Ameen!

The Salaf al-Saliheen Not the Salafi/Wahhabi Takfiri Jihadie Mentality Ideology figures.

Wahhabi /Salafi Takfiri Jihadie Ideology mentality figures don't understand anything.

And they head for the hills when you refer them to the minhaj (Islam Iman and Ihsan) of the Salaf

Did someone tell you this or did you read their books

@@Mrcontrolfreak21 I've been trying to ascertain what it is exactly Asharis and Maturidis believe from their own sources and to be completely honest with, the more I read and hear from them, the more I dislike them. Initially, I thought they engaged in the ta'weel and tafweedh of most of Allah's attributes because of the verse, ليس كمثله شيء and because of sayings from the salaf like قرآءتها تفسيرها. Turns out that isn't the case. The people of kalaam try to prove Allah's existence utilizing prepositional arguments containing false premises. Armed with these incorrect conclusions, they come to the Quran and pick &choose what they accept. If something disagrees with their world view, they say the apparent meaning is not what was intended. The apparent meaning of الرحمن على العرش استوى is incompatible with their world view, so it must be metaphorical. The apparent meaning of ليس كمثله شيء supports their world view, so it cannot be metaphorical. Its a matter of أصول. As I understand, we go to the Quran and Sunnah and try to understand them the way they were intended. That is completely different from coming to the Quran and Sunnah already knowing what answer you want. Ali ibn Abi Taalib رضي الله عنه said, "If religion was by opinion, then the bottom of the sock would have more right to be wiped than the top of it. However, I saw the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم wipe the top of his socks." Furthermore, it has been said of about Imam Ash-Shafi'i, after he debated Hafs Al-Fard, that he hated Kalam. He used to say, "By Allah, it is better for a scholar to give a fatwa and it is said that the scholar has made a mistake than for him to speak and it is said about him, he is a heretic. And there is nothing more hated to me than Kalam and its people." Note: Imam Ash-Shafi'i is making a clear distinction between mistakes in epistemology and approach and mistakes in non-fundamental issues. His biggest issue with the muttakalimeen is not their conclusions, but their methodology. The Jahmiyyah, Qadariyyah, Mutazillah, Ashaa'irah (especially later Asharis) and Maturidiyyah all have one the same approach (even though the come to different conclusions). They formulate conclusions about Allah utilizing Aristotelian logic, then posit that the apparent meaning of revelation is in conflict with what they claim is reason.

lol this kid is like 13 - typical internet salafi

@@GharibBFulan Well, isn't this a rich stew of selective interpretation and context-stripping drivel? Let's sift through it, shall we Your diatribe on Kalaam and rational arguments is a sight to behold. You lambast the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools for using the intellect that Allah endowed us with. How dare they, indeed! But perhaps it's worth dusting off your copy of the Quran and revisiting verses 38:29 and 39:42 which invite us to think, reflect, and ponder. Curiously, you seem to gloss over these verses in your fervor to accuse others of "picking and choosing". And then there's your gripe with Ta'weel and Tafweedh. Your insinuation that the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools are somehow obscuring the "apparent" meanings of Quranic verses is laughably presumptuous. Here's a thought: perhaps they're just trying to keep the balance between anthropomorphizing Allah and negating His attributes, in line with the verse "There is nothing like unto Him" (42:11). But maybe that's too metaphorical for your tastes. As for your understanding of the Quran and Sunnah, it seems to be firmly rooted in a convenient dismissal of ijtihad (independent reasoning). Ash'aris and Maturidis may value the understanding of the companions and early generations, but they also have the audacity to believe that our understanding of Islam can adapt and evolve. Shocking, isn't it? Now, let's get to the pièce de résistance: your cherry-picked quotes from Imam Ash-Shafi'i. You've masterfully stripped his comments on Kalaam of their historical context. Bravo! But perhaps it's worth mentioning that he was critiquing the excessive philosophical speculation of his time, not the use of reason itself. Modern literalists think "kalaam" = "rational thought", when even the father of this modern movement, Ibn Tayymiyyah, engaged in extreme kalam (Fana' al-Nar for example) And then there's your conflated understanding of "muttakalimeen". Conveniently lumping together a range of groups under one banner and attributing all their perceived faults to the Ash'aris and Maturidis is a neat trick. It's also a gross oversimplification and a disservice to the complexity of Islamic intellectual history. As for your claim that these schools use Aristotelian logic to interpret the Quran, maybe consider that they were actually using this approach to counter non-Muslim philosophers and theologians. But then again, that might not fit your narrative of them twisting the meaning of the Quran. Now, while we're on the subject of critique, let's talk about modern Athari/Salafi dogma. This rigid insistence on a literal interpretation of the Quran and Hadith (or rather, specifically, the literal interpretation of the Qur'an according to 3-4 scholars from a single part of the world), this refusal to engage with the complexity and diversity of Islamic thought, and this arrogant dismissal of any interpretation that doesn't fit your narrow worldview is a disservice to the richness of Islamic tradition. It's a simplistic and regressive approach that stunts intellectual growth and reduces Islam to a set of inflexible dogmas. And perhaps the biggest irony here is how much of this dogma is based on Kalam, rather than strict literal commandments drawn from scripture. In conclusion, before you point fingers at others for supposedly twisting the Quran and Sunnah, maybe take a long, hard look at your own interpretative approach. It might not be as flawless as you think.

Because you’re a Wahhabi you will never comprehend the minhaj (Islam Iman and Ihsan) of the Salaf

I think he is a Maliki.

seems like someone spreading bidah

He is a Sufi

@@alikeller alll sufis are eithre hanafi or shafi or hamabli malaki

@@islamonlysolution461 Dr Shadee is Maliki

Also Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi's work on Iqbal has been translated in English - the book is called Glory of Iqbal, it is a really simple introduction to Iqbal's oeuvre

cool story bro

It’s youth brothers and sisters....

الله أَكبر

آمين

It's part of culture/ religion is segregation between sex. If you go back 300yrs ago in Europe you would see the same. Remember first woman to vote in UK 70yrs 4ago.

because in islam men and women can be mixing if they are not married or blood related... if you want to touching and have deep relationship with opposite sex you must get married first... its the same with Christian or Jews but many of people right now didn't practice it.

Yeah

Islamically free mixing between the genders is forbidden , and muslim men are ordered to lower their gaze (Not to look at the opposite gender).