Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

MuhammadHasanAlBritani

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    28
  • Joined

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location
    Take a wild guess
  • Religion
    Sunni Islam
  • Mood
    Lockdown sucks
  • Favorite Subjects
    Politics, History, Religion, Astronomy, Evolutionary Biology

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

MuhammadHasanAlBritani's Achievements

  1. Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem, Summary So I am interested in the average IQ of brothers and sisters on here, so I've devised an anonymous poll. To be clear, I'm not looking for your individual scores, I am just interested in how we do as a forum overall. In the future I might run this poll on a different forum to compare. You can use this website to test your IQ: https://iqtest.com/ Unlike other IQ tests, this one is more verbal. (I just picked the first result on DuckDuckGo.) Who should not take this poll? Non-Muslims. What are the requirements for taking the IQ test? Speak English, aged over 16. Can I share my result? Although you can do whatever you wish with it, be considerate to other users who might not wish to share their result. Don't bully anyone into giving their score out. People won't know you've taken the test unless you post below that you have, so don't post anything if you don't want others to know or pester you. Do I have to pay to get my result? No it's free, they email it to you. They just give you some further stats if you pay.
  2. I apologise for not making this clear enough. Line one means "There exists X which is Rationally Possible". Line two means "There being something rationally possible logically implies there is something rationally necessary". Line three means "There exists H which is rationally necessary". I sometimes write these things in shorthand assuming people understand what I mean, so I do apologise for not thoroughly making the terminology of the above clear, as I did for the main proof. Perfection is for Allah who is Al-Salam alone.
  3. Interesting. Please walk me through how you derived that. If you were stating that something you call "Existence" is the undetermined determiner which determines all including a limited contingent being you call "God", then haven't you made "Existence" God? This thing you call "God" would be subject to it and so is not "God" in the first place... Nevertheless, I am unsure how you derived what you have said from what I said. One way I can think of would be if you thought the following: "Exists possible" you thought means "Existance is possible" "Possible implies Necessary" you thought means "Possible is Necessary" (⊥) "Exists necessary" you thought means "Existance is necessary" So in perhaps in your mind the syllogism is: Existance is possible Possible is necessary (⊥) Existance is necessary Ignoring that this is a misunderstanding of the syllogism I wrote at the end, which was just an abstraction of the above, not a replacement of it, and that a person who understood what I wrote in this way would break the syllogism, as none of the above interpretations are correct, nevertheless: If someone takes what I wrote this way then this belief they hold based off of that syllogism would be irrational. Why? Statement 2 "possible is necessary" is a logical contradiction. Statement 3 relies on 1 and 2 and so is formed from a contradiction. Moreover: "Existance is possible" entails that what is known as existance can be and not be and therefore is contingent. "Existance is necessary" entails that what is known as existance must be and therefore it not being leads to contradiction and it is incontingent. So a person who believes both as stated in a erroneous interpetation of the simple syllogism I wrote above would believe in a logical contradiction - that existance is both contingent and incontingent, that it is both possible and impossible for "Existance" to not be. This all arises from believing "Possible is Necessary" - which is contradictory as they are two mutually exclusive rational judgements. Thus someone who has reasoned in that way believes in the permissibility of contradictions and breaking the rule of non-contradiction. Such a person is not rational. The rational person (Akil) always abides by the law of non-contradiction in rational proofs. I guess you didn't understand it in this way however. I guess you will explain adequately what you mean, how you interpreted those statements and logically why what you said follows from what I wrote. I look forward to that, and hope you will comment on the main proof for an undetermined determiner.
  4. I added this before adding my note in the end, whoops. May Allah who is al-Ghaffar forgive me.
  5. Interesting, I like you deny natural causation. In the below proof I do not use causality. Some questions for you: First can you prove to me that you yourself exist? Secondly, do you agree with me that someone who does not want to believe something will always find a way to justify not believing in it? Let us assume Pharoah's case is true (I and other Muslims on here would agree it is). Did Pharoah accept Musa Alayhis Salam's claim when he was brought evidence of the religion in front of his eyes or did he find ways of justifying it? I am sure you agree with me that "Denialism" is an empirically observable reality e.g. we have flat earthers, mathematical intuitionists etc. Thirdly, what is your view on Evolution? Personally I accept it. I also take the narrative of Adam Alayhis Salam in the Qur'an literally (I.e. he was made out of clay in Jannah with no parents and we are all descendents of him, he is our one father who we all share, his wife created from him etc.) Fourthly, what is your view on Homosexuality? And how do you personally determine if something is "moral"? Or perhaps you're thinking more rationally and have rejected concepts like morality? So what is stopping you from seeking to do illegal things? Finally, please review this proof I wrote. I would love to have a back an forth with you seeing as you are an Atheist (sorry for me I call agnostics Atheists - I get it you're not the pure Nihilistic type but nevertheless to me someone who does feel certain regarding the existance of God is an Atheist). Before I give the proof I will just lay out some fundamental rational judgements. Necessary: Something is necessary if it must be and it not being leads to a contradiction. E.g. 1 + 1 = 2 is necessary, a moving thing not being still is necessary, a finite sequence being traveresable is necessary. Possible: Something is possible if could or could not be e.g. in the set {1, 2, 3, 4} if x is an element of that set then x is possibly 2, it is possible for it to rain tomorrow (logically it raining and it not raining do not each lead to a contradiction therefore either is possible), the existance of the world (either exists or doesn't, both possible) etc. Impossible: Something that must not be for it being leads to a contradiction, whereas there is no contradiction in it not being. E.g. A square circle (2D Shape with 1 and 4 sides), travelling past an infinite amount of doors at an infinite hotel and then reaching the end and exiting the hotel, 0.9 recurring being less than 1 etc. I've repeated this below in response to an objection, but I think it is useful to state it beforehand. Some other vocabulary I'll define (I might have some unorthodox usage of vocab, please excuse me - I focus on ideas and not terms): Contingent: Something that is a certain way and can possibly have been any other number of ways. Incontingent: Something that necessarily must be the one way it is. Determining: Choosing or making something to be one way as opposed to any other. Undetermined: It was not determined to be the way it is, rather it is rationally necessary for it to be that way. An undetermined thing is contingent. Determined: It was determined to be the way it is, and it is rationally possible for it to be other than the way it is. Subject to change: Something can be rationally any other way and throughout time it is a rationally possibility for this entity to change. Actual: (I do not use this term but it is useful for understanding my thinking) The way something is in reality. E.g. it is possible for the man outside my door to exist or not exist at a given time. It is necessary that he either actually is or is not at a given time - it is impossible that he both does and does not exist outside by door at a given time. E.g. according to my terminology you think God is rationally possible (which I reject, I say he is rationally necessary). Thus your concept of God is of a contingent being. I reject such a being and worship the incontingent and necessary being. It may be that this entity you conceive of as "God" actually does exist. Empirical observation will confirm that for you e.g. after you die - either you will be certain of his actual existance or not. Similarly empirical observation of Allah would confirm to you his existance. My claim is not that what I call God merely actually exists, rather my claim is that God necessarily exists. It does not matter how the world is, even if there was no design and pattern observable in the world, things popping out of nowhere etc. nevertheless God still exists. In other words God exists in all possible worlds. Note: I am using very general concepts, but they can admit more specific and traditional notions too. E.g. Determination admits creation, contingency admits temporality etc. In the below proof I will follow the Sunnah of the Mutakallimun and refrain from calling the incontingent/undetermined determiner God, as there are some other things we need to prove/discuss before we label him as such. Nevertheless what follows is a basic proof for God - the incontingent/undetermined determiner. By the way we can simplify the proof into a simple logical syllogism: Exists Possible. Possible Implies Necessary. Exists Necessary. I welcome your criticisms and questions regarding the proof, and welcome this from my Shi'i brothers too. Note: The above proof doesn't actually require any sensory observation to be affirmed. E.g. "the world exists" is not required in the above. If we concretise the above in a specific example (e.g. existance of this world) we can say "the world either exists or does not exist in actuallity" (Both exists and doesn't, neither exists nor doesn't lead to contradiction) - we are not making a comment on which one rather we are stating it must be either one.
  6. Check the arabic meanings of the wording of the hadith. The words say "Invade" meaning to actually succeed in conquer. Moreover the Sahaba are told they are not one of them. Interesting fact: Abu Ayyub al-Ansari Radiyallahu An died trying to conquer constantinople. The significance? Imam al-Maturidi was the descendent of Abu Ayyub Radiyallahu An and the Ottomans who conquered constantinople are generally of his school in Aqeedah. After the conquest they built a tomb for him. Regarding the word 'obscure', I meant you are making the Khilafah proverbially hard to find in history - limiting it to the pious generation of the Salaf at the start of the Ummah.
  7. This seems to me to be quite a defensive revisionism carried out by someone who wants to defend their faith as a peace-loving religion in front of others. I know because I was like you, I used to do such a thing. The truth is not that we love peace. Or that we love war. Why you judge a religion by pre-conceived notions of right and wrong worries me. You are aware of the position of the Asha'irah and the Maturidiyyah that there is no objective moral right and wrong except what Allah commands? He can command anything and it would be morally right. He could even command you kill your own son (as happened with Ibrahim Alayhis Salam). There is objectively speaking no right and wrong except in what Allah commands. The Mu'tazila and the Shia of this forum may disagree as they subject Allah to this thing called "Justice" that constrains what he does, but Allah is in no obligation to do such a thing. There is no concept of morality outside Allah's laws. Allah is not asked what he does, we are asked what we do. As for the Prophet Alayhis Salams conquests, he conquered the pagans because they disbelieved and that was there punishment from Allah. There is no compulsion in religion, but at the same time that does not save you from conquest (political). One can keep their religion after being conquered and made to pay taxes etc. This is way the pre-modern world worked and the way the world ought to work now, if there weren't organisations set up to keep certain countries unable to fight back against the cultural and economic imperialism they are subject to. In the pre-modern world it was expand or you will be expanded upon. There was no room for pacifists - be a pacifist and you die. That is the brutal truth. We conquered other lands. I will state something now and it is the absolute truth. I wish you could progress intellectually and realise fully the nature of "moral right" and "moral wrong" before I say this, but this is the truth: With Prophet Alayhis Salam's his policy with the Mushriks of Makkah was convert or die. This is the truth. In the Hanafi school however, we understand that this only applies for the Arab peninsula. In the Maliki school it only applies for Quraysh. In practice the other Madahib agree as well. The Pagan Arabs were special - they rejected the messenger when he gave them the message peacefully, so instead they were made to take it forcefully. Islam is the truth. When you contemplate what that actually means, you understand why "convert or die" is justified. It is for the same reason we support the apostasy law. Nevertheless, this is not our policy generally. For the Non-Arabs (in the Hanafi Maddhab) in general it is a policy of, "You have three options: Become Muslims, Keep your faith and pay Jizya or we will fight you." When we fight them we continue fighting (killing their combatants) until we confirm a truce or until we conquer them. Once we conquer, the Imam has two choices - divide the land with the victorious (presumably enslaving the non-Muslim inhabitants and giving them to the soldiers- I am not sure) or levy Jizya. With the prisoners (who are not Muslims), that are captured in war there are three choices: 1. Death 2. Slavery 3. Pay the Jizya The Imam may choose whichever. As for the Jizya: Their keeping of their own faith means we would even go as far as allowing them to practice their own laws etc. In Muslims lands the Zoroastrian was permitted to marry their sister, the Hindu was allowed to burn his wife etc. The Jew may punish the Zani etc. according to his own laws (and I understand this applies to murder etc. as long as it does not involve a Muslim). Such practices are of no concern to us. As for the one who pays Jizya, then the following do not: Women, Children, The Chronically Ill (would have to ask a faqih about what qualifies there), the unemployed poor and the hermit monks who do not mix with people. Generally the opinion of Shaykhayn of the Maddhab are considered, and Qadi Abu Yusuf also stipulates, "the old, the sick, the insane, the blind and those generally poor" (I believe the Nisab is used to measure that) The Dhimmis who pay Jizya do not perform military service. If they don't pay then it is forcibly taken from them (or appropriate punishments are given). Anyway, the point I am trying to get across is that your characterisation of the Prophet Alayhis Salam's actions are woefully far from the truth. He was not acting in self defence (though I agree the Mushriks of Makkah started the hostilities by torturing the faithful in Makkah). This is simply the nature of the pre-modern world: Expand or be expanded upon. The modern world seeks to artificially control what is normal human group behaviour by forcing countries into treaties with each other because someone with the biggest stick will otherwise get angry. Thus they force borders to stay exactly as they are (exactly as they defined them). This will all fall apart soon when Allah wills. What you need to question and come to grips with is, "What is the nature of moral right" and you need to ask yourself "Fundamentally what defines right or wrong?" In Pagan Arab, Roman and in modern western culture, killing your children is seen as perfectly fine and moral. In fact I would argue that the Romans are kinder than the west. In the west when a child is born 'accidentally' after abortion, it is locked in a room and the doctor walks away. At least the Romans exposed their children out in public so others could take them. In modern western culture they struggle to say why two twin brothers commiting homosexual incest would be wrong - why? Because all they could say is, "Incest is wrong," Well then we say, "Homosexuality is wrong," This is the problem of subjective morality. It doesn't lead you anywhere - you will ultimately just consider morally right and wrong whatever the people of your time consider it to be. We Muslims remove ourselves from the Zeitgeist and from cultural attitudes of what is right and wrong. For us we have an objective morality and that is based off of what Allah decrees. Whatever he decrees is right, because he is the one decreeing it. In truth there is no morality outside revelation - there is only an illusion of it. When people leave revelation as a source of guidance, they still have religious laws in place. Over time those laws are repealed as they question them. Thus you get what we understand as a decline in morals. In reality they moving to their natural state which is that practically anything goes for morality. Thus the Pagan Arabs buried their daughters etc. walked round the Kaaba naked, ten men would enter one woman etc. That is what Jahiliyyah means. It even gets to the point where it is acceptable to kill whoever you want as long as they are a lower class of citizen e.g. your slave etc. Arbitrary things are considered moral then. You don't spit and vomit on your dead before burying them? How disgusting. This is the nature of cultural acceptance and cultural disgust (maruf and munkar). When it regresses beyond this, the people become savages and cannibals, fulfilling their desires with who they want even in public. Such a time is prophesised to come and when one sees the behaviour of certain people that is no surprise. Subjective rules e.g. "Do to others as you wish to be treated" etc. don't work as they are vague in their purport and there will always be people who e.g. would love to be tortured etc. themselves so they will follow such moral precepts and go on to commit torture others. What if a child molester justifies their action by saying, "I would have loved this when I was young"?! Moreover these moral precepts are themselves subject to change once a society has 'progressed' enough. Some westerners have started this change already, as there is a growth in the hedonism movements, where the only moral right is self-pleasure. To avoid all this one must ground themselves in an objective measure of what is right and wrong and that is simply what Allah decrees. There is otherwise no such thing as morality.
  8. None of the Sufis were Pacist. Pacifism means you believe in peace no matter what - i.e. that you always believe in peace. We are people of Justice and we are fundementally conquerers. For if you have a just political system as ours (where we allow the Kuffar their own legal systems), you will want to spread it. Even the US understands this with their batil system. If you disagree with that then you have never read the Seerah and have never understood the Khilafah of the Rashidun. They engaged in Jihad - and it was offensive jihad. As the Hadith is written in Jami as-Saghir: "Islam dominates and is not dominated over."
  9. Your reply bought a smile to my face. I remember when I used to think exactly like you. Insha'Allah, as you continue to think things through you will arrive at the conclusions I did. To help you on that journey, I will bring some hadith for you to contemplate on this issue: (I do not advocate the website Islamweb theologically.) One might wonder what Al-Madinah, "The city," is referring to here. We know from other hadith that when the Khilafah enters into a land and leaves it, it does not return to it (meaning its capital will never be that capital again). There are other hadith which mention a city e.g. We can confirm from other Matn, e.g. Sahih Muslim 2897, the version in Ibn Majah etc. that this refers to Constantinople. So accordingly one would understand that the city mentioned in the Prophecy of Tarikh Dimaqsh is Constantinople. Now what do you notice about that hadith? Hold that though and consider another hadith: Notice the strange wording here. The "City of Caesar" was interpreted by some by mean Hims, as that is what the narrator of the Hadith seems to think it meant. However, one asks where the capital of the Byzantines was during the time of the Prophet Alayhis Salam? It was Constantinople. Also, consider that that Caesar (Heracles) was buried in Constantinople - so it is literally the City of Caesar. But there is a second strange oddity here. The Prophet Alayhis Salam seems to suggest that it will be invaded more than once. Now in Islamic history it was invaded once, by Sultan Muhammad al-Fatih. This is alluded to in another hadith. One notes the arabic, "amiruha" her leader refers to the cities leader. When Imam al-Mahdi and the conquest happens in the end of times, indicated by other hadith, we note that they will not stay in the city. But here the Prophet Alayhis Salam is praising the leader of the city. Suggesting that this leader stays in the city. We know that when Muhammad al-Fatih conquered the city he stayed. So we have a hadith indicating the city will be conquered more than once and we have a hadith for both a time after the recording of the hadith when the city was invaded, and we have other ahadith for a future time. Khalifah/Imamah After al-Khilafah al-Rashidun The issue is that on one hand you have a correct understanding. You are right to say that Khilafah is something that Allah gives when he wants. But you are wrong to say it is so obscure, that we only had in the first few generations. The reality is we have had Khilafah throughout history, we simply haven't had it absolutely perfect (elected by Shura) since the time of the Sahabah. When you remove that one issue, then of course we have had Khilafah. One can look at the reigns of Muawiyah Radiyallahu An, Umar Bin Abdul Aziz Rahimullah Alay, Harun al-Rashid, Muhammad al-Fatih, Abdul Hamid ath-Thani as just a few examples of true, just and Islamic rule. I recommend you read up on those individuals. The following hadith gives credence to the view that the other Khilafah should be considered Khilafah: In the hadith above, notice that the three sons of a Caliph will vie for treasure. This suggests one can be a Caliph but still not appoint a successor via election (for in the hadith above, no appointer is chosen and it suggested that the three sons are vying for the Caliphate as well). This makes me come onto an important point. Is it fard (obligatory) or wajib (necessary) for the Caliph to be elected? The answer is no. He can take power even by force. As in from a (Hanafi) fiqh perspective its not. I understand that you ignore the positions of the Maddhab in this matter. Well consider our opponents from "Ahlus Sunnah", the Hashwiyyah followers of Ibn Taymiyyah. Is the following not a Hadith we enjoy using against them? Wouldn't we say that the people being described in the hadith are our "Salafi" brothers? But consider what the Prophet Alayhis Salam describes in the Hadith. He says that if there is no group nor an Imam then stay away from all those sects. One realises that most if not all the sects currently gained popularity after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. We have been in intellectual decline since. Now we have all of these heretical sects about the place. My question to you is haven't Ahlus Sunnah been strong (with a few exceptions) throughout Islamic history? Is not one of the proofs for our correctness the fact that we form a majority? One notes then the importance of the Jama'ah and the importance of the concept of Ummah. "Pan-Islamism" or Islamic unity is not a new concept - it was practically displayed throughout history with the Caliphates. Islamism is not an evil thing either - pure Islamism is that which was advocated by Amir ul-Muminin Abdul Hamid ath-Thani, the last Ottoman Sultan to have any true power. In fact, at this point I would even appeal to the reality of dreams of the Prophet Alayhis Salam to get across my point. Consider then the well documented case of the Ottoman Officer, Fahreddin Pasha. Read this to get an in-depth story. Basically, he was defending Madinah when he saw the Prophet Alayhis Salam command him to never leave defending it. So he never did. Fifty days after the war he was still defending it and refused to leave even when sent letters by the Sultan. His story became popular in Istanbul and he is known popularly as the defender of Madinah. Eventually his own men arrested him and forced him to stand down so that the British-supporting forces could invade. My question to you then is, why would RasulAllah command him to defend a worthless empire? Because it was not worthless. It was Dawlat al-Islam. What all the terrorist groups you mentioned don't ever acknowledge is the legitimacy of these previous Caliphates. Or when they mention them, they muddy their legitimacy by claiming they were always into heretical beliefs etc. or that they can do better than them. But they refuse to accept that the Asl of these Empires was Islam. When you cannot even accept those who preceded you, how can you ever hope to look at them and learn from their legacy? The message of the Qur'an is to look at the past and consider it, not to dismiss it. Does he not tell us (interpretation of the meaning) Beware of what is before you and what is behind you; perhaps you will receive mercy Banu Umayya, Banu Abbas and Bani Uthman are not above criticism. Many of their rulers were playboys and tyrants. Many were even ruthless on a level so ridiculous it becomes funny (e.g. the Sultan who would personally go undercover and enforce his own ban on Alcohol, Coffee and Tobacco by executing anyone who used the on the spot - beheading them!) But amongst them also were the righteous. They fundamentally built the civilisation of this Ummah and many things we achieved, both materially and spiritually would not be possible without them. If you were to ask me what to choose between Marmaduke Pickthall and Yusuf Ali, I would always choose Marmaduke Pickthall. These two translators of the Qur'an differed over the response to the last legitimate call to Jihad given in Islamic history. Yusuf Ali ignored it and supported the British. Pickthall supported the Ottomans and refused to support the killing of his own brother. In the end he was posted on the western front as a medic, refusing to engage in combat. My brother fundamentally you are correct in that it is the Muslims who are to blame for the situation we find ourselves in today. But do not think the Kuffar will help us. If they rule over us, they will implement their rules, and the Zina, and Fahisha etc. that has become popular in their lands will become even more popular in the middle east. Is that what you want? Do you seriously want the Muslims to be subjugated by an external kufr force? At least when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Bani Isra'il he reported to be a believer in Allah. (Allahu Alam on that - but he was certainly just in the way he dealt with them). The point is that we as Muslims should not seek to be invaded by the Kuffar, as we might as well become them at that point - is that what you truly want? The correct solution to all this is to look at the Seerah of the Prophet Alayhis Salam and attempt to mimic that. Notice he went up to a tribe and asked them for power and this tribe gave it to them. How many of the Islamic groups/ organisations are trying that route? I'm sure there's a noble tribe or government out there that might accept. Who knows. It could be the last people you expect. It is true in the end that most or all that want the Khilafah in our era want it for the wrong reasons. They want it for materialistic reasons. But there are some of us who desire to live in a land where Allah's Hukm is law. There are some of us who love Allah so much that to live outside his Hukm is unbearable. For we feel ourselves disobeying him when not working towards such a state. Our ultimate goal my brother is Jannah my brother, and Khilafah is something we feel we must have to abide by Allah laws or at least to claim on the day of Hisab that we advocated towards it. I think it is then a sad state of affairs that we have come to. That the colonisation of the Muslim mind is such that now there are some of us who actually want to be colonised, westernised and imperialised. In the end, what we do can only be based on our knowledge of history. If we do not own and accept our history and actually look at the mistakes we made, instead of cheaply pushing it away as "unislamic" (when it is not), we will never be able to improve ourselves out of this squalor. The Muslim response to Evolution is always a reminder to me, that the ways of the past and the original Ulama even and especially of the late Ottoman Empire are always preferred over the ignorance and innovations of today. When the Muslims possessed a state and their own intellectual framework, they answered such issues perfectly. But now the decline of ours is such that we forgotten how to think. And if we have forgotten how to think, how will we ever be successful?
  10. Your belief in Pacifism is quite interesting as it contradicts our Maddhab and the belief of Ahlus Sunnah generally. Yes you are not allowed to rebel against the ruler, unless you know you can win and if the ruler is a tyrant (advocating kufr) etc. Examples are that our Imam-al-Azam supported the rebellion of Zayd ibn Ali etc. Also I'm sure you accept that we Muslims spread our political hegemony through conquest. This is in the Seerah of the Prophet Alayhis Salam too. Now revolt against the current crop of rulers won't get anywhere as they are far too strong and we are far too weak and if we revolt against them we will only cause more problems. This is what Shaykh Al-Bouti (al-Shafi'i al-Ash'ari) has said. A position I might advocate would be a slight editing of what you have stated above. You see I was agreeing with you until you mentioned America etc. What the Muslim world needs is for other Muslims to invade them. Preferably quite simplistic tribes people who are excellent people in Islam, Iman, Ihsan. E.g. The Sufis amongst the Pashtuns of Afghanistan would be candidates. Other candidates might be the people of Northern Nigeria etc. On a sidenote, I don't think I agree with your characterisation of the peasantry. The peasantry are simple people, some of whom have far more taqwa than you and I. For instance in places in rural Nigeria, the people regularly pray Fajr etc. Of course, those parts of the country already run under Sharia too. I almost think its a bit arrogant to look down on your fellow Muslims like that. The simplest people can be people of taqwa etc. it depends where you look. Just to confirm, what is your position on Jihad, the Hagia Sophia etc. in general? Also you say you do not support secularism and western liberal ideology but you realise that, that will be imposed on us by the US, correct? Also what is your position on Democracy? And what is your position on Hagia Sophia? Of course, if you truly do believe that the Urbanised Muslim populations have more 'Islam' in them (which I don't necessarily agree with), isn't the solution obvious? Why don't you go and educate some of the laymen in the Muslim world? Have you noticed that western/urbanised Muslims only set up institutes in the west? You should do something about it then shouldn't you? The true Ahl at-Tasawwuf were not pacafists...
  11. As-Salamu Alaykum, Fellow Hanafi Sunni here. When you say you reject all those movements, do you agree with concept of Khilafah in general e.g. Ottoman Empire, Abbasid with Seljuk etc.?
  12. Sorry, I should clarify - regarding Ibn Taymiyyah: his views of Tawassul and Istigatha alone would not take him out of Ahlus Sunnah in our eyes, as there are respectable Ulama who hold similar positions. But his prohibition on visiting graves etc. was very innovatory. It was the Prophet Alayhis Salam who permitted this after all. But all in all he had some very valid criticisms of the extremeness of some Sufis in his time. Ibn Abdul Wahhab however made takfir on those issues and went to further extremes. May Allah forgive both.
  13. Sunni of the Ashari/Maturidi/Hanbali persuasion here. Ibn Taymiyyah was a Hanbali who slowly adopted the heretical views of the Mu'tazilites, Falsafa and the Karramiyya. He claimed to be upon the true school of Imam Ahmad Rahimullah Alay. The scholars of all four schools refuted him for his anthropomorphic positions and other heretical views, including his views which split him from the Jama'ah. He has a profound influence on "Athari"s today, though the later scholars of the Hanbali school did not take his Aqeedah - later scholars like Imam as-Saffarini Rahimullah Alay referred back to al-Balbani, Ibn Hamdan, Ibn Qudamah, the actual authorities in the school in Aqeedah issues. Ibn Taymiyyah was imprisoned multiple times. Regarding Ibn Taymiyyah's views on Ahlul Bayt: I think this is slander and illegitimate criticism in our eyes. I doubt Ibn Taymiyyah hated ahlul bayt. Ibn Taymiyyah condemned some of the extreme practices of the Sufis of his time but also went too far in this attack - he prohibited Tawassul in relation to the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam (going to his grave and requesting that he makes dua to Allah for you). He said Istigatha is shirk when it is only shirk if done with the done with the understanding that the person in the grave will help you independent of Allah. Some scholars permit isitigatha (if done with correct Aqeedah), others prohibit as it comes close to shirk. I personally refrain, although some of the scholars I take fatwa from allow it. He didn't consider it shirk akbar though - he didn't make takfir in the issue. Ibn Abdul Wahhab is arguably worse, he unlike Ibn Taymiyyah went ahead and made takfir on the muslims and considered their blood permissible, his movement made takfir of the Khilafah and attacked Haramayn. He started his life with some Quran and fiqh study and then turned to heresy, being introduced to the ideas of Ibn Taymiyyah. His own father (Abdul Wahhab Rahimullah Alay) and brother (Sulayman ibn Abdul Wahhab Rahimullah Alay) were reportedly against him. A late authority of the Hanafi school, Imam Ibn Abidin reportedly condemned him and his movement. Ibn Abdul Wahhab is quoted as saying no one was upon tawhid upon him from his teachers etc. apart from him. I believe he may have been prophesised in the following hadith: Nevertheless, even if they held heretical views (Ibn Taymiyyah) or were outright Khawarij (Ibn Abdul Wahhab), we do not make takfir on them although some of our scholars made takfir on Ibn Taymiyyah as some of his views were perhaps argued to be outright kufr. Nevertheless, we consider them both our brothers in Islam who transgressed against us and left the Jama'ah. Not too different from how Ahlus Sunnah view the twelver Shia (discluding the Akhbaris who we would make takfir on due to their belief with regards to the Quran).
  14. That wouldn't disprove OP's point as it is being alleged the the Mufti does taqiyyah, so he could outwardly hold anti-shi'i views, whilst inwardly holding different views. Why defend him in this anyway? Who cares if he's doing taqiyyah or not - I think we in Ahlus Sunnah are in agreement that he is a deviant nonetheless. Hani from the Sunni defence made the point that he might be an Ismaili but Allahu Alam, the guys a mubtadi, who cares what type.
×
×
  • Create New...