[faqir]

its farsi bro - i haven't got a clue what it means

[As Sondalaani Al Ash'ari]

بسم الله الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وصحبه ومن والاه
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

Oh, I see now in the footnote #6 "No place is empty from Allah."

JazaakAllahu Khairan for this.

This just confirms what's in the Mutawwalaat on 'Aqeedah. Namely:

1. The anthropomorphists are two types:
a. Those who say Allah is everywhere-like in the quote from footnote #6.
b. Those who say Allah is limited to one place, over the throne.
2. A person does not commit heresy by quoting the text of Qur'an and Saheeh Hadeeth verbatim if their intention is not assignment of place or corporealness to Allah.
3. That a person commits Kufr by ascribing physical sitting or standing to Allah because of describing Allah with having an above and below, as came in the next quote from al Bahr Ar Raa'iq.

[tru_Qur'an]

Assalamu 'alaykum,

Masha'Allah there are a lot of quotes listed here in this thread but I think there should be emphasis on showing the authenticity of these quotes and not just the quotes themselves.

For instance, with the initial quotes that were posted by bro faqir, can we know if these quotes are authentic or not insha'Allah?

Quoting these statements in a debate, for instance, without knowing their strength leads to weak arguements.

Jazak'Allahu khairan.

This post has been edited by tru_Qur'an: 14 March 2009 - 06:00 AM

[abulkhair]

Salam

Read on a wahabi forum

A muslim said

Quote

Allah is over the Throne without being in a direction

A wahabi replied

Quote

What an idiot! Being over something means a direction and nothing else.

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog... But not in a particular direction?

You're mental!

They still deny that they are anthropomorphist!!!

This post has been edited by abulkhair: 14 March 2009 - 10:50 PM

[Light]

…and they are still trying their very best:

http://forums.islami...ead.php?t=22759


("Allah Exists Without a Place" – REFUTED)

1. Ali said: Allah was when there was no place, and He is still as He was before. (Al-Farq Bain al-Firaq, Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi, page 287)
Refutation: No chain of narration was mentioned by Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi.

2. Ali said: Allah created the Throne to show Hiw power, not as a place for His essence. (Al-Farq Bain al-Firaq, Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi, page 287)
Refutation: No chain of narration was mentioned by Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi.

3. Ali said: Whoever thinks that our Lord is limited, he is ignorant of the Worshipped Creator. (Hilyah al-Awliyaa, Abu Nu'aym al-Isbahaani, 1/72)
Refutation: Abu Nu'aym himself weakened this narration after narrating it, alongside the fact that there are other weak narrators.
http://www.ahlalhdee...ad.php?t=129377

4. Ali bin Husain bin Ali said: You, the One worthy of worship, are the one who is not encompassed by any place. (Ithaaf al-Saadah al-Muttaqeen, al-Zabeedi, 4/380)
Refutation: It has a Shiite chain of narration, and it is from their al-Saheefah al-Sajjaadiyyah.
http://www.ahlalhdee...ead.php?t=77501

5. Ali bin Husain bin Ali said: You, the One worthy of worship, are the one who cannot be placed in limits so that you would be limited. (Ithaaf al-Saadah al-Muttaqeen, al-Zabeedi, 4/380)
Refutation: It has a Shiite chain of narration, and it is from their al-Saheefah al-Sajjaadiyyah.

http://www.ahlalhdee...ead.php?t=77501

6. Ja'far al-Sadiq said: Whoever thinks that Allah is in something, from something or on something, he would have committed polytheism. This is because if He was on something, it would mean He is lifted; if He was in something, it would mean He is surrounded; and if He was from something, it would mean He was created. (Al-Risaalah al-Qushayriyyah, Abu al-Qasim al-Qushayri, page 35)
Refutation: No chain of narration was mentioned by Abu al-Qasim al-Qushayri.


7. Abu Hanifah said: Allah will be seen in the Hereafter. The Muslims will see Him in Paradise with their very own eyes without anthropomorphism, modality or quantifying (in the Seen, i.e. Allah). There will not be any distance between Allah and His creation. (Al-Fiqh al-Akbar)
Refutation: With a contentious chain of narration to the book, coupled with the fact that this is not corroborated by the Salaf according to the Hanaabilah, the Hanaabilah say that ‘Abu Hanifah cannot be attributed this particular sentence in its wording’, after which it becomes a situation of ‘their word against our word’. Our position in regards to Abu Hanifah and the two Fiqhs attributed to him have been set out as follows:
http://forums.islami...ead.php?t=22759

8. Abu Hanifah said: The meeting with Allah for the People of Paradise – without modality, anthropomorphism and direction – is truthful. (Al-Jawharah al-Muneefah Sharh Kitab al-Wasiyyah, within Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, page 89)
Refutation: Besides the fact that Kitab al-Wasiyyah is laden with non-Sunni theological provisions, the chain of narration of the book is full of unknown people:
Abu Tahir Muhammad bin al-Mahdi al-Husaini, from Ishaq bin Mansur al-Misyaari, from Ahmed bin Ali al-Sulaymani, from Hatim bin Aqeel al-Jawhari, from Abdillah bin Sammaa’ah al-Tameemi, from Abu Yusuf, from Abu Hanifah.

The first four don’t even have mention in the Tabaqaat of the Hanafiyyah, never mind the books of Rijaal al-Hadith. Even the commentator, Mullah Husain bin Iskandar al-Hanafi, was doubtful that Abu Hanifah wrote it in his introduction.
http://www.ahlalhdee...ead.php?t=37999

9. Abu Hanifah was asked: "What if you were asked where Allah is?". He replied: He would told: “Allah was when there was no place before having created the creation. Allah was when there was no ‘Where’, creation or anything else. He is the creator of everything”. (Al-Fiqh al-Absat)
Refutation: The mass-quoter, mass-copier and mass-paster did not complete the whole sentence. Assuming Abu Hanifah DID say this in al-Fiqh al-Absat (due to doubts in authenticity), then the following:

10. Abu Hanifah said: We believe that Allah rose on the Thorne without needing it and without settling on it. He is the Safeguarder of the Throne and everything else without needing anything. If He was in need, He would not have been able to create the world and regulating it – just like the creations. If he was in need of sitting and staying, then [we would ask:] Where was Allah!? Allah is most definitely exalted from that! (Al-Jawharah al-Muneefah Sharh Kitab al-Wasiyyah, within Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, page 62).
Refutation: Besides the fact that Kitab al-Wasiyyah is laden with non-Sunni theological provisions, the chain of narration of the book is full of unknown people:
The first four don’t even have mention in the Tabaqaat of the Hanafiyyah, never mind the books of Rijaal al-Hadith. Even the commentator, Mullah Husain bin Iskandar al-Hanafi, was doubtful that Abu Hanifah wrote it in his introduction.
http://www.ahlalhdee...ead.php?t=37999

11. Al-Shafi'i said: Allah was when there was no place. He created place. He is [still] on the attribute of beginningless-ness as He was before He created place. It is impossible that His Essence transforms or that His Attributes change. (Ithaaf al-Saadah al-Muttaqeen, al-Zabeedi, 4/380)
Refutation: No chain of narration was mentioned by al-Zabeedi.

....and on to 18 with Scans.pdf

???

[Ahmad-Qadri]

Man, it is clear they are DESPERATE to form a group seperate from mainstream Muslims, and what's worse, they like to call themselves Hanaabila!

This is utterly laughable.

Quote

16. Al-Tabari said: Chapter: The way to prove that Allah is Qadeem and first before everything, and that He is the originator of everything with His power.
What proves this is is that there is nothing in the world that can be seen without it being either a body or subsisting in a body, and that bodies are either split or joint, and that split bodies have the potential to adjoin to become new bodies, and that joint bodies have the potential to be split, and that when one body no longer exists the one adjoined to it also no longer exists, and that when two separate parts of bodily nature meet then it is a new attribute they are associated with after having not been associated as such, and that when a body separates then it is a new attribute it is associated with after having not been associated as such.
So if this is the system of whatever is in the world, and the law of the unseen and the seen is that it is either a body or subsisting in a body, and whatever has temporariness in it must have been orginated by an originator via an adjoiner adjoing it if it is a joined body or via a separater separating it if it is a separate body, and it is known through this that the adjoiner of joined bodies and separater of separate bodies is one who does not resemble such bodies, and adjoinment and separateness does not apply to Him, and He is the one, the powerful, the adjoiner between different things, the unresembling, powerful over all – then it is clear by what we have said that the creator of things was before every thing [the mass-quoter, mass-copier and mass-paster notes here: i.e. including before time and place and all other creations], and that the night, day, time and moments are originated, and that the originator of these is the one who regulates them and deals in them as He sees fit before they are created, because it is only possible that an originated thing comes after the presence of its originator, and that there is the highest standard of proof and the most evident evidence for the open-minded understanding person proving the beginningless-ness of its creator and the beginning-ness of anything that is of created nature and that they have a creator in the Quranic verse: “Do they not look at the camels how they are made, and at the sky how it is raised high, and at the mountains how they are fixed firm, and at the earth how it is spread out?” (Tarikh al-Tabari, al-Tabari, 1/28)
Refutation: The most that can be deduced from all of this is that Allah was present when there was no place. Al-Tabari, unlike the Ahl al-Kalam, did not follow this up by saying: ‘… and He is still as He was before He created place’, which is where the real problem is for the Hanaabilah. So this is just another case of the Ahl al-Kalam missing the mark.

... so this jahil mutlaq admits that he believes Allah goes through changes, wal 3eyadhu billaah! ... not to mention his implication that Allah needs to be in a place, wal 3eyadhu billaah.

It seems their standard answer when they're cornered is "there's no authenticity" (even if what you present IS authentic). Its no wonder then that albani, even classified many a sahih hadith as daeef! not to mention they have tried real hard to validate the dead wrong equation daeef = lie.

I would love to see them argue something on the basis of reasoning and content of the subject matter rather than false claims to lack of "authenticity" or nonsensical non-objective and irrelevant emotional rubbish like this:

Quote

12. Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said: Whatever has become famous of Ahmed bin Hanbal in that he opined a direction etc. for Allah, it is all a lie, a slander and a fabrication against him. (Al-Fataawaa al-Hadithiyyah, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, page 144)
Refutation: Ibn Hajar al-Haytami,

1. the one who contradicted Ahmed bin Hanbal himself when Ahmed said: “The Ahl al-Bid’ah talk ambiguously, and they con the laymen with what would be tough for them to comprehend. We seek the refuge of Allah from the corruptions of the misguiders”, while he negates the very same ambiguous rhetoric such as Jism, Jihah, Harakah, Intiqaal, Hayyiz, Makan;

2. the one who categorises all non-Asharis and non-Maturidis to be from the Ahl al-Bid'ah;

3. the one who said about Ibn Taymiyyah: “Ibn Taymiyyah is a slave whom Allah humiliated, misguided, blinded and degraded… no thought is to be given to his words… it should be believed that he is a deviant innovator and an ignorant bigot misguider…”;

4. the one who denied Rahmah as an attribute that befits Allah by saying: “Rahmah is loving and a spiritual leaning, the aftermaths of which are bounties. So because Rahmah is impossible for Allah, it is either a metaphor for bounties itself… or it is a metaphor for His wishing [of bounties for the creation]…”, and likewise for the Attribute of Anger;

5. and the one who is an admirer of al-Hallaj and Ibn Arabi (source: Ibn Hajar al-Haytami’s Theological Opinions, by Muhammad bin Abdul Aziz al-Shaayi')

is insignificant to the Hanaabilah when it comes to the interpretation of Ahmed bin Hanbal’s Aqeedah. In fact, he is one of the last of the scholars where Ahmed bin Hanbal’s Aqeedah can be taken from in the eyes of the Hanaabilah. Presenting him as evidence against the Hanaabilah is simply mediocre.

The scans are from "Ibn Hajar al-Haytami’s Theological Opinions, by Muhammad bin Abdul Aziz al-Shaayi' " and it is a similar quote from Ibn Hajar al-Haytami regarding Ahmed bin Hanbal.

Sheikh Mustafa Raza Khan rahimahullah said it perfectly that their real aim is to form a group separate than [mainstream] Muslims. Its clear this not just about misinterpretations and half knowledge. Rather its about arrogance in the face of the truth, much like their master in arrogance and egotism*, ibn taymiya.

*http://www.hizmetboo...slam/ref-42.htm

* said:

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-Hurrani, the successor ash-Shawqani was very learned but less intelligent. The latter was exactly like, even more inferior than the former.' "

[IbnShafiq]

As salamu alaikum sidi Ahmad,

although I agree with many of the statements you've made, I think it would be more effective to show that the above narrations are indeed good. Do the pseudo-salafis have a point in their weakening of the narrations. I have heard scholars say that one of the good things that Albani did was, he forced the Ulama to return to the study of hadith. So, what have the Ulama said about these narrations above? Not just there meanings -which we affirm- but there sanad.

wassalam

[faqir]

as-salamu `alaikum

It is true that some of the narrations mentioned by Imam Abdul Qahir al-Baghdadi (d. 429H) in al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq, his major heresiological reference-work (together with the Milal) are mentioned without chain. Yet, the Imam himself was the head of the scholars of his time. To quote another brother, "The historian Al Dhahabi(673-748 AH/ 1274-1348 AD) described him in his book Siyar A`lam al Nubala’ as: “the great, outstanding, and encyclopedic scholar” …. “He used to teach 17 different subjects and his brilliance became the source for proverbs.” Al Dhahabi said that he would have liked to write a separate, more complete article about him, and quoted Abu Uthman Al Sabuni saying: Abu Mansur is by scholarly consensus counted among the heads of the scholars of belief and the methodology of jurisprudence, as well as a front figure of Islam." In his book he makes clear that: "It is obligatory to declare as unbeliever someone who says that Allah has limits." He also mentions that "Ahl al-Sunnah reached consensus that Allah, the Flawless, the Exalted, is not bounded by place." He then reports the saying under question of `Ali [ra]: "Allah created al `Arsh (the Throne) as an indication of His power, not for taking it as a place for Himself."

As for the statement of Imam Abu Hanifah from al-Fiqh al-Akbar - the salafis pick and choose what they take from there.

There was some discussion of the chain of narration for al-Fiqh al-Akbar and other texts attributed to him by Shaykh Gibril in his article on the Wahhabi al-Khumayyis:

- Al-Khumayyis claims that none of the doctrinal texts attributed to Abû H.anîfa are authentically his except the `Aqîda of Imâm al-T.ah.âwî. This is an orientalist speculation which Wahhâbîs are only glad to endorse since it suits their hawâ. Al-Khumayyis himself shows that early H.anafî doctrinal works all have well-known chains of transmission but he chooses to discard them on the basis of his own specious discreditation of the narrators:

I. Al-Fiqh al-Akbar. It is narrated by Nas.r or Nus.ayr ibn Yah.yâ al-Balkhî (d. 268), from Muh.ammad ibn Muqâtil al-Râzî, from `Is.âm ibn Yûsuf ibn Maymûn al-Balkhî, from H.ammâd ibn Abî H.anîfa, from his
father.

The above narrators are all truthful. Al-Bukhârî alone declared Ibn Muqâtil weak - as mentioned by al-Khalîlî in al-Irshâd - but without explanation, hence Ibn H.ajar dismisses this weakening as based on a difference in Madhhab and the fact that Ibn Muqâtil, like all H.anafîs, was considered a Murji'.(3) Ibn Sa`d declared `Is.âm weak but this is also rejected as unconfirmed since Ibn Sa`d's severity against the Kufans is known, and Ibn H.ibbân, although a rabid enemy of H.anafîs, declared him "highly reliable despite occasional errors" while al-Khalîlî graded him "truthful" (s.adûq). As for H.âmmâd, al-`Uqaylî declared him weak then Ibn `Adî but their case is the same as Ibn H.ibbân and Ibn Sa`d regarding H.anafîs. Hence, Abû al-Muz.affar al- Isfarâyînî declared this chain sound in al-Tabs.ira fîl-Dîn.

II. Al-Fiqh al-Absat.. Its text is in catechetical format and differs from the first in content as well. Its chain contains al-H.usayn ibn `Alî al-Alma`î al-Kâshgharî and Abû Mut.î` al-H.akam ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Muslim al-Balkhî who are both weak although their religion is beyond reproach according to al-Sim`ânî and Ibn al-Mubârak respectively. Al-Khumayyis confuses Abû Mut.î` with Abû Salama al-H.akam ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Khat.t.âf, whom Abû H.âtim accused of lying, while he only declared Abû Mut.î` weak.(4)

III. Al-`آlim wal-Muta`allim. It contains a noted emphasis on the necessity of learning kalâm for the protection of one's faith and the defense of religion, identical to Istih.sân al-Khawd. fî `Ilm al-Kalâm, which Imâm al-Ash`arî wrote after the H.anbalî Abû Muh.ammad al- Barbahârî slighted his Ibâna. It is at the very least a work by thestudent of Imâm Abû H.anîfa, Abû Muqâtil H.afs. ibn Salm al-Samarqandî, and the first of its two chains adduced by al-Khumayyis is impeccable and formed of Imâms of fiqh up to Abû Muqâtil who is upright but weak as a narrator.

IV. Risâla ilâ `Uthmân al-Battî.(5) Undoubtedly written by the Imâm and narrated from Abû Yûsuf, its chain is impeccable and comes through al- Marghînânî the author of the Hidâya (misspelled as "Marghiyânî"), Abû al-Mu`în al-Nasafî the Mutakallim, and other Imâms.

V. Al-Was.iyya. The chain adduced by al-Khummayis is similar to the previous one but he shows no knowledge that there are several Was.iyyas attributed to the Imâm, not just one.



..............................


Some other quotes in this regard:


The Ash'arî Shaykh Ab al-Muzaffar al-Isfarâyînî [d.471] said in his book al-Tabsîr fîl-Dîn:

"Al-Fiqh al-Akbar was narrated to us by the trustworthy through a reliable way and a sound chain of transmission from Nasîr ibn Yahyâ [up to] Abu Hanîfa."

[In al-Tabsïr (p. 113) as cited by al-Kawtharï in his introduction to al-Bayàdï's Ishàràt al-Maràm (p. 5).

The complete chain is:

'Alï ibn Ahmad al-Fàrisï < Nasïr [not Nusayr nor Nasr] ibn Yahyà [al-Balkhï (d. 268)] < Abu Muqàtil < 'Isàm ibn Yusuf [ibn Maymun al-Balkhï (d. 210 or 215)] < Hammàd ibn Abï Hanïfa < Abu Hanïfa. (Ibid. p. 6.)

Shaykh Wahbï Sulaymàn Ghàwijï said in his edition of al-Qàrï's Sharh. al-Fiqh al-Akbar (p. 13) that he saw in Maktabat Shaykh al-Islàm 'ہrif Hikmat in Madïna (Compendium #226 or #234) a manuscript of the Fiqh al-Akbar with the same chain.

Taken from:
THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE PIOUS SALAF IN KALAM
http://www.sunnipath...AR00000250.aspx



Sadr al-Islam Imam al-Pazdawi [d.482] says in his book 'Usul ad-Din' pg. 15 under the first article:

"The knowledge of Kalam is one in which scholars have differed on its learning, teaching and writing books regarding it. [Kalam] is the science which describes the articles of faith and the fundamentals of the religion which is obligatory on every muslim. Imam Abu Hanifah [rahimahullah] learnt this science and would debate with the mu'tazilites and other bidyis; and he used to teach this science to his students in his early days. He also wrote a few books in this discipline - some which have reached us and many were obliterated [maHaaha wa ghasalaha] by the ahl al-bid'ah.

Among his books which have reached us are: 'kitab al-`alim wa'l mut`allim' and 'kitab fiqh al-akbar'."



Imam al-Maghnisawi [RH]:

"verily the book al-Fiqh al-akbar written by Imam al-A`zam, is a sound and widely accepted book"



Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar by Imam al-Maghnisawi RH

Part 1:
http://web.archive.o...maghnisawi1.pdf
Part 2:
http://web.archive.o...maghnisawi2.pdf
Part 3:
http://web.archive.o...maghnisawi3.pdf
Part 4:
http://web.archive.o...maghnisawi4.pdf


Shaykh Abdur Rahman [ibn Yusuf] has translated the book and has a lengthy discussion from pages 24-31. In a private email he also mentioned to me:


"... No doubt there is a lot of discussion and difference of opinion as to whether or not the Fiqh Akbar is the authorship of the Great Imam. We are to include research into this matter as part of the book. One of the strongest evidences of it being the authorship of the Imam is it being attributed to him by Ibn al-Nadim in his Fihrist (a very early catalogue) among other proofs.

However, even if it is not Imam Abu Hanifa's work, it certainly has been accepted to reflect his opinions in Aqida, as has been shown by all the great Hanafi scholars who wrote commentaries on it..."


Shaykh Faraz Rabbani:

Fiqh al-Akbar's accepted narrations are either from Imam Abu Hanifa, or are surely representative of the `way' of Abu Hanifa in matters of aqida, as the ulema of his madhhab, early and late, have accepted.



More later insha'Allah.

[IbnShafiq]

wa alaikum as salam sidi Faqir,

Jazak Allahu khair for the post, and we are looking forward to its continuation.

Was salam

[Zhulfiqar]

السلام عليكم

Isn't there even one with a chain of the narration from Hz. 'Aliy (رضي الله عنه), akhi ?

[Hamoudeh]

tru_Qur, on Mar 14 2009, 07:59 AM, said:

I think there should be emphasis on showing the authenticity of these quotes and not just the quotes themselves. For instance, with the initial quotes that were posted by bro faqir, can we know if these quotes are authentic or not insha'Allah? Quoting these statements in a debate, for instance, without knowing their strength leads to weak arguements.

IbnShafiq, on Mar 15 2009, 07:41 AM, said:

I think it would be more effective to show that the above narrations are indeed good. Do the pseudo-salafis have a point in their weakening of the narrations. I have heard scholars say that one of the good things that Albani did was, he forced the Ulama to return to the study of hadith. So, what have the Ulama said about these narrations above? Not just there meanings -which we affirm- but there sanad.

Rhetorically more effective, yes; for that is what it is, rhetoric. They do not have a point whatsoever in their weakening of narrations on this level of the discussion. This discussion is taking place on public internet forums and mostly between laymen, activists, pseudo-students, quasi-students and what not. It is not a serious discussion in studies of narrations and narrators at all, and should not be mistaken as such. In fact, these people have little reason to be concerned with anything beyond sources such as al-Bayhaqi, al-Baghdadi, Abu Nu`aym, Ibn Hibban and so on. Though contesting these kind of sources in this fashion is ridiculous, they are free to do so provided that they are sincere and admit that such has consequences for their view of these scholars. It is up to them to explain what these consequences exactly are, whether it is having a different creed, being fabricators, being unreliable, or being scholars even - they can decide on the specifics. Taking it to the next level, however, is not for them. Shaykh al-Albani himself would not tolerate it, and so this is more appropriate for his students and the like to be doing – if they are up to it. Shaykh al-Albani did so several times, but the one thing he has revived or forced the scholars to do was to refute him and his ideology. Not only was the study of Hadith alive and well in the Shaykh's generation, he himself has never been accepted as a part of its tradition, let alone its reviver. The Shaykh holds an Ijaza from Imam Raghib which he received in his youth upon the Imam's visit of the library in Damascus [he was from Aleppo] as he noticed his enthusiasm and efforts. As if the Shaykh did not have actual students back in Halab [Imam Siraj, Shaykh Sabuni, Dr. Salqini to name a few] – who indeed became leading scholars in numerous fields, including Hadith - not to mention the vast amount of scholarship found throughout the rest of the world. So I would like to know who those scholars are that find Shaykh al-Albani’s contribution to the study of Hadith to be so great that it caused others to ‘return’ to this study.

Wassalam

[tru_Qur'an]

As salamu 'alaykum

Mufti of Egypt `Ali Jumu`ah on the issue Does Allah Exist WITHOUT a Place or Direction?;

http://www.marifah.n...e-alijumuah.pdf

This post has been edited by tru_Qur'an: 02 September 2009 - 05:43 AM

[Ruwayda Mustafah]

How can God exist without a place?

This stuff is mad.

This post has been edited by Ruwayda Mustafah: 26 September 2009 - 04:41 PM

[Zhulfiqar]

Ruwayda Mustafah, on Sep 26 2009, 06:41 PM, said:

How can God exist without a place?

How can the creation exist without begin ?

[Ruwayda Mustafah]

Zhulfiqar, on Sep 26 2009, 04:55 PM, said:

Ruwayda Mustafah, on Sep 26 2009, 06:41 PM, said:

How can God exist without a place?

How can the creation exist without begin ?

You can't answer me with a Question.