Who are deobandis?
This is a discussion on Who are deobandis? within the Aqeedah and Methodology forums, part of the Islamic Library category; Originally Posted by hafizsaad Brother salman i think this is not the topic of debate (you have seen the debate in www.ahlalhdeeth.com ) but you ...
|
As-Salamu 'Alaykum (Peace be upon you)! Welcome to the Islamic-Life Forums Islamic-Life Forums is a Muslim community dedicated to Islamic discussions, Islamic Dawah, Islamic articles, Islamic responses/refutations to Islamic misconceptions and Islamic-Life Forums presents correct understanding of Islamic way of life to both Muslims and Non-Muslims. You can also download free Islamic books, Islamic video and audio lectures, Islamic nasheeds. To gain full access to Islamic-Life Forums you must register for a free account. As a register member you will be able to:
|
| Islamic-Life | Arcade | Downloads | Glorious Qur'an |
| |||||||
| Tags |
| deobandis |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
12-03-2009, 03:30 PM
| #11 | |||||||||||||
| Proud Islamist  Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Islamic-Life.com Posts: 2,168 Gender:  Way of life: Muslim Thanks: 73
Thanked 295 Times in 213 Posts
|  Re: Who are deobandis? Quote:
As far criticizing without proof then they were not brought forward to not to confuse other laypeople who don't know anything about the topic. And those who know about the topic are already aware of the proofs. Quote:
Quote:
First, so what if hanafi math-hab is popular - this does not make it a special. Secondly, hanafi math-hab has to do with fiqh and not aqeedah: not every single hanafi is a deobandi or maturidi. We have the example of brother Harris Hammam, active member of Multaqa and IA forums, who has done a great service to ummah by exposing many problems with deo aqeedah and general aqeedah of the mutakalimeen. Quote:
I will go over rest of Desai's fatawa in next post, insha'Allah brother you did a good job by copying pasting this explanation, on where is Allah, from here Quote:
If this was such an unnecessary question with no benefit then why did Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) asked the slave girl? The gist of the matter is that this question is like a thorn for mutakalimeen. So they use different terms and topics to divert attention from main issue. Quote:
secondly, we don't say that every single person should dwell in these aqeedah issues and spend all of his time; however, it is an important basic concept which is wajib upon us to affirm. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
First, direction is not creation itself rather it is concept used as reference points between creation: the notion only applies to that which is within the creation. Secondly, Imam rahimahullah said that Allah is not contained by six directions which is true as He is beyond the creation. This is a decisive proof and refutation of jahmi neo-ashari doubts; they bring this statement to prove their point; however, it is a proof against them. If Allah is not contained by creation then it means He is beyond (outside of) creation. Hence, proving the point of Ahlus Sunnah that Allah is above His throne (in His Essence) and outside of all of His creation. Another important thing to note is that Imam (rahimahullah) didn't say that Allah does not have direction rather he said he is not contained or encompassed by six directions! When it comes to Allah then there are only two directions: Allah is either inside (above) of His creation or outside (below) of it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
and Allah knows best
__________________ Fi Amanillah Wa As-Salamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu The Prophet sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam said: "The Muslim is a unique Ummah among the whole of mankind: Their Land is ONE, their War is ONE, their Peace is ONE, Their Honour is ONE and their Trust is ONE." [Relayed by Imam of Ahlus Sunnah - Ahmad ibn Hanbal - rahimahullah] Last edited by salman; 12-03-2009 at 09:36 PM. Reason: wording | |||||||||||||
|  |
|
12-03-2009, 09:23 PM
| #12 | |||
| salafist  Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 950 Gender: Way of life: Muslim Thanks: 5
Thanked 227 Times in 172 Posts
| Re: Who are deobandis? Quote:
as Salman mentioned, they are ahlu-sunnah in the general sense just as sufis and other sects are considered within the fold of the sunnah in the general sense when brought into contrast with the shia. Quote:
2. al-Juwaynee was probably the only reputable mutakalim outside of Ghazali and Razi who reniged on the ash'ari aqeedah nearing the end o his life that Shaykh Umar al-Ashar collected a plathora of mutakalimoon scholars who after traversing the ash'ari kalaam theology commented on their plight (heresy) and wished they were never followers of kalaam. 3. Ibn Hajr, he makes some slips on tabarruk and falls into some t'awil with sifaat, but he was hard against the ash'ari mutakalimoon providing an ultra sonic refutation against the ash;ari mutakalimoon in his Fath. 4.an-Nawawee always quoted the shaykhs of Kalaam for aqeedah and was never a specialist in theology, rather his mastery as the ummah and its ulema recognize him for is his superb strength in fiqh, usool, arabic, and hadeeth. 5. Ghazali is probably the only name in this list of yours to actually graduate into the ash'ari cult, the rest merely agreed with an opinion or two or used wordings that ash'aris used to their advantage. 6. As-Suyutee was more of a sufi than anything else. He has a wonderous working refuting the ash'ari mutakalimoon called Sawn al-Mantiq for short where he attacks all kalaamist (i.e. jahmiyyah, mutazilah, ashaa'irah, etc) 7. al-Aynee was the Ibn Taymiyyah of the Hanafis declaring that anyone who called Ibn Taymiyyah a kaafir is himself a kaafir which I specifically like to use against those who like to quote the fatwa of the heretic 'Ala-u-deen al-Bukharee who said that whoever calls Ibn Taymiyyah Shaykhul-Islam is a kaafir. Since al-Aynee was the Imaam of the hanafees of his time and no hanafi has ever risen into his likes except for Abdul-Hayy al-Luknawee, his knowledge of the Islamic sciences towers over the likes of 'Ala-u-deen al-Bukharee, but no biggie. In short, the only actual Ash'ari in this list is alp-Ghazalee and we already have his Iljaam where he highlights the pitfalls of the madhaab of Ash'ari that he realized which he was regretful of. Ghazali was the strongest connection that Ash'aris had with ahlu-sunnah for the first 2 and a half centuries of their inception until they finally were able to scam a good portion of the Shafi'ees who were staunch atharis for a long time. To this day, the only madhaab that the heretics among the mutakalimoon were unable to befuddle are the hanbalis for several reasons which would be too long to elucidate here. We have a poor attempt of modern day heretics who are trying to redefine the hanbali/athari aqeedah (i.e. the salafi aqeedah) by insinuating that the medieval and later hanbalis were heretics and they got it wrong and only Imaam Ahmad, at-Tufi, Ibnul-Jawzi, and Ibn Aqil (in his mutazili years before he converted to hardcore atharism at the hands of Sharif Abu J'afar al-Hanbali) were the only hanbalis that got it right (they naturally have to include Ahmad or else their falsehood would be exposed in broad daylight) Quote:
| |||
|
| |
|
12-03-2009, 10:40 PM
| #13 | ||||||||||||
| salafist Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 950 Gender: Way of life: Muslim Thanks: 5
Thanked 227 Times in 172 Posts
| Re: Tableegh_a great initiative to dawah Quote:
However, in spite of this darkness, there were still Hanafis who were atharis over the centuries continuing up until today. secondly, Imaam al-Maturidi and Abu Bakr al-Awza'ee is like the light and day in terms of knowledge, rank, and connection with sunnism al-Awzaa'ee was a pure salafi and Maturidi was a Mutakalim Quote:
There were NO misguided groups that came out of the Mujassimah. The "Mujaasimah" (anthropomorphist) that existed in Islam began and ended with the Shia, and it remained with the shia. There was never a group that came from any madhaab from the most heretical to the most ultra orthodox that invented the mujassimah sect. Never has the general body of Ahlu-sunnah produced a sect of anthropomorphist. The accusation of anthropomorphism was actually BORN OUT of Jahmism. This is why all of the Imaams use to say "whoever accuses someone of tajseem, then know that he is a jahmi" 2. The second misinformation is that the "mutakalimeen had to refute these people". Wrong. As history records, the people that the Mutakalimeen always debated were none other than the "ahlu-sunnah wal-Jama'ah", specifically the Hanbalis and the Shafi'ees for their remaining firms upon the pure orthodox creed. It was these orthodox traditionalist that the mutakalimeen would argue against and impugn the heresy of tajseem (anthropomorphism) upon. 3. The third misinformation. I don't think your too well grounded in aqeedah in order to be making these kind of claims. The reason WHY they made t'awilaat was not due to the reason you highlighted. The reason why those Mutakalimoon were using t'awil is because they were trying to bring on an interprettion that opposed the dhaahir (apparent/obvious meaning of the sifaat commonly mistranslated as "literal". The reason why the brought these t'awilaat is because the texts of the Qur'an and Sunnah were to blasphemous for them to bear. On of the fatwa of the ash;ari scholars is that the words of the Qur'an regarding Allah's attributes are KUFR in and of themselves and therefore one must make t'awil in order to steer away fro mthe blatant kufr that the Qur'an mentions verbatim. This is similar to the Fatwa of the Ash'ari Taftazani and the Ash'ari al-Bayjoori who claimed that the Qur'an reveals blasphemies (acording to their atheist ideology of kalaam). The reason why they invented the t'awil system that the salaf vehmently warned against is because they believed that the Qur'an and Sunnah, if the words of these two sources are believed in, then it would by default lead the muslim into the kufr of anthropomorphism. What Ash'arism is is a system of how to interpret Islamic doctrine based on the outlook of philosophers and their terminology whereas the way of the atharis/salafis/ahlu-sunnah/ahlul-hadeeth/wahhabi (or whatever you want to call them) is to interpret the islamic doctrine based on the way of the companions. This is the basic bottom line grass roots difference between todays ash'ari school and today's sunni school commonly known as the salafi school or fundamentalist view, or what have you. Quote:
this is another folly. The companions never accepted the salah or the Islam of anyone who differed over their Lord. What good is someone who learned the basics of fiqh, if he turns himself into a mushrik by claiming that Allah is everywhere. This is no different than the pagan arabs who fulfilled the remaining practices of the millah of Ibraheem, but corrupted their entire creed concerning Allah. Asking where is Allah is one fo the most relevant and essrntail questions that can be asked, and more importantly, the most praiseworthy question. It is a question that the Messenger of Allah did not hesitate to ask based on this notion of yours. Quote:
So when the Messenger of the Lord of the Universe asked the slave-girl "where is Allah" your reply back to the messenger is "that is a wrong question" la hawla wa la kuwata illa billah. Gee, I wonder why the Messenger of Allah did not take into account "time" and "space" when he, a prophet of God, asked such a stupid and irrelevant question that was wrong as you say. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
51. He encompasses everything and is above it, and what He has created is incapable of encompassing Him. If Allah is "above" then that entails "direction" that is noted in point 38. This is why we can;t depend on heretics to explain an athari text book, since Imaam at-Tahawee was a fully fledged Athari in Aqeedah. Here is the sharh for point 38 The Explanation: Allah, The Glorified and Exalted is Exalted and removed from any restrictions or limitations. There are no restrictions for Allah, restricting and confining Him, and there are no limitations for Him. Of course this means that Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, does not permeate His creation and is not united with His creation. Indeed, He is The Glorified and Exalted is far from being on the level of His creation. And indeed He negates for Himself any supporting parts or limbs for these are tools of the servants, that which helps them benefit themselves and well as repel harm, and Allah, The Exalted, is far above this. This is what we know from what is mentioned in the Qur’an of Allah’s Names and Attributes, but we say: Indeed the meanings of them (i.e., Allah’s Names and Attributes) in truth is what is based on clear evidence and we understand this meaning and we affirm it for Allah upon what was intended. We do not, however, try to delve into the kaifiyyah, for indeed it the knowledge of it belongs exclusively to Allah. And similarly, He (Allah) Glorified and Exalted is not limited to the six directions like the rest of created things. Of course, we do not understand this to mean that this is a total negation of direction. Indeed He, The Glorified and Exalted is in the Most Exalted and uppermost direction but what was intended by the statement is that He, Glorified and Exalted in not bound or restricted by directions nor overtaken by them like His creation. Synopsis: Indeed, Allah, Most High will be seen on the Day of Rising with clear vision and the seeing of Him by the believers is true even though their vision of Him does not and can not encompass Him and this is inherent in the texts of this chapter. And it is an obligation upon the Muslim to refrain from attempting to interpret (these affairs) and to refrain from the speech of the people who negate (these affairs) and to know that Allah, The Blessed and Most High is far removed from being similar to His creatures. Here is the sharh of the greatest explainer of Tahawiyyah by Ibn Abil-Izz al-Hanafi قوله وتعالى عن الحدود والغايات والأركان والاعضاء والادوات لا تحويه الجهات الست كسائر المبتدعات ش أذكر بين يدي الكلام على عبارة الشيخ رحمه الله مقدمة وهي أن الناس في إطلاق مثل هذه الألفاظ ثلاثة أقوال فطائفة تنفيها وطائفة تثبتها وطائفة تفصل وهم المتبعون للسلف فلا يطلقون نفيها ولا إثباتها الا اذا تبين ما أثبت بها فهو ثابت وما نفي بها فهو منفي لأن المتأخرين قد صارت هذه الألفاظ في اصطلاحهم فيها إجمال وابهام كغيرها من الألفاظ الاصطلاحية فليس كلهم يستعملها في نفس معناها اللغوي ولهذا كان النفاة ينفون بها حقا وباطلا ويذكرون عن مثبتها ما لا يقولون به وبعض المثبتين لها يدخل لها معنى باطلا مخالفا لقول السلف ولما دل عليه الكتاب والميزان ولم يرد نص من الكتاب ولا من السنة بنفيها ولا إثباتها وليس لنا أن نصف الله تعالى بما لم يصف به نفسه ولا وصفه به رسوله نفيا ولا إثباتا وانما نحن متبعون لا مبتدعون فالواجب أن ينظر في هذا الباب أعني باب الصفات فما أثبته الله ورسوله أثبتناه وما نفاه الله ورسوله نفيناه والألفاظ التي ورد بها النص يعتصم بها في الإثبات والنفي فنثبت ما أثبته الله ورسوله من الألفاظ والمعاني وننفي ما نفته نصوصهما من الألفاظ والمعاني وأما الالفاظ التي لم يرد نفيها ولا اثباتها فلا تطلق حتى ينظر في مقصود قائلها فإن كان معنى صحيحا قبل لكن ينبغي التعبير عنه بألفاظ النصوص دون الألفاظ المجملة إلا عند الحاجة مع قرائن تبين المراد والحاجة مثل أن يكون الخطاب مع من لا يتم المقصود معه ان لم يخاطب بها ونحو ذلك والشيخ رحمه الله اراد الرد بهذا الكلام على المشبهة كداود الجواربي وأمثاله القائلين إن الله جسم وانه جثة واعضاء وغير ذلك تعالى الله عما يقولون علوا كبيرا فالمعنى الذي أراده الشيخ رحمه الله من النفي الذي ذكره هنا حق لكن حدث بعده من أدخل في عموم نفيه حقا وباطلا فيحتاج الى بيان ذلك وهو أن السلف متفقون على أن البشر لا يعلمون لله حدا وانهم لا يحدون شيئا من صفاته قال ابو داود الطيالسي كان سفيان وشعبة وحماد بن زيد وحماد بن سلمة وشريك وابو عوانة لا يحدون ولا يشبهون ولا يمثلون يروون الحديث ولا يقولون كيف وإذا سئلوا قالوا بالأثر وسيأتي في كلام الشيخ وقد أعجز خلقه عن الإحاطة به فعلم ان مراده أن الله يتعالى عن أن يحيط أحد بحده لأن المعنى أنه متميز عن خلقه منفصل عنهم مباين لهم سئل عبد الله بن المبارك بم نعرف ربنا قال بأنه على العرش بائن من خلقه قيل بحد قال بحد انتهى ومن المعلوم أن الحد يقال على ما ينفصل به الشيء ويتميز به عن غيره والله تعالى غير حال في خلقه ولا قائم بهم بل هو القيوم القائم بنفسه المقيم لما سواه فالحد بهذا المعنى لا يجوز أن يكون فيه منازعة في نفس الأمر أصلا فإنه ليس وراء نفيه إلا نفي وجود الرب ونفي حقيقته وأما الحد بمعنى العلم والقول وهو أن يحده العباد فهذا منتف بلا منازعة بين أهل السنة قال أبو القاسم القشيري في رسالته سمعت الشيخ أبا عبد الرحمن السلمي سمعت أبا منصور بن عبد الله سمعت أبا الحسن العنبري سمعت سهل بن عبد الله التستري يقول وقد سئل عن ذات الله فقال ذات الله موصوفة بالعلم غير مدركة بالإحاطة ولا مرئية بالأبصار في دار الدنيا وهي موجودة بحقائق الإيمان من غير حد ولا إحاطة ولا حلول وتراه العيون في العقبى ظاهرا في ملكه وقدرته وقد حجب الخلق عن معرفة كنه ذاته ودلهم عليه بآياته فالقلوب تعرفه والعيون لا تدركه ينظر إليه المؤمن بالأبصار من غير إحاطة ولا ادراك نهاية وأما لفظ الأركان والأعضاء والأدوات فيستدل بها النفاة على نفي بعض الصفات الثابتة بالأدلة القطعية كاليد والوجه قال أبو حنيفة رضي الله عنه في الفقه الأكبر له يد ووجه ونفس كما ذكر تعالى في القرآن من ذكر اليد والوجه والنفس فهو له صفة بلا كيف ولا يقال أن يده قدرته ونعمته لأن فيه إبطال الصفة انتهى وهذا الذي قاله الإمام رضي الله عنه ثابت بالأدلة القاطعة قال تعالى ) ما منعك أن تسجد لما خلقت بيدي ( ) والأرض جميعا قبضته يوم القيامة والسماوات مطويات بيمينه ( وقال تعالى ) كل شيء هالك إلا وجهه ( ) ويبقى وجه ربك ذو الجلال والإكرام ( وقال تعالى ) تعلم ما في نفسي ولا أعلم ما في نفسك ( وقال تعالى ) كتب ربكم على نفسه الرحمة ( وقال تعالى ) واصطنعتك لنفسي ( وقال تعالى ) ويحذركم الله نفسه ( وقال e في حديث الشفاعة لما يأتي الناس آدم فيقولون له خلقك الله بيده وأسجد لك ملائكته وعلمك أسماء كل شيء الحديث ولا يصح تأويل من قال إن المراد باليد بالقدرة فإن قوله ) لما خلقت بيدي ( لا يصح أن يكون معناه بقدرتي مع تثنية اليد ولو صح ذلك لقال إبليس وأنا أيضا خلقتني بقدرتك فلا فضل له علي بذلك فإبليس مع كفره كان أعرف بربه من الجهمية ولا دليل لهم في قوله تعالى ) أو لم يروا أنا خلقنا لهم مما عملت أيدينا أنعاما فهم لها مالكون ( لأنه تعالى جمع الأيدي لما اضافها إلى ضمير الجمع ليتناسب الجمعان فاللفظان للدلالة على الملك والعظمة ولم يقل أيدي مضافا إلى ضمير المفرد ولا يدينا بتثنية اليد مضافا الى ضمير الجمع فلم يكن قوله ) مما عملت أيدينا ( نظير قوله ) لما خلقت بيدي ( وقال النبي e عن ربه عز وجل حجابه النور ولو كشفه لأحرقت سبحات وجهه ما انتهى إليه بصره من خلقه ولكن لا يقال لهذه الصفات إنها أعضاء أو جوارح او أدوات أو أركان لأن الركن جزء الماهية والله تعالى هو الأحد الصمد لا يتجزأ سبحانه وتعالى والأعضاء فيها معنى التفريق والتعضيه تعالى الله عن ذلك ومن هذا المعنى قوله تعالى ) الذين جعلوا القرآن عضين ( والجوارح فيها معنى الاكتساب والانتفاع وكذلك الأدوات هي الآلات التي ينتفع بها في جلب المنفعة ودفع المضرة وكل هذه المعاني منتفية عن الله تعالى ولهذا لم يرد ذكرها في صفات الله تعالى فالألفاظ الشرعية صحيحة المعاني سالمة من الاحتمالات الفاسدة فكذلك يجب أن لا يعدل عن الألفاظ الشرعية نفيا ولا إثباتا لئلا يثبت معنى فاسد أو ينفي معنى صحيح وكل هذه الالفاظ المجملة عرضة للمحق والمبطل وأما لفظ الجهة فقد يراد به ما هو موجود وقد يراد به ما هو معدوم ومن المعلوم أنه لا موجود إلا الخالق والمخلوق فإذا أريد بالجهة أمر موجود غير الله تعالى كان مخلوقا والله تعالى لا يحصره شيء ولا يحيط به شيء من المخلوقات تعالى الله عن ذلك وإن أريد بالجهة امر عدمي وهو ما فوق العالم فليس هناك إلا الله وحده فإذا قيل إنه في جهة بهذا الاعتبار فهو صحيح ومعناه أنه فوق العالم حيث انتهت المخلوقات فهو فوق الجميع عال عليه ونقاه لفظ الجهة الذين يريدون بذلك نفي العلو يذكرون من أدلتهم أن الجهات كلها مخلوقة وانه كان قبل الجهات وأن من قال إنه في جهة يلزمه القول بقدم شيء من العالم وأنه كان مستغنيا عن الجهة ثم صار فيها وهذه الألفاظ ونحوها إنما تدل على أنه ليس في شيء من المخلوقات وسواء سمي جهة او لم يسم وهذا حق ولكن الجهة ليست أمرا وجوديا بل أمر إعتباري ولا شك أن الجهات لا نهاية لها وما لا يوجد فيما لا نهاية له فليس بموجود وقول الشيخ رحمه الله لا تحويه الجهات الست كسائر المبتدعات هو حق باعتبار أنه لا يحيط به شيء من مخلوقاته بل هو محيد بكل شيء وفوقه وهذا المعنى هو الذي أراده الشيخ رحمه الله لما يأتي في كلامه أنه تعالى محيط بكل شيء وفوقه فإذا جمع بين كلاميه وهو قوله لا تحويه الجهات الست كسائر المبتدعات وقوله محيط بكل شيء وفوقه علم أن مراده أن الله تعالى لا يحويه شيء ولا يحيط به شيء كما يكون لغيره من المخلوقات وأنه تعالى هو المحيط بكل شيء العالي عن كل شيء لكن بقي في كلامه شيئان أحدهما أن إطلاق مثل هذا اللفظ مع ما فيه من الإجمال والإحتمال كان تركه أولى وإلا تسلط عليه وألزم بالتناقض في اثبات الإحاطة والفوقية ونفي جهة العلو وإن أجيب عنه بما تقدم من أنه انما نفى أن يحويه شيء من مخلوقاته فالاعتصام بالالفاظ الشرعية اولى الثاني أن قوله كسائر المبتدعات يفهم منه أنه ما من مبتدع إلا وهو محوي وفي هذا نظر فإنه ان أراد أنه محوي بأمر وجودي فممنوع فان العالم ليس في عالم آخر وإلا لزم التسلسل وان أراد أمرا عدميا فليس كل مبتدع في العدم بل منها ما هو داخل في غيره كالسموات والأرض في الكرسي ونحو ذلك ومنها ما هو منتهى المخلوقات كالعرش فسطح العالم ليس في غيره من المخلوقات قطعا للتسلسل كما تقدم ويمكن أن يجاب عن هذا الإشكال بأن سائر بمعنى البقية لا بمعنى الجميع هذا اصل معناها ومنه السؤر وهو ما يبقيه الشارب في الإناء فيكون مراده غالب المخلوقات لا جميعها إذ السائر على الغالب أدل منه على الجميع فيكون المعنى أن الله تعالى غير محوي كما يكون أكثر المخلوقات محويا بل هو غير محوي بشيء تعالى الله عن ذلك ولا نظن بالشيخ رحمه الله انه ممن يقول إن الله تعالى ليس داخل العالم ولا خارجه بنفي التعيينين كما ظنه بعض الشارحين بل مراده أن الله تعالى منزه عن أن يحيط به شيء من مخلوقاته وأن يكون مفتقرا إلى شيء منها العرش او غيره وفي ثبوت هذا الكلام عن الإمام أبي حنيفة رضي الله عنه نظر فإن أضداده قد شنعوا عليه بأشياء أهون منه فلو سمعوا مثل هذا الكلام لشاع عنهم تشنيعهم عليه به وقد نقل أبو مطيع البلخي عنه إثبات العلو كما سيأتي ذكره ان شاء الله تعالى وظاهر هذا الكلام يقتضي نفيه ولم يرد بمثله كتاب ولا سنة فلذلك قلت إن في ثبوته عن الإمام نظرا وان الأولى التوقف في إطلاقه فإن الكلام بمثله خطر بخلاف الكلام بما ورد عن الشارع كالاستواء والنزول ونحو ذلك ومن ظن من الجهال أنه اذا نزل الى سماء الدنيا كما أخبر الصادق e يكون العرش فوقه ويكون محصورا بين طبقتين من العالم فقوله مخالف لإجماع السلف مخالف للكتاب والسنة وقال شيخ الإسلام أبو عثمان إسماعيل بن عبد الرحمن الصابوني سمعت الأستاذ أبا منصور بن حماد بعد روايته حديث النزول يقول سئل ابو حنيفة رضي الله عنه عنه فقال ينزل بلا كيف انتهى وإنما توقف من توقف في نفي ذلك لضعف علمه بمعاني الكتاب والسنة وأقوال السلف لذلك ينكر بعضهم أن يكون فوق العرش بل يقول لا مباين ولا مجانب لا داخل العالم ولا خارجه فيصفونه بصفة العدم والممتنع ولا يصفونه بما وصف به نفسه من العلو والاستواء على العرش ويقول بعضهم بحلوله في كل موجود أو يقول هو وجود كل موجود ونحو ذلك تعالى الله عما يقول الظالمون والجاحدون علوا كبيرا وسيأتي لإثبات صفة العلو لله تعالى زيادة بيان عند الكلام على قول الشيخ رحمه الله محيط بكل شيء وفوقه إن شاء الله تعالى the basic gist of it, he says exactly what i said, that while it is necessary to purify the creator from having direction LIKE how the creation is bound by direction, it is not taken or understood by us that we should purify the Creator from what the Creator affirmed for Himself i.e. that He Rose above the Throne. He also mentions that three sayings emerged from it one totally denying it, one totally accepting it blindly at face value (which is what the deniers that Alllah Rose Over His Thrown are upon), and the other only being reserved as to refraining from doing the two until inquiring what is meant (which is what we sunnis are upon). And that our duty is to look into the morphology of it and that it is neither intended to mean one or the other until one compares it with the sayings of quran and hadeeth texts Quote:
Quote:
It is wrong to say that He is everywhere and it is also wrong to believe that He is on something, as all these are limited whereas Allah Almighty is limitless. However, we must believe that His knowledge encompasses everything, and he knows, sees and listens to everything. And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
| ||||||||||||
|
| |
|
12-03-2009, 11:08 PM
| #14 | |
| salafist Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 950 Gender: Way of life: Muslim Thanks: 5
Thanked 227 Times in 172 Posts
| Re: Who are deobandis? Quote:
 brother was going to reply, but do to the simple ignorance touted in this copy and past, my advise for you is that you really need to read the radd alal jahmiyyah by Imaam Ahmad. Once you read that book, you will understand the nature of the polemic much more accurately and you will be able to view the ash'aris in their correct light otherwise, you will continue to spout these types of delusional fatawa. | |
|
| |
Deobandi aqeedah is pure to Ahlus Sunnah and there is no any mistake in the aqeedah.|
12-04-2009, 04:18 PM
| #15 | |||||||
| Full Member  Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 53 Gender: Way of life: Muslim Thanks: 10
Thanked 15 Times in 9 Posts
| Re: Who are deobandis? Quote:
what you say about AL-`AQIDA AL-TAHAWIYYA by Imam Abu Ja`far al-Tahawi hanfi Quote:
Al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad (The Sword on the Disproved) also known as al-Tasdiqat li-Daf’ al-Talbisat (Endorsements Repelling Deceits) is a book that expresses some of the beliefs held by the Sunni scholars of the Indian Subcontinent affiliated to Deoband. For this reason, it is also known in some circles as Aqa’id Ulama Ahl al-Sunna Deoband (The Beliefs of the Sunni Scholars of Deoband). It was authored by the renowned scholar of Hadith and commentator of Sunan Abi Dawud (in 20 volumes), Shaykh Mawlana Khalil Ahmad al-Saharanpuri (may Allah have mercy on his soul). In the year 1323 A.H. doubts were raised in certain quarters of the Subcontinent questioning the Sunni-ness of the Scholars (ulama) of Deoband. These misgivings also reached the Ulama of the 2 blessed cities of Makka al-Mukarrama and Madina al-Munawwara (hijaz). The great Deobandi Scholar, Shaykh al-Islam Mawlana Huseyn Ahmad al-Madani (Allah have mercy on him) was, in those days, residing in the blessed city of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) teaching the science of Hadith in the blessed Mosque of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). He informed the Ulama of Hijaz that the Scholars of Deoband have always followed Sunni Islam as demonstrated by the Companions (sahaba) and their students (tabi’un) (Allah be pleased with them all), and as explained by scholars over the centuries such as Imam Abu’l Hasan al-Ash’ari, Imam Abu’l Mansur al-Maturidi and others (Allah be pleased with them all). He reiterated that the Scholars of Deoband follow the Maturidi (and Ash’ari) Schools in Aqida, the Hanafi School in Fiqh and the Chishtiyya, Naqshabandiyya, Qadiriyya and Suhrawardiyya orders in Tasawwuf and Ihsan. In order to clarify this, the Ulama of Hijaz sent a questionnaire consisting of 26 questions to the Ulama of Deoband asking them to elucidate their position with regards to issues such as: using intermediaries in supplication to Allah (tawassul), visiting the grave of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), Prophets being alive in their graves, sending blessings in abundance upon the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), following one of the four Sunni Schools of Islamic law, Sufism, celebrating the Mawlid, knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) being the last and final Prophet of Allah, etc. Shaykh Khalil Ahmad al-Saharanpuri (Allah have mercy on him) took on the task to compile a detailed response to these questions in Arabic. The answers written by him were verified and endorsed by 24 other major Scholars affiliated to the Deobandi School including Hakim al-Umma Shaykh Mawlana Ashraf Ali Tahanawi and Shaykh al-Hind Mawlana Mahmud al-Hasan Deobandi (Allah have mercy on them all). Thereafter this compilation was sent to the Ulama of Hijaz who approved and endorsed the answers and also wrote short letters declaring that the answers and viewpoints penned by Shaykh Khalil Ahmad were in accordance with the beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’ah. It was also sent to other Arab lands such as Egypt and Syria where it was endorsed by numerous other Scholars. Those who endorsed the work from the various Arab lands included: 1) Shaykh Muhammad Sa’id Ba Busayl al-Shafi’i (Shafi’i Mufti of Makka) 2) Shaykh Muhammad Abid ibn Huseyn al-Maliki (Maliki Mufti of Makka) 3) Shaykh as-Sayyid Ahmad al-Barzanji (Mufti of the Shafi’is in Madina) 4) Shaykh Ahmad ibn Muhammad Khayr al-Shinquiti al-Maliki (Madina) 5) al-Allama al-Imam Shaykh Saleem al-Bishri (Shaykh of al-Azhar in Egypt) 6) Shaykh Sayyid Muhammad Abu’l Khayr Ibn Abidin (Hanafi Faqih of Damascus) 7) Shaykh Mustafa ibn Ahmad al-Shatti (Hanbali Faqih of Damascus) 8) Shaykh Mahmoud Rashid al-Attar (Hanafi Faqih of Damascus) 9) Shaykh Mustafa al-Haddad (of Hama in Syria) 10) Shaykh Muhammad Sa’id al-Hamawi (of Hama in Syria) In total, 45 top ranking scholars from the Indian Subcontinent, Hijaz, Egypt and Syria endorsed, signed and approved the answers compiled by Shaykh Khalil Ahmad al-Saharanpuri as being in accordance with the Ahl al-Sunna methodology. The questions sent by the Ulama of Hijaz, the answers compiled by the Shaykh and the subsequent endorsements from the various Shuyukh form the basis of the book al-Muhannad ala al- Mufannad. you can download book from here 4shared.com - document sharing - download Muhannad ala al-Mufannad.pdf Infact The deobandi Maslak is the only in indo pak who are the true follower of Hanafia and they have served in all parts from jihad to Tabligh, From khatam e Nubuwat to politics, From Fiqha to tafseer and hadith. There is no contradiction and difference between deobandi aqeeda from Hanafi. what brother Harris Hammam has done great service to ummah, i dont know. we can not take illetarate laymen deobandi aqeedah as a proof for the whole aqeedah of deoband as there is much effect of the 1 hundrad year society of Hindu's and Brailvi sect on these people and it takes time to remove all these mistakes in Laymen. Quote:
for aqeedah importance, Due to tablighi jamahat touch our all family blessed by Allah heavily and Al khamad u lillah i and my 3 brother are hafiz e quran and one is in madrasah for darse nizami and we are tought basic aqeedah which required to affirm belief on Allah's with logic that show Allah eternity and almigthy and we are taught by elder to dont think in the Allah personality (dhaat) but in only his sifaat (attributes). what the mufti desai answer has firstly told, is only to brake laymen from making debate in things which are harmful as a small toung mistake can slip us from heaven and this is very sensitive matter to discuss and should learned only from mutaqi scholors. Quote:
more there is much contradiction in between you salafi thought, your answer contradicting here .one say we beleive and then other say "Nasafi fell into heresy in creed, his statement is not accepted." Quote:
the Islamic belief is that Allah is the Creator of place and time, and that He Himself is not in time and not in place. That is, He is not something that fills space or has other physical characteristics. To Muslims, physical characteristics show the createdness of things, as anything physical needs specification by a creator. Ibn al-Jauzi RH the Hanbali Denounces Those Hanbalis Who Insist That Allàh is "Separate" From His Creation: The fact that the notion that Allàh is contiguous with His creation or separate from it necessarily and essentially implies the notion that He is possessed of body and substance was emphasised by Abu ’l-Faraj ibn al-Jauzi (d. 597 /1201; Baghdad), a Hanbali Imàm in his book Daf‘ Shubah al-Tashbih when he remonstrated with Ibn al-Zàghuni (d. 520 / 1126), one of the teachers of Ibn al-Jauzi and one of the anthropomorphist Hanbali’s, for insisting that Allàh “has to be separate” and for insisting that Allàh physically ascended the Throne: I declare [Ibn al-Jauzi says]: This talk is nonsense and sheer anthropomorphism (tashbih)! This man doesn’t know what is necessary of the Creator, and what is impossible of Him. Indeed, His existence is not like the existence of atoms (jawàhir) and bodies which must have a location. “Below” and “above” only apply to what can be faced and gotten opposite to. Now, what is gotten opposite to has of necessity to be bigger, smaller, or equal to what is opposite it––but this is what applies to bodies. Whatever faces bodies may be contacted, and whatever can be in contact with bodies, or be separate from them is originated since it is known [in science of Kalàm] that the proof that atoms (jawàhir) are originated is their capacity to be contacted or separate. Thus, whoever permits [contact and separation] for God makes Him originated. If they maintain that He may not be originated in spite of His being susceptible to contact and separation, we will not be left with any means to demonstrate that atoms are originated. Furthermore, if we conceive of a thing transcending space and location[namely, God], and another requiring space and location [namely, bodies], then we may neither declare the two to be contiguous nor separate since contiguity and separateness are among the consequences of occupying space. It has already been established that coming together and becoming separate are among the inseparable attributes of whatever occupies space. However, the Real (al-Haqq), high and exalted is He, may not be described by the occupation of space because, if He did occupy space, He would either have to be at rest in the space He occupied, or moving from it; whereas, He may neither be described by movement nor stillness; nor union nor separation [since these are the attributes of things which are contingent and originated, not of that which is necessary and eternal]. Whatever is contiguous or separate must have a finite existence. Then, what is finite has to have dimensions, and what has dimensions needs that which particularises its dimensions [and whatever has a need can not be the God and Originator of the cosmos]. Furthermore, from another point of view, it can be pointed out that He is neither in this world or outside it because entering and exiting are inseparable attributes of things which occupy space. Entering and exiting are just like movement and stillness and all other accidents which apply to bodies only. Notice that Ibn al-Zaghuni claims above [Ibn al-Jauzá had quoted from one of his books] that He did not create things in His Essence (dhàt); therefore, he presumes it is established that they are separate from Him. [In refutation of this claim] we declare [that is, Ibn al-Jauzi] that the Essence of the Transcendent God (dhàtuhu al-muqaddasah) is beyond having things created in it, or that things should occur in it. Now, material separation in relation to Him requires of Him what it requires of substances [namely, that He be defined by finite limits]. Indeed, the definition of location is that what occupies it prevents a similar thing from being found there; [whereas, nothing is similar to God in any way]. It is apparent that what [these anthropomorphists] presume is based on sensory analogy. Their inability to conceive of a reality beyond material experience led them into bewilderment, and to liken the attributes of the Transcendent God to the attributes of originated things [that is, to commit tashbih]. Indeed, the bewilderment of some of them reached such a degree that they declared: “The reason God mentioned His ascension (istiwà’) on the Throne is that it is the nearest thing to him.” Obviously, this is preposterous because nearness in terms of distance can only be conceived of in relation to bodies [whereas, in relation to the Transcendent God who is not a body, it is inconceivable]. Others declared that the Throne is opposite what confronts it of the Divine Essence (dhàt), but not opposite the entire dhàt. This, of course, is explicit in saying that God is like a body (tajsim), and that He is susceptible to division. I am at a loss to understand how a person [who believes such heretical nonsense] has the audacity to ascribe to our school of law [that is, the Hanbali madhhab]! Ibn al-Jauzi, Daf‘ Shubah al-Tashbih (Cairo, Maktabah Kulláyat al-Azharáyah, 1991), pp, 21-22 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sa‘d al-Din al-Taftàzàni (d. 793 / 1390; Samarkand), in his Sharh al-‘Aqà’id al-Nasafiyah made the same point as Ibn al-Jauzi: The adversaries cling to the outward sense of the [ambiguous texts] in order to predicate direction, corporeality, form, and limbs of the divinity. Moreover, they argued that whenever we suppose two things to be present, it is inevitable that either one of them is in contact with the other touching it, or that it is separate from it away from it in some direction. Now, [they argue] since Allàh is neither in the world, nor is the world in Him, it stands that He is separate from it and away from it in some direction, located in some place (mutaäayyiz). Thus, He has to be a body, or part of a body, having a form, and an extreme limit. The answer to them is that what they say is sheer delusion: the judging of what is supersensible according to the criteria of what is sensible. Conclusive proofs (al-adillat alqat‘iyah) are established which determine the absolute and imperative necessity of maintaining the pure transcendence of God. Therefore, it is necessary that either we leave the knowledge of the meaning of the ambiguous texts to Allàh, exalted is He, as was the custom of the Salaf [the first three generations of Islàm] preferring the safer way(al-tariq al-aslam); or we interpret them in a correct way as is the custom of the later ‘ulamà’ in order to refute the propaganda of the ignorant [an allusion to the Hashawiyah] and take simpleminded souls by the arm in a way which is safer [for the simpleminded]. [latter two quotes translated by Sh. Muhammad W. C.] Quote:
From Kitab al-Wasiyya "We affirm that Allah the Exalted has established (istawa’) himself on the Throne without there being any necessity or sedentariness (istiqrar) for Himself [of it]. He is the Keeper of the Throne and of [anything] other than the Throne without any need [for Himself to it]. If he [ever] was in need [of it] then he would not have been able to bring the world into existence or dispose of it, just like the two creations [are unable]. If he [ever] was needy of sitting (julus) and settling (qarar) [on the Throne], then where was Allah before the creation of the Throne? May Allah be exalted over that, in being high and great." From al-Fiqh al-Absat "If someone says, 'Where is Allâh' The answer for him is that Allâh existed when there was no 'where,' no creation, nothing! And He is the Creator of everything!" He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or having boundaries, or having parts, limbs, or organs! Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created things are."May Allah be exalted over that, in being high and great Our on Scholar Molana ashraf ALi thanvi make a very intresting interprition for ayat istawa al arsh He (Allah) then firmly established Himself over the Throne (very interesting interpretation ) By Translated by By Hakim al-Umma Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi Translated by Hamood Aleem “He (Allah Most High) then firmly established (istawa) Himself over the Throne” (Qur’an 7:54) it is safer to adopt silence in agreement with the methodology of the salaf (pious predecessors) and that is also my view although the muta’akhirin (scholars of the later generations) have opened the doors for ta’wil (interpretation). The ta’wil which has been done in this place is extremely latif (delicate), the gist of which is that [the act of] being seated on the throne is figuratively used to express the decreeing of orders and the administrating of affairs. Hence, it is said that following a certain king, such a person sat on the throne. This is even if he still has not had the opportunity to sit on the [physical] throne. The meaning of this statement is that after the king this person became ruler and took the administration of the kingdom in his hands. This same usage has been used in the Qur’an, where the intended meaning is that Allah Most High, having brought the heavens and the earth etc. into existence, began decreeing orders and administrating over affairs . In another verse, istawa ‘ala al-’arsh1 is followed by [the words] yudabbir al-amr [he administers the affairs] , which can be considered the exegesis of istawa ‘ala al-’arsh which in turn corroborates this ta’wil. Furthermore, in this verse, istawa ‘ala al-’arsh is followed by the verse: “He covers the day with the night that pursues it swiftly. (He created) the sun and the moon and the stars, subjugated to His command. Lo! To Him alone belong the creation and the command. Glorious is Allah, the Lord of all the worlds.” (Qur’an, 7:54). This expresses [the meaning of] administrating over affairs, after which no objection remains because Allah Most High is free from being seated on a throne. The response to the doubt that arises from this verse is that istawa ‘ala al-’arsh has been used figuratively such that the intended meaning is of administrating over affairs because this is the meaning of being seated on a throne that is commonly understood. Consequently, where the muta’akhirin have introduced other ta’wils they have also given consideration to this [above mentioned] ta’wil. Insha’Allah (Allah willing), this is the most latif ta’wil. Excerpt from Tashil2 Tafsir Bayan al-Qur’an (Sura Al-A’raf, Verse 54) Quote:
One thing i have noted on your forums that you "salafi by name" are have so proud on you and your aqeedah that you dont want to say anybody himself ahle sunnah other than you and start saying anyone who contradict you jahmi's unbeliever etc. and blindly follow Ibn Taymiyya (Rahimahullah) whose many thought contradict with ahl sunnah like Denying the Eternality of Hellfire, and also Ibn Taymiyyah says Aļļaah needs, is divisible,settles in a place, has 6 limits, has a size, and must be creating (though He can choose what to create – but not whether to create or not.) are these taw'il can be accepted ? who is going to affirm belief of jahmi's ? the brother al-boriqee words "delusion is a hard pill to swallow. it is even harder than the red pill and the blue pill combined. " and Allah knows best Q : How can God exist without a place? ANS: Rather, it is the question that is mad. It is similar to asking, how can God exist without a body? The question should rather be, how can you confine God to a place and still claim that it is God? For by definition, God cannot be confined to such a thing. This is because place is a creation, it is space. God is unlike creation, and cannot be confined by it. This is why God is not in a place, nor in a time, nor in a direction and so on. Allah subhanahu wa-ta`ala transcends all that. The contrary belief is called anthropomorphism and found in many other religions including Christianity and Judaism. Place and all places (makan) and all directions were created by Allah. Saying that Allah cannot exist without place necessarily implies eternal existence of creation (a place, Arsh). But, believing that one of creation is eternal is shirk. Imam Subki explains this in as-Sayf-us-Saqil. Last edited by hafizsaad; 12-05-2009 at 08:54 AM. | |||||||
|
| |
|
12-04-2009, 07:12 PM
| #16 |
| salafist Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 950 Gender: Way of life: Muslim Thanks: 5
Thanked 227 Times in 172 Posts
| Re: Who are deobandis? Akhee Salman leave this guy for he is a perfect personification of these tabloid posters that copies and pastes these already debunked arguments before he even knew what a hanafi was. maybe for the benefit of the forum, I would provide a response to these old arguments if I have the time to waste. asalamu alaikum |
|
| |
|
12-05-2009, 01:38 AM
| #17 | |
| Full Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 53 Gender: Way of life: Muslim Thanks: 10
Thanked 15 Times in 9 Posts
| Re: Who are deobandis? Quote:
I also think, the comenting with you is just wasting time as you people are idealistic in nature and if any person give proof to you , you always start trying to abuse him through different name jahmi's , ashari's, unbeliever etc. i have seen your this behavior recently in Abdul fattah post on "Time and space", you have shown at once your anger and use offensive style and brother salman also instead of believing the clear scientific facts called him ashari's style..Yes it is..asharia 's style is more near to nature and science. You and your thought are not hujjah for us, we don't going to become hanfi the way which you recommend. I am forced to give such comments by you as you have tried to abuse irrationally my elders religious scholars and the whole deobandi hanfi madhab. I suggest it is good for us that we mind our own business. Last edited by hafizsaad; 12-05-2009 at 09:01 AM. | |
|
| |
|
12-05-2009, 05:24 PM
| #18 | |||||
| Proud Islamist Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Islamic-Life.com Posts: 2,168 Gender: Way of life: Muslim Thanks: 73
Thanked 295 Times in 213 Posts
| Re: Who are deobandis?  akhee boriqee, please let me handle this, jazak Allah khayran. brother saad, you have been very unjust from the very start. You accused me of making takfir of Maturidis and Ash'aris but you have yet to bring a single statement of mine which supports what you have said. Unlike akhee boriqee, I am giving you benefit of doubt even if you are nothing but a troll. I do not want to be harsh to you because it seems you don't have much knowledge about this issue and you simply came to this wrong conclusion after reading few articles on internet. If you want a decent discussion then please stop with these long copy pastes in reply to my arguments and at least give reference of where you are taking. We never said that you cannot copy paste or why did you copy paste so please don't put words in our mouths. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
May Allah forgive us, make us follow haqq and draw our hearts toward each other, ameen
__________________ Fi Amanillah Wa As-Salamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu The Prophet sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam said: "The Muslim is a unique Ummah among the whole of mankind: Their Land is ONE, their War is ONE, their Peace is ONE, Their Honour is ONE and their Trust is ONE." [Relayed by Imam of Ahlus Sunnah - Ahmad ibn Hanbal - rahimahullah] | |||||
|
| |
|
12-05-2009, 07:23 PM
| #19 | ||||||
| salafist Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 950 Gender: Way of life: Muslim Thanks: 5
Thanked 227 Times in 172 Posts
| Re: Who are deobandis?  I feel like I was misrepresented akhee Salman, I did give brother Hafiz a benefit of the doubt, the benefit that he does not understand what ash'ari/maturidi thought is which was highlighted in the regurgitation of old empty postings while not being firmly grounded in the masaa'il of kalaam that he purports as "reason". I seriously think he is just rying to learn. In all honesty, I don;t think I was harsh to him because I was taking into account that some of the things he was relaying does not fit in with what is reality which I will demonstrate in my short response to some of his awkward accusations of me in reply to Abdul-Fattah, as if I was someone in "opposition" and "fighting" against Abdul-fattah. akhoona Haafiz Saad Quote:
The only thing I am going to do is to ask you a couple of simple questions on a thread dedicated to you brother Hafiz. Quote:
Quote:
That was salman's mistake if that was true, but from what I recall, Salman did not call him an ash'ari, rather whatSalman highlighted was that this was the thought of ash'ari logic. You my friend Hafizsaad need to learn the difference between hukmul-wasf and hukmul-aiyn. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I give respect and implore the people to follow the people who made the word of Allah and the Messenger uppermost and I despise, hate, and fight those who strive hard to make the word of Aristotle uppermost over that of Allah. And we will mind our own business, i just want you to answer some questions I have so that way you can educate me about where you stand | ||||||
|
| |
|
12-06-2009, 01:47 AM
| #20 | ||||||
| Full Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 53 Gender: Way of life: Muslim Thanks: 10
Thanked 15 Times in 9 Posts
| Re: Who are deobandis? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
what you have given logic and meaning interpreted from quran verses, i have seen and have tells about them above..the ashari are not fallen into these harmful brevity, so they have do tawil that what you are thinking is not correct. Quote:
you are insisting that show proof to us of your haqq, i am wondering what you people say proof to what. is that's like a fruite, football etc. you are not ready to study what i am giving but insisting on showing proof. for whose mistake your are saying. are you mujtahid or imam e zaman or a scholar of the islam, you have the ability to remove the mistake of scholars..the scholar who have refuted others mistakes ,has no pride on them, they dont say we only salaf follower.we have to realized that how much the difference of thought are between our salaf but they have not made that difference the point of saying other what you people says. Quote:
this is my first experience on your site that i am debating with whome which i thought in past that they have more patience and love for other muslims . i will not comment more on this topic.لَكُمۡ دِينُكُمۡ وَلِىَ دِينِ Last edited by hafizsaad; 12-06-2009 at 10:58 AM. | ||||||
|
| |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:56 AM.
