Thursday, June 12, 2008

Ibn Taymiah and Christinaity( VERY IMP)

In his Tafsir named "an-Nahrul-Madd", the Grammarian Abu Hayyan al-'Andalusi reported about Ibn Taymiyah having this belief.

He said:

In his handwriting, a book of Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah, who was contemporary with us, which he called "Kitab-ul-‘Arsh", I read: Allah sits on al-Kursi and has left a space for the Messenger of Allah to sit with Him. At-Taj Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn ‘Abdil-Haqq al-Baranbari pretended that he is a promoter of his ideas and tricked him, until he took it from him; we read that in it.

[The author of "Kashf-uz-Zunun" reported that about him also in Volume 2, page 1438.]

This reporting of Abu Hayyan was omitted from the old printed copy. However, the manuscript confirms it.

In his commentary on "as-Sayf-us-Saqil", page 85, Az-Zahid al-Kawthari said explaining the reason of omitting these statements of Ibn Taymiyah:

The editor of as-Sa‘adah Printing House told me that he found it very ugly and he omitted it upon printing so that the enemies of al-'Islam would not use it. Then he requested that I record that here to catch up what he missed and out of sincerity to the Muslims.

Ibn Taymiah and universe

A man called Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah who died about 600 years ago claimed that the universe does not have a beginning and that it existed eternally with Allah. Such a statement is blasphmey regardless of who says it. All muslims believe Allah existed in eternity ALONE - Allah is the ONLY One Who exists without a beginning. The greatest scholars of his time judged him (Ibn Taymiyah) as a blasphemer.

In Islam it is the belief that ONLY ALLAH existed eternally and He brought all the things from the state of non existence into existence. If any muslims doubts this , it implies that "if" there were other things also existing along with Allah since eternity , then the question comes who made these things? This will give rise to another god who was responsible for this "other things"! Also among the attributes of Allah is 'qadeem'.

But Ibn Taymiah was so much involved in Greek Philosophy that like greek philosophers he said along with Allah , Throne and water also existed along with Allah and they were not created by Allah ( this is total Kufr).

Only Allah existed eternally and HE will exist always.

Shaykhul Islam , hafiz , Ibn Hajar al asqalani said this was the wors thing from Ibn Taymiah among many other bad things in Aqidah reported from Ibn Taymiah.

Plz see the attached scan from Fathul Bari . Those who are interested MUST read this whole artcile to see this deviancy of Ibn Taymiah.

Ibn Taymiyyah's Saying of Hawadith with No Beginning Existing Eternally with Allah

This issue is one of the ugliest issues in belief by which Ibn Taymiyyah dissented from the sound mind and the explicit tradition and Ijma’ of the Muslims. He mentioned this belief in five of his books: "Minhaj-us-Sunnat-in-Nabawiyyah", "Muwafaqatu Sarih-il-Ma’qul li Sahih-il-Manqul", "Sharh Hadith-in-Nuzul", "Sharh Hadith ‘Imran Ibn Husayn", and "Naqdu Maratib-il-’Ijma’".

Ibn Taymiyyah's statement in "Minhaj-us-Sunnat-in-Nabawiyyah", Volume I, page 24 is: If you say to us: You said of the occurrence of the hawadith in Allah, we say to you: Yes, and this saying of ours is what the Shar’ and mind showed.

He replied to Ibn Hazm for reporting the Ijma’ that Allah existed eternally and no thing existed with Him, and that the disagreer with this is a kafir. After these words, Ibn Taymiyyah said: What is stranger than that is his (Ibn Hazm's) reporting the Ijma’ upon the kufr of whoever contended with the belief that Allah existed eternally by Himself and no thing existed with Him.

Ibn Taymiyyah's statement in "Sharh Hadith ‘Imran Ibn Husayn", page 193,: If the kind of the creations is assumed to be eternal with Allah, this companionship is not negated by the Shar’ or the mind, but it is of His perfection. Allah, ta’ala, said that the One Who creates is not equal to whoever does not create. Then Ibn Taymiyyah said: The creation existed eternally with Him. Then he said: but many people confuse the self with the kind.

His statement in "Muwafaqatu Sarih-il-Ma’qul li Sahih-il-Manqul", page 291 is: We said: we do not accept. However, the daily hadith is preceded by hawadith without a beginning.

In the manuscript of "Tashnif-ul-Masami’", page 342, Muhaddith, Usuli Badr-ud-Din az-Zarkashi reported the agreement of the Muslims upon the kufr of whoever says that the kind of the world is eternal. After mentioning that the philosophers said the world is eternal by matter and shape, and that some said it is eternal by matter but its shape is muhdath (has a beginning), he said: and the Muslims charged them (the philosophers) with deviation and kufr. Before that Hafiz Ibn Daqiq al-’Id, Qadi ‘Iyad, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar said the like in "Sharh al-Bukhari". Hafiz as-Subki confirmed this belief about Ibn Taymiyyah in his treatise "ad-Durrat-ul-Mudiyyah" and as said previously, Abu Sa’id al-’Ala'i did too. This belief was reported also by al-Jalal-ud-Dawwani in "Sharh-ul-’Adudiyyah". He said: I saw in a writing of Abul-’Abbas Ibn Taymiyyah the saying that the kind of al-’Arsh is eternal.

The Hanafi ‘Allamah al-Bayyadi mentioned in his book "Isharat-ul-Maram", page 197, after mentioning the proofs about the beginning of the world: Hence, what Ibn Taymiyyah thought of al-’Arsh being eternal, as reported in "Sharh-ul-’Adudiyyah", is invalidated.

In his poem, which is famous even among the defenders of Ibn Taymiyyah, and which contained refuting al-Hilli then Ibn Taymiyyah, among of what as-Subki said: Ibn Taymiyyah has a refutation to what one of the rawafid (some deviant groups) said that was complete. However, he mixed the truth with the hashw [The hashw is done by a group called al-Hashwiyyah. It is a vile group with ignorant members attributing themselves to Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, who is clear of them. They reported words about him which they misunderstood. Then, they continued with their bad belief claiming to cling to the Hadith. The best of the muhaddithun (pl. of muhaddith) in his time, Ibn ‘Asakir used to refrain from teaching them the Hadith and prevent them from attending his circle in Damascus. This group did not have a head or someone to carry its invalid belief, except some scattered efforts which were foiled by the Muslims. Then, around the end of the 700th Hijriyyah year, Ibn Taymiyyah advocated the invalid beliefs and ideas of this group.] whenever he could. He says that there are hawadith with no beginning that occur in Allah. Praise to Allah; He is clear of what he (Ibn Taymiyyah) thinks about Him.

Ibn Taimiyah is characteristically audacious in rejecting hadith which do not conform with his purpose at hand even if those hadith are rigorously authentic (sahih) .

A good example of that is the following case: Al-Bukhari reported in his sahih:

“Allah existed and there was nothing other than Him.”

This hadith is in agreement with the [clear-cut] evidence of the Qur`an, the sunnah, reason, and certain consensus (al-ijmà‘ al-mutayaqqan). However, since it conflicts with his belief in the eternity of the world,45 he turned to another version of this hadith which al-Bukhàri also reported: “Allah existed and their was nothing before Him.” And he rejected the first version in favor of the second on the grounds that the second conforms with another hadith: “You are the first; there is nothing before You.” [He held that the implication was that created things always existed along with Allah] .

Hafiz Ibn Hajr remarked concerning the correct manner of reconciling the apparent contradiction in the above-mentioned hadiths:

“In fact the way to reconcile the two versions of the hadith is to understand the second in light of the first, and not the other way around. Moreover, there is consensus on the principle that reconciliation of two apparently contradictory versions of a text (nass) takes precedence over endorsing one version at the expense of revoking the other. ”

Actually, Ibn Taimáyah’s prejudice blinded him from understanding the two versions of the hadith which, in fact, are not mutually contradictory. That is because the version “Allah existed and there was nothing before Him.” has the meaning which is contained in His name the First; whereas, the version “Allah existed and there was nothing other than Him.” has the meaning contained in His name the One. The proof of this is still another version of the hadith with the wording “Allah existed before everything."


1.قال في منهاج السنّة النبوية (1/ 24) : "فإن قلتم لنا: فقد قلتم بقيام الحوادث بالربّ، قلنا لكـم: نعم، وهذا قولنا الذي دلّ عليه الشرع والعقل"

Ibn Taymiyah said in “Minhajus-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah”, Volume 1, page 24: “If you say to us: You said of the occurrence of the hawadith in Allah, we say to you: Yes, and this saying of ours is what the Shar^ and mind showed”

2.وقد ردّ على ابن حزم في نقد مراتب الإجماع (ص/ 168) لنقله الإجماع على أن الله لـم يزل وحده ولا شىء غيره معه، وأن المخالف بذلك كافر باتفاق المسلمين، فقال ابن تيمية بعد كلام ما نصه: "وأعجب من ذلك حكايته الإجماع على كفر من نازع أنه سبحانه لم يزل وحده ولا شىء غيره معه"

Ibn Taymiyah in “Naqdu Maratibil-^Ijma^, page 168” replied to Ibn Hazm for reporting the Ijma^ that Allah existed eternally and no thing existed with Him, and that the disagreer with this is a kafir. After these words, Ibn Taymiyah said “What is stranger than that is his reporting the Ijma^ upon the kufr of whoever contended with the belief that Allah existed eternally by Himself and no thing existed with Him.”

3.أما عبارته في شرح حديث عمران بن الحصين(ص/ 193)، ومجمرع الفناوى (18/ 239) فهي: "وإن قدّر أن نوعها- أي الحوادث- لم يزل معه فهذه المعية لم ينفها شرع ولا عقل، بل هي من كماله، قال تعالى: أَفَمَن يَخْلُقُ كَمَن لاَّ يَخْلُقُ أَفَلا تَذَكَّرُونَ (سورة النحل/17) وقال: "والخلق لا يزالون معه " إلى أن قال: "لكن يشتبه على كثير من الناس النوع بالعين ".

Ibn Taymiyah said in “Sharh Hadith ^Imran Ibn Husayn, page 193 and Majmu^ Al-Fatawa Volume 18, page 239”: “If the kind of the creations is assumed to be eternal with Allah, this companionship is not negated by the Shar^ or the mind, but it is of His perfection.

Allah, said

أَفَمَن يَخْلُقُ كَمَن لاَّ يَخْلُقُ أَفَلا تَذَكَّرُونَ

which means the One Who creates is not equal to whoever does not create; do you not see?” Then he said “and the creation existed eternally with Him” then he said “but many people confuse the self with the kind”.

4.أمّا عبارته في الموافقة فهي ما نصّه (291): "قلنا: لا نسلم بل يكون الحادث اليومي مسبوقًا بحوادث لا أول لها"

In “Muwafaqat Sarihil-Ma^qul li Sahihil-Manqul, page 291”, Ibn Taymiyah said: “We said: we do not accept. However, the daily haadith is preceded by hawadith without a beginning”.

5.قال العلاّمة البياضي الحنفي في كتابهإشارات المرام (ص/ 197) بعد ذكر الأدلة على حدوث العالم ما نصّه: "فبطل ما ظنه ابن تيمية من قدم العرش كما في شرح العضدية"

The Hanafiyy Scholar Al-Bayyadiyy mentioned in his book “Ishaaraatul-Maraam, page 197”, after mentioning the proofs about the beginning of the world: “Hence, what Ibn Taymiyah thought of al-^Arsh being eternal, as reported in “Sharhul-^Adudiyyah”, is invalidated.”

6. قال الجلال الدواني (الدواني عالم مشهور ترجمه الحافظ السخاوي في البدـر الطالع ووثق) في كتاب شرح العضدية (ص/ 13): "وقد رأيت في بعض تصانيف ابن تيمية القول به- أي بالقدم الجنسي- في العرش"

Jalalud-Din Ad-Dawwaaniyy said in “Sharhul-^Adudiyyah, page 13”: “I saw in a writing of Abul-^Abbas Ibn Taymiyah the saying that the kind of al-^Arsh is eternal.

7. وقد ثبت عن السبكي ما نقله عنه تلميذه الصفدي وتلميذ ابن تيمية أيضًا في قصيدته المشهورة وقال: "ولابن تيمية ردُّ عليـه وفـى بمقصد الردّ واستيفاءِ أضْرُبِهِ
لكنه خَلطَ الحق المبين بما يشوبـُهُ كَـدًرٌ فـي صَفوِمشرَبِهِ
يحاوِلُ الحَشوَ أنَّى كان لهُ حثيثُ سيرٍ بشرقٍ او بمغرِبِهِ
يـرى حـوادث لا مبـدَا لأوَّلـهـا في الله سبحـانَهُ عما يظُنُّ ب"

Taqiyud-Din As-Subkiyy in a famous poem said: “Ibn Taymiyah has a refutation of what one of the rawafid said that was complete. However, he mixed the truth with the hashw whenever he could. He says that there are hawadith with no beginning that occur in Allah. Praise to Allah; He is clear of what he thinks about Him.”

The true case of Ibn Taymiyah is not a clear one for people nowadays as it was during his time. Ibn Taymiyah was a man with alot of knowledge however he lacked the comprehension of that knowledge and he became misguided after being guided. In the coming future I will post for information regarding the history of this man and his beliefs In sha' Allah. In the mean time one can check the following references and read for themselves what the scholars said about Ibn Taymiyah.


Ibn Hajar Al-`Asqalaniyy, Ad-Durar Al-Kaminah, Vol. 1, pp. 144- 153. 2.

Ibn Al-Wardiyy, Tatimat Al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbar Al-Bashar (Tarikh Ibn Al-Wardiyy), Vol. 2, p. 381, p. 398. 3.

Salah Ad-Din As-Safadiyy[1], ‘A`yan Al-`Asr wa A`wan An-Nasr (manuscript), Vol. 1, p. 34. 4.

Taqiyy Ad-Din Al-Husniyy, Daf` Shubah man Shabbaha wa Tamarrad, pp. 41-42, 43-45. (He quoted Ibn Shakir Al-Kutbiyy in his book of Tarikh, Vol. 20.) Al-Husniyy said: “Ibn Shakir was one of the followers of Ibn Taymiyah and was beaten severely because he said to a caller of athan you committed kufr when the caller said O Prophet of Allah you are my means. They wanted to sever off his head, but he renewed his faith in Islam. I only mention what he said because that is more prudent to establish the case against Ibn Taymiyah, in spite the fact that he neglected things out of his spitefulness and wickedness, which if mentioned would deeply degrade his role model. The surprising thing is that Ibn Taymiyah mentioned them, while he ignored them.”

Ibn Shakir Al-Kutbiyy, `Uyun At-Tawarikh (manuscript), p. 179. 6.

Ibn Al-Mu`allim Al-Qurashiyy, Najm Al-Muhtadiyy wa Rajm Al-Mu`tadiyy (manuscript), p. 630-631.

Why was Albani removed from Saudi Kingdom?

Wahabis are divided into many sects like Madhkhalee, Qutubis etc. Those Wahabis who are blind supporter of Kingdom of Saudia , its policies and rulers, they are called 'Madhkhalees"( After their scholat Madhkhal).They do not want to talk about any chnage in Saudi Kingdom and are against Osama Bin Laden.They support all policies of Saudi Kingdom like their support to USA, inviting US Army in past to attacl Iraq. In short, they are blind supporter of Saudi Government and use personal interpretation of Quranic verses and hadith to prove their point.

Qutbis on the other hand are those Wahabis who want a change in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and use a Qauranic verse( Any 1 who rules by other than what Allah has revealed) to call all rulers of Saudi Arabia as Kafir.

The common thing between them is that they both are Mujassima ( Anthropomorphsit)and ascribe Human attributes to Allah, they both have the cocept of Triple Tawheed in Islam and both of the groups follow only recent scholars.

For Ahlus sunnah both these wahabi sect is deviated. We do not show any prefernce when the choice is between Cow Dung and Buffalo dung.

Read below an interesting article and keep checking the blog , Insha Allah soon many more artciles will be posted on ANTHROPOMORPHISM.

When on the first of October 1999 Shaykh Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani passed away at the age of 85, he was mourned by virtually everyone in the world of Salafi Islam. To many, he represented its third main contemporary reference, after ‘Abd al-’Aziz bin Baz (who himself had died a few months before) and Muhammad bin ‘Uthaymin (who would pass away in January 2001), both leading figures of the Saudi religious establishment. Salafi newspapers, journals, and websites celebrated this Syrian son of an Albanian clock-maker—whose family left Albania in 1923, when he was nine years old, and re-established itself in Damascus—who had become known as the muhaddith al-’asr (traditionist of the era), that is, the greatest hadith scholar of his generation.

How did al-Albani, with his undistinguished social and ethnic origins, come to occupy such a prestigious position in a field long monopolized by a religious elite from the Saudi region of Najd—The answer is, as we shall see through the example of al-Albani himself and some of his disciples, lies in his revolutionary approach to hadith.

The Wahhabi paradox

Common knowledge considers Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Albani to be staunch proponent of Wahhabism, the discourse produced and upheld by the official Saudi religious establishment.1 This is undoubtedly true in terms of ‘aqidah (creed), yet al-Albani strongly disagrees with the Wahhabis—and especially with their chief representatives, the ulama of the Saudi religious establishment—when it comes to fiqh (law). There, al-Albani points to a fundamental contradiction within the Wahhabi tradition: the latter’s proponents have advocated exclusive reliance on the Quran, the Sunna, and the consensus of al-salaf al-salih (the pious ancestors), yet they have almost exclusively relied on Hanbali jurisprudence for their fatwas—acting therefore as proponents of a particular school of jurisprudence, namely Hanbalism. According to al-Albani, this also applies to Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab whom he describes as “salafi in creed, but not in fiqh.”

For al-Albani, moreover, being a proper “salafi in fiqh” implies making hadith the central pillar of the juridical process, for hadith alone may provide answers to matters not found in the Quran without relying on the school of jurisprudence. The mother of all religious sciences therefore becomes the “science of hadith,” which aims at re-evaluating the authenticity of known hadiths. According to al-Albani, hoever, independent reasoning must be excluded from the process: the critique of the matn (the content of the hadith) should be exclusively formal, i.e. grammatical or linguistic; only the sanad (the hadith’s chain of transmitters) may be properly put into question. As a consequence, the central focus of the science of hadith becomes ‘ilm al-rijal (the science of men), also known as ‘ilm al-jarh wa-l-ta’dil (the science of critique and fair evaluation), which evaluates the morality—deemed equivalent to the reliability—of the transmitters. At the same time—and contrary to earlier practices—al-Albani insists that the scope of this re-evaluation must encompass all existing hadiths, even those included in the canonical collections of Bukhari and Muslim, some of which al-Albani went so far as to declare weak.2

Revolutionary interpretations

As a consequence of the peculiarirty of this method, al-Albani ended up pronouncing fatwas that ran counter to the wider Islamic consensus and more specifically to Hanbali/Wahhabi jurisprudence. For instance, he wrote a book in which he redefined the proper gestures and formulae that constitute the Muslim prayer ritual “according to the Prophet’s practice”—and contrary to the prescriptions of all established schools of jurisprudence. Also, he stated that mihrabs—the niche found in a mosques indicating the direction of Mecca—were bid’a (an innovation) and declared licit to pray in a mosque with one’s shoes. Another controversial position was his call for Palestinians to leave the occupied territories since, he claimed, they were unable to practice their faith there as they should—something which is much more important than a piece of land. Finally, al-Albani took a strong stance against indulging in politics, repeating that “the good policy is to abandon politics”—a phrase implicitly aimed at the Muslim Brotherhood, whose political views he consistently denounced.

The presence of al-Albani in Saudi Arabia—where he was invited in 1961 by his good friend Shaykh ‘Abd al-’Aziz bin Baz to teach at the Islamic University of Medina—prompted embarrassed reactions from the core of the Wahhabi establishment, who disagreed with him but could hardly attack him because of his impeccable Wahhabi credentials in terms of creed. The controversy sparked by his book The Veil of the Muslim Woman, in which he argued that Muslim women should not cover their face—a position unacceptable by Saudi standards—, finally gave the Wahhabi establishment the justification needed to get him out of the Kingdom in 1963. He then re-established himself in his country of birth, Syria, before leaving for Jordan in 1979.3

However, the opposition al-Albani encountered from the Wahhabi religious establishment was not merely intellectual. By putting into question the methodological foundations upon which the Wahhabis had built their legitimacy, he was also challenging their position in the Saudi religious field.

From its inception, Wahhabism had established itself as a religious tradition—at the core of which laid a number of key books, both in creed and law. This tradition had been monopolized by a small religious aristocracy from Najd, first centered around Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and his descendants (known as the Al al-Shaykh) before opening up to a small number of other families. In the Saudi system as it took shape, the members of aristocracy would become the only legitimate transmitters of the Wahhabi tradition; in this context independent scholars were excluded because they had not received “proper ‘ilm” from “qualified” ulama.

Traditional Wahhabi ‘ilm, therefore, was the fruit of a process of transmission and depended on the number of ijazas—a certificate by which a scholar acknowledges the transmission of his knowledge (or part of it) to one of his pupils, and authorizes him to transmit it further—given by respected Wahhabi scholars. This is the very logic of al-Albani—who, himself, owned very few of these certificates—would challenge by promoting his critical approach. As a matter of fact, according to al-Albani, transmission has no importance whatsoever, because, every hadith being suspect, the fact that it was narrated by a respected scholar cannot guarantee its authenticity. On the contrary, the important process of accumulation—a good scholar of hadith being someone who has memorized a large sum of hadith and, more importantly, the biographies of a large number of transmitters. Thus, the science of hadith can be measured according to the objective criteria unrelated to family, tribe, or regional descent, allowing for a previously absent measure of meritocracy. More importantly, al-Albani claims of being more faithful to the spirit of Wahhabism than ‘Abd al-Wahhab himself made the former’s ideas very popular among Salafi youth.

Religious entrepreneurs

For all these reasons, al-Albani’s ideas would rapidly become a means for Salafi religious entrepreneurs from outside the Wahhabi aristocracy to challenge the existing hierarchy. Al-Albani himself quickly gathered a large following, in Saudi Arabia and beyond. He would soon have to be recognized, despite the initial hostility of the Wahhabi religious establishment, as one of the leading figures in Salafism.

In the mid-1960s, a number of al-Albani’s disciples in Medina founded al-Jamaa al-Salafiyya al-Muhtasiba (The Salafi Group which Commands Good and Forbids Evil), a radical faction of which, led by Juhayman al-’Utaybi, would storm the grand mosque in Mecca in November 1979. Many of the group’s members—and especially its scholars—were either of Bedouin descent or non-Saudi residents, and were thus marginalized in the religious field. Their activism came, in part at least, as a response to their marginalization.4 One of the main religious figures of this group—who was “lucky” enough to have been thrown out of the Kingdom in 1978 and therefore did not take part in the 1979—was Muqbil al-Wadi’i, who subsequently re-established himself in his native Yemen and became the country’s most prominent Salafi scholar.

In the late 1980s, some of al-Albani’s pupils, led by Medinan shaykh called Rabi’ al-Madkhali, formed an informal religious network generally referred to as al-Jamiyya (”the Jamis”, named after one of their key members, Muhammad Aman al-Jami). Beyond their focus on hadith, the Jamis became known as emphasizing al-Albani’s calls not to indulge in politics and for denouncing those who did. Again, many of the Jamis were peripheral origin (al-Madkhali was from Jazan, on the Yemeni border, while al-Jami was from Ethiopia) and had therefore been excluded from all leading positions in the religious field. They would finally gain prominence in the early 1990s, when the Saudi government supported them financially and institutionally, in the hope of creating an apolitical ideological counterweight to the Islamist opposition led by the al-Sahwa al-Islamiyya (the Islamic Awakening), an informal religio-political movement which appeared in Saudi Arabia in the 1960s as the result of a hybridization between Wahhabism, on religious issues, and on the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood, on political issues.5

In the 1990s, a few students of al-Albani would go so far as to challenge both the Wahhabi religious aristocracy and al-Albani himself. Following the teachings of an Indian shaykh called Hamza al-Milibari,6 they would promote the centrality of hadith, while criticizing al-Albani for relying, in his critique of hadith, on the methods used by late traditionists—at least so they claimed. On the contrary, they would pride themselves for relying exclusively on the methodology of the early traditionists (that is those anterior to al-Dar Qutni (917-995)) and would therefore name their approach manhaj al-mutaqad-dimin (the methodology of the early ones). Again, most of these scholars were peripheral figures, such as Sulayman al-’Alwan, a very young—al-’Alwan was born in 1970 and started to become known as a scholars while he was in his twenties—shaykh of non-tribal descent, and ‘Abdallah al-Sa’d, whose family had come from the city of Zubayr in Modern Iraq. The two of them would later become key figures in the Saudi Jihadi trend, challenging the political order after they had challenged the religious order. As a consequence, they would be arrested and jailed after the May 2003 bombings.

Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani’s denunciation of the “Wahhabi paradox” and his promotion of a new approach to the critique of hadtih as the pillar of religious knowledge have prompted a revolution within Salafism, challenging the very monopoly of the Wahhabi religious aristocracy. As a consequence, al-Albani’s ideas have given independent Salafi religious entrepreneurs a weapon with which to fight their way into previously closed circles. Although none have yet achieved al-Albani’s prestige, some have become recognized scholars. Interestingly enough, al-Albani’s rise to prominence as a de facto part of an establishment he once rejected has encouraged some of disciples, proponents of the “methodology of the early ones,” to call—along al-Albani’s earlier line—for an even “purer” approach to the critique of hadith. As this shows, the revolutionary power of his methods remains intact.


1.As opposed to Wahhabism, Salafism refers here to all hybridations that have taken place since the 1960s between the teachings of Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and other Islamic schools of thought. Al-Albani’s discourse can therefore be a form of Salafism, while being critical of Wahhabism.

2.Stéphane Lacroix, “Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani’s Contribution to Contemporary Salafism,” in Global Salafism: Islam’s New Religious Movement, ed. Roel Meijer (London/New York: Hurst/Columbia University Press, 2008 (forthcoming)).

3.On the controversies surrounding al-Albani, see ibid.

4.See Thomas Hegghammer and Stéphane Lacroix, “Rejectionist Islamism in Saudi Arabia: The Story of Juhayman al-’Utaybi Revisited,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 39, no. 1 (2007):103-122.

5.For more details, see ibid.

6.The book is called Al-muwazana bayna al-mutaqaddimin wa-l-muta’akhkhirin fi tashih al-ahadith wa ta’liliha [The balance between the early ones and the late ones regarding the identification of authentic and weak hadiths].

TO know more about this man who said the dome over the prophets grave should be destroyed, masterbation does not breaks ones Fasting in Ramadhan and other adventures of this self proclaimed Scholar who did not have an Ijaza in Hadith ( certificate to teach and communicate hadith), Please visit this link

(copy and paste in your browser bar).

Concise Guide to the Chief Innovator of Our Time

Imam al-Haytami on the followers of Imam Ahmad.

Taken from Shaykhul Islam Of his time , Imam and al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami's Fatawa Hadithiyyah.

[مطلب: في عقيدة الإمام أحمد رضي الله عنه وأرضاه]

211 ــــ وسئل رضي الله عنه ونفعنا به: في عقائد الحنابلة ما لا يخفى على شريف علمكم، فهل عقيدة الإمام أحمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه كعقائدهم؟

فأجاب بقوله: عقيدة إمام السنة أحمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه وأرضاه وجعل جنان المعارف متقلَّبه ومأواه وأفاض علينا وعليه من سوابغ إمتنانه وبوأه الفردوس الأعلى من جنانه، موافقة لعقيدة أهل السنة والجماعة من المبالغة التامة في تنزيه الله تعالى عما يقول الظالمون والجاحدون علواً كبيراً من الجهة والجسمية وغيرهما من سائر سمات النقص، بل وعن كل وَصْف ليس فيه كمال مطلق، وما اشتهر بين جهلة المنسوبين إلى هذا الإمام الأعظم المجتهد من أنه قائل بشيء من الجهة أو نحوها فكذب وبُهتان وافتراء عليه، فلعن الله من نسب ذلك إليه، أو رماه بشيء من هذه المثالب التي برَّأه الله منها، وقد بين الحافظ الحجة القدوة الإمام أبو الفرج بن الجوزي من أئمة مذهبه المبرئِّين من هذه الوصمة القبيحة الشنيعة، أنَّ كل ما نسب إليه من ذلك كذب عليه وافتراء وبهتان وأن نصوصه صريحة في بطلان ذلك وتنزيه الله تعالى عنه فاعلم ذلك فإنه مهم.
وإياك أنْ تصغى إلى ما في كتب ابن تيمية وتلميذه ابن قيم الجوزية وغيرهما ممن اتخذ إلهه هواه وأضله الله على علم وختم على سمعه وقلبه وجعل على بصره غشاوة فمن يهديه من بعد الله، وكيف تجاوز هؤلاء الملحدون الحدود، وتعدوا الرسوم وخرقوا سياج الشريعة والحقيقة، فظنوا بذلك أنهم على هدى من ربهم وليسوا كذلك، بل هم على أسوأ الضلال وأقبح الخصال وأبلغ المَقَّتْ والخسران وأنهى الكذب والبهتان فخذل الله متَّبِعهم وطهر الأرض من أمثالهم

Translation by GF Haddad Sha`bân 1423:

The Shâfi’ faqîh, Shaykh al-Islâm al-Haytamî was asked: "Was the belief of Imâm Ahmad ibn Hanbal the same as [certain] present-day Hanbalîs claim?" - He replied:

Concerning the doctrine of the Imâm of Ahl al-Sunna, Ahmad ibn Hanbal (ra) - may Allâh (swt) grant him the loftiest of gardens as his resting-place and destination, bestow upon us and him His bounties, and grant him a dwelling in the loftiest firdaws: his doctrine was in absolute conformity with the belief of Ahl al-Sunna, and completely concordant. It included the belief that Allâh (swt) is exalted beyond those matters that the oppressors and dissenters attribute to Him. That is, Allâh (swt) is exalted from possessing direction, parts, corporeality, and so forth among the various Attributes of imperfection.

The truth of the matter is that Allâh is free from all the Attributes that are not characterized by absolute perfection; and all those things that are being circulated and publicized among the ignoramuses as being said by this great mujtahid Imâm are a slander. It is an outright lie that this Imâm ever claimed direction or the like in describing the Attributes of Allâh (swt). May Allâh lead to perdition those who attribute such positions to the Imâm who is entirely exonerated of having said such things.

All these matters have been explained by the hadîth Master, Imâm Ab al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzî, who belongs to his [Imâm Ahmad's] school. He has cleared the Imâm's name of such foul slanders and has provided explicit proofs exposing the lies of the slanderers.

And beware of what Ibn Taymiyya, his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and others wrote; he [Ibn Taymiyya] is a man who took his lusts for his Lord, for which Allâh led him astray despite his learning, sealed upon his hearing and heart, and put a veil upon his sight; and who can guide him after Allâh let him be misguided? Why should He not, when these heretics have gone past the boundaries set by the Sharî`a and trampled them? Yet they imagine that they are the guided ones, that they are guided by their Lord Almighty when the truth is that they are not. Rather, they are on the wrong path, the most heinous, misleading way and most abominable traits. They are afflicted by vices and have incurred a great loss. May Allâh humble their followers and wipe the earth clean from their likes!

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Masjis Al Aqsa

What do u know about Masjid Al Aqsa..??

Have you noticed that whenever Masjid Al Aqsa is mentioned in the MEDIA,
they show the picture of the DOME OF THE ROCK.. WHY..??

The main reason for that is the ZIONISHT CONSPIRACY to erase from the
memory of Muslims worldwide the True picture of Masjid Al Aqsa



Masjid Al Aqsa and DOME OF ROCK

Many Muslims and Non Muslims publish the incorrect picture of Masjid AL Aqsa out of ignorance.
What is worse than this is that many muslims today,display the picture of Dome of Rock in ther homes and offices, as it were Masjid Al Aqsa...

It has become a common mistake in the Muslim World...

The Real Tragedy is that Generations of Muslim Children (as well as many adults) around the world, are unable to differentiate between Masjid Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock..

Real Masjid AL AQSA

What do you think is going to happen if MASJID AL-AQSA
is destroyed and removed from the present landscape..??

Obviously you might not expect much, since everyone will see the DOME OF THE ROCK Still standing, unharmed.

People will incorrectly belive that nothing has changed and that something else was destroed.

What are you going to do NOW..?

It is your duty now to clear up this misunderstanding, especially for our children because they are the future.

We have to carry out this duty even if we demostrate and scream in the streets.
We must help people understand the truth.

Please pass on this message to as many friends as possible and take part in stopping this conspiracy.