Al-Albaani said:
Firstly, I
don’t think this is what their objective is, and secondly, if their
objective [by not quoting from these scholars or asking for Allaah’s
Mercy for them] is a way of warning then I
say:
These
people [i.e.,
the ones who hold the views mentioned above of not asking for
Allaah’s Mercy] who
you just alluded to, do they read Fathul-Baari [i.e.,
the explanation of Sahih Bukhaari by Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani] or
not?
Whichever
of the two answers we assume, then it is a mistake in relation to
them. If
it is said they do
not read it, then where
do they understand Sahih al-Bukhaari from, its explanation, its
understanding, the differences of opinion, the terminology,
[things related to the] hadith
and so on …
They
will not find, in the whole world, explanations of Sahih Bukhaari
that are entirely Salafi.
They
will not find a [totally] Salafi
explanation of Sahih Bukhaari like we want, and even
if they did it would only have the main points [and
wouldn’t be as detailed as Fathul-Baari]. As for this ocean replete
with comprehensive knowledge, which Allaah granted to the author of
Fath [ul-Baari]
they will not find what it contains in any of the books that have
taken up the task of explaining Sahih Bukhaari.
Thus,
they will lose out on a huge amount of knowledge. So
if they mean or what they say includes, amongst the things they warn
against, preventing people from benefitting from what this Imaam
[i.e., Ibn Hajr] says, then
they will lose out on knowledge whereas it is possible for them to
gather between taking the benefit and repelling the harm which is
what the scholars do.
In
the [whole]
world now, not a scholar after al-Asqalaani and al-Nawawi can be
found, to
this day, who can do without benefitting from both of their
explanations–this one’s [i.e., Ibn Hajr
al-Asqalaani’s] explanation
of Bukhaari and
that one’s [i.e.,
Imaam al-Nawawi’s] explanation
of Muslim.
Yet
along with that, when they [i.e.,
the scholars] take
benefits from both of their books, they know that in many issues they
were Ash’aris and were contrary to the methodology of the Salaf
as-Saalih. So with their knowledge and not with ignorance they [i.e.,
the scholars] were
able to take the knowledge which benefits them from these two books
or their authors, and turn away from what would harm them and not
benefit them....
[Al-Hudaa
wan-Noor, 665.] Source: Here
Note:
See
how he claimed Nawawi and Ibn
Hajar were allegedly
contrary to
the methodology of the Salaf!
We
never heard
this for hundreds
of years until
these revisionists came
to the surface and attempted to put down such giants...
---
As-Sawaadul
A`zham:
The
Vast Majority
The
Ash`aris and the Maatureedis
The ridiculous claim
of the Salafis that “the Ash`aris and Maatureedis were always just
a fringe, heretical cult, and were the minority.”
The
reality is that all the years, the “vast majority” of the Ummah
have been Ash`aris and Maatureedis. That is the case right up until
the present day.
We
shall list hereunder some of the well-known A’immah who were
Ash`aris and some who were Maatureedis. Bear in mind that this is
just a brief list and not an exhaustive one; the actual number of
`Ulamaa throughout the ages who were Ash`aris or Maatureedis is
innumerable.
Imaam
ibn `Asaakir رحمة
الله عليه writes
in Tabyeenu
Kidhbil Muftari,
p.410:
“The
majority of the `Ulamaa in all the lands were upon the Ash`ari
Madh-hab (in `Aqeedah), and the A’immah of all the cities in all
eras called towards it. Were there any of the Fuqahaa of the
Hanafiyyah, the Maalikiyyah and the Shaafi`iyyah except that they
were either in agreement with it, or attributed themselves to it, or
were pleased with the praiseworthy effort he (Imaam al-Ash`ari) had
made in the Deen of Allaah?”
Imaam
ibn as-Subki رحمة
الله عليه writes
in at-Tabaqaat:
“Shaykhul
Islaam Al-`Izz ibn `Abdis Salaam mentioned that the Shaafi`is, the
Maalikis, the Hanafis and the great ones among the Hanbalis were all
unanimous upon the `Aqeedah of (Imaam al-Ash`ari). His contemporary,
the Shaykh of the Maalikis of that time, Imaam Abu `Amr ibn
al-Haajib, agreed with him on this, as did another contemporary of
his: the Shaykh of the Hanafis of that time, Imaam Jamaal-ud-Deen
al-Haseeri.”
[Note: There
is very little difference between the Ash`ari `Aqeedah and the
Maatureedi `Aqeedah; in most cases it is just semantics. Thus, many
`Ulamaa of the past when using the term “Ash`ari `Aqeedah”
included the Maatureedi `Aqeedah in that as well.
The Salafis of
today do the same: when they condemn “The Ash`aris”, they are
including the Maatureedis in that at the same time. The term Ash`ari
was often used to refer to both the Ash`aris themselves as well as
the Maatureedis, on account of the two Madh-habs being almost exactly
the same. That is the reason why here, Imaam Al-`Izz ibn `Abdis
Salaam, even though he mentions Imaam al-Ash`ari, he is referring to
both the Ash`ari Madh-hab and the Maatureedi Madh-hab of `Aqeedah.].
---
(Edited
by ADHM)
