09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 1 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

HomeCommentsOur Mission

al-Mustaqeem PublicationsIslamic Thought In the Modern Era of the Islamic Awakening

November 15, 2008

Your Revolutionary Source For Islamic ThoughtPosted by islamthought under Uncategorized Comments Off

We here at al-Mustaqeem Publications are on a campaign to disseminate proper Islamic knowledge andmaterial according to the thoughts and methodology of the classical orthodox sunni scholars of Islamwho traversed upon the way of the righteous predecessors of the first three generations of the MuslimNation.

Our efforts in this campaign is to ensure proper Islamic knowledge is distributed to both Muslims andnon Muslims and to increase Islamic awareness among both parties while recyclying misnomers or anyother distortions that have been alledged in the name of Islam from various groups, political factions,think tanks, and any other organization that seeks as its endeavor to present Islam in a light other thanthe way it is to be understood.

Please understand that we at al-Mustaqeem Publications are the alternative media. We are in directcontrast to every other viewpoint that is plastered within much of the media outlets. We seek as part ofour endeavor in furthering the cause and advancement of disseminating correct Islamic knowledge andissues thus causing us to be an alternative source for the overwhelming ideological attack that theMuslim nation faces from those of the non muslim world, and those within the Muslim nation. If contentconcerning a particular issue seems to be one sided, it should be understood that our information as awhole acts as a counterbalance to the already existing conventional wisdom that has and continues to bea contaminant in the overall reporting of events and issues common in most of the western world.

To preserve the purity of content within each article, we have formed a seperate page for comments foranyone interested to comment on a topic. Please refer to the Comments page and adhere to thestipulations therein.

For access to discussions concerning the topic of Islamic polemics between Islamic thought and westernthought and other additional research material into different subjects, one can utilize our forum athttp://www.islamic-life.com/forums/

August 16, 2010

A Reply to A Pseudo Mutakalim, Abdullah bin Haamid Ali on

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 2 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

Allah’s SpeechPosted by islamthought under Asharis, Creed of Islam Comments Off

In his work “The Speech and Word of Allah (Kalām): In Light of Traditional Discussions.”

Abdullah Haamid Ali basically tries to assert in this article that Scholars such as Shaikh al-Islam IbnTaymiyah borrowed his beliefs from the Neo-Platonic philosophers and thus claims the following

Ustaadh Abdullah Haamid Ali says

Quote:

Salafis likely don’t realize what their view necessitates in that it results from it that Allah has twoattributes of speech as opposed to one. One of them is an attribute of His divine essence, which iswithout beginning as His essence is. And the other is an attribute of action or just an act of creationdone by the Creator, which must be created, since it is something that occurs outside of His being.Unfortunately, the Salafis insist that sounds, letters, and words can be without beginning in spite of thefact that one letter precedes another, which clearly indicates that they are time-specific.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sālih Al-‘Uthaymīn says after mentioning that Allah has two types of attributes,which are those of the divine essence (dhāt) and those that are actions (f’il):

“Additionally, the attribute may happen to be of the essence and an action [dhātiyya fi’liyya] at the sametime from two different regards, like speech (kalām). It is while considering its origin an attribute of theessence, since Allah has everlastingly and continues to be one who speaks (mutakallim). And whileconsidering the individual incidents of speech (āhād al-kalām) it is an attribute of action, since speechpertains to His will. He speaks when and with what He pleases”

Firstly, the above in bold is false. Allah’s Attribute of action comes from Allah’s Essence = not createdwhile creation is something separate from Allah’s Essence.

As for Allah’s speech coming out/emerging from Allah’s Essence, this was stated by a number of thepious Salaf:

Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah said in “Khalq Af’al al-Ibad” :وإن قال قائل فقد روي عن النبي صلى ا1 عليه و سلم إنكم لن ترجعوا إلى ا1 بشيء أفضل مما خرج منه قيل له أليس القرآن خرج منه فخروجه منه ليس كخروجه منك إن كنت تفهممع أن هذا الخبر Z يصح Vرساله وانقطاعه

Partial translation

“Didn’t the Quran come out/emerge from Him ((kharaja minhu), so it (Quran) coming out/emerging fromHim (khurujuhu minhu) is not how it comes out/emerges from you if youcomprehend.”[1]

Imam Uthman bin Sa’eed Ad-Darimi rahimahullah said in “Naqd Ad-Darimi”

والقرآن ك^مه الذي منه خرج وبه تكلم

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 3 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

“And the Quran is His Speech that emerged from Him (minhu kharaja), and with it,He Spoke”[2]

Yet, according to the stated Aristotelian philosophy which Abdullah Haamid concedes to as the properIslamic madhaab in doctrine, he claims that if something happens beyond Allah’s actual Self, even if it isan action from Him, then it must be created, which is the same reasoning that the Jahmiyyah employedto insinuate that the Qur’an is created. So here, we see a clear a clear opposition between the orthodoxcreed of Imaam al-Bukharee and Haafidh Uthmaan bin Sa’eed, and to that extension, the ummah, versusthe heterodox creed as espoused by Abdullah Haamid who imitates the stated advocacy and legacy of thephilosophers within the gown of “traditionalism”

Secondly, this is the reason for his error because he misconstrued what is normally articulated. If weexamine Ibn Uthaymeen’s statement in light of simple reason and objectivity based on his own quote,this is what he actually says

“Additionally, the attribute may happen to be of the essence and an action [dhātiyya fi’liyya] at thesame time from two different regards, like speech (kalām). It is while considering its origin an attributeof the essence, since Allah has everlastingly and continues to be one who speaks (mutakallim). And whileconsidering the individual incidents of speech (āhād al-kalām) it is an attribute of action, since speechpertains to His will. He speaks when and with what He pleases”[3]

The underlined portion represents “Ustaadh” Abdullah Ali’s misconception for he viewed or interpretedthat phrasal clause as if Ibn Uthaymeen was speaking about two attributes.

The first repelling of this misnomer is the fact that he started off by saying what he said in bold i.e.“THE attribute” meaning singular. He is speaking of the attribute of speech and not that Allah has twoattributes of speech or two separate Attributes.

The second repelling of his not so clever interpretation is the fact that the two sectors of Allah’s speechthat Ibn Uthaymeen was commenting upon is merely1. Ability (that stems from His Will by which He is able to speak whenever He wishes)2. The Action (whereby Allah becomes al-Faa’il (the Actor) thereof when He speaks. This is because inthe language of the Arabs, whenever there is a f’ilun (action), then there must be a Faa’il (an actor))

What Abdullah Ali is trying to do is to try to make the salafi belief as preposterous as his own belief byinsinuating that our belief stems from neo-platonic kalaam. That is a perfect example of the pot callingthe kettle black.

In order to understand this belief, let us implement the principle the ulema are known for using, thatbeing “a thing is made known by its opposite“

So in this case, let us contrast this belief with his own jahmi creed.

The Jahmi creed by which Abdullah Haamid Ali subscribes to, claiming it as the creed of ahlu-sunnah,entails the belief of the first part and negates the belief of the second part.

In other words, they subscribe to the words of Ibn Uthaymeen by saying that It is an attribute stemmingfrom His “Iraada” (Will), but they deny that Allah has the Qudrah to ACTUALLY speak when Hewishes because doing such an act automatically regulates Allah’s action as created, according to theirown flawed and conjectural delusions that their school of thought was known to apply upon Allah.

Therefore from this disastrous belief of kufr, when being pressed to answer for how Allah spoke toMusa, the Qur’an, and whatever else, they had to come up with a scapegoat argument; that argument

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 4 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

being kalam nafsi. So now we all know that the doctrine of Kalam Nafsi is nothing but a scapegoatargument. However, that doctrine only cornered them more into the world of kufr. That is because Allahnow has to go to His ATM Kalam Account, make a withdrawal from the kalaam that subsist withinHimself (hence “Nafsihi” as they say) and then form it in a way that the creation can be affected by itpositively.

The modern day Jahmis are willing to go through all of these loopholes for the sake of the preservationof their Aristotelian dialectic principles that is deceptively labeled as tanzih (purifying). Becauseaffirming that Allah actual is a mutakalim as every Muslim concedes to, then that means in their warpedand corrupted logic that1. It entails sound (and thus created)2. Entails letters (and thus created)3. Entails a temporal happening within a point of time; i.e. hadath (and thus created).

So each one of these in their pathetic madhaab entails kufr, and to merely affirm that Allah actuallyspeaks entails a “megakufr” as it would engulf all three forms of what they view as kufr.

Now, to continue with the brilliance of Abdullah Ali, he says

Quote:

Upon close reflection, it is revealed that the opinion of the Salafis is not much different from what theMu’tazila say in that ‘Allah’s speech is one of His acts, not a quality of His essence.’ The only differenceis that the Mu’tazila are shown to be more reasonable by denying that Allah has an eternal attributefound with His being referred to as ‘speech,’ since they deny the possibility of something being withoutbeginning and created at the same time.

The first claim he made here was to insinuate that our creed is almost a match to that of the M’utazilah.In what regard? He uses as proof from this claim that both (m’utazilah and salafis) say that Allah’sspeech is one of His acts and not a quality of His Essence“

However, that is extremely funny, so much so that I could only conclude that this pseudo Jahmi is eitherto dumb or a liar as he made this claim because if we review his own quote of Ibn Uthaymeen, IbnUthaymeen affirms the attribute to be that of the Essence TWICE in the same quote

1. …the attribute may happen to be of the essence…2. It is while considering its origin an attribute of the essence,…

I find it strange for Abdullah Ali to make this claim that salafis DO NOT consider the Attribute ofAllah’s Speech (kalaam) to be from that of His essence when the belief of the salafis is exactly theopposite.

To continue with the stifling words of Abdullah Haamid Ali, he says

Quote:

All of this must be considered with regard to the similarities between the two sects, since if – ‘Uthaymīnsaid – “…speech pertains to His will. He speaks when and with what He pleases,” then the true attributeof Allah is not speech. It is His will, while speech is merely an action that originates from Allah’s will.

In this quote of his, he tries to befuddle the truth with a kalaam inconsistency. The reason he makes IbnUthaymeen’s words obsolete is because in his madhaab, the attribute of kalaam is not connected with

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 5 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

His Will. If that is not what they have articulated, then it sure was pointed out here. His madhaab fails torealize that to actually be a mutakalim, the person being described as “mutakalim” has to actually speakOR AT LEAST HAVE THE ABILITY to speak. The moniker of “Mutakalim” cannot be applied exceptwith the ACTION and ABILITY to speak. However in the jahmi madhaab, the moniker of “Mutakalim”is applied to Allah in the format that Allah within His OWN SELF is constantly speaking within His ownself. In other words, He is never shutting up in His Own Self but he cannot ACTUALLY speak, but Hemerely makes a withdrawal from His Kalaam account called “Nafsi” and so whenever He decides toSpeak, all Allah does is to make a withdrawal of His Speech that subsist within Himself (i.e. KalamNafsi) to whomever He is trying to address rather than ACTUALLY speaking to them like Allah didwith Musa.

So this Abdullah Ali attempts to render our creed as a non affirmation of kalaam but an affirmation ofHis Will while rendering His entire Attribute of Kalaam as merely being an action which can only makesense to a mind that lives in the above world that I have just described.

So Abdullah Haamid continues

Quote:

Another Salafi shaykh known as Muhammad Khalīl Harrās states after declaring that Allah’s attributesare of two different categories (attributes of the essence and attributes of action); he states about thelatter:

“The second (category) is ‘Attributes of Action’ to which His will and power pertain at all times. And theindividual incidents of those attributes of actions occur by His will and power, even though He hasalways been characterized as doing them without beginning; meaning that their general category (naw’)is without beginning (qadīm), while their individual occurrences (afrād) are created and emergent(hāditha). So He – Glory to Him – has everlastingly been a doer of whatever He wants. And He haseverlastingly and continues to say, speak, create, and manage all affairs. And His actions occur one byone in accord with His wisdom and His will.”

[Sharh ‘Aqīda al-Wāsitiyya li Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taimiyya: Dār al-Fikr]

So here, Harrās, acknowledges the created and uncreated act of Allah by stating that “…their generalcategory (naw’) is without beginning (qadīm), while their individual occurrences (afrād) are created andemergent (hāditha).”

Firstly, the bold part is from the translator. Shaykh al-Harras rahimahullah did not say “created”, he said“haditha” which Abdullah bin Hamid translated as “created”, which is not theintended meaning of the shaikh with the word “Haditha”. We do not say created but there is nothing inthe aqeedah of ahlu-sunnah that entails “hadath” as something that is created.This is because from the creed of the philosophers, of which Abdullah Haamid is the advocate andproponent of its madhaab, is that everything that is a hadath MUST be created. WE, the people of Islamand the Sunnah say that may be true or untrue, but its truth can only subsist within the properties of thisworld and creation. In other words, you do not accuse Allah or His attributes of being created wheneverHE does a “new occurrence” LIKE“speaking to Musa”or like“getting angry on the Day of Judgment unlike every before”or“ar-Rahman alal arsh istiwaa”

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 6 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

Nor do you try to do back flips in maintaining a cohesive argument by juggling Aristotelian dialecticwith the Islamic ‘itiqaad by negating His attributes or rendering far fetched interpretations so as to keepin towing line with the madhaab of the philosophers.

So Abdullah continues with is treacherous behavior

Quote:

This conclusion was adopted from Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taimiyya who borrowed the idea from the Neo-Platonic and Aristotelian philosophers who believed that the universe has no origin. They said, “Itsgeneral category is without beginning. But its individual occurrences and particulars are emergent(hādith) and created.”

Here, he performs a satanic lie and an absurd baseless conclusion. The lie is that he subscribes to is thatthat Shaykhul-Islam rendered and believed the universe to be eternal. That may be his misconstruingbetween that and the issue with infinite regress, for someone like Abdullah Haamid who posses as amutakalim, he ought to know the difference between the two as there is a fundamental differencebetween holding the position of affirming infinite regress of occurrence VS the eternality of the universe

then he likened his lie with an issue that has no connection, that being the saying of the philosophersabout “its general category….” because the philosophers were speaking about the universe, and thesubject that is being discussed here is Allah’s kalaam, NOT the universe. Here, he is insinuating that IbnTaymiyyah borrowed that principle from the philosophers and then applied it to Allah, which in reality isthe hallmark of later day ash’arism.

Then, finally, Abdullah Haamid ends with a ‘brilliant’ conclusion

Quote:

This is like saying, the general category of ‘man’ is uncreated even though each individual person bornin history came to being in a later time. So man is without beginning from one regard and withbeginning from another.

And it is surprising that both Ibn Taimiyya and Harrās would use this type of argument to justify theirbelief in the uncreated-created (qadīm-hādith) speech of Allah in spite of the fact that the scholars ofIslam have declared the philosophers with this type of thinking to be unbelievers.

Firstly, you could render this qiyaas[4] in a world where Allah and man were the same, however, thesubject at hand i.e. Allah, and man, are different and thus the qiyaas you have made is inapplicable.Allah’s Speech is uncreated and When He speaks with it, He actually speaks whether you dislike the factthat it is “hadath”. UNLIKE Allah, man, on anything else, their category does have an origin, andtherefore a beginning. To render a qiyaas like this one is inapplicable even in the world of deductivereasoning because one of the principles of deductive analytical reasoning is that the two things beingcompared is that they must match or have the similar properties. This is why the ulema refuted theqiyaas of Iblees because when he defied the command of Allah, his qiyaas was in comparing the creationof man and the creation of himself. And this is the exact same Ibleesic style qiyaas that Abdullah HaamidAli has made. However, since he is a follower of one of Iblees’s madhaab, then of course it would beeasy for Abdullah Haamid to succumb and resort to such an argument.

Secondly, after reviewing your words “created-uncreated” I am being forced to apply a greater level of

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 7 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

skepticism now for you have interpreted “hadath” as “CREATED”. Hadath does NOT mean created, itmeans “new occurrence” and your school of thought has philosophically induced from the word that itmeans “created” but in reality this is not what it means. According to this new quote, we now understandthat the Shaykh Muhammad Khalil al-Harris did NOT use the term “created’ rather it was your faultylogic that deceptively translated the term “hadath” AS “created” which is simply untrue academically,grammatically, and theologically.

Lastly, the scholars of Islam declared the philosophers disbelievers NOT because of “this type ofthinking” as you claim, but because of your type of thinking, by rendering these attributes, if affirmed, asbeing or entailing anthropomorphism. That was why they were made takfeer of. For you to insinuate adifferent reason for their takfeer is plain and simple dishonesty.

[1] “Khalq Af’al al-Ibad”

[2] Naqd Ad-Darimi

[3] [Al-Qawā’id al-Muthla: Idārāt al-Buhūth al-‘Ilmiyya wa al-Iftā wa Al-Da’wa wa al-Irshād p. 25].

[4] Analytical deduction

July 30, 2010

Abu Hasan al-Qushayree on Tafweed: A Reply to anAsh’ari MufawwidPosted by alboriqee under Asharis, Creed of Islam Comments Off

Salafi argument

Quote:the meaning of the word yad when applied to Allah is that it is an attribute of Allah that subsists in Hisessence and has performed the function of creating Adam and will perform the function of rolling theheavens and the earth on the Day of Judgment and has performed other functions. This is a real andliteral attribute in the sense that it exists in reality.

Ash’ari Mufawwid Argument

Quote:this is not meeting the conditions of providing a meaning to a word. We also agrees that Allah has ayad that performs these functions, but that we don’t know the meaning of the word yad, for it could beAllah’s power, mercy or something that we don’t know.

Mufawwid also said that

Quote:we negate the literal meaning of the word and by “literal” we mean an organ.

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 8 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

Salafi response

Quote:when we affirm “literal” we mean real in existence and actual.

Muffawid Ash’ari response

Quote:We have failed to provide a meaning of the word yad. “organ” is meaning and not kayfiyyah and thatkayfiyyah has to be related to something we could imagine. So for example, the Prophet said that wecan’t imagine what is in store for paradise, yet the Qur’an talks about rivers. We don’t know thekayfiyyah of the paradise river, but we know its meaning since we could relate it to something that weknow. However, with Allah’s yad, then I ask, what are we relating it to?

Conclusive question for Salafis

Quote:What is the meaning of the word “yad” when ascribed to Allah? Give me a definition. I always seeSalafis saying that we know the meaning, but not the kayfiyyah, but I never see a Salafi actuallyproviding the meaning (the only instance I have seen is for istiwaa).

Says Abu Hasan al-Qushayree, the one responsible for the tumult he has caused to the Muslims in theIslamic history known as “Fitnah al-Qushayriyyah”So he says

“How is it possible for one to say that there exists in Allah’s Book, that which cannot be known by thecreation, and none knows its meaning (ta’wil) except Allah? Is this not from the greatest of slandersagainst prophet-hood, to suggest that the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam did not know themeaning (ta’wil) of the texts pertaining to the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala, and called the people to knowwhat cannot be known? Doesn’t Allah say ‘(we’ve sent it down) in clear Arabic language’? Otherwise,according to what they claim, they should say Allah lied when He said: ‘in clear Arabic language’, sincethey do not know (the meanings). Otherwise, where is this ‘clearness’ (as expressed in the Quran)?

If it was in the language of the Arabs, how can he claim that this is something the Arabs do not know?”

He also says:

“To attribute to the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – that he called to a Lord, described withAttributes that are incomprehensible, is something heinous, which no Muslim can imagine! Forignorance with respect to Attributes leads to ignorance with respect to that which is described (i.e.Allah). And the saying of one who says: ‘His rising is an Attribute of His self, the meaning of which isincomprehensible; the Hand is an Attribute of His self, the meaning of which is incomprehensible; theFoot is an Attribute of His self, the meaning of which is incomprehensible is simply camouflagingmodality (takyif), anthropomorphism (tashbih) and a call to ignorance… If the opponent now says: ‘Theapparent meanings (dhawahir) have no interpretation (ma’na) at all’, then that is to render these textsdefunct, and there was no benefit in these texts reaching us, for they are all useless, which isimpossible… This is also contrary to the Madhab of the Salaf who believed in passing them on upontheir apparent meanings (‘ala dhawahir)”.

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 9 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

recorded in Ithaf Sadat al-Muttaqin 2/110

My personal address to the Ash’ari Mufawwid

1. The first contention of the Mufawwid is

Quote:this is not meeting the conditions of providing a meaning to a word. We also agrees that Allah has ayad that performs these functions, but that we don’t know the meaning of the word yad, for it could beAllah’s power, mercy or something that we don’t know.

Then what you are seeking in reality is a “hadd” i.e. a definition, and in the shariah, there is a differencebetween m’ana (meaning) and hadd (definition).

This is because the apparent meaning of yad is yad, and to quarantine it i.e. “define” it into one of thesethings is providing a hadd for it since the meaning of hadd (definition) in the shariah is“a definition is to include and exclude from the object being defined”

What the mufawwid is actually performing here is that he is transforming “kayf” and passing it on as“m’ana”. If it was Allah’s power, Mercy, etc, then Allah would have SAID SO which brings us back tothe statement of al-Qushayree, his own Imaam in his creedal madhaab.

So when he says “this is not meeting the conditions for providing a meaning” just substitute the word“meaning” with “kayf” and we have a more accurate reality. This is because meanings are knownirrespective of subject, But in the manner in which it is will only be known based on who the “subject” isbeing refered to with such an attribute.

2. The Mufawwid said

Quote:we negate the literal meaning of the word and by “literal” we mean an organ

We ask to this Mufawwid, if “organ” is the meaning of hand, then do you negate the “hands” of Angels?Do Angels have organs?

This is the stump that the mufawwid dead ends upon.

The “primary” meaning of “yad” is organ WHEN THE SUBJECT IS HUMANS. However, when thesubject is something else, that primary meaning is no longer relevant because the actual subject haschanged.

3. Muffawid contention

Quote:We have failed to provide a meaning of the word yad. “organ” is meaning and not kayfiyyah and thatkayfiyyah has to be related to something we could imagine. So for example, the Prophet said that wecan’t imagine what is in store for paradise, yet the Qur’an talks about rivers. We don’t know thekayfiyyah of the paradise river, but we know its meaning since we could relate it to something that weknow. However, with Allah’s yad, then I ask, what are we relating it to?

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 10 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

Incorrect. What we have failed to provide is the nature of yad, not meaning. When “YAD” is beingdiscussed between a stretch of various SUBJECTS, then saying “organ is meaning” is an academicdishonesty because organ, when all subjects are being discussed with regards to yad, is actually“modality” (kayfiyyah) and not mere meaning.

Yes, Kayfiyyah has to be related to something we could imagine, but when we have no imagination ofthe subject, then we do not negate that there is a kayfiyyah, we just negate the knowledge of it.

Therefore his question“with Allah’s yad, then what are we relating it to”

is an inapplicable question and it is a question that is equal or similar to the question “How did Allahistiwaa” which essentially brings me back to my initial contention which is that what this Muffawwid isseeking is the modality (kayf) of the Attribute Yad rather than the meaning.

In other words, he is basically saying the same question as the questioner told to Maalik “How did Allahistawaa” only with a different choice of words.

We CAN’T relate it to anything because we have nothing to relate to Allah and we were prohibited fromdoing this, and no one on the planet has called our inability to do so as “having no meaning” for thismakes sense to no one.

lastly

4. Addressing the conclusive question

Quote:What is the meaning of the word “yad” when ascribed to Allah? Give me a definition. I always seeSalafis saying that we know the meaning, but not the kayfiyyah, but I never see a Salafi actuallyproviding the meaning (the only instance I have seen is for istiwaa)

Yad is Yad. Hand. Thats the meaning, just as isawaa ala is rising or ascending. What else is there to say?

This is another problem, the seeker is seeking a hadd (definition) which is different than “m’ana” in theshariah. we are not to “define” the Attributes because this would constitute going into t’awil which mayessential entail tahreef, and t’ateel, all based on the action of takyeef, which is by asking for a definitionof Yad.

More importantly, definitions that exist in the human experience are definitions pertinent to humans. wedon’t have definitions applicable to aliens, angels, jinn, etc. So if we do not have definitions for any ofthese creatures, then how in the world could people require us to provide a definition of Yad for Allahwhich essentially brings us BACK to the statement of al-Qushayree and the rest of the salaf who used tosay that we affirm them and pass them on WITHOUT MODALITY.

This is our creed and this is our methodology.

July 28, 2010

The Perils of Ghaflah (Heedlessness)

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 11 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

Posted by alboriqee under Sociology, Spirituality Comments Off

The Perils of Ghaflah

Ali al-Boriqee

الحمد 6 رب العا;:، وصلى ا6 وسلم وبارك على نبينا محمد وعلى آله

وصحبه أجمعيوبعد

السHم عليكم ورحمة ا6 وبركات

The most accurate comparative etymological meaning of “al-Ghaflah” in the English language would bethe term “heedlessness”. It is a sub-category of wantonness but is oriented more within the realm of faithwith regards to the servants (humans) in relationship to their meeting with their Lord.

Ghaflah is a horrific disease of the heart and is the basis for which most of the various forms ofmisguidance throughout humanity have emanated from.

Lexically, heedlessness (Ghaflah) is to be heedless of Allah, particularly, being heedless with regards tothe accountability of our actions. In support of this, Allah says in the Qur’aan

اقترب للنYاس حسابهم وهم في غفلة مQعرضون

“(The thing) that draws near towards mankind (closer and closer) is their accountability (in reaping whatwe have sown with our own hands), and yet they turn away (paying a blind eye) in heedlessness”[1],

Unfortunately, ghaflah is an attribute that has become rampant in today’s Muslim behavioral pattern somuch so that anyone who raises themselves beyond the yoke of this affliction and into the arena of beingcautious and operating under the cognizant reality of meeting Allah have been deemed by the foolish andthe heedless as an “extremist” or “overbearing” “harsh” or other derogatory terms which neutralize sucha person in such a way that it is depicted of them that they operate in backwardness or my personalfavorite “intolerant” of others. We as Muslims need to educate ourselves regarding the nature of ghaflahand to take into consideration the decisions of Allah and His Messenger more seriously.

The Symptoms of Ghaflah

From amongst the symptoms, in fact I would say the ultimate sign of Ghaflah, is taking lightly the ordersof Allah, or His Messenger, or both. There are three different levels of this, one of them (and it is thelightest form) is nearly excluded from Ghuflah but not absolutely, and is focused on our demeanor andcharacter of our prophet alaihi salatu salam, the other two are linked to Ghuflah and the most extreme ofthem is the basis from which ghaflah resides in.

Allah says in Suratul-Hujaraat in the first two ayaat

يا أيQها الYذين آمنوا f تقدeموا ب: يدي اY6 ورسوله واتYقوا اY6 إنY اY6 سميع عليم

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 12 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

ا أيQها الYذين آمنوا f ترفعوا أصواتكم فوق صوت النYبيe وf تجهروا له بالقول كجهر بعضكملبعض أن تحبط أعمالكم وأنتم f تشعرون

O you who believe! Make not (a decision) in advance before Allah and His Messenger ( صلى ا1 عليه.and fear Allah. Verily! Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing ,(وسلم

O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet (صلى ا1 عليه وسلم), nor speakaloud to him in talk as you speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds should be rendered fruitless whileyou perceive not.

In these two pivotal ayaat, we can deduce three aspects of taking light of the orders of Allah or Hismessenger

1. Raising our voices (this is literally and is linked towards the behavioral etiquette as being ignobleand an improper characteristic and this is not fully linked to ghaflah but can be a sign of ghaflah

2. Raising our decisions in advance before the decision of Allah and His messenger. This is moreserious in nature and is linked to ghaflah. However, there is one more attribute which is worse thanthese preceding two attributes and is the epitome of ghaflah and it can be kufr in Allah. This isbecause this characteristic was in regard to advancing an opinion before a shar’i opinion isestablished, but even those who fell into this attribute (once) were all cognizant that once Allahand His Messenger decree a matter, absolute faith and conviction must be meted out in theirhearts. Ibn Katheer records in his tafseer that the sabab (reason for the cause of the revelation ofthis ayah) was due to an incident in which he states that Al-Bukhari recorded that Ibn AbiMulaykah said, “The two righteous ones, Abu Bakr and `Umar, almost earned destruction whenthey raised their voices before the Prophet who was receiving the delegation of Bani Tamim. Oneof them recommended Al-Aqra` bin Habis the member of the Banu Mujashi` while the otherrecommended another man. Nafi` (a subnarrator) said: “I don’t remember his name.” Abu Bakrsaid to `Umar, `You only wanted to contradict me,’ while `Umar said, `I did not intend tocontradict you.’ Their voices then became loud, thereupon Allah the Exalted sent down this Ayah

3. However, what is worse than these two and is the haven for misguidance and the mass productionof ghaflah that entails kufr is to “raise our opinions over the decisions of Allah and HisMessenger” If Allah corrected the actions of those who merely

1. raised their literal voices or2. advanced their viewpoints before a revelational command

then what about the ignominy of raising our viewpoint and opinion as being above the view of Allah andHis Messenger.

So how is this connected to Ghaflah? If the mind can allow itself to entertain that their viewpoint “mustbe adhered to” or can allow itself to judge the scriptural ordainments to be “irrelevant” based on theirreasoning that ‘my opinion is more relevant to my situation”, then such a corrupted and defiled soul willautomatically view the ordainments and judgments of Allah or His Messenger as mundane. Since thewretched person goes on about life under this auspice, he becomes the full embodiment of ghaflah for amind that can live with this philosophy cannot be a mind by which their thoughts are reflecting on thehereafter, much less being mindful of their meeting with Allah.

A practical example of Ghaflah is embodied in much of today’s modern day thinking which hasunfortunately become today’s conventional wisdom. When people highlight remarks like “allow thepeople to do what they want”. A mind that is convinced that it can do as it is pleased withoutrepercussions is not only a mind bereft of any intellect, it resides in the crux of ghaflah. This statement is

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 13 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

only said by a people who are unmindful about the essence and reality of both deeds (actions) and faith,much less the hereafter. This reality was theoretically and exponentially explained by the greatest ofmankind, Muhammad ibn Abdillah, Abul-Qaasim alaihi salatu salam in a hadeeth narrated by Bukhareeregarding the hadeeth of Safeena.

“The example of the one who stands for the Deen of Allah and the one who has left it are like the peoplein a boat, some of whom occupy the upper deck and some occupy the lower deck. Whenever those in thelower deck need water, they have to go to the upper deck to retrieve it. So some of them said, ‘why don’twe make a hole in our deck so we do not harm the people of the upper deck?’ If the people do not stopthem, they will all fall and be failures, but if they stop them they will all be saved”

This Hadith has also been reported in another narration that the prophet (saw) said,

“The example of the one who stands for the Hudud of Allah and the one who compromises the Hudud ofAllah …”

It is Saheeh and has many narrations. The prophet (saw) has given us this parable explaining the realityof people in the society that they are living in and their role in it.

The Hadeeth mentions the fact that people in any society must live together and put up with each other,that each people have needs that need to be fulfilled such as the need of the people of the lower deck totake water. The example of the ship is like people in a society where some people wish to engage in baddeeds by making a hole in the bottom of the ship and this Hadith explained that the people of the upperdeck MUST either do their duty and stop them or if they ignore them and the crisis, then destruction willface everybody.

So the Hadeeth teaches us that there is no society free from corruption and each corrupted personjustifies their corruption by any argument which is claimed “rational”, whether by claiming it isrelieving others of hardship or that it is ‘freedom’ or ‘modernity’. Therefore the people in that societymust prevent them from their corruption and save everybody from the anger of Allah and if they fail todo so the anger of Allah and punishment will reach everyone. Allah (swt) says

“And fear an affliction which may not smite only those of you in particular who are unjust; and knowthat Allah is severe in requiting (evil).” [EMQ Anfaal: 25]

The Hadeeth says that there are people who want to stand to the Hudud (rights) of Allah and somepeople who want to compromise it. Those who compromise the hudood of Allah only put them tocompromise due to their heedlessness of the hereafter, taking light the statements of Allah and HisMessenger which is rooted in ignorance.

Such are the people of Islam and the Sunnah who preserve the rights of Allah in contrast to those who donot preserve the boundaries in which Allah bound us through His injunctions.

Furthermore, Ibn Mas’ud radhiyallahu anhu narrates that

“The believer sees his sins as if he were sitting at the foot of a mountain which he feared would fall uponhim, but the faajir[2] sees his sins as a fly that landed on his nose -he merely waves it away with hishand.”[3]

The Dangers of Ghaflah

I say, the greatest and most eminent threat for someone inflicted with Ghaflah is the delusion paradox in

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 14 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

which they become residents of, which is that since their minds are heedless of where they are goingthereby they only occupy their minds with this world. Since this is the case, then such people utilize aform of measuring (of what Allah is pleased with and what He is not) in thinking that the blessings ofmaterial wealth is a sign of Allah’s pleasure upon a person. Thus they morph into materialists rather thanremaining “muminoon” because the basic essence of the muminoon (believers) is that Allah describesthem as to why they are believers in that He explains in some powerful words

الم

ذ لك الكتاب f ريب فيه هدى لeلمتYق:

الYذين يؤمنون بالغيب ويقيمون الصHYة وممYا رزقناهم ينفقون

“Alif Laam Meem

This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil).

Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them;”

The point being that they believe in the unseen as well and they do not operate their lives on the atheisticpremise of reducing reality to only what we can see or perceive.

So regarding this subject, they know and understand that Allah’s actions is not restricted to merely thiscursory world perception (hayaatu-dunya).

Allah addressed this warped psyche when He says

فH تعجبك أموالهم وf أوfدهم إنYما يريد اY6 ليعذeبهم بها في الحياة الدQنيا وتزهق أنفسهموهم كافرون

So let not their wealth nor their children amaze you (O Muhammad صلى ا1 عليه وسلم); in reality Allah’sPlan is to punish them with these things in the life of this world, and that their souls shall depart (die)while they are disbelievers.(At-Taubah, Chapter #9, Verse #55 , سورة التوبة )

And the messenger of Allah salallahu alaihi wa sallam has stated

If you see that Allaah is giving a person everything that he wishes whilst you see that that same person iscommitting a ma’siyah (disobedient act) know that Allaah is gradually going to bring him topunishment.”[4]

So ghaflah actually acts as a deceptive veil placed in the eyes of the one afflicted with it. Once it isveiled from its true vision, it is then locked in into being preoccupied with the glitter of this life asopposed to what lies in store for us after it.

The Cures

Theoretical (conceptually)

Haafidh Shamsu-Deen Ibnul-Qayyim has laid out a powerful utility in which he highlights the

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 15 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

conceptual thinking of those who are not afflicted with the disease of heedlessness (ghaflah).

Lusts were granted in abundance to humans, but those who believed in the unseen turned away fromthem, while those who follow their lusts were caused to regret.

The first category are those in which Allah says,

أولـئك على هدى مeن رYبeهم وأولـئك هم ا;فلحون

which means, “they are on (true) guidance from their Lord, and they are the successful.” (Surah Baqarah2:5)

However, the other category, are those to whom Allah says,

كلوا وتمتYعوا قليH إنYكم مQجرمون

which means, “(O you disbelievers)! Eat and enjoy yourselves (in this worldly life) for a little while.Verily, you are the Mujrimun.” (Al-Mursalat 77:46)

When the successful ones are aware of the reality of this worldly life being sure of the inferiority of itsdegree, they overcame their vain desires for the sake of the Hereafter. They have been awakened fromtheir heedlessness to remember what their enemies took from them during their period of idleness.Whenever life becomes bitter, they remember this verse, in which Allah says,

..…هذا يومكم الYذي كنتم توعدون

which means, “This is your Day which you were promised.” (Al-Anbiya, 21:103)

Thus, Ibnul-Qayyim is demarcating the salient feature of those who are heedful in contrast to theircounterparts that

1. the successful are successful because they are “aware of the reality of this worldly life” therebybeing cognizant of the inferiority of this life in contrast with what comes after. And moreimportantly,

2. the key and pinnacle aspect that wards off heedlessness is “believing in the unseen”

As Ibnul-Qayyim denotes in the beginning; for which we had already established previously.

Another cure was rendered by the Messenger of Allah in a powerful hadeeth narrated by Tirmidhee in hissunan under the “Book of Piety” (kitabu-zuhd) that

نام رسول اY6 صلYى اY6 عليه وسلYم على حصير فقام وقد أثYر في جنبه فقلنا يا رسول اY6 لواتYخذنا لك وطاء فقال ما لي وما للدQنيا ما أنا في الدQنيا إYf كراكب استظلY تحت شجرة ثمY راح

وتركها

Sayyidina Abdullah radhiyallahu anhu narrated that Allah’s Messenger (salallahu alaihi wa sallam) slepton a reed mat. He got up and its marks were impressed on his body. We said, “0h Messenger of Allah, ifwe could fetch for you a bed!” He said, “What have I to do with the world? I am not in this world butlike a rider who shades himself under a tree only to move onward and leave it.”[5]

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 16 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

This hadeeth inculcates upon the mind that our behavior with regards to how we live in this life is merelythat of a traveler on a journey. This likeness is exemplified by the expression that the traveler takes restunder a tree for a certain period of time only to then move onwards towards his actual destination whileleaving behind that place of rest. The people who suffer from heedlessness need to remember this realityand to constantly remember the extent of our stay here in this life.

Al-Anbiya, Surah 21 ayaa 1 [My personal translation of the ayah] , سورة اbنبياء [1]

[2] A person of vices and corruption and displays it openly

[3] Mutafaka alai (agreed upon by both Bukharee and Muslim

[4] This was related by Ahmad and Bayhaqi. Haafidh al-Iraaqi declares it hasan and al-Albanee declaresits isnaad saheeh

[5] Recorded also by Ibn e Majah 4109, Ahmed 3709

June 21, 2010

Alaamah Abdul-Muhsin al-’Abbadd Decimates the CorruptManhaj of Faalih al-Harbi and the “Clear” SalafisPosted by islamthought under Extremism Comments Off

The following is take from Fadheelatu-Shaykh Abdul-Mushin al-‘Abbadd’s book al-Hathu ‘alaa Ittibaa’is-Sunnati wat-Tahdheeri min al-Bida’i wa Bayaani Khatarihaa . This book came to reinforce the salafimanhaj (methodology) concerning how the people of the Sunnah are suppose to behave in their manhajregarding warning and refuting and it came as a severe blow when his initial advise to the salafis wasdismissed by the extremist at salafitalk and their leaders like spubs and troid.So he says

“And close to the bid’a[1] of testing the people by personalities[2] is what arose during this time of asmall band (fi’atun qaleelah)[3] from Ahl is-Sunnah’s infatuation[4] with the tajreeh of some of theirbrothers from Ahl is-Sunnah, and the tabdee’ of them, as well as what resulted from that ofabandonment (hajr), severance of mutual relations (taqaatu’) between them, and cutting off the path ofbenefit from them. And that tajreeh and tabdee’, from it is what is built on thinking what is not aninnovation (bid’ah) is a innovation[5]. From the examples of that is that the two honorable shaikhs,‘Abdul-‘Azeez bin Baaz and Ibn ‘Uthaimeen, may Allah have mercy on them both, had delivered averdict to a group (jamaa’ah) in favor of its entry into a matter, seeing the benefit in that entry. Fromthose whom those two muftis did not please with it (i.e., the verdict) is that small band, for that grouptook exception of that. And the matter does not stop at this extent, rather the blame transfers to whoevercooperates with it in delivering lectures and he is described as one who liquefies the Salafeemethodology (manhaj) although these two honorable sheikhs used to deliver lectures to this group byway of telephone.[6]

From that also is the occurrence of warning from attending the lessons of an individual because hedoes not speak about so-and-so (fulaan al-fulaanee) or such-and-such group (al-jamaa’at al-

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 17 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

fulaaniyyah).[7] Arrogance may have taken possession of that individual[8] from my students in theFaculty of Sharee’ah at the Islamic University who graduated from it in the year 1395-1396H, and hisranking was 104th from his group, their number reaching 119 graduates. He is not known for beingoccupied with knowledge, nor do I know of him having registered knowledge-based lessons, norwritings with respect to knowledge – big or small.

The bulk of his merchandise is tajreeh, tabdee’ and tahdheer against many from Ahl is-Sunnah[9]. Thisjaarih does not reach the ankle of some of those who he disparages due to many of their benefits in theirlessons, their lectures and their writings. And the amazement does not end when an intelligent personhears a tape containing a recording of a long telephone conversation between Madeenah and Algeria byhim. In it, the one asked eats the flesh of many from Ahl is-Sunnah and in it, the one asking squandershis wealth without right. And the one asked about them may increase the number in this tape to thirtyindividuals, among them the minister (wazeer), the senior (kabeer) and the minor (sagheer), and amongthem a small band not mourned. Indeed, saved from this tape is whoever was not asked about in it butsome of those who were saved from it were not saved from other tapes by him. Its whale is the networkof Internet Information. What is obligatory upon him is to cease from eating the flesh of the scholars andstudents of knowledge. And what is obligatory upon the youth and the students of knowledge is that theynot incline towards those tajreehaat and tabdee’aat that harm and do not benefit, and that they becomeoccupied with beneficial knowledge that returns to them with good and praiseworthy outcome in thisworld and the hereafter.[10]

al-Haafidh Ibn ‘Asaakir, may Allah have mercy on him, has said in his book, Tabyeenu Kadhib il-Muftaree (pg. 29),

“And know – O my brother! May Allah guide us and you to His pleasure (mardaah) and may He makeus from those who dread Him and fear Him as He should be feared – that the flesh of the scholars, mayAllah’s mercy be upon them, is poisonous and Allah’s custom with regards to tearing the curtains fromtheir shortcomings is known.”

And I have mentioned in my treatise, Rifqan Ahl as-Sunnati bi Ahl is-Sunnah, a large sum of verses,ahaadeeth and narrations regarding guarding the tongue from the backbiting of Ahl is-Sunnah, especiallythe people of knowledge from them. And in spite of that, it did not please this jaarih and he described itas not being fit for distribution. He warned against it and whoever distributed it[11]. There is no doubtthat whoever becomes acquainted with this jaarih and studies the treatise will find that this ruling is inone valley and the treatise is in another valley, and that the matter is just as the poet said:

The eye may deny the sun’s light due to an inflammation (conjunctivitis) And the mouth deny the taste of water due to an illness

As for the jaarih student’s statement for the treatise, Rifqan Ahl as-Sunnati bi Ahl is-Sunnah: “So forexample, regarding speech that the methodology of Shaikh ‘Abdil-‘Azeez bin Baaz and the methodologyof Shaikh Ibn ‘Uthaimeen are contrary to the methodology of others from Ahl is-Sunnah, this is amistake, no doubt. He means they did not increase in the number of refutations but they would refute thetransgressor, this, if correct, differs from the methodology of Ahl is-Sunnati wal-Jamaa’ah, and it is anattack (ta’n) on the two shaikhs in reality and on others of whom it is possible that this speech can besaid about.”

So the answer to it is from (a number of) angles:

The first angle: is that it is not in the treatise that Shaikh ‘Abdul-‘Azeez bin Baaz, rahimahullah, did notincrease in the number of refutations, rather his refutations are many. It has been mentioned in the

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 18 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

treatise (pg. 51), “That the refutation should be with kindness (rifq), gentleness (leen) and a strong desire(raghbatun shadeedah) for the welfare of the mistaken person, where the mistake is clear and evident.One should refer back to the refutations of Shaikh ‘Abdil-‘Azeez bin Baaz, may Allah have mercy onhim, in order to benefit from them with respect to the way that the refutation of them should be done.”

The second angle: is that I did not consider mentioning the methodology of Shaikh Ibn ‘Uthaimeen,may Allah have mercy on him, with respect to refutations, for indeed, I do not know of writings – smallor big – by him with respect to refutations. I asked one of his students who were closely connected tohim about that. So he informed me that he does not know of anything by him of refutations. And thatdoes not diminish him, for indeed, he was occupied with the establishment of knowledge, its distributionand writing.

The third angle: is that the methodology of Shaikh ‘Abdil-‘Azeez bin Baaz, may Allah have mercy onhim, differs from the methodology of the jaarih student and those who resemble him[12] because themethodology of the shaikh is characterized by kindness, gentleness and the desire for the benefit of theone being advised (mansooh) and helping him to the path of security (tareeq is-salaamah). As for thejaarih and whoever resembles him, then they are characterised by harshness (shiddah), alienation(tanfeer) and warning (tahdheer). Many of those who they disparage in their tapes, Shaikh ‘Abdul-‘Azeez would praise them, call them and urge them upon calling (da’wah) and teaching the people. Andhe would urge upon benefitting from them and taking from them. [13]

In short, I did not attribute the lack of refutation of others to Shaikh ‘Abdil-‘Azeez bin Baaz, may Allahhave mercy on him. As for Ibn ‘Uthaimeen, then I did not consider him with mention with respect to theaffair of refutations and that what the jaarih mentioned corresponding to what is in the treatise. And it isthe clearest of indications of his stumbles and his lack of certainty. And if this was from him with respectto written speech, then how is the situation regarding what there is no writing for it?!

As for the statement of the treatise’s jaarih, “I, in fact, have read the treatise and I know the position ofAhl is-Sunnah regarding it and hope that you saw the refutations by some of the scholars and shaikhs.And I do not think the refutations stop at that. Certainly, there are those who will refute also, because it isjust as the poet says:

A presenting brother came, his spear (jaa’a shaqeequn ‘aaridun rumhuhu)

Indeed, your uncle’s children, they have spears(inna baniyya ‘ammika feehim rimaah)[14]

So: ‘aaridun (presenting), what is correct is ‘aaridan (which changes the first line to: “A brother camepresenting his spear”).

So the answer: is that Ahl as-Sunnah, those who he meant, they are the ones whose methodology differsfrom the methodology of Shaikh ‘Abdil-‘Azeez, may Allah have mercy on him, which I will point outshortly. He, with this speech, incites the determinations of whoever does not know them to discredit thetreatise after he incited whoever he knows. And I, in fact, did not present a spear. On the contrary, Ipresented an advice that the jaarih and whoever resembles him did not accept, because the advice for theone being advised resembles the remedy for the disease. And from the ailing are those who use theremedy, even if it was bitter, because of what he hopes of benefit. And from those who are advised arethose whose desire turns them away from the advice, not accepting it. Rather, they warned from it. And Iask Allah to grant the people success (tawfeeq), guidance (hidaayah) and security (salaamah) from thedevil’s deception (kaid) and his deceit.

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 19 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

Three have joined the disparaging student: two in Makkah and Madeenah[15], they are both from mystudents in the Islamic University of Madeenah. The first of them graduated in the year 1384-1385H andthe second in the year 1391-1392H. As for the third[16], then (he is) in the extreme south of the country.The second and the third have described whoever distributes the treatise as being a mubtadi’[17] and thisis tabdee’ by wholesale and the public at large. And I do not know if they know or if they do not knowthat the scholars and students who they do not attribute to innovation. And I hope for my supply ofobservations from them that they built this general heretication upon, if they exist, for furtherexamination.

Shaikh ‘Abdir-Rahmaan as-Sudais, the imaam and khateeb of al-Masjid il-Haraam, has a sermon(khutbah) delivered from al-Masjid il-Haraam’s minbar. In it, he warned from Ahl is-Sunnah’sbackbiting of one another. We should turn the glances to it, for indeed, it is important and beneficial.

And I ask Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, that He guides the people to that which He is pleased with, tocomprehension of the religion, establishment upon the truth and being occupied with that whichconcerns, away from that which does not concern. Indeed He is the Guardian of that and the Master overit. And may Allah send prayers, peace and blessings upon our Prophet, Muhammad, and upon his familyand companions.

[1] innovation

[2] In other words Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbadd has declared here is that it is a heresy for people to testother people’s adherence to salafiyyah based on the personality of another individual since the basicfundamental regarding this is that this is the actions of the hizbis (biased partisans) and those who viewthe people of the sunnah under this hizbi context are themselves hizbis for being involved in this bida.

[3] He is referring to those who followed Faalih al-Harbi which was Spubs, Troid, and the partisan blindfollowers who followed them like Salafitalk, and later on he adds Shaykh Rabee, Shaykh Ubayd al-Jaabiree, and Ahmad bin Yahya an-Najmee into this “band” of fitnah makers may Allah forgive theseshiyookh, particularly Shaykh Najmee for he was the senior most scholar of all of those mentioned andhe has passed away recently.

[4] This infatuation is a description of a disease in the heart of these individuals where their only thrillunder their claim to salafiyyah is to see people destroyed through refutations and criticism. Thisinfatuation has resulted in virtually forming and centering their tawheed on “the salafiyyah of anindividual” rather than actual tawheed

[5] Another character trait of the hizbis who act like this is to assume something as an innovation when itis not an innovation. And how this can come about is due to a confounded ignorance that they have andthis ignorance is further preserved when these biased partisans cut off all the avenues and roads toknowledge by declaring every person who can offer it to the ignorant as “an innovator” or in currenttimes “he is not clear” which was another innovation which Shaykh Khaalid ar-Raddadee refuted andparticularly he refuted Spubs for being the advocates of this bid’i theory that they brought into the salafimanhaj.

[6] The shaykh was more than likely referring to Ihyaa at-Turaath

[7] This direct mentality is reflective of the entire framework of hizbiyyah that Spubs and Troid educatedtheir blind followers upon may Allah guide them and us.

[8] Translator’s note: Here the shaikh, may Allah preserve him, is referring to none other than Faalih bin

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 20 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

Naafi’ al-Harbee. Throughout this portion of his reply, he refers to Shaikh Faalih as the disparager, al-Jaarih. .

[9] And just like Faalih, spubs and troid followed suit in this direct behavioral syndrome that turns theactual salafi off from them and whatever they have to offer and deceives the gullible ignorant who haveno clue about what the salafi manhaj is.

[10] Thus it is preferable on the shaykhs words to stay away from dealing with those whose methodologyentails this methodology explained by the shaykh, and those who defend this methodology

[11] The misguided Faalih, refuted the shaykh’s book, and those who went along with his misguidancewas spubs and troid and have never recanted to this day for it and thus their dhalaala (misguidance) andcorruption remains upon their heads until they recant, and part of the salafi manhaj of recanting when itentails the effect of others is the official three actions that a person must do for tawbah ALONG withopenly declaring to the public their guilt and wrongdoing for that action.

[12] Meaning those who followed Faalih al-Harbi like spubs and troid

[13] Thus in a nutshell, Abdul-Muhsin has negated those who act in this anarchic behavior to bedifferent, opposite, and on a different manhaj than Shaykh Bin Baz, an to that extent the rest of the salafishiyookh of ahlu-sunnah.

[14] Translator’s note: This quote taken from Faalih can be found on one of the Ghulaat Boards. Thispost was put up by Spubs entitled, “Speech of Shaykh Faalih on ‘Rifqan Ahl us-Sunnah…’”.

[15] Translator’s note: The two referred to here are Shaikh Rabee al-Madkhalee and Shaikh ‘Ubaid al-Jaabiree, respectively. They both collaborated in spreading this corrupt methodology to the youth

[16] Translator’s note: This third person being referred to is Shaikh Ahmad bin Yahyaa an-Najmee.

[17] Refer to footnote #2 to find these statements by Shaikh ‘Ubaid and Shaikh Ahmad.

May 23, 2010

Ibnul-Juwaynee Annihilates The Secular Liberal Basis of ManMade LegislationsPosted by islamthought under Islamic Law, Sociology, human rights, progressive islam Comments Off

Bismillah ar-Rahmaan ar-Raheem

asalamu alaikum warahmatullah

When I first came across this quote, I almost melted from the sheer power of his words and what furtheradded a basis for my feeling is how his words are SO RELEVANT to our modern times more so thanmany statements that are advocated unfortunately today, quite ironic indeed, that someone almost athousand years ago can bring an intellectual statement more relevant and accurate than over half oftoday’s population. I forgot to post this long ago when I first came across it so I wish to bring this to the

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 21 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

fore inshallah

I present the following for the benefit of the Muslims, the ahlu-sunnah wal-athar to utilize against thepeople of kufr, secularism, and progressive onslaught against Allah Azawajal and His shariah.

The celebrated Imaam Ibnul-Juwaynee has stated a superb and excellent reality concerning a group ofheretics of his time.

“In conclusion, whoever thinks that the shariah may be derived from what people agree upon , of reasonor from the opinions of wise men, has rejected the shariah and has taken this principle as a means to

reject the shariah.If this is acceptable, then it would be acceptable to stone the unmarried fornicator who commits

fornication in our times based on this argument. Likewise it would be permissible to execute a person onthe basis of suspicion. Likewise, it would be justifiable to kill a person whom it was feared would betraythe ummah if there were signs and indications to that effect. Likewise it would be permissible to increase

the rate of zakaah if there appeared to be a need to do so…

These arguments have no strong foundation. If they were to form the foundation of religion then youwould find that everyone who has some rational power would take his own ideas and thoughts as

shariah and thus ideas and thoughts would take the place of the revelation sent to the messengers.These ideas and thoughts would vary according to time and place, thus the shariah would have no

stability…“[Al-Ghiyaathi by al-Juwaynee p 220-221]

This is directly referring to democratically inclined ideologies in spite the fact that democracy was notfully formed and its lexical name was not yet known

These words stated over 900 years ago are more than necessary to apply in today’s political, ideological,and academic climate concerning the advocacy of philosophical views pertaining specifically to secularand democratic principles. It is also a proof for the illegitimacy of substituting or replacing the shariahwith other than it as a legal code, primarily basing such laws on whims and ideas of people.

Next Page »

Search

1.1. Our Blog PagesArabicCommentsCreed of IslamCurrent EventsExtremismHadeeth SciencesHeresiology (Sects)Intelligence ReportsIslamaphobiaIslamic HistoryIslamic Law (Shari’ah)

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 22 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

JihadKnowledgePromotionsScience & TechnologySociologySpiritualityThe Qur'anWahhabism & SalafismWikiIslamWomen of Islam

1.2. Addressing The Heretics of IslamShi’ismSufismThe Ash’arite Theological SchoolThe KhawaarijThe Progressives and the Modernists, the Neo-Murjia

1.3. Our Replies To The Think TanksAddressing Policy ExchangeAddressing The Combating Terrorism Center At WestpointAddressing The Hudson InstituteAddressing The Qulliam FoundationAddressing The Rand Corperation

1.4. Our Replies to the ExtremistsAddressing the Clarion Fund RadicalsAddressing The Modernist PhenomenonAddressing the Protagonists of Dhimmitudeism

1.5. Our "Sticky" SectionAnalyzing the Rand Think TankIdeological Divide From Islam to the WestIslamic View of SecularismLessons In Islamic Legal TheoryRefuting Ash’arismSalafism: Greatest Weapon Aganst ExtremismThe Fallacy of "Salafi Jihad"The Fallacy of Salafi "Trends"The Legal Aspects of Jihad

1.6. Sunni Thought

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 23 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

Above The Throne.comAhlu-SunnahAhlul-Hadeethal-Baseerahal-Ibaanahal-MuflihoonAqidah.comAsh'aris.comCall to IslamDarul-Kitaab wal-HikmahFatwa IslamFatwa OnlineIslam LifeJurisprudential Publication of Saudi JuristsLive from MedinahMadkhalis.comMaturidis.comQSS of CanadaRasoolullah.netSalafi ManhajSpiritualitySunnah as-SaheehaSunni PressTakfeeris.comTasfiya wa Tarbiya PublicationsThe FIKS E-LearningThe Wahhabi MythUnderstand Islam

1.7. Genuine NewsCounter PunchGlobal IntelIf Americans KnewInformation Clearing HouseIranian NewsObsession With HatePeace TimesRepresentative PressSweet LibertyThe Middle East Research And Information ProjectUmmah PulseWatching AmericaWhat Really Happened

1.8. PolemicsAhlul-BaytCall To Monotheism

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 24 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

IslamaphobiaIslamaphobia WatchIslamic AwarenessIslamic HistoryIslamophobia WatchMisconceptions about IslamMuslim ResponsesObsession With HateRasoolullah.netSacred FreedomSalafi ManhajSociologyThe “Wahhabi” MythUmmah PulseZionist/Crusade Watch

1.9. BlogrollAhlul-KahfRasheed GonzalesUm Abdullah

2.0. The Think Tank Watch ListCenter of Counter IntelligenceCombating Terrorism CenterCounter Terrorism BlogGlobal SecurityInformation WarfareMiddle East Strategy At HarvardMilitant Islam MonitorPolicy ExchangeRandThe Hudson InstituteThe Jamestown FoundationThe Quilliam Foundation

2.1. The Extremist Watch List Section"Radical" IslamAct for AmericaClandestine RadioDhimmi”tude”Dhimmi.orgFemi-NaziismFuture JihadGate of ViennaJihad WatchPipeline News

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 25 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

Project for the New American CnturyTerrorism "Awareness"The Heritage FoundationUnited Against Islamic SupremacismWalid PharesWhat the West Needs to Know

ArchivesAugust 2010July 2010June 2010May 2010April 2010February 2010January 2010November 2009October 2009August 2009July 2009June 2009May 2009April 2009March 2009February 2009January 2009December 2008November 2008

Top PostsQira'aat of the Qur'an

Recent PostsA Reply to A Pseudo Mutakalim, Abdullah bin Haamid Ali on Allah’s SpeechAbu Hasan al-Qushayree on Tafweed: A Reply to an Ash’ari MufawwidThe Perils of Ghaflah (Heedlessness)Alaamah Abdul-Muhsin al-’Abbadd Decimates the Corrupt Manhaj of Faalih al-Harbi andthe “Clear” SalafisIbnul-Juwaynee Annihilates The Secular Liberal Basis of Man Made Legislations

MetaRegisterLog inEntries RSSComments RSS

09/09/10 4:31 PMal-Mustaqeem Publications

Page 26 of 26http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

WordPress.com

CategoriesSelect Category

September 2010

M T W T F S S

« Aug

1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 24 25 2627 28 29 30

Blog Stats13,078 hits

Blog at WordPress.com. — Theme: Connections by www.vanillamist.com.