From Abu Sulayman
Quote: 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:http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f...case-al-53132/)
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!):
http://nama-center.com/ImagesGallary...ma_pdf_002.pdf
(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": http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/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": http://islamport.com/d/2/ftw/1/31/2652.html
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.
Quelle: http://islamport.com/w/amm/Web/1086/1846.htm
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?
Answer: 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:
http://ia601601.us.archive.org/16/it...4/10_41823.pdf
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 being 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 wants - 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
claimed 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 this 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: http://www.hausderwahrheit.net/forum...hp?f=29&t=1934)
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: http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%AF%D8
... 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: http://ar.islamway.net/fatwa/12030)
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)
b) 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: http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D9
... 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: http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D9
... 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"):
http://www.aslein.net/showthread.php?t=5275
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"):
http://www.aslein.net/showthread.php?t=16941
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.)
Source: http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=10558
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):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdT7MDJtev8
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!
Did 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.
