perished. This includes modernists as they are extremists also. Why argue with people who are perished?

I meant the terms as they are used today. Extremist used to mean someone who goes to extreme in some aspect of religion, for example someone who prays all the time to the extent that he leaves all his other duties.
The Khawarij were another example of extremists, they went to extreme in doing Takfir, and the Shiahs went to extremes regarding the Ahlul bayt.

However today and in the Western world in particular religious Muslims are called "extremists" and others are called "modernists". So for example when a Monafiq argues with a religious Muslim and finds that the Muslim truely believes in Islam , he often ends the argument by calling him an "extremist".

Also when an actual extremist (someone who has gone to extremes in some aspects of Islam) argues with a Muslim who disagrees with his extreme views and refutes them through Qur'an or Hadith, he starts calling him a "modernist".

[Abu Abdallah al-Bulghari]

Also when an actual extremist (someone who has gone to extremes in some aspects of Islam) argues with a Muslim who disagrees with his extreme views and refutes them through Qur'an or Hadith, he starts calling him a "modernist".

"Refutes them through interpretation of Qur'an or Hadith through modern "scholars"" on the matter that has been uniformly accepted as different by scholars from the Salaf and later scholars.

[suhail]

How can anybody deny offensive jihad when the sahaba did offensive jihad. How can you otherwise explain the conquest of all the nations after the death of Prophet(SAW). Do you mean that these scholars you are referring more knowledgable than the sahaba.

[Sawtul Islam]

How can anybody deny offensive jihad when the sahaba did offensive jihad. How can you otherwise explain the conquest of all the nations after the death of Prophet(SAW). Do you mean that these scholars you are referring more knowledgable than the sahaba.

I dont think anyone here is speaking against offensive Jihad, but against aggressive Jihad.

As I explained on the last page I believe if a Kafir Empire, Kingdom or Government attacks Muslims, then Muslims have the right to not just defend their own land but to then conquer theirs.

We however should not invade other countries for no reason or just for the sake of expansion, gaining wealth and resources etc.

Even al-Qaeda say: War with every warmonger, peace with every peaceful one.

[suhail]

So why did muslims attacked Persia and Romans after the death of Prophet(SAW).

[Sawtul Islam]

So why did muslims attacked Persia and Romans after the death of Prophet(SAW).

I already answered that:

Brother Salahadeen seems to be the only person actually discussing the issue with evidence. Why is it that eveyone who disagrees with him just use insults instead of actually trying to refute him?

The answer seems to be that you dont have any evidence, especially since what Salahadeen says is based on the Qur'an while what you guys say is based on... probably nothing or maybe some weak narrations.


As for my view on this issue, I believe if a Kafir country attacks Muslims , then the Muslims have the obvious right to fight back and also to then wage an offensive Jihad against those who had invaded them.

Some claim that the wars of the Khulafa Rashidin was not like this, and the example that is often given is the war with Persia... however Persia was fighting against Arabs even before Islam.

Just because the Persians didn't expect to be conquered by Muslim Arabs (as they saw them as being "inferior", insignificant and too weak) doesn't mean the war was "aggressive".

[Hamza]

Where the Kuffar are not gathering to fight the Muslims, the fighting becomes Fard Kifaya with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard borders, and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorise the enemies of Allah. It is a duty of the Imam to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of war once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is in sin. - And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of jihad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. The scholars of the principles of religion have also said: "Jihad is Daw'ah with a force, and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam."

Defence of the Muslim Lands
AbdAllah Azzam


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

[suhail]

Persians were fighting muslims where can you care to elaborate. Muslims were the first to attack Iraq. When did persians attacked muslims first. Even if they fought arabs before it does not make any difference because they did not attack muslims. So why did muslims attack Pesia and Sham. Romans were not fighting the muslims on any front at the time Abu Bakr(RA) became the khalifa.

[Sawtul Islam]

Persians were fighting muslims where can you care to elaborate. Muslims were the first to attack Iraq. When did persians attacked muslims first. Even if they fought arabs before it does not make any difference because they did not attack muslims. So why did muslims attack Pesia and Sham. Romans were not fighting the muslims on any front at the time Abu Bakr(RA) became the khalifa.

When I said they fought Arabs before Islam I didn't mean they just fought before Islam, I meant they were fighting since then and this is recorded even in persian history books (such as Tarikhe Iran Zamin, by doctor mohammad mashkoor).
They were having small battles with Muslims and didn't expect such a massive counter attack.

As for the Romans:

Letter of Abu Bakr (ra) to Khalid ibn Walid (from History of Tabari volume 2):

"March until you reach the gathering of Muslims in Syria who are in a state of great anxiety"

"I appoint you commander over the armies of Muslims and direct you to fight the Romans."

The implication is that the Muslims in Syria were being attacked by the Romans.

In fact considering the warlike and imperialistic nature of the Romans it is extremely unlikely that they would not have had attacked Muslims. The lands which Muslims took from the Romans had only recently been conquered by the Romans, in other words they were quickly attacking and invading any land near them so it's quite obvious that they would have attacked Muslims especially after Muslims entered western Persia and Iraq.

[C47]

of course you deny that your masters,americans, slaughtered indians, just as you are of the opinion that americans came to the arabian peninsula to protect the apostate regimes from sadam...they are still there until this day..to distribute candys and flowers and your dear king is doing the sword dance with his brother in kufr Bush...and the comment below is not surprising me at all, coming from american paki living in the land of Al saloul...usually guys like you clean the streets or toilets over there...be careful so they dont practice their Salouli laws on you..especially paki heads and hands are loose over there..you dont even need to commit a crime over there...you little defender of taghout and their false scholars..

that is some new info.

Abu Maryam, are you american? dont you live in pakistan?

[suhail]

Brother Sawtul Islam,

Please read the history again. Khalid bin walid was not leading the first expedition against the Romans. He was fighting the Persians. When the Roman forces became larger and larger than Abu Bakr(RA) asked Khalid Bin Walid to leave for Sham.

Also against persians there was no immediate threat for the muslim state but still Abu Bakr(RA) sent Kahlid Bin Walid(RA) against them. Also you need to read the message that the sahabi delivered to the King of Persia. I dont remember who the sahabi was. So please before you infer something read more.

JK
Suhail

[Um Abdullah M.]

that is some new info.

Abu Maryam, are you american? dont you live in pakistan?

Abu Maryam is a Pakistani who is currently living in Saudi Arabia, and he mentioned in other posts of his that he never stepped foot in a kafir country.
so he has never been to the US.

[Abu Maryam PK]

Abu Maryam is a Pakistani who is currently living in Saudi Arabia, and he mentioned in other posts of his that he never stepped foot in a kafir country.
so he has never been to the US.
oh and my add to my short resume', that my daughter's name is Maryam, that is why i call myself Abu Maryam. And PK is for the flight i usually don't take home, since i dont pay for my tickets, since in saudi kafeel pays for sadeeq's tickets.

[Abu Shu'aib]

oh and my add to my short resume', that my daughter's name is Maryam, that is why i call myself Abu Maryam. And PK is for the flight i usually don't take home, since i dont pay for my tickets, since in saudi kafeel pays for sadeeq's tickets.

and hes also former ahl al-hadees turn qutubi/suroori who took online bayah (bidah) to a majhool shaykh ;)

[Um Abdullah M.]

that he never stepped foot in a kafir country.


I think that should have been "set foot"
my English is horrible sometimes.

[Abu Maryam PK]

and hes also former ahl al-hadees turn qutubi/suroori who took online bayah (bidah) to a majhool shaykh
neither is the shaykh najhool al-haal/al-'ain nor am i former

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

Around four years ago.



I hate Sufis and Sufism in general. I am one of the most anti-Sufi people on this board.

If you are referring to my signature, quoting a Sufi doesn't mean I support Sufism.


as salaamu alaykum,

How can you hate sufis and sufism when the likes of the great imam muhammad ibn abdul wahab rahimahullah praised the noble science. How can you hate it when its none other than the Zaahid ibn qayyim al-jawzi rahimahullah who praised tasawwuf? Why condemn it when ash shawkani rahimahullah and ibn qudamah rahimahullah were upon tasawwuf? Why condemn imam suyuti rahimahullah, imam nawawi rahimahullah, ibn hajar al-asqalani rahimahullah, and others amonst the 'kibar ulama'?

[Suhaib Jobst]

How can you hate sufis and sufism when the likes of the great imam muhammad ibn abdul wahab rahimahullah praised the noble science. How can you hate it when its none other than the Zaahid ibn qayyim al-jawzi rahimahullah who praised tasawwuf? Why condemn it when ash shawkani rahimahullah and ibn qudamah rahimahullah were upon tasawwuf? Why condemn imam suyuti rahimahullah, imam nawawi rahimahullah, ibn hajar al-asqalani rahimahullah, and others amonst the 'kibar ulama'?

Jazakallah khair. I understand the bad connotations which some have given the term, but none of the scholars of the past - even those whom the Salafis evoke (and scholars for whom I myself have nothing but the utmost of respect) - condemned the whole science of tasawwuf. I know that some have a problem with even this term, but please consider the following:

"Some Muslims agree on this but differ about terminology, so that rather than talking about Sufism, they talk about ‘purification of the self’ (tazkiyat an-nafs). Taking that into account, and since both groups agree on the essence of the matter, only differing about terminology, it is clear that the Muslims are unanimous on the importance of this science."

- Abdassamad Clarke, "Letter to a New Muslim," 11th Dhul-Hijjah 1428/22nd December 2007, p. 6.

[anam]

Sawtul is giving fatwas again!




Pls show us proof
not your stupid logic!!

Because once again you oppose the truth

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

Abd al-Haqq Marshall akhi it seems your falling into ghuloo.

Brother what i see of the Salafee movement is that its simply a dogma. There is no action. With dogmas alone people can use it to feed their egos. We need belief and action otherwise we get no where.

[hearandobey]

as salaamu alaykum,

How can you hate sufis and sufism when the likes of the great imam muhammad ibn abdul wahab rahimahullah praised the noble science. How can you hate it when its none other than the Zaahid ibn qayyim al-jawzi rahimahullah who praised tasawwuf? Why condemn it when ash shawkani rahimahullah and ibn qudamah rahimahullah were upon tasawwuf? Why condemn imam suyuti rahimahullah, imam nawawi rahimahullah, ibn hajar al-asqalani rahimahullah, and others amonst the 'kibar ulama'?

can you pls bring the quotes of the above imams? jazakAllahu khayran

[Abuz Zubair]

as salaamu alaykum,

How can you hate sufis and sufism when the likes of the great imam muhammad ibn abdul wahab rahimahullah praised the noble science. How can you hate it when its none other than the Zaahid ibn qayyim al-jawzi rahimahullah who praised tasawwuf? Why condemn it when ash shawkani rahimahullah and ibn qudamah rahimahullah were upon tasawwuf? Why condemn imam suyuti rahimahullah, imam nawawi rahimahullah, ibn hajar al-asqalani rahimahullah, and others amonst the 'kibar ulama'?
Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab praised the science? Or you mean didn't censure it?

Ibn al-Qayyim praised the science? Or praised some of the Sufi Imams and made Sharh of one of the Sufi manuals, criticising some Sufi aspects and agree with those that agree with the Sharia?

Ibn Qudama and al-Shawkani were upon Tasawwuf? News to me.

al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar and al-Suyuti were Sufis? Again, news to me.

Can you please point out to me a single work they wrote on Sufism?

Having respect for the Sufis is one thing and being a Sufi with a well known Tariqa and giving bay'ah to a Shaykh is something else.

And even if they all liked the Sufis, so what? How does it negate the fact that most of the Sufis and Tasawwuf practised today contradicts the Sharia in many respects?

How can a person practise Tasawwuf today without indulging in practices that contradict the Sharia? How about giving bay'ah to a Shaykh? How is that from Sharia? And can a person really be a Sufi today without giving bay'ah? Does a person have to follow one of the Sufi Tariqas?

I mean, the way we still have the four madhabs set up, such that if one wanted to study Hanbalism he easily could, is that the case with Tasawwuf? If so, then is there a way of learning tasawwuf without any of the bid'as?

Let's stay away from theory for a second and discuss the practical implications of practising tasawwuf today.

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

Ibn Qayyim said: “Religion consists entirely of good character (al-dinu kulluhu khuluq). Whoever surpasses you in good character surpasses you in religion, and the same is true of tasawwuf. Al-Kattani said: “Tasawwuf is good character (al-tasawwuf khuluq). Whoever surpasses you in good character surpasses you in tasawwuf.” (Madarij al-salikin (2:307)).

Ibn Taymiyya: “As for the Sufis, they affirm the love (of Allah), and this is more evident among them than all other issues. The basis of their Way is simply will and love. The affirmation of the love of Allah is well-known in the speech of their early and recent masters, just as it is affirmed in the Book and the Sunna and in the agreement of the Salaf.” (Ibn Taymiyya, al-Ihtijaj bi al-qadar (Cairo: al-matba`a al-salafiyya, 1394/1974) p. 38).

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya relates in Madarij al-salikin, and Ibn al-Jawzi in the chapter entitled “Abu Hashim al-Zahid” in his Sifat al-safwa after the early hadith master Abu Nu`aym in his Hilyat al-awliya’, that Sufyan al-Thawri said:

“If it were not for Abu Hashim al-Sufi I would have never perceived the presence of the subtlest forms of hypocrisy in the self… Among the best of people is the Sufi learned in jurisprudence.” (Ibn Qayyim, Madarij al-salikin; Ibn al-Jawzi, Sifat al-safwa ( Beirut : dar al-kutub al-`ilmiyya, 1403/1989).

Imam al-Shafi`i said: “I accompanied the Sufis and received from them but three words: their statement that time is a sword: if you do not cut it, it cuts you; their statement that if you do not keep your ego busy with truth it will keep you busy with falsehood; their statement that deprivation is immunity.” (Ibn al-Qayyim in his Madarij al-salikin (3:128) and al- Suyuti in his Ta’yid al-haqiqa al-`aliyya (p. 15)).

[Abuz Zubair]

Abd al-Haqq Marshall akhi it seems your falling into ghuloo.

Brother what i see of the Salafee movement is that its simply a dogma. There is no action. With dogmas alone people can use it to feed their egos. We need belief and action otherwise we get no where.
You need actions, and that no one denies and this is my foremost criticism towards the Salafis, that there is too much emphasis on gaining knowledge but hardly anything on actions. But what makes you think that action refers to tasawwuf?

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

If ibn qayyim rahimahullah did not approve of tasawwuf he would have never quoted these things.

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

as salaamu alaykum,

well what i mean akhi abuz zubayr is i see that those who study the science of Tasawwuf they seem to be more prone to dhikr, adopting good manners, and contemplating truely the meaning of the Quran. I truely do have this strange attraction towards the Salafi dawah but i can not accept it due to what I have seen of the manners of many salafis. I understand not all are like that but it does seem like every group i come across has many bad apples. Whereas Sufis and im not talking about sunniforum and those people who just debate about Allah having a hand or not but im talking about those who leave this off and contemplate the deen and implement it. Such as what you will here from shaykh husayn abdus sattar (of chicago) who is a student of shaykh zulfiqar. Other such groups like them who are all about implementing islam.

[hearandobey]

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya relates in Madarij al-salikin, and Ibn al-Jawzi in the chapter entitled “Abu Hashim al-Zahid” in his Sifat al-safwa after the early hadith master Abu Nu`aym in his Hilyat al-awliya’, that Sufyan al-Thawri said:

“If it were not for Abu Hashim al-Sufi I would have never perceived the presence of the subtlest forms of hypocrisy in the self… Among the best of people is the Sufi learned in jurisprudence.” (Ibn Qayyim, Madarij al-salikin; Ibn al-Jawzi, Sifat al-safwa ( Beirut : dar al-kutub al-`ilmiyya, 1403/1989).

sorry i've got sifat as-safwa and nowhere does it say "among the best of people is the sufi learned in jurisprudence". in fact it doesn't say anywhere in the abu hashim section the word sufi or tasawwuf at all! the word used is zuhd.

pls see the attached image, scanned from the section (it has the quote of sufyan al-thawri).

[hearandobey]

If ibn qayyim rahimahullah did not approve of tasawwuf he would have never quoted these things.

sorry but the translations aren't authentic... give me a week or so, and i'll check the quotes in al-madarij as well.

[Abuz Zubair]

I didn't say Ibn al-Qayyim didn't approve of Tasawwuf. How could he not since he did a Sharh of a Sufi manual. My point was:

1) He affirmed from tasawwuf which didn't contradict the Sharia and criticised which did. If you have this sort of approach to tasawwuf, you would hardly find a Shaykh today who will show you the way.

2) Even if he approves of 'correct' tasawwuf, what makes you think he is right? I mean, so what?

The early Salaf were against people who were much better than al-Harawi. Read al-Dhahabi's quote where he mentions Qut al-Qulub and other works which the Salaf criticised.

To me, it seems that Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab were more lenient on Tasawwuf than Imam Ahmad and Ibn al-Jawzi. This is how I see it. Now what we need to determine is which of the camps is closer to the truth: Imam Ahmad and Ibn al-Jawzi on the one hand or Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab on the other?

[hearandobey]

Ibn al-Qayyim praised the science? Or praised some of the Sufi Imams and made Sharh of one of the Sufi manuals, criticising some Sufi aspects and agree with those that agree with the Sharia?

this is exactly what he did. anyone that can access his original works in arabic can see this for themselves. they're all available online.

[hearandobey]

Now what we need to determine is which of the camps is closer to the truth: Imam Ahmad and Ibn al-Jawzi on the one hand or Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab on the other?

and how do we determine this?

[Abuz Zubair]

and how do we determine this?
I am not sure, as I haven't spend much time looking into it yet.

[Abu Shu'aib]

neither is the shaykh najhool al-haal/al-'ain nor am i former

it was a joke bro:p

[Sawtul Islam]

Also against persians there was no immediate threat for the muslim state but still Abu Bakr(RA) sent Kahlid Bin Walid(RA) against them. Also you need to read the message that the sahabi delivered to the King of Persia. I dont remember who the sahabi was. So please before you infer something read more.


Sawtul is giving fatwas again!




Pls show us proof
not your stupid logic!!

Because once again you oppose the truth


I never said there should be an "immediate threat". They were fighting against Muslims and Muslims responded with a massive counter attack. As for the Romans inshaAllah I'll look into it again, but do you have any evidence at all that the Prophet (saw) and the 4 Caliphs invaded any country before being attacked? Is there a single authentic statement narrated saying that they did?

And finally, the instructions of the Qur'an are very clear, if you think we can invade other countries for no reason then it should not be based on the assumption that a Caliph may have done so, the proof must be from Qur'an or authentic Hadith.

The proof of what I and brother Salahadeen say is based on the Qur'an as the brother already quoted "fight those who fight you".

So where is your proof?

[melo061]

Jazakallah khair. I understand the bad connotations which some have given the term, but none of the scholars of the past - even those whom the Salafis evoke (and scholars for whom I myself have nothing but the utmost of respect) - condemned the whole science of tasawwuf. I know that some have a problem with even this term, but please consider the following:

"Some Muslims agree on this but differ about terminology, so that rather than talking about Sufism, they talk about ‘purification of the self’ (tazkiyat an-nafs). Taking that into account, and since both groups agree on the essence of the matter, only differing about terminology, it is clear that the Muslims are unanimous on the importance of this science."

- Abdassamad Clarke, "Letter to a New Muslim," 11th Dhul-Hijjah 1428/22nd December 2007, p. 6.

Sufism today brother Entails something completely different than it did in the past. It's gone past the semantics brother, the word Tasawwuf and sufism has complete been tainted and for that reason you could get a strong reaction. When you say you love sufism, people automatically think you love the whole system of Bay-ah, the hadrah and all the other nonsense a lot of sufis practice today. If you are into a "sufism" which is just about purification of the Soul without the Bidah then i think you should tell everyone so everyone can benefit

Ahlussunah, can you inform me of a Sufi group or indidivudals today who aren't involved in some bidah regarding their Sufism? I'd love to know. I don't think it exists. Even some of the Great Scholars who had sufi elements in them had things which were contrary to the Sharia.

[suhail]

Brother Sawtul Islam,

You are mistaken that muslims were fighting persians in the gulf and then muslims responded with a massive counterattack. Muslims initiated the fight against the persians. You have to really read the history. Also the Romans were not attacking the muslims in Syria. Muslims started attacking the Romans in Syria. So you are giving the whole thing a wrong interpretation.

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

as salaamu alaykum

jazakallah khayr for the responses.

Yes akhi abuz zubayr, they praised some sufis and some things that are within tasawwuf. everyone knows that there are wackos who claim tasawwuf and then there is genuine tasawwuf that has been practiced through the ages. As far as the bayah thing from what I understand and what ive seen is that people who give bayah (im talking about non haqqani bayah) the student and the teaching both make a vow to abstain from zina, stealing etc.. and vow to follow the quran and sunnah. It is like a contract or oath. I dont see what would be problematic, if this is an innovation please explain why akhi, I will not resist the haq if what you bring me is the haq.

As for the Sufis today that are upon the sunnah, Perhaps one could look into the talks given by shaykh husayn abdus sattar of sacredlearning.org (he is a student of shaykh zulfiqar). Also many of the Chistiyah and naqshbandiyah from the deobandiyah. Ill show you what shaykh yunus patel answered in reply to my inquiry about tasawwuf

As-salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh ya Maulana Yunus


May this reach you in great health and imaan. Jazakallah khayr for all your works and spreading the dawah of Islaam, the true islam that is tazkiyah. My question is concerning this wonderful science of Tasawwuf and bayah. A lot of individuals are condemning tasawwuf as a heretical science that leads people outside the religion. They claim that we are upon bidah and that our prescribed adhkar from our mashaykh are bidah that leads us to hellfire. Could you please relate to us some information concerning the prescribed sufi adhkar and perhaps defend it from the tarnish of those who speak ill of the mutasawif. Jazakallah khayr

His answer is below:

Bismihi Ta'ala

As Salaamu alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh

Jazakallah for the duas, unfortunately many people in the line of Tasawwuf and Tazkiyah are ignorant of the Quran and Sunnah and have made bayat and sulook a money making scheme. Many such bogus peers or mentors are actually taking people towards shirk and bida’at. However the Mashaikh of Haq, their guidance is based on the Quraan and Sunnah. They make it very clear that there are verses of the Quraan Sharief encouraging zikr and many ahadith to this effect. As far as method is concerned it is neither sunnat, wajib or farz. It is dependent on the experience of the Mashaikh. It is just like our Madaris and Islamic Universities where there is a prescribed courses and examination, graduations, etc. which did not exist in the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaba (radhiyallahu annhum). One the same site you will find the talk ‘Tasawwuf Made Easy’ an explanation of Tasawwuf and Azkaar in our times. The whole purpose is tazkiyah, which word is used in the Quraan and Hadith.



--------------------------------------------
End of his words.

Akhi as I sit and listen to the talks of Shaykh husayn abdus sattar (of sacredlearning) and others like him, all i realize is their stress upon adoptin gthe sunnah, from clothing, to inner adab, and outward action. Nothing they do is strange at all. Their wird is any dua reported in the sunnah. Their main focus is Muraqabah (meditation) not in a haram since but just like the Salaf practice, where you imagine death and contemplate it and look around at the signs of Allah (ie His ta ala creation). And that you contemplate the name of Allah, not his essence as this is impossible as shaykh husayn abdus sattar has said.

I believe even ibn qayyim rahimahullah spoke about muraqabah. Even dawood adeeb mentioned that these things within tasawwuf are good. I have not seen anything strange from them.

Now you may think some things of the chistiyah are not acceptable such as sitting and reciting kalima (la illaha illallah) while lightly moving from left to right, but this is the only thing that could seem problematic.

sister hearandobey jazakallah khayr for your research.

wasalaam

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

Abd al-Haqq Marshall akhi it seems your falling into ghuloo.

No, I'm just following what the majority of early scholars of fiqh and hadith believed.

That's why you can only quote later scholars approving of tasawwuf.

Brother what i see of the Salafee movement is that its simply a dogma. There is no action. With dogmas alone people can use it to feed their egos. We need belief and action otherwise we get no where.

This doesn't apply to me, because I am not a Salafi.

[Sawtul Islam]

Brother Sawtul Islam,

You are mistaken that muslims were fighting persians in the gulf and then muslims responded with a massive counterattack. Muslims initiated the fight against the persians. You have to really read the history. Also the Romans were not attacking the muslims in Syria. Muslims started attacking the Romans in Syria. So you are giving the whole thing a wrong interpretation.

Muslims and even before Islam pagan Arabs were being attacked by Persians for many years.

You say: "You have to really read the history" Ok then, show me where in history it is narrated in an authentic source that Muslims initiated either war.

As I said previously regarding the Romans, it is extremely unlikely that they had not attacked Muslims, but if you have proof that they didn't then please show me.


If you are going to base your belief in Islamic laws of Jihad on something done by a Caliph, then you should at least show an authentic narration confirming your claim.

The laws of Jihad are made clear in the Qur'an as explained earlier by brother Salahadeen.

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

as salaamu alaykum

akhi abuz zubayr do you find what i stated to be problematic and what shaykh yunus patel said?

[Abuz Zubair]

everyone knows that there are wackos who claim tasawwuf and then there is genuine tasawwuf that has been practiced through the ages.

Yes, this is according to Ibn Taymiyya's understand, which I am challenging in light of Imam Ahmad's and Ibn al-Jawzi's views.

If there was good and bad aspects to tasawwuf and there were good and bad Sufis, why did they reject the whole genre of tasawwuf altogether?

As far as the bayah thing from what I understand and what ive seen is that people who give bayah (im talking about non haqqani bayah) the student and the teaching both make a vow to abstain from zina, stealing etc.. and vow to follow the quran and sunnah. It is like a contract or oath. I dont see what would be problematic, if this is an innovation please explain why akhi, I will not resist the haq if what you bring me is the haq

Isn't it enough to know that the early generations didn't do any of this? You see, our Sharia is preserved in the books of four schools, and most of what the Sufis want to introduce doesn't exist in our fiqh books. Don't you ever wonder why the works of fiqh are completely silent about this issues, such as bay'a to a Sufi Shaykh, etc? Isn't it because the jurists from the time of the Salaf considered it to be something foreign to Sharia? How many Shaykhs did Imam Ahmad pledge allegiance to? How many pledged allegiance to him? Why did it never happen at their time? Isn't this enough proof that this was something introduced after the four great Imams?

As far as method is concerned it is neither sunnat, wajib or farz. It is dependent on the experience of the Mashaikh. It is just like our Madaris and Islamic Universities where there is a prescribed courses and examination, graduations, etc. which did not exist in the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaba (radhiyallahu annhum). One the same site you will find the talk ‘Tasawwuf Made Easy’ an explanation of Tasawwuf and Azkaar in our times. The whole purpose is tazkiyah, which word is used in the Quraan and Hadith.

All Sufis say this. Even those who say our Sufism is 100% Sunnah, etc. The problem with them is that they consider their bid'as to be Sunnah. With respect to each and every tariqa, one needs to study it before pointing out the errors. One cannot just rely on an oversimplified quote like this. Also, the make analogy between universities and tasawwuf is wrong, because university is just an institute where the sciences that are taught are exactly the sciences that were taught at the time of the Prophet saw, whereas tasawwuf is a whole new science altogether which the early scholars didn't even recognise, and moreover rejected. Besides, if tasawwuf is all about adhkar, then Salafis do that, too. In fact, they are the ones who produce hisn al-muslim and other books of prophetic adhkar. Can they be described as Sufis just for making adkhar, if this is really all sufism is about?

No, rather Sufism from its very inception has been about a lot more than just making adkhar. This is what Ibn al-Jawzi points out while speaking about the very early 'good' sufis that they invented so many things in the name of tasawwuf that they ended up invented a whole new parallel sharia to Islam.

Also, is tasawwuf the only way for tazkiya? If so, then the early Imams, especially the four Imams, had nothing at all to do with tasawwuf or the sufis. They never gave, or received bay'ah from anyone. They were taught fiqh and hadeeth, but there is absolutely no record of them receiving lessons in tasawwuf at all. Are we now to assume that their souls weren't purified just because they didn't ascribe to Sufism? And if we say to the contrary, then surely Sufis cannot claim monopoly on tazkiyat al-nufus?

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

as-salaamu alaykum,

Jazakallaah khayr, interesting reply.

[justabro]

From al-Zuhd by Imam Ahmad:


حدثنا عبد الله ، حدثنا سريج بن يونس ، حدثنا سعيد بن عبد الرحمن الجمحي ، عن أبي حازم قال : مر ابن عمر برجل ساقط من أهل العراق فقال : ما شأنه ؟ قالوا : إنه إذا قرئ عليه القرآن يصيبه هذا قال : إنا لنخشى الله وما نسقطIbn `Umar passed by a man from the people of `Iraq who had fallen down. He asked, "What is the matter with him?"

They said, "When the Qur'an is recited to him, this happens to him."

He said, "We truly fear Allah, but we do not fall down (unconscious)."

[justabro]

An amazing narration from al-Zuhd of Ahmad:

حدثنا عبد الله ، حدثني أبي ، حدثنا عبد الصمد ، حدثنا هشام ، يعني الدستوائي عن جعفر ، يعني صاحب الأنماط عن أبي العالية قال : « يأتي على الناس زمان تخرب صدورهم من القرآن ولا يجدون له حلاوة ولا لذاذة إن قصروا عما أمروا به قالوا : إن الله غفور رحيم ، وإن عملوا بما نهوا عنه قالوا : سيغفر لنا إنا لم نشرك بالله شيئا ، أمرهم كله طمع ليس معه صدق يلبسون جلود الضأن (1) على قلوب الذئاب ، أفضلهم في دينه المداهن

[anam]

So please tell me what is the foreign policy of the Islamic State if it isn't offensive jihad?

[Sawtul Islam]

So please tell me what is the foreign policy of the Islamic State if it isn't offensive jihad?

I already explained it.

If they attack us, we must defend ourselves and then we can also invade them and overthrow their rulers. So when they start a battle/war, we get to decide when to end it.

There is an assumption that the Hadith where the Prophet (saw) said there will always be Jihad until the coming of the Dajjal means that we must just keep fighting everyone who is not Muslim until the ends of time.

However the Prophet (saw) said: "You will always have enemies" as narrated in Musnad Ahmad, meaning that there will always be people who attack Muslims. That's what he meant when he said there will be Jihad until Muslims fight Dajjal, it doesn't mean we must go around looking for a fight, it means we will always have enemies who attack and fight us, and so there will always be Jihad in Islam.

[anam]

I already explained it.

If they attack us, we must defend ourselves and then we can also invade them and overthrow their rulers. So when they start a battle/war, we get to decide when to end it.


There is difference of opinion as to whether Jihad is only an offensive duty or whether it can be attributed to both offensive Jihad and defensive Jihad. Al Izz Ibnu Abdul Salaam (Sheikh al Jihad) said that it is only an offensive duty not defensive i.e. Jihad by definition will only be called so if we initiate fighting, the other duty (i.e. defensive Jihad) is called Al Dafa'ah. Defending oneself being instinctive in man just as it is with the animals, not a unique duty like offensive Jihad.

Moreover Ibnu Qayum laid down certain conditions for Jihad, one being:

That the Muslims must start or initiate the fighting


There is an assumption that the Hadith where the Prophet (saw) said there will always be Jihad until the coming of the Dajjal means that we must just keep fighting everyone who is not Muslim until the ends of time..

That's what you assume!
But first, are you now going to deny authentic hadith because your logic doesn't fit in?

Anyway I dont think it means people like you MUST keep fighting : }

Allaah does not burden a soul beyond its scope.

However the Prophet (saw) said: "You will always have enemies" as narrated in Musnad Ahmad, meaning that there will always be people who attack Muslims. That's what he meant when he said there will be Jihad until Muslims fight Dajjal, it doesn't mean we must go around looking for a fight, it means we will always have enemies who attack and fight us, and so there will always be Jihad in Islam.

Yes our enemies will always fight us...[Allaah tells us in the Quraan]
They will continue fighting you until you change your Din.

So the same goes for the Muslims who will always fight to defend themselves and those who are fighting to make Allaah's deen dominant over the kaafir, this is the reality of the battle between truth and falsehood that will continue until the last day.

As for saying we dont go around looking for a fight, then this is true.

The reason we fight has been explained:

"Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who do not acknowledge the Deen of Truth among the people of the scripture, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission." [EMQ 9:29]


I have been ordered to fight the people until they say Lā-Ilaha-Ilallāh and Muhammed (saw) is the his messenger, and establish Salāh, and pay Zakah, and if they do this their blood and wealth is protected except by the right of Islām. [Agreed Upon]


Imam Shafi said that the reason why we fight the kuffar (offensive Jihad) is because they reject our deen i.e. are at war with our deen. Imam Abu Hanifa on the other hand said that we fight the kuffar (offensive Jihad) because
i) they fight us
And
ii) they reject our deen to be implemented.


But you are saying like Jaysh who regects slavery that Jihad is not on the list of our foriegn policy!

[Sawtul Islam]

That's what you assume!
But first, are you now going to deny authentic hadith because your logic doesn't fit in?

??


Anyway I dont think it means people like you MUST keep fighting : }

people like me???




Yes our enemies will always fight us...[Allaah tells us in the Quraan]
They will continue fighting you until you change your Din.

So the same goes for the Muslims who will always fight to defend themselves and those who are fighting to make Allaah's deen dominant over the kaafir, this is the reality of the battle between truth and falsehood that will continue until the last day.

As for saying we dont go around looking for a fight, then this is true.

The reason we fight has been explained:

"Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who do not acknowledge the Deen of Truth among the people of the scripture, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission." [EMQ 9:29]



The problem with this type of interpretation is that you can use it to justify just about anything.

For example killing women and children is Haram, right? But the Ayah says those who disbelieve and do not pay the Jizyah must be killed, right?

So if you take this Ayah alone and interpret it in a general sense, then you can also use it to say that disbelieving women should also be killed.

So when the Qur'an says "kill the Mushriks" or "kill the Kuffar" it can't be used to justify the killing of all Kuffar, and in the same sense you cannot use it for the attacking of all Kafir countries.

There is also the narration in Tarikh ibn Kathir where Abu Bakr (ra) said that priests, old men and some others should not be killed, so again someone who misinterprets the Qur'an and uses the verses about killing Kuffar could then use these Ayah to supposedly "refute" Abu Bakr (ra)!!


So anyway if you read other Ayahs it becomes clear that Jihad is against those who fight us such as "fight those who fight you" and "do not transgress".

Brother Salahadeen already gave a list of scholars and verses of Qur'an in support of this.




I have been ordered to fight the people until they say Lā-Ilaha-Ilallāh and Muhammed (saw) is the his messenger, and establish Salāh, and pay Zakah, and if they do this their blood and wealth is protected except by the right of Islām. [Agreed Upon]

This Hadith again falls into the same category as the one I mentioned on the last post. If you use this Hadith in the same sense you used the Ayah, then that would mean that the Hadith is saying that we must force everyone to become Muslim while the Qur'an says there is no compulsion in religion.

The Hadith could also mean that fighting should continue until people say "la ilaha illallah...." etc. after the Kuffar make war on Muslims.

However by your logic the Prophet (saw) should have started fighting people as soon as he recieved the revelation and should have forced people to convert in this way, but it's obvious that he did not do that and he only fought the Mushrikeen after they made war on him and other Muslims.

So are you saying the Prophet (saw) himself disobeyed this Hadith??

[anam]

??

Jihad will go on
that doesn't mean every nation/group will be in Jihad
or that we dont have covenants
or unable to fight etc


people like me???.


Correct.




The problem with this type of interpretation is that you can use it to justify just about anything..

The problem is with you and your logic!


For example killing women and children is Haram, right? But the Ayah says those who disbelieve and do not pay the Jizyah must be killed, right?

So if you take this Ayah alone and interpret it in a general sense, then you can also use it to say that disbelieving women should also be killed.

So when the Qur'an says "kill the Mushriks" or "kill the Kuffar" it can't be used to justify the killing of all Kuffar, and in the same sense you cannot use it for the attacking of all Kafir countries.

There is also the narration in Tarikh ibn Kathir where Abu Bakr (ra) said that priests, old men and some others should not be killed, so again someone who misinterprets the Qur'an and uses the verses about killing Kuffar could then use these Ayah to supposedly "refute" Abu Bakr (ra)!!.


You demonstrate your ignorance each time you try to use your stupid logic to suggest the Quran may be wrong or a hadith may be incorrect because it does not fit in with your understanding!
Why do you always take ONE TEXT making that your understanding?
This is the way of the deviants and the reason why the were destroyed before.

As for me the ayat is understood without problem, Alhamdolillah.
With the other texts pertaining to it.


This Hadith again falls into the same category as the one I mentioned on the last post. .


What category are you on about?
Did any Scholor support this?
The Quraan is not some complicated manual designed to keep us puzzled!

If you use this Hadith in the same sense you used the Ayah, then that would mean that the Hadith is saying that we must force everyone to become Muslim while the Qur'an says there is no compulsion in religion.

When did you embrace Islaam?
Why so much logic being used...do you think there is mistake with these texts?

As for there being no compulsion then this is true, unfortunately your lack of understanding Islaam is prevelant because you allow logic to lead the way and you base your entire understanding around one text neglecting the rest!


The Hadith could also mean that fighting should continue until people say "la ilaha illallah...." etc. after the Kuffar make war on Muslims..

Why are you guessing what it means?
Go and look what the Scholors say!!


However by your logic the Prophet (saw) should have started fighting people as soon as he recieved the revelation and should have forced people to convert in this way,

When did I give you some of my own logic?
And there is no such thing as forcing someone into faith [this is impossible]


but it's obvious that he did not do that and he only fought the Mushrikeen after they made war on him and other Muslims.

So are you saying the Prophet (saw) himself disobeyed this Hadith??

Thats because it wasn't time to fight...
So there was no instruction in the first place to do so.


What your saying is the Prophet [sws] and the Muslims are not allowed to inniciate Jihad as it's aggresive?

[hearandobey]

Besides, if tasawwuf is all about adhkar, then Salafis do that, too. In fact, they are the ones who produce hisn al-muslim and other books of prophetic adhkar. Can they be described as Sufis just for making adkhar, if this is really all sufism is about?

exactly. i think this is a point the salafis-turn-sufis often forget. just look at authentic du'a books like "al-dua min al-quran was sunnah" compiled by a salafi, it has more beautiful duas FROM THE SUNNAH than some sufi munajaat books etc.

go even to islam-qa, and look at how much they emphasise doing all the sunnah dhikrs.

[Sawtul Islam]

You demonstrate your ignorance each time you try to use your stupid logic to suggest the Quran may be wrong or a hadith may be incorrect because it does not fit in with your understanding!
Why do you always take ONE TEXT making that your understanding?
This is the way of the deviants and the reason why the were destroyed before.

I said that is what YOU are doing.

Please read CAREFULLY before responding.





What category are you on about?
Did any Scholor support this?
The Quraan is not some complicated manual designed to keep us puzzled!


It's obvious that you're not reading my posts properly, as I didn't even say Qur'an in that part of my post you quoted.



When did you embrace Islaam?
Why so much logic being used...do you think there is mistake with these texts?

Actually people use logic when the text/religion makes sense. If it doesn't, then you would have to defend it blindly like the Catholics do with the Trinity.

Logic and mind are not bad things, if I believed they are bad I would have remained a Shiah.



you base your entire understanding around one text neglecting the rest!


I actually said the exact opposite, read my post again.


Why are you guessing what it means?
Go and look what the Scholors say!!

Salahadeen already mentioned a list of scholars. As I've said before I dont know much about the works of scholars, I have studied Qur'an and Hadith in great detail but not the works of scholars since it is not obligatory to follow a scholar. Proof is from Qur'an and Sunnah, so if you believe in something a scholar said you must quote what they based their view on.
So at the end of the day you would have to mention the Ayah and Hadith to prove your point.


Thats because it wasn't time to fight...
So there was no instruction in the first place to do so.

How do you define when it is "time to fight"???

The time to fight is when you are attacked.

[Sawtul Islam]

There is a Hadith in Sunan ibn Majah about the Prophet (saw) drawing 5 lines and saying the middle path is Islam. This is very interesting to me as he drew 5 lines when he could have just drawn 3.

This is because there are paths that are closer to the truth but are still extreme to some extent.

I sometimes think of the Khawari and the Shiahs as being the lines on the far right and the far left, and some Salafis and some Sufis as being on the right and left but closer in the middle (in other words lines number 2 and 4).

[suhail]

LOL so you are on the middle path eh?

[anam]

Suhail took those words right out of my mouth!
Mash Allaah brother : ]

[Sawtul Islam]

LOL so you are on the middle path eh?

I said SOME Sufis and SOME Salafis are not on the middle path, didnt say all, and of course some others.

InshaAllah I am on the middle path, at least I try to be.

[anam]

[QUOTE=Sawtul Islam;117924]I said that is what YOU are doing.

Please read CAREFULLY before responding.


Ok Sir.

But let's leave the others to decide.
I have already witnessed from our previous encounter that you use a single text taking its dhahir meaning to protect the one who draws our Prophet in the image of a dog so why is it you are disputing the dhahir this time ? [logic?]
It seems you have no principles and your mind is already made up on any given issue. You only find the text that will fit in or prove what YOU THINK.


It's obvious that you're not reading my posts properly, as I didn't even say Qur'an in that part of my post you quoted.

read again..

Originally Posted by Sawtul Islam
This Hadith again falls into the same category as the one I mentioned on the last post. .

You are saying here that the hadith fits into the same 'category of logic' that you put it in as the QURANIC VERSE that you replied to just beforehand
because you do not understand the meanings


now answer which scholor made such categories?


Actually people use logic when the text/religion makes sense. If it doesn't, then you would have to defend it blindly like the Catholics do with the Trinity.

Logic and mind are not bad things, if I believed they are bad I would have remained a Shiah.

You use your mind where logic is not needed.
The logic is in the texts, without sufficient knowledge you will always look as stupid as you do.

Salahadeen already mentioned a list of scholars. As I've said before I dont know much about the works of scholars, I have studied Qur'an and Hadith in great detail but not the works of scholars since it is not obligatory to follow a scholar. Proof is from Qur'an and Sunnah, so if you believe in something a scholar said you must quote what they based their view on.
So at the end of the day you would have to mention the Ayah and Hadith to prove your point.

Your further demonstrating your ignorance..
Nearly every deviant sect study Qur'an and Sunnah!

Thats why you say thing like ''the hadith could mean this or it could mean that''

The kuffar do the same as you, who is better?
After all your both guessing what the texts could mean ..

But those who neglect the people of knowledge will remain lost...

what you should do is refer to them as Allaah ordered!


How do you define when it is "time to fight"???

The time to fight is when you are attacked.

When your attacked you have no choice but to fight..[defensive jihad]

Other than this what text can you bring to persuade the ruler from not iniciating the [aggresive] jihad?

[Sawtul Islam]

Ok Sir.

But let's leave the others to decide.
I have already witnessed from our previous encounter that you use a single text taking its dhahir meaning to protect the one who draws our Prophet in the image of a dog so why is it you are disputing the dhahir this time ? [logic?]
It seems you have no principles and your mind is already made up on any given issue. You only find the text that will fit in or prove what YOU THINK.


This has nothing to do with the dhahir or Batin, it is about context.




read again..

Originally Posted by Sawtul Islam
This Hadith again falls into the same category as the one I mentioned on the last post. .

You are saying here that the hadith fits into the same 'category of logic' that you put it in as the QURANIC VERSE that you replied to just beforehand
because you do not understand the meanings


now answer which scholor made such categories?


I said "the one I mentioned on the last post", I didnt say the Ayah, I clearly meant the Hadith that I mentioned on my last post.

So either you dont understand English or you're not reading the posts properly.




You use your mind where logic is not needed.
The logic is in the texts, without sufficient knowledge you will always look as stupid as you do.

Right it is in the TEXTS, not text. I already explained that if you take the verses on killing infidels alone as you did you could use them to justify just about everything and even to supposedly "refute" what Abu Bakr (ra) said to Khalid and what the Prophet (saw) did.



Your further demonstrating your ignorance..
Nearly every deviant sect study Qur'an and Sunnah!

Thats why you say thing like ''the hadith could mean this or it could mean that''

The kuffar do the same as you, who is better?
After all your both guessing what the texts could mean ..

But those who neglect the people of knowledge will remain lost...

what you should do is refer to them as Allaah ordered!

Like I said brother Salahdeen already mentioned a large number of scholars who believe this:



I never denied Offensive Jihad. I am opposed to wars of aggression, what I have termed as "Aggressive Jihad". Here is a non-exhaustive list of scholars who agree with me:

Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq
Sh. Yusuf Qaradawi
Sh. Yasir Qadhi
Sh. Hânî al-Jubayr
Sh. Abd al Wahab al Khalaf
Sh. Abd al Allah Bin Zayd Al Mahmud (head of Islamic courts in Qatar)
Sh. Salman al-Oudah
Sh. Jalal Abualrub
Grand Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut
Muhammad Asad
Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazzali
Dr. Muzamil Siddiqui
Dr Amir Ali
Imam at-Tahawi
and many others...


As for scholars, yes when you dont know something you must read what they said but you shouldnt blindly agree with them but must look at the evidence. As I said, in the end it's the evidence from Qur'an and Sunnah that counts.



When your attacked you have no choice but to fight..[defensive jihad]

Other than this what text can you bring to persuade the ruler from not iniciating the [aggresive] jihad?


"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Allah does not love the transgressor." (Qur'an 2:190)

[anam]

This has nothing to do with the dhahir or Batin, it is about context.


The context being your logic?

You followed dhahir of the hadith before applying it to any context but this time you have problems because the context does not fit your logic


I said "the one I mentioned on the last post", I didnt say the Ayah, I clearly meant the Hadith that I mentioned on my last post.

So either you dont understand English or you're not reading the posts properly.

No.
First you had problems with the verse
then the hadith

you said the hadith fits into the same category as the verse beforehand

but why are you avoiding the main question ...WHO MADE THIS CATEGORY for the two texts mentioned
or is it an innovation by yourself


Right it is in the TEXTS, not text. I already explained that if you take the verses on killing infidels alone as you did you could use them to justify just about everything and even to supposedly "refute" what Abu Bakr (ra) said to Khalid and what the Prophet (saw) did.

So next time you issue fatwas pls bare this in mind.

Like I said brother Salahdeen already mentioned a large number of scholars who believe this:

it's funny that he felt the urge to underline Imam at Tahawi
anyhow your lying to yourself only when you say they're all scholors
and I would like to know who the ''many more'' are and there exact statements.

As you demonstrate below knowing where these scholors found the texts to prove their opinions is important

As for scholars, yes when you dont know something you must read what they said but you shouldnt blindly agree with them but must look at the evidence. As I said, in the end it's the evidence from Qur'an and Sunnah that counts.

They are the ones who brought us our religion
preserved by Allaah [swt]

If it were left for people like you and I there would be chaos

"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Allah does not love the transgressor." (Qur'an 2:190)[/QUOTE]

Allaah also ordered:

I have been ordered to fight the people until they say Lā-Ilaha-Ilallāh and Muhammed (saw) is the his messenger, and establish Salāh, and pay Zakah, and if they do this their blood and wealth is protected except by the right of Islām. [Agreed Upon]

Is this transgression or contradiction?

Or could it be that you do not understand these texts..

be honest and pls keep reply short

[ali]

and that decption means you can pretend that u were banned, and then ur side-kick ibn salul II can cry over it that dear ibn salul I was banned by the tyrannical forum admin, and then u show ur shameless face munafiq face again

hahaha
that was a good one

becareful, these khariji will be quick to label you a kaafir for disagreeing with them, or at least a heretic murji like the hawalians

So you are at war with me?

thats right, this idiot creton took the hadeth of the messenger of Allah and raped it of its actuality by making tashbeeh of its reality to dealing with forums and admin.

that is the khawarij for you

Look who's talking.

You used to be a "Salafi in fiqh, Ash'ari in aqeedah" (the weirdest combination I've heard of), then you were a Madkhali, then you were a Sahwi (at one point you said that the Madkhalis and Sahwis were the "true Salafis"), now you're some sort of weird combination of a modernist Ikhwani and a Dhahiri.

The only constant has been your hatred of the Mujahideen and your quesiness about jihaad.

not that im defending this brother for i do not know him.

however this thread is about him being an asraani. Yet, after his afirmation that there is jihaad of qital offensively, and merely affirming that actual jihaad is not "agression" i.e. dhulm against others or khariji style jihaad. Tey, after his clarificatin, he still remains an asraani.

that makes a whole lot of sense only to dope feins

lol, and you think you are vindicating yourself, here?

in spite of your hawalian docileness, that was too funny

excuse my ignorance
but could someone give me a definition for a "modernist" ?

sister, you know who they are

you know that forum understanding islam. that is a modernists site, or haven for modernists

they are those who believe that Islam needs to be reinterpreted to fit in and be consanant with the current times. they are likie progressives, the same ideology, but milder than the progressives

in this day in age, they are the murjia of the era. infact, had these khairjis even read any of their words, they would be making tahajjud for the next decade seeking forgivenss from Allah for calling me what they are, murjis

they even came up with a silly and false asl called "itmaamul-HUjjah, in replacement of the shar'i iqaamatul-hujjah.

im not going to discuss this hear, but believ me when I say they are murjia, i mean like they do not believ people can be kuffar in this age type of irj'aa. That is just as vile and corrupt as Jahm's irj'a, actually even worse, because Jahm at least accepted takfeer on who who was not aquinted 'm'arifatullah'. However, in contrast, these heretics claim that since the age of nubuwah is over, and the risalah of nubuqah has ended, then the ability for establishing the hujjah on people is likewise over, thus they cannot really be kaafir, therefore having a shot in jannah even if they do not know Allah.

so Jahm's aqeeda was a pile of dudu and their aqeeda in this regard is that coupled with a dead skunk

The terms "modernist" and "extremist" are used by people who are either incapable of arguing logically or are afraid of expressing their actual views knowing how easily they can be refuted if they do so.

I myself have been called both an extremist and a modernist by various people.

It's funny how the term "modernist" seems to mean a good thing to some and an insult to others. It seems to mean anything from being a hypocrite to being logical.

thats because people are of variing beliefs with regard to Allah.

for the sincerw abid, mumin, the sunni view of a modernist is best explained as AZ put it. modernist and their ideology is a religion that claims "logic" and when put to practice are stupid and brainless. I have 3 thousand post in dealing with modernist in another forum. I know them like the back of my hand.
so to sunnis, the label of being so is degrading for we know that the reality of modernism is that the ultimate criterion to determine the validity of religious decree is their AQL which has been molded in the western value system and way of life rather than the nusoos of Islam. That is why their main course of dawah is the slogan of "we must reinterpret Islam". what that translates to is that the 14 centuries of scholastic jurisprudence and sifferent sciences of the qur'an, hadeth, usool, etc, are narrow, made up by man, inferior to modern times, and other degrading views they have of our religion.

Now, the question is, if a khariji is labelling you a modernist, then your on the right trak. if a khariji congradualtes you on a mater, check yourself. likewise, if a modernist murji attacks you for being an extremist, then know your on the right track, if they start congragulating you, then check yourself

both are at the opposite end of the specturm just as the qadariyyah were to the jabariyya and the jahmiyyah were to the mujasimah.


Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab praised the science? Or you mean didn't censure it?

Ibn al-Qayyim praised the science? Or praised some of the Sufi Imams and made Sharh of one of the Sufi manuals, criticising some Sufi aspects and agree with those that agree with the Sharia?

Ibn Qudama and al-Shawkani were upon Tasawwuf? News to me.

al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar and al-Suyuti were Sufis? Again, news to me.

Can you please point out to me a single work they wrote on Sufism?

actually, they like to say that nustan al-arifen of an-nawawee was a sufi work i guess because of the word arifeen in the label

and they also try to impugne Ibn Qudama with a sufi due to his work "manhaj al-qaasideen". I reply back by saying "then i, a salafi, must be a sufi by you (the sufi), for i have his work and benefit"

likewise they try to say that Ahmad approved of tassawuf for allowing his son to seek the guidance of a sufi master. i dont know how good this claim is

[justabro]

and they also try to impugne Ibn Qudama with a sufi due to his work "manhaj al-qaasideen". I reply back by saying "then i, a salafi, must be a sufi by you (the sufi), for i have his work and benefit"

*raised eyebrow*

[Sawtul Islam]

No.
First you had problems with the verse
then the hadith

I didn't have a "problem" with the verse, I said the Ayah can be misinterpretd to mean that women and children and old men and others must be killed if it is used in the same sense you were using it.

Instead of responding to what I said you are claiming that I have "problems with the verse", and when you say this you make it seem like you actually believe that the verse contradicts the ahaadith.


Let me explain it again. The Qur'an in many verses says kill/fight the Kuffar and Mushrikeen.

So the question is, does that mean kill ALL the Kuffar and Mushrikeen? Obviously not since there are ahaadith that tell us not to kill women, children and other civilians.

So when the Qur'an says kill/fight them, it does not mean ALL.

So there is no contradiction unless you think that the Qur'an is saying kill ALL when in fact the Qur'an does not say it.

Then we have the Ayah that says fight those who fight you and do not transgress, so we should fight those who fight us and not transgress, again this does not contradict the verses on killing the Kuffar because those verses do not say we must kill all/every Kafir, so when you put the verses together rather than taking them out and ignoring the rest, we see that the Qur'an is telling us to fight specific Kafirs and Mushriks, meaning those who fight us.

This is why Abu Bakr (ra) said to Khalid (ra) to not kill OLD MEN as well as women and children, because most old men do not fight.




you said the hadith fits into the same category as the verse beforehand

Wow, are you really arguing with me or with some imaginary person in your head?

It may be besides the point but I never said that, I said the HADITH falls into the same category as the one I mentioned on my last post.

If you understand English then you would know that when I said the other one, I meant the other Hadith, not an Ayah.




but why are you avoiding the main question ...WHO MADE THIS CATEGORY for the two texts mentioned

I was saying when you read Hadith you shouldn't just take one out and ignore the rest. I was referring to the Hadith I mentioned earlier that the Prophet (saw) said you will have enemies, and I said that the reason why Jihad will continue is that Muslims will continue to have enemies.



I have been ordered to fight the people until they say Lā-Ilaha-Ilallāh and Muhammed (saw) is the his messenger, and establish Salāh, and pay Zakah, and if they do this their blood and wealth is protected except by the right of Islām. [Agreed Upon]

Is this transgression or contradiction?

Or could it be that you do not understand these texts..

be honest and pls keep reply short




I already answered you on this. He said fight UNTIL they become Muslim, not to initiate war to make them Muslim.

In other words when they attack us, then we fight back until they say there is no god but Allah (swt) and Mohammad (saw) is the messenger...

The Qur'an says, for example in Surah Tawbah, that when Muslims fight the Mushrikeen they should keep fighting them unless and until they become Muslim.

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

This is what the Hadith means, it means when you fight it should continue until they become Muslim, and if you read other verses in the Surah you will see that the idolators were being fought because they broke their oaths, aimed at the expolsion of the Prophet (saw) and attacked Muslims:


Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.

[anam]

So there is no contradiction unless you think that the Qur'an is saying kill ALL when in fact the Qur'an does not say it.

What is the re-conciliation between the Hadīth, I have been ordered to fight the people until they say 'Laa-Ilaaha-Illallah', and the Ayah which says There is no compulsion in the Dīn?

This is very important topic to enter but also very huge, to do justice to it we need to give details, but in the time we have we will try to summarise it InshaAllah. The word an-nass in the Hadīth means every people and is not specified to anyone. The first explanation is you fight all people except the Jews and Christians and pagans until they pay Jizya. Sso when these people enter into the Islamic State and they pay Jizya and have the security of the state then the ayah applies to them There is no compulsion in the Dīn. The evidence for this when someone becomes for Apostate we do not say There is no compulsion in the Dīn and leave him at that. The ayah is specifically for certain people whom Allah (swt) prescribed it to, the Messenger (saw) said whoever apostates in the Dīn then kill him, there is no freedom in Islām to become an apostate and leave the Dīn of Islām. So when the Jew or Christian or Pagan enter into the protection of the Islāmic state then the ayah of no compulsion comes upon them and are not compelled to say 'Lā-Ilaha-Ilallah' and the Ahkām of fighting and killing on these people is suspended in these circumstances. And this description we said of not fighting them when they pay Jizya will stop when Isa (as) comes and will kill the pigs and stop the Jizya. In that situation there will be two choices to fight us or to become Muslims. The Messenger (saw) warned us their will be no more Jizyah at that time we will have to fight until they become Muslims, fighting will continue until the big fight Isa (as) and Dajjāl and that will be the last time of war ever between right and wrong and the whole earth will become under the domain of Islām.






It may be besides the point but I never said that, I said the HADITH falls into the same category as the one I mentioned on my last post.


You keep on trying to get out of this... so why dont you tell us who before you who made this category?!


I was saying when you read Hadith you shouldn't just take one out and ignore the rest. I was referring to the Hadith I mentioned earlier that the Prophet (saw) said you will have enemies, and I said that the reason why Jihad will continue is that Muslims will continue to have enemies.


I already answered, this is the battle between truth and falsehood
which you cannot stop, destroy or rescue.
Jihad will continue because it's an order and will not stop until Isa [as] arrives.
Not because your logic sais we have enemies.
Nothing what you and the denier of slavery sais is convincing
speacially when some ulema say we must iniciate the Jihad for it to be considered such.



I already answered you on this. He said fight UNTIL they become Muslim, not to initiate war to make them Muslim.

Are you going to say this to the Prophet [sws] or Allaah [swt] when your raised naked?

I have been ordered to fight the people until they say Lā-Ilaha-Ilallāh and Muhammed (saw) is the his messenger, and establish Salāh, and pay Zakah, and if they do this their blood and wealth is protected except by the right of Islām. [Agreed Upon]

This is what the Hadith means, it means when you fight it should continue until they become Muslim, and if you read other verses in the Surah you will see that the idolators were being fought because they broke their oaths, aimed at the expolsion of the Prophet (saw) and attacked Muslims:

Brother, why would we carry on fighting a people who say the shahadah?
They would join us in our jihad againt the enemies wouldn't they. So infact the hadith does not mean as your logic states but rather that the blood and wealth is protected because they are Muslim.

Wahshi who killed the leader of martyrs was spare