[2swasseneons]

So bro what is the difference between present day salafis and traditional Hanbalis?

Salafis are of different types, so when I say Hanbalis have always been Salafi in Aqeedah, I'm referring to to Tawheed Asma wa Sifaat, because that is where the biggest difference lies between the Hanaabilah and the other two groups of Aqeedah.

In which case you have Salafis who are NOT Hanbali in fiqh, but still in terms of Asma wa Sifaat have the same belief. They may even be Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maaliki, Ahlul Hadeeth, or have absolutely no fiqh at all.

For the most part the scholars of Saudi follow the Hanbali Method of fiqh and usool al fiqh, some of them are stronger than others so you have to be careful as to who you decide to measure for "Hanbalism" and why, but at the end of the day, like I said. Following Ibn Taymiyyahs opinions does not take one outside of the Hanbali Madhab, in fact Ijtihaad and Tarjeeh in the Madhab is something much more easy for scholars, allowing them more freedom, without locking them down to one opinion. This is how it has always been.

[FYvWldC0]

Salafis are of different types, so when I say Hanbalis have always been Salafi in Aqeedah, I'm referring to to Tawheed Asma wa Sifaat, because that is where the biggest difference lies between the Hanaabilah and the other two groups of Aqeedah.

In which case you have Salafis who are NOT Hanbali in fiqh, but still in terms of Asma wa Sifaat have the same belief. They may even be Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maaliki, Ahlul Hadeeth, or have absolutely no fiqh at all.

For the most part the scholars of Saudi follow the Hanbali Method of fiqh and usool al fiqh, some of them are stronger than others so you have to be careful as to who you decide to measure for "Hanbalism" and why, but at the end of the day, like I said. Following Ibn Taymiyyahs opinions does not take one outside of the Hanbali Madhab, in fact Ijtihaad and Tarjeeh in the Madhab is something much more easy for scholars, allowing them more freedom, without locking them down to one opinion. This is how it has always been.

Oh ok. So salafis have changed path in 'fiqh' rather than Aqeedah.

But I have say the salafis in the sub continent(ahle hadith) are really a fitna, they ve gone into extremes of takfiri etc etc.

[zooworms]

Well, Salafi's will obviously attribute Salafi aqeedah to all the Hanbali's including Imam Ahmad and others but non Salafi scholars would dispute this and claim that the aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah and the aqeedah of ibn Hanbal and others was different.

[Nurba]

Well, Salafi's will obviously attribute Salafi aqeedah to all the Hanbali's including Imam Ahmad and others but non Salafi scholars would dispute this and claim that the aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah and the aqeedah of ibn Hanbal and others was different.

Hmmm... I wish I could meet a true Hanbali scholar... rather than salafis who pretend to be hanbalis n create confusion...

[Doctorpills]

Assalamualaikum,

How can we forget the Imam of Ka'ba, Shaykh sudais (db), he follows the hanbali school of thought.

proof?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h8UO...1&feature=plcp

[Daleman1984]

Assalamualaikum,

How can we forget the Imam of Ka'ba, Shaykh sudais (db), he follows the hanbali school of thought.

proof?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h8UO...1&feature=plcp

This doesn't prove that he isn't a salafi, it just proves that he is a muqallid of a madhab. A salafi is one who follows the aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah (which the salafi's attribute to the salaf, hence the name)- are you saying Imam of Ka'ba does not follow that aqeedah, even though he would never have been hired if he was not?

[baritkello]

This doesn't prove that he isn't a salafi, it just proves that he is a muqallid of a madhab. A salafi is one who follows the aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah (which the salafi's attribute to the salaf, hence the name)- are you saying Imam of Ka'ba does not follow that aqeedah, even though he would never have been hired if he was not?

There is nothing that Ibn Taymiyyah said in Aqeedah except that before him either:

1) A salaf said it.

2) Another Hanbali said it.

[Storwaytozy]

There is nothing that Ibn Taymiyyah said in Aqeedah except that before him either:

1) A salaf said it.

2) Another Hanbali said it.

Yes, that is what the Salafi's claim but do you dispute that non Salafi Ulema (many of them or maybe a majority of them) claim otherwise? This is what the whole aqeedah debate is about, if the Ashari's believed that the aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah was the same as the aqeedah of at least some of the salaf, they wouldn't have a problem.

And let's face it, its not something that me or you can sort out over the internet. In the end, people will make taqleed of their own Ulema and if these Ulema believe the salafi aqeedah to be bidah, so will the layman and if these Ulema believe otherwise, then so would the laymen

[Spisivavona]

Yes, that is what the Salafi's claim but do you dispute that non Salafi Ulema (many of them or maybe a majority of them) claim otherwise? This is what the whole aqeedah debate is about, if the Ashari's believed that the aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah was the same as the aqeedah of at least some of the salaf, they wouldn't have a problem.

I could care less what people claim, the proof is in the pudding.

People can talk all day long, but when you go look at the books of the Hanaabilah, before and after ibn taymiyyah, you find that they are strikingly similar, and after him they respected and quoted him on numerous occasions, in Aqeedah (and fiqh.)

So no I don't deny that non-salafi ulama say that, but either they didn't read the books of the Salaf/Hanaabilah, or are covering up the truth.

And let's face it, its not something that me or you can sort out over the internet. In the end, people will make taqleed of their own Ulema and if these Ulema believe the salafi aqeedah to be bidah, so will the layman and if these Ulema believe otherwise, then so would the laymen

[ There is no Taqleed in Aqeedah.

[MinisuipGaicai]

I could care less what people claim, the proof is in the pudding.

People can talk all day long, but when you go look at the books of the Hanaabilah, before and after ibn taymiyyah, you find that they are strikingly similar, and after him they respected and quoted him on numerous occasions, in Aqeedah (and fiqh.)

So no I don't deny that non-salafi ulama say that, but either they didn't read the books of the Salaf/Hanaabilah, or are covering up the truth.



There is no Taqleed in Aqeedah.

Ok bro, whatever you say. I've seen enough of these debates to know it isn't as simple of a picture as you are making it out to be

And I didn't say they were making taqleed in aqeedah but if you think people don't make taqleed of their ulema when it comes to believing who is Ahlus Sunnah and who is not...

[FUNALA]

Ok bro, whatever you say. I've seen enough of these debates to know it isn't as simple of a picture as you are making it out to be

And I didn't say they were making taqleed in aqeedah but if you think people don't make taqleed of their ulema when it comes to believing who is Ahlus Sunnah and who is not...

It's extremely simple.

Attack Ibn Taymiyyah, and it allows you to live in a safe bubble were you think the Salafi Aqeedah is something new and didn't exist prior to Ibn Taymiyyah, even though the Ashari books constantly talk about the Hanbalis in general in negative ways.


Okay, people can make taqleed of their ulama, I have no problem with that, however, that taqleed only makes them look stupid when they come to find out that what Ibn Taymiyyah said can be found in any Hanbali book besides his.


Have you ever noticed anyone ever actually present proof that the Hanaabilah differ from ibn Taymiyyah, and how?

[Ivanaishere]

It's extremely simple.

Attack Ibn Taymiyyah, and it allows you to live in a safe bubble were you think the Salafi Aqeedah is something new and didn't exist prior to Ibn Taymiyyah, even though the Ashari books constantly talk about the Hanbalis in general in negative ways.


Okay, people can make taqleed of their ulama, I have no problem with that, however, that taqleed only makes them look stupid when they come to find out that what Ibn Taymiyyah said can be found in any Hanbali book besides his.


Have you ever noticed anyone ever actually present proof that the Hanaabilah differ from ibn Taymiyyah, and how?

Yes. When I first got involved in general research into the issue of aqeedah etc, I did see some resources on the difference between Ibn Taymiyyah and Hanbali's previous to him including Imam Ahmad and I found articles claiming the opposite etc... this was before I joined sunniforum so a few years ago I guess.

[qikolax]

I vote that anyone to whom this debate about whether Ibn Taymiyyah's aqeedah is represented by the Hanabilah after him, is being translated (meaning someone who can't read the original sources) should stay out of it.

Then it just becomes muqallideen of internet articles yelling at other muqallideen of internet articles which is something that is beyond pointless; even worse, a muqallid of internet articles yelling at someone who can access the source books and tell you himself what the story is! That's the scarier part.

In any event, let us put bickering over aqeedah issues on hold, since nobody changes their opinion on the basis of Sunniforum arguments anyway, especially when one is a muqallid of translators in this issue.