From Shi'a for example there are Zayidis who follow the 12er fiqh, but they also have a Kalam area which is Mut'azili if I remember correctly, but it has been modified from the original version.
psyah,
I am not sure if you can say that Zaydis follow 12er fiqh because the 12ers Imamis follow Jafar Sadiq's fiqh and I don't believe the Zaydis do. Zaydis are actually supposed to be closer to Sunnis than 12ers.
Let us differentiate between Kalima people and the people who use religion for their worldly purpose. No wonder the later group burnt Quran which of course the Kalima people would never do.
So you think Taliban are not Kalima people?
psyah,
I am not sure if you can say that Zaydis follow 12er fiqh because the 12ers Imamis follow Jafar Sadiq's fiqh and I don't believe the Zaydis do. Zaydis are actually supposed to be closer to Sunnis than 12ers.
Peace Moonshiner
Yes you are right ... JazakAllah Khair the Jafiris are 12ers and Zayidis are 5ers.
@ TLK, psyah
Wa As-Salamu 'Alaykum
respected brothers, the response to your questions/comments is lengthy and it will lead to off topic discussion. If you wish we can continue here or use pm, but for now let me say this
Wa’alaykum As-Salam
no, this is not correct akhee. Does fiqh come before tawheed? To be Sunni is to follow the Qur’aan, the Saheeh Sunnah and the understanding of the Salaf. You can’t say that all of the 3 groups, Atharis and Ash’ari and Maturidi, are correct when they clearly contradict each other and brother this is 'aqeedah we’re talking about not fiqh.
Please brother don’t include the Athari with groups of Kalam. This is an alien notion and a grave mistake. Athari are those who follow the understanding of the Salaf in regard to Allah’s Sifaat and the Salaf clearly forbade the use of Kalam. The Kalam became popular later in the 4th centruy of Hijrah when the Ash’ariyyah emerged. The book on 'aqeedah by Imaam Tahawi (rahimahullah) is a Sunni book not a Kalami Maturidi book. The Mautridis creed contain no element of Athari creed in regard to the Sifaat of Allah.
first brother, a madhab doesn’t only constitute the verdicts/opinions of original Imaam (rahimahullah). It constitutes the verdicts/opinion of all the scholars of that madhab. Second, it is true that deaobandis follow hanafi fiqh and outwardly it may appear that they’re strict followers; however, as far as i know they differ with orthodox hanafis on fiqhi matters i.e. the issue of halala marraige.
In regards to 'aqeedah, most of the later hanafis have been maturidi and so are the deaobandis. They differe with Ahlus Sunnah on many issues i.e the status of Prophet’s (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) life in his grave
well, it is not exactly true; there have been some books attributed to Imaam Abou Hanifa (rahimahullah) i.e. Fiqhul Akbar, Fiqhul Asbat. As far as i know, these two books at least have been falsely attributed to the Imaam (rahimahullah), I don’t know about others. You can read about these two here.
Wallahu A’lam
Re: Religious Misunderstandings
It seems we have made religion a "khichri".
Mind boggling informations are being discussed.
The discussion was how to put beads together to make a necklace and it has gone to breaking the thread of necklace and beads are spread on floor.
Tolerate, respect and just move on with the essentials.
@ TLK, psyah
Wa'alaykum As-Salam
no, this is not correct akhee. Does fiqh come before tawheed? To be Sunni is to follow the Qur'aan, the Saheeh Sunnah and the understanding of the Salaf. You can't say that all of the 3 groups, Atharis and Ash'ari and Maturidi, are correct when they clearly contradict each other and brother this is 'aqeedah we're talking about not fiqh.
Please brother don't include the Athari with groups of Kalam. This is an alien notion and a grave mistake. Athari are those who follow the understanding of the Salaf in regard to Allah's Sifaat and the Salaf clearly forbade the use of Kalam. The Kalam became popular later in the 4th centruy of Hijrah when the Ash'ariyyah emerged. The book on 'aqeedah by Imaam Tahawi (rahimahullah) is a Sunni book not a Kalami Maturidi book. The Mautridis creed contain no element of Athari creed in regard to the Sifaat of Allah.
Peace bro AllahkaBanda
I hear what you saying ... You are saying that Athari is not a theosophical position, because the basis of Athari is non-speculative and non-derivative in matters of the ghaib.
But if I have not mistaken what you are saying ... you are in fact saying that if anyone follows the 'Ashari or Maturidi and are from any of the four madhahib are Sufi and to be called a Sunni it is necessary to be an Athari.
i.e. Athari = Sunni and 'Ashari/Maturidi = Sufi
This is an interesting perspective and is probably not one that the 'Ashari or Maturidis will necessarily concur on. Furthermore you are also saying that because it is a matter of 'aqeedah Sufis are not considered part of the fold of Islam by Atharis. Am I right?
Personally I resort to At-Tahawiyya 'Aqeedah primarily because it is simple and secondly because it has a wide cross-section of acceptance.
However, in some practices such as dzikr and tazkiya I have no real problem about, as these are not matters of 'aqeedah but are methods of tassawwuf it makes the one who practices them a Sufi. Therefore can it be possible to be doing sufi style dzikr and still be an Athari? And if not why not?
I prefer calling all of these sunnis and then brotherly dialogue can take place, because to be honest I have not made up my mind regarding any one position yet I see valid arguments in each, however, I am sure truth lies somewhere in this particular melting pot. The danger in bra.nding is that it becomes and excuse not to be 'like' because they are 'the others' and more often than not we see this happening.
So you think Taliban are not Kalima people?
People spreading violence in Swat are mixture of Uzbek, local and foreign ghundas, and afghanis...etc. Let us not but the label of Taliban on everyone, even if most of them claim to be them in order to achieve their personal interest. Some / most of them might be Taliban, but not all. But those claiming to be Taliban might be the Afghanis who are taking their revenge from Pakistan.
My parents are from Swat and my relatives live there. My cousins living there told me that people have taken their revenge from other people in the camouflage of the term "Taliban" to hide their identity. Others have snatched money, mobiles, and other things in the camouflage of beard and topi. There are even foreign agents (RAW and Mosad) who are carrying out their interest with the camouflage of beard and topi.
Some of them are working for personal gains while others are doing it to give a bad name to Islam. Taliban never used to burn Quran, since when have they started doing that. If anyone forces people to keep beard and keep their clothes above ankles, it is not necessary that they are doing it to impliment shariah, some of them are doing it so that they might not be suspected of their real identity, while others are doing it to give bad name to ISlam.
Wish you can view this world from the eyes of a poor hajam in Swat whose shop just got bombed by Kalima people.
What you just say is typical response. No wonder when Kalima-people become stronger in a country, the progress, development, and quality of life goes out of the window.
What do you mean by kalima people? If there is such a thing, then I would definitely like to consider myself as a kalima person. Besides, the example you gave doesn't prove anything. I could equally find you many examples of "educated" people having less than exemplary behavior as well.
Can you name even ONE instance mentioned in the Quran where Allah destroyed/punished a nation for not keeping up with scientific or philosophical pursuits of their time? Can you name even ONE Prophet who came and taught his people about science and philosophical pursuits? I certainly can't think of any such case.
If you look at the example of Qaum-e-Thamud, they were very advanced for their time in terms of technology. This did not stop them from being destroyed. Even in the time of Nooh (A.S.), the people who were destroyed were mostly the upper class people. The people who sided with Nooh (A.S.) were mostly poor and lower class.
The Romans at the time of the Prophet (S.A.W.) were advanced in terms of worldly knowledge etc. but the Muslims were not ordered to unite with them on the basis of this advanced worldly knowledge or their philosophical pursuits.
The criteria for Allah to punish someone has never been how advanced they were in science or philosophy. The ones whom He punished were the ones who disobeyed Him regardless of how advanced they were for their time.
Don't get me wrong though. I'm not saying that we should not educate ourselves. Of course these different types of worldly knowledge can be useful assets. However, coming together on the basis of kalima is far greater than anything else. Putting too much emphasis on education is also harmful.
Having education and having deen in ones life are two independent things. One can have both, but there isn't any correlation between them. If deen required scientific/philosophical pursuits, then people who aren't any of these would fields would be necessarily lacking in their deen, which is certainly not the case at all. People excelling in these fields would also excel in deen, which is also not the case.
In the end, if a person has deen but no knowledge of modern science or philosophy, then he will be successful. If on the other hand he has all the knowledge of science and philosophy but no deen, then this will not be of any avail in the akhirah.
^ Very well said :k:
I hope this thread gets split somewhere where it got drifted from the topic of unity.
What do you mean by kalima people? If there is such a thing, then I would definitely like to consider myself as a kalima person. Besides, the example you gave doesn't prove anything. I could equally find you many examples of "educated" people having less than exemplary behavior as well..
Agreed.
Can you name even ONE instance mentioned in the Quran where Allah destroyed/punished a nation for not keeping up with scientific or** philosophical pursuits**
of their time? Can you name even ONE Prophet who came and taught his people about science and philosophical pursuits? I certainly can't think of any such case..
Quran as I understand promotes thinking and thought process.
"Religious people" say it is only about religious thinking which is promoted but *there should not be a distinction of religious or non-religious knowledge or thinking. *
Isn't this the reason people who stopped thinking have become slave of those who think about everything?
People who cannot even make a needle to sow their own clothes are slaves. Please just take a moment and 'think' about it.
All knowledge is religious unless it is used for negative purpose.
If you look at the example of Qaum-e-Thamud, they were very advanced for their time in terms of technology. This did not stop them from being destroyed. Even in the time of Nooh (A.S.), the people who were destroyed were mostly the upper class people. The people who sided with Nooh (A.S.) were mostly poor and lower class..
Need a reference of upper and lower class. This statement may make people think poor people are good and 'upper class' people are bad. Its not about the class of people its about their deeds.
The Romans at the time of the Prophet (S.A.W.) were advanced in terms of worldly knowledge etc. but the Muslims were not ordered to unite with them on the basis of this advanced worldly knowledge or their philosophical pursuits..
Irrelevant to your notion. Muslims were not ordered to be united?
This is the first time you used this word of** unity** in this post/thread and is completely irrelevant and senseless.
Why? I gave an example above of people in Medina with different faith including muslims united against Mekkans for a common cause.
Unity has nothing to do with faith.
Sincerely wish you got the idea where I am coming from.
The criteria for Allah to punish someone has never been how advanced they were in science or philosophy. The ones whom He punished were the ones** who disobeyed Him** regardless of how advanced they were for their time. .
True. Disobedience has a long definition though.
Don't get me wrong though. I'm not saying that we should not educate ourselves. Of course these different types of worldly knowledge can be useful assets. However, coming together on the basis of kalima is far greater than anything else. Putting too much emphasis on education is also harmful. .
Define too much. When seeking knowledge and get yourself educated is emphasized time and time again in islam and particularly in Quran then why argue and deliberately use word 'too much' to make a wrong point???
(Please see below my final comment)
Having education and having deen in ones life are two independent things.
No sir. They are same.
One can have both, but there isn't any correlation between them. If deen required scientific/philosophical pursuits, then people who aren't any of these would fields would be necessarily lacking in their deen, which is certainly not the case at all. People excelling in these fields would also excel in deen, which is also not the case..
In my opinion the sentence should be:
One SHOULD seek knowledge. Any knowledge is good if used for peace, prosperity and benefit of everyone.
In the end, if a person has deen but no knowledge of modern science or philosophy, then he will be successful. If on the other hand he has all the knowledge of science and philosophy but no deen, then this will not be of any avail in the akhirah.
There is no such distinctionmy friend. Agree with green from religious perspective.
Final comment:
Fundamental problem with your way of thinking is making a distinction of 'religious' and 'wordly' knowledge.
Knowledge is knowledge be it about 'religion,' sceince, art, geography or whatever.
Re: Religious Misunderstandings
This is thought provoking
:bism:
Wa As-Salamu 'Alaykum bro
The position of Athari in matters of Tawheed is to ONLY relay on Islamic text as a proof and understanding it how the salaf understood it. However, it must be noted that the Khalaf sunni 'ulama did use common sense and logic to refute the claims of Ash’aris/Maturidis and/or to explain the meaning of the text.
no, being sufi is a completely different thing. We describe them as i.e. Hanafi Maturidi or Maliki Ash’ari. They could be sufi too. However, it is true that they are not among Ahlus Sunnah and it is correct that to be a sunni, you must be an Athari.
yes it is true that they don’t consider us among the Ahlus Sunnah and claimed themselves to be sunni but what is their basis for it: Aristotalian philosophy? As far concerning whether they are out of fold of Islaam or not, I’m not going to comment on it. However, the Salaf and the early 'ulama did say that if a person doesn’t believe that Allah is above the heavens over His throne then some said he is a kafir and some said he comitted kufr. We do find similar statements from later hanablis i.e. ibn Qudama (rahimahullah). Have a look at this, it could be an interesting read for you.
there’s nothing wrong with this as long as you understand the text according to the athar of the Salaf and understanding of the sunni scholars.
in some cases tassawuf (sufi way) is an 'aqeedah issue, for example believing the wali has ilmul ghayb. The sunni way of tassawuf has exited from the ver beginning. You can refer to the works of Imaam ibn Qayyim (rahimahullah).
I understand your point and concerns. Most of the awam (laypeople), who may be listening to or respect a ash’ari/maturidi Imam are upon the haqq because they don’t dwell into these issues and are upon their fitrah. Even some of the prominent ash’aris in our time say that such issues should only be discussed in the setting of a class room. The reson why we (sunnis) oppose them in public is due to the fact they bash us in public, spread hatred against us, slander us and our 'ulama.
I hope this thread gets split somewhere where it got drifted from the topic of unity.
Agreed.
Quran as I understand promotes thinking and thought process.
"Religious people" say it is only about religious thinking which is promoted but *there should not be a distinction of religious or non-religious knowledge or thinking. *
Isn't this the reason people who stopped thinking have become slave of those who think about everything?
People who cannot even make a needle to sow their own clothes are slaves. Please just take a moment and 'think' about it.
All knowledge is religious unless it is used for negative purpose.
Need a reference of upper and lower class. This statement may make people think poor people are good and 'upper class' people are bad. Its not about the class of people its about their deeds.
Irrelevant to your notion. Muslims were not ordered to be united?
This is the first time you used this word of** unity** in this post/thread and is completely irrelevant and senseless.
Why? I gave an example above of people in Medina with different faith including muslims united against Mekkans for a common cause.
Unity has nothing to do with faith.
Sincerely wish you got the idea where I am coming from.
True. Disobedience has a long definition though.
Define too much. When seeking knowledge and get yourself educated is emphasized time and time again in islam and particularly in Quran then why argue and deliberately use word 'too much' to make a wrong point???
(Please see below my final comment)
No sir. They are same.
In my opinion the sentence should be:
One SHOULD seek knowledge. Any knowledge is good if used for peace, prosperity and benefit of everyone.
There is no such distinctionmy friend. Agree with green from religious perspective.
Final comment:
Fundamental problem with your way of thinking is making a distinction of 'religious' and 'wordly' knowledge.
Knowledge is knowledge be it about 'religion,' sceince, art, geography or whatever.
Go to any Madrissa in this whole wide World............they will teach you that one of the Faraiz for Salat is to determine the "direction of Qibla"
**Yet "NONE" of THEM teaches the Student Moulavis how to find it.............
they simply say to ask the locals............:(
It was actually Muslim scholars who were instrumental in starting the discipline of Geography and Map Making because they had to travel by land or sea to make Hajj.
diwana is Right!
**