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


Advanced Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tahasyed

  1. La ilaha ilallah. I'm not even going to bother with some of the posts above. A shia person brought this thread to my attention so I thought I'd throw in my two cents. I really don't have any more time to waste here. I will just repeat what I said before: We sunnis do NOT consider control over people and wealth by the hakim as being 'greedy' and something negative. On the contrary, where the aim is political stability, it is extremely praiseworthy, and Ali earned that. That is what Ali fought for, and that is what Ibn Taymiyya is clearly acknowledging for him. But there is no doubt that Abu Bakr's move was more critical in saving Islam, and more praiseworthy. You are seeing it as a criticism, Sunnis see it as a statement of a fact: a praiseworthy move by Ali, and a more praiseworthy move by Abu Bakr. Then again, a shia will see everything as a 'nasibi point of view' where anyone's action is held above Ali's. Since I've addressed this already, as well other objections raised above, I'm not going to bother explaining myself further. There was one question that was asked, and I will address that: There were different types of people that fought in the battles.There were those who fought due to incorrect (but justified) ijtihad. There were those who fought due to incorrect (AND unjustified) ijtihad. And there were those who had the correct ijtihad. The latter was the side of Ali. As for the previous two, part of them fall under the condemnation legislated by the Prophet (pbuh), and part of them were mistaken but still get the ajr of a justified-yet-incorrect ijtihad. And they fall under the ayah: [49:09] "And if two parties of believers fall to fighting,..."
  2. Ummmm, he is addressing Amili or Hilli (the Shi'ite scholar who Ibn Taymiyya is refuting in this book). So what he is says is "how can this [i.e. Ali's fighting] be considered [by Amili/Hilli] fighting in the way of Allah, while Abu Bakr fought those who apostatized from Islam [while you, O Amili/Hilli ignore this] and .....". i.e. Abu Bakr's fighting was for the sake of Allah, and Amili/Hilli is NOT acknowledging it, while he is acknowledging it for Ali. The point being: Amili/Hilli is biased and subjective, and Ibn Taymiyya in his refutation is trying to make him realize that he has double standards. Moreover, I will remind you that Ali's fighting to gain control over the people is NOT criticism of him. The Sunnis do NOT consider it a fault, rather they consider it something praiseworthy, and part of Ali's wisdom, and the reason why his ijtihad is correct and Muawiya's was wrong. Finally, a reminder that this is all enclosed in an "IF/THEN" clause. So if he is criticizing Ali, then the criticism should fall on Abu Bakr and Umar too.
  3. ÝÅä ÌÇÒ Ãä íØÚä Ýí ÇáÕÏíÞ æÇáÝÇÑæÞ ÃäåãÇ ÞÇÊáÇ áÃÎÐ ÇáãÇá ÝÇáØÚä Ýí ÛíÑåãÇ ÃæÌå ÝÅÐÇ æÌÈ ÇáÐÈ Úä ÚËãÇä æÚáí Ýåæ Úä ÃÈí ÈßÑ æÚãÑ ÃæÌÈ æÚáí íÞÇÊá áíØÇÚ æíÊÕÑÝ Ýí ÇáäÝæÓ æÇáÃãæÇá ÝßíÝ íÌÚá åÐÇ ÞÊÇáÇ Úáì ÇáÏíä æÃÈæ ÈßÑ íÞÇÊá ãä ÇÑÊÏ Úä ÇáÅÓáÇã æãä ÊÑß ãÇ ÝÑÖ Çááå áíØíÚ Çááå æÑÓæáå ÝÞØ æáÇ íßæä åÐÇ ÞÊÇáÇ Úáì ÇáÏíä Now. Take off the spectacles of bias, and reflect. Noticing the parts I highlighted. And realize that he has set up a hypothesis statement, to counter the shia attack. That statement about Ali is enclosed an 'IF/THEN' clause. If we are to take the part about Ali as an attack on him, then we must accept that Ibn Taymiyya also attacked Abu Bakr and Umar, and believed that they fought for money. The truth, in fact, is that he attacked none of them. Rather, he mentioned the outward action (fighting for money in the case of Abu Bakr and Umar, and fighting for control in the case of Ali), and then says, "O Shi'ite (don't remember whether it was Hilli or Amili), why is it that you accept Ali's action as religious in nature, while criticizing Abu Bakr's and Umar's actions?" Ali's fighting to gain control over the people is in NO way a criticism of him. Everyone knows that the best course of action during the fitna right after Uthman's murder was to get social and political stability. So Ali did that, and Ibn Taymiyya's acknowledgment of that is NOT something negative. May Allah be pleased with them all.
  4. If you have any honesty in your query, then you can read the context here: http://islamport.com/w/tym/Web/3420/2755.htm Since you brought up this 'quote', the least you can do is have the decency to translate the context so people can see what he actually meant.
  5. 'Traditional Sunni view'? Rubbish. Anyone who criticizes Ameer Mu'awiya () is not a sunni. The real 'Traditional Sunni view' can be found in Sunni books.
  6. And the soul is also a created thing.So if Allah can be perceived by one thing that He has created (the soul) He has every power to give that to another created thing (the eyes). Unless Allah has to abide by a checklist of things you say He can/can't do.
  7. I'm glad someone brought up the howness as the main issue, because that is precisely the issue. With all due respect, you have made a hasty conclusion, a false assumption, and a logical fallacy the name of which slips my mind right now.Your hasty conclusion: that we believe that vision of Allah is 'like we see normally with our eyes'. But that's not what we believe. Your false assumption: only the heart has the capability to 'see' Allah in a certain manner. We say: just like the heart can perceive Allah in a certain way different from other things, then Allah has the power to allow that for other organs as well, like the eyes. The fallacy: Your premise is that vision of Allah with the eyes *must* be like the vision of created things. We say this is not the case. And if you can make a special exception for the heart, which is a human organ made of blood and muscles, then it is equally likely for the eyes - another human organ. The howness would be things like: saying we see Allah in a certain direction, or that vision will be through the bouncing of light particles into our eyes, that our vision will be 'all-encompassing', etc. Yep.And that is why I am only trying to show the fallacy of the shia/jahmi/mu'tazili argument against the Sunnis, because it is based on a logical fallacies, false premises, unnecessary assumptions, and words insisted on being added after the sentence has been ended with a period. Thank you. And likewise.I am not here to debate. I am only trying to present the Sunni view, and trying to show that many assumptions are unnecessary. And I will say the following: If we were to adhere to the shia/jahmi/mu'tazili assumptions, then the Sunnis would agree with them. That is because their assumptions necessitate tajseem and tashbih. That is because the assumptions would necessitate resembling Allah to His creation. One example is the assumption that the vision will be perception of Allah by the lens, retina, etc.. through the entering of light into the eyes. Our message is simple: remove those assumptions, and you are left with a Sunni creedal point that does not entail tajseem or tashbih.
  8. That's a fabricated narration.Subhanallah, how can you sleep at night knowing that you have based a point of aqidah (contradicting the authentic narrations) on a lie against the noble imam? And you mention the Sufis. Instead of going to those philosophy websites and seeing what they claim the Sufi beliefs are, why not read the earliest records, and their own books about their beliefs? Why not see what the great Junaid said? It's in the Risala. Or what Al-Sulami said? Or Abu Nu'aym? It's in their books. Or Al-Tustari? It's clearly recorded. Or Al-Nasrabadi? It's in his writing. Or Abu Hamza Al-Baghdadi, Or Fudayl bin Iyad, or, or... or... If these weren't Sufis, then there are no real Sufis. Rather, these were the pillars, the giants of Tasawwuf. And they contradict what you claim about the Sufi beliefs.
  9. This hadith is talking about seeing Allah in a dream, and not in reality.I know a person who has seen the Prophet (pbuh) without a beard in his dream. I have seen Allah in a dream too - but does that mean that's what I believe Allah to look 'like'? No. I do not believe Allah 'looks like' anything, astaghfirullah. In visions/dreams, things can be seen in various forms. Be it light, be it forms. The Sufi imams have written about this, and you can refer to that if you want. So that's that for the hadith about the 'beardless man'. In no way is it suggesting that Allah looks like a beardless man. As for the actual topic at hand, then I have already responded to it elselwhere:
  10. The crux of what I'm trying to show is that if the heart, which is a human organ, can 'perceive' Allah (but not like perception of other created things) then Allah has the power to also give the eyes the power to perceive Him in some way, but not like perception of other created things. Mu'tazilis/Jahmis/Shias make the error of taking the thought beyond what the Sunni position simply states: they insist that the perception through the eyes MUST be corporeal in nature, while the Sunnis keep insisting that they don't believe that. We believe that if Allah can give power to the heart to perceive Him in a manner befitting Him, then He can (and will) give that power to eyes as well. Not like seeing physical objects. And again this is something Sunni scholars have clearly stated, insisted on, and pronounced heretical to believe otherwise.
  11. Allah can make the eyes 'see' in a way different from how it sees created objects in this world.In the hereafter, people's skins and organs will 'talk'. If Allah so wills, he can make noses see, and ears sniff. I do not say this as a joke. Allah can make any organ in the body function any way He likes. My point is that if the heart, being a human organ, can perceive Allah, then Allah has the power to grant that capability to the eyes as well. In a manner different from the vision of created objects.
  12. Do you not see that in both cases, the object that perceives is a created thing - in this case the eyes, in that case the heart.What I am saying is that you are assuming the heart (a created entity) has the capability to see Allah, while the eyes (another created entity) does not have that capability, while both are human organs. The Ahus-Sunnah do not delve into the kayfiyyah of the vision with the eyes, and you know that. And if anyone finds anthropomorphism in the concept of seeing Allah with the eyes, then I say the same should be the case with seeing Allah with the heart. Both are human organs of perception, so you can't just apply different standards based on presumptions. No Sunni says that seeing Allah with the eyes is like seeing other created objects with the eyes. You know that too.
  13. You're adding a whole truckload of preconceived notions to the straightforward hadith, that's the problem. I will use the analogy of the heart, since Shias are ok with the idea of 'seeing' Allah with the heart. The heart (or should I say the mind, to be more precise) perceives emotions. The heart perceives Allah too. Is that shirk? No. We say: the eyes perceive created things (including the moon). And the believers' eyes will also perceive Allah. But in a different way. Just as perceiving emotions and perceiving Allah with the heart is different, likewise perceiving Allah with the eyes is different from perceiving other created things. It's quite simply really, if you get rid of all the presumptions and preconceived notions and conclusions from your mind.
  14. To be fair, this belief cannot be ascribed to present-day shias. As a side point, there was actually a disagreement as to whether Allah's 'body' is hollow or full, subhanallahi 'amma yushrikun! The Ahlus-Sunnah have always held that Allah is *not* a body. The shia creed of the present-day Ithna Ashariyyah, whose crystallization can be dated back to the 300/400 AH, also does not hold Allah to be a body. You can refer to the words of Ibn Babawayh and others who documented the shi'ite creed.
  15. Masha Allaaaaaaah. : ) Are you trying to convince yourself? Is it really working? Sometimes one thinks... how far can people stretch and twist a straightforward ayah? Quite a bit it seems.
  16. There are two different threads with the same issue being the topic of the thread (although it seems to have taken quite a different course). However, this one makes a reference to 'Sunni' in the thread title, so I'll say what I have to say here. The Sunni position is quite straightforward. Just as shias, jahmis and the deviant from among the sufis, so too the Sunnis affirm that Allah can be perceived by the human organ of the heart. Moreover, the arifeen also perceive Allah through the Ruh, a faculty through which the average person does not. Both the heart and the ruh are human faculties. So are the eyes. Just like the heart and the ruh have been given power by Allah to perceive him in some way, likewise we affirm that in the hereafter Allah will allow the eyes of the believers to perceive Him in the hereafter. Without any tajseem, without entering into kayfiyyah, without tashbeeh. This is the agreed-upon position of the Ahlus-Sunnah, and whoever says otherwise is fooling themselves and others.
  17. Ittaqillah. Fear Allah. I do not say this to just add more spice and drama to this discussion, I really do mean it. Slips in this area are very, very serious. Some can take one outside the fold of ahlus-sunnah, and others can take one right out of Islam. You are referring to some philosophy website that claims that Imam Maturidi beleived such-and-such. I say: go read his actual words. Likewise, I brought you what Imam Al-Pazdawi (imam of imams in Maturidi aqida) said, as well as Al-Nasafi, as well as what Taftazani's sharh of Al-Nasafiyyah says. And you bring a quote from some philosophy website? Likewise, you made the outrageous claim that the Sufis agree with the Shia position? Subhanallah! Go read the words of the IMAMS of tasawwuf, not some modern-day pseudo-sufi e-whizzes. Read the words of the pillars, the early Sufis. Go read the Risala Al-Qushayriyyah if you have it. I will repeat: the Ahlus-Sunnah have a concensus upon the point that Allah will be seen with the eyes in the hereafter. Not like other created things. Just as seeing Allah with the heart is not like seeing other created things with the heart, so too seeing Him with the eyes is not like seeing created things with the eyes. I am out of here; this is turning out to be what I referred to in another thread as 'mental masturbation'. Fear Allah, guys. Both shias and sunnis. This matter is very, very serious in both schools so please don't speak without knowledge.
  18. The sick mind assumes that the ahadith indicate that Allah has a body.But to be consistent, the sick mind should also assume that the Quran indicates Allah has a body. It talks about Allah with attributes which, when used for humans, are bodily attributes. I say: apply the same rules to understanding the hadiths as you do to the Quran. Don't be too hasty to throw the words of the Prophet (pbuh) in the bin.
  19. You are saying, "once X happens, your heart will be able to see Allah".I am saying, "once Y happens, your eyes will be able to see Allah". What's wrong with that? You stated one human organ, I stated another. In both cases, the literal kayfiyyah is not intended, which applies to created things. So why do you make the distinction. I am quite aware of him and the status of his creed in the Maturidi school.I would suggest you also find out about the position of Imam Pazdawi, and you will know that he's not a small figure who's words can be taken lightly. Anyway, An-Nasafi affirms that vision of Allah is rationally possible 'aqlan, and is also established in texts. Nowhere does he refute vision. I suggest you read the Sharh Al-Aqida An-Nasafiyyah regarding this point, and it very very clearly supports what I'm saying. Finally I will suggest to you, as I suggested to Ghulam Nabi, to refrain from speaking about this topic - not to belittle you, or to indicate any superiority of my own (I'm a jahil myself), but rather because some of what you are saying, and what Ghulam Nabi said earlier, is in clear violation of established positions of the Ahlus-Sunnah, the rejection of some of which has some very serious consequences. It is not an area in which intellectual doodling is permitted. This advise I give to myself, and the rest of both Sunnis and Shias here.
  20. And who gives one the right to say that we can grasp some Attributes, but not others (like His Dhat)?Please outline the usool you follow in this regard.
  21. If you are applying limitations to the eyes, then do so to the heart as well, with the restrictions that apply to it.If Allah cannot be 'grasped' by the eyes, He cannot be grasped by any other human faculty, including the mind or the heart. Also, tell that to Imam Pazdawi, the Maturidi imam. He definitely disagrees with you, as well as the rest of Ahlus-Sunnah.
  22. Hmm, I was referring to vision in the hereafter, and that is clearly affirmed by the imam of imams of the Maturidi school: Imam Al_Pazdawi.
  • Create New...