My Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Archive for December, 2010

‘Aqidah Gems from Imam Tabari’s works!

Posted by muhammedm on December 29, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

The following are few quotes from Imam Tabari regarding the issue of Huduth and Kalam. Another post will be devoted to the statement “the Quran is Hadith or Muhdath!”

-Imam Tabari says in his Muqaddimah to his Tarikh, “That (essence) which is not devoid of al-Hadath (accidents) there is no doubt that it is Muhdath (has a beginning).”
A jahil has said that this statement is that of Ahlul Bida’ Mutakallimin, and has stated that the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah have obtained this statement not because it is rationally correct but from Jahm intending thereby that Maturidis and Asharis are descendents of Jahm! What ignorance!

-Imam Tabari says in Tabsir, “He’s the speaker (al-Mutakallim) upon whom silence is not allowed (i.e. It is negated).” The salafi editor of this work writes this position is similar to “what the Asharis say regarding Kalam Nafsi” and continues and rejects Imam Tabaris words saying, “It is not allowed to negate silence (sukut).” Then continues to put his own spin on Imam Tabaris words!

-He says in another place, “There is consensus of the people of Tawhid from the Ahlul Qiblah upon the incorrectness or falacy of qualifying Allah ta’ala with Harakat (movement) and Sukun (stillness).”

-He says in his tafsir, “Indeed Allah ta’ala negated regarding Himself through it (the following): change (Taghayur), movement (tanaqqul) from one place to another, occurrence of change which occurs in humans and other creation,”

-Imam Tabari says in At-Tabsir fi Ma’alim ad-Din, “And whoever rejects what we said regarding it, it will be said to him, “tell us about the speech which you described that the Eternal is Mutakallim, did He created it in His Essence or created it in something else or subsists in His essence? “If he believes that He created it in His Essence then he has necessitated that His Essence is a locus for creation, and this is Kufr according to everyone.”

Ma’ Salamah

Correction: The quote of Intiqal from place to place is attributed to “Others” by Imam Tabari, I translated what the Nokhbah site had quoted, though I should’ve checked the original source.

Advertisements

Posted in 'Aqidah | 3 Comments »

‘Allamah ‘Abdul Hayy al-Lucknawi and ’Allamah Saffarini al-Khalwati on layman doing taqlid of a madhab.

Posted by muhammedm on December 25, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

This particular post is written due to the fuss that some have created saying that the Deobandi Ulema always talk about the taqlid and following hawa. The three Ulema below state the opinion of their times and also that following of hawa’ is real and not just a tactic for the populace to following a particular thought.

‘Allamah Lucknawi in his Fatawa writes, “The early and the later scholars are in disagreement regarding taqlid of a particular madhab (one madhab), some are of the opinion that it is wajib such as ‘Allamah Mahalli in Jam’ ul Jawami’…’Allamah Lucknawi says after quoting the different opinions, “Even though the correct and preferred opinion amongst the Muhaqqiqin is that Taqlid of a particular madhab is not wajib but in our times the preferred opinion of the verdict is that to do taqlid of a particular madhab is wajib or something preferred which is according to the opinion of some (of the early scholars), and the Mufti should take extreme caution to not let the general populace know the preferred opinion which is it’s not wajib…
‘Allamah Lucknawi quotes Shah Sahib, “these four codified researched madhabs, the Ummah has agreed upon the permissibility of doing it’s taqlid, and in it are many benefits which are not hidden especially in our times in which aspirations have decreased, the nafs has drunken hawa (lower desires), and each individual prefers his own opinion,; what Ibn Hazm held that taqlid is haram is a mistake.

‘Allamah Saffarini al-Khalwati in his Lawami’ writes after giving various different opinions regarding a layman doing taqlid of one madhab, “And what is more famous or well-known now is that he (the layperson) should follow a (particular) madhab. Pg. 576
Ma’ Salamah

The above doesn’t imply that all scholars are agreed on this, rather the reason for the fatwa for obligating taqlid is following hawa’ which is present in our day and age.

Posted in Fatawa, Fiqh | 2 Comments »

Psuedo-hanbalis rant on taqlid in Usul

Posted by muhammedm on December 23, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

One of the fitan of our times is the distortion of information. Anyone who reads the material of some of these people who place themselves as flagbearers of the truth can see the hypocrisy and ignorance embedded in their writing, mostly due to hatred for one group or another. With the object of destroying the Ahlus Sunnah Kalam schools, this individual, unknowingly, contradicted the school that he claims to be with, the same was done by the scholar that his likes reference frequently. The mas’alah in this particular post is regarding the first thing that is wajib on a person. The individual said, “This obligation of ‘not being a Muqallid in Aqeedah’ has everything to do with Ilm al-Kalam principle of ‘the first obligation of a human’ – which according to them is to do ‘Nathar’ or ‘to look into the world to find out via Aql that Allah exists – both layman and scholar are the same in this’.” Now I’ll present the views of the true Hanbali scholars who spent their lives learning and teaching the Athari creed, unlike the individual who made the remark.

-‘Allamah as-Saffarini al-Khalwati in his Mandhuma writes, “the first wajib on the slave is ma’rifah (knowledge) of God with certainty.”

– Shaykh ‘AbdulBaqi al-Muwahabi al-Hanbali writes, “The knowledge (ma’rifah) of Allah ta’ala is wajib according to the law, from that which has come from the law is an-Nadhar (reflecting) in the existance and that which exists upon every able responsible person, and it is the first Wajib from Allah ta’ala.” Pg 29 al-‘Ayn wal Athar

– ‘Allamah as-Saffarini writes in his commentary, “Our Ulema (the Hanabilah) and others prohibit taqlid in the knowledge (ma’rifa) of Allah ta’ala, in Tawhid, Risalah, and likewise in the five pillars and those similar to it which are known through tawatur and are famous according to Imam Ahmed and most (of the scholars). Abu al-Khattab has mentioned that the opinion is according to the ‘Aama (most or general) of the scholars, and others have mentioned that it’s the opinion of the majority as is stated in Sharh Tahrir. And al-Halwani and others from our companions (Hanabilah) have stated that it’s prohibited to do taqlid in Usul al-Din.” Page 220.

– This opinion is also held by Imam Ibn Hamdan al-Hanbali, Qadi Abu Ya’la and others from the Hanabilah.

– Imam Saffarini also says, “yes his state is that which can decrease (when doing taqlid), and sometimes the individual (who does taqlid) is mutazalzil al-Iman (his faith is shaky), so the truth is that he is sinful for leaving contemplation (an-Nathar) even though he has iman.

So where does this psuedo-hanbali come from criticizing the ‘Ashariah and the Maturidis. Even though some have said taqlid is not allowed at all, this is a minority opinion in all of the three schools, but the Rajih opinion is Iman of a Muqallid is Sahih. For a detailed discussion refer to ‘Allama Saffarini’s discussion in his Lawami’ and Nihayatul Mubtadi’in of Ibn Hamdan for the proofs.

Ma’ Salamah

Posted in 'Aqidah | Leave a Comment »

The ‘Ulema on Imam Ibn Kullab

Posted by muhammedm on December 19, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

– Imam At-Taj as-Subki says in his Tabaqat, “and Ibn Kullab in any case is from the Ahlus Sunnah… the father of Imam Razi, Diyaud Din al-Khatib, mentioned Ibn Sa’id (ibn Kullab) in the end of his book ‘Ghayatul Maram fi ‘Ilm al-Kalam’ that from the scholastic theologians of Ahlus Sunnah in the days of al-Ma’mun was ‘Abdullah bin Sa’id at-Taymi who destroyed the Mu’tazilites in the gatherings of al-Ma’mun…”
– Ibn ‘Asakir in Tibyan writes regarding Ibn Abi Zayd’s, known as the Little Malik, epistle to a Ibn Isma’il al-Baghdadi al-Mu’tazili, “and you’ve attributed Ibn Kullab to Bida’, and then you didn’t mention anything that would be known as bida’ such that it be called bida’. And what has reached us is that he was a follower of Sunnah and took to refuting the Jahimites and others from the people of bida’h.”
– Ibn Qadi Shuhbah writes in his Tabaqat, “He was from the great scholastic theologians and from the Ahlus Sunnah, his path and that of Al-Harith al-Muhasibi, Imam Ashari’ followed.”
– Jamal ud Din al-Isnawi in Tabaqat as-Shafi’iyah writes, “He was from the great scholastic theologians and from the Ahlus Sunnah…. Al-‘Ibadi mentions him in the Tabaqah (rank in regards to level of students) of Abi Bakr As-Sayrifi that he said, “He is from our companions the Mutakallimin”.
– Imam Dhahabi in Siyar writes, “The man is closest of the scholastics theologians to the Sunnah rather he’s from their Munatharihim”. Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arnaout writes under Imam Dhahabi’s comments, “He was an Imam of the people of Sunnah in his time and was their source. Imam al-Haramayn described him in al-Irshad as him being from “our companions”.”
– ‘Allamah Ibn Khuldun writes, “until Shaykh Abul Hasan al-Ashari came on the scene… he was on the path of ‘Abdillah bin Sa’id bin Kullab and Abi al-‘Abbas al-Qalanisi and al-Harith al-Muhasibi from the followers of Salaf and on the path of Sunnah.”
– ‘Allamah Bayadi writes, “And Imam Abu Muhammed ‘Abdullah bin Sa’id al-Qattan preceded Imam Ashari in defending the madhab of Ahlus Sunnah.”
– After Hafidh quotes Ibn Nadim’s words wherein he says Ibn Kullab is from the Hashawiya, “he means by it that he’s upon the way of the Salaf in leaving ta’wil of the Ayat and Ahadith related to the Sifat, and they are called al-Mufawwidah.”
– Hafidh says in al-Fath, “Imam Bukhari in what he narrates from the difficult tafsir he relates from the people of that fann (science) such as Abi ‘Ubaydah, An-Nadr bin Shumayl, al-Fara’ and others, as for juristic issues most of them from Shafi’, Abi ‘Ubayd and their likes, and issues of Kalam then most of them from Al-Karabisi, Ibn Kullab and their likes.”

As for Imam Ahmed’s censure of Karabisi, Ibn Kullab, al-Muhasibi was because of their delving into Kalam issue not because of their position. The Hanbalis took Imam Ahmed’s statement to another level such that they went against many of the Imams. Imam Bukhari himself says in Khalq, “as for what the two groups who ascribe to the Madhab of Imam Ahmed and each calling itself to it, for the narrations are not established, and sometimes they don’t understand the subtleness of his (Imam Ahmed’s) madhab, but what is well known from Ahmed and the people of knowledge is ‘the Kalam of Allah ta’ala is ghayr makhluq and whatever else besides it is makhluq, and they disliked delving into it and poking in matters that are difficult. And they avoided the people of Kalam and those who delved and argued except in matters that knowledge has been given and the Prophet’s explications.”

Imam Ahmed said, “whoever says the Quran is created is a Jahimi, and whoever says the Quran is the Kalam of Allah ta’ala but doesn’t say it’s ghayr mukhluq is Waqifi, and whoever says Lafhdi (my lafhd) of the Quran is makhluq is a Mubtadi’.” From the Imams who were explicit in their statements regarding the lafdh issue were Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Tabari, al-Karabisi and others. And the Hanbalis censured those who were explicit in their statements and went against Imam Ahmed’s statements, and from those who were attacked by the Hanbalis were Al-Karabisi, Imam Tabari, and others.

The Ibanah is also on the tariq of Ibn Kullab as the Imams have stated, yet some of the Hanabilah in the time of Imam Ashari didn’t accept his work. Refer to Siyar, Lisan al-Mizan and others. This is another proof that Imam Ibn Kullab was from the followers of the salaf as everyone agrees that Imam Ashari’s madhab was explicated in Ibanah which was written after Imam Ashari left the Mu’tazili madhab.

So we ask todays so-called Hanbalis who use Imam Ahmed’s statement without context, who was correct Imam Ahmed or Imam Muslim, Imam Bukhari and others who were explicit in the lafdh issue? We also ask the reader to see the descrepency in the description of Ibn Kullab by the above scholars and todays’ so called Hanbalis wherien they insult Ibn Kullab and deem him to be a mubtadi’!

Ma’ Salamah

Posted in 'Aqidah, Scholars | 13 Comments »

Imam Ad-Dhahabi on the Mujaddid’s

Posted by muhammedm on December 4, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

“Al-Hakim said, I heard Hassan bin Muhammed say, We were in the gathering of Ibn Surayj[i] in the year 303 hijri, a scholar from the people of knowledge stood up, and said, “gald tidings O Qadi (Ibn Surayj), for Allah ta’ala raises one who revives the matter of the religion in every century, and Allah ta’ala raised in the 1st century ‘Umar bin ‘AbdilAziz, in the 2nd century Muhammed bin Idris as-Shafi’, and has raised you in the 3rd century, then he began to say two of them have gone… I (Imam Dhahabi) say, “in the 4th century was Shaykh Abu Hamid al-Isfarayini, in the 5th century Abu Hamid al-Ghazali[ii], in the 6th century al-Hafidh ‘AbdulGhani, and in the 7th century our Shaykh Abul Fath Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id[iii]”. (Siyar Vol 3, page 470 under Ibn Surayj)

 


[i] In regards to the statement of Ibn Surayj saying, “we don’t uphold or believe in the ta’wil of Mu’tazili, al-As’ari, al-Jahimiya…” Then it should be known that the report is broken due to the gap of 74 years between the two narrators (Ibn Surayj who died in 306 Hijri and Az-Zanjani who died in the year 380 Hijri).

[ii] Imam Dhahabi after quoting Imam Ghazali’s aqidah points writes, “These beliefs, most of them are correct, and some of them I don’t understand, and some of them there is different between the people of madhab. It’s is suffienct for a muslim to believe in Allah ta’ala, His angels, His books, Hs prophets, destiny the good and bad, resurrection, and there is nothing like Allah ta’ala, and what has been mentioned regarding the divine attributes is true, and is passed as it has come. And the Quran is the speech of Allah ta’ala and what has been revealed, and it is not created and other (points of belief) which has consensus of the Ummah, the one who has deviated isn’t taken into consideration. So if the Ummah disagrees in a matter which is from the difficult Usul of the Din (Aqidah), it is necessary that we stay silent and to relegate it to Allah ta’ala and say, “Allah and His Prophet know best” So Allah ta’ala have mercy on Imam Abu Hamid, for where is someone who is like him in knowledge and virtue but we do not claim for him being free of mistakes, and there is no Taqlid in Usul.” (Imam Dhahabi in Siyar vol 4, page 566)

[iii] The Shafi’,Maliki Ashari’ Faqih. Ibn Hajar quotes Imam Dhahabi saying in the bio of Sa’d ud Din al-Harithi, “Ibn al-Daqiq al-‘Id would flee from him because of him affirming jiha (direction) and would say, “he’s a caller to it” he would prohibit mixing with him. And it is said, that he’s (al-Harithi) the one who wanted to remove or destroy the published work ‘al-Imam’ of Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id after he finished it, so nothing remained except for that which was printed in the author’s time.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »