[romalama]

Generally speaking I have no problem with Sunni forum, I enjoy having conversations with a lot of the brothers here and love them for the sake of Allah. However, I really dislike the bias that is shown, even though subtle.

I have nothing to hide nor lie about, and if anyone asks me concerning the Deoband/Hanafis/Maturidis I will tell them exactly how I feel, and for the most part I appreciate a lot tthat the Deoband do and believe in, I have no problem as well with the Hanafi Madhab, but I guess you can say my biggest conflict is with the Aqeedah portion of the Maturidi way, however, I have never considered them to be outside of Ahlul Sunnah, even if I disagree with some points that they have.

My blog, has NOTHING in regards to dispraising anyone of those three groups above, I guess the only thing that maybe disliked in it, is the quote I posted from the Ashari book concerning the Quran being created, however, outside of that I can't really see the problem with my blog. And even that post, asked Allah to forgive him, and I can say for sure it's not out of context.

It was said my blog is too "Salafi" but what exactly is the meaning of Salafi here? I follow a Madhab, I also respect and follow the scholars of Saudi in regards to the Madhab, I also quote and respect the scholars of the Hanbali Madhab in regards to Aqeedah and Fiqh, So I'm asking sincerely what is the problem with my blog that forces the Mods to delete links to it?

If the Hanbali Aqeedah version of Ibn Qudaama, Ibn Rajab, Etc etc... is not allowed on Sunni forums, just say that so we know where we stand. If you consider Tafweedh 50% not to be part of Ahl Sunnah, say that so we know where we stand, however if you deem "Salafi, Wahhabis" to be from Ahlul Sunnah, there is no room for bias, rather there is only room for having a sincere open opinion and debate, your bias is fine for you to keep in certain circumstances, however if you name your website "Sunni" it should incorporate all things SUNNI.

Do any of the other Hanbali forum members feel a Bias on these forums, or even if you're not Hanbali but not really following a Madhab, do you feel at all like you are outcast?

Also I'd like to get to know the Hanbalis a little more if you read this, can you introduce yourselves?

May Allah reward you All.

[oemcheapdownload]

Asalaam
Im not hanbali though can see a bias with many users on 'salafies' and the hanbalis.

Wasalaam

[Podborodok]

Don't feel so left out... Some Ashari sites etc... have been banned to.... So smile....

[Smittoh]

I'm a revert, and still haven't settled completely into one Madhab (there is not really a "prominent" Madhab in my area, it depends on the Masjid you attend... even then it's very mixed), but am definitely walking most closely with Hanbali. I do appreciate seeing posts of Hanbali SF members.

[BuyCheapest]

Generally speaking I have no problem with Sunni forum, I enjoy having conversations with a lot of the brothers here and love them for the sake of Allah. However, I really dislike the bias that is shown, even though subtle.

I have nothing to hide nor lie about, and if anyone asks me concerning the Deoband/Hanafis/Maturidis I will tell them exactly how I feel, and for the most part I appreciate a lot tthat the Deoband do and believe in, I have no problem as well with the Hanafi Madhab, but I guess you can say my biggest conflict is with the Aqeedah portion of the Maturidi way, however, I have never considered them to be outside of Ahlul Sunnah, even if I disagree with some points that they have.

My blog, has NOTHING in regards to dispraising anyone of those three groups above, I guess the only thing that maybe disliked in it, is the quote I posted from the Ashari book concerning the Quran being created, however, outside of that I can't really see the problem with my blog. And even that post, asked Allah to forgive him, and I can say for sure it's not out of context.

It was said my blog is too "Salafi" but what exactly is the meaning of Salafi here? I follow a Madhab, I also respect and follow the scholars of Saudi in regards to the Madhab, I also quote and respect the scholars of the Hanbali Madhab in regards to Aqeedah and Fiqh, So I'm asking sincerely what is the problem with my blog that forces the Mods to delete links to it?

If the Hanbali Aqeedah version of Ibn Qudaama, Ibn Rajab, Etc etc... is not allowed on Sunni forums, just say that so we know where we stand. If you consider Tafweedh 50% not to be part of Ahl Sunnah, say that so we know where we stand, however if you deem "Salafi, Wahhabis" to be from Ahlul Sunnah, there is no room for bias, rather there is only room for having a sincere open opinion and debate, your bias is fine for you to keep in certain circumstances, however if you name your website "Sunni" it should incorporate all things SUNNI.

Do any of the other Hanbali forum members feel a Bias on these forums, or even if you're not Hanbali but not really following a Madhab, do you feel at all like you are outcast?

Also I'd like to get to know the Hanbalis a little more if you read this, can you introduce yourselves?

May Allah reward you All.

I would not call it a hardcore bias but there is a certain trend of unacceptability. The major problem with the deobandi approach is that they have a happy picture of the four madhabs. Mostly they are under the impression that the four madhabs are on the same page and they Imams have just disagreed in a few fiqh related issues. They concept propagated is that all the four are Ahli sunnah wal jamaat and the Salafis are the strangers in the town. It takes a good amount of time for them to realize that Salfis are an tributary of the Hanbalis and they Hanbalis have differed in Aqeedah from the Ashartites and maturidis through out the history. It takes a further good amount of time to absorb this fact. The usual reaction is "They have ruined the madhab of Imam Ahmad and now folks like Abu Ja'ffar Al Hanbali are going to resurrect the real Hanbali madhab".

[VIAGRA-VIAGRA]

Just becuase you label yourselves hanbalis and selectively use some quotes don't necessitate your association with hanbalism. The whole la mamadhabi movement emerged using Ibn Taymiyya and his students ideas where they subjected their modern day followers to be all mujthahids by themselves able to make independent judgements outside the four madhabs. So the hanbalism is just a innovation within the hanbali madhab restricted to certain controversial lone individuals and then selective picking. In other words, the la madhabis can claim hanbalism because la madhabism is allegedly permitted within these lone innovated so called hanbali ideas.

As for aqeeda, then again the whole basis is based on Ibn taymiyyas ideas. Lets remove them from the hanbali picture and use the rest of the well known hanbalis to formulate the aqeeda of hanbalism. We will be in better agreement. And finally it is these so called hanbalis who are intolerant. How wahhabism and al saud alliance wiped out any opposition including their own hanbali traditionalists of Arabia is well known. So let these hanbalis first allow people of other madhabs to preach first before expecting some kindness.

[BuyCheapest]

No one is expecting any kindness. Rest of what you have said is just the repetition of some cliches which will not motivate the attention of any serious person who knows something about the origins of Aqeedah disputes and the routes they later took.

[VIAGRA-VIAGRA]

No one is expecting any kindness. Rest of what you have said is just the repetition of some cliches which will not motivate the attention of any serious person who knows something about the origins of Aqeedah disputes and the routes they later took.

Yea the origins fantasised by Ibn Taymiyya. Nothing more. That's all you have. If Ibn Taymiyya "the Luther of Islam" (http://hornofsatan.wordpress.com/201...abism-in-1929/ ) never existed, you would not be debating here.

[isogeople]

br. warea i think your knowledge on this subject is limited (as is mine)...you shud refrain posting.

and as a general rule do not use scholarly differences even in aqeedah as an excuse to ridicule or name call any great scholar. despite our differences in Aqeedah, which are somewhat minor (or so they seem to me), many maturidi schoalrs have held Shaykhul Islam in high esteem. again differences of opinion are not and must not be an excuse to label or disrespect scholars of the past, at least not for a layman..who still has sooooooo much to learn.

br/ warea your presence might be more welcome on other threads, i don't see how you could contribute positively to this one.

[VIAGRA-VIAGRA]

br. warea i think your knowledge on this subject is limited (as is mine)...you shud refrain posting.

and as a general rule do not use scholarly differences even in aqeedah as an excuse to ridicule or name call any great scholar. despite our differences in Aqeedah, which are somewhat minor (or so they seem to me), many maturidi schoalrs have held Shaykhul Islam in high esteem. again differences of opinion are not and must not be an excuse to label or disrespect scholars of the past, at least not for a layman..who still has sooooooo much to learn.

br/ warea your presence might be more welcome on other threads, i don't see how you could contribute positively to this one.

I didn't name call the scholar. Its just the title given by salafis themselves which shows what place Ibn Taymiyya has in the minds of these pseudo hanbali madhab. I'm sure if Ibn Taymiyya sees the salafis of today he would be disgusted by them. The contribution to the thread is that if someone spreads "salafi" innovations whether he uses "hanbali" or "maliki" title, it makes no difference. Maybe there should be more titles so these guys can express themselves as "salafis" "salafi hanbali" "salafi ikhwani" "sahwi" "ahle hadith" or more.

[hereiamguy]

I would not call it a hardcore bias but there is a certain trend of unacceptability. The major problem with the deobandi approach is that they have a happy picture of the four madhabs. Mostly they are under the impression that the four madhabs are on the same page and they Imams have just disagreed in a few fiqh related issues. They concept propagated is that all the four are Ahli sunnah wal jamaat and the Salafis are the strangers in the town. It takes a good amount of time for them to realize that Salfis are an tributary of the Hanbalis and they Hanbalis have differed in Aqeedah from the Ashartites and maturidis through out the history. It takes a further good amount of time to absorb this fact. The usual reaction is "They have ruined the madhab of Imam Ahmad and now folks like Abu Ja'ffar Al Hanbali are going to resurrect the real Hanbali madhab".

aoa,
the unacceptability is due to the fact the some 'hanbalis' are pseudo salafis. their 'methodology' is similar to lamadhabis. they may disregard, for example, a hanbali ruling that they deem to be against a saheeh hadith. how ridiculous. the saheeh hadith means its chain is saheeh not that it is always applicable. you need to be a mujtahid to make this 'update' to the fiqh. it is the methodology that is wrong. anyone who is athari and hanbali (following the classical books such as zad al mustaqni and others, under a teacher) is acceptable. but these people are few. rest are salafis. they even follow the edited classical books of hanbali fiqh (edited again by salafi scholars). this is why it is almost impossible to follow hanbali fiqh for what it was before salafis hijacked it.
believe me, i was hanbali once, i have seen this with my own eyes.

[isogeople]

you perpetuated the title "luther of islam"...not a wise choice.

anyways honestly speaking i don't see how anything you could write on this thread would be of benefit. if you feel in the mood for salafi bashing go search up and read some of the threads buried on this forum, there are some academic ones if you search hard enough that will allow you to actually to get a solid grasp on this whole issue and eventually you'll come to the conclusion as did Abu Zakariyaa that we are all ahlesunnah wal Jamah.

you'll notice this thread was not intended to be a salafi-bashing or anti Ibn Taymiyyah one.

[BuyCheapest]

aoa,
the unacceptability is due to the fact the some 'hanbalis' are pseudo salafis. their 'methodology' is similar to lamadhabis. they may disregard, for example, a hanbali ruling that they deem to be against a saheeh hadith. how ridiculous. the saheeh hadith means its chain is saheeh not that it is always applicable. you need to be a mujtahid to make this 'update' to the fiqh. it is the methodology that is wrong. anyone who is athari and hanbali (following the classical books such as zad al mustaqni and others, under a teacher) is acceptable. but these people are few. rest are salafis. they even follow the edited classical books of hanbali fiqh (edited again by salafi scholars). this is why it is almost impossible to follow hanbali fiqh for what it was before salafis hijacked it.
believe me, i was hanbali once, i have seen this with my own eyes.

WS,

The main intention of this thread was not to provoke a discussion or debate. These issues have been several times discussed and i am sure that one can find a huge literature related to these issues with a few clicks. My understanding of it is that though we desire to see the things in a historic order but they almost never are. Our understandings have evolved with time relative to our social circumstances when it comes to the understanding of Islam. The madhab which you follow now has gone through the same evolution. If the texts were so much in order and the principals of Aqedah and fiqh were so universal , we would have never seen a Deobandi barelvi split as in pen both are Ashari/Maturidi Hanafis.

As far as the Aqeedah and Fiqh of the present day Salafis is concerned , it is inline with the historic Hanbali Madhab. There might be a few rulings which might be in contradiction with the classical hanbali literature like Al Mughni for example but the ruling can be justified from other works and opinions of the Hanbali scholars. Same is true for the Hanafi madhab. As a test case , you can mention any opinion of the present day Salafis related to Aqeedah and Fiqh and i will try to show you the similar opinion in the classical Hanbali texts.

[lymnCymment]

you perpetuated the title "luther of islam"...not a wise choice.

anyways honestly speaking i don't see how anything you could write on this thread would be of benefit. if you feel in the mood for salafi bashing go search up and read some of the threads buried on this forum, there are some academic ones if you search hard enough that will allow you to actually to get a solid grasp on this whole issue and eventually you'll come to the conclusion as did Abu Zakariyaa that we are all ahlesunnah wal Jamah.

you'll notice this thread was not intended to be a salafi-bashing or anti Ibn Taymiyyah one.

Hafiz Gee, with due respect as you are quite a senior member on this forum, do you agree with Dr. Ati words below ?

They concept propagated is that all the four are Ahli sunnah wal jamaat and the Salafis are the strangers in the town. It takes a good amount of time for them to realize that Salfis are an tributary of the Hanbalis and they Hanbalis have differed in Aqeedah from the Ashartites and maturidis through out the history. If yes, is the nature of difference in Aqeedah between Hanbali Mazhab and the other 3 schools of thought as grave as to take either them [hambali] or the other three schools out of Ahle-Sunnah Wal Jamaat. If Yes, then fine but if No, then I believe you should have first replied to Dr. Ati for the quotes above before writing back to warea.

[isogeople]

The writings of Mulla Ali Qari and Imam Zahid Kawthari make it clear that the differences with regards to the ambigos attributes of Allah (face, hand etc.) have been an issue of contention from the very very early days between the ahnaf/maturidis and the many amongst the hanabilah. Imam Kawthari (i believe it was him) even mention that Imam Ahmad Ibn Hambal's son adopted the "salafi" position. Mulla Ali Qari sometimes make references to the heretics hiding amongst the hanabilah in his sharh of fiqh al akbar.

I'm content with the fatwa of Mufti Taqi uthmani which has been posted earlier on various occasions. in reality the salafis use a language that can be problematic but they don't actually view Allah in a physical sense therefore they are not anthropomorphists. im content with strict relegation with regards to these attributes which is what Imam Abu Hanifa promotes in Fiqh Al Akbar (if i can recall correctly), i do not take a metephorical interpetation, nor a literal one.

I don't wish to speak any further on aqeedah. all fo this boils down to a difference in wording while no one actually believes ascribes anything like the creation to allah...thats enough for me.

[UHlVExs7]

They concept propagated is that all the four are Ahli sunnah wal jamaat and the Salafis are the strangers in the town. It takes a good amount of time for them to realize that Salfis are an tributary of the Hanbalis and they Hanbalis have differed in Aqeedah from the Ashartites and maturidis through out the history. How about if I replace hanbli with ahnaf and salafees with barelvees.

[isogeople]

i didnt reply to ati because i didnt care for an aqeedah discussion.

i adressed warea because i sympathize with him to an extent he is where i was a two years ago, when i was first introduced to the aqeedah wars. and it seemed like everything was all find and dandy and then Ibn Taymiyyah came along and messed everything up...but that was never the case. I have since progressed and see things a lot more clearly now.whatever our differences with him Ibn Taymiyyah was a great alim, zahid etc. the tone warea was using was not the most respectful to Ib Taymiyyah. i think he might have been forgetting that despite our differences with Ibn taymyyah we do not compare to the dirt on his shoes..so how can we call him anything or dub him the "luther of islam"?

I take similar approach to Shaykh Ib Arabi.

I find the balanced approach to Ibn Taymyyah can be discovered in the writings of deobandi scholars.

[BuyCheapest]

How about if I replace hanbli with ahnaf and salafees with barelvees.

jo chahay aap ka Husn e karishma saaz karay

[lymnCymment]

i didnt reply to ati because i didnt care for an aqeedah discussion.

i adressed warea because i sympathize with him to an extent he is where i was a two years ago, when i was first introduced to the aqeedah wars. and it seemed like everything was all find and dandy and then Ibn Taymiyyah came along and messed everything up...but that was never the case. I have since progressed and see things a lot more clearly now.whatever our differences with him Ibn Taymiyyah was a great alim, zahid etc. the tone warea was using was not the most respectful to Ib Taymiyyah. i think he might have been forgetting that despite our differences with Ibn taymyyah we do not compare to the dirt on his shoes..so how can we call him anything or dub him the "luther of islam"?

I take similar approach to Shaykh Ib Arabi.

I find the balanced approach to Ibn Taymyyah can be discovered in the writings of deobandi scholars.

Glad to hear Hafiz Gee about your intention and balanced approach. I also respect ibn Taymiyahh however, I came across a book the title of which was " Is ibn Taimiyyah from Alhe Sunah Wal Jammah". Have you read that book ? whats your opinion about that ?

Also, wanted to know if you believe the difference in Aqeedah you somewhat showcased a reason for one going in / out of the fold of Islam or Ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaat ?

[BuyCheapest]

I came across a book the title of which was " Is ibn Taimiyyah from Alhe Sunah Wal Jammah".

Abul Hassan Ali nadwi rahimahullah has written a good book on Shaykh ul Islam rahimahullah. You can read the portion dedicated to Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah in Shaykh Abul Hassan Ali Nadwi ra's monumental work "tareekh e dawat wa Azeemat" or you can read the portion directly here http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b8778.html