The End - 2000 to 2009

Shaykh Yasir Qadhi wrote a nice sarcastic article on the issue here. I highly recommend everyone to read it. SeekingIlm has also posted a nice response here. I’ve also posted a news article below from AlJazeera sharing other scholars views:

Muslim scholars have questioned plans by the head of Egypt’s most famous university to ban female students from veiling their faces on its premises and affiliated educational establishments.

Shaikh Ali Abu al-Hasan, the former head of the Fatwa Council at the Islamic Studies Institute (ISI) in Cairo, said although it was not required by Islam for women to cover their faces, Al-Azhar University should allow women to chose what they want to wear.

“No official has the right to order a young lady to remove a form of dress that was sanctioned by none other than Umar ibn al-Khattab, except for the purposes of identification for security reasons,” he said.

“The niqab [face veil] is not in contravention of the sharia or Egyptian law.”

Shaikh Safwat Hijazi, a scholar and preacher, said he would personally sue anyone who prevented his daughter or wife wearing full niqab from going about her daily life, including entering government offices.

“Preventing a woman from wearing what she wants is a crime,” Hijazi said. “Whoever says the niqab is a custom is not respectable.”

Husam Bahgat, of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, said the series of government decisions against the niqab are “arbitrary” and while designed to combat extremism, only end up being discriminatory against women.

“[Veiled female students] are barred from government subsidised housing and nutrition because they are considered extremists,” he said.

Other opinions

But other Egyptian scholars, such as the ISI’s Abd ul-Hamid al-Atrash, said there would be nothing wrong with such a ruling at a time when the anonymity afforded by the face veil was being abused by people intent on causing trouble.

“There have even been instances of men entering [schools for girls] under cover. So there is no reason why a ruling that benefits the people and the nation cannot be issued”, al-Atrash said.

And Abd ul-Moati Bayumi, a scholar in an al-Azhar affiliated research centre, said most scholars would back Tantawi if he issued the order.

“We all agree that niqab is not a religious requirement,” Bayoumi said. “Taliban forces women to wear the niqab … . The phenomena is spreading” and it has to be confronted.

“The time has come.”

Some scholars, such as Shaikh Abd ul-Dhahir Ghazala, were so surprised by the debate that they refused to believe that the chief Egyptian mufti, Muhammad Tantawi, would ever ban an article of clothing.

But security officials have reportedly told police that there are standing verbal orders to bar girls covered from head to toe from entering al-Azhar’s institutions, including middle and high schools, as well as the dormitories of several universities in Cairo.

The measure is aimed at a minority of women, as a vast majority of Egyptian women wear the headscarf only.

Constitutional support?

Tantawi’s plans came to light when he told a middle school student in a class he was visiting earlier this week to take off her niqab, according to details of the visit published by the independent daily AlMasry AlYoum.

However, a previous directive by the minister of religious endowment to ban women preachers wearing the niqab from mosques was hotly contested. A ban on nurses wearing full veil was announced last year, but not enforced.

A researcher wearing the niqab prevented from using the library at the American University in Cairo in 2001 took her case to the Egypt’s supreme court and eventually won. The court ruled a total ban on the niqab to be unconstitutional.

The court did recommend that women wearing the niqab be made to uncover their faces before female security guards to verify their identity.

On Saturday, scores of female university students protested outside al-Azhar university dormitory calling for the repeal of the decision banning fully veiled women from entering. There were similar demonstrations at Cairo University.

Source


  • RSS feed for comments on this post

  • 67 Responses for "What are other scholars saying of Hosni Mubarak’s Shaykh’s (Tantawi) anti-Niqaab fatwa"

    1. exposing_batil October 11th, 2009 at 1:05 am

      swart moor, to the contarary, I know an anesthetist who is happy to put fabricators like you to ‘sleep’ for good!

      Here’s for examples of how decrepid individuals like you play with words:

      tinyurl.com/yzxjo4e

      This website is actually a thorn in the side of tafawids like you.

    2. true muslimah October 11th, 2009 at 6:40 am

      @ murtadha
      what you are saying about habashis is pretty serious. i know a few of them and havent seen anything to support your accusations of jewish origins and conspiracies etc. in fact whenever i asked about an issue they produced proofs from the sayings of the earlier reliable scholars and quran and hadith of course
      it would be better for all of us to stop spending our time going back and forth and instead endeavor to learn authentic knowledge.

    3. Asmarani October 11th, 2009 at 9:49 am

      I agree completely with true muslimah. This type of discussion is going no where; especially with all of the name calling.

    4. Muhammad October 11th, 2009 at 8:52 pm

      UPDATE: The sarcasm, gossip, and backbiting of Shaykh Tantawi by Yasir Qadhi

      In a sudden turn of events, Shaykh Tantawi denied the mockery he was accused of by Salafis/Wahhabis against the young girl about her niqaab, though he said he still believes niqaab is cultural.

      Yasir Qadhi’s sarcastic article (below) generated a host of responses from Muslims, calling him all sorts of names from “evil” to “dog” to wishes from a Muslim that he die in a toilet, akin to Mirza Goolam Qadiani.

      Unfortunately, Yasir and his followers didn’t bother to verify Shaykh Tantawi’s statements and instead reacted immediately against him based on a dubious source that reported the news about the incident. Yasir and his cohorts should know better that a Muslim should be given a chance to speak and defend himself, and repent if he indeed was in the wrong. They did none of this.

      Yasir and his team should also have given a Muslim the benefit of doubt many times before writing such an article against him and generating a long series of sarcasm, gossip, slander, backbiting, and collective sin.

      After Shaykh Tantawi denied what he was accused of, one saw two main reactions in response as noted in comments in Muslim-Matters:

      (1) The stubborn Wahhabis decided to prioritize their egos over truth and etiquette and continued to try to justify their gossip, backbite, and slander against Shaykh Tantawi. To cover up for their foolishness, rashness, and quick accusatory attacks with unconfirmed information, they continued to justify their sinful behavior even after knowing the facts. Yasir had unleashed such a fury of arrogance and judgement against Shaykh Tantawi that many still continue to eat their brother’s flesh. One can only imagine how many of their good deeds were granted to Shaykh Tantawi who had to endure all of this, and how much sin Yasir and his followers earned.

      Just as I noted in my original article on the topic below, many Wahhabis (starting with Yasir) used the niqaab incident to chart a wholesale character assassination of Shaykh Tantawi — not primarily because of his views on niqaab but mainly because of his standing as a generally anti-Wahhabi scholar who has never supported the views of Wahhabism on issues of `aqeedah and `ibadat.

      Indeed, the hateful Wahhabis who continue to persist in their mockery of Shaykh Tantawi have used his past fatawa and perspectives to justify their current reaction against him. In other words, they wish to criticize and slander Shaykh Tantawi using every opportunity at their disposal – by hook or crook – even if when their behavior has no basis on currently available facts on the matter. They go back in the past to ridicule Shaykh Tantawi when they see that some of their fellows have backed off on attacking him after verifying the real facts of the matter.

      As I type these words, many stubborn Wahhabis still persist in trying to justify their initial unIslamic behavior against Shaykh Tantawi. These hardened souls who have no mercy for Muslims should ponder over whether they will be granted mercy for their ruthless behavior on the Day of Judgement or not. This, I believe, is of little concern to them even though Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace) has warned them of such backward and unforgiving attitudes toward Muslims.

      (2) One could see a change in perspective or at least tone in the words of some commentators in Muslim-Matters. After they verified the facts, they ceased the unIslamic slander against Shaykh Tanatawi and said that others needed to stop and relax their anger. Their guilty conscience was apparent and humility and forgiveness were weighing in on them.

      After all, if one argues with the facts after they’re made clear, it is clear that their behavior is not a defense of Islam but an unreligious defense of their arrogance. So, the tide turns when the real facts are known. It is good to know that at least some Muslims realized their mistakes. They must exert more effort now asking Allah for forgiveness.

      And when Yasir saw the tide turning — when a higher number of commentators started disagreeing with him and the exaggerated, unIslamic reactions his article caused – Yasir responded with an “update” in which he said the following:

      UPDATE #2: Following the release of Shaykh Tantawi’s personal reflection of the incident, in which a much more benign version of the story is stated, where the Shaykh asks the girl why she is so strict and eventually tells a teacher to remove her niqab, and in which he expressly denies telling her that she was unattractive, we will accept his rendering at face value. Allah knows what happened, and there is no need to get involved in judging which of the two versions is correct (the other version, upon which this article was written, was narrated by eyewitness journalists, and links to their videos can be found in the comments).

      We leave his affair to Allah; the information that this article was written on was based on credible sources (even the Shaykh’s office released a statement the next day that affirmed something along the lines of the story occurred, and the Shaykh’s silence since the incident, especially in light of world reaction to it, seemed outwardly to affirm the veracity of the story). No matter how credible the sources, I will give the Shaykh the benefit of the doubt since he clearly stated his version. I would also hope that the Shaykh corrects some of the damage done because of this incident (regardless of which version is correct).

      Lastly, Yasir says:

      I ask Allah’s forgiveness if I stepped beyond bounds.

      Just as Yasir was able to initiate his unIslamic accusations and sarcasm against Shaykh Tantawi based on a single dubious source and without verification of the facts from Shaykh Tantawi himself, he just as easily backed off when he saw the higher number of negative responses against him increase over time when the real facts were known. One reader in his comment even expressed surprise that Yasir resorted to such a low level of behavior that was, according to him, unbecoming of him.

      Yasir did an aboutface on the matter with rapidity. He saw that his own reputation and standing as a scholar were at stake. His popularity as a proper Muslim with good guidance and manners was plummeting at rocket speed and he had to do something about it – quickly.

      What further strengthens this point is that Yasir still has not acknowledged that what had transpired overall was not good for any Muslim and contrary to the etiquette our Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace) taught us.

      In spite of calls for forgiveness, Yasir did not dare to confess that his article resulted in a chain reaction of a wide assortment of unIslamic behavior and sin. The harm far exceeded the benefit, yet Yasir fails to admit or express himself about it.

      Yasir did not admit that his article was too quick to be written based on ‘facts’ that had not been verified by other sources.

      Yasir did not apologize for taking Shaykh Tantawi to task without allowing him to first explain or defend himself.

      Yasir did not care to give Shaykh Tantawi the benefit of the doubt as a Muslim should for another Muslim, in complete contradition to the Qur’an and Sunnah.

      Though Yasir asked for Allah’s forigivness if he had overstepped boundaries, he has yet to ask forgiveness for the sins that others accumulated because of his article.

      And, if Yasir is as genuine and true a Muslim as he portrays to be, he should immediately ask for Shaykh Tantawi’s forgiveness for all the backbiting and gossiping he first initiated against him and the barage of name-calling and pre-Islamic behavior that followed from others as a result.

      Yasir will likely not do that because it is clear that his pride and popularity are more dear to him than his Islamic behavior.

      Finally, Yasir Qadhi should write another article that will be much more important than his first one: a follow-up to this Muslim-bashing-escapade entitled, “Lessons Learned: Why I Was Wrong and Why I Ask Shaykh Tantawi For Forgiveness”, in which he should give a detailed exposition of why his behavior was contrary to Islamic behavior and common Muslim decency. Moreover, his realization that he, along with his fans, had been eating the flesh of their own brother all along since he wrote his first article against Shaykh Tantawi. This calls for a letter of apology and forgiveness from Yasir and his fans to Shaykh Tanatawi himself who was the target and object of master backbiting and slander.

      Indeed, Yasir’s and his ilk’s sincerity to Islam will be shown ever more clearly in how they choose and decide to respond.

      But optimistic I am not. I surmise that Yasir will try not to repeat such a blunder again and will be more careful next time. Yet, even when the clouds disperse and the facts are as clear as the sun, his poisonous vitriole against Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah and his baseless accusations of shirk and bid’ah will continue against them unabated.

      http://sunni1.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/the-sarcasm-gossip-and-backbiting-of-shaykh-tantawi/

    5. exposing_batil October 11th, 2009 at 11:44 pm

      Of course he is going to deny it! He’d not going to admit his fault is he? Otherwise he wouldn’t be Tantawi. He realised the global backlash and he is trying to do some damage control. Those who were present and witness to his farce know very well what happened.

      Al Azhar is very much like the Vatican where there are layers of secrets and protocols. Except in the case of Vatican, it is independent from the Italian government.

      Exposing batil wherever it may be is not called slander nor backbiting when the realities are known and proven. Keeping Tantawi’s track record firmly in mind, there is little he is not capable of.

    6. Asmarani October 12th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

      @exposing_batil, while you are not entirely wrong, you comments are totally misleading. From the time of Salahud-Din Al-Ayyubi until about 50-75 years ago Al-Azhar has been a beacon of light for the Muslim world. And by muslim world I mean the vast majority of the muslims because I know that the Shia and the so-called wahhabis do not like Salahud-Din because he was an Ashari, the vast majority of the scholars historically have been Ashari or Maturidi.

      In any case, despite the infiltration of some radicals and simply old fashion ignorant people into the faculty at al-Azhar, most of the teachers there adhere to the teachings of the 4 Imams in Fiqh and to the 2 Imams of belief. So one should not dispraise al-Azhar by using general statements like you (exposing_batil) have used because by that you would be including upright people as well and this is not permissible.

      I’ll share something with you. One of my teachers attended al-Azhar in the 60’s I believe, I don’t remember the exact dates. While he was there one of his teachers told the class to “write an “essay” about the good things and the bad things about Islam”. If course they told him “there is nothing bad about Islam”. So this ignorant guy responded by saying “then write your opinion”. This took place at a time when Shaykh Abdullah Al-Ghummari and Shaykh Muhammad Zahid Al-Kawthari were there, both of them were great, real, traditional scholars. They weren’t people like Zaid Shakir or Yasir Qadhi. My point is that, we should not dispraise all of Al-Azhar in an effort to expose corrupt individuals within its walls.

    7. Swarth Moor October 12th, 2009 at 5:10 pm

      Baatil,

      I came across that website a couple of months ago. It contains the usual Wahhabi disinformation. It reflects the inability of the Wahhabis with their corporealist mentality to grasp the Sunni positions. Not only do the Wahhabis fail to understand the Sunni positions, they lie and distort them. One of the principles that makes one a good (and honest) debater is that he (or she) can explain the opponents position better than the person he is debating against. Also, if your opponent is wrong, you don’t need to lie on him to expose him.

      It’s like this. When the Sunnis say:

      “Laysa kamithlihi shay'” (There is absolutely nothing like Allah whatsosever.–Ash-Shuraa, 11)

      They REALLY mean it. We don’t mean that Allah is kinda-sorta unlike the creations, or for the most part unlike the creations. We mean that Allah is Glorfied and Great from having the attibutes of any material, physical, or spatial beings. This is what Tanzih means: Allah is Supremely Holy and Sublime from having any similarity or need for the creations. Consequently, we do not read the Qur’an or Hadiths without using our common sense. Verses or Hadiths that some people might MISconstrue to believe that Allah is a light, is close to our throats, was in the cave with the Prophet and Abu Bakr, inside or in the direction of the Ka`bah, in all places, below us while we make sujood, etc. are NOT TAKEN LITERALLY. And you know what? The Wahhabis don’t take such Verses and Hadiths literally–although they claim that one must take the Verses and Hadiths at “face value.”

      The Sunnis start from the premise: Allah does not resemble/or need anything; ergo, Allah is not a body (i.e., not a spatial entity). The Wahhabis start with the assumption: Allah is sorta like us, and that He can’t exists without being in a place. These two assumptions lead to very different conclusions regarding the Creator of the Universe–the Creator of time, place, space, and direction and all that exists therein. Because of the Wahhabi assumption that Allah is in some form (literally) sort of like other spatial entites, the Wahhabis SELECTIVELY insist on taking certain Verses and Hadiths literally that obviously shouldn’t be taken literally. This is why the Wahhabis believe Allah is a giant smiling faced bipedal entity with ocular organs, a tibia, and fingers. This is why the Wahhabis believe that after Allah created space and direction, Allah transformed and materialized inside of a place. Allah, however, does not undergo change or development. Allah is Perfect. Allah did not materialize in a place, because Allah does not need the creations. Creating the creation did not cause Allah to change from being without a place to being within a place. This is very easy to understand–and it is intellectually invincible.

      In summary, the Wahhabis are PETRIFIED of the Maturidi/Ash`ari method of explaining and defending the Sunni Doctrine, because it EXPOSES the absurdities, contradictions, KUFR and outright LIES of the Wahhabi belief. This is why the Wahhabis put forth a vicious slandering campaign against the Maturidis and Ash`aris. The Wahhabis know that MANY of the Muslims today have not learned traditional `Aqidah, and as a result are susceptible to becoming confused by Wahhabi rhetorc. However, when a person learns and understands traditional Sunni `Aqidah–and the rationale for its positions–it is not likely such a person would convert to Wahhabism with its gross anthropomorphic and corporeal doctrines.

      With Allah is the success.

    8. exposing_batil October 12th, 2009 at 10:06 pm

      swort moor, I hope you see the irony in your post. Furthermore, no one case what YOU think. ashari . com is fully referenced. Nothing is personal, all is about exposing the batil of the jahmi ash’ari deception of their taqiyyah. Don’t get me started on cutting and pasting from the site to disprove your fabrications.

    9. Asmarani October 13th, 2009 at 9:37 am

      I really hate to jump in the middle of [Swarth Moor] and [exposing_batil] but this is really bothering me :-(.

      You have to stop cursing the Asharis by referring to them as “Jahmis”. This is sinful for sure. Salahud-Din Al-Ayyubi, the one who freed Jerusalem from the crusaders was an Ashari. He was a hero and a pious person. Muhammad Al-Fatih was a Maturidi Hanafi. He was also a hero and a pious person. Moreover, the Prophet himself praised the ruler and the army what would conquer Constantinople in the hadith narrated by Imam Ahmad and every muslim knows that Muhammad Al-Fatih is the one who did it. If you accuse the Asharis/Maturidis of being misguided then are you accusing people whom the Prophet praised. This is unacceptable! Please stop!!!

    10. exposing_batil October 13th, 2009 at 11:42 am

      Asmarani, I think you are misunderstanding the various strands of the Asha’irah. It is a documented fact that the history of the Asha’irah creed is based on Jahmi theology; however it was the Muta’zilah who had a greater impact on them. I am not making specific charges on individual cases as you keep repeating, but a historical fact can NOT be changed by mere whims and wishful thinking:

      asharis . com / creed

      I challenge you to disprove anything from the site. If you can, I will be interested to know; if you can’t then this will be my last post on this thread!

    11. Asmarani October 13th, 2009 at 12:12 pm

      I have no interest in disproving what is in that site nor do I have any interest in debating you as [Swarth Moor] has been doing.

      My only point is that if you label the Asharis as Jahmiyyah then you are by default saying that Salahud-Din Al-Ayyubi was a Jahmi and Muhammad Al-Fatih was also a Jahmi. Now if the truth dictates that that is what they were then that is what they were. The truth is the truth. However, no says such a thing because both of those individuals were guided in their deeds and in their beliefs. Certainly the Prophet would not have praised Muhammad Al-Fatih is he was a misguided Jahmi. So I am only advising you to refrain from using this term because you are grouping the elites of the scholars and righteous people under this label “Jahmi”.

      …One thing you can help me with is finding a comprehensive list of the top scholars in each century since Abul-Hasan Al-Ashari and Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi. I think it would be useful for people to see one generation after the other and what they adhered to. Since we know that the muslim nation as a whole does not become misguided, if the majority of those considered elite scholars were following the same methodology of the Anti-Asharis then we would know that they are in the right. However if the majority them were following the methodology of the Asharis/Maturidis then we know that they are in the right. Although, it seems I already know what the outcome will be.

      In fact, maybe I’ll just try to compile a list myself…

    12. Swarth Moor October 13th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

      Hooked on Baatil,

      I will give you an example of the lies and deception coming from the site. The Ash`aris say that the Qur’an or Kalaam (i.e., “Communication”) of Allah may refer to two things: the Eternal Attribute of Allah, or the expressions of Allah’s Eternal Attribute. The former (Allah’s Attribute) is UNCREATED; whereas, the expressions, such as, the words in the Kitaab-Al-Qur’an, are CREATED. So to say that the Ash`aris claim: “The Qur’an is created,” is an intentional distortion and misrepresentation of the truth. We say the physical book and the letters and words therein are created, but not Allah’s Eternal Attribute. To the contrary, the Ash`aris were EXPLICIT in saying the Qur’an (meaning the Eternal Attribute of Kalaam) is NOT created. They said this in particular to distinguish themselves from the Mu`tazilah. The authors of the site, i am confident, know this issue. But they chose to lie.

      To make this easier–because i seriously doubt you understand this issue–the WORD “Allah,” that is, the letters A-L-L-A-H and the sound we pronounce is a creation; obviously, the letters and the sounds come in a sequence–hence, they can’t be eternal (i.e., beginningless). The word “Allah” is a created EXPRESSION used to refer to the Perfect, Eternal, Everlasting, Incomparable Creator of the Universe. We clearly do not worship the letters or the sound “A, L, L, A, H.” We worship the One Whom this expression refers to. The letters, and the word, CLEARLY have a beginning–however the EXPRESSION refers to the One Who has no beginning. Similarly, the Qur’an (meaning Allah’s Eternal Attribute of Kalaam) has no beginning, but the Qur’an, meaning the letters and words found in the Qur’an-Book have a beginning. So to make it simple fo ya’, the word Qur’an has TWO meanings: one refers to Allah’s Eternal Attribute of Kalaam, and the other refers to the created expressions in the Book revealed to Nabi Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam). This is what At-Tahawi mentions in his `Aqidah. (Incidentally, At-Tahawi mentions EXPLICITLY that Allah does not exists in a direction and is clear of all boundaries, limits, and bodily characteristics–this statement alone dismantles the Wahhabi doctrine.)

      The problem here for the Wahhabis (so-called Salafis) is that the Wahhabis believe that Allah “talks with a voice” that emanates from a place. Some go to the point of thinking that Allah is repeatedly say “Kun” (as in “Be!”) from moment to moment to make the creations come into existence. The Sunnis were between the two extremes: the Mu`tazilah on one end of the spectrum, who denied some of the Attributes of Allah; and the Mushabbihah (of whom the Wahhabis represent one of their more recent incarnations) who resemble Allah to the creations. That’s why the wahhabis believe that Allah is a giant smiling faced bipedal being with fingers, eyes, a tibia, and talks with a voice. The Sunnis affirm Allah’s Attributes while being certain that Allah has ABSOLUTELY no similarity to created beings. Hence, the Sunnis do not pray to a temporal or spatial entity. In a nutshell, the Sunnis worship the CREATOR of space and time. The Wahhabis, on the other hand, pray to a body that exists WITHIN space and time. In other words, the Wahhabs (so-called Salafis) worship a creation.

      With Allah is the success.

    13. exposing_batil October 14th, 2009 at 2:30 am

      Swat moor,

      >> The Ash`aris say that the Qur’an or Kalaam (i.e., “Communication”) of Allah may refer to two things:

      This is a typical lie. And to prove this point, I bring the statements of one of Asha’irah’s top hierarchy; Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi. The Saying of Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi – There is No Difference Between Us and the Mu’tazilah Except in the Definition of the Word “Mutakallim”:

      tinyurl.com/yg7v6wb

      I will continue to clean out these secret hideouts and take the prisoners who are pretending to be upon the creed of the Salaf when in fact they are upon the creed of the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah and Kullaabiyyah.

      Please do continue swaty, I have swatted many a tafawids like you and your ilk.

    14. Swarth Moor October 14th, 2009 at 11:33 am

      Hooked on Baatil,

      Yes, that’s what the Muslims say: the WORDS RECITED in the Qur’an are created. I know, for sure, you don’t think that the letter and sound of the “Baa'” and then the letter and the sound of the “Seen” and the letter and the sound of the “Meem” in the Basmalah are all beginningless… but then they come in sequence. When a person recites the Qur’an, the letters and words come in an order, that is, one word comes AFTER the other. Something that comes AFTER something else cannot be beginningless. Got that? The One Who is Eternal (i.e., Allah) does not have anything before His existence.

      Like i said, i didn’t think you understood the issue; hence, it is very easy for the Wahhabis to fool you with their out-of-context quotes (and outright lies and fabrications). You are not understanding the theological controversies of the later days of the Salaf era. Simply because the Ash`aris studied the positions of their opponents does mean that they adopted their positions. As i told you, a sincere debater studies his opponent’s positions, so that he can demonstrate their internal contradictions. He acknowledges the merits his opponent may may have. In some cases, he may agree with his opponents–when his opponents are right! He doesn’t disagree with them simply for the sake of disagreeing. He doesn’t lie upon them to in an effort to discredit them. This is the habit of the people of fitnah.

      I will explain this to you again: the phrase “Kalaam of Allah” (or “Qur’an of Allah”) is used with two meanings: one meaning refers to Allah’s Eternal, Everlasting, Unchanging Attribute of Communication (often, the word is translated as “Speech”). Allah’s Eternal Attribute of Qur’an (or Kalaam) is NOT composed of letters, sounds, voices, words, language, etc. (for all the aforementioned are created and temporal). The other meaning of “Qur’an” (or Kalaam) refers to the physical Book revealed unto Prophet Muhammad. The Qur’an-Book contains the CREATED EXPRESSIONS of Allah’s Eternal Kalaam. Common sense tells you and me that the sounds, letters, and words of the Qur’an-Book that are recited come in a sequence–they have a start and then come to an end–hence, they cannot be Eternal.

      Perhaps you are not understanding a basic concept regarding language. A “word” is an expression (that is agreed upon by the speakers of a given language) used to refer to a thing, action, or concept. Consequently, if you told me that you are starving, and i wrote on a piece of paper the letters, C-H-I-C-K-EN, and then offered it to you to relieve you of your hunger, you’d think i am crazy. Why? Because the word (“chicken”) is not the thing itself. It is an EXPRESSION used in the English language to refer to a tasty little critter (that i prefer broiled–or sometimes fried) that is halaal to eat (when slaughtered properly). If you can grasp the above, it will make it a lot easier to understand the Kalaam controversy that occured between the Mu`tazilah, Mushabbihah, and the Sunnis.

    15. exposing_batil October 14th, 2009 at 11:41 pm

      Let’s see what the Asha’irah say:

      http://www.asharis.com/creed/index.cfm

      I’ll leave it to the discerning readership of this thread to make up their own minds.

      Good bye and good riddance.

    16. Swarth Moor October 15th, 2009 at 11:14 am

      @ Hooked on Baatil,

      Incapable of responding, the Wahhabi gives out a last yelp and with tail between the legs runs away.

      @ Concerned Muslims and those who seek the Truth

      The problem with the site is that it INTENTIONALLY distorts the positions of Ahlus-Sunnah. Let us summarize the difference between the Sunnis and the Wahhabis (so-called Salafis).

      The Sunnis say Allah REALLY-REALLY-REALLY does NOT resemble or need the creations. Why do the Sunnis say so? Because Allah revealed Verses such as:

      Laysa kamithlihi shay’ (There is absolutely nothing like Allah whatsoever. 42:11)

      and: Innallaha laghaniyyun `anil-`aalameen.” (Certainly, Allah does not need ANY of the creations. 29:6)

      When Allah revealed the above mentioned Verses, they were understood by the early Muslims that Allah CATEGORICALLY AND ABSOLUTELY IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER has any likeness to–or neediness for–the created things. Hence, since you and i, the sun the air, the lights, the oceans, the earth, the sounds, the heat, the cold, the molecules, the galaxies, etc. all exist within the dimensions of space, direction (and time), then Allah–Who is not like us, at all–does not exist within the dimensions of space, directions, (or time). Again, Allah does not resemble anything.

      Muslims say Allah has no beginning. Allah was before the creation; hence, Allah has no need for the creation. Everything that exists other than Allah is a creation. Space and direction are not Allah–they are creations. Allah does not need the creations; hence, Allah does not need space or direction for His existence. Allah is Perfect and Eternal and not subject to change. Hence, after Allah created space and direction, Allah did not transform and materialize inside of space or direction. In other words, Allah is not a body–that is, Allah is not a spatial entity.

      Any Verses or Hadiths that some might misconstrue and think that Allah is literally everywhere, or on earth, inside of or literally close to us, or in the Heavens, or above the Heavens are not to be understood in a most literal fashion. Likewise, Verses or Hadiths that a person might misconstrue and think that Allah has ocular organs, a tibia, fingers, a pair of feet, hands, a face, etc. are also not understood in their most literal sense. This is all consonant with the saying from the famous Sunni `Aqidah of Abu Ja`far At-Tahawi:

      “Allah is supremely glorfied from having boundaries, extremities, sides, organs, appendages, and devices. NONE OF THE SIX DIRECTIONS contain Allah, as is the case with all created things.”

      This is the Sunni belief.

      The Wahhabis (so-called Salafis), on the other hand, are literalists. They read certain Verses and Hadiths, but did not understand the depth and vastness of the Arabic language and its figures and tropes, and they did not use their common sense. And worst of all, they start with gross erroneous assumptions about the Creator. Hence, the false creed that the Wahhabis call people to is filled with absurdities and contradictions. That is why they say things, such as, “Allah is Eternal,” but then claim Allah changes. Or they say: “Allah is located above the creations,” but then they say in the last third Prophet Jesus is above Allah (Jesus is in the second Heaven–the Wahhabis believe Allah is in the First Heaven). The concept of time zones is also OBVIOUSLY lost upon the Wahhabi. This is why the so-called Salafis say: “Allah has placed His two [alleged] Feet on the Kursiyy,” but fail to understand that the Kursiyy is like a ring (worn on the finger) in the middle of a vast open territory compared to the `Arsh. In other words, they are claiming that Allah has a pair of comparatively tiny feet–or they are saying Allah’s (alleged) feet are proportionate to the rest of His (alleged) body–and as a result, Allah would be like a small speck in comparison to the `Arsh. Either way, the Wahhabi belief is gross and anthropomorphic.

      As one can see, the Wahhabi doctrine is absurd–and it’s kufr.

      May Allah guide us, and protect us. May Allah make us among the knights of this Deen who stand up and defend this Ummah.

      With Allah is the success.

    17. Asmarani October 15th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

      @All,

      Abul-Hasan Al-Ash’ari died in the year 324 A.H.
      Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi died in the year 333 A.H.

      These two scholars are the primary targets for the so-called wahhabis/salafis. I have come up with a very imperfect list of wolrd famous scholars who died between 400 A.H. – 1200 A.H. in order to demonstrate that the fast major of the well know scholars were not on the side of the so-called wahhabi movement rather they were Ash’aris or Maturidis.

      400 – 500 A.H.
      Al-Halimi Ash-Shafi’i, 403 (Ash’ari)
      Al-Baqillani Al-Maliki, 403 (Ash’ari)
      Sahl Ibn Muhammad Ash-Shafi‘i, 404 (Ash’ari)
      Al-Hakim An-Naysaburi, 405 (Ash’ari)
      Ibn Furak, 406 (Ash’ari)
      Husayn Al-Istarabadhi Ash-Shafi‘i, 412 (Ash’ari)
      Abu Mansur Al-Baghdadi, 429 (Ash’ari)
      Ibn Battal, 449 (Ash’ari)
      Abu Uthman As-Sabuni, 449 (Ash’ari)
      Al-Bayhaqi, 458 (Ash’ari)
      Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi, 463 (Ash’ari)
      Abul-Qasim Al-Qushayri, 465 (Ash’ari)
      Abul-Mudhaffar Al-Isfarayini, 471 (Ash’ari)
      Al-Hafidh Al-Isma‘ili, 471 (Ash’ari)
      Abu Ishaq Ash-Shirazi, 472 (Ash’ari)
      Imamul-Haramayn Al-Juwayni, 478 (Ash’ari)
      Al-Mutawalli Ash-Shafi‘i, 478 (Ash’ari)

      500 – 600
      Ar-Rajib Al-Asfahani, 502 (Ash’ari)
      Al-Ghazzali, 505 (Ash’ari)
      Abul-Ma‘in An-Nasafi 508 (Maturidi)
      Ibn ‘Aqil Al-Baghdadi Al-Hanbali, 513 (Ash’ari)
      Abun-Nasr Al-Qushayri, 514 (Ash’ari)
      Najmud-Din An-Nasafi, 537 (Maturidi)
      Abuth-Thana’ Al-Hanafi, 539 (Maturidi)
      Ibn Al-‘Arabi Al-Maliki, 543 (Ash’ari)
      Al-Qadi ‘Iyad, 544 (Ash’ari)
      Ash-Shahrastani, 548 (Ash’ari)
      Abdul-Qadir Al-Jaylani, 561 (Ash’ari)
      Ibn ‘Asakir, 571 (Ash’ari)
      Ahamd Ar-Rifa’i, 578 (Ash’ari)
      Salahud-Din Al-Ayyubi, 589 (Ash’ari)
      Ibnul-Jawzi, 597 (Ash’ari)
      Tajud-Din Ibn Hibatullah Al-Makki, 599 (Ash’ari)

      600 – 700 AH
      Ibnul-Athir, 606 (Ash’ari)
      Fakhrud-Din Ar-Razi, 606 (Ash’ari)
      Ibn ‘Asakir, 620 (Ash’ari)
      Sayfud-Din Al-Amidi, 631 (Ash’ari)
      Jamalud-Din Al-Hasiri Al-Hanafi, 636 (Maturidi)
      Ibnul-Hajib, 646 (Ash’ari)
      Najmud-Din Mankubars, 652 (Maturidi)
      Al-Mundhuri, 656 (Ash’ari)
      Ibn ‘Abdus-Salam, 660 (Ash’ari)
      Al-Qurtubi, 671 (Ash’ari)
      Ahmad Al-Badawi, 675 (Ash’ari)
      An-Nawawi, 676 (Ash’ari)
      Al-Qarafi, 684 (Ash’ari)
      Qadi Al-Badawi, 685 (Maturidi)
      Al-Baydawi, 685 (Maturidi)
      Ibnul-Munayyir, 695 (Ash’ari)
      Ibn Abi Jamrah, 699 (Ash’ari)

      700 – 800
      Ibn Daqiq Al-‘Id, 702 (Ash’ari)
      Ibn ‘Ata’ullah, 709 (Ash’ari)
      Abdullah An-Nasafi, 710 (Maturidi)
      Ibn Mandhur, 711 (Ash’ari)
      Al-Baji Ash-Shafi‘i, 714 (Ash’ari)
      Safiyyud-Din Al-Hindi, 715 (Maturidi)
      Ibnul-Murahhal, 716 (Ash’ari)
      Ibnul-Mu‘allim Al-Qurashi, 725 (Ash’ari)
      Az-Zamalkani, 727 (Ash’ari)
      Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah, 728 (????)
      Badrud-Din Ibn Jama‘ah, 733 (Ash’ari)
      Ibn Jahbal, 733 (Ash’ari)
      Ibnul-Hajj Al-Maliki, 737 (Ash’ari)
      Al-Khazin, 741 A.H. (Ash’ari or Maturidi – not sure)
      Al-Mizzi, 742 (not sure because he was harmed by Ibn Taymiyah)
      Al-Jawjazani Al-Hanafi, 744(Maturidi)
      Abu Hayyan Al-Andalusi, 745 (Ash’ari)
      Adh-Dhahabi, 748 (not sure because he was harmed by Ibn Taymiyah)
      Taqiyyud-Din As-Subki, 756 (Ash’ari)
      ‘Adadud-Din Al-Iji, 756(Maturidi)
      Al-Hafidh Al-‘Ala’i, 761 (Ash’ari)
      Badr Ar-Rashid, 768(Maturidi)
      Tajud-Din As-Subki, 771 (Ash’ari)
      Ibn Batutah, 779 (Ash’ari)
      At-Taftazani, 791(Maturidi)
      Az-Zarkashi, 794 (Ash’ari)

      to be contiuned…

      Did I leave out any scholar that was more knowledgeable or more famous then the ones I mentioned above? Are we to say that all of those Ash’aris and Maturidis were not on the Creed of the Prophet and only Ibn Taymiyah among the 76 individuals I mentioned was guided? Even if someone wants to group Adh-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir and Al-Mizzi together with Ibn Taymiyah then at best they are saying the only about 5% of the Islamic scholars over a period of 400 years (400 – 800AH) were guided and the rest were misguided.

      (wa la hawla wa la quwwata illa billah)

Your Ad Here

MRecent Talk

MRecent Posts

MRespected

MRecognize

MReads

Syndication

Recent comments