[DARQAWA]

As-salamu `alaikum Sadati,

A brother at my Masjid who is from Libya and a staunch Maliki in Fiqh is teaching a book called,

مسائل العقيدة التي قررها أئمة المالكية

Author: محمد بن عبد الله الحمادي أبو عبد الل

Does anyone know of this book? Any of my Maliki bretheren? Is it in line with the Ashari view or is it modern day salafi inspired? I have read that some Ulema took issue with what Imam Ibn AbdulBarr and Imam Ibn Abi Zayd have written with regards to Aqeedah. Imam Ibn Abi Zayd, rahimahu Allah, uses the term bi dhatihi when discussing Istawa. I want to know if it is safe to attend the class. Baraka Allahu feekum.

[Ibn Ajibah]

That is a Salafi revisionist book. Avoid it like the plaugue.It is just a "Malikified" Salafi book that regurgitates the same old quotes from al-Karaji and Ibn Khuwayz Mindad, et al.

This post has been edited by Ibn Ajibah: 29 March 2010 - 02:54 AM

[DARQAWA]

Ibn Ajibah, on 29 March 2010 - 02:49 AM, said:

That is a Salafi revisionist book. Avoid it like the plaugue.It is just a "Malikified" Salafi book that regurgitates the same old quotes from al-Karaji and Ibn Khuwayz Mindad, et al.

Baraka Allahu feekum Sidi Ibn Ajibah. Sidi, do you know how the Malikis take what Ibn Abi Zaid and Ibn AbdulBarr said? Are their views discarded?

[Ibn Ajibah]

The book you referred to is quite interesting, to be honest. It is a good example of selective quotations, decontextualization, and absence of tahqhiq. The author includes in his "aqida" book, discussions on fiqhi issues, actions that are considered innovations, and one-sided takes on other non-'Aqida related issues. Ironically, a good number of those whom he quotes were clearly Ash'aris and what he would term "grave-worshippers."

As for Ibn Abd al-Barr, he did have issues in some areas in Aqida and the Maliki scholars objected to him. As for Ibn Abi Zaid, the commentators on his Risala interpret his statement in different ways. At the end of the day we are not responsible to follow any Imam in Aqida; we are responsible for ourselves.

[DARQAWA]

Baraka Allahu feekum. The brother mentioned there is "Tahqiq" in it, but I am not sure what he is referring to if you are saying there is no Tahqiq. To be honest, the brother started the intro off with how things are bida'a and used Mawlid, Group Dhikr and movement in dhikr. He said there are 6 conditions for ibadah. Zaman, Makan, Sabab, Jins, Kayfiyyah and Qadr. Mawlid goes against Kayfiyyah as well as Group Dhikr. I am new to learning Maliki Fiqh, being a Shafi'i for over 14 years. He likes to use Imam Shatibi a lot. Is there any good book dealing with Aqeedah from the Malikis?

[Ibn Ajibah]

Wa fikum.
There is no tahqiq in it at all, apart from one footnote where he does a huge cut and paste from Muhammad ‘Atiya Salim. He only presents one side of the argument, doesn’t mention the other views, and the reasons for the differences. Why does he include fiqhi issues in a book of ‘Aqida? That itself shows a lack of tahqiq. All he did was take the typical Salafi issues, arrange them in a certain order, and then attempt to bring statements from Maliki Imams that allegedly agree with the Salafis.
For instance, he cites Ibn Hajj on the issue of tabarruk, and conveniently neglects to mention (perhaps unknowingly) that Ibn Hajj supported istighatha (see the marifah article on this).
As for the whole “zaman, makan, sabab, jins, etc,” that comes from Ibn Uthaymin (as in, he was the one to popularize this), and since it sounds so “ilmi,” salafis love to mention it.
This is not a book of Aqidah; it is half baked Salafi propaganda piece.
As for Aqida books from Malikis, there are tons. In fact, many of the major Imams and Muhaqqiqun in Usul al-Din are Malikis, such as al-Sanusi.

[DARQAWA]

Jazakum Allahu Alf Khayr Sidi, I really appreciate you taking the time to help me with this issue. May Allah reward you abundantly. I have a translation of Aqeedah As-Sanusiyyah by Abu Adam of SunniAnswers, so this is all I would need insha Allah to study? Alhamdulillah that I know the truth of this book, I will be skipping this class. I thought the 6 conditions was from Shatibi, is that true and Uthaymin poularized it or was it someone else who came up with it? 1 more question Sidi, if I may. Its about fiqh but are there Malikis who approve of group dhikr, group quran, mawlid, etc? Baraka Allahu feekum!

[Hamoudeh]

Shaykh Habib b. Tahir of Tunisia has recently published a research in which he clears Imam Ibn Abi Zayd from any anthropomorphic interpretations of his words. It seems to me brother Darqawi, that you have been duped by this Maliki claimant whose staunchness lies only in misrepresenting the Madhhab. For you operate from the wrong premise, causing you to ask the wrong questions. It is not whether there are any good creedal works from Maliki scholars, or whether the Maliki scholars approve of typical Sufi practices. It is the other way around, as exceptions to the rule.

Of course the claimant typically likes to misuse the name of Imam Shatibi, but what is his rank the Madhhab for his opinions to be given such weight in the first place? There are opinions of his that would make such claimants abandon him instantly. It is a sham for them to present him as the pillar of Madhhab, even if their opinions would be identical to his - which they are not. Please do see this discussion, as another fine example of misrepresenting the Madhhab to further other agendas. I changed the topic title into something more fitting.

Wassalam

[DARQAWA]

Baraka Allahu feekum Sidi Hamoudeh,

Wallahi, that was some much needed advice. You are right. Due to the brother's "perceived" adherence to the Madhab, I believed he was relaying the correct opinions from the School. Alhamdulillah you are correct concerning Imam Ibn Abi Zaid radi Allahu `anh. I have read the sharh of Imam Zarruq and Imam Nafrawi on this issue of his and should have stopped there. Jazakum Allahu khayr once again. May Allah reward you greatly for this forum and for the site and for making Haqa`iq `an At-Tasawuf available to us english readers, some of which have had the arabic book on our shelves for quite a few years without being able to benefit from it. La hawla wa la quwata ila billah.

Wa salamu `alaikum wa rahmatullah,

Mahmoud Al-Tucsoni

[muzzammil]

Ibn Ajibah, on 29 March 2010 - 05:28 AM, said:

For instance, he cites Ibn Hajj on the issue of tabarruk, and conveniently neglects to mention (perhaps unknowingly) that Ibn Hajj supported istighatha (see the marifah article on this).

Correct me if I am wrong, but from the marifah translations of the Madkhal on this issue there seems not to be any difference in Ibn al-Hajj's description of tawassul and istighathah bihi. The translator in fact first translates the latter phrase as "seeks his aid" and then as "seeks aid through him" (see p. 2 of the link). These appear to be two different things: the first is a direct request for help from the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the second is a request for help or fulfilment of needs from Allah "through the Prophet" (bihi) i.e. there is no difference between this and tawassul. On the other hand, seeking help directly from him and calling out to him directly to fulfil one's needs, as others understand istighatha, does not seem to be what Ibn al-Hajj is referrring to. Is there not a difference between istaghathahu (seeks help from him) and istaghatha bihi (seeks help through him), as the first is a request of help from him and the second a request of help from Allah, and why are there two different translations of the latter phrase in the translation you refer to?

This post has been edited by muzzammil: 29 March 2010 - 04:26 PM

[DARQAWA]

As-salamu `alaikum,

I forgot to ask about Imam Ibn Abd Al-Barr rahimahu Allah. From what I know, which is little, he is an authority in the Madhab, correct? What are the views of the other Malikis concerning some of his statements on Aqeedah? I ask because of what Shaikh Gibril Haddad mentions about him:

His literalist bend is evident in doctrine, and "Salafîs" are fond of quoting his apparent attribution of place, direction, and corporeality to Allâh Most High in al-Tamhîd:

The hadîth [of the descent of Allâh] provides evidence that Allâh is in (fî) the heaven, on (`alâ) the Throne, above (fawq) seven heavens, as the Congregation (jamâ`a) said, and this is part of their proof against the Mu`tazila and the Jahmiyya's claim that Allâh is in every place and not on the Throne.[2] ... An entity cannot be conceived to exist without place in relation to us, and whatever is without place is non-existent.[3]

However, Ibn `Abd al-Barr also narrates with his chain from Mutarrif, a few pages further, that Imâm Mâlik said: "It is our Lord's command which descends" He then admits: "It is possible that the matter be as Mâlik said, and Allâh knows best"[4]

Ibn Jahbal al-Kilâbî said:

Concerning what Abû `Umar ibn `Abd al-Barr said [in apparent attribution of place, direction, and corporeality to Allâh Most High], both the elite and the general public know the man's position and the scholars' disavowal of if. The Mâlikîs' condemnation of it, from the first to the last of them, is well-known. His contravention of the Imâm of North Africa, Abû al-Walîd al-Bâjî, is famous. It reached a point that the eminent people of North Africa would say: "No one in North Africa holds this position except he and Ibn Abî Zayd!" although some of the people of knowledge cited an excuse for Ibn Abî Zayd in the text of the great qâdî Abû Muhammad `Abd al-Wahhâb [ibn `Alî ibn Nasr al-Baghdâdî (d 422)] al-Baghdâdî al-Mâlikî[5] - may Allâh have mercy on him.[6]

In the same chapter of al-Tamhîd cited above, Ibn `Abd al-Barr rejects Mujâhid's alleged tafsîr of the Exalted Station (in verse 17:79) as consisting in the seating of the Prophet MHMDAllâh bless and greet him - with Allâh Most High on His Throne.[7]

This post has been edited by DARQAWA: 29 March 2010 - 04:45 PM

[Ibn Ajibah]

Quote

Correct me if I am wrong, but from the marifah translations of the Madkhal on this issue there seems not to be any difference in Ibn al-Hajj's description of tawassul and istighathah bihi. The translator in fact first translates the latter phrase as "seeks his aid" and then as "seeks aid through him" (see p. 2 of the link). These appear to be two different things: the first is a direct request for help from the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the second is a request for help or fulfilment of needs from Allah "through the Prophet" (bihi) i.e. there is no difference between this and tawassul. On the other hand, seeking help directly from him and calling out to him directly to fulfil one's needs, as others understand istighatha, does not seem to be what Ibn al-Hajj is referrring to. Is there not a difference between istaghathahu (seeks help from him) and istaghatha bihi (seeks help through him), as the first is a request of help from him and the second a request of help from Allah, and why are there two different translations of the latter phrase in the translation you refer to?

Yes, you are wrong . If you can read Arabic, please see the section in question (Dar al-Fikr version, p.258). He clearly speaks of asking: "la yarudduna man sa'alahum wa la man tawassala bihim. . ."

[muzzammil]

Ibn Ajibah, on 29 March 2010 - 06:13 PM, said:

Quote

Correct me if I am wrong, but from the marifah translations of the Madkhal on this issue there seems not to be any difference in Ibn al-Hajj's description of tawassul and istighathah bihi. The translator in fact first translates the latter phrase as "seeks his aid" and then as "seeks aid through him" (see p. 2 of the link). These appear to be two different things: the first is a direct request for help from the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the second is a request for help or fulfilment of needs from Allah "through the Prophet" (bihi) i.e. there is no difference between this and tawassul. On the other hand, seeking help directly from him and calling out to him directly to fulfil one's needs, as others understand istighatha, does not seem to be what Ibn al-Hajj is referrring to. Is there not a difference between istaghathahu (seeks help from him) and istaghatha bihi (seeks help through him), as the first is a request of help from him and the second a request of help from Allah, and why are there two different translations of the latter phrase in the translation you refer to?

Yes, you are wrong . If you can read Arabic, please see the section in question (Dar al-Fikr version, p.258). He clearly speaks of asking: "la yarudduna man sa'alahum wa la man tawassala bihim. . ."

I don't think you addressed the istighatha-istighatha bihi distinction, but yes the section you refer to does imply asking directly for the fulfilment of one's needs. However, from reading the Hanafi Birgivi's condemnation of isti'ana and the Hanafi Ahmad al-Rumi's condemnation of istimdad at graves, I think the voice of the opposition is also "traditional".

[Ibn Ajibah]

I dont need to address it, really. Yes,there are some scholars who did oppose istighatha, like the two you cited. I admit that. But that condemnation is applied to calling upon Awliya', not the Master of Creation, al-Habib--sallAllah 'alayhi wa sallam. As one scholar recently stated: "Yes, there is a difference of opinion regarding istighatha with Awliya, but no one but a fool would deny the validity of istighatha with the Messenger of Allah--sallaAllah 'alayhi was sallam."

Consider that Sh. Yusuf al-Nabahani's masterpiece, Shawahid al-Haqq, is specifically about istighatha with the Rasul--sallaAllah 'alayhi wa sallam.

[muzzammil]

Both those authors refer to istighatha as shirk or close to shirk. So they seem to be opposed to it in principle. Is there any evidence they made an exception for the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)?