Some questions

Discussion in 'Islamic Theology and Ideology' started by Die for Allah, Jun 14, 2006.

  1. Die for Allah

    Die for Allah TIOCFAIDH AR LA

    Many times while going through the threads on the subject of Aqeeda,bro Abu Zubair makes reference to the Hanbali creed,is this Hanbali creed exclusive to hanbalis/salafis at present and in the past or do we have adherants of the other madhahib also adhereing to the "hanbali aqeeda"?Could i have info about non hanbali/salafi ulema of the present who have the same aqeeda as the salafis.

    Could i have some references to the writings of non hanbali ulema who wrote in support of and in defence of the "Hanbali aqeeda"and against the attacks of the asharis.

    Are their different types of asharis?some being more extreme than others would all asharis be excluded from the ahlus sunnah?what about maturidis are their different views amongst them and would all of them be considered to be outside of the ahlus sunnah?

    I have heard a well known Hanafi alim who accepts ashari and maturidi aqeeda, clearley state that we have to affirm ALL the sifat of Allah as they have been narrated in the quran and ahadeeth(and he went on to describe some of the sifat (ie Allah's hand,his speech,his istawa,ect)Without explaining away or likening or comparing to the creation without asking how or distorting in any way,now this to me seems exactly like what the salafis/hanbalis say,so why the big disagreement?

    JazakAllah khair
  2. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    I wouldn’t have much information about the present day scholars from the non-Hanbalis who were Salafis. It usually takes an elapse of a whole generation to determine who is who.

    But in this generation, we have some notable non-Hanbali Salafis, and to name a few:

    Sh Muhammad Amin al-Harari al-Shafi’i, the teacher in Dar al-Hadeeth al-Khayriyya, who was not only an Ash’ari, but from the Ahbash. He then became a Salafi.

    Sh Muhammad ‘Ali Adam who, as I heard, was a Hanafi turned Salafi.

    Sh Muhammad Jamil Zaino, another teacher at Dar al-Hadeeth, who was a Hanafi Shadhili who turned a Salafi

    Sh Muhammad al-Amin al-Shanqiti, a Maliki Salafi

    Sh Abdul-Fattah Abu Ghuda, from the closest students of al-Kawthari, is quite clear about his beliefs in his rebuttal of Sh al-Albani

    Of course, not to mention Sh al-Albani himself who was a Hanafi turned Salafi

    Sh ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam, it seems was a Shafi’i more than a Hanbali, but a Salafi in creed.

    These names are just from this century.

    From the previous centuries we have:

    Muhammad Bashir al-Sahsawani an Indian scholar (although I am not sure about his Madhab orientation)

    The entire Alusi Hanafi family in Baghdad, and in particular:
    a) Khayr al-Din al-Alusi who refuted Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in his work: Jala al-‘Aynayn
    b) Mahmud Shukri al-Alusi who roasted al-Nabahani the Sufi in his work Ghayat al-Amani

    Sh Mas’ud al-Nadawi, who was a hardcore Hanafi and a Salafi who wrote a book in defence of Sh Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab

    Al-Mu’allimi al-Yamani who wrote an excellent scholarly rebuttal of al-Kawthari, although I am not sure about his Madhab orientation

    ‘Ali al-Suawydi (non-Hanbali, but not sure about his Madhab)

    ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti, the Egyptian historian who was very sympathetic to the cause of Sh Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab. (non-Hanbali, but not sure about his Madhab)

    Al-Mulla ‘Imran b. Ridhwan al-Shafi’i, a Persian scholar and a jurist who wrote in defence of the Dawah of Sh Muhammad. He would often refer to himself as a Wahhabi with much pride, and yet he was a Shafi’i!

    Al-Shawkani was another famous non-Hanbali and an admirer of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim

    Shah Wali Allah al-Dehlawi was another Hanafi Mujaddid of India who admired Sheikh al-Islam

    Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi was impressed with Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim and referred to them as Awliya

    Al-Suyuti himself was affected by Ibn Taymiyya and thus his hostile attitude towards Kalam

    Ibn Nasir al-Din al-Dimashqi was a Shafi’i who defended Ibn Taymiyya against Ash’ari attacks, and thus wrote his famous work: al-Radd al-Wafir. Although it is said that he became a Hanbali

    During Ibn Taymiyya’s century, there was just too many supporters from other schools, especially the Shafi’i school, such as al-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir, al-Bazzar, ‘Imad al-Din al-Wasiti, Ibn Abil-‘Izz al-Hanafi and others.

    Ahl al-Sunnah is a relative term, and everyone is judged according to what he believes. Even the Mu’tazila are Ahl al-Sunnah in terms of their adherence to the Hanafi school, which is a Sunni school. But they are not Ahl al-Sunnah in Usul and ‘Aqida. Likewise, most of the Ash’aris are Ahl al-Sunnah since they belong to the Shafi’i school, but in creed they are not.

    Secondly, one is not thrown outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah just by ascribing to Ash’ari or Maturidi, for these are just titles. It is possible, and it has happened in the past, that some scholars of Sunnah who affirm Allah’s attributes called themselves Ash’aris, i.e. in the sense that they are the followers of al-Ash’ari in his last book al-Ibana, where he attributes himself to Imam Ahmad .b Hanbal. Such was the case with al-Khatib al-Baghdadi.

    Hence, it is not correct to make a blanket statement about the scholars and declare them as heretics, rather they are to be recognised and praised for the Sunnah they had, as they are to be corrected and sought forgiveness for their errors.

    If this really is the case, and he does not mean by that negation of the literal meaning of the texts, then why wouldn’t he be a Salafi? He can call himself whatever he likes, so long as His believes are that of the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – and his companions. Although, it is always better to ascribe himself to the Salaf, than to an individual who was a Mutakallim, wallahu alam

    Al-Majhool likes this.
  3. AbuMu1

    AbuMu1 New Member

    Related question: would you know why the great Arab philologist, Ibn Hisham, changed from Shafi'i to Hanbali in latter part of his life?
  4. abu hafs

    abu hafs Anti-Shirk

    i heard from a student of knowledge that he was like as-Shawkani ,
    zaydi shi'i->sunni salafi
  5. Die for Allah

    Die for Allah TIOCFAIDH AR LA

    Brother Abu Zubair

    JazakAllah khayr, for answering my questions I really appreciate your help,may Allah subhana wa ta ala reward you with a place in al firdous ameeeen.

  6. asharee_salafi

    asharee_salafi New Member


    But those scholars you had quoted, like abdullah azzam, shanqeeti etc, did they actually label themslves as "salafi" or is that their ascription?

    Also, you said that some called themselves asharee out of ascription to al ilbanah, so they are not asharee in teh cassical sense,right? So why did you say on another thread that barbaharee rejected al ilbanah? was it because imaam asharee himself affirmed Allah attributes but not the Qu'ran being the word of God literally because of the concept of change?


  7. WM

    WM <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    "Sh Abdul-Fattah Abu Ghuda, from the closest students of al-Kawthari, is quite clear about his beliefs in his rebuttal of Sh al-Albani"

    ? !
  8. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,

    The scholars, due to their status and maturity, do not get into labels. What is important to them is the substance.

    So although one would not find these scholars insisting on calling oneself a ‘salafi’, but they would frequently refer to the ‘way of the Salaf’, as opposed to the way of the mutakallimun, Ash’aris or the Khalaf in most of their works. This is what makes them Salafis in essence, irrespective of the labels.

    Remember, Salafism is a movement which stretches itself back to the first Muslim generation, as opposed the Rationalist movement which received its initial blessings at the hands of the Mu’tazilites.

    Al-Ash’ari was rejected by al-Barbahari because he tried to fuse the rationalist and the traditionalist approach together. The Salaf in bulk were extremely critical of Kalam, irrespective of whether it is use against or for the correct theology.

    Obviously, we know now how right al-Barbahari was by rejecting Kalam outright, for look at those today who ascribe themselves to al-Ash’ari, as there is hardly any difference left between them and the Mu’tazila.

    Sh Abu Ghudda and Sh al-Albani were contemporaries and constantly at odds with each other.

    I believe that both were guilty of excesses with respect to each other.

    They were both good friends before they fell out.

    The feud, according to Abu Ghudda, started when he criticised Sh al-Albani for commenting on Ahadeeth of al-Bukhari and Muslim saying: Sahih. Sh Abu Ghudda’s argument was that Sh al-Albani is inviting an average reader to doubt the two Sahihs, which the whole Umma has accepted as authentic. According to Abu Ghuddah, al-Albani became extremely angry at that, and this is when they fell apart. To add fuel to the fire, Abu Ghudda got al-Albani’s edition of Sharh al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya banned from M. b. Su’ud uni.

    Al-Albani, on the other hand, in his forward of Sharh al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya extensively refuted Abu Ghudda, showing how scholars of the past mentioned Ahabdeeth from Bukhari and Muslim saying: Sahih! Moreover, he pointed out Abu Ghudda’s own Sheikh, M. Zahid al-Kawthari who deemed a number of ahadeeth in Bukhari and Muslim to be weak that did not go down well with his Hanafi-Ash’ari fanaticism.

    It then spiralled into what it shouldn’t have, with al-Albani accusing Abu Ghudda of being a Kawtharite, anti-Ibn Taymiyya, anti-Wahhabi, etc, who is only hiding his true beliefs to retain his job as a professor in Imam M. b. Su’ud uni, where he was invited to teach by Sh Muhammad b. Ibrahim.

    Abu Ghudda on the other hand wrote a small book in rebuttal of al-Albani, admitting that although he was a student and an admirer of al-Kawthari, he does not agree with him in many of his views. Not only that, but he also defended Ibn Taymiya’s status by writing to one of the Hanafi scholars of India whilst he was in prison in Syria. He also published several works by Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim, often referring to the former as Sheikh al-Islam. He explicitly stated that he is on the beliefs of the Salaf by affirming all the Attributes without exception, without Ta’til or Tashbih. He also explicitly stated that he regards Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab as the A’imma of Da’wah, and that he has absolutely no qualms about division of Tawheed into 3 categories.

    The point is that in this rebuttal, he quite clearly established his Salafi inclinations without doubt.
  9. abubakr

    abubakr Member

    Asalamu alaykum

    Akhi abu zubair could you bring some exmaples from the sowrks of abu ghudda regarding his creed.

  10. AbuMu1

    AbuMu1 New Member

    Abuz-Zubair: I bring my earlier question back to your attention:-
    Would the rule of the scholar's laa mashaahata fee al-mus-talahaat "No dispute in jargon" be applicable with asharee_salafi's first question (06-17-2006)?
  11. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    which Ibn Hisham are you referring to? Is can't be the author of Seera can it?

    Yes, what matters is what one believes, not what one calls himself
  12. WM

    WM <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    But didnt abu Ghudda support tawassul thru the dead and building up graves?
  13. AbuMu1

    AbuMu1 New Member

    Ibn Hisham al-Ansari, the Egyptian author of Qatr al-Nadaa` and other works in Arabic linguistics.
  14. asharee_salafi

    asharee_salafi New Member

    Yes that makes more sense,

    Your right, so really when we say Salafi's its really a label for those Ulema before us, as they themslves would not stand on a stool and announce to someone "I am a salafi"

    I see, so in al ilbanah Imam Asharee comes to following the Salaf, but he arrives to this way using rational theology which Barbarharee rejected? So how does Al asharee come to the fact that teh Quran is the actual word of Allah, does he use the same infinite regress argument as you did prior to this?

    I heard that Abu Ghudah wasn't always upon the Salafi creed, what happend? Is he a revert to the creed? Surely he wouldn't of been accepted as a student of Kawthari if he was a Salafist.

    Would it be true that Al Albani would dislike him because of his political inclinations as I heard he was quite vocal against rulers etc. He was even part of the Ikhwan wasn't he? Along with Azzam?
    It seems strange why Al Albani would be friends with a member of Ikhwan in the 1st place as I presume there is a lot of divide between the Ikhwan and the Salafi's ( I don't know why)

  15. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    I don’t know if he did.

    But the issue of Tawassul was regarded to be a fiqhi difference of opinion by Sheikh Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab where the opponent is not criticised.

    Very interesting. I didn’t know he became a Hanbali! I would be interested to know why…

    This is quite interesting, because al-Ash’ari for sure denied Actions connected to Allah’s Will, which necessitates that he rejects Allah rising over the Throne, or Speaking when He likes, or speaking to Musa at a particular instance in time. Yet, he affirms all of that literally in his al-Ibana, and explicitly states that Quran, which is Allah’s speech, is literally contained in the Mushaf and recited on our tongues, which quite contrary to the beliefs of the Ash’aris.

    It is the latter Ash’aris such as Ibn Furak and al-Juwaini who claimed that al-Ash’ari believed that the Quran is al-Kalam al-Nafsi, self-speech, one single undivisible entity, which if rendered into Hebrew becomes the Torah, or if rendered into Arabic becomes the Quran.

    As far as the common Ash’ari argument to prove God’s existence, i.e. substance and accidents argument, he deemed it inappropriate in his work, Risala Ila Ahl al-Thaghr, and further said that the Messengers never presented this argument to prove God’s existence. Yet, nevertheless, he still uses it!

    I am not exactly sure at what point he became a Salafi, that is if he was something else before that. Nor do I have any knowledge of al-Kawthari knowing about his Wahhabi tendencies.

    Yes, he was a leading member of Ikhwan in Syria, who was imprisoned and then thrown out of the country, and thereafter, he sought refuge in Saudi.

    Yes, Sh al-Albani was friends with lots of people. In fact, the argument took place between Sh al-Albani, Yusuf al-Qaradhawi and Abu Ghuddah, during a small get-together occasion.

    Sh al-Albani would also attend Ikhwani circles in Syria, just as many Ikhwanis continued to attend his circles in Jordan, even after the Ikhwan boycotted him.

    It is often not a good use of time to get into the feuds between scholars, but what one should realise, that the world isn’t as black and white as some would suggest.

  16. NAveed

    NAveed New Member

    Akhi..he was probably more deobandi.
    That is to say a hadeeth-based sufi who rejected many bid'aat
    and favoured hadeeth-based hanafi-ism.
    Thats why he was keen on the works of shaykh abdal hayy lucknawi
    but was also very close to the ulema of deoband.
    At the same time as you mention , in siyaasa he was ikhwani
  17. hearandobey

    hearandobey الحمدلله

    does anyone know where i can find sh abdul fattah's book in response to sh al-albani?
  18. Sharif

    Sharif Transient Traveler

    A student of knowledge told me that he read from Abu Ghuddah's own words support for the shirki type of tawassul. Which type of tawassul is Abuz Zubair referring to?

Share This Page