[AllAdobeOEMSoftDownload]

Salam Alaykum,

I would like to know if I could have some proper online (or otherwise) resources of the Hanbali Madhab from the traditional way (non-Salafi).

[AlexDatig]

Salam Alaykum,

I would like to know if I could have some proper online (or otherwise) resources of the Hanbali Madhab from the traditional way (non-Salafi).

Wa alaykum salaam,

What exactly do you mean by non salafi?


Do you mean non salafi in that they wont mention the oppinion of sheikh al islaam in fiqh, or do you mean non salafi in aqeedah?

And in which language?

In arabic there are a few shurooh of different books by a sheikh muhammad baajabir, who sticks closely to the matan when doing the explanations. Even though he has a seemingly yemeni name, I think he is from Jeddah, these are in lecture form.

Also there is a set of books by sheikh wahba az-zuhaily called fiqh al hanbali mayasar, and even the shurooh of the kutub by scholars such as sheikh saalih al fawzaan are good and explain the text in a simple way.

There is a lot of material actually so i can't mention all at once because i don't know what you want exactly.

[hauptdaunnila]

Salam Alaykum,

I would like to know if I could have some proper online (or otherwise) resources of the Hanbali Madhab from the traditional way (non-Salafi).

http://thewahhabithreat.wordpress.com/

http://thinkhanbali.wordpress.com/

This is a Traditional Hanbali brother who is also a convert and lives in Britain. He is very Non Salafi, and anti Wahabi. INSHALLAH you will find his work and answers enlightening.

Wa Salam

[AlexDatig]

http://thewahhabithreat.wordpress.com/

http://thinkhanbali.wordpress.com/

This is a Traditional Hanbali brother who is also a convert and lives in Britain. He is very Non Salafi, and anti Wahabi. INSHALLAH you will find his work and answers enlightening.

Wa Salam

You can't be hanbali and barwali at the same time... it is like oil and water....

[Petwrenny]

http://thewahhabithreat.wordpress.com/

http://thinkhanbali.wordpress.com/

This is a Traditional Hanbali brother who is also a convert and lives in Britain. He is very Non Salafi, and anti Wahabi. INSHALLAH you will find his work and answers enlightening.

Wa Salam

They Consider the other Schools of Aqa'id Ahlus Sunnah, what do the Salafis have to say to that?

[feroiodpiop]

What about Shaikh Musa Furber?

[hauptdaunnila]

You can't be hanbali and barwali at the same time... it is like oil and water....

He quotes traditional Hanbali Ulama, unless you are insinuating Hanbali Ulama agree with the Barelvi Stance.
He provides Texts, with Scans. And unlike Many Pseudo Hanbali Salafis, he has actually gone through the books he quotes, and he doesn't takeout what seems contrary to his understanding of Islam like Salafis.

[AlexDatig]

He quotes traditional Hanbali Ulama, unless you are insinuating Hanbali Ulama agree with the Barelvi Stance.
He provides Texts, with Scans. And unlike Many Pseudo Hanbali Salafis, he has actually gone through the books he quotes, and he doesn't takeout what seems contrary to his understanding of Islam like Salafis.

Show me which scholars he qouted that agree with the barawli stance, knowing that the barawli stance didn't exist up until until ahmad rida khan who was born in 1856 miladi....

So tell me which "traditional" hanbali scholars since then over wrote the words of sheikhul hanabilah?

I don't care what he provides with scans or texts, I spoke to him on facebook, and he is an imbicle and lies against the madhab. Barawlis are the furthest thing from hanbali creed, and even though there have been some lax scholars in the madhab against the likes of the Asha'ira and Maturidiyah, the over all stance of the madhab is that the athari creed is the creed of ahlul sunnah, and that which agrees with that is from ahlul sunnah.

Even if he provides scans and texts he picks and chooses, he himself has no idea what he has talking about, and has written ibn taymiyah out of the madhab while the hanabilah ulama have included him in it.

He has posted half statements and lies, and like i said Hanbalis are the furthest thing from brawalis, you can't be both. Perhaps some of his outward fiqh actions comply with that of the hanbali fiqh, but he himself is fooling himself to think they you can be both completely.

[megatrendsZ]

You can't be hanbali and barwali at the same time... it is like oil and water....

how ignorant is Abu Muhammad Ibraheem al-Hanbali when it comes to creedal matters, look at his claim Moreover Ibn Taymiyah died an Ash’ari, Ibn Qudaamah died a Hanbali. This shows the propaganda campaign going on !! Ibn Qudama, the one considered Asharites to be deviant and he exposed them in numerous books, died as an hanbali? and Ibn Taymiyyah died as an Ashari ?

lots of jokers these days... ofcourse all the credit goes to Pir Abdul Qadir Jilani Syed Irfan Shah and other barelwis.

[Petwrenny]

Several years back i thought Sufis and Hanbalis were miles apart, since the Pseaudo Salafi Hanbalis have given this notion about sufism which make it out to be some kind of filthy innovation, but i realised its not the case, it can be said the Hanbalis were the forebearers of Sufism.

Though im not insinuatng that Brelwi ideology and Hanbalis are together or they ever were, but with the Pseaudos Salafis hijacking the Madh-hab of Imam Ahmad, one can never get a true picture of this Madh-hab.

And most Certainly if i ever want to study the Hanbali Madh-hab, the last person i would go visit is a person that is Salafi-ated Hanbali.

I think there needs to be a reviver of the true Hanbali School, like Hadhrat Shaykh Abd al-Qadir Jilani (Ra) who revived this Madh-habat a time when it was getting defunct.

Im still shocked at the name calling of brothers.

[AlexDatig]

Several years back i thought Sufis and Hanbalis were miles apart, since the Pseaudo Salafi Hanbalis have given this notion about sufism which make it out to be some kind of filthy innovation, but i realised its not the case, it can be said the Hanbalis were the forebearers of Sufism.

The proof is in the puddng, psuedo salafi hanbalis have much more in common with hanbalis then do the barwalis, or anyone for that matter.

You're right in that hanbalis have been the forebearers of sufism, but perhaps it is your misunderstanding of sufism in relation to the hanbalis that makes it hard for you distinguish the difference.


Though im not insinuatng that Brelwi ideology and Hanbalis are together or they ever were, but with the Pseaudos Salafis hijacking the Madh-hab of Imam Ahmad, one can never get a true picture of this Madh-hab. I'm not sure who you are talking about with your "psuedo" line, but I'm sure the Scholars of Saudi Arabia know much more concerning the fiqh and aqeedah of Imam ahmad then does this psuedo mubtadi'.

How exactly did they hijack it? what did they change or lie concerning? What part of their "psuedoism" differs completely with the usool of the hanbalis?

I have heard this claim many times, but show me HOW? Specifically in issues related to USOOL?

Have you ever looked at a book of a "psuedo" in fiqh to determine how they adopt the madhab?

Also by these "psuedos" following ibn taymiyah they aren't in fact psuedos at all, just like a person who follows an-nawawi wouldn't be a psuedo shafi'i..

And most Certainly if i ever want to study the Hanbali Madh-hab, the last person i would go visit is a person that is Salafi-ated Hanbali. Right that's great for you, but who really cares what you do? Besides.... I listed 3 different scholars in my first thread, do you know if in fact they are psueo or not? Do you even know any of them?

I think there needs to be a reviver of the true Hanbali School, like Hadhrat Shaykh Abd al-Qadir Jilani (Ra) who revived this Madh-habat a time when it was getting defunct. Yeah, there should be a hanbali who revives the madhab and who says Allah is above his throne by his dhaat, just like sheikh jilaani, because we don't have any psuedos doing that, right?

Im still shocked at the name calling of brothers. Sorry I don't take kindly to mubtadieen of the madhab, who lie and cheat, and reject 'ulama of the madhab because of their ignorance.

[derinasderun]

Hafidh ibn Hajar in his bio of Ibn Taymiyya said "Ibn Taymiyya declared himself to be an 'Ashari".

The book is on the waqefya site, though the Muhaqqiq is an 'Ashiq of Ibn Taymiya so he's going to reject it and every charge against him!

[hauptdaunnila]

"Ibn Qudama, the one considered Asharites to be deviant and he exposed them in numerous books,"

What do you mean by exposes them? R u a Hanafi?

[AlexDatig]

Hafidh ibn Hajar in his bio of Ibn Taymiyya said "Ibn Taymiyya declared himself to be an 'Ashari".

The book is on the waqefya site, though the Muhaqqiq is an 'Ashiq of Ibn Taymiya so he's going to reject it and every charge against him!

Perhaps he meant the asha'ri that wrote al-ibana, in which case I am also asha'ari.

[Helloheshess]

Hafidh ibn Hajar in his bio of Ibn Taymiyya said "Ibn Taymiyya declared himself to be an 'Ashari".

its the same way like a deobandi alim said that he is a wahhabi. i forgot his name.

[megatrendsZ]

its the same way like a deobandi alim said that he is a wahhabi. i forgot his name.

in the same way, Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf says he is Ashari ?

Hafidh ibn Hajar in his bio of Ibn Taymiyya said "Ibn Taymiyya declared himself to be an 'Ashari".

The book is on the waqefya site, though the Muhaqqiq is an 'Ashiq of Ibn Taymiya so he's going to reject it and every charge against him!

so many were Asharis before Ibn Taymiyyah like Khatib al-Baghdadi, Ismaili, Abu Jafer Samnani ( the one who said ok to use Jism ) etc etc..
then we have asharis also like Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf, Abdullah Habashi, Abu Adam Naruji...
We have asharis like Amidi, Iji, Bajuri
and we have asharis like ibn mahdi tabari, baqillani, ibn furak, bayhaqi

do you notice the difference. do you even know the difference between sifat khabariyya & sifat filiyya ?

who cares what one claims to be ! what matters is what is written by that person --- does it conform to Sunni creed or not ?


as for Ibn Qudama, you just need to read his biography to know how anti-ashari he was !! no need to re-invent the wheel...

Again, no one is attacking the real ashari creed as mentioned by ibn asakir in tabyin or ibanah.
instead of saying salafism is hijacked, you should say Asharism is hijacked by Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf and Abu Adam Naruji types...

[megatrendsZ]

I think there needs to be a reviver of the true Hanbali School, like Hadhrat Shaykh Abd al-Qadir Jilani (Ra) who revived this Madh-habat a time when it was getting defunct.

are you talking about the same Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani who said

this is taken from http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/sm1-gfh_e.html#haaj


Hanbali `Aqida of Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir

Was Abdul Qadir Jilani (rahmatullahi alayhi) of the belief that Allah the exalted was literally in the sky? If so, was this a corrupt belief i.e., in contradistinction of Ahl Sunna wa Jama''? If so, could he have been a ''true'' wali?

As-Salamu `alaykum:

It is a poorly phrased question that ends with such a conditional sentence: "If so, could he have been a 'true' wali." If he were not, then who! Therefore, from the firm assumption that Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani was one of the great major Friends of Allah we can safely deduce that:

[1] either the text in which he is related to say that Allah Most High is "above" (fawq) the heaven and the Throne "with his Essence" (bi-dhatihi) is a corrupt text;

or:

[2] our own understanding of what he actually meant is corrupt.

The latter is probably more correct, since it is related that Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir said "bi-dhatihi" in more than one text and this is the literalist Hanbali stance he inherited from his School.

Hence, we must categorically affirm that he meant it in an orthodox sense far away from anthropomorphism; namely, that Allah Most High is indeed "high above" with his Essence, not in the sense of altitude and location or direction, but in the sense of being exalted high above and beyond the characteristics of creatures.
This is nothing new. It is the correct belief over which no two Muslims would have differed, except that shaytan fanned the flames of misunderstanding and dissension by focussing people on wordings and labels rather than meanings, splitting the ranks of the Muslims and then proceeding further to split the ranks of Ahl al-Sunna.

Hence it is best, as our pious predecessors always cautioned, to stay away from hair-splitting discussions on points of doctrine and what they called "kalam" - theological discourse.

Was-Salam,

gibril
[2006-05-30]

so what is the verdict of so called Asharis of today on the creed of Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani ?

btw: Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani was also anti-asharite. just you need to read his book ghunya. ( don't make a bogus claim of tamper unless you have some proof )


Another anti-ashari Sufi Hanbali was Khawaja-e-Khawajgaan Hadrat Abdullah Al-Ansari al-Harawi , the author of Dhamm al-Kalaam. He didn't even spare Shaykh Abul Hasan al-Ashari.

so you know your history before you write.

[Helloheshess]

in the same way, Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf says he is Ashari ?

his works are used by asharis to refute others, so better you ask them who uses saqqaf´s refutation aainst wahabis.

[derinasderun]

Perhaps he meant the asha'ri that wrote al-ibana, in which case I am also asha'ari.

Your assumption is based on the three stages that he supposidly went through. The Ibanah was written according to Ibn Kullab's method as Ibn Hajar said, to strenghten that the Hanabilah rejected this work as Imam Dhahabi writes in Siyar.

The Ibanah we have today has been corrupted, for example, Ibn 'Asakir quotes from Ibanah sayind 'Ayn (singular) while todays printed versions have 'Aynayn (dual). Much more differences refer to shaykh Ghawji.

[AlexDatig]

Your assumption is based on the three stages that he supposidly went through. The Ibanah was written according to Ibn Kullab's method as Ibn Hajar said, to strenghten that the Hanabilah rejected this work as Imam Dhahabi writes in Siyar.

The Ibanah we have today has been corrupted, for example, Ibn 'Asakir quotes from Ibanah sayind 'Ayn (singular) while todays printed versions have 'Aynayn (dual). Much more differences refer to shaykh Ghawji.

Right, so do you think that ibn taymiyah was an asha'ri mutakalim who did ta'weel? If not than what type of asha'ri was he?