Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

I think the Unknown authors of the article are clutching at straws to find things wrong with the shaykh. if this is the extent of there objection with him ie minor and petty discrepancies then we should hold them to account and according to the complete and utter perfection they expect from every shaykh they do not follow.

I am not saying they are correct in there arguments but that even giving them the benefit of the doubt one can see the pettiness of the argument and one would question the need to even bother writing an article to warn people against an evil person who supposedly only makes minor [human] mistakes.

Going on to what they actually claim, most of what they accuse him should realy be attributed or rather the objection should not solely be aimed at him but the majority of the muslim Ummah becouse his views as they quote them above are nothing but the views of the wider scholarly community. They just happen to focus on him and are looking for fault.

The shaykh has traditional and acceptable qualifications in islam by anyones standards, and i dare them to challenge them openly, so the least they can do is address him by his proper and earned title as Shaykh regardless of whether they agree with him or not it is simple adab.

Most scholars accues salafis of anthropomorphism maybe not deliberate but out of lack of knowledge and understanding what there statements really mean and imply, from my discussion with them many have a wrong understanding of what certain or basic words mean and hold distorted views [due to lack of understanding of traditional meaning of words, in my opinion].

Regarding the ashari scholars from my discussion with them most of what they believe are from habashi sources [which are  distortions] and if you ask them to find something wrong from there works directly they can not quote anything.

lastly regarding point 13 i think the author needs to get a grasp of time and space or at least look at watch and see what year it is becouse the shaykh was referring to muhammad ibn abdul wahhab and the salafi's in his time period while his reply refers to salafis of today. Salafism and its teaching has changed over the past 250 years due to the simple fact they did not form a madhhab [methodology for  deriving fatwah from the quran and sunnah thus there teachings where not preserved] so as it spread you would have one shaykh in one area saying one thing and another shaykh in another area saying something different about the same topic until eventually they began to contradict each other and what it was to be a salafi.

A good example of this is the anti madhhab salafis and the hanbali salafi's that exist today. if there was any sort of consistency and a methodological approach to law by the salafi's you would not have one group [those around the world] saying no madhhabs at all and another saying [the group in saudi it self apparently] saying we are hanbali's.

there are many contradictions in there teachings as it exists today between one group in one region and another in a different region.


Edited by rami

Andulus,

 

You can't be fair moderator in this medium if there was Islam and fairness. Your dictarship mount to that Bush or Islamic world leaders?.  You are bais blind Kabbani Sufi follower. Your hatred toward real Islam is beyond repair. You disregard every Islamic rule that bring people on the bowiqatal Islam!!!. You want to continue lies/deception path with free pass from audience. I'm not your muridi. When I caught you handed you cry foul and using guidelines as shield.

Meanwhile, No one has complained about my posts except few liberal political incorrect old hags. When they insulted me you were enjoying with them forgeting what Islam said about such. To you, these are your muridi's or should I say Kizan's if you know what I mean!!!. Listen, what about your daily spamming and bashing on Ibnu Taymiyah, Ibnu Abdulwahab and rest of Salafi muslims. What about your name calling on me day in day out!!. That should be sanctioned by your sufi doctrine. Listen don't preach me about behavior while you voilate the very basic of Islamic manner. If you run this show terminate my account then have mixed kumbaya with sufi dance.

Readers know I challenge you in Kitabul Towhid and that is what bugs you. If were there muslim Omdusman group in IC they would take all complains but alas this is sufi liberal Dahlan playground. Go ahead and enjoy your cake walk!!!.

If somehow, other moderators feel ashame by terminating my account in this voilent way.....Don't ever intimidate me again. Debate with me in civility and proof but don't I repeat don't terrorize me by your sufi ulitimatum. I'm not her to be your muridi. I want to contribute the well of my muslim people.

 

 

Allahu Akbar wala namat ayunul jubana

 

 

Abu Mujahid 

Andulus:

The last time you deprived people to read your Sheikh Kellers belief by deleting my post quickly. What a funny censor!! Since then I suspect you may be Haddad or Keller himself.  Anyway, if you want to delete it again go ahead but rest assured your sufi Sheikh Keller/Haddad has a lot of things to answer in their sufi beliefs...

 

Abu Mujahid

__________________________________________________

 

 

 

The Lies and Distortions of Keller Against the Salafis

Below are a list of some of the errors [insha�allaah] that Keller fell into in his attacks against the Salafee madhab. These are taken from one of his talks and some of his articles written in Q-News. I have not gone in great detail in most of the issues as I feel their error is clear for any sincere Muslim who considers the quotes and claims carefully. Some of the issues that required some depth have been dealt with in separate articles.

1. Talking about taking Allaahs Attributes Literally (alaa dhaahirihaa or alaa haqeeqatiha) he says, �but in tenants of faith and particularly in interpreting the relation of the mustashaabihaat to the Attributes of Allaah, literalism has never been accepted as an Islamic School of thought neither among the salaf - early Muslims - nor those who came later� [Literalism and Allaahs Attributes]. The fallacy of this claim is dealt in a separate article, �the madhab of Ahlus Sunnah and Ta�weel�
2. His claim that taking Allaahs Attributes literally is anthropomorphism [ibid], thus betraying his total lack of comprehension of the intended meaning behind these words when the early scholars used these terms. This is also dealt with on the same leaflet as mentioned above.
3. His statement �As for ibn Hazm, traditional scholars have not accepted his claims to be a mujtahid� [ibid] If he means by �traditional scholars� the contemporary so-called Ash�arees then maybe he is telling the truth. As for the true traditional scholars, then they have accepted his capability of making fatawaa.
4. His claim that most of the Salafee Scholars are merely trained in hadeeth alone. [ibid]
5. His claim that �Kitaab as-Sunnah� of Imaam Abdullaah bin Ahmad is forged due to it�s containing two unknown narrators in it�s chain of narration, and that it�s editor al-Qahtaanee tries to sweep this fact under the rug by saying that ibn Taymiyyah and ibn al-Qayyim authenticated the attribution to the author. [ibid]. Suffice it to say that the authenticity of the sanad is not the only thing that can be used to attribute a book to it�s author rather there are other conditions that can be met, and due to these being fulfilled the researching scholars firmly attributed the book to it�s author, such as those that Qahtaanee mentioned: not only ibn Taymiyyah and ibn al-Qayyim as Keller incorrectly claims, but ibn al-Jawzee, al-Bayhaqee, al-Laalikaa�ee and others.
6. As for the rest of his argument against �as-Sunnah� [ibid] then it is empty words, for he has not given any new information, the fact that it contains fabrications is known, and they have been pointed out by the various scholars who have done tahqeeq to it. To reject a book because it contains fabrications is unjust as any person will understand.
7. Following on from (5) his then going on to quote from �as-Sunnah� of al-Khallaal a narration going to Imaam Ahmad that he apparently made tafweed of the meanings of the Attributes of Allaah. [ibid]. But this book has more than two unknown narrators in it�s chain. So why the discrepancy? Why reject one book for a specific deficiency, but accept another book with that same deficiency? The answer is that justice is rare to find! In the case of the first book it contains [in it�s authentic narrations] things which contradict the innovations of the Ash�arees, so they try to find something to discredit it. In the second case, the book contains one narration [out of many that contradict the Ash�aree stances] that agrees with them, so they in turn sweep under the rug the deficiencies [in their eyes] of the book! Suffice it say, in case anyone is now in doubt of the authenticity of this books ascription, that in the same way that the researching scholars firmly attributed �as-Sunnah� to Imaam Abdullaah, they firmly attributed �as- Sunnah� to al-Khallaal.
8. His criticism that ibn al-Qayyim believes that Allaah has Two eyes, and the fact that he derived this from the hadeeth, �and your Lord is not one-eyed� [ibid] what would he say, now to the same argument being presented in the works of the very Imaam he claims to follow, Abul Hasan al-Ash�aree and other Imaams?!
9. His examples in which he tries to show that ta�weel was delved into by the salaf [ibid] this is dealt with in the same article as mentioned above and in the article on the biography of ibn Taymiyyah.
10. His claim that Abul Hasan al-Ash�aree performed ta�weel and did tafweed of the meanings of the Attributes [ibid]. To see the fallacy of this just read the work �al-Ibaanah� of the Imaam!
11. His claims that Salafees are anthropomorphists!
12. His claim that Salafees try to reduce �gatherings of dhikr� to �education gatherings alone� [Q-News. �Do the practice of the whirling dervishes fall within orthodox Islaam?�] This is not the case, rather they allow dhikr but not in the manner performed by the Sufis, rather as taught by the sunnah.
13. His claim that the hadeeth �shirk is more hidden in my Ummah than the creeping of ants across a great smooth stone�� was used by the �Wahhaabees� to prove that �the majority of Muslims may not be Muslims at all, but rather mushrikun or polythiests, and those that do not subscribe to the view of their Shaykhs may be beyond the pale of Islaam.� [Q-News, �would you advise individuals to study hadith from Bukhari and Muslim on their own?�] Subhaanallaah this is a grievous lie! The salafee scholars have explained this hadeeth in it�s true understanding, that this refers to minor shirk and warns of the danger of shirk in general. For if the Messenger feared for his nation minor shirk, than what of major shirk?[See �fath al-Majeed�, the commentary to �Kitaab at- Tawheed� of ibn Abdul Wahhab for example.] Kellers accusation that those that �do not subscribe to the views of their Shaykhs may be beyond the pale of Islaam� is pure sectarianism and bigotry that is blind to the truth.

This is a glimpse of how this person has quoted erroneous facts, made up arguments that the Salafees are supposed to have used and then refuted them in an attempt to show the �weakness� of the Salafee stances.

And Allaah the Most High knows best, and it is He Alone Who guides to attaining the truth.

_____________________________________________