Thursday, 20 November 2014


Awakening !

Wahhabi Cult Forum:

Awakening From "Evil Dead"

From  Abu Sulayman


Al-Salamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah,

brother I just said that I changed my views regarding
Ibn Taymiyyah (IT) (d. 728 AH) before six months, so please don't jump to conclusions that I didn't say. 

As for
MIAW (Mu-hammed Ibn Abd al- Wahab ) (d. 1206 AH) and the Wahhabiyyah: 

I had already changed my views regarding them since a much longer time. 
After I saw the things that brother Pluma
(see this thread: and brother Salah ad-Din wrote on this Forum, I started to read more Najdi literature like for example
 "Mufid al-Mustafid", "al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyyah" and "al-Durar al-Saniyyah" and also Wahhabi history books like "Tarikh Najd" by Ibn Ghannam (d. 1225 AH) or 
"'Inwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd" by Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH).

Of cource I didn't read the books fully - especially not a book like "al-Durar al-Saniyyah", which is very long -, but the things that I read in these books were really really terrible and it was fully enough to know, that these Wahhabis were criminal Mariqin and Khawarij from worst kind, who killed the Muslims left and right. 

After having realiized how extreme the Wahhabiyyah were and how much unlawful blood they had spilled, I was still confused regarding the defintion of 'Ibadah and the correct differentiation between Tawhid and Shirk. 

Fortunately I found a very nice article by Shaykh Hatim al-'Awni* with the name "
العبادة: بوّابةُ التوحيد.. وبوابة التكفير" (it's explained in a logical and short way!):

(Note: The Shaykh is regarded as "
Salafi", but to be honest it's very obvious that he's not a "Salafi"

I mean his high level of understanding is enough to know that and there are also other reasons (like for example his understanding of 'Ibadah, his defence of the Asha'irah etc.), why one can't view him as a "Salafi"/Wahhabi.)

The above article really helped me a lot. May Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala bless him for that.

After that I started reading much more from classical scholars and it became very obvious to me, that the definition that was given by the Shaykh was indeed the classical understanding upon which the Ummah always was. 

One has basically to understand one thing and then everything else becomes clear: 

The [lack of] understanding of the
Wahhabiyyah regarding Tawhid, Shirk and 'Ibadah is based upon one main claim and that is their claim that the Mushrikin of Makkah did not ascribe [at least some of] the Khasa`is (charactheristics) of Rububiyyah (lordship) to other than Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala.
 (This claim is basically going directly against the Qur`an al-karim!)

Based upon this major misunderstanding MIAW started to regard any act of Takrim (showing respect) or Ta'dhim (veneration) that has to do with the Qubur (graves) of the Anbiya` and Awliya` as "Shirk" and also any kind of asking for something from them (and he even included asking for Shafa'ah in that, even though this is not haram and the Fuqaha` of the 4 Madhahib have no problem with it at all as it becomes obvious when one looks what they have written regarding the Manasik of Hajj) and said that the people, who are guilty of these actions - even though they do not ascribe any of the characteristics of lordship to anyone other than Allah ta'ala and believe that there is no God except Allah and that therefore no one deserves worship except Him - are not Muslims (the truth is that some of these actions where no problem at all, while others where makruh or haram, but not "Shirk akbar"!).

 In the next step he said that those who do not make Takfir upon these people are also disbelievers (for example in "Mufid al-Mustafid" he explicitly calls those people, who do not agree with his [crazy and unjustified] Takfir as "Mulhidin" (atheists)) and thereby he basically made Takfir upon the whole Ummah of Islam! 

The moment one understands that the Mushrikin did indeed believe that there are things other than Allah ta'ala, who have [at least some of] the charactheristcs of lordship and that they worshipped them based upon this belief, then one also understands that all those illogical definitions of MIAW are null and void, because they're based upon a lack of understanding of the religion and are in opposition to the clear cut Ayat of the Qur`an al-karim and to logical thinking! 

I mean how can the
Mushrikin be "full believers in the Rububiyyah (lordship) of Allah ta'ala without any partners",

- while they believes that Allah ta'ala has partners and that there are other gods than Him and even say that with their own tounges?
- while believing that the angels are the daughters of Allah?!
- while they believe that their false gods can make Shafa'ah (intercession) without the permission of Allah and that Allah must accept their Shafa'ah? 
- while they believe that their false gods have Tasarruf in the creation independently (istiqlalan), so that they can benefit and harm one independently from Allah?
- while they have not even Yaqin (certainty) regarding the existence of Allah!?
- while they're are ready to curse Allah, if one curses their idols?!?
- while they assign a bigger portion for their idols than for Allah?
- while ascribing things to Allah, which they do not accept for themselves (i.e. daughters!)?!
- while not believing in the power of Allah ta'ala to make us alive after we die?
- while believing that Allah ta'ala does not know everything and does not hear everything?
- while they believed that is not possible that one god alone could protect the creation and while they believed that Allah needs help from others to manage this universe?

(Note: On the 
German Forum I posted clear cut Ayat regarding every single point that was mentioned above as a proof that the polytheists indeed believed such things and I also posted the Aqwal of the Mufassirun regarding these Ayat. To this day none was able to respond.)

Can anyone in his right mind - after knowing the above facts - claim that these
Mushrikin have accepted the Rububiyyah of Allah without any partners?! 

Well let's see what the
Wahhabiyyah say (in Arabic/German):

Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman
Schauen wir aber, was Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab, der Anführer der Wahhabiyyah, dazu sagt:

فإن قال: هؤلاء الآيات نزلت فيمن يعبد الأصنام، كيف تجعلون الصالحين مثل الأصنام أم كيف تجعلون الأنبياء أصنامًا؟ فجاوبه بما تقدم فإنه إذا أقر أن الكفار يشهدون بالربوبية كلهالله، وأنهم ما أرادوا ممن قصدوا إلا الشفاعة

Wenn also gesagt werden sollte: Diese Ayat sind bezüglich denjenigen herabgesandt worden, die Götzen angebetet haben. Wie also wollt ihr die rechtschaffenen Menschen (Salihin) wie die Götzen machen oder wie wollt ihr die Propheten (Anbiya`) zu Götzen machen?

So ist die Antwort mit dem was bereits vorangegangen ist: 
Wenn also bestätigt werden sollte, dass die Ungläubigen gänzlich die Rububiyyah für Allah [alleine ohne Partner] bezeugten und dass sie von denjenigen, die sie beabsichtigt haben, lediglich die Fürsprache (Schafa'ah) wollten...

Quelle: "Kaschf al-Schubuhat":كشف_الشبهات

Er versucht hier also ganz klar so zu tun, als ob die Polytheisten die Rububiyyah Allahs gänzlich ohne jegliche Partner bestätigt hätten und versucht gleichzeitig so zu tun als ob das Fragen nach Schafa'ah (Fürsprache) [mit dem muslimschen Verständnis davon] Polytheismus wäre und die Falschheit beider seiner Aussagen wurde ja bereits gezeigt.

Schauen wir auch was Ibn Baz, einem der Maschayikh der "Salafiyyah", sagt:

أما كونه سبحانه رب الجميع وخالق الخلق ورازقهم ، وأنه كامل في ذاته وأسمائه وصفاته وأفعاله ، وأنه لا شبيه له ، ولا ند له ، ولا مثيل له ، فهذا لم يقع فيه الخلاف بين الرسل والأمم ، بل جميع المشركين من قريش وغيرهم مقرون به

Was aber das angeht, dass [Allah] - Gepriesen sei Er - der Herr aller ist und der Schöpfer der Geschöpfe und ihr Versorger und dass Er perfekt ist in seinem Wesen, seinen Namen, seinen Eigenschaften, seinen Handlungen und dass keiner Ihm ähnelt oder Seinesgleichen ist oder gleicht, 
so ist darin kein Meinungsunterschied zwischen den Gesandten (Rusul) und den Nationen vorgefallen. Vielmehr habe alle Polytheisten - sei es von den Quraysch oder anderen - dies bestätigt.

Quelle: "Majmu Fatawa":

Und noch die Aussage von Salih al-Fawzan, einem Diener des saudischen/salulischen Staates, wo er die Aussage "وهذا التوحيد هو معنى قوله: لا إله إلا الله" aus "Kaschf al-Schubuhat" kommentiert:

أي معنى لا إله إلا الله هو توحيد الألوهية لا توحيد الربوبية لأنه لو كان معناها توحيد الربوبية لما قال الرسول - صلى الله عليه وسلم - للمشركين قولوا لا إله إلا الله لأنهم يقولون إن الله هو الخالق الرازق المحيي المميت وإنه حينئذٍ يطلب منهم ما هو تحصيل حاصل ويقاتلهم على شيء يعترفون به ويقرون به؛ وهذا القول باطل

Dies bedeutet, dass die Bedeutung von "La Ilaha illa Allah" ("Es gibt keine Gottheit außer Allah") der Tawhid al-Uluhiyyah ist und nicht der Tawhid al-Rububiyyah, denn wenn die Bedeutung der Tawhid al-Rububiyyah wäre, so hätte der Gesandte - Allahs Segen und Frieden seien auf ihm - nicht zu den Polytheisten "sagt: La Ilaha illa Allah" gesagt, denn sie sagen ja bereits, dass Allah der Schöpfer, Versorger und derjenige, der lebendig macht und sterben lässt, ist und dies würde [ja] dann heissen, dass er von ihnen etwas verlangt, was bereits erfolgt und er sie bekämpft aufgrund einer Sache, die sie [bereits] zugeben und bestätigen und dies Aussage ist [darum] falsch.


I have a question: 

Have the above persons read the same Qur`an that we know?
Well yes, but they've read it without understanding it and this is something very very typical for the Kanisah al-Najdiyyah (Church of Najd)!

And let me give you just one example how crazy these Najdis were: 

Let's say someone becomes "
Salafi" (because he gets tricked by their propaganda and lies!), while his parents are normal (i.e. non-Wahhabi) Muslims.

Now this person still regards his parents to be Muslims - even though his parents don't see any problem in saying "al-Shafa'ah Ya Rasulallah!" - and believes that his parents are upon Islam. What is the Hukm regarding him according to the Najdi Mariqin? 

He is a disbeliever just like his parents! (Of course in real Islam both the person and his parents are Muslims.)

If you don't believe, read the follwoing from
"al-Durar al-Saniyyah" 10/143:

So brother, please tell me am I extreme or those worthless and criminal Najdis?

Have I killed thousands of Muslims (read "Tarikh Najd" or "'Inwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd"!!) or have they done so? Am I extreme, because I call those Khawarij with the name they deserve (and with the name that the scholars have used regarding them!)? 

Just tell me, what I've done to be regarded as "extreme"?

Is it wrong/extreme to follow the classical understanding of Islam and not the new invented religion of the Wahhabiyyah? 

I will tell you something else: 

Do you know how how much injustice the disbelieving American troops, the Wahhabiyyah from "al-Dawlat al-Ijramiyyah fil 'Iraq [and now: wal Sham]" and the Safawi/Rafidhi militias have made in my home country?

 Only Allah knows, how many innocent people they've killed and wounded! Do you know how much pain and sufferings they have caused us?

Do you know that right now almost every explosion and killing of innocent people in 'Iraq - and there is almost no day except that these two things happen - is either done by the Wahhabiyyah (i.e. the virtual and unislamic "state" in 'Iraq) or by the Safawi/Rafidhi militias (whether those inside the 'Iraqi Army or those outside of it!)?

Do you know that it was the
Wahhabiyyah, who destroyed the J!had in 'Iraq, which was led by the Ahl al-Sunnah (and not by them!)!!

Do you know that they even killed people for not giving them Bay'ah!?

Do you know that they don't listen to a sinlge 'Iraqi Shaykh, because according to them they're "evil Asha'ris/Quburis/Sufis" and so on?

Do you know that one of the main reasons for the formation of the Sahawat was them!?! (And Al-'Adnani can deny this as often he wants, it's a matter of fact that every 'Iraqi knows!) 
Do you know that they were and are infiltrated by the Mukhabarat of several states!?

As if that all was not enough: Now they're trying to destroy the J!had in Syria!! Do you know what they have done Syria in a short time?! 

Tell us: Am I extreme or they? Do I regard myself better than the whole Ummah or them? Do I don't care about the classical scholars or them?!?

And since you're from Egypt:
Do you know what these "
Salafi Jihadis" had to do, when Mursi was in power? They were busy speaking about whether he is a Kafir or not! Hope that they're happy now! 
Did you see what Hizb al-Dhalam al-Talafi, who call themselves dhulman wa zuran as "Hizb al-Nur al-Salafi", did? Did you see how they supported the criminal tyrant 'Abd al-Fattah al-Sisi - qatahahullah - and how they have betrayed this Ummah?!?

And not just that! I'm so sure that this al-Sisi - the disbelieving leader of these Inqilabiyyin - is using some of these "
Salafi Jihadis" to make some explosions here and there in order to act as if it was done by the Ikhwan (even though they didn't do it!), so they can kill more protestors (i.e. by claiming that're just killing "evil Ikhwani Irhabiyyin")!

(Believe me these wannabe "Salafi Jihadis" - especially the more extreme ones among them - can be infiltrated pretty easily and the best proof for that is "al-Dawlat al-Ijramiyyah fil 'Iraqi wal Sham"!)

And that's why the brothers on this forum shouldn't expect that much when it comes to these "Salafi Jihahi" groups! Even if the more tolerant ones among them want to do something good, the more extreme ones among them will always destroy everything! This is what they did in Jaza`ir, 'Iraq, Somaliya and where ever they were.

And don't forget one thing: 
These people do not want to implement a real Islamic state, which is based upon classical understanding rather they want an fashistic totalitarian Najdi/Wahhabi state (as if the saudi/saluli state is not enough!),

where it's all about destroying the graves of the Awliya`, digging up graves, accusing every Muslim of being a "Quburi" and sometimes it's also about their obsession with making everything haram for women (i.e. they're just the other extreme of the modernists in this matter) or hunting evil "Saharah"/"magicians" (yes they did exactly this in 'Iraq even though 'Iraq is not known for something like that (i.e. not known for widespread Sihr and even if: Not all forms of Sihr are Kufr, but these people never ever read classical books and that's why they don't know anything and still think that they have the best understanding of Islam. La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah!)). 

Now as for Ibn Taymiyyah (IT): 

As I alread said, I used to regard him as "
Shaykh al-Islam" and respected him (even after having changed my opinion regarding MIAW, because when it comes to Takfir IT was very different from him), but before more than 6 months I read something pretty problematic on a forum regarding the book "al-Naqdh 'ala Bishr al-Marisi" - which is attributed to 'Uthman bin Sa'id al-Darimi (d. 280 AH) - and I knew that Ibn Taymiyyah highly praised that book (as it's mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim (IQ) (d. 751 AH) in his "Ijtima' al-Juyush al-Islamiyyah": "وكتاباه من أجل الكتب المصنفة في السنة وأنفعها ، وينبغي لكل طالب سنة مراده الوقوف على ( ما كان ) عليه الصحابة والتابعون والأئمة أن يقرأ كتابيه ، وكان شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله يوصي بهذين الكتابين أشد الوصية ويعظمهما جدا ، وفيهما من تقرير التوحيد والأسماء والصفات بالعقل والنقل ما ليس في غيرهما").

Therefore I decided to look into the original Arabic version in order to see whether the thing that was claimed, was indeed correct or not. What I saw in this book was that the claim was not just correct, rather there were more statements of clear Tashbih, then it was mentioned on that forum.

Here are some of the things that can be found in "al-Naqdh 'ala Bishr al-Marisi" (which
IT and IQ regard as one of the best books ever):

- it's claimed that the peak of a mountain is nearer to Allah ta'ala than it's feet ("
من أنبأك أن رأس الجبل ليس بأقرب إلى الله تعالى من أسفله لأنه من آمن بأن الله فوق عرشه فوق سماواته علم يقينا أن رأس الجبل أقرب إلى الله من أسفله")

- it's claimed many many times that Allah ta'ala has a place (makan)* and it's explicitly stated that He subhanahu is in one place without bei
ng in another and in one location without being in another one ("وأما قولك إن الله لم يصف نفسه أنه في موضع دون موضع، فإن كنت أيها المعارض ممن يقرأ كتاب الله ويفهم شيئا من العربية علمت أنك كاذب على الله في دعواك لأنه وصف أنه في موضع دون موضع ومكان دون مكان ذكر أنه فوق العرش") (Note: This is Kufr just like the Jahmi belief that Allah ta'ala is literally in every place!)

- it's claimed that Allah ta'ala has limits ("
والله تعالى له حد لا يعلمه أحد غيره ولا يجوز لأحد أن يتوهم لحده غاية في نفسه ولكن يؤمن بالحد ويكل علم ذلك إلى الله ولمكانه أيضا حد وهو على عرشه فوق سماواته؛ فهذان حدان اثنان") (Note: One should look at the context of this saying! This is said as a respone to the saying that Allah ta'ala has no Hadd (limit), no Ghayah (restriction) and no Nihayah (end)!)

- a wrong hadith, where it's said that Allah sits on the Kursi and that there does not remain more than the space of four fingers on it ("
إن كرسيه وسع السماوات والأرض وإنه ليقعد عليه فما يفضل منه إلا قدر أربع أصابع ومد أصابعه الأربع وإن له أطيطا كأطيط الرحل الجديد إذا ركبه من يثقله"), is used in the argument against the Mukhalif

- it's tried to act as if Allah ta'ala has a mass (Thiql), which causes the throne to make a special sound, when He sits on it ("
ويلك فإن لم يكن على العرش بزعمك إلا آلاؤه ونعماؤه وأمره فما بال العرش يتأطط من الآلاء والنعماء؟ لكأنها عندك أعكام الحجارة والصخور والحديد فيتأطط منها العرش ثقلا، إنما الآلاء طبائع أو صنائع ليس لها ثقل ولا أجسام يتأطط منها العرش")

- it's claimed that Allah ta'ala moves and sits and stands up, when he wa
nts - even though Harakah and Sukun are both Sifat of Ajsam!! - ("لأن الحي القيوم يفعل ما يشاء ويتحرك إذا شاء ويهبط ويرتفع إذا شاء ويقبض ويبسط ويقوم ويجلس إذا شاء، لأن أمارة ما بين الحي والميت التحرك: كل حي متحرك لا محالة وكل ميت غير متحرك لا محالة")

- it'
s claimed that Allah ta'ala created Adam - 'alayhi salam - while touching (!) him ("وولي خلق آدم بيده مسيسا: لم يخلق ذا روح بيديه غيره فلذلك خصه وفضله وشرف بذلك ذكره، لولا ذلك ما كانت له فضيلة من ذلك على شيء من خلقه إذ خلقهم بغير مسيس في دعواك")
- it's cla
imed that if Allah ta'ala wanted, he would rest upon the back of mosquito, so what about the throne ("ولو قد شاء لاستقر على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلت به بقدرته ولطف ربوبيته فكيف على عرش عظيم أكبر من السموات السبع والأرضين السبع") (Note: Let no one try to justify t
his saying! Read it with it's context and don't repeat the deception of the "Salafiyyah"!) 

*Note: If a "
Salafi" wants to tell us: "You didn't understand what he means by "makan"", then my answer is: Rather we have understood it better what he's trying to say and what not than you! He believes that Allah ta'ala is physically above the throne (i.e. 'Uluw al-Hissi).
And if a "
Salafi" wants to say: "He just wanted to say that Allah ta'ala is seperate/beyond (ba`in) from his creation and not everywhere as the Jahmi claimed", then we tell him: Yes, but he believes that Allah is seperate with a direction (!), while we believe that Allah ta'ala is ba`in from the whole creation without direction (!) and there is great differerence between the two!

Now someone should tell me: Is this the correct 'Aqidah?

A god, who sits, stands up, has a physical direction, has limits and so on?
No by Allah! High exalted is Allah above what the Dhalimin claim! 

(I have quoted all the above mentioned points [in Arabic] with it's context in the [German] article regarding
IT and his Tashbih in the first comment:

After that (i.e. after reading these things in "
al-Naqdh..." I remembered that I had read a very problematic statement from IT himself, which was mentioned on the English "ahlalhdeeth"-Forum, but somehow I had suppressed it by saying to myself "oh maybe he means something else". (In that statement IT tries to act as if Allah ta'ala has a size, wallahu ta'ala al-musta'an!!!) 

Therefore I started to look more into his book "Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah" (where the quote can be found) and that was like a major shock to me! 

I mean he defends Tashbih and Tajsim all the time in that book and acts as if that was the "Madhab of the Salaf" (and this is not true at all!) and he plays with words all the time (like asking "what do you mean by Tarkib/Jism/Hayz/etc. even though he knows very well what is meant by it as it becomes clear from his own words!) and uses much Talbis (especially when he mentions his little "stories"). (In my opinion it should be renamed to "Bayan Talbis Ibn Taymiyyah"!) 

Now one has first to know against whom he wrote the book:

Ibn Taymiyyah wrote "Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah" as an refutation of the book "Ta`sis al-Taqdis" / "Asas al-Taqdis" by Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606 AH). 

Imam al-Razi wrote that book in 596 AH (i.e. 65 years before IT was even born), while he has in Herat, specifically against the Karramiyyah (i.e. people who were Mushabbihah without any doubt!), because Herat was full of them at that time.

 (The Karramiyyah believed that Allah ta'ala is in a direction and they believed in "Hulul al-Hawadith fil Dhat al-Ilahiyyah" (i.e. that Allah is subject to changes!) and they called Allah a "Jism"! IT also believes all three things, but he simply does not use the word "Jism" (i.e. he does not use the wording in a affirming of rejecting way), while clearly saying that everything that exists by itself must be described with the meaning that the Mutakallimin intend with Jism.) 

Now IT came up and wrote a book not against the Karramiyyah, but rather against Imam al-Razi and acted as if the Imam was a "Jahmi".

Now imagine someone lives in a place where there are many Rafidhah/Shi'ah and he decided to write a book against them. Then after that 'Alim dies someone comes up and writes a book against that Sunni 'Alim and calls the book "Bayan Talbis al-Nawasib". What would you think about someone who does this? Wouldn't you think that this person has at least some inclination towards the Rafidhah? Of course you would!

Now think the same way about, what
IT did and then you should know what he's trying to do in that book. I mean just knowing this point is enough to know that something was wrong with the 'Aqidah of IT regarding al-Asma` wal Sifat. And when one looks into the book it becomes much worse!

Let me, just give you some examples (but I will start with a quote from "Dar` Ta'arrudh al-'Aql wal Naql"):

 Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman
Schauen wir als nächstes, was er in seinem "Dar` Ta'arrudh al-'Aql wal Naql" sagt:

قال الآمدي انه إما أن يكون قابلا للتحيزية أو لا يكون فإن كان الأول لزم أن يكون جسما مركبا وهو محال كما يأتي وغن كان الثاني لزم أن يكون بمنزلة الجوهر الفرد
ولقائل أن يقول إن عنيت بالتحيزية تفرقته بعد الاجتماع أو اجتماعه بعد الافتراق فلا نسلم أن ما لا يكون كذلك يلزم أن يكون حقيرا
وإن عنيت به ما يشار إليه أو يتميز منه شيء عن شيء لم نسلم أن مثل هذا ممتنع بل نقول إن كل موجود قائم بنفسه فإنه كذلك وأن ما لا يكون كذلك فلا يكون إلا عرضا قائما وانه لا يعقل موجود إلا ما يشار إليه أو ما يقوم بما يشار إليه كما قد بسط في موضعه وسيأتي الكلام على نفي حجته

Quelle: ... 2%D9%84/19

An dieser Stelle zitiert er den Imam al-Amidi (gest. 631 nach der Hijrah), der da sagt, dass bezüglich Ihm (Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala) dann die Tahayyuziyyah (sprich: das Einnehmen von Raum) entweder möglich sein würde oder nicht, wenn es also das erste sein sollte (also möglich wäre), so wird es notwendig, dass Er ein zusammengesetzter Körper wäre und dies ist unmöglich und wenn es das zweite sein sollte, dann hätte man ihn auf die Stufe des Jawhar al-Fard (ein winzig kleiner unzerteilbarer Punkt) getan. (Hinweis: Ich kenne zwar nicht den gesamten Kontext aus dem er diesen Zitat vom Imam al-Amidi bringt, aber es ist höchwahrscheinlich in dem Zusammenhang, wenn jemand sagen sollte, dass Allah in einer Richtung ist, denn genau dann müssten einer dieser zwei Optionen, die beide Kufr sind, zutreffen!)
Ibn Taymiyyah entgegnet dem: "Wenn du mit der Tahayyuziyyah seine Trennung nach der Zusammensetzung/Vereinigung meinst oder seine Zusammensetzung nach der Trennung, so akzeptieren wir nicht, dass das was nicht so ist notwendigerweise abscheulich (sprich: ein winzig kleiner Punkt ohne Ausdehnung im Raum) sein muss." (Kommentar: Subhanallah, wie er es immer hinkriegt in jede Angelegenheit seine Wortspiele hineinzubringen! Es geht doch gar nicht darum, ob es getrennt werden kann oder darum ob es zuvor getrennt war und das weiss er ganz genau, was man gleich sehen wird!)
Direkt danach sagt er: 
"Und wenn du [damit] das meinst, worauf man [mit dem Finger] zeigen kann oder das, wovon etwas ausgezeichnet werden kann von etwas anderem (was auch zum gleichen Wesen gehört) (Zusatz von mir: genau das ist gemeint), so akzeptieren wir nicht, dass dies unmöglich sei. Vielmehr sagen wir: Ein jede existente Sache, welches durch sich selbst besteht, so muss es so sein und das was nicht so ist, so kann es nichts anderes sein als ein Akzidenz ('Aradh), welches bestehend [in etwas anderem] ist. Und es ist nicht möglich/nachvollziehbar, das etwas existiert, außer dass man zu ihm [mit dem Finger] zeigen kann oder dass es durch etwas besteht, worauf man zeigen kann..."

So here he's responding to a quote by Imam al-Amidi (d. 631 AH) and as usual he starts with his word games and look what he's saying: He says that one has to be able to [physikcally] point at everything, that exists by itself, (i.e. Isharah al-Hissiyah) and otherwise it must be a 'Aradh (accident), which exists in something (which can be pointed at)!

So basically he's trying to say "
eiter Allah is in a direction, so that I can point at Him with my finger, or he can't exist". And this is also what the Mashayikh of the so called "Salafiyyah" believe! (For example Ibn 'Uthaymin: "وأما قولهم: "إن الله تعالى عن الجهات الست خال"، فهذا القول على عمومه باطل لأنه يقتضي إبطال ما أثبته الله تعالى لنفسه، وأثبته له أعلم خلقه به، وأشدهم تعظيماً له، وهو رسوله محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم من أنه سبحانه في السماء التي هي في جهة العلو، بل إن ذلك يقتضي وصف الله تعالى بالعدم، لأن الجهات الست هي الفوق، والتحت، واليمين، والشمال، والخلف، والأمام، وما من شيء موجود إلا تتعلق به نسبة إحدى هذه الجهات"; source:

Now tell me isn't this Tashbih? And isn't the statement of
Ibn 'Uthaymin pretty atheistic and materialistic?

As for the statement
أو يتميز منه شيء عن شيء", then the one who has read the words of IT in "Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah" knows what he intends by saying this. He wants to say that one can point at one part of the Dhat al-Ilahiyyah without pointing at another point of the Dhat (because in the belief of IT Allah has parts!) and this is Tajsim and Kufr!

And this will be clarified now:

Let us think about what it means to be in a direction: Something that is in a direction must be mutahayyiz (i.e. something that occupies space). Now there are two kind of things that are mutahayyiz: Either it's mumtad fil jihat (spread out in the directions) or it's not mumtad:

a) if it's not mumtad, then it must be like a little tiny particle [that cannot be divided further] (i.e. Jawhar)
or it is mumtad fil jihat, which would mean that one can point at on part of it without pointing at another part of it, and this is what the Mutakallimin would call a Jism (body).

As for a): It's Kufr to believe that Allah ta'ala is like that and I don't think anyone would believe such a thing.
As for b): This
Tajsim and also Kufr!

The correct position is, that reality of the existence of Allah is beyond our imagination and that we're not able to comprehend the Dhat of Allah ta'ala and that's it.)

Now someone may say: Yes, but just because
IT believes that Allah ta'ala is in a direction (I can bring you more proofs for that, if you want... one just has to look what he says regarding the Ru`yah), it does not automatically mean that he has to believe [a) or] b).
I say: That's true. There do exist some scholars who make Takfir only because of making Ithbat of a direction for Allah, but most of the scholars would not make Takfir, because of "Lazim al-Madhab laysa bi Madhab".

But Unfortunately
IT does believe in b) and this means that he accepts the Lazim of ascribing an direction to Allah ta'ala.

Here is a proof for this from "
Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah":

Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman
Und dieser Mann geht sogar so weit das folgende zu sagen:

وإن قال أريد بالمنقسم إن ما في هذه الجهة غير ما في هذه الجهة كما يقول إن الشمس منقسمة بمعنى إن حاجبها الأيمن غير حاجبها الأيسر والفلك منقسم بمعنى أن ناحية القطب الشمالي غير ناحية القطب الجنوبي وهذا هو الذي أراده فهذا مما تنازع الناس فيه فيقال له قولك إن كان منقسما كان مركبا وتقدم إبطاله تقدم الجواب عن هذا الذي سميته مركبا وتبين أنه لا حجة أصلا على امتناع ذلك بل بين أن إحالة ذلك تقتضي إبطال كل موجود... وإن المعنى الذي يقصد منه بذلك يجب أن يتصف به كل موجود سواء كان واجبا أو ممكنا وإن القول بامتناع ذلك يستلزم السفسطة المحضة ويبين أن كل واحد يلزمه أن يقول بمثل هذا المعنى الذي سماه تركيبا

Wenn er (Imam al-Razi) sagt, dass er mit dem Geteilten (al-Munqasim) das meint, wo das was in dieser Richtung ist nicht gleich dem ist was in der anderen Richtung ist sowie gesagt wird, dass die Sonne geteilt ist mit der Bedeutung, dass ihr rechtes Ende nicht gleich ihrem linken Ende ist und [dass] Planeten geteilt sind mit der Bedeutung, dass ihr Nordpol nicht gleich ihrem Südpol ist - und dies ist was er meinte* -, so ist dies worin sich die Leute uneinig sind. So wird ihm gesagt, dass deine Aussage "wenn Er geteilt wäre, so wäre er zusammengesetzt und die Falschheit dessen ist bereits vorangegangen", [so] ist die Antwort darauf bereits vorangegangen bezüglich dem, was du als "zusammengesetzt" bezeichnet hast 
und es wurde klar, dass es überhaupt kein Beweis darstellt darüber, dass dies [bezüglich dem Schöpfe] unmöglich wäre. Vielmehr ist es klar geworden, dass die Unmöglichkeit dessen, es notwenidg machen würde, dass alles Existente unmöglich wird [in seiner Existenz]... und dass mit der Bedeutung, die er damit (mit Zusammensetzung/Tarkib) meint (die am Anfang erwähnt wurde), notwendigerweise alles, was existiert, beschrieben werden muss - egal ob es notwendig oder möglich [in seiner Existenz ist] (sprich: egal ob es sich um den Schöpfer oder um die Schöpfung handelt) und dass die Aussage der Unmöglichkeit dessen (also, dass es unmöglich ist, dass Allah zusammengesetzt ist) leere Spitzfindigkeit beinhaltet. Es wurde klar gemacht, dass ein jeder eine derartige Bedeutung bestätigen muss, die er als Zusammensetzung bezeichnet hat.

Quelle: ... 8A%D8%A9/1

(Hinweis: Ich habe in der Mitte einen ganz kleinen Teil ausgelassen, da er darin nur sagt, dass er ja bereits die Bedeutung von Begriffen wie "al-Tarkib", "al-Tahayyuz", "al-Ghayr" bereits besprochen hätte.)

(*Bezüglich "und dies ist was er meinte": Hier wieder ein Beweis, dass er ganz genau weiss wovon der Widersacher spricht und dennoch immer seine Wortspiele machen muss!)

So here he says that if he by "al-Munqasim"/"al-Iniqisam" he (i.e. Imam al-Razi who said: "أما الكرامية فإذا قلنا لهم لو كان الله تعالى مشارا إليه بالحس لكان ذلك الشيء إما أن يكون منقسما فيكون مركبا وأنتم لا تقولون بذلك وإما أن يكون غير منقسم فيكون في الصغر والحقارة مثل النقطة التي لا تنقسم ومثل الجزء الذي لا يتجزأ وأنتم لا تقولون بذلك فعند هذا الكلام قالوا إنه واحد منزه عن التركيب والتأليف ومع هذا فإنه ليس بصغير ولا حقير ومعلوم أن هذا الذي التزموه مما لا يقبله الحس والخيال بل لا يقبله العقل أيضا لأن المشار إليه بحسب الحس أن حصل له امتداد في الجهات والأحياز كان أحد جانبيه مغايرا للجانب الثاني وذلك يوجب الانقسام في بديهة العقل وإن لم يحصل له امتداد في شيء من الجهات لا في اليمين ولا في اليسار ولا في الفوق ولا في التحت كان نقطة غير منقسمة وكان في غاية الصغر والحقارة فإذا لم يبعد عندهم التزام كونه غير قابل القسمة مع كونه عظيما غير متناه في الامتداد كان هذا جمعا بين النفي والإثبات ومدفوعا في بداية العقول") means that that which is in this direction is not the same as that which is another direction, just like one can say that the sun is divided meaning it's right side is not the same as it's left side, then this is something that the people have differed upon until he says that everything that exists - whether it's wajib (necessary) or mumkin (possible) in it's wujud (existence) (i.e. no matter whether it's the creator or the creation) must be desribed with the meaning that he has called "Tarkib".

Basically what IT here is saying is that everything that exists must be spread out in the directions and this is Tajsim and Kufr!

Or here:

Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman
Er sagt desweiteren:

وإن قال أريد بالغير ما هو أعم من هذا وهو ما جاز العلم بأحدهما دون الآخر أو ما أمكن الاشارة الحسية إلى أحدهما دون الآخر أو ما أمكن رؤية أحدهما دون الآخر 
كما قال من قال من السلف لمن سأله عن قوله تعالى لا تدركه الأبصار ألست ترى السماء قال بلى قال فكلها ترى قال لا قال فالله أعظم فيقال له وإذا كان يمين الرب غير يساره بهذا التفسير فقولك تكون ذات الله مركبة من الأجزاء أتعنى به ورود المركب عليها بمعنى أن مركبا ركبها كما قال في أي صورة ما شاء ركبك أو أنها كانت متفرقة فتركبت أم تعنى أن اليمين متميزة عن اليسار وهو التركيب في الاصطلاح الخاص كما تقدم بيانه
فإن أراد الأول لم يلزم ذلك وهو ظاهر فإن الأجسام المخلوقة أكثرها ليس بمركب بهذا الاعتبار فكيف يجب أن يقال إن الخالق مركب بهذا الاعتبار وهذا مما لا نزاع فيه وهو يسلم أنه لا يلزم من التصريح بأنه جسم هذا التركيب إذ هو عدم لزومه ظاهرا
وأما إن أراد بالتركيب الامتياز مثل امتياز اليمين عن شماله قيل له هذا التركيب لا نسلم أنه يستلزم الأجزاء فإنه هذا مبني على إثبات الجزء الذي لا ينقسم والنزاع فيه مشهور وقد قرر أن الأذكياء توقفوا في ذلك وإذا لم يثبت أن الأجسام المخلوقة فيها أجزاء بالفعل امتنع أن يجب ذلك في الخالق

Quelle: ... A%D8%A9/14

So sagt er am Anfang: "Wenn er sagen sollte: Was ich mit dem Anderen (al-Ghayr) meine ist was allgemeiner ist als dies und dies ist das, wovon es möglich ist Wissen von einem von ihnen zu haben ohne den anderen oder das, wovon es möglich ist physikalisch auf das eine von ihnen zu zeigen (Isharah hissiyyah) ohne den anderen (!!!) (also auf den einen Anteil des Wesens zu zeigen ohne den anderen Anteil) oder das, wovon es möglich ist das eine davon zu sehen ohne den anderen 
so wie einer der Salaf sagte zudem, der ihn befragte über seine Aussage - Erhaben ist Er - { Die Blicke erfassen Ihn nicht, } [6:3]: "Siehst du nicht den Himmel?" Er (der Fragende) sagte: "Doch." Er sagte: "Siehst du alles davon?" Er sagte: "Nein." Er antwortete ihm: "So ist Allah größer/mächtiger."
So wird ihm gesagt (dies sagt also nun Ibn Taymiyyah zum Widersacher): So ist also das Rechte des Herrn etwas anderes als das Linke mit dieser Interpretation."
(Hinweis: Mir ist nicht bekannt, ob der genannte Athar stimmt oder nicht, allerdings ist wieder einmal das eigenartige Verständnis von Ibn Taymiyyah das Problem!)
Hiernach fängt er mit dem typischen Wortspiel an (also: was meinst du mit zusammengesetzt? Meinst du das oder jenes oder folgendes usw.) bis er dann sagt:
"Wenn er allerdings mit der Zusammensetzung (Tarkib) das unterschiedlich sein meint wie z.B. dass seine rechte [Seite] sich von seiner linken [Seite] unterscheidet/auszeichnet, so wird ihm gesagt: Wir akzeptieren nicht, dass dies die Trennung notwendig machen würde (Zusatz von mir: Wirklich "super" wie er immer wieder über etwas spricht, was der Widersacher nicht gesagt hat!), so ist dies darauf aufgebaut den Anteil zu bestätigen, der nicht getrennt werden kann..."

Was wir also hier entnehmen können ist, dass man in der 'Aqidah von Ibn Taymiyyah nicht nur mit den Finger auf den Herrn der Welten zeigen kann, sondern man auch noch z.B. zwischen der rechten Seite des Schöpfers und der linken (die in der Vorstellung von Ibn Taymiyyah existieren) unterscheiden und auf sie physikalisch zeigen kann. (Wie man sieht versucht er dies als Position der Salaf al-salih auszugeben.)

Here he basically tries to act as if one can point at the right side of Allah which is something else then his left side (which both in the imagination of IT exist in regarding to the Dhat al-Ilahiyyah). At the end he starts his typical word games*. 

*He loves to do that especially with the word "Tarkib", where he always says things like "if you mean that He can be divided into parts so that one part is separated (munfasil) from the other part, then this is not what we say... but if you mean that he has a part that is not the other part and that one can point at that part without pointing at the other part, then this is something everything existent must be described with".

Now I ask: 
Isn't that Tajsim and Kufr*?

(*Note: Even though there is no doubt that believing the things that are stated in "
Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah" are Kufr this does not mean that I'm mentioning this to make Takfir upon IT.

He (IT) has already died many years ago and his matter is up to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala to decide and I hope that he didn't die upon this 'Aqidah. 
And there is difference between saying "this is Kufr" and between making Takfir. The first statement is a matter of 'Aqidah, while the second is a matter of Fiqh and should be left to the scholars. 
The classical scholars disagreed regarding when a Mushabbih can be made Takfir upon and when not ("
حكم التجسيم والمجسمة في المذاهب الأربعة"):
While at the same time I want to say that many many of them would make Takfir upon the one, who believes the things that are written in "
Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah".)

In the German article I've qouted much much more from
IT and one can also look at the Arabic link that I already posted in my first post in this thread ("
الصفات الإلهية بين أهل التنزيه وأهل التشبيه"):

After I had red these things in "Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah" I read much more from classical scholars regarding 'Aqidah and it became clear to me that the whole "Salafi 'Aqidah" is based upon propaganda, lies and deception and nothingmore! 

And just to show you that it's not just
IT who believed this, rather there are people among the "Salafiyyah" (i.e. especially those who have read his books and not the simple lay "Salafis"!!!) who do believe this, I post the following words of the Admin of the English "ahlalhdeeth" forum (he said that when someone asked him regarding something that IT said!):

Originally Posted by Haitham Hamdan
Yes this is what this great scholar is saying. And “Salafis” agree with him.

It is impossible for a creature to be present outside the human mind (not to be a mere mental being); and not have a size.

A mere mental being does not have a size or place. Example: numbers. They are mere mental beings with no existence outside the human mind. It is OK for them not to have a size.

Something that exists outside the mind must have a size and place. 
(Note: The red highlighting was done by me.)


This is
Kufr without any doubt and many classical scholars would've made Takfir upon him because of that!!!

And I'll give you another example (it's a video):

Here Shaykh Sa'id Fawdah speaks about a discussion with
someone, where they talked about al-Hadd (limit) [regarding the Dhat of Allah ta'ala] and in the end of discussion the other one agreed that Allah ta'ala has no Hadd with the meaning of Nihaya (end). Then this person went to "Saudi" Arabia, where they braishwashed him and this person wanted to discuss again (because he had changed his opinion)! 

This time he said that
Allah ta'ala has a Hadd (!!) and when he we asked whether he means "Hajm" (size)? He said "yes, but this word is not so nice". So the Shaykh told him: "Well, then say "size" (i.e. the english word)." 

So do people exist, who have such a batil 'Aqidah?

 Yes, they indeed exist and the Mashayikh of the "Salafiyyah" are full of such people!

IT believe in al-'Uluw al-Hissi?
Yes, he did! 
Did he believe that Allah ta'ala has Sifat 'Ayniyyah Dhatiyyah (i.e. that which we would call as parts (i.e. Ajza`/Ab'adh))?
Yes, he did!
Did he believe in "Hulul al-Hawadith fil Dhat al-Ilahiyyah" (i.e. that Allah's Dhat is subject to changes!)?
Yes, of course he did!!
Did he believe in "Hawadith la Awwala laha" and that the 'Alam is "Qadim al-Naw', Hadith al-Ahad" (one could use this 'Aqidah to justify atheism!)?
Yes, he did!

So brother can you tell me, why I'm extreme?

Did I say anything against him, which I can't prove? (Just look at the Arabic link!)
Did I say anything that he himself didn't say? Isn't Tajsim a Kufri belief? 

Subhanallah, people nowadays think that to be balaned you have to believe that Fulan bin 'Allan "comitted mistakes, but it was just tiny ones". What if the truth is, that Fulan bin 'Allan comitted huge mistakes? 

I would be thankful to you dear brother, if you would tell me why I'm "extreme". 

And I just wanted to comment on the following, which you posted in the other thread:

Originally Posted by Ibn Abbas Al-Misri 
Same thing applies in some degree to the Ashaa'irah, as they have differed in several matters of Aqeedah, not to mention the differences between their earlier and later Scholars.

Al-Izz ibn Abdussalam (d. 660H) (rahimahu Allah) said in 'Qawaa'id Al-Ahkaam' p. 172: "And the strange thing is that the Ash'ariya differed in many of the Attributes (of Allah) such as Al-Qidam, Al-Baqaa, Al-Wagih, Al-Yadayn ..."
والعجب أن الأشعرية اختلفوا في كثير من الصفات كالقدم والبقاء والوجه واليدين والعينين. وفي الأحوال كالعالمية والقادرية وفي تعدد الكلام واتحاده ومع ذلك لم يكفر بعضهم بعضا، واختلفوا في تكفير نفاة الصفات مع اتفاقهم على كونه حيا قادرا سميعا بصيرا متكلما
Al-Saqqaaf (an Ash'ari) said in his book 'Al-Jawaab Al-Daqeeq' in response to Al-Ghimari, he said: "As for his criticism to the Asha'ira; then the Asha'ira are many groups upon close examination, and we do not favor the way of Al-Baqilani and what is attributed to Al-Ash'ari, rather we reject their way and favor the way of Al-Ghazali"
أما ذمه الأشاعرة؛ فالأشاعرة فرق عديدة على التحقيق، فنحن لا نحبذ طريقة الباقلاني وما يُنسب للأشعري،بل نحن ننكر طريقتهما، ونحبذ طريقة الغزالي

Rather in many of the topics in which the Salafi Scholars (Salafi in the general sense of the term not a specific group with that name, and not considering the difference between laypeople who ascribe to this school as it should not
really be given consideration) have been criticized for having differing stances, you will find a similar difference between the scholars attributed to the Ash'ari school.

You can find different views of scholars attributed to the Ash'ari school in many specifics of aqeedah (such as topic of the thread i.e. Istighatha, for example, and many others).

This is typical "Salafi" propaganda! Brother why are you blindly believing these "Salafis" without investigating further? Do you honestly think that there were Asha'irah, who had no problem to accept "Yad" and "Wajh" the same way IT did? 

First of all:
al-Saqqaf (i.e. the one who claims that the Imam of the Asha'riah comitted Tajsim!) does not the represent the Asha'irah! Rather you should refer to someone like Shaykh Sa'id Fawdah, who is one of the greatest Mutakallimin of our time.

Second (which is much more important): Yes, there are Asha'irah, who say that "Yad" and "Wajh" are from the Sifat of Allah ta'ala and this is no problem at all. Why? Well because they've accepted "Yad" and "Wajh" as Sifat Ma'nawiyyah (i.e. just like Sam' (hearing) and 'Ilm (knowledge) and so on), 
while Ibn Taymiyyah believes that these are Sifat 'Ayniyyah Dhatiyyah (!!!) (i.e. that which we would call as parts or "Jawarih") and this is a great difference!

As for the differences between the Asha'riah themselves, then it's just Ijthadi matters, but none of them has said that Allah ta'ala has Sifat 'Ayniyyah Dhatiyyah and none of them said that Allah ta'ala is ba`in (seperate) from his creation with a direction (rather what they said is that Allah ta'ala is above seven heavens and ba`in from all his creations without a direction!) and none of them believed in "Hulul al-Hawadith fil Dhat al-Ilahiyyah".

So before speaking about the Asha'irah, who without any doubt are from the Ahl al-Sunnah (unlike the "
Salafiyyah"!!!), one should really inform oneself and not just repeat the same old "Salafi" propaganda!!

I'll try to answer the other posts as well insha`Allah.

Fi Amanillah." 


Muslim Brother said:

May Allah reward you well Abu Sulayman. Subhaan'Allah wa bi Hamdihi, I greatly admire your courage and sincerity (ikhlas) in your admitting of your faults and also publicly apologising.
May Allah reward you well Abu Sulayman.

Subhaan'Allah wa bi Hamdihi, May Allah exalt you in both the worlds for certainly the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) said:
"He who humbles himself for the sake of Allah, Allah will exalt him".

I too went through a similar process of rectification after reverting to Islam. I often tell people that Allah guided me to Islam, and then within Islam.

The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) said, "When Allah wishes good for someone, He bestows upon him the understanding of Deen."

So, may Allah continue to wish good for you Abu Sulayman and befriend and take care of you.


(Edited by ADHM)

Here and Here