Sunnism versus cults and sects



Download 0.58 Mb.
Page8/12
Date conversion04.02.2017
Size0.58 Mb.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12

The Jabarites:

It is necessary for an individual to know the name ‘Jabarite’, and that it refers to an early deviant thought movement that was opposite to the Jabariyya. This group held that men were compelled to act by God like puppets, and had no choice over what they did. This was used to justify wrongdoing by blaming God for it.

Jahm Ibn Safwan is cited as having said: “Indeed man has no power over anything and is not attributed with capability for action, he is only compelled towards action, like a puppet, he has no power, no will and no choice. Allah creates his actions and attributes them to him metaphorically, like saying, “The tree gave fruit”, or “the water flows”, or “the tree moved” or “look, the sun rose”. This is an incorrect theological position.

There was also another thought tendency known as the Murjia.

They were not initially deviant, some consider Abu Hanifa to be the leader of the early Murjia, because all that it meant was to postpone and defer judgement upon the companions who were tricked into war, or to refrain from calling another individual as a disbeliever, in response to the Khawarij.

However, in later periods, the term Murjia was used to describe a thought tendency characterised by moral laxity, “anything goes” was their motto, so to speak. It is necessary thus for a person to be free of the attitudes of the Murjia, in order to properly experience and practice Islam and be considered a member of the Prophetic community.

Among the positions of the Murjia, according to Bahr al Kalamby an-Nasafi:


  1. “Iblis was a knower of God”

  2. “When a person reaches complete love of Allah, he no longer sins, and if he sins, it does not hurt his belief and sincerity”

  3. “A person enters paradise by his knowledge and sincerity and not by his actions and obedience”

  4. “Allah and the Prophets did not command them anything or forbid them from anything”.

  5. “What came in the Quran only alluded to the image of an action not an action in reality, it is only for warning; whoever does good, earns reward, and whoever acts bad, will get punished”.

  6. “When the guilty go into the hellfire for punishment, they exist in it without feeling any pain, as a fish does in the sea”.

  7. “We only distinguish between the believer and the disbeliever to the extent that the believer has enjoyment in paradise because he gets to eat and drink and the disbeliever does not have the enjoyment of eating and drinking.”

It is possible for us to see these weak thought tendencies among those who go by the name of Islamic modernism, if a scholar is seen to be promoting these views, he is doing so in weak faith. Groups like Minhaj ul Quran use these beliefs in order to gain support among Westerners and to appear enlightened, knowledgeable and progressive.There can be no benefit in a so called ‘revolution’ which uses anti-Islamic ideas to achieve an Islamic state, or in a man who poses as a spiritual guide who uses anti-Islamic ideas to bring men closer to their souls.
Ibn Taymiyyah:

It should be known that Ibn Taymiyya is the source of much confusion with relation to which thought trends accurately represent Sunni Islam. When Salafi and Wahhabi groups talk about Ahlus Sunnah, or Sunni Islam, what is being referred to is the aberrant and literalist dogma of Ibn Taymiyya, who communicated false beliefs about God, such as anthropomorphism, and spoke against the legal methodology of the Islamic jurists, by denouncing adherence to a law school as necessary. So when they speak of ‘the views of Ahlus Sunnah’, they are not talking about the historical development of a general thought movement, consisting of jurists and theologians who developed upon and defended early Islamic beliefs, as outlined in the passage where I described the main periods of development of Sunni thought. They are rather talking about the aberrant thought of Ibn Taymiyya, thus they replace a millennium’s worth of scholarly personalities with one slightly deranged medieval researcher. This is another example of Ahlus Sunnah being transformed into a cult, whereas before there was healthy plurality, now there is just one Shaykh from whom all teaching is supposed to be taken.

If you see a person who is ignorant of the other aspects of Ahlus Sunnah, its history, Sufism, Theology, or law, and is simply quoting Ibn Taymiyya in a manner that indicates that he is slightly obsessed, you may infer that he is a victim of Salafi brainwashing about the merits of Ibn Taymiyya, and he should be instructed to read about other scholars in Islamic history. For example, it is known that Ibn Taymiyya revered Shaykh Abdul Qadir al Jilani, such an individual should be redirected to read about this Shaykh in order to remove the effects of Salafi brainwashing on his mind.

Ibn Taymiyya and Anthropomorphism:


  1. In the following statement, he denied belief in Allah as the majority of Muslims and their theologians and jurists believe in Allah. He wrote: “The idea that something existing should not be increasing or decreasing and yet exist and not have a size - that is impossible” (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah, 3/146).

  2. Also, “There are numerous passages in the Quran and the Hadith in the affirmation of a face for God”. Aqida Wasitiyya, pg. 76).

  3. “There are those seven places in the Quran where Allah has given information about His rising over the Throne. When the word istawa occurs in the dictionary as a transitive with the vowel ‘ala, then its only possible meanings are height and loftiness” (p.102).

  4. Here he uses the term Ahlus Sunnah to describe his beliefs:“Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamah have faith in those things about which Allah has himself informed such as, He is occupying the High position over the Throne and is separate from His creation” (p.103).

  5. It is mentioned in one of his other works, Aqida Hamawiyya, “the hadith is true in its external meaning that Allah is over the throne and that He is in front of the face of the worshipper”. (p. 140, Aqida Hamawiyya).

  6. In one statement, he likened the moon to God. He stated, “The moon which is in the heavens stays with the traveller and the non-traveller everywhere, due to the extent of its light and appearance, wherever they are. So if such a thing could be true for the moon which is a small creature of Allah, then why will it not be true for the High and Most Knowledgable?” (Aqida Hamawiyya, p.157)

This is explicit kufr, in Fatawa Alamgiri, volume 2, pg. 258, it says: "If anybody mentions an attribute of Allah that is not in accordance to His Glory or if someone brought one's attention to a thought that will most likely lead to envision Allah's attributes to be partial, defective or in ignorance; then such a person is Kaafir", (Fatawa Hindiya, Nuraani Kutub khana, Peshawar, Vol.2, pg 257).

The correct position is thus to disassociate oneself from Ibn Taymiyya, to consider him an apostate and outside the boundaries of Sunni Islam, to not consider oneself under his leadership or guidance, and to clear oneself of these aberrant thoughts. Whoever holds these beliefs is to be considered as an apostate from Islam, according to the authoritative Sunni jurists.



IBN TAYMIYYAH 

Great Muslim scholar Hadrat Sayyid Abdulhakim Arwasi (d. in 1362/1943) said, "It was Ibn Taymiyya who invented the heresy of reform in the religion first. Later on, this heresy was led to unbelief by the ignorant and by the enemies of Islam."



Ibn Taymiyya was born in Harran in 661/1263 and died of disease in prison in a fortress in Damascus in 728/1328. He did not like the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars. He denied tasawwuf entirely. He called the apples of the eyes of Islam such as Muhyiddin ibn al-'Arabi and Sadr ad-din al-Qonawi "disbelievers".  Whereas, he was not too ignorant not to know that he who called a Muslim "disbeliever" would himself become a disbeliever. It is a pity he tried to adapt Islam to his own opinion and narrow mind and, denying the facts which he could not comprehend, he went astray. 'Abd al-Wahhab ash-Sharani (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih), one of the leading 'ulama' of Islam and a specialist in 'ilm at-tasawwuf, exposed Ibn Taymiyya's this deplorable state in this Tabaqat al-kubra, in the preface of which he wrote: "Only walis can recognize a wali. If one who is not a wali or does not know anything about wilaya does not believe in wilaya, this indicates his obstinacy and ignorance." Now, as such is Ibn Taymiyya's denial of tasawwuf, his belittling 'arifs. One should not read such people's books, keeping away from them as if running away from beasts of prey. Abu 'l-Hasan ash-Shadhili, one of the superiors in tasawwuf, reported the state of those who had denied awliya' in detail." Therefore, Ibn Taymiyya's followers bear hostility against Hadrat 'Abd al-Wahhab ash-Sharani and have aimed their arrows of slander at this great scholar of Islam.

Ibn Taymiyya said that the early Muslims had adapted themselves to the Qur'an and Hadith, but the madhhab leaders who had appeared later had introduced their own opinions, and he blamed the Ahl as-Sunnat. Whereas, as written in the seventeenth article above, the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars, in regard to religious knowledge, have never departed from the way of narration (naql). They have not followed their own points of view. It is accepted unanimously by Muslim scholars that especially al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih) followed the narration in every respect and held his own point of view inferior to it. [For documented explanation, see the 27th chapter in Endless Bliss I.] While slandering the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars in this respect, Ibn Taymiyya himself interpreted the Qur'an according to his own point of view. Thus, he himself differed from the early Muslims. This shows that he was not sincere in his word. He said that the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars had misunderstood the Qur'an and Hadith and that even the Sahabat al-kiram had gone wrong on many points, that he himself corrected Allahu ta'ala's religion and that only he understood the true meaning of the Qur'an. He disliked the great mujtahid of the first and second centuries of the Hegira, who had been praised in the Hadith, and the Muslim scholars who have spread the mujtahids' madhhabs all over the world. Because of this, he began to fall into disesteem in front of the men of knowledge. The authorities of religion co-operated and began to observe minutely the way he had taken, and it was understood to be heretical and harmful. The chair of professorship that he had inherited from his father was taken back from him. But still he did not keep quiet. He reproduced the words of the heretical group called "Mushabbiha" and said that Allahu ta'ala was material and an object. He supposed that the Creator was in the shape of man. By giving wrong meanings to symbolic (mutashabih) ayats and hadiths according to his own comprehension, he went wrong. He was so badly fixed in this heretical belief that one day he said on the pulpit of the mosque in Damascus, "Allahu ta'ala descends on the earth from the sky as I descend now," and got down from the pulpit. Ibn Battuta reported this. The 'ulama' of the four madhhabs, by writings answers refuting these words of Ibn Taymiyya, prevented the deterioration of Muslims' itiqad. The book Ar-raddu 'ala 'l-mushabbihi fi qawlihi ta'ala ar-Rahmanu 'ala 'l-Arsh-istawa by Muhammad ibn Jamaat, who was a Shafi'i scholar of fiqh and hadith and had been the Qadi Of Egypt, Damascus and Quds and passed away in 733 (1333), is full of these invaluable answers. In the fatwa book Tatarhaniyya and in Al-milal wa 'n-nihal and in many other books, it is written that the groups of Mujassima and Mushabbiha, that is those who believe Allahu ta'ala to be a material being who sits, gets down and walks on the 'Arsh, were disbelievers. In 705 A.H. scholars and officials, justifying Egyptian Sultan Nasir's decision, imprisoned Ibn Taymiyya in the well of Cairo fortress because he spread such heretical words. Because he gave wrong fatwas which the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars did not consider permissible, he was again imprisoned in the Damascus fortress in 720. His words about visiting prophets' graves and blessed places also made a mess and caused fitna. For this reason, he was imprisoned again in Damascus in 726. In 728 (1328), he got sick in the dungeon and died.

Ibn Taymiyya said that he was in the Hanbali madhhab. Whereas, one has to believe in accord with the Ahl as-Sunnat so that he can be in one of the four right madhhabs. Many words of his indicate that he did not belong to the Ahl as-Sunnat and, on the contrary, he disliked the Ahl as-Sunnat. He represented himself as a mujaddid, as a reformer. Hanbali scholar Mar'i (d. 1033 A.H.) wrote a biography of Ibn Taymiyya titled Kawakib, in which he quoted Ibn Taymiyya's writings that did not recognize the necessity of following the imams of madhhabs and even the ijma'. Though he attacked the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars because they had done qiyas, he himself did qiyas on many points, especially in his book Majmuat ar-rasa'il wal-masa'il. He did not believe in the greatness of awliya' and attacked visiting graves. He changed the hadith, "One shall set off on a long journey only for visiting three mosques," into "Only three mosques are to be visited," and said that it was a sin to visit even Rasulullah's (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) tomb. Hadrat Ibn Hajar al-Haitami answered this in detail in his book Fatawa al-fiqhiyya. In the 222nd article of the book Nuzhat al-hawatir by 'Allama 'Abd al-Hayy al-Hasani (d. 1341/1923), it is written that Muslim scholar Muhammad 'Abd al-Hayy al-Luknawi of India (d. 1304/1887) debated upon this subject with Muhammad Bashir, a la-madhhabite Indian. Ibn Taymiyya was aggressive against the madhhab of Hadrat Abu 'l-Hasan al-Ashari, one of the greatest Ahl as-Sunnat scholars, and against this profound scholar's explanation of qadar and of the Names of Allahu ta'ala and against his interpretation of the ayats about the punishment in the next world. He said that the punishment in Hell would not be eternal also for disbelievers and that every kind of tax paid to the State would be accepted as zakat. He did not admit that the words incompatible with what the four madhhabs had unanimously declared were of disbelief. He strived to rebut the honor and fame of the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars. In al-Jabal mosque in Salihiyya, he said that Hadrat 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anh) had made many mistakes. In another gathering, he said that Hadrat 'Ali (radi-Allahu 'anh) went wrong three hundred times. (astaghfirullah al-Azeem!!!) A hadith, which is written in the book Kunuz by al-Manawi, in Imam Ahmad's Sahih and in the book Mirat al-ka'inat, states: "Allahu ta'ala has put the true word on 'Umar's tongue," by which Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) meant that Hadrat 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anh) would never go wrong. Ibn Taymiyya opposes this hadith by saying, " 'Umar made many mistakes," Whereas, he was learned enough to know of this hadith. He was much learned on the Hadith, but he went wrong as much. It was true that many of the Sahabat al-kiram except 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anh) might have made mistakes in those matters that were to be understood through ijtihad. But their mistakes were the mistakes in ijtihad. For this reason, even the mistakes of those great people and also of the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars in those matters understandable through ijtihad will be rewarded (thawab) in the next world, since all of them were mujtahids. As for Ibn Taymiyya's mistake in the teachings pertaining to belief, it took him away from the right path and caused the punishment he deserved to increase. By presuming himself to be a mujtahid, he became above himself and led himself to disaster. He went further and mercilessly attacked the great men of tasawwuf such as Sadr ad-din al-Qonawi, Muhyiddin ibn al-'Arabi and 'Umar ibn al-Farid. He said that al-Ghazali's books were full of mawdu' hadiths, and he did not neglect to criticize our scholars of qalam. He could not understand that the madhhabs arose out of the differences of ijtihad and supposed that they were the results of philosophical thoughts. He considered it as a guilt that the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars had said that the old churches in Muslim countries should not be touched, and for this reason, he spoke ill of the great men of Islam.

Mawdudi, like Ibn Taymiyya, misrepresents Imam al-Ghazali as defective.

Great scholar Ibn Hajar al-Makki, in commenting on the causes of disbelief, wrote that the person who would claim to have found fault with Imam al-Ghazali's writings either envied him or was an atheist. [Al-alam bi kawati al-Islam, p.137, with references to Ibn as-Subki and other scholars.] Hanafi scholar Ibn 'Abidin wrote at the end of his Al-'uqud Durriyya, "One who says that Imam al-Ghazali was not an alim is the most ignorant among the ignorant and the worst of fasiqs. He was Hujjat al-Islam and the most superior of the scholars of his time. He wrote very valuable books on fiqh. Some rules of the Shafi'i madhhab was based on his books."

Prominent Muslim scholars have declared that Ibn Taymiyya departed from Islam and became a renegade. Profoundly learned scholars such as Ibn Battuta, Ibn Hajar al-Makki, Taqi ad-din as-Subki and his son, 'Abd al-Wahhab, 'Izz ad-din Ibn Jamaat and Abu Hayyan az-Zahiri al-Andulusee, each of whose words have been regarded as documentary evidence, considered him a man of Biddah, a heretic. Even those who said he was a heretic did not deny his knowledge, intelligence and zuhd, but, a hadith written in MishkatThe worst of the bad is the bad man of religion." Hadrat al-Imam ar-Rabbani Ahmad al-Faruqi wrote in his fifty-third letter: states, 

"The good scholar is the best of mankind. The bad scholar is the worst of mankind. Men's happiness and disaster depend upon scholars. A great man saw the Satan sitting unoccupied and asked why he was lazy. The Satan said, 'The heretical scholars of the present time do my work. They do not leave any work for me to lead the people astray.' "

Imam as-Subki, too, used to praise Ibn Taymiyya's knowledge and intelligence much. Burhan ad-din ibn Muflih wrote in his Tabaqat that Imam as-Subki praised Ibn Taymiyya much in the letter he had written to az-Zahabi. But, Imam as-Subki, in his work Ar-raddu li Ibn Taymiyya, and his son 'Abd al-Wahhab, in his Tabaqat, wrote that Ibn Taymiyya departed from the Ahl as-Sunnat and went astray. Many persons whom he inoculated with his ideas, especially his disciples Ibn al-Qayyim and az-Zahabi, praised him too much. 'Ali al-Qari ' and Mahmud Alusi, who are considered as religious scholars because of their annotations for famous books and who lived on writing on the Qur'an and valuable books, and Muhammad 'Abduh, who claimed to be a mujtahid, followed in his footsteps and departed from the Ahl as-Sunnat. Yusuf an-Nabhani, one of the profound scholars of the present century, in his book Shawahid al-haqq, and Shaikh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri Effendi, one of the great Ottoman scholars, in his book Al-'ilm wal-'aql, and Abu Hamid ibn Marzuk, a Damascene scholar, in his two-volume work, which was partly published by offset under the titleAt-tawassulu bi 'n-Nabi wa Jahalat al-Wahhabiyyin in Istanbul in 1395 A.H. (1975), proved Ibn Taymiyya's heresy with documents.

 Those who approve Ibn Taymiyya, in order to prove his being judged and imprisoned unjustly, write:

"His writings against the men of tasawwuf offended them. His fatwas about divorce made the scholars of fiqh feel hostile towards him. And his fatwas about the Divine Attributes hurt the scholars of kalam. Therefore, the scholars of kalam, fiqh and tasawwuf co-operated against him, and he was punished."

They think that they can make everybody believe that religious scholars would become hostile towards or torture or denounce a Muslim because of a few words. They misrepresent him as a victim of oppression and the scholars as cruel. Whereas, Ibn Taymiyya rose in rebellion against the Ahl as-Sunnat. He spread the fire of fitna over the Muslim world. For example, when Abu Hayyan, a scholar of Arabic, came to Cairo in 700 A.H., Ibn Taymiyya said to him, "Who is Sibawaih that you call him a scholar of Arabic! There are exactly eighty mistakes, which you cannot distinguish, in his book."

Hearing these words which would not become a man of knowledge, Abu Hayyan preferred to keep away from him and censured him in his Qur'an commentary Al-bahr and also in its abridgement titled Nahr.

Ibn Hajar al-Askalani quotes az-Zahabi in his book Durar al-kamina, "When talking on knowledge, Ibn Taymiyya used to get angry, try to defeat the person whom he talked to and offend everybody." Imam as-Suyuti wrote in his book Kam' al-mu'arid, "Ibn Taymiyya was arrogant. He was self-conceited. It was habit to represent himself as superior to everybody, to slight the person whom he talked to and to make fun of great Muslims." Muhammad 'Ali Beg, a Damascene scholar, wrote in his book Hittat ash-Sham, "Ibn Taymiyya's and Priest Luther's aims were alike. While the Christian reformer was successful, the reformer of Islam was unsuccessful." Mawlana Muhammad Ziyaullah, one of the prominent 'ulama' of Pakistan and the imam and Khatib of the city of Siyalkut, wrote in the 93rd page of his work The Truth of Wahhabism (Published in Urdu in 1969): "Mawlawi 'Abd al-Hayy Luknawi (d. 1304 A.H.), the great alim of India and the author of hundreds of invaluable books known by the world, said in his book Ghais al-ghamam, 'Like the predecessor Ibn Taymiyyat al-Hurrami, the successor ash-Shawqani was very learned but less intelligent. The latter was exactly like, even more inferior than the former.' "

Goldziher writes that Ibn Taymiyya deemed the right madhhabs to be bidat' and, saying that they changed the early purity of Islam, attacked them and also opposed the Ashari madhhab and tasawwuf and announced visiting the graves of prophets and awliya' to be a sinful act.

Mustafa 'Abd ar-Razzaq Pasha, former Rector of the Jami' al-Azhar and student-follower of Muhammad 'Abduh, wrote: "When issuing fatwa, Ibn Taymiyya did not follow any madhhab, but he acted in accordance with the proof he himself found. He denied the kashfs of tasawwuf leaders."

 Ibn Taymiyya wrote about Sadr ad-din al-Qonawi: "Sadr ad-din, a friend to Muhyiddin ibn al-'Arabi, surpassed his master in scientific knowledge and kalam, yet he was more disbelieving, less learned and had less iman than his master had. Since such people's faith was disbelief, more skillful of them were more excessive in disbelief." Some Islamic scholars said that Ibn Taymiyya was a disbeliever, and most others said that he was one of ahl al-bidat. Shaikh al-Makki, a scholar contemporary with Yavuz Sultan Salim Khan, answered the attacks against Hadrat Muhyiddin ibn al-'Arabi and wrote: "Ibn Taymiyya said that disbelievers would get out of Hell after burning there for many years and supported this claim with the hadith, 'Some day the doors of Hell will open and grass will grow on its ground.' He also quoted some other hadiths. Whereas, it is clearly stated in the Qur'an that disbelievers will remain in Hell eternally. There has been tawatur and ijma' on this fact. Most scholars said that Ibn Taymiyya opposed the tawatur and ijma." [Al-janab al-gharbi, Rashid Effendi section, Sulaimaniyya Library.]

'Abd al-Wahhab ash-Sharani wrote: "Those who say that all the inhabitants of Hell will go out and that Hell will become empty, in fact, oppose the Qur'an and Hadith. The Ahl as-Sunnat scholars, the just imams, unanimously said that the punishment in Hell would be eternal for disbelievers. The ayat, 'We will throw those who part from the believers' path into Hell,' is an answer to them. The first division of Hell, where those believers with a lot of sins will be punished, will become empty. Its other divisions, where disbelievers will be punished, will never be emptied. believers will be set free from the punishment by attaining shafa'a and only their place will become empty and grass will grow on the ground of the first division of Hell. Imam al-Qurtubi writes that the above hadith is mawkuf, that it was not reported to have been heard from Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam). Hadrat Muhyiddin ibn al-'Arabi, too, said that the doors of Hell will never be opened and that disbelievers will remain in Hell eternally. Those scholars who said that they would go out of Hell meant that sinful believers will go out." [Mukhtasaru tadhkirat al-Qurtubi, p.96.] Ibn Taymiyya, putting forth the hadiths telling that believers will go out of Hell, denied the ayats, tawatur and ijma'. Calling the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars "disbelievers" causes one to become a disbeliever. It is written in the subject on the Qadi of the book Radd al-mukhtar that it is disbelief to deny the hadiths which were not interpreted differently by the Salaf as-Salihin and which are of tawatur. Maliki scholar Muhammad ibn 'Abdullah of Tanja, who is famed with the name Ibn Battuta, gave many quotations from Ibn Taymiyya that were incompatible with Islam and wrote:

"Ibn Taymiyya had much knowledge. But there was something wrong with his mind... I was in Damascus. In the Friday salat, he, after reciting the khutba, descended the stairs saying, 'Allahu ta'ala descends on the world's sky as I descend now.' Ibn Zahra, a Maliki scholar, told the congregation the badness of these words in detail. The ignorant majority of the congregation had believed Ibn Taymiyya to be on the right path and liked his pompous words much. Upon the Maliki scholar's word, they beat him with their hands and shoes. He fell down. His turban fell off and his silk skull-cap appeared. Under the pretext of this [Islam forbids man to wear silk clothes], they took him to the Hanbali Qadi. The Qadi punished him with tazir and imprisoned him. Maliki and Shafi'i scholars said that this tazir was unjust. The affair was taken to Nasir the Ruler. A council of scholars was appointed and they came to the conclusion that Ibn Taymiyya caused partition (fitna) among Muslims. With the command of the Sultan, he was imprisoned in Damascus." [Tuhfat an-muzzar, p.9. The author of this history work, Ibn Battuta, dictated it to his secretary, Ibn Jazi. It has been translated into many languages. The second translation into Turkish by Muhammad Sharif Beg was printed in Istanbul in 1335 A.H. (1917). The above-quoted passage is also quoted in Yusuf an-Nabhani's Jawahir al-bihar in the entry "Abd al-Ghani an-Nabulusi".]



May Allahu ta'ala endow comprehension and guidance to the right path upon those who believe in the inferiority of our madhhab leaders to him, whose heresy was understood and who was punished by the scholars of his time and by all Muslims! May He protect Muslim children against believing heretics! Amin.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12


The database is protected by copyright ©dentisty.org 2016
send message

    Main page