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

Third Challenge To All Sunnis: Clay Or Carpet.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

 

عن جابر بن عبد الله رضي الله عنهما قال كنت اصلى مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم صلاة الظهر فآخذ قبضة من الحصى في كفي حتى تبرد واضعها بجبهتي إذا سجدت من شدة الحر*.ثم قال البيهقي( قال الشيخ رحمه الله ولو جاز السجود على ثوب متصل به لكان ذلك أسهل من تبريد الحصا في الكف ووضعها للسجود عليها وبالله التوفيق )

 

From Jabir Ibn Abdullah(ra) " I was praying with Rasulallah (ص) salaatu dhur, he then took a handful of gravel in his palm until it cooled down and he would place it on his forehead (place of prostration) if he made prostration from the intensity of the heat". (COMMENTARY from bayhaqi) "The Shaykh said (imam malik)= if it was permissible to pray on a part of his robe then that would of been easier than grabbing a piece of gravel in his palms for it to cool down and placing it down for prostration upon it and with Allah is tawfiq".

 

Do you accept the above? Yes or no?

 

 

Learn English, thanks!

 

The ruling is that it would have been easier to pray on "part of his robe" than to go through the trouble of taking a handful of gravel and then cooling it down using your hands.  Where is the declaration of praying on robe or anything else being haraam?

 

The word "haraam" is not even mentioned.

 

Do I accept that narration?  Who is it by?  Which book is it in?  Chain?  Reference?

Edited by muslim720
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Salam, I've read a beautiful answer by Imam Ali (as) when he was asked about the meaning of sujud. He said: "Sujud is the code of the 4 stages of human life. The first sujud means that I was mud clay

Yes, glory be to Ibn Taymiyyah who said the killer of Hussain (as) was worth more than Hussain (as)

1.  I can assure you that you do not even have enough Shia hadiths memorized - with their chains, matn and scholarly ruling - to go count beyond the first five digits of your left hand and you have so

  • Moderators

Sorry brother, as someone who shapes his identity as per the Sunnah of Rasulullah and not any membership to a special group or partisanship, your narrations are not incumbent upon me.  As you said, you take Karbala as a Holy City, and nearly your entire madhhab, from what is ascribed to the Imams [ra] (though they are innocent of what you ascribe to them).  

 

I have to go far in thinking because you tell me that I should carry a little clay biscuit with me at all times.  But why not seven when sajdah has seven points?

Unbelievable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Learn English, thanks!

 

The ruling is that it would have been easier to pray on "part of his robe" than to go through the trouble of taking a handful of gravel and then cooling it down using your hands.  Where is the declaration of praying on robe or anything else being haraam?

 

The word "haraam" is not even mentioned.

 

Do I accept that narration?  Who is it by?  Which book is it in?  Chain?  Reference?

 

Why would Imam Malik base his ruling upon the hadith if he thought it was weak?

 

Also he did indeed say it was haram,  ولو جاز السجود على ثوب متصل به

 

Meaning "if it was permissible" I.E. it's not, basic reading comprehension skills need on your part before you accuse someone of lying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

1.  Reading that narration by itself, I do not know how you arrive at, "Thus according to Imam Malik himself, it is forbidden to pray upon anything other than earth".  The commentary says that it would HAVE - not would of (common mistake which shows much went wrong in middle school) - been better to pray on a piece of garment.

 

Then again, how does this justify the concept of turbah made from the soil of Karbala?  Did the Prophet [saw] put his right and left cheeks on the clay?  Did he kiss the clay afterwards and wrap it up in a little cloth with Arabic prayers written on it?

 

2.  Read it again.  The narration says that Abdullah ibn Umar [ra] would lift his turban so that his forehead is exposed enough to make contact (with the ground beneath him) during sajdah.  It does not say whether he was making sujjood on bare ground, on dust, on clay or a piece of his garment.  You should take heed from that and remember to use turbahs that give you enough leverage to make sure your nose (along with your forehead) makes full contact with the ground while in sujjood.

 

Lastly, none of what you said addresses the seven points-of-contact which all you have so conveniently disregarded :)

 

I think you are being deliberately argumentative. I just demonstrated that there isnt a single methodology of Salaat in Sunni Islam that is sufficent

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ighatha Ahfaaz, Ibn qayyim jawzjiyya, page 122,  And if you were to see one of them you'd see that they would not pray except on the carpet, and he (Rasulallah S.) would never pray on the carpet, nor a carpet furnished in front of him, however he would pray on the ground, and maybe upon dates, and he used to pray on the reed mat, and what was available to him from these, and if he did not find any of these then he'd pray on the earth..

 

 

 

Minhaj As sunnah, page 151, "And also what Imam malik said, praying on something other than nature is hated, and the muminun (shia, the other says rafidhi) forbid praying on anything other than jins al ard".

 

"Hate is tahreem among the salaf". 5:40


I truly, in a hurry, misread that narration shared Ibn Ahmed.

 

I apologize bro, I do the same thing, excuse my comments to you, I would just like you to take what I say and present to you instead of looking at everything with suspicion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Allah says in Quran: when you prostrates to Allah, Allah sees your hearts not your prostrations

 

Ha. Yea, why obey Allah? When you can obey him in your "heart".

Oh, lets all disobey our parents too. When they tell us why do we not obey them, tell them, "but in my "heart" I do.

 

...What none sense! Please tell that to the messenger:

 

Whoever obeys the Apostle, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them. (Sura Nisa 4:80)

 

Your Guardian is only Allah and His Messenger and those who establish Prayer and who pay Zakat while they are bowing. (Sura Maida 5:55)

 

“Verily the worst of animals in the sight of Allah are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand.” Al-Anfal

Edited by PureEthics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

 

I apologize bro, I do the same thing, excuse my comments to you, I would just like you to take what I say and present to you instead of looking at everything with suspicion.

 

No offense taken.  The "equal to" sign and the name of Imam Malik [rah] in parentheses led me to misread the whole thing.  Nevertheless, lesson learned......no more talking regarding deen while having down time at work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

muslim720, please learn some basic arabic before you start debating people about hadith.

 

Muslim720 is a sincere person who only made a mistake in reading since he read fast. Muslim720 continue studying on this subject, I recommend writing down lists of subjects debated upon between sunni and shia, such as fadak, nazar Allah, 3dl Allah, mutah, etc and see which side has stronger proofs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Allah says in Quran: when you prostrates to Allah, Allah sees your hearts not your prostrations

 

LOL why bother debating how people prostrate in that case. Why bother prostrating at all as long as your heart is right. The debate is not about the sincerity of the prostration rather its a debate of what is the true Sunna of the Holy Prophet (pbuhahp) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

 

Sorry brother, as someone who shapes his identity as per the Sunnah of Rasulullah and not any membership to a special group or partisanship, your narrations are not incumbent upon me.

 

Same words bro.

 

 

 

 As you said, you take Karbala as a Holy City, and nearly your entire madhhab, from what is ascribed to the Imams [ra] (though they are innocent of what you ascribe to them).  

This is interesting, actually in general terms what this just sound is that Imams teaching actually have nothing to do with today Shias, rather our imams were actually followers of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jama'a. I'm very very interesting to see historical and hadith proof for this.

 

 

I have to go far in thinking because you tell me that I should carry a little clay biscuit with me at all times.  But why not seven when sajdah has seven points?

 

 

Did i said anything about carrying little clay (also there is nothing wrong with it)? Where it does say seven parts needs to be attached to clay? When we have sayings that do sujuud to earth, in detailed hadiths it means the forehead. Do you think this small detail have not been discussed in 1400 years?

Edited by Dhulfikar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

muslim720, please learn some basic arabic before you start debating people about hadith.

 

More than learning Arabic, I think in our case, it is the intention with which you use the hadith that matters.  Otherwise, a brother like Nouman Ali Khan who can school many of us (in Arabic) would not have stayed away from hadiths.

 

Insha'Allah, I will post a few points later.

 

Muslim720 continue studying on this subject, I recommend writing down lists of subjects debated upon between sunni and shia, such as fadak, nazar Allah, 3dl Allah, mutah, etc and see which side has stronger proofs. 

 

lol, I was not born yesterday.  I have looked into these issues and it is pretty obvious who I think has stronger proofs :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

More than learning Arabic, I think in our case, it is the intention with which you use the hadith that matters. 

 

It is extremely important. You read them in english but how do you know they have been translated properly and that there has been no distortion? You don't, unless you know arabic. Start with the basics such as the alphabet and then you'll be on your way.

 

Inshallah after a few years you will then be able to start studying hadith, and you'll be able to come back to shiachat with some basic knowledge, then, maybe you'll be ready to look into things like this inshallah.

 

وأتمنى لك كل التوفيق

 

Oh, sorry, let me translate that for you,

 

I wish you all the best.

Edited by Thaqalyn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I apologise to mr puretichs & true sunni for posting a Ayah, my intention was not for debating or to proof anything, ya Allahu ya Rehmanu ya Raheemu ya Muqallibal qubool sabbit qalbi ala Deenik, good bye

 

Please, dont apologize. But I suggest you put in to check on your beliefs because the quran goes against what you said...

 

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I apologise to mr puretichs & true sunni for posting a Ayah, my intention was not for debating or to proof anything, ya Allahu ya Rehmanu ya Raheemu ya Muqallibal qubool sabbit qalbi ala Deenik, good bye

 

No need for apology. The Ayah is significant and related to the case however debate is about Sunna.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It is extremely important. You read them in english but how do you know they have been translated properly and that there has been no distortion? 

 

Well, it is obvious that whatever you present has to be put through scrutiny.  In due time, insha'Allah, I will show you how you have distorted the position of Ibn Taymiyyah regarding praying on clay versus carpet.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Well, it is obvious that whatever you present has to be put through scrutiny.  In due time, insha'Allah, I will show you how you have distorted the position of Ibn Taymiyyah regarding praying on clay versus carpet.  

How is your alphabet revision going? If you need support just send me a message and I'll help you out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Our brother has quoted Ibn Qayyim, a student of Ibn Taymiyyah, to strengthen his case.  But let us find out what Ibn Taymiyyah believed regarding this matter, not his student or what brother Thaqalyn wants to pass off as the work of Ibn Taymiyyah or his student.

 

I read elsewhere that there is a fatwa by Ibn Taymiyyah which says, "prayer on a mat is an innovation and people should pray on earth." (Mujmoo al Fatawa by Ibn Taymeeya Volume 22 page163)

 

This is used by our Shia brothers to substantiate their case in favor of using turbah.  Now, those who have read the book say that the key word is "soil", not turbah, and later in the same fasl, Ibn Taymiyyah mentions wiping shoes with 'soil' if they have Najasah on them.  Would our Shia brothers also permit 'soil' to be translated as "turbah" in this case too?  Would Shias then wipe Najasah off their shoes with their "turbah"?

 

In the same discussion, Ibn Taymiyyah says, "And there is no dispute between the people of knowledge regarding the permissibility of prayer and prostration upon bedding when it is from the earth like palm leaves held with string, straw mats, and the like, and they only disputed about the dislike of that upon that which was not from the earth, like leather carpets from the skin of cattle, carpets, and colored carpets of wool; and the majority of the people of knowledge authorized that as well and it is the school of the people of Hadith like ash-Shafi’ee and Ahmad, and the school of the people of al-Kufah, like Abu Hanifah and others.  And they demonstrated the permissibility of that also through the Hadith of A’ishah RA for indeed her bed was not from the earth and it was only out of leather or wool." [Majmu’ al-Fatawa 22/175]

 

What seems to be the biggest objection of Ibn Taymiyyah to praying on carpets is that it is done on the basis that praying on the ground exposes a person to Najasah.  His argument against that occupies several pages of the discussion.  As for carpeting the Masajid then he does not back off of the argument that this is an innovation.  However that does not necessarily mean that anyone who prays in a carpeted Masjid is sinful or guilty of innovation.

 

In fact at the end of the discussion, the question is raised about the one who puts a carpet in a place in the Masjid and someone else gets there first, should he remove the carpet and pray in the person's place or not?  The short of it is that it should be removed and I think this gives some perspective to what Ibn Taymiyyah is talking about.  Individual carpets that are brought with a person to the Masjid for personal use, due to being afraid of the 'dirtiness' of the ground, and wanting to avoid contact of the forehead with the ground (is Ibn Taymiyyah's objection).

 

So to bring up Ibn Taymiyyah or his student is not a proof for the Shias to strengthen their position.  In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah's argument is even worse for them because not only do they put an obstacle in between themselves and the regular ground but they consider the 'turbah' as having sanctity as well as superiority over praying on the regular ground.

 

May Allah [swt] bless brother Abu Najm Muhammad (whoever and wherever he is) for setting the record straight.  His refutation (most of which I have borrowed) can be found at http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=16922

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Ah so when the Prophet (pbuh) had signs of dust on his forehead and nose it was dirt. The Prophet (pbuh) was dirty? I see the logic..

 

Besides, this is the man guy that has massive enmity towards the Shia and says the killer of Hussain (as) who was Umar ibn Sa'ad is not as bad as the avenger of Hussain who is Mukhtar al Thaqafi [ra]. He also said that Fatimah (as) behaved like a hypocrite and that the killer of Imam Ali (as) who was Ibn Muljam is a pious worshipper. 

 

I was talking about ibn Qayyim's book which is the 'best for clearing up bid'ah' and the Prophet (pbuh) never put his head on carpet, in fact if he did pray on some sort of mat he would put some first from the ground under his head or a stone under his head, like us.

Edited by Thaqalyn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1.  Ah so when the Prophet (pbuh) had signs of dust on his forehead and nose it was dirt. The Prophet (pbuh) was dirty? I see the logic..

 

2.  Besides, this is the man guy that has massive enmity towards the Shia and says the killer of Hussain (as) who was Umar ibn Sa'ad is not as bad as the avenger of Hussain who is Mukhtar al Thaqafi [ra]. He also said that Fatimah (as) behaved like a hypocrite and that the killer of Imam Ali (as) who was Ibn Muljam is a pious worshipper. 

 

3.  I was talking about ibn Qayyim's book which is the 'best for clearing up bid'ah' and the Prophet (pbuh) never put his head on carpet, in fact if he did pray on some sort of mat he would put some first from the ground under his head or a stone under his head, like us.

 

 

1.  Two things: Ibn Taymiyyah is reprimanding those who pray on carpets solely because they are concerned of "soil" - which they consider impure - getting on their clothes and bodies.  Basically, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, if the Prophet [saw] had no qualms with praying on earth, no Muslim should ever have any such qualms.  That is the first point.  Second, when you put a turbah between yourself and the ground you are standing upon, you are insinuating that the earth beneath you is not as "pure" and "holy" as your turbah.  Therefore, to quote Ibn Taymiyyah or share what his student said, does more damage (than good) to your cause.

 

To sum it up, it is wrong to avoid praying on the earth because you think it is Najis.  It is just as wrong to put a piece of clay between yourself and the ground you are standing on since you think the former (turbah) is holier than the latter (ground you are standing on).

 

Lastly, Ibn Taymiyyah did not say anything about "the Prophet [saw] was dirty" (naudhibillah).  Again, he was telling us that if the Prophet [saw] was okay with praying on soil, none of us should hesitate from doing the same.

 

2.  Accepting your verdict, why, then, did you see a need to quote his student?  If you do not like Ibn Taymiyyah, let him be.  Why is it that you quote (more like copy-paste what was passed down to you) from scholars that you loathe?

 

3.  You shared the work of his student.  I shared with you the work of the teacher.  Your original post begins with establishing Ibn Taymiyyah as an esteemed scholar to pave way for Ibn Qayyim.

Edited by muslim720
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I understand that the student gets knowledge from the teacher, but with these areas of debate you cannot rely of ibn Taymiyah because he was a Nasibi and therefore very biased when it comes to the Shia, whereas ibn Qayyim is unbiased, plus there is no book like his according to your scholars like Ighathatul Laghfan when it comes to answering the people of bid'ah.

Edited by Thaqalyn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I understand that the student gets knowledge from the teacher, but with these areas of debate you cannot rely of ibn Taymiyah because he was a Nasibi and therefore very biased when it comes to the Shia, whereas ibn Qayyim is unbiased, plus there is no book like his according to your scholars like Ighathatul Laghfan when it comes to answering the people of bid'ah.

 

SubhanAllah, first you separate the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw] from his household and then drive a wedge between him [saw] and his Companions [ra].  Now, you are separating a student from his teacher.  This is one of the reasons why people find your madhhab strange.  You present Islam as this familial, exclusive and an-almost illogical concept.  Fear Allah [swt] for Imam Hussain [ra] revolted against Yazeed to teach us that this is not a deen that condones familial rule (without reason) or extends special favors and characteristics to those related to you by blood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

1.  Two things: Ibn Taymiyyah is reprimanding those who pray on carpets solely because they are concerned of "soil" - which they consider impure - getting on their clothes and bodies.  Basically, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, if the Prophet [saw] had no qualms with praying on earth, no Muslim should ever have any such qualms.  That is the first point.  Second, when you put a turbah between yourself and the ground you are standing upon, you are insinuating that the earth beneath you is not as "pure" and "holy" as your turbah.  Therefore, to quote Ibn Taymiyyah or share what his student said, does more damage (than good) to your cause.

 

To sum it up, it is wrong to avoid praying on the earth because you think it is Najis.  It is just as wrong to put a piece of clay between yourself and the ground you are standing on since you think the former (turbah) is holier than the latter (ground you are standing on).

 

Lastly, Ibn Taymiyyah did not say anything about "the Prophet [saw] was dirty" (naudhibillah).  Again, he was telling us that if the Prophet [saw] was okay with praying on soil, none of us should hesitate from doing the same.

 

2.  Accepting your verdict, why, then, did you see a need to quote his student?  If you do not like Ibn Taymiyyah, let him be.  Why is it that you quote (more like copy-paste what was passed down to you) from scholars that you loathe?

 

3.  You shared the work of his student.  I shared with you the work of the teacher.  Your original post begins with establishing Ibn Taymiyyah as an esteemed scholar to pave way for Ibn Qayyim.

 

There is  a basic misunderstanding of what a Turbah is. The ruling is when prostrating  your forehead must only touch natural substances such as leaves and earth etc.

 

The turbah was originally devised as a simple way of carrying a quantity of earth around with you ie. sunbaked soil. (imagine you are in a mosque and you have to sweep up all the soil after every prayers if it wasnt shaped into a torbah) There was no and still isnt any requirement of where that soil must originate or indeed shape or size.

 

Soil from Karbala made into Torbas only came about as pilgrimage to these places increased and people bought them back with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

SubhanAllah, first you separate the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw] from his household and then drive a wedge between him [saw] and his Companions [ra].  Now, you are separating a student from his teacher.  This is one of the reasons why people find your madhhab strange.  You present Islam as this familial, exclusive and an-almost illogical concept.  Fear Allah [swt] for Imam Hussain [ra] revolted against Yazeed to teach us that this is not a deen that condones familial rule (without reason) or extends special favors and characteristics to those related to you by blood.

Sorry, but you know nothing about the nasb of ibn Taymiyyah- learn Arabic then start reading what he writes:

 

In his book, Minhaj al Sunnah, volume 4, page 255, let us see what he has to say about the enemies of Ahlul Bayt:

 

"The person who killed Umar was a kafir, and had utmost hate for the religion of Islam, and so he killed Umar out of the hatred he had for the Prophet and his ummah", alright, no problem, now let us see what he says next,

 

"and as for the one who killed Ali, he was a believer, and would pray, and fast, and recite the Quran, and he killed Ali believing that Allah and his Prophet would be very happy that he killed Ali, and he did it out of love for Allah and his Prophet"

 

 

 

​You agree with that? 

Edited by Thaqalyn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

 

 

"The person who killed Umar was a kafir, and had utmost hate for the religion of Islam, and so he killed Umar out of the hatred he had for the Prophet and his ummah", alright, no problem, now let us see what he says next,

 

"and as for the one who killed Ali, he was a believer, and would pray, and fast, and recite the Quran, and he killed Ali believing that Allah and his Prophet would be very happy that he killed Ali, and he did it out of love for Allah and his Prophet"

 

 

 

The way I read this statement is that it is being said from the view point of the killer. Abu Lulu is widely considered to be a Kaffir. Some wrongly guided Shias seem to elevate his status to muslim but that is unlikely/

 

He then equates hatred for Umar with hatred for Islam. Which is a standard Sunni belief if they dont recognise Shia

 

He then classifies Kharijis as Muslim. Rightly or wrongly that is what he does.

 

The debate should be are Kharijis muslims.

 

A better comparison and more illuminating view would be his opinion on the killers of Uthman

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

So you agree with Ibn Taymiyyahs analysis. Ok, I don't know what to say to you. You tell me you love Ahlul Bayt..

 

Even worse:

 

Who killed Imam Hussain? Omar ibn Sa'ad. Who gained revenge for Imam Hussain  (as) ? Mukhtar al Thaqafi [ra]. Let us see what Ibn Taymiyyah's opinion is on these two,"Omar ibn Sa'ads sin (killing Hussain) was not as bad as that of Mukhtar, who gained revenge for the murder of Hussain by killing his killer(who is Umar ibn Sa'ad). That Shi'i (Mukhtar [ra]) is more evil than that hater of Ahlul Bayt (Omar ibn Sa'ad)"

 

According to Ibn Taymiyyah it is was worse to kill  the one who murdered Imam Hussain (as) (may Allah bless Mukhtar al Thaqafi [ra] for doing that) than to kill Imam Hussain (as) . You agree with that too do you?

Edited by Thaqalyn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

So you agree with Ibn Taymiyyahs analysis. Ok, I don't know what to say to you. You tell me you love Ahlul Bayt..

 

Even worse:

 

Who killed Imam Hussain? Omar ibn Sa'ad. Who gained revenge for Imam Hussain  (as) ? Mukhtar al Thaqafi [ra]. Let us see what Ibn Taymiyyah's opinion is on these two,"Omar ibn Sa'ads sin (killing Hussain) was not as bad as that of Mukhtar, who gained revenge for the murder of Hussain by killing his killer(who is Umar ibn Sa'ad). That Shi'i (Mukhtar [ra]) is more evil than that hater of Ahlul Bayt (Omar ibn Sa'ad)"

 

According to Ibn Taymiyyah it is was worse to kill  the one who murdered Imam Hussain (as) (may Allah bless Mukhtar al Thaqafi [ra] for doing that) than to kill the to kill Imam Hussain (as) . You agree with that too do you?

 

I am only telling you that in my opinion it is told from the point of view of the Killer. If you want to judge whether he is a Nasibi or not you must ascertain what he said about Uthmans killers.

 

If he said Uthmans killers are muslim etc then you have to look further. If he said Uthmans killers were not muslim then your case is proved.

 

Since this is an academic discussion. Points must be proved on a academic basis not an emotional one. So in summary since you are at pains to throw accusations at me. I must say i  dont agree but since this is a debate points must be debated properly

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I must say i  dont agree but since this is a debate points must be debated properly

Thank you brother. What I am trying to say is Ibn Taymiyyah was a nasibi and cannot be trusted in these areas of Shia/Sunni debate but Ibn Qayyim can.

Edited by Thaqalyn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...