Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: March 2012

Audio – Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqubi: Imam Ahmed Raza Khan (RA)

Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqubi:
“In the Indian sub-continent, I believe, the most famous of all scholars in modern times, is the great Imam Ahmed Riza Khan of Bareilly; who was, I would consider the  Mujaddid of Islam in the Indian subcontinent.”
Audio/More info Click: Here

Why did the Deobandi “akabir” write Al Muhannad ?

What is this Al Muhannad?

Quote:
“Al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad (The Sword on the Disproved)
also known as al-Tasdiqat li-Daf’ al-Talbisat (Endorsements Repelling Deceits)
The book was first published in the Subcontinent in the year 1325 A.H. (1907CE)”

Al Muhannd was written exclusively for Ahlus Sunnah scholars of Arab to prove that the Deobandis are not Wahhabis!
Al Muhannd was written by Khaleel Ahmed Saharapuri   (d.1346AH /1927CE)

The Dark History of al-Wahhabiyyah

We start with the name of Allah the Lord of the worlds, thereafter this is a book called:

Umara al-Baladil-Haram

authored by the headmaster of the scholars in Makkah and the shaykh of its speakers, the Mufti of the Shafi^ies in it our master Ahmad bnu Zayni Dahlan who died in 1304 Hijri. (1886CE)

This book is printed by ad-Dar al-Mutahidah for Publishing .
On page 297-298 the author said:

The Story of the People of al-Taif and what they Encountered from al-Wahhabiyyah.

Then he said: and when they [al-Wahhabiyyah] came into al-Taif…

Read Here:

http://salafiaqeedah.blogspot.com/2012/03/dark-history-of-al-wahhabiyyah.html

Imam Abu Hanifa & Imam Malik – THE ENCOUNTER

The third issue tackled in the meeting was about the school of opinion and hadith.
Imam Abu-Hanifa expands the explanation of the ahadith to the extent that he concluded 100 lessons from one hadith.
Imam Malik saw that it as an exaggeration and overloading the hadith which the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) did not want.

Imam Abu-Hanifa replied that in Iraq, Greek, Roman andPersian philosophies and sciences are invading them, so he needs to keep people fixed on the path of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).

That is why he was searching in ahadith to counter the new ideas. On the other hand in Madinah, there are none butthe companions and their followers, so there is no need for expansion in elaborating ahadith.
Al-Layth Ibn-Sa’ad said, “This too is integration”
Both Imams complement one another in keeping Islam.
After the two Imams left the meeting,
Al-Layth Ibn-Sa’ad, an Egyptian Imam whose juristic school of thought was just as superior as the other four Imams but had no students to spread it, was keen on knowing the impression of both sides.

He went to Imam Malik and asked him.
Imam Malik wiped his sweat and said, “By Allah, Abu-Hanifa made me sweat. By Allah, he is a true jurist. I’ve never seen a man debating like that. By Allah, if he told you that this iron rod is made out of gold, he would convince you.”

Al-Layth went to Imam Abu-Hanifa who said, “I debated hundreds of men, but have never seen a man accept the truth as fast as him.”

What happened after that?

Read Here

Was Imam Abu Hanifa “Weak” and a “Murjie” ?

“He [Albani] says of Imam Abu Hanifa:
“The imams have declared him weak for his poor memorization”
(In his commentary of Ibn Abi `Asim’s Kitab as-Sunna 1:76)
Al-Madkhali says:
وأخطأ أبو حيفة حتى في الإرجاء ومات على الإرجاء وورث أناسا الإرجاء
“Abu Hanifa has even committed error in Irdscha ‘. And he is as Murği ‘died and others have the Irga’ inherited from him.”
Wahhabi/Salafi say:
1) Imam Bukhari has stated:
Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh) was a Murji’i.

[Al Tareekh Al Kabir under the life history of Nauman Bin Thabit]

Read more : Here

Salafi’s-Wahhabi’s: Attacks on Imam Abu Hanifa

Dr Muh-ammad ibn `Abd al-Rahmân al-Khumayyis is the author of:

Usûl al-Dîn `ind al-Imâm Abî Hanîfa;
Manhaj al-Ash`ariyya fîl-`Aqâ’id;
Manhaj al-Mâturîdiyya fîl-`Aqâ’id;
Al-Tanbîhât al-Saniyya `alâ al-Hafawât fî Kitâb al-Mawâhib al-Lâduniyya;
Al-Majmû` al-Mufîd fî Naqd. al-Qubûriyyati wa-Nusrati al-Tawhîd.

One of the latest Saudi pseudo –Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamâ`a popelets of misguided auto-da-fés against the real Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamâ`a,

al-Khumayyis began his career with a doctoral thesis at theUniversity of Muh-ammad ibn Saûd entitled:

Usûl al-Dîn `ind al-Imâm Abî Hanîfa which he turned into a 650-page brick he published in the same town, at Riyadh’s Dâr al-Sumayî, to once more hurl at the Umma the Najdî misrepresentation of the early Muslims, the Sacred Law, and the Religion as a whole, making them say the contrary of what they said.

In predictable betrayal of the title, the book is only another self-absorbed, complacent manifesto of Wahhâbism by a Wahhâbî promoted by Wahhâbisfor the consumption of Wahhâbis.

Among its aberrations:

– Al-Khumayyis claims that the seventeen Musnads of Imâm Abû Hanîfa, Allâh be well-pleased with him, were compiled after his time and are therefore attributed to him unreliably. 

Read more: Here

Either Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar Or the current Kitaab al-Ibaanah ?

Imam Abu Hanifa(RA)

Says in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar about the qualities of God:
“He has a hand, a face, and a self. So what He, High is He, mentions in the Qur’an of the mention of the face, hand, and self, they are all attributes of His with no modality (or description).
It is not said that His hand is His power or His blessing, since such would be a nullification of the attribute. And such is the statement of the People of Qadar and ‘Itizaal.[8]
Rather, His hand is His attribute with no modality (or description). And His anger and His satisfaction are two of His attributes with no modality (or description)…”
[8] In other words, to say such a thing would be equal to saying what the people who deny the divine decree (qadar) say and like the Mu’tazilites who say that every time Allah ascribes a hand to His self, it means ‘power.’
—
One must first understand that by virtue of the fact that the book – Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar – is considered to be the first book written in the time of the Taabi’een on the topic of Tawheed in an organized and methodical fashion during an age of great controversy when Sunnis were attempting to codify the orthodox creed of Muslims that there will be statements found in it that may be problematic.
Of course Salafis would find great joy in seeing such statements like the one above, since it apparently gives credence to their arguments about what they refer to as ‘The Attributes of Allah,’ like the hand, face, eyes, foot, side, shin, self, etc.
They could easily make the claim that their ‘aqeedah is correct and in agreement with the creed of the Salaf, since Imam Abu Hanifa who is one of the Salaf says in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar that Allah has a hand. And His hand is an attribute, similar to what they say.
So on the surface it would seem that the argument is over, and that Salafis have proven themselves to be victorious in their claims.
However, a number of other things have to be considered before accepting their arguments.
Firstly, if we are to accept that Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is an authentic work legitimately ascribable to Abu Hanifa and that it represents the ‘aqeedah of the Salaf, Salafis have to accept all that it contains.
So they’d have to also accept the following statementmade by Abu Hanifa about Allah’s speech:

“And He speaks, not as our speech. We speak with tools and letters while Allah, High is He, speaks without a tool and without letters. The letters are created. And the speech of Allah, High is He, is uncreated.”`
In this passage, Abu Hanifa states that when Allah, High is He, speaks, He speaks without letters.

But Salafis believe that when Allah speaks, He speaks with letters and sounds.
So, really this is another case of Salafis selectively abusing and misusing the words of the Salaf and those attributed to the Salaf in an attempt to make it seem that their creed agrees with that of the Salaf, when in fact it doesn’t.
Add to that, Salafis are those who argue that the current version of Kitab al-Ibaanah* ‘an Usool ad-Diyaanah, attributed toImam Abu al-Hasan Al-Ash’ari, is a proper ascription to him.(refer below)
And in that book, it states that Imam Abu Hanifa believed that the Qur’an was created1,.
But if Salafis accept that Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is appropriately ascribed to Abu Hanifa, they have to also accept his words that contradict this claim when he says:
“The Qur’an is Allah’s word, High is He, in pages transcribed, in hearts protected, on tongues recited, and on the Prophet (PBUH) and His family revealed. Our utterance of the Qur’an is created. Our writing of it is created. Our recitation of it is created. And the Qur’an is uncreated.”

How more explicit can the Imam be?

He expressly states in Al-Fiqh al-Akbar that the “Qur’an is uncreated.”
But the Salafis claim that the narrations in Al-Ibaanah that claim that Abu Hanifa believed that it was created is a proper ascription to Abu al-Hasan. And at the same time they consider Al-Fiqh al-Akbar to be properly ascribed to Abu Hanifa.
In addition to that, Imam Abu al-Hasan doesn’t make any mention of Abu Hanifa as being one of those who believed that the Qur’an was created in his more prominent and well-established work entitled ‘Maqaalaat al-Islaamiyyeen.’

And according to Salafis, Kitaab al-Ibaanah was his last work.
So how do they explain the fact that Imam Al-Ash’ariwaited until his final work to mention Abu Hanifa, who died more than a century prior to him, as one of those who believed that the Qur’an was created in his supposed last work, when he didn’t mention him in what they believe to be one of his earlier works?
Did not Al-Ash’ari know that Imam Abu Hanifa was the author of Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar?
They just can’t have it both ways.
Either Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is Abu Hanifa’s work, which would makeKitaab al-Ibaanah – in its present form – not Abu al-Hasan’s work.
Or the current Kitaab al-Ibaanah is Abu al-Hasan’s work, which would mean that Al-Fiqh al-Akbar is not Abu Hanifa’s work.
???
And if Al-Fiqh al-Akbar is Abu Hanifa’s work and Salafis want to use it as proof that their ‘aqeedah is no different than his, they have to accept everything in it without exception.

Now as for the issue of the statement in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbarabout the hand, face, and self and them being attributes, we must consider two things in particular:
Read Here

Q: Eating chicken at McDonalds and other such places in the USA permissible?

Yaser Birjas and Yasir Qadhi, both instructors at al-Maghrib Institute, had a debate on whether it is permissible to eat meat from the People of the Book (Ahl-e-Kitaab), i.e. the Jews and Christians, in the USA.

Sheikh Yaser Birjas firmly believes that eating chicken at McDonalds and other such places in the USA is permissible.

—

Q: Could you please explain to me the position of the Shafi’i madhhab on eating the meat of those who call themselves Christians, in the West, for example, Mcdonalds? Is it halal to eat this type of meat?

Answer: Here

Imam Mahdi and The Return of the Caliphate

Imam Al- Mahdi and Hazrat Isa (Jesus) Alaihis Salaam

Read more Here:

http://salafiaqeedah.blogspot.com/2010/10/return-of-caliphate.html

The Whole Plan For World War III

A One World Order

The planning for a third world war goes as far back as Washington enshrined 33rd degree leading Freemason Albert Pike in the1800’s. Here he lays out just exactly what the full intended accomplishment would entail, down to the doctrine of belief a New World Order would demand of its constituents.

Albert Pike received a vision, which he described in a letter that he wrote to Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871.

Read more : Here