Saturday, September 17, 2011

Wahhabi - Nonsense



Abuz Zubair ^ (Expergefactionist) - said:

Quote: 
“Yes, it is rationally possible for Allah to do wrong, , or dhulm, be it in the form of lying, or anything else. However, as the Prophet SAW said of Allah in Hadeeth Qudsi, 'I have forbidden oppression on myself'. He could only forbid oppression if it was possible for Him to commit. Likewise, Allah never lies, even though He could if he wanted to.” 


---

Deviant objections
to the fact that

Some deviants say: Yes, it is rationally possible for Allah to do wrong, or Ţħulm, because the Prophet said of Allah in Hadeeth Qudsi, ‘I have forbidden oppression on myself’. He could only forbid oppression if it was possible for Him to commit.

Answer: The ĥadiitħ qudsiyy saying they are referring to was narrated by Muslim, and is as follows:
إِنِّي حَرَّمْت الظُّلْم عَلَى نَفْسِي

If translated literally, it would be: ‘I have forbidden injustice upon myself’

The literal translation implies that injustice would in principle be possible, because otherwise there would be nothing to forbid.

However, this literal meaning is impossible, because of the meaning of injustice.

It either means: to cross the rules that have been imposed upon one, or
to deal in someone else’s property without a right.

These meanings cannot be true of Aļļaah to begin with, they have no relevance to Him Himself, so how could they become forbidden?!

In other words, those who claim that it is rationally possible are going to have to say that He has someone that can impose rules upon Him, or that there is a property that is not His!

We ask Aļļaah for protection against such heresy.

That is why An-Nawawiyy commented on this ĥadiitħ saying:
The meaning is ‘Aļļaah is clear of and above the imperfection of injustice,’ because injustice is impossible with regards to Him. How could he cross any rule imposed upon him, and there is no one above Him that He would have to obey?! How could He deal in the property of someone else, when all of the world is His property and under His might?! The origin of the world ĥarrama (translated above as forbid) is “to be prevented,” so the meaning of “being clear of the imperfection” was expressed with the word “forbidden,” because one aspect of its meaning is similar to “being clear of”, namely the meaning of non-existence. (I.e. what is prevented does not exist, just as what one is clear of does not exist.) [1]

A similar issue is raised when the deviants say that Aļļaah could have obligations. To show this, they mention aayahs like the following:
كَتَبَ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ الرَّحْمَةَ
Meaning if literally translated: “He has written upon Himself mercy.” (Al-‘Anˆaam, 12)
كَتَبَ رَبُّكُمْ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ الرَّحْمَةَ
Meaning if literally translated: “Your Lord has written upon Himself mercy.” (Al-‘Anˆaam, 54)

An-Nasafiyy said in his tafsiir regarding these Aayahs:
The original meaning of write (kataba) is obligate, but it is not allowed to take it literally, because nothing is obligatory upon Aļļaah to do for created beings. The meaning then, is that He promised an ascertained promise that He will definitely hold. The mention of “Himself” is for the purpose of linguistic specification of Him and that it was not through means. [2]

Aţ-Ţabariyy said:
He decreed (i.e. for it to be, not obligated) that He will give mercy to His created beings. He does not punish them hastily, and accepts from them their repentance. This mention from Aļļaah is for the purpose of inclining those who have turned away from Him towards Him through repentance.[3]

The same was mentioned by Al-Bagħawiyy in his tafsiir.[4]

The important linguist and commentator on the Qur’aan Abuu Ĥayyaan said:
When Aļļaah mentioned that the creator of the word does what He wills with what is in it, and this indicates that His Power is effective, He followed this with a mention of His mercy and favors to creation. The apparent meaning of kataba (has written) is that of the sense of rows and strokes. This is what a number of people said is the meaning in this context, and that what is meant is actual writing, and that the meaning is that He ordered it to be written in Al-Lawĥ Al-Maĥfuuţħ (the Preserved Tablet).

(Note: This is the same meaning as when Aţ-Ţabariyy said it mean that “He decreed.”)
It has been said that the meaning of “kataba” is that He promised as a grace and benevolence from Him. It has also been said that it means “He informed.” It has also been said that He made it necessary, in the sense as a grace and benevolence, not in the sense of obligation. It has also been said that it means, “decreed and executed.”[5]


[1] Al-Nawawiyy, Sharĥ Saĥiiĥ Muslim Li-l-Nawawiyy (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Ihyaa’ Al-Turath Al-Arabi, 1392), Vo. 16, P. 132.
[2] Abuu Barakaat Al-Nasafiy, Madaariku-t-Tanziil wa Ĥaqaa’iqu-t-Ta’wiil, ed. Maĥmuud Muĥammad Asħ-Sħaˆˆaar, 1st ed. (Beirut, Lebanon: Daar An-Nafaa’is, 2005), Vol. 2, P. 7.
[3] Abuu Jaˆfar Aţ-Ţabariy, Jaamiˆu-l-Bayaan Fiy Ta’wiili-l-Qur’aan (Beirut, Lebanon: Mu’assasah Al-Risaalah, 1420), Vol 11, P. 273.
[4] NaşirudDiin Al-Bayđaawiyy (685 AH/ 1286 AD), Tafsiir Al-Bayđaawiyy (Beirut, Lebanon: Daar Al-Fikr, n.d.), Vol. 3, P. 130.
[5] Abuu Ĥayyaan Al-Andalusiyy, Al-Baĥru-l-Muĥiiţ (Beirut, Lebanon: Daar Al-Fikr, n.d.), Vol. 4, P. 81.
-------------------------------

Question: Someone wrote that if we say that lying is not possible for Allah, it would then imply that humans could do something that Allah cannot do. Is this logic valid?
Answer: No. This is because Allah’s power pertains to the possible category of things. It does not pertain to what cannot ever be, the rationally impossible. It also does not pertain to what must be, such as Allah existing and being one without a parter. Lying is a flaw of speech, so saying that Allah can lie is to say that He can have a flaw. This is kufr, like saying He can have a son or a partner.
Note that it is also kufr to say that Allah is unable to lie, because this is to insult Allah’s attribute of Power. Furthermore, it is kufr to say that Allah is obligated not to lie, because a need to fulfill obligations is a flaw, and attributing a flaw to Allah is blasphemy.

The answer then is that lying is a flaw, and it is impossible for Allah to have a flaw. Allah’s Power is only related to what could possibly exist.
For example, if Allah said that Fir`awn is going to Hell, then it is impossible that Fir`awn never goes there. This is because Allah’s Speech pertains to His Knowledge, that is, He told us of what He knows, namely that Fir`awn will enter Hell. If you say that it pertains to Allah’s Power for Fir`awn not to enter Hell, after knowing that Allah has said otherwise, then you are saying that Allah’s Knowledge is flawed, or that His Will changes, which would again mean flawed knowledge and change. This is all kufr.

Someone asked: Can Allah act against His previous word or command?
Answer: It is not obligatory for Allah to fulfill His promises, because He does not have obligations. That does not make it possible in the mind’s eye, however, quite the contrary. We say that it is not obligatory, but it is impossible that Allah should not fulfill His promises, or threats, because it is impossible that Allah should lie, because lying is a flaw, and Allah is clear of flaws. Accordingly, if someone says, “It is contingently possible for Allah to act against His previous word,” then he has committed kufr, because he is saying that Allah could have a flaw.

Deviant said: “What you need to understand is that to say that it is “impossible” for Allah to lie would necessitate that He has given man the ability to do something that He himself does not have the power to do. This is absurd to suggest.
Comment: This is ignorance. Lying is an attribute of Speech, and Allah’s Speech is a must, an attribute of perfection, it is not something that pertains to Allah’s Power. If you say that it pertains to Allah’s Power, then you are saying that it is created, which is kufr, as stated by the four a’immah.

Deviant said: Furthermore, it is practically an ijma’ that Allah’s speech is known as a result of revelation, not reason, so it makes no sense to say that we only know that Allah has the capacity to communicate to us because of scripture, but it is rationally impossible for Him to lie, when we didn’t even know that He could speak until the revelation came. Hence, the impossibility of lying on Allah is a judgment of scripture, not reason, although reason further emphasizes that lying would be a sign of imperfection….
Answer: This is nonsense. By the agreement of the Ash`aris Allah’s attribute of Speech is a must, not a created attribute. Regardless of whether it can be known by the mind alone or not. Once it is established that Allah’s Speech is not created, but a must, and that not having a speech is a flaw, then you cannot say that Allah’s Speech is also a possibility!
Moreover, you either say that Allah has a Speech or not.
If you say He does not, then lying is impossible, because lying without speech is impossible.
If you say He does, then you either say it is created or not.
If you say that it is created, then you are saying that the “Kalaam Allah” is like saying “Bayt Allah.”
This means that Allah does not in reality have a Speech that is an attribute of His Self, so that means in the end that Allah in actual reality does not speak, according to this idea, which means lying would be impossible.
If you say that Allah’s Speech is not created, but a necessary, i.e. eternal, attribute of He Himself, then you are either saying that it changes, e.g. by involving sequential meaning being told one after another, or does not.
If you say it does, like the Wahabis, then you are saying that it is created, because change needs a creator, which would mean again that it is not a necessary attribute, and something cannot be both necessary and not at the same time. So in such a case lying is also impossible, because the attribute proposed is impossible.
Finally, if you say that it is necessary and does not change, then we have arrived at what we want, namely that Allah has an attribute by which He informs. You either say that it pertains to what He knows or not. Since Allah’s knowledge is infinite, it pertains to all that must be, as well as what cannot be and what could be. What could be includes what has been, what is now, and what will be in the future, as well as what could have been in the past, now and in the future.
If you say that Allah’s speech pertains to lying then you are saying that if A is going to be at point in time B, then Allah says both that A is going to be at point B and that it is not going to be at point B. This is a contradiction and therefore impossible. Note that this is not impossible in the case of our speech, because it is a sequential action, i.e. something created, whereas Allah’s Speech is not an action and does not change.
There is no question then, that it is rationally impossible that Allah should lie.

Deviant said: Perhaps if you looked at the fact that a “square-circle” is not actually something that can exist while “lying” is, it would help you in your confusion. We know that lying does exist, while we know that it is not compulsorily existent (wajib). It is possibly existent (ja’iz). If it is ja’iz al-wujud, it falls within the realm of Allah’s qudrah, which are the ja’izat (possible things) and is exactly what His power pertains to. His power does not pertain to a “square-circle” because of square-circle just cannot possibly exist. As for “kadhib” (lying), it not only possibly exists. It “actually” exists.
Answer: This is ignorance. Lying does exist, yes, but as an attribute of creation! Does possible attributes of creation necessitate that Allah also has them? This is one of the ugliest examples of tashbih I have seen in my life.

Deviant said: Allah’s qudra pertains to lying just as it pertains to truth (sidq). Hence, lying is something that He can possibly do “actually” and “rationally” speaking. The only thing is that He has chosen not to lie and He does not have to lie, because He has nothing to fear from telling the truth, since He has power over all things and cannot be subdued or controlled by anyone.
Answer: This is pure i`tizaal. He is saying that Allah’s speech is created and is something that pertains to His Power. If not, then what is lying except something pertaining to speech?
Deviant said: He also does not lie because He has made it His way not to do so as He indicated to us in scripture…
Answer: This is stupidity. If Allah telling lies was a possibility, as he claims, then there is no way to tell whether the indication in the scripture is true!

Someone said: Allah has the power to lie or speak truth. His power encompasses both possibilities. Nothing limits his choice and will. If you can show how what I say is flawed, I’m more than open to see how. However, the flaw is really in exactly what I have explained. Your view necessitates that Allah’s qudra is limited and that He has the power to give the power to lie to man but He doesn’t have the power to do it His self.
Answer: His statement “Allah has the power to lie or speak truth” is pure i`tizaal, it is a plain statement saying that Allah’s Speech is created.

Someone said: Faqid al-shay la yu’ti (one who lacks something cannot give it to another). This would then place man’s power more expansive than the Creator’s own. This is why your logic is flawed and why I say that you have misunderstood the text…
Answer: This man does not have mind. He is a kafir and an ignorant fool. According to this, if someone rides on a mosquito, as Ibn Taymiyyah’s followers say, then it is possible that Allah should ride a mosquito…. Need I say more?
---






Sunday, September 11, 2011

Kitab At-Tawhid - The Devil's Trumpet











The Devil's Trumpet


Divine Triumph:
Explanatory Notes on the the " Book of Tawheed "
A Translation of Fath Al-Majeed Sharh Kitab At-Tawhid
By Sheikh Abdur-Rahman Ibn Hasan Al Ash-Sheikh



• Mu-hammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi claimed to know the issue of Tawheed better than the Majority of the Sahaabah
[Chapter 1, Kitaab ut-Tawheed]

• Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi claims that the Ash’ariyah have denied the Attributes of Allah but gives no explanation to what Attributes, how they have denied them, etc. he just makes a claim and offers no explanation to back his claim. 
[Chapter 2, point 12, Kitaab ut-Tawheed]


His grandson does not even care to explain in

Fath ul-Majeed, page, 49

Again in
Chapter 16 Point no. 20

Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi repeats the same accusation but does not explain.

Such a matter of tawheed merits an explanation.

Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi blindly follows Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn Qayyum in their dividing tawheed into two.

Fath ul-Majeed, English translation p.8, the Prophet nor the Sahaabah nor anybody from the first three generations ever categorized tawheed in this fashion. Indeed the first three generations was on the complete teaching of tawheed, whereas the innovators have introduced matters into tawheed and then used their innovated theology as a springboard to takfeer and kill innocent Muslims, past and present

In Chapter 23, Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi argues that Muslims worship idols. By using An-Nisaa ayah 51, however who was this ayah revealed about? Also the ayah in al-Maa’idah ayah 60, again who was this revealed about?
Point no. 7 of this same chapter claims that Muslims will practice idol worship.
According to Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi and the understanding he passed down to his grand-sons, those who do tawassul via the Prophets and the Righteous are in a depth of kufr much worse than the depth of kufr than that of the pagans of Makkah.
[Fath ul-Majeed, p. 37 -38]

This understanding is seen further in chapter 18 where Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi argues that Abu Jahl knew and understood the kalimah better than Muslims who understand the principles and essentials of Islam, see [Fath ul-Majeed, p. 206.]

Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi demonstrates his understanding further in point no. 5 when he claims that that “The disbelievers are more guided than the faithful believers”
see [Fath ul-Majeed p. 240]

By misinterpreting the hadeeth the supplication [du’a] is worship” to mean “all and every du’a is worship” Wahhabis promote the idea that whosoever “calls upon other than Allah” are complete mushrikeen and disbelievers.
Therefore those who call upon the Messenger by saying “Yaa RasulAllah” or the righteous by saying “Ya ‘Abdul Qaadir” are complete disbelievers according to the Wahhabi creed. See [Fath ul-Najeed p. 67, p. 86, p. 93][ Kitaab ut-Tawheed, Chapter 14: point no. 10 and 11.]

In fact, the whole of chapter fourteen is dedicated to those who call upon Prophets and saints, labeling such people who “call upon them” as kuffar and mushrikeen.
Chapter 14 also argues that whosoever calls upon Prophets or the righteous should “Declare his repentance or otherwise be killed”, this is also the understanding found within Fath ul-Majeed, p. 180

It can be seen in chapter 6 of Kitaab ut-Tawheed, and the context of the chapter and the “evidences” that Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi has used the permissibility to kill Muslims who display great respect for their Elder Shaykhs and teachers, or whoever admitted to following one of the four Madh-habs by labeling themselves Hanafi, Maliki, Shaafi after their respective Imaam.

Both of these acts Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi deemed as shirk and from that premise declared lawful the spilling of blood of any Muslim and even the taking of their property.

According to the Wahhabi creed, anybody who does not accept the hadeeth of the “Salafis” as the “stronger evidence” and continues to follow another hadeeth in favour of it, or depending on the knowledge of the scholar that transmitted and utilized this hadeeth within the madh-hab, then the Imaam and his madh-hab has committed shirk. See [Fath ul-majeed, Pgs, 369-372 ]

The suggestion that Muslims worship the four Imaams can be further seen in
Fath ul-Majeed on pages: 373 to 374
Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi contradicts the guidance of Islam which tells us that a Muslims blood is inviolable except for three cases:
a. the murder of another, b. adultery, c. apostasy.
Wahabi creed teachers:
Merely pronouncing the statement “there is no god but Allah” cannot make ones property or blood invioliable”

This is the understanding of Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi and his grandsons in Fath ul-Majeed p. 102

• In great excitement at spilling the blood of Muslims who the Wahhabis deem as mushriks, Abdur Rahmaan burst out with joy:

“What a great issue! What a clear statement! What a decisive reason!

He then further demonstrates this understanding by quoting the ayah of Allah “Kill the mushrikeen wherever you find themFath ul-Majeed, P. 103.

Only the Khawaarij would use a passage of the Qur’an in this fashion!

• ‘Abdur Rahmaan also makes the folly of comparing the Muslim believers who “call upon other than Allah to the apostates who denied the Zakah. We see this when he said: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and the honorable companions of the Prophet Muhammad waged war against those people who refrained from paying the due Zakah, they must be fought as they would be regarded as renegades and apostates.” Fath ul-Majeed pgs 104-105

The Wahhabi creed claims that the Muslims who “call upon others besides Allah” are more worthy of killing than those who denied the Zakah [Kashf ush-Shubuhaat]

• A person is allowed to by “taken by force” and even put to death should he reject the Wahhabi call, it is a case of embrace Wahhabism or die. [Fath ul-Majeed, p. 73]
• Wahhabis can murder anybody they deem to be a disbeliever or a hypocrite for ‘Abdur Rahmaan states “It is permissible to kill the one who shows himself to be a disbeliever or a hypocrite” See [Fath ul-Majeed, p 384 chapter 39.]

This means Wahhabis can kill anybody they like without any ameer of governmental body. 

All they have to do is set up the accusation, and without any court of law, no display of mercy, a person is put to death. History shows us that not only this has happened, but will also continue to happen anytime a Wahhabi decides to have their way.

Chapter 63 ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi uses the passages from An-Nahl to suggest that Muslims have broke their covenant with Allāh and according to Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi it is permissible to fight and kill them “as they disbelieve in Allāh” see [point no. 4 in chapter 63 of Fath ul-Majeed, p. 505]

• Chapter 15 argues that the Prophet is incapable of helping from beyond the grave. The Khawaarij misuse ayah 23 from Surah as-Saba [22] to argue that Allah has denied the Prophet the ability to hear.

Usul ut-Tafseer shows us this ayah was revealed about the Kuffar. How can anybody use an ayah that was revealed about the kuffar and then apply it to the best of creation?
Only the Khawaarij are known for such ayah misinterpretation! This is their corrupt understanding, as Wahhabi creed teaches “Because they are dead and are unaware”.

See Fath ul-Majeed, p. 177, Abdur Rahmaan follows his grandfather in the corrupt opinion that the dead cannot hear when he said:
“This is true regarding the living man, who can do and observe things. However, dead people cannot sense those who invoke them and also cannot bring any benefit or harm…” p. 405 chapter 42.

Secondly, Tareekh [Islamic history] has shown us again and again how the Prophet has heard and came to help those who have asked for his help, even though he is in the baarzakh.

Chapter 19 argues the false analogy of worshipping the Prophet as the Christians did with Jesus, see Fath ul-Majeed, p. 215; in Chapter 66 Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi suggests that it is shirk to call upon the Prophet with the title master, and they also argue that Milaad un nabi is shirk pgs. 518-519

Chapter 22 argues that you cannot face the grave whilst doing any form of du’a, and that you cannot make intention to visit the Prophet, but to only visit the three holy masaajid.
See [Fath ul-Majeed, p. 237]

Loud dhikr is considered as heresy pg. 45
• Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi implies that the Prophet and the Sahaabah taught shirk by teaching people to perform ruqyah and ta’weez, see chapter 3, Kitaab ut-Tawheed, point no. 5. And chapter 7, point no. 2. And point no. 7.

This is one of the many reasons why “Kitaab ut-Tawheed” should really be called
“Kitaab ush-Shirk

Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najd’s grandson also implies that whosoever uses ta’weez is a complete mushrik. See Fath ul-Majeed, p. 53

In Chapter 44 Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi implies that a Jew corrected the Prophet in his knowledge of tawheed by brandishing a hadeeth in which a Jew came to the Prophet and accused him of doing shirk.

Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi , instead of refuting this Jew he takes the position of this Jew against the Prophet by brandishing the happening and making his desired points from it Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi wrote concerning this point:

“The Jews knew what shirk ul-asgahr is
Thus by implying that the Jews were correct in saying that the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam was upon shirk . (Nauzubillah)

Astagfirullah

The shirk the Prophet was accused of was swearing by the Ka’bah.

Abdur Rahmaan further confirms this when he says:
“This proves that swearing by the Ka’bah is shirk, and the Prophet did not reject the statement of the Jew who said to him ‘verily you commit shirksee Fath ul-Majeed pgs 409-412

• In Chapter 50 p. 435 onwards Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi levels the accusation of shirk against Adam by using a fabricated hadeeth.
• Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi denies 800 years of authentic scholarship see Fath ul-Majeed, p. 357 however his very own grandsons correct his notion on p. 359 and correct the import of the given hadeeth
Chapter 67 Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab Najdi certainly promoted the anthropomorphic creed, point no. five he suggests that Allah has two hands, left and right. See Fath ul-Majeed p. 523.

Other Wahhabi/Salafi publications argue that Allah has two right hands.
---

from
Abu Muhammad Ibraheem al-Hanbali

(Edited by ADHM)
----



Divine Triumph: Explanatory Notes on the the " Book of Tawheed
A Translation of Fath Al-Majeed Sharh Kitab At-Tawhid By
Sheikh Abdur-Rahman Ibn Hasan Al Ash-Sheikh
Grandson of M. ibn abdul wahab Najdi



---



WAHHABI BELIEF:


SAHABA COMMITTED SHIRK


The following screenshots is part of a discussion by a Wahhabi “scholar” on the interpretation of the narration of Dhat Anwat.

During this discussion he admits that the Wahhabi Najdis interpret this hadith in a manner that declares the Sahabah to have committed shirk and turned Mushriks.

Read Here


--------------------


AQEEDAH OF WAHHABISM:

“MOST OF THE MUSLIMS ARE MUSHRIKS”


Read Here


---------------------------



-

Ibn Baz: In his commentary of Fath al-Majid, wrote:
أهل مصر أعظم ءالهتهم أحمد البدوي
“The greatest of the Gods of the people of Egypt is Ahmad al-Badawi”
أهل الشام يعبدون ابن عربي
“The people of Sham worship Ibn al-Arabi”
أنتشرت في أهل الحجاز واليمن عبادة الطواغيت والأشجار والأحجار والقبور
“…people of Hijaz and Yemen worship idols, trees, stones and graves”

-


Also read
---


(Edited by ADHM)