Praise be to Allaah.
Who was Ibn ‘Arabi?
He was a prominent Sufi; in fact he was an extreme Sufi. His name was Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Taa’i al-Andalusi. The scholars have told us about him in response to a question which was put to them. The question was as follows:
What do the imaams of the religion and the guides of the Muslims say about a book which has been circulating among the people, the author of which claims that he wrote it and distributed it to people by permission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which was given to him in a dream which he claims to have seen? Most of this book contradicts what Allaah revealed in His Books and is opposed to what His Prophets said.
Among the things that he says in this book are: Adam was called insaan because in relation to the truth (Al-Haqq), he was like the pupil [insaan] of the eye, the part that can see.
Elsewhere he said: Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see.
Concerning the people of Nooh he said: if they had turned away from their worship of [their idols] Wudd, Siwaa’, Yaghooth and Ya’ooq, they would have lost more of Al-Haqq.
Then he said: Every object of worship is a manifestation of Al-Haqq. Those who know it, know it, and those who do not know it, do not know it. The one who has knowledge knows what he is worshipping and in what image the object of his worship is manifested. These many and varied manifestations are like the limbs of a physical image.
Then he said concerning the people of Hood: They reached a true state of closeness (to Allaah) and were no longer remote. The heat of Hell no longer affected them and they gained the blessing of closeness to Allaah because they deserved it. They were not given this delicious experience as a favour, but because they deserved it as a result of the essence of their deeds, for they were on a straight path.
Then he denied the idea of the warning against those of mankind against whom the word of punishment is justified.
Should the one who believes in what he says be denounced as a kaafir, or should we accept what he says, or what? If the person who listens to him is an adult of sound mind, and does not denounce him by speaking or in his heart, is he a sinner, or what?
Please explain to us clearly and with proof, as Allaah has taken the covenant from the scholars on that basis, for negligence [on the part of the scholars] causes a great deal of confusion to the ignorant.
(‘Aqeedah Ibn ‘Arabi wa Hayaatuhu by Taqiy al-Deen al-Faasi, p. 15, 16).
(The author) mentioned the response of some of the scholars:
Al-Qaadi Badr al-Deen ibn Jamaa’ah said:
The passages quoted, and other similar parts of this book, are bid’ah and misguidance, evil and ignorance. The religiously-committed Muslim would not pay any heed to them or bother to read the book to find out more.
Then he said:
The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) could never give permission in a dream for something which goes against and contradicts Islam; on the contrary, this is from the evil insinuations or whispers of the Shaytaan and a trap whereby the Shaytaan is playing with him and tempting him.
His words about Adam, that he is the pupil of the eye, and his likening Allaah to His creation, and his remark that ‘Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see’ – if by ‘Al-Haqq’ he is referring to the Lord of the Worlds – is a clear statement of anthropomorphism [likening Allaah to His creation] and he has taken this notion to extremes.
With regard to his denial of what has been narrated in the Qur’aan and Sunnah concerning the warning: this makes him a kaafir in the view of the scholars of the followers of Tawheed.
His comments about the people of Nooh and of Hood is vain and false talk which deserves to be rejected. The best way of dealing with that is to destroy this and all other similar passages of his book, for it is no more than fancy words, an expression of baseless ideas and an attempt to introduce into the religion ideas that do not belong to it. The ruling on this is that it should be rejected and ignored. (Ibid., p. 29, 30).
Khateeb al-Qal’ah Shaykh Shams al-Deen Muhammad ibn Yoosuf al-Jazari al-Shaafa’i said:
Praise be to Allaah. His comment about Adam being called insaan is anthropomorphism [likening Allaah to His creation] and is a lie and falsehood. His belief that the idol-worship of the people of Nooh was valid is kufr. Anyone who says such a thing cannot be approved of. His comment that ‘Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see’ is false and contradictory, and it is also kufr. His comment that the people of Hood had reached a true state of closeness (to Allaah) is a lie against Allaah, and by saying this, he has rejected what Allaah said about them. His remark that they were no longer remote and that Hell became a blessing and a joy for them is a lie and a rejection of everything that was revealed to the Prophets; the truth of the matter is what Allaah said about that, that they (the people of Hood) will abide in the torment forever.
Concerning those who believe what he says – and he knows what he said – the same ruling applies to them as to him: that they are misguided kaafirs, if they have knowledge. If they do not have knowledge, then the person who says that out of ignorance should be told the truth and taught about it, and should be stopped if possible.
His denial of the warning to all people is a lie and a rejection of the consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. No doubt Allaah will bring about the punishment. Islam offers definitive evidence that a group of sinners from among the believers will be punished, and the one who denies that is regarded as a kaafir. May Allaah protect us from wrong belief and denying the Resurrection. (Ibid., p. 31, 32).
Ibn Taymiyah said:
The Muslims, Christians and Jews all know something which is a basic principle of the Muslims’ religion: that whoever says of any human being that he is a part of God is a kaafir, he is regarded as a disbeliever by all these religions. Even the Christians do not say this, although their belief is a major form of kufr; no one says that the essence of creation is part of the Creator, or that the Creator is the creation, or that Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see.
Similarly, his remark that if the Mushrikeen turn away from idol-worship, they will have turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that they have abandoned idol-worship, is obviously kufr according to the basic principle that is common to all the religions. For the religions are agreed that all the Prophets forbade idol-worship and regarded as disbelievers those who did that; the believer cannot be a believer unless he disavows himself of worshipping idols and of everything that is worshipped instead of Allaah. As Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning);
“Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever until you believe in Allaah Alone’” [al-Mumtahanah 60:4]
-- and he quoted other aayaat as proof -- then he said:
Whoever says that if the idol-worshippers give up their idols, they will have turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that they have abandoned idol-worship, is an even worse kaafir than the Jews and Christians, and the one who does not regard them as kaafirs is an even worse kaafir than the Jews and Christians, for the Jews and Christians regard idol-worshippers as disbelievers, so how about one who says that the one who gives up idol-worship has turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that he has abandoned idol-worship?! Let alone the fact that he says, The one who has knowledge knows what he is worshipping and in what image the object of his worship is manifested. These many and varied forms are like the limbs of a physical image and the energy in a spiritual image; nothing but Allaah is being worshipped in everything that is worshipped. He is an even greater kaafir than the worshippers of idols, for they only take them as intercessors and mediators, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“ [The Mushrikeen say] ‘We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah’” [al-Zumar 39:3]
“Have they taken (others) as intercessors besides Allaah? Say: “Even if they have power over nothing whatever and have no intelligence?” [al-Zumar 39:43]
They acknowledged that Allaah is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and the Creator of the idols, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And verily, if you ask them: ‘Who created the heavens and the earth?’ Surely, they will say: ‘Allaah (has created them)’” [al-Zumar 39:38] (Ibid., 21-23)
Shaykh al-Islam also said:
When the faqeeh Abu Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam came to Cairo and they asked him about Ibn ‘Arabi, he said:
He is a vile and evil shaykh who says that the world is eternal and does not see anything haraam in any sexual relationship.
He mentioned the belief that the world is eternal because this is what [Ibn ‘Arabi] believed, but this is well-known form of kufr and the faqeeh Abu Muhammad denounced him as a kaafir because of this. At that time Ibn ‘Arabi had not yet said that the universe was God or the universe was the image and essence of God. This is a greater form of kufr because those who say that the universe is eternal still believe that there had to be Someone Who brought it into existence, that from the One Who must exist comes that which may exist. Those shaykhs who met him [Ibn ‘Arabi] said that he was a liar and a fabricator, and that in his books such as al-Futoohaat al-Makkiyyah etc. there were lies which could not be concealed from any intelligent person.
Then he said:
I have not even mentioned one-tenth of what they mentioned about kufr, but people who do not know about them have been deceived by these ideas, just as they were deceived by the Baatini Qaraamitah when they claimed to be descendents of Faatimah and said that they belonged to the Shee’ah, so the Shee’ah began to like them without knowing of their hidden kufr. So the person who is attracted to them is one of two things: either he is a heretic and hypocrite, or he is misguided and ignorant. With regard to these pantheists (ittihaadiyoon), their leaders are the leaders of kufr and must be executed, and their repentance cannot be accepted if they are seized before they repent, for they are among the greatest heretics, those who make an outward display of being Muslim whilst concealing kufr in their hearts, those who conceal their beliefs and their opposition to Islam. Everyone who follows them, who defends them, who praises them, who admires their books, who is known to help them, who does not like to speak against them or who makes excuses for them by saying that we do not know exactly what these statements mean, who says ‘How can we be sure that he wrote this book?’ and other excuses which no one but an ignorant person or a hypocrite would come up with, must be punished.
Indeed, it is obligatory to punish everyone who knows about them but does not help to resist them, because campaigning against these people is one of the most serious duties, for they have corrupted the minds and religious belief of many shaykhs, scholars, kings and princes, and they are spreading corruption throughout the world, preventing people from following the path of Allaah. The harm that they cause to the religion is greater than that done by those who damage the worldly interests of the Muslims but leave their religion alone, such as bandits on the highways and the Tatars (Mongols) who took their wealth but left their religion alone. Those who do not know them should not underestimate the danger they pose. Their own misguidance and the extent to which they misguide others defies description.
Then he said:
Whoever thinks well of them and claims not to know how they really are should be informed about them. If he does not then turn his back on them and denounce them, then he should be classed as one of them.
Whoever says that their words could be interpreted in such a way that it does not contradict sharee’ah is one of their leaders and imaams. If he is intelligent, he should know what they really are. But if he believes in it and behaves like this openly and in secret, then he is a worse kaafir than the Christians.
(Ibid., p. 25-28 – adapted and abbreviated)
Ibn Hajar said:
Some confusing words of Ibn ‘Arabi were mentioned to our master Shaykh al-Islam Siraaj al-Deen al-Balqeeni, and he was asked about Ibn ‘Arabi. Our Shaykh al-Balqeeni said: he is a kaafir.
(Ibid., p. 39).
Ibn Khaldoon said:
Among these Sufis are: Ibn ‘Arabi, Ibn Saba’een, Ibn Barrajaan and their followers who follow their path and their religion. They have many books in circulation that are filled with blatant kufr and repugnant bid’ahs, trying to interpret clear texts in very far-fetched and repugnant ways, such that the reader is astounded that anyone could attribute such things to Islam.
(Ibid., p. 41).
Al-Subki said:
These later Sufis, such as Ibn ‘Arabi and his followers, are misguided and ignorant and beyond the pale of Islam; those among them who have knowledge are even worse.
(Ibid., p. 55).
Abu Zar’ah ibn al-Haafiz al-‘Iraaqi said:
Undoubtedly the famous book Al-Fusoos contains blatant kufr, as does al-Futoohaat al-Makkiyyah. If it is true that he wrote this and continued to believe in it until he died, then he is a kaafir who is doomed to eternity in Hell, no doubt about it.
(Ibid., p. 60).
So how can any sane person say that these brilliant scholars did not understand Ibn ‘Arabi? If they did not understand him, who can?
An incident from which we learn a lesson:
Al-Faasi said:
I heard our companion al-Haafiz al-Hujjah al-Qaadi Shihaab al-Deen Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Hajar al-Shaafa’i say: there were many disputes about Ibn ‘Arabi between me and one of those who like Ibn ‘Arabi, until I insulted him because of the bad things that he had said, but that did not make the man change his mind. He threatened to complain about me to the Sultaan in Egypt with regard to a matter that was different from that which we were arguing about, just to cause trouble for me. I said to him: the Sultaan has nothing to do with this! Come, let us make Mubaahalah [call our sons, our wives and ourselves and pray and invoke the Curse of Allaah upon those who lie – cf. Aal ‘Imraan 3:61]. It is very rare, when people make Mubaahalah and one of them is lying, for that one to go unpunished. So he said to me, ‘Bismillaah’ [i.e, he agreed]. And I said to him: ‘Say: O Allaah, if Ibn ‘Arabi is misguided, then curse me with Your Curse’ – so he said that. Then I said, O Allaah, if Ibn ‘Arabi is rightly-guided, then curse me with Your Curse. Then we parted. Then we met in a park in Egypt on a moonlit night, and he said to us, Something soft touched my leg, look! So we looked but we did not see anything. Then he checked his eyes and he could not see anything (i.e., Allaah had afflicted him with blindness).
This is the meaning of what Al-Haafiz Shihaab al-Deen ibn Hajar al-‘Asqallaani told me.
(Ibid., p. 75, 76).
This is how this man has misguided and deceived those who are seeking the truth and who want to follow the path of right guidance. He is a heretic who was not ahead of his time in any way except in misguidance and kufr. He does not possess any light or wisdom; on the contrary he is in the depths of darkness and ignorance.
We have quoted to you the words of scholars other than Ibn Taymiyah, to point out the kufr of Ibn ‘Arabi, so that you will not think that Ibn Taymiyah was the only one who denounced him as a kaafir.
In response to your bad manners towards Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and your claim that he came years after Ibn ‘Arabi, we say: you came many more years after Ibn Taymiyah than the number of years between him and Ibn ‘Arabi, so you of all people should keep quiet about him.
It is not right to speak in such an ill-mannered way about a Shaykh such as Ibn Taymiyah, whose knowledge has spread all over the world. How can a man such as you dare to describe him as an ant?
Who are you to describe the Shaykh of shaykhs and the Shaykh of Islam as an ant? Do you not fear that you will have to stand before Allaah and be questioned as to why you were so ill-mannered towards the scholars?
We ask you by Allaah, besides Whom there is no other god, can a person who says that the creation is a part of the Creator be a Muslim?
I dont know who Ibn Arabi was. Why should I care?
Why are you creating random topicsa about random people from history who are until now forgotten?
Using it as a form of bashing sufism - if I make crap chicken jalfrezi, does it mean that chicken Jalfrezi is always crap?
The above is also slander as since I have no idea who the guy is, he may have been a good Muslim but a lack of knowledge on my part stops me from pointing out the errors in your slander.
Why are you putting your imaan on the line by talking about someone who I asume lived centuries ago and until now I was unaware of?
finally, why do you care so much?
Did you write that post or just compy and paste someone elses words without even reading them.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
he was just as bad as tahir ul qaadri infact sometimes its hard to see which ones worse
ok, so you are here just to insult then.
Good that your imaan is only there to criticise others instead of acting on Islam.
Bravo.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
im not here to insult just stating the facts, their both kafirs no different to george bush and tony blair
"He who calls another a Kaafir, one of them is."
So do you really want to risk your imaan on a random discussion forum by deciding to use the worst insult that can be made to another Muslim? Your choice as its your grave you will be in. Maybe it will smell of the gardens of paradise, but if you get even one of your takfirs wrong, maybe because you cut and pasted it instead of researching things yourself, it might not be so sweet.
Now, when you go around being takfiri about people, realise that all of asia was influenced by Sufi Muslims. So was africa and spain.
There are very few people who consider them sunni and dont allow tasawwuf.
Are you foolish enough to call them all kaafir?
I know historically some groups had to take a harder line here, because they needed the political backing in order to justify to their people why they supported the British in breaking up the capliphate instead of siding with the Muslims. They couldnt justify spilling the blood of Muslims without first making takfir on them. Are you sure you want to continue to be on their side?
There have always been factions who have spilt the blood of other Muslims and thought it has been allowed. They have always been on the fringe. Why do you side with them? Are they the people you want to stand with?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Can I ask if you agree with Al qaeda and like movements. More specifically, the fatwa of Osama Bin Laden, where he used the texts of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah and used an erroneous typo in his copy in order to justify murder?
Are you one of them people?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
thats if a person isnt a kafir and you call him one then its the consequence, tahirul qadri is a proven kafir, commits shirk, bidah allies with the enemies, they are proven kafirs so im not affected with that beautyful saying of muhammad SAW
regarding tassaawuf:
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “The words al-faqr and al-tasawwuf (i.e., Sufism) may include some things that are loved by Allaah and His Messenger, and these are things that are enjoined even if they are called faqr or tasawwuf, because the Qur’aan and Sunnah indicate that they are mustahabb and that is not altered if they called by other names.
spain was first invaded by tariq ibn ziyyad, tariq ibn ziyad wasnt a sufi, sufis came later on, this is where ibn arabi comes in, he was born in spain after the take over, and innovated nearly all the shirk beliefs of sufism today, and spread it liket he wind and fire, falsehood was always something that blinded people and ibn arabi was a great manipulator well known to blind people with lies, this is where the spread of sufism came in spain.
Asia was sadly taken over by false sufi beliefs sadly, the first halt was done by none other the 4 great imams, when they refuted their beliefs sufis didnt hold back making false biography with the help of shias linking him to imam jaffar, when they had no links to him to sahih and earliest biography written by their student, isnad exists to prove they were written by their students unlike sufi sources which came from nowhere fabricated and isnad proven wrong by great scholars.
Anyway later on the true sheikul islam ibn tamiyyah and his student ibn kathir refuted them, and then the scholars who came by.
split of the ummah, your tahirul qadri is siding with the west not only that backs them up, a job of a munafiq, supporting those who kill our brothers and sisters in palestine, what have your sufi done about caliphate? destroyed it, why because they were being exposed with their false belief, its like the shias who say we helped the british because of.... its obvious why sufis helped them their false beliefs were being exposed and they needed some help to spread their false in the world, and sufis are well known cowards, infact any battle from kafirs that emerged it was us muslims who dealt with them, mongol empire, shia rise, british empire, while sufi hid behind doors and medidating we did the fighting and got the victories.
So to see a sufi make claims its a good thing to support british empire its just your typical sufi low minded thought, no different to shias sufi bunch of bidh and shirk infected group who allied with the kafirs to damage the ummah, by allah may allah bless those warriors who destroyed the sufi empire in battle.
And their are certain situations where the sword is necessary to use, look at the muawiyyah RA and Ali RA situation ali RA wasnted to take muawiyyah RA out and he had every right, like that their are situations in islam were battle is necessary, if it wasnt used on sufis at one point they wouldve infacted the world with shirk, making muslims kafir and destroyed them for good.
(Making a claim that someone has committed shirk is not the same as proving it.What is your opinion of God? Do you ascribe to Him (swt) a physical Body? Na'udhubillah.)
I don't know why you want to talk about Tahir ul Qadri. Maybe go onto a MInhajul QUr'an forum if you want to do that? See, as he was irrelevant to the discussion before, you are only bringing him up t spread fitnah. Just as was your aim in starting the topic on Ibn Arabi. No one here was discussing them, I havent even heard of the latter yet you feel it important enough to come on here and create topics to make takfir on them.
If that is all that Islam teaches you... you need better teachers.
As for supporting violence, be a man (or a woman) and stop hiding behind your words.
Do you support the bloodshed of other people as allowed in the "fatwas" of Osama Bin Laden, who is not a scholar, and who misread a fatwa of SHaykh Ibn Taymiyyah?
How can you quote Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah and also say those that have twisted his words are right?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah said "live with them", some random printing company mistyped the arabic to "kill them" and the non scholar Osama Bin Laden used that as his proof. Not the qur'an or sunnah, but a mistyped quotation from SHaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, words that SHaykh Ibn Taymiyyah had not used.
and you are defending it.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
islam teaches to expose the falsehood, the lies and the weak, regarding the attributes to allah, according to sahih hadith in tirmidhi muhammad SAW asked how can allah have a feat he muhammad SAW said their is none like allah, so the foot of allah isnt like that of creation but its a foot like none other. meaning when we say foot we dont actually mean foot, but a foot like none other, think about it when we say a plains face do we actually mean face?
and second evidence of atributes of allah:
Narrated Suhayb ibn Sinan ar-Rumi (radi Allahu anhu) that the Messenger of Allah (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said: “When those deserving of Paradise enter Paradise, the Blessed and Exalted will ask: ‘Do you wish Me to give you anything more?’ They will say: ‘Have You not brightened our faces? Have You not made us enter Paradise and saved us from Fire?’ He (Allah) will then lift the veil (from their eyes), and of things given to them nothing will be dearer to them than the sight of their Lord, the Mighty and the Glorious." [#347: Book 1: Sahih Muslim]
Doubtless we, men and women, are promised to have what we want in Jannah; Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) says in the Quran: “Therein you shall have (all) that your inner selves desire, and therein you shall have (all) which you ask for.” [41:31-32] But the greatest reward for the people in Jannah will be to view the Countenance (Apperance) of Allah (subhana wa ta’ala). Despite having all that their hearts desire, the greatest treat for the inhabitants of Jannah will be to look at the Countenance (Appearance) of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. There will be nothing more delightful than looking at Him.
When we see a really scenic place on earth, for example a beautiful valley surrounded by majestic mountains or a white beach with palm trees and clear turquoise water, our eyes wish to keep feasting on the gorgeous view and never have to look at anything drab again. Imagine how beautiful Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) must be that the greatest pleasure in Jannah will be the sight of Allah’s Face.
Therefore one should excel himself to do good deeds intending his deeds only for the sake of Allah Azza-wa-jal seeking His pleasure and more importantly, seeking His face. It is unimaginable beauty that ones mind cannot comprehend. It is the greatest reward that one can ask for, so hasten to ask for this blessed reward in which Allah Subhanahu-wa-ta'Ala will bestow upon whom He loves. So yearn to be amongt those who He loves and carry out the deeds which can bring you closet to His love whilst staying far away from that which causes His anger an wrath.
the sufi the ignorants are well known to accept fabricated hadith yet they cant see or understand sahih hadith.
second regarding bin laden it just shows how ignorant you are, the matter of bin laden in quran and sunnah it is stated that nonmuslims are not allowed to enter makkah and medina, so for bin laden to fight back with them was the right thing to do.
Second jihad is accepted in many places, the scenario of ali RA and muawiyyah RA ali RA had the right to do jihad, when the sufi empire emerged they wouldve destroyed the islam religion so again destroying them was necessary, it is proven in islam their if a situation arises in muslims then jihad will be necessary to perform, if it was harram you think ali RA wouldve fought muaiyyah RA? it is proven their are certain situations such as if a deviant sect in islam was rise and cause trouble then jihad against them is necessary, but sufi will naturally be against this as liek shia and qadiyani sufi matches with this description perfectly a deviant group of people.
And learn how to quote, if you quote shcholars put their full quote, and if your a sufi reference as your well known to use fabricated sources, and know how to twist things like you do with ibn tamiyyahs mawlid quote.
So you do support Osama Bin Laden's fatwa even though you have been told that it uses incorrect sources... interesting. "I don't care if my views are based on lies or erroneous information, I stand by them" does not seem to be solid ground to be on.
As for the ahadith you quote... in defence of the physical being of God (swt) I remember the discussion of metaphor last time where you started off saying how there is no metaphor in the qur'an, but when confronted with the verse about the noor of the prophet (saw), you did a full 180 and stated that that bit was metaphorical. The true traditional belief has been that God is beyond the physical world - all that is physical is creation. Stop mixing the two, as that is truly shirk.
As for Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah talking about the Mawlid, it is you who twists the quotes. Are you the same guy who was on here like 6 or 9 months ago who decided to quote him and then it was pointed out to you how the quote said "it was bid'ah, but those that celebrate it are rewarded for their intention" or even that this bid'ah SHOULD be done as opposed to not be done?
oh yes, you are the same guy comparing sufis with shias and qadiyanis.
You mean Salahuddin Ayyubi? Did he destroy Islam? Do you mean the ottomans? did they destroy Islam? DO you really think Islam was rescued when some people sided with the kuffaar against the ottomans 90 odd years ago? Do you think it helped Muslims enter a new enlightered era?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
the fatwa uses incorrect sources how about providing the reference of tgat ibn tamiyyah quote you use, post it up or as usual you usfis dont even have any source just based on the your deviant scholars.
Bin ladens fatwa as ive said its proven from quran and sunnah that nonmuslims cannot enter makkah medina so how was his act wrong here? tell me, their not allowed to come in so he fought back so wheres the wrong here? just because he may have one minor mistake in his fatwa doesnt change the fct that his overal view and fatwa was correct.
and stop putting words in my mouth, the correct thing i said was in the attributes of allah their is no metaphor, where did i say the whole quran has no metaphor? stop lieing and exposing the thrash your mouth is.And its quite obvious you have no refute to the hadith on attributes of allah so now your jsut speaking thrash like a typical sufi always does, muhammad SAW himself said allah is none like other so when we say face we dont mean face as allah is none like other so when we say face we dont eman face but a a face none like other.
now islam got better with being pigs of the west, first of all muhammad SAW in a hadith said never create alliance with the jews and christians you cowards joined them to destroy islam, and like the qadiyanis even they say we got a new light sicne they came, but we know the deviants nad kafirs they are, sufis are similar, they claim they got something good, how strange like christians their acts are proven false when compared to quran and sunnah, the 4 great imams, imam shafi called sufi idipots and said any man who stayed with sufi 40 days got destroyed, so we know from the 3 great generation sufis were always refuted and proven wrong and today its the same, why do sufis always lose debates like christians cause like them their acts is false and thrash,
And now you cowads claim you madde things better, with the sufi with british shirk bidah grave worship was spread, and it took the great mujahideens to emerge again to put sufis is in their place again.
You sufis you are bigger sluts then prostitutes, because prostitutes sell themselves to man but you sufi you sell yourselves to kafirs making you worse.
you claim you made things better yet you can never prove yourself correct in any thing alwys contradict the quran and sunnah the great scholars of past and we muslims twist evidence well heres the extract from ibn tamiyyahs book, go buy his book if you dont ahve money i'll pay for you this is what it says on mawlid:
Originally Posted by Masud.co.uk
Ibn Taymiya, for instance, the medieval scholar of Syria, wrote:
To celebrate and to honour the birth of the Prophet, and to take it as an honoured season, as some of the people are doing, is good, and in it there is a great reward, because of their good intentions in honouring the Prophet
And the Sunni Forum brother quoted Ibn Taymiyyah as such, with a great big ellipses in the middle of the quote (!!!) :
Quote:
Ibn Taymiyya: "The innovated festivities of time and place" (ma uhditha min al-a´yad al-zamaniyya wa al-makaniyya): And similarly what some people innovate by analogy with the Christians who celebrate the birth of Jesus, or out of love for the Prophet and to exalt him, and Allah may reward them for this love and effort... To celebrate and to honor the birth of the Prophet and to take it as an honored season, as some of the people are doing, is good and in it there is a great reward, because of their good intentions in honoring the Prophet.
Now let us see why this is a deliberate misquote.
In actuality, Ibn Taymiyyah [ra] was OPPOSED to Mawlid, he DETESTED it, thought it was bidah, likened it to what the Christians do, said the evil outweighs the good, and said that a true believer would never celebrate it.
The FULL QUOTE of what Ibn Taymiyyah [ra] said:
"…because the Eeds are legislated laws from amongst the laws, so it is necessary to follow them, and not to innovate them, and the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) had many lectures, treaties, and great events that happened on a number of (documented) days such as the Day of Badr, Hunain, al-Khandaq, the Conquest of Mecca, the occurrence of his hijrah, his entry to Madeenah…and none of this necessitated that these days be taken as days of Eed. Rather this sort of thing was done by the Christians who took the days in which great events happened to Jesus as eeds, or by the Jews. Indeed the Eed is a legislated law, so what Allaah legislates is followed, otherwise do not innovate in this religion that which is not part of it.
And like this is what some of the people have innovated, either in opposition to the Christian celebration of the birthday of Jesus, or out of love for the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) and in honour of him. And Allaah will reward them for this love and ijtihaad, but NOT FOR THE BID’AH of taking the day of the birth of the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) as an eed - this along with the difference of the people as to when he was born. For indeed this (celebration) was not done by the salaf, despite the existence of factors that would necessitate it and the lack of any factors that would prevent them from doing so if it were indeed good. And if this was genuinely good or preferable then the salaf, may Allaah be pleased with them, would have more right to doing so then us, for they had more severe love and honour of the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) in following him, obeying him, and following his command, and reviving his sunnah inwardly and outwardly, and spreading that which he was sent with, and performing jihaad for this in the heart, with the hand and upon the tongue. So indeed this was the way of the Saabiqeen al-Awwaleen from the Muhajiroon and the Ansaar, and those that followed them in good.
And you will find the majority of these (who celebrate the birthday) in ardent desire of these sort of innovations - alongwith what they have of good intention and ijtihaad for which reward is hoped for - but you would find them feeble in following the command of the Messenger, that which they have been commanded to be eager and vigorous in, indeed they are of the position of one who adorns the Mushaf but does not read what is in it or reads what is in it but does not follow it. Or the position of one who decorates the mosques but does not pray in them, or prays in them rarely…
And know that from the actions are those that have some good in them, due to their including types of good actions and including evil actions such as innovation etc. So this action would be good with respect to what it includes of good and evil with respect to what it contains of turning away from the religion in it’s totality, as is the state of the hypocrites and faasiqeen. This has what has afflicted the majority of the ummah in the later times. So upon you is two manners (of rectification):
1. that your desire be to follow the sunnah inwardly and outwardly, with respect to yourself specifically and those that follow you, and you enjoin the good and forbid the evil.
2. that you call the people to the sunnah in accordance to ability, so if you were to see someone doing this (celebration) and he were to not leave it except for an evil greater than it, then do not call him to leaving the evil so that he may perform something more evil than this….[a page omitted in which he explains this principle]
So honouring the mawlid, and taking it as a festive season (mawsam) which some of the people have done, there is a great reward in it due to the good intention and the honouring of the Messenger (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) because of what I have previously stated to you - that it is possible that something be good for some of the people and be denounced/considered to be ugly by the strict believer. This is why it was said to Imaam Ahmad about some of the leaders, that he spent 1000 dirhams upon the mushaf or similar to this. So he replied, ‘leave them, for this is better than them spending it on gold (jewellery).’ This despite the fact that the madhhab of Imaam Ahmad was that it is abhorrent to decorate the mushafs, and some of the companions (of Ahmad) interpreted this to mean that the money was spent in renewing the pages and writing. But this is not the intent of Ahmad here, his intention here was that this action had a benefit in it, and it also contained corruption due to which it became abhorrent. But these people, if they did not do this, would have substituted this for a corruption that contained no good whatsoever, for example spending upon one of the books of evil…" [Iqtidaa Siraat al-Mustaqeem 2/618+ my copy has the tahqeeq of Shaykh Naasir al-Aql]
He says in another place of the same book, "there is no doubt that the one who practices these - i.e. the innovated festive seasons - either the mujtahid or muqallid will have the reward for his good intention and the what the action contains of legislated actions, and will be forgiven for what it contains of innovation if his ijtihaad or taqleed contains one of the excuses (that would lift this sin from him)…."
Ibn Taymiyyah continues:
"But this does not prevent one from detesting and prohibiting it and to replace it with a legislated action containing no bid'ah.... Just as the Jews and Christians may find benefit in their worship because it is possible that their worship includes an aspect of what is legislated but this does not necessitate that you perform their actions of worship or you report their words because all of the innovations contain evil that outweighs their good, this due to the fact that if their good outweighed the evil then why would the Sharee'ah have disregarded it? So we depend upon the fact that it's sin is greater than it's benefit and this necessitates forbiddance."
He continues:
"And I say: it's sin is removed from some of the people due to the reason of ijtihaad or other than it, as the sin of usury and alcohol (from dates) which has been differed about (by the salaf) is removed from the salaf (who allowed it), then despite this it is necessary to explain it's condition and not to follow those that considered it permissible.... So this is sufficient evidence in explaining that these innovations include corruptions of belief or condition contradicting what the Messenger (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) came with, and that what benefit they contain is marjooh (not to be relied upon) and it not correct to use for objection"
He continues:
"As for what they contain - i.e. these innovated festive seasons such as the Mawlid - of benefit then they are opposed by what they contain of the corruption of innovations that outweigh the benefit, alongwith with what has preceded of the corruptions of belief and state - that the hearts become content with it at the expense of a large number of Sunnahs to the extent that you find that the elite and the general masses preserve this in a way that they do not preserve the Taraaweeh's or the five prayers...." mentioning many more cases.[al-Qawl al-Fasl (pg. 102) of Shaykh Ismaa’eel al-Ansaaree]
if you want i can give ibn kathirs wtriting aswell, its according to sahih source with isnad linking back to ibn kathir not like sufi fabrication which have no isnad soruce or anything which usually exposes the lie sufi are.
Truly i had enjoyed reading the last post, may we all benefit from it. Yet, what adaab is this? [see below]
what disappointment and sadness i feel when reading this! again, acusations and insults. you may habe ruined the benefits from the writing of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyah by posting this straight after quoting his words. Hence people might be put off and leave this knowledge behind as it does not seem to come from someone who deserves to be listen to. What will be the consequences of such an unnecessary and negative action?
i have read the very first post, jazakallah for letting me know about this man, who, from your article, seems to be a kuffar. I will inshallah do my own research and be on my guard.
But what You [the person] has said is also true. This man is dead a long time ago, such a lengthy article was not needed. a friendly warning with a few quotes from well known scholars would have suffice, people can always ask for more information if they need it.
i feel like you are throwing the information at us, thinking that we need to be guided. and that you are the only guidance.
notice how the scholars mention every single details of every action that man (ibn 'Arabi) did and then say "this action is kufr, if he has done it, then he is a kuffar", notice the use of "if" so many times. The scholars themselves are cautious about accusation. Yet you call someone a sufi every other sentences, yet he most probably isnt.
from what i know of the People of Sunnah and Jama'ah accusing and insulting is not their ways. Please refrain from it with such a username. As you represent all of us. You must be really careful with such a name, everything you say and do will be associated with Ahlussunahwaljama'ah, can you bear such responsibilities?
i was shocked and horrified at the comparaison to prostitutes. i will not quote it here again as it is very shameful.
I pray Allah to keep my intention clean and pure when advising.
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
Look at You's post he said "he is glad that they the sufis united with nonmuslims and destroyed the khilafa, he is glad they untied with them to damage the muslim ummah" when you ahve guys like him with such fielthy thougths you need to put them in their place, muhammad SAW said you are not allowed to make alliance with the christians and jews, yet they united with nonmuslims/christians to kill and destroy muslims and the empire, the sufi used to follow the ibn arabi ways and when they were starting to get exposed by pious muslims they joined hands with kafirs and fought the muslims just for their own greed, so think about it who is the bigger sell out them or... they sell themselves to kafirs just to destroy the caliphate so they can spread their false beliefs, they claim they love muhammad SAW yet they do things against his hadith, they contradict the quran.
As for guidance well if i was to post the ibn arabi short the sufis her ewouldve said wheres your evidence, here all the evidence is their, and article starts off with "he was a extreme sufi" and many of the quotes posted their wasnt if it was confirmed quotes on him, and other sources exist proving what he was.
And interms of knowing aqeeda alhmadulillah allah has put me on the straight path here, no different to when righting to christians i amr writing as a muslim soon that field i am on the right path, no different to sufis i am writing to sufis here, and were they lack on that field allah has given me guidance to stay safe from, inshallah may allah guide me you and everyone on everything else aswell.
Anyway jazakllahukhair for some of the advise they were correct undoubdetly.
As for knowledge it doesnt matter what the person may say take the knowledge if its true and make use of it
Question - was this ibn arabi a real person?
I am asking because it seems to be a strawman - the name means "son of an arab" so it seems like authors who wrote about "him" used it to address specific flaws and qualities they saw in some people without calling those out specifically.
Atleast that is a theory I will present without researching this further.
If he was a real person, can you provide the actual name of the person so that we can investigate the claims against him.
I will posit that the person that ahlussunnahwaljama'ah is so eager to attack and make takfir on did not even exist.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
His full name was Abū 'Abdullāh Muḥammad ibn 'Alī ibn Muḥammad ibn al-`Arabī
and yes he existed, he is the one who created many of the sufi beliefs today
oops, I just noticed that you had given his name in the long quotation in the first post.
Except that the name is sibtly different from what you post in your latest post?
I thought you were of the opinion that the sufis started off correctly and were not deviant? So please be clear, what is your precise opinion on this matter?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Nowhere does it say that this man was a sufi? none of the scholars have called him that?
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
You actually read his cut and pastes? I am impressed.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
the scholar above clearly says he was a extreme sufi
and to you any true muslim would read the article as it contains important facts, acts which are from the quran and sunnah part of islam and those that arent