| Reply to Thread New Thread |
07-10-2012, 03:23 PM
|
#1 |
|
|
 ashari/maturidi vs hanabilah/athari aqeedah differences are acceptable
Salam
one of the ideas one gets from listening to this lecture below by SHaykh Sham Ud Duha and Mufti Kamaluddin (in the case of the latter the point is touched upon but it is by no means the focus of his talk), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fisz2...feature=relmfu http://www.islamicspirituality.org/l.../ayyuhal-walad http://www.deoband.org/2010/04/hadit...utes-of-allah/ As well as this article from Mufti Taqi Uthmani is that the differences of opinion between the asharis, maturidis, atharis, those who assign a location to Allah those who don't, those who take a literal interpreatation of Allahs attributes, those who don't delve into them at all, and those who provide a metaphorical interpretation (with restrictions of course) all fall within the accepted realm of scholarly disagreement. Often times people will say that muslims are defined by their aqeedah, and thus there can be differences of opinion in fiqh BUT NOT in AQEEDAH. The idea that one gets from the pieces of infromation that i have provided is that this is not the case. there are acceptable differences in aqeedah as well (within bounds obviously), without anyone running the risk of being labelled deviant or out of the fold of ahlussunnah. |
|
|
07-10-2012, 06:13 PM
|
#2 |
|
|
As well as this article from Mufti Taqi Uthmani is that the differences of opinion between the asharis, maturidis, atharis, those who assign a location to Allah those who don't, those who take a literal interpreatation of Allahs attributes, those who don't delve into them at all, and those who provide a metaphorical interpretation (with restrictions of course) all fall within the accepted realm of scholarly disagreement. I was writing a big reply to this but the electricity cut off so I lost it... To be brief, when people understand that all of this falls under the legitimate difference of opinion in Islam, 70% of the Fitnah which is dividing the Muslims will disappear to no return.. but the people are dumb idiots so they'll keep on debating and I don't expect them to understand anytime soon. |
|
|
|
07-10-2012, 09:38 PM
|
#3 |
|
|
 Do you mean all are within Ahlus Sunnah then? Many would disagree with you; in fact, many would disagree with you seemingly considering the athari aqeedah to be the same as that of the Salafi's. The reason why some Ulema make it a big issue is because they (justifiably) don't want people to be of those who stray from the Ahlus Sunnah and if they consider Salafi aqeedah to be outside of it, they will obviously bring it up, warn people, etc. 
|
|
|
|
07-10-2012, 11:22 PM
|
#4 |
|
|
Salam `Aleykum, we got more important things to work for lets see if people will accept their scholars when the fatwa doesnt suit their desires inshAllah sunnis unite together and work for common good whilst keeping their different schools restricted to the mosques and maintan adab towards each other |
|
|
|
07-11-2012, 01:51 AM
|
#5 |
|
|
Why would he say "accepted realm of scholarly disagreement" if it's outside the Quran and Sunnah? |
|
|
|
07-11-2012, 03:03 AM
|
#6 |
|
|
Salam |
|
|
|
07-11-2012, 03:05 AM
|
#7 |
|
|
Salam `Aleykum,  .
|
|
|
|
07-11-2012, 04:29 AM
|
#8 |
|
|
Allah was helping you write a concise answer
|
|
|
|
07-11-2012, 06:00 AM
|
#9 |
|
|
A few notes I want to add here:
Accepting another person`s opinion as being within the valid range of scholarly discourse in no way means you agree with their opinion. to take an example from fiqh: no hanafi, shafi , or maliki who is being true to his tradition will say that it is permissible to read juma`salah before dhuhr time. and we would warn others of our school of thought from doing so. as we would consider there juma`to then be invalid (a lot more can be said on this subject but i`m only giving you the point form answer). however, a hanbali and by extension a salafi would opt for that opinion based on the fact that it has been established wirthin the hanbali school, not withstanding the constant "but it`s such a weak opinion" view that hanafi, maliki, or shafi ulema would hold. the fact is that if the opinion had been established within their school they could of course follow it without fear of being labelled deviant or nafs-followers based on the fact that the opinion is accepted within their school (they have no allegiance to our school so why on earth would they care what we have to say about it's permissibility or impermissibility). however i would of course caution fellow hanafis from adopting that practice because it is completely at odds with our ulema/tradition and not permissible....i.e. you can't pray salah before its time and according to us juma time only begins when dhuhr time begins, so sorry no 12:00pm lunch hour jumas. while my school of thought does not agree with the opinion, we don't go around saying oh you dudes (meaning the hanbalis or salafis) are all deviant and are following extremely weak opinions etc etc. (obviously they don't view it as being soooo weak or they wouldn't have followed it). Obviously i would have an issue with them pulling a hanafi into that, or enforcing that one view on everyone else. but if that's not the case they do as they please so long as it is in accordance with their madhab or what THEY VIEW to be their madhab, let not hanafi dictate what that hanbali should or should not do and vice versa. with this issue of aqeedah things are not soo different, aqeedah does not automatically mean that everyone must agree 100% on every small detail. No one holds an anthropomorphic concept of Allah, despite using vocab some may deem problematic, because despite the language used there is still an element of relegation. refer to Mufti Taqi uthmani's article. thus the key issue of allah being different from creation is still maintained....anyways i've said about all i want to on the subject of aqeedah...i already feel a bad taste in my mouth by mentioning the word "anthropomorphic". or for example another issue comes up which is regarding the life of the prophet (saws) in his grave. one shaykh says his life is just like his life in this world (with a few minor differences e.g. he doesn't have to eat he is sustained by allah etc.) the other group says no actually his life is very different form the life of this world because he doesn't eat or drink etc....the above two views are almost exactly the same it's the way the statement is framed really, everyone accepts that he has a very special life in the grave. granted in the case of the aqeedah differences regarding Allah's attributes i'm not saying that everyone suddenly say oh yeah we're all completely the same so lets just forget the aqeedah (or the details) that we believe in, rather i'm saying hold on to whatever you have (I rather like the way Mufti Abdrurrahman Ibn Yusuf explains things, and have no intention of giving up my views to adopt another school of thought), but don't go to the extent that you now forget that we still agree on the basic principles and disagree only on details i.e. the peripherals not the essentials (not my words by the way Shaykh Shams Ad Duha's words). what was it that Shaikhul-Hind Mawlana Mahmudul Hasan said....something about "kissi or ka maslak chiro naih, apni maslak badalo naih" (my urdu is pretty bad) paraphrased translation: don't change your maslak/manhaj/school of thought, and don't try to change anyone else's either. unfortunately i don't have tripoli sunni's way of wording things briefly. |
|
|
| Reply to Thread New Thread |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
Linear Mode
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
