Scourge of Salafiism Part 2

A REFUTATION OF A COPROCREEP’S SLANDEROUS DIATRIBE AGAINST IMAAM MATURIDI AND THE ULAMA OF DEOBAND PART 2 BY MUJLISUL ULAMA OF SOUTH AFRICA P.O. BOX 3393, PORT ELIZABETH SOUTH AFRICA 6056 THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 2 - Contents INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. - 4 - ALLAAMAH ALHISNI’S RFUTATION OF THE IMPOSTOR ‘HANAABILAH’.................................................................................................- 4 - ISTWA ALAL ARSH....................................................................................................................... - 7 - THE NAKED DISHONESTY OF THE COPROCREEP..........................................................................- 12 - WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOUR ‘IJTIHAD'?................................................................................- 14 - INTERNAL CONFLICT?.................................................................................................................- 16 - THE STANDARD AQEEDAH .........................................................................................................- 16 - ‘DUMB HANBALIS".....................................................................................................................- 17 - THE MATH-HAB OF THE LAYMAN...............................................................................................- 17 - THE SLANDER OF "ALLAH IS NOWHERE".....................................................................................- 18 - "THE ONE IN THE HEAVEN" ........................................................................................................- 19 - TA'WEEL (INTERPRETATION)? ....................................................................................................- 20 - TABLIGHIS?................................................................................................................................- 22 - PURE OPINION...........................................................................................................................- 22 - THE SALAFI DECEPTION OF TA'WEEL AND TAQLEED....................................................................- 23 - DENIAL OF ALLAH'S SIFAAT ........................................................................................................- 24 - THE PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES CONCEPT .........................................................................................- 29 - CONFINING ALLAH TA'ALA TO DIRECTION ..................................................................................- 29 - IMAAM TAHAAWI......................................................................................................................- 31 - HADHRAT MAULANA ASHRAF ALI THANVI .................................................................................- 32 - THE DARS-E-NIZAAMI SYLLABUS OF DEOBAND...........................................................................- 34 - LAMBASTING THE HANAABILAH?...............................................................................................- 35 - NON-RECOGNITION? .................................................................................................................- 36 - ILMUL KALAAM .........................................................................................................................- 36 - HADHRAT QAARI MUHAMMAD TAYYIB .....................................................................................- 37 - YES, WE ARE MATURIDIS! WE DO TEACH SHARH AQAAID! .........................................................- 37 - THE COPROCREEP’S SLANDERS...................................................................................................- 38 - WAHI IS OUR CRITERION............................................................................................................- 38 - LAMBASTING NAQL?..................................................................................................................- 39 - THE MUTASHAABIHAAT – WE BELIEVE IN THEM ALL! .................................................................- 39 - DISGORGEMENT OF COPRO-CRITITICISM ...................................................................................- 39 - A COPRO-PLOT...........................................................................................................................- 40 - TA'WEEL - THE SLIPPERY EEL ......................................................................................................- 40 - IBNUL JAUZI'S EXPOSITION ........................................................................................................- 45 - TA'WEEL - A VALID PRINCIPLE ....................................................................................................- 46 - THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 3 - SOME FACTS OF IMPORTANCE FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE DEVIATION OF THE COPRO-SALAFIS OF OUR AGE ..................- 49 - (1) IBN TAIMIYYAH'S OUTWARD ‘REPENTANCE'........................................................................- 49 - (2) IMAAM MATURIDI...............................................................................................................- 49 - (3) THE AHLUS SUNNAH WAL JAMA'AH.....................................................................................- 49 - (4) ASH'ARI AND MATURIDI DIFFERENCES ..................................................................................- 50 - (5) AQEEDATUT TAHAAWI.........................................................................................................- 50 - (6) SHAIKH ABU BAKR MUHAMMAD BIN ISHAAQ BIN KHUZAIMAH ...........................................- 50 - (7) THE VIEW OF HADHRAT MAULANA ASHRAF ALI THAANVI ....................................................- 50 - (8) IBN TAIMIYYAH'S DIFFERENCES WITH THE AHLUS SUNNAH................................................- 51 - (9) SOME OF IBN TAIMIYYAH'S CORRUPT BELIEFS ...................................................................- 51 - (10) THE MEANING OF OMNIPRESENCE......................................................................................- 51 - (11) WHO IS THE AHLUS SUNNAH?............................................................................................- 52 - (12) THE SAUDI-SALAFI-WAHHAABI BELIEF................................................................................- 52 - (13) QAADHI ABU BAKR BIN TEEB BAAQILAANI (died 403 Hijri) ..................................................- 52 - (14) ALLAAMAH ABDUL WAHHAAB SHA'RAANI.........................................................................- 52 - (15) ISTIWA' ALAL ARSH.............................................................................................................- 53 - (16) IMAAM TAQIUDDEEN'S REFUTATION..................................................................................- 54 - (17) AL-ALBAANI'S CRITICISM OF IBN TAIMIYYAH.......................................................................- 55 - (18) THE MATH-HAB OF THE AHLUS SUNNAH WAL JAMA'AH......................................................- 57 - (19) IMAAM MAALIK'S STATEMENT..........................................................................................- 58 - (20) THE DEVIATION OF IBN TAIMIYYAH....................................................................................- 59 - (21) IMAAM GHAZAALI .............................................................................................................- 59 - (22) CONFINING ALLAH TA'ALA TO SPACE..................................................................................- 59 - (23) SHAIKH ABU HAYYAAN ANDALUSI......................................................................................- 61 - (24) THE SKULDUGGERY OF THE COPROCREEP...........................................................................- 61 - (25) AQEEDAH IS BASED ON QAT'IYYAT.....................................................................................- 62 - (26) IBN TAIMIYYAH’S VILEST KUFR ...........................................................................................- 63 - (27) IBN TAIMIYYAH, PHILOSOPHY, ILMUL KALAAM – HIS FALSE FAÇADE.................................- 65 - (28) AL-ALBAANI REFUTES IBN TAIMIYYAH ...............................................................................- 66 - (29) IBN TAIMIYYAH’S VIRULENCE AGAINST THE MUTAKALLIMEEN ............................................- 67 - (30) THE FALLACY OF IMAAM ASH'ARI'S ALLEGED RETRACTION.................................................- 69 - (31) “CUT THEIR HANDS AND FINGERS” – IMAAM AHMAD BIN HAMBAL....................................- 70 - (32) THE COPRO-SALAFI’S DECEPTIVE OPPOSITION TO TA’WEEL .................................................- 71 - (33) RIJS (FILTH) ON THE BRAINS ................................................................................................- 71 - (34) THEIR SLOGAN: THE QUR’AAN AND THE SUNNAH ...............................................................- 72 - (35) AKAABIR (SENIOR) ULAMA OF THE UMMAH WHO HAVE CRITICIZED IBN TAIMIYYAH..........- 73 - SUMMARY................................................................................................................................- 76 - CONCLUSION..................................................................................................- 78 - WARNING AND ADMONITION..................................................................- 78 - THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 4 - INTRODUCTION This is the second part of our Refutation of the anonymous Coprocreep who had deemed it honourable to hurl his baseless vituperation against the illustrious Hanafi, Imaam Abu Mansur Maturidi, and against the Ulama of Deoband. The harsh stance we have adopted in the process of demolishing the baatil and the slanders of the coprocreep is occasioned by his diatribe of insult against Imaam Maturidi and the Ulama of Deoband. We warn him that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, for they will find in response rocks to shatter their abodes of glass. Throughout his diatribe, the coprocreep has painfully, but abortively, struggled with cunning, lacking in dexterity, to establish his false objective of creating the notion that the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, which the Salafi anthropomorphists refute are the products of the Ulama of Deoband. For example, the belief that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is alive in his Grave, and that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) will be buried alongside our Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and many other beliefs, were all extant in the Ummah since the era of Khairul Quroon (the First three noble ages of Islam). However, the coprocreep has dishonestly and most despicably laboured to promote the idea that all these beliefs are innovations of the Ulama of Deoband. Every belief propounded by the Ulama of Deoband has been inherited from the Salaf-e-Saaliheen. The beliefs of the Ulama of Deoband are antique. They are not innovatory. The coprocreep has failed in his miserable attempt to conceal this fact. Many centuries prior to the advent of the Ulama of Deoband, the Arab Ulama as well as other Ulama have severely criticized and condemned the Salafi’s Imaam Ibn Taimiyyah who is blindly followed by all the Salafis of our age. Muslims should be on their guard against Salafis. They operate like Shiahs, with stealth, cunning and deceit. Their strategy is to lure unsuspecting, unwary and ignorant Muslims into their tentacles of anthropomorphism and kufr. For achieving this purpose they have fabricated the slogan: “The Qur’aan and the Sunnah.” But they submit both the Qur’aan and the Sunnah to their weird and baatil interpretation. They structure their creed of anthropomorphism on the spurious basis of ta’weel baatil (baseless interpretation). A deceptive feature of these Hashawi Salafis is their overt denial of being anthropomorphists. Their denial is false. In the final analysis of Ibn Taimiyya’s copro-kufr opinions, Allah Azza Wa Jal is stripped of His Attributes (Sifaat) and rendered impotent. In terms of Ibn Taimiyya’s conception of Allah Azza Wa Jal and the universe, Allah Ta’ala is NOT the Creator of the universe nor of the Arsh nor of billions of created objects. All aspects of Allah’s creation, according to Ibn Taimiyyah, are co- eternal with Allah Ta’ala. They are uncreated in their genus and have eternally existed along with Allah Azza Wa Jal. Since the Arsh and the universe, for example, are eternal, their destruction is impossible. In simple terms, since Allah Ta’ala is not the Creator in terms of Ibn Taimiyya’s copro-kufr eternity of the universe theory, He lacks the power to annihilate these objects and entities which we all believe are the creations of Allah Ta’ala, and which have temporal origins, having come into existence after having been non-existent. May Allah Ta’ala save us all from such perfidy amd stark kufr. We do hope that Ibn Taimiyyah had propounded his kufr concepts whilst he was afflicted with mental derangement, for this will then absolve him. More articles and treatises in refutation of Salafi beliefs and teachings shall be forthcoming, Insha- Allah. The coprocreep’s diatribe and calumnies against the Ulama of Deoband have alerted us to the scourge of Salafi’ism in our midst. ALLAAMAH ALHISNI’S RFUTATION OF THE IMPOSTOR ‘HANAABILAH’ In his kitaab, Daf'u Shubhi Man Tashabbaha Wa Tamarrada, Allaamah Taqiyuddeen Al-Hisni says: * " Abul Faraj said: ‘A group from our Ashaab (i.e. Hanaabilah) held the opinion that Allah Azza Wa Jal, will seat His Nabi with Him on the Arsh. Indeed surprising is this person's statement: ‘We are not Mujassimah’, whilst his view is pure tashbeeh (fabricating a resemblance for Allah Ta'ala). Allah Azza Wa Jal is high above (i.e. devoid) of substratum - place/space - for He is independent of both. Further, THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 5 - this is impossible for Allah Azza Wa Jal because place and space are the requisites of material bodies, and there is no conflict in this. And, Allah is pure and bereft of this. Physical bodies are of temporal origin whilst Allah Ta'ala is pure of these (defects) in terms of both the Shariah and rationality. On the contrary, He is eternal, never having been preceded by non-existence. It is known that when istiwa is in the meaning of istiqraar (rest) and qu-ood (sitting), then the necessary consequence is mumaassah (physical contact), and such contact is between two physical bodies……………." * "He who interprets istiwa alal arsh to mean al-istiqraar and at-tamakkun, verily he has equated Allah Azza Wa Jal with His creation……….and that is absolute kufr." * "Ibn Haamid who described himself as a Hambali said: "He (Allah) is above the Arsh with His Zaat and He descends from the place which He occupies. He descends and changes position…….They (the impostors who claimed to be Hanaabilah as does this coprocreep, fraudulently) narrated this statement from Imaam Ahmad…. It is a pure lie fabricated on this Great Sayyid of the Salaf (i.e. Imaam Ahmad) who is innocent (of these coprocreeps' blasphemy)………He who links the Attribute of Allah with creation, is severe in kufr., and he has linked himself to Saamirah and the Yahood……." * "Verily, this Qaadhi (i.e. Qaadhi Abu Ya’la who was a Hambali) narrated from Sha'bi that he said: ‘Verily, Allah has filled (the space of) the Arsh so much so that it (the Arsh) creaks, like the creaking of a saddle.' This is a lie against Sha'bi. And some of them (these Mujassimis masquerading as Hanaabilah as does this coprocreep) said: Then Allah settled on the Arsh and sat on it. Ibn Zaaghooni (another fraudulent Hambali) said: ‘He (Allah) emerged from istiwa' by four fingers.' For them and their followers (coprocreep salafis) there is other similar filth all of which is explicit in Tashbeeh and Tajseem, especially the question of istiwa (alal arsh). Allah Subhaanahu wa Ta'ala is pure and above that which does not befit Him of the temporal attributes…" * "They (these coprocreeps utter such notoriety) which not even a donkey or a stone will say…" The purpose of the aforementioned snippets is not to discuss the relevant issues. We have made these references only to show that the coprocreep follows such imposters who claimed to be the followers of Imaam Ahmad whilst in reality they stood poles apart from the Hambali Math-hab. Their claim of being Hanaabilah is palpably false and baseless. In Anwaarul Baari, Vol.13, page 491, Allaamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri (rahmatullah alayh) states: "Hafiz Ibn Taimiyyah and his Najdi and Salafi followers differ with the Jamhoor Ummat in Usool and Aqaaid more than their differences pertaining to Furoo-ee masaa-il. Scores of kitaabs were written on the Usool of Deen before Hafiz Ibn Taimiyyah. In these kutub the senior Ulama of the Ummat have fixed the correct beliefs in the light of the statements of the Sahaabah, Taabieen and Aimmah Mujtahideen.. However, Hafiz Ibn Taimiyyah has interpolated these and effected changes. In many beliefs he has diverged from Imaam Ahmad's maslak, and joined forces with those Hanaabilah who had earlier abandoned the maslak of Imaam Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh). Allaamah Ibnul Jauzi Hambali (d.597 hijri) wrote a refutation of them. His extremely well-researched and famous Refutation is titled: Daf'u Shubhatish Tashbeeh War Rad Alal Mujassimah Min Man Yantahilo Math-habal Imaam Ahmad. Also, after Hafiz Ibn Tamiyyah, Allaamah Taqiyuddeen Abu Bakr Hisni (d.829 hijri) wrote in refutation his authoritative kitaab, Daf'u Shubhi Man Shabbaha Wa Tamarrada Wa Nasaba Thaalika Ilas Sayyidil Jaleel Al-Imaam Ahmad. To understand the correct beliefs of Hafiz Ibn Taimiyyah, a study of these two treatises is imperative." Stating another falsehood, the coprocreep alleges: "Our position - those of Hanbali Aqeedah - as far as where Allah is is simple: Allah is above (without dwelling into its kayfiyyah), which is why the Hanaabilah thought it would be an ideal substitute to pronouncing Allah's Name. Obviously. The THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 6 - legislators of this mas'alah had only one thing in mind, and that was that the dumb person intends to slaughter in the name of He who is up above (despite this being Kufr in classical Maturidisim - what the Deobandis are the heirs of)." Firstly, the coprocreep is not a Hambali. He is a salafi follower of Ibn Taimiyyah masquerading as a Hanafi in the midst of Hanafis in England. Secondly, the contention that according to the Hanaabilah, Allah Ta'ala is ‘above', is a dastardly canard. The genuine Hanaabilah do not assign space, place, direction and any physical dimension to Allah Azza Wa Jal. Confining Allah to the space above the Arsh is to ascribe the attribute of finitude to Him. It is to anthropomorphize Allah Azza Wa Jal. And this is what is kufr. Thus, when it is said that Allah is ‘above' as the coprocreep salafis believe, then they are attributing a specific place in creation for Allah Azza Wa Jal. Ascribing physical dimension to Allah Ta'ala is kufr. The Qur'aan Majeed explicitly says: "Nothing is like Him." By isolating the metaphorical expression of istiwa from all the other Qur'aanic metaphorical expressions of ‘place', the coprocreep confirms specific space in creation for Allah Azza Wa Jal, and this is kufr. Whilst the coprocreep in submission to his salafi masters seeks to retain the istiwa alal arsh statement in its literal meaning thereby ascribing anthropomorphism to Allah Azza Wa Jal, he and the coprocreep salafis painfully interpret (resort to ta'weel) all the other Qur'aanic verses to efface the literal meanings. The following are some of the Qur'aanic expressions which the coprocreep struggles to interpret so as to assign a fixed direction and space to only the istiwa' aayat. * "East and West belong to Allah. Whichever way you turn, there is the Face of Allah." (Baqarah, 115) * "And, He is Allah in the heavens and in the earth." (Al-An'aam,3) * "And Allah said: ‘Verily, I am with you.’" (Al-Maaidah, 12) * "And, He is with you wherever you may be." (Al-Hadeed, 4) * "And when he reached it (the Fire), he was called (by a Voice emanating) from a tree on the right side of the valley in the blessed (piece of) ground." -- Aayat 30 Surah Qasas) * "He, The Being Who is in the heaven is The Deity (Ilaah), and in the earth He is The Deity." (Zukhruf, 84) * "There is no secret meeting of three, but He is the fourth of them; and not of five, but He is the sixth of them, and neither less than this or more, but He is with them wherever they may be." (Al- Hadeed, 7) * "Then He (Allah) established (Himself) over the Arsh." (Al-A'raaf, 54) These few verses are random selections in which literally speaking place is attributed to Allah Azza Wa Jal. However, neither Naql (Narration) nor Aql (Intelligence) has ascribed any physical attribute to Allah Azza Wa Jal on the basis of these Qur'aanic verses. The first verse (mentioned above) mentions direction; the second, physical space/place in the heaven and in the earth; the third, physical place; the fourth, physical place; the fifth, physical place; the sixth, physical place; the seventh, physical place; the eighth, physical place. Of all these physical places mentioned only two relate to Ilwi (above). The rest are Sifli, that is, terrestrial - the opposite of being above as are the heavens and Arsh in relation to us, terrestrial beings. So while the Qur'aan mentions both Ilwi and Sifli dimensions in relation to Allah Azza Wa Jal, the coprocreep in obedience to his Imaam, Ibn Taimiyyah and other salafi coprocreeps, for promoting their Tajseemi agenda, conveniently ignore all the Sifli attributions, and latch on to only the Ilwi attribution. Then after turning a blind eye on the Sifli dimension, they perpetrate kufr transgression by rejecting the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah relative to the meaning of Istiwa alal Arsh, and fabricating a belief which ascribes anthropomorphic attributes to Allah Azza Wa Jal. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 7 - The ‘above' dimension which the coprocreep ascribes to Allah Ta'ala is physical space, and that is precisely what the coprocreep salafis intend. In attributing physical dimension to Allah Azza Wa Jal, the coprocreep salafis of our age are following their forefathers, Haamid, Qaadhi Abu Ya'la and Zaaghooni, who were the original Hambalis who deviated from the Math-hab of Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh). These coprocreeps have borrowed from the Shiahs their doctrine of Taqiyah (Holy Hypocrisy) which they utilize to promote their kufr by deception. Thus, whilst the logical conclusion of their belief of confining Allah Azza Wa Jal to the space of the created Throne, is the attribution of anthropomorphism (Tajseem and Tashbeeh) to Allah Ta'ala, they have the naked audacity of saying: ‘We are not Tajseemis.’ The coprocreep applies great emphasis on only the aayat which mentions Istiwa alal Arsh. Whilst insanely trying to impose the belief that Allah Ta'ala is only on the Arsh, the coprocreep negates the Qur'aanic verses which explicitly declare that Allah Ta'ala is also in the east, in the west, whichever direction you turn to, with you, and in the earth. When the Qur'aan itself states that Allah Ta'ala "is in the heaven and in the earth", then on what basis does the coprocreep accept only the first part of the aayat, and reject the second part of Allah Ta'ala being also in the earth? And, when the Qur'aan itself says that Allah Ta'ala is in the east, west, north, south and all points in between these directions, then why does the coprocreep negate or ignore these explicit declarations of the Qur'aan, and insist that Allah Ta'ala is only ‘above'? The reason for this irrational behaviour is the aqeedah of Tajseem and Tashbeeh which the coprocreep salafis subscribe to, but conceal by means of their veil of Taqiyah. Whilst they criticize the Ahlus Sunnah with kufr for the belief that Allah Ta'ala is Omnipresent - that He is in the east, west, north, south, in the heavens, in the earth, on the Arsh, above the Arsh and everywhere else - the coprocreeps are guilty of the worst kufr by ascribing to Allah Ta'ala physical dimension with its concomitant attributes of deficiency. Since they have fettered Allah Azza Wa Jal to the created Throne in their baatil concept, they have given Him a physical body, and all physical bodies are finite, and in which defect is inherent. By implication the coprocreep has ascribed a host of deficiencies to Allah Azza Wa Jal as a consequence of his corrupt affirmation of anthropomorphic attributes for the Eternal Being, Allah Azza Wa Jal. The worst interpreters of the Mutashaabihaat (allegorical) verses of the Qur'aan and Ahaadith are the coprocreep Salafis. Yet they accuse others of baseless interpretation. They selectively interpret to suit their whimsical fancies to bolster their corrupt beliefs. The original stance of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah in this regard is belief in all the Mutashaabihaat just as they appear in the Qur'aan and Ahaadith without assigning any meanings and concepts. ISTWA ALAL ARSH Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) proclaiming this stance said with regard to Istiwa alal Arsh: "Istiwa is known. Its kaif (concept - what it exactly is) is beyond (our) understanding. Imaan on it is Waajib. Asking about it is bid'ah." Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) was echoing what Hadhrat Umm-e-Salmah (radhiyallahu anha) had expounded in this issue. Commenting on this statement, Allaamah Ibnul Jauzi said: "We adopt this method because the masses do not understand subtleties." (Daf'u Shubhit Tashbeeh) While the coprocreep rants against ta'weel (interpretation), his coprocreep masters resort to corrupt ta'weel of all the Qur'aanic verses and Ahaadith which explicitly confirm the Omnipresence of Allah Azza Wa Jal as opposed to the assignment of the Divine Presence to a finite created entity, namely the Throne, and while the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah includes the belief of Allah's Presence on the Arsh as mentioned in the verses of Istiwa alal Arsh, the coprocreep denies the Divine Omnipresence explicitly mentioned in many Qur'aanic verses and Ahaadith. Elaborating on the meaning of istiwa, Allaamah Ibnul Jauzi states in his Daf'u Shubhit Tasbeeh that literally, the term istiwa has several meanings as follows: 1) Al-I'tidaal which means to be equal, to be in equilibrium. In the Qur'aan Shareef, there are many verses which utilize the word istiwa in this meaning. One of the many aayats says: "Those among the THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 8 - Mu'mineen who are not ill who remain behind (not participating in Jihad) are not equal to the Mujaahidoon in the Oath of Allah….." (An-Nisaa', Aayat 94) "Say: Khabeeth (filth) and Tayyib (what is wholesome and pure) are not equal…." (Al-An'aam, aayat 50) "Say: What, is the one who is blind and the one who sees equal? Or is darkness and light equal…" (Ar-Ra'd, aayat 16) 2) Tamaamush shay', i.e. the completion or perfection of something. Using istiwa in this meaning, the Qur'aan states: "And when he (Musaa) reached his maturity and attained full strength….." (Al- Qasas, aayat 14) 3) Al-Qasd ilash shay' , i.e. to turn attention towards something. In this regard the Qur'aan says: "Then, He (Allah) turned (His Attention) to the heaven….." (Al-Baqarah, aayat 29) 4) Al-Isteelaa' alash shay', i.e. to gain control/power over something; to conquer. Using the term in this context, the Arab poet said: "Verily, Bishr gained control over (conquered) Iraq without sword and spilling of blood." The view of the vast majority of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah regarding these Mutashaabihaat Qur'aanic verses and Ahaadith is to accept and believe in them without delving into tafseer and interpretation. However, Allaamah Ibnul Jauzi says in his Daf'u Shubhit Tashbeeh: "Some people of the Muta-akh-khireen have ascribed sensual connotations to this attribute (of Istiwa). Thus they said that Allah has settled on the Arsh with His Zaat (Being). But this is an excess which has not been narrated (from the Salaf-e-Saaliheen). On the basis of their opinion have they understood that the Mustawi (the one of Istiwa) over something settles on it with His Zaat. Abu Haamid, the Mujassimi, said that istiwa is His contact (with the Arsh) and an Attribute for His Zaat. The meaning of it (according to Abu Haamid) is ‘qu-ood' (i.e. physically seated). A group from our Ashaab (i.e. the Hanaabilah) is of the opinion that Allah Ta'ala is on the Arsh. He has filled it (i.e. the space of the Throne), and that verily, He is sitting (on it), and on the Day of Qiyaamah, His Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) will be sitting with Him. Abu Haamid said: ‘An-Nuzool (i.e. Allah's descent to the lower heaven) is intiqaal (i.e. physical changing of position - moving from one location to another location).’ I (Allaamah Jauzi) say: On the basis of what has been narrated (from Abu Haamid), Allah's Zaat is smaller than the Arsh. Therefore, the statement of this person, namely: ‘We are not Mujassimah.', is indeed surprising. Ibn Zaaghooni Mujassimi said: ‘It is necessary for His (Allah's) Zaat to have a known limit.' I say: This man does not know what he is speaking because when a limit is fixed between the Creator and the created, then verily he has ascribed a limitation for Allah, and (by implication) he has conceded that He is a physical body……..Then he has confirmed for Him space which He occupies. I say that this is a stupid claim and pure tashbeeh (confirming for Allah a resemblance with created beings). This sheikh (Haamid) does not know what is necessary for Khaaliq and what is impossible for ascribing to Him. The existence of Allah is not like the existence of atoms and physical bodies for which space, taht ( being below) and fauq (being above) are necessary………The Haq is that space cannot be attributed to Allah Ta'ala ……It is not permissible to attribute motion and rest…… Similarly it is appropriate to say that He is not inside the universe nor outside of it because inside and outside are necessary corollaries of objects occupying space….. The statements of all of these people (like the coprocreep and the Mujassimi salafis he follows) are based on sensuality. Some of them said that He has mentioned Istiwa on the Arsh because of all existing things, the Arsh is the closest to Him. This is also ignorance because closeness of distance applies to only physical body. Some of them said that the side of the Arsh is in line with (that portion) of the Zaat (of Allah) which faces it, and it (the Arsh) is not in line with the entire Zaat. This is unequivocal tajseem (anthropomorphism). How can this claimant be related to our Math-hab (Hambali Math-hab)? Indeed it is distressing for us." THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 9 - Although the coprocreep is at pains to convey the idea that the Salafis following Ibn Taimiyyah are not Mujassimis (anthropomorphists), their interpretation of Qur'aanic verses to confine Allah's Presence to a spot in created space betrays their hidden belief of anthropomorphist attributes for Allah Azza Wa Jal. In fact they are Hashawis (vulgar anhropomorphists). Furthermore, while they ostensibly decry Ta'weel (interpretation), they are guilty of perpetrating baatil ta'weel (baseless interpretation). Consider the aayat in which Allah Azza Wa Jal states in the Qur'aan: "East and West belong to Allah. Whichever way you turn there is the Face of Allah." Interpreting this aayat, the coprocreep Salafis say that the ‘Face' of Allah Ta'ala mentioned in this verse and in other verses as well may not be interpreted. The Face for Allah Azza Wa Jal they say is a ‘real face' without us knowing how that Face is. Nevertheless it is a face literally speaking. However, at the same time, they interpret Allah's statement: "There is the Face of Allah". They say it means that Allah's Knowledge (Ilm) is in the east and west, not Allah. What right do they have to effect such an interpretation? And, on what basis do they negate what Allah Ta'ala Himself declares in this aayat? The Qur'aan does not say that Allah's Knowledge is in the east and west. It says that ‘Allah's Face' is in the east and west and wherever you turn yourself. While they find their baseless interpretation acceptable, they condemn as kufr those among the Ahlus Sunnah who subject Istiwa alal Arsh to interpretation.` If interpretation is unacceptable for Istiwa alal Arsh, what is the Daleel for its admissibility regarding the aayat which confirms the Divine Presence in the east, west, south, north and everywhere else? Similarly, what is the daleel for negating Allah's Presence in the earth when the Qur'aan itself states: "He is the Ilaah (Deity) in the earth." ? The coprocreep will argue that it is His Knowledge which is in the earth. But the Qur'aan does not mention that Allah's Knowledge is in the earth. It states with emphasis and explicitly that He is in the earth. Now if this verse could be interpreted to mean knowledge, why is it not valid to interpret ‘on the Throne' to mean His Knowledge, and Power? At this juncture, we should clarify that our belief (i.e. the Belief of the Ahlus Sunnah) is that the Istiwa mentioned in the aayat is a Sifat (Attribute) of Allah Ta'ala, and no one knows what it means and how it is. It is among the Mutashaabihaat, and only Allah Ta'ala knows its meaning. Furthermore, even the belief that it means Sifat, is a derivation of Ta’weel, for the simple reason that neither the Qur’aan nor the Hadith states explicitly that Istiwa is a Sifat. Allah Ta’ala Alone is aware of its meaning. Nevertheless, there are authorities among the Ahlus Sunnah who had resorted to valid Ta'weel. It is contumacious to brand them with kufr for having resorted to Ta'weel. Commenting on Ta'weel, Mullah Ali Qaari in his Sharah (Commentary) of Imaam Abu Hanifah's Al-Fiqhul Akbar, says: "…Some of the Shaafi'iyyah narrated that Imaamul Haramain initially used to resort to Ta'weel. Then towards the end of his life, he retracted from it and forbade Ta'weel. Ijma' of the Salaf has been narrated on the prohibition of Ta'weel……and that is in accord with the stance of our Maturidi Ashaab. Ibn Daqeeq Eid adopted leniency in this regard, and he said: ‘Ta'weel will be accepted if the interpreted meaning is in comprehension close to the speech of the Arabs’………And, Ibnul Humaam adopted the middle path between the need for Ta'weel on account of the deficiency in the understanding of the masses, and between there being no such need…." (Sharah Al-Fiqhul Akbar, page 70) In other words, according to Ibnul Humaan, if there is a need, Ta'weel is valid, and if there is no need, Ta'weel is not valid. Thus Ta'weel has been the method of many among the Ahlus Sunnah as well as of Ibn Taimiyyah and of followers although they deny this very obvious fact. In fact, Ibn Taimiyyah resorted to wholesale ta’weel, and to even corrupt ta’weel on the basis of which he fabricated his beliefs of kufr such as the eternity of the universe, the eternity of the Arsh and the annihilation of Jahannum. Commenting on the deception of the deniers of Ta'weel, Allaamah Ibnul Jauzi says in his Daf'u Shubhit Tashbeeh: "They (Mujassimis which includes the coprocreep) interpreted istiwa as being a physical aboveness whilst they forgot that physical aboveness (i.e. being physically above others) is for a material body, and sometimes aboveness (fauqiyyah) applies to loftiness of status. He (Allah) said: ‘He is with you.' He who interprets this (being together) to mean Ilm (Knowledge) (will have to accept when) his opponent interprets (istiwa alal Arash to mean) istiwa alal qahr THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 10 - (wrath/power).………Imaam Ahmad said: ‘Istiwa is an accepted Sifat. It does not mean qasd (intention) nor isti'la (control)’, and Ahmad did not affirm jihat (direction) for Al-Baari (Allah, The Creator)…. Know that everyone who has imagined spatial presence for Allah Subhaanahu wa Ta'ala, has implied for Him direction just as the one who hallucinates (for Allah Ta'ala) temporal existence implies a period of time for Him before ( the creation of) the universe. Both these hallucinations are baatil……….Furthermore, whoever is in a (particular) direction will be finite and limited. But He (Allah) is above this (rubbish which is the logical conclusion of coprocreep's arguments). Directions are for physical bodies. Since the butlaan of jihat (negation of direction) is confirmed (for Allah Azza Wa Jal), butlaan of makaan (negation of space) is confirmed (for Allah Ta'ala). It is quite obvious that space encircles whatever is in it whereas nothing encompasses (encircles) the Khaaliq (The Creator) nor does an attribute originate for Him." The claimed Ijma’ on the prohibition of Ta’weel is not factual. Numerous among the Salaf and the Khalaf had resorted to Ta’weel to vindicate the Aqaaid of Islam. In his Daf’u Shubh, Imaam Jauzi (rahmatullah alayh) mentions that According to Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh), the meaning of the aayat: “And your Rabb shall come..” is His Qudrat and Amr (Command).” This is the effect of Ta’weel to which Imaam Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh) had resorted. In short, every single one among the Salaf had adopted the route of Ta’weel to explain Qur’aanic aayaat and Ahaadith of ambiguous meanings. The view of the copro-Salafis that Allah Ta’ala is with His Ilm (Knowledge) in the east and west, etc., is a conspicuous effect of ta’weel. Castigating the coprocreeps who confuse the masses with their interpretations and baseless beliefs, Allaamah Ibn Jauzi says: "And you know (or should know) by virtue of intelligence that The Creator is devoid of this (attribution of anthropomorphism to Him), then this intelligence should divert you from (saying) that He is in space or that He is in motion or that He changes position. And, when speech such as this is not understood by an ordinary person, then we say: ‘Don't din his ears with what he cannot understand, and leave his belief and do not interfere with it.’ It should be said: ‘Verily, Allah Ta'ala is istiwa on the Arsh as it befits Him.’" Whilst denying the acceptability of valid Ta'weel, the coprocreep shamelessly resorts to baatil ta'weel (baseless interpretation). Thus, he says: "As far as where Allah is (it) is simple: Allah is up above (without dwelling into its kayfiyyah)." This is utterly baseless and its logical conclusion despite the deceptive talk about ‘kaifiyyah', is the attribution of anthropomorphism to Allah Azza Wa Jal. By ascribing a specific direction (jihat) to The Creator, the coprocreep has attributed finitude and material body to Allah Azza Wa Jal. And, he does so by means of ta'weel baatil, baselessly subjecting the Mutashaabihaat Qur'aanic aayaat and Ahaadith to his whimsical and corrupt opinion. The relevant aayat says about Allah Azza Wa Jal: ‘Istiwa alal Arsh'. Since this is among the subtlest of the Mutashaabihaat (allegorical) Qur'aanic verses, the meaning of it is known to only Allah Azza Wa Jal. Declaring this fact with emphasis, the Qur'aan-e-Hakeem states: "It is He (Allah) Who has revealed to you (O Muhammad) the Kitaab (The Qur'aan). From it are Muhkamaat (clear in meaning) Aayaat which constitute the Ummul Kitaab, and other (aayaat) are Mutashaabihaat (allegorical). However, those in whose hearts there is crookedness pursue the allegorical (verses) seeking fitnah (dissension, baseless disputing), and seeking their interpretation whilst none knows their interpretation except Allah. And, those grounded in Ilm (the Knowledge of the Deen) say: “We believe in them (the allegorical verses as revealed by Allah). All (of these verses) are from Our Rabb. And, none but the people of intelligence derive lesson. O our Rabb! Do not make our hearts crooked after You have guided us, and bestow to us mercy from Your Side. Verily, You are the Bestower (of Rahmat and of all bounties)." (Aal-e-Imraan, Verses 7 and 8) Ummul Kitaab (The Mother of the Kitaab), i.e. the basic substance, clear principles and teachings for the guidance of the Mu'mineen. The meaning of the allegorical verses is known to only Allah Ta'ala. This is stated explicitly and emphatically in this aayat. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 11 - On the basis of the explicit and unequivocal declaration of Allah Azza Wa Jal, no one's interpretation constitutes Wahi. Regardless of who the authority may be, and regardless of how logical and how corroborative of Rectitude the interpretation may be, if it was not proffered by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), it will not be the absolute, irrefutable, incontestable Truth. It is precisely for this reason that we find none of the senior Fuqaha and Ulama of the Ummah declaring kaafir the Mu'tazilah and similar other baatil sects despite the severity of their corrupt beliefs. According to the Ahlus Sunnah - The Ahl-e-Haqq - allegorical terms such as Yad (Hand), Wajah (Face), Ainain (Two Eyes), Saaq (Shin), Istiwa (a word having various literal meanings), etc. are Sifaat (Attributes) of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Although this is our belief, the Qur'aan does not explicitly mention these allegorical terms as being the Sifaat of Allah Azza Wa Jal nor did Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) interpret these terms to confirm the meaning of Sifaat. The affirmation of these terms meaning Sifaat, is by way of acceptable and valid interpretation which does not violate any injunction or principle of the Shariah. But, to claim Qat'iyyat (Absolute Certitude) on par with the Qat'iyyat of Qur'aanic aayaat, is improper and erroneous, for the simple reason that Allah Azza Wa Jal, Himself declares: "None besides Allah knows their interpretation." The Ahlus Sunnah say that these allegorical terms refer to Divine Attributes. They do not progress beyond this assertion. They do not ascribe any meaning to these terms which could imply anthropomorphic attributes, physical body, dimension and finitude for Allah Azza Wa Jal. But the coprocreep resorting to baatil and humbug interpretation, shamelessly and in defiance of Allah's declaration, categorically ascribes the literal meaning of ‘aboveness' to Allah Azza Wa Jal. So while the coprocreep says that the meaning of the Istiwa alal Arsh with its allegorical meaning is "simple", Allah Ta'ala says: "None besides Allah knows its interpretation". From whence did the coprocreep acquire this corrupt ‘simplicity' which he attributes to this most subtle term of allegorical connotation? By categorically affirming jihat (direction) for Allah Azza Wa Jal - by saying emphatically that Allah Ta'ala is ‘above' in the literal sense, the coprocreep has displayed the crookedness in his heart - the Zaigh mentioned in the Qur'aan Majeed. The averment of ‘simple aboveness' is an emphatic affirmation of dimension in finite space attributed to the Eternal, Infinite, Glorious Allah Azza Wa Jal, and this attribution of finitude is by way of corrupt interpretation which puts the coprocreep in the full glare of the Qur'aanic stricture: "Those in whose hearts there is zaigh (a crookedness) pursue the allegorical aayaat in search of fitnah, and searching for its interpretation." About the coprocreeps who - Nauthubillaah! - assign Allah Azza Wa Jal to a finite space on a finite created object by way of baatil ta'weel, Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: "Avoid the people who seek to interpret the Mutashaabihaat, for they are the ones whom Allah Ta'ala has mentioned (in the aayat pertaining to the crookedness of their hearts)." The one who denies even the valid semblance of interpretation presented by the Ahlus Sunnah, has no right to say one word beyond what appears in the allegorical verses. If the claim of the anti-ta'weel clique had any credibility, they themselves should totally refrain from any kind of interpretation whatsoever. On the contrary, we observe them perpetrating wholesale ta'weel baatil. Thus, when Allah Ta'ala Himself declares His Presence in the east, west, south, north and everywhere, then the coprocreep quickly resorts to baseless, unwarranted and unsubstantiated interpretation to bolster his idea of physical ‘aboveness', direction and finite dimensions for Allah Ta'ala by averring that Allah's Knowledge is in the east and west. But Allah Ta'ala does not say in the Qur'aan nor in the Hadith that His Knowledge is in the east and west. He states explicitly and unequivocally that "His Face" is in the east and west. Now whatever His Face means, He Alone knows. This is from among the Mutashaabihaat which tolerate no interpretation. And, those of the Ahlus Sunnah who have ventured some interpretation remained within the bounds of the Shariah, for their ta'weel is not baatil. Unlike the baseless interpretation of the coprocreep, the ta'weel of the Ahl-e-Haqq does not culminate in the affirmation of finitude, body and anthropomorphic attributes for Allah Azza Wa Jal. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 12 - THE NAKED DISHONESTY OF THE COPROCREEP In his confused rambling, the coprocreep states: "The following is from the intro of Turki and Arnaut's Tahqeeq on Imam Ibn Abil Izz's Sharh on Tahawiyyah. Some books of the early scholars on Aqeedah are given - books that are NOT adopted by the Maturidi Deobandis as their Aqeedah. Let us see if they can come up with their own books from the same era, let us see what the majority of the Ummah was upon at the time. Here are some of the books: " After making this stupid statement, the coprocreep presents a list of 20 books written by 20 Ulama of former times. In this regard, the following incongruities should be noted: (1) Without citing anything from these kutub, he deceptively attempts to create the impression that the Aqaaid of the Ulama of Deoband are in conflict with the beliefs of the Ulama of the Ahlua Sunnah. But this assumption is ludicrously baseless. Flaunting a list of names is meaningless. Some of the persons mentioned in his list are downright vulgar anthropomorphists. He should present an academic dilation on the basis of statements from these kutub in refutation of the Ulama of Deoband. We shall then, Insha'Allah, truncate and demolish whatever ghutha the coprocreep manages to disgorge by way of misinterpreting the views and theories of the authors of these kutub. A list of names could be flaunted to impress the unwary and the ignorant. But men of intelligence are neither awed nor enamoured by such diversionary stunts in which Salafi coprocreeps are deceptively adept. (2) The coprocreep, after swiping the list of kutub and their authors from the annotation of Turki and Arnout, commits the flagrant dishonesty of omitting the very first name from the list. Now why did the miserable coprocreep perpetrate this fraud? Whilst we know that these Salafi creeps are just as dishonest as the Shiahs with their holy hypocrisy taqiyah creed, the juxtaposition of his omission at this juncture is quite interesting. (3) Omitting the vital and crucial name of the most illustrious of our spiritual and academic Seniors, the coprocreep moves the list of names one notch up to assign the highest wrung in the academic ladder to Abu Ubaid al-Qaasim bin Salaam al-Baghdaadi (died 224 A.H.) when in reality this noble author cannot be compared with the most illustrious and greatest Personality whom the coprocreep has deemed appropriate to excise from the list and sweep under the carpet of Salafi dishonesty, fraud and taqiyah. Why did the miserable coprocreep perpetrate this stunt? He must have soothed himself with his jahl that no one in the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah would detect this fraudulent discrepancy. (4) The very first august Name which Turki and Arnout mention at the top of their list of Ulama-e- Haqq of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen with whom the Salafis of this age have absolutely no relationship, is none other than our Imaam - the greatest of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen - the Imaam who would have brought the Ilm of the Deen from the planet Venus if it had fled into that abode. The Name which the coprocreep has desperately laboured and plotted to conceal is our Imaam - Imaam A'zam - Imaam Abu Hanifah Ibn Nu'maan (rahmatullah alayh). (5) The miserable coprocreep groggy in his stupor of jahaalat and dhalaal could not tolerate - in fact, dared not mention Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) and his famous Kitaab on Aqaaid, viz., Fiqhul Akbar. Paying glowing tribute to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alyh), the annotators of Abul Izz's kitaab state: "Among the great compilations (kitaabs) of the second and third epoch (of the Golden Eras of Islam) and thereafter, written on (the subject) of masaa-il of I'tiqaad (Belief) in terms of the Math-hab of the Salaf is Kitaabul Fiqhil Akbar of the Aalim and Faqeeh of Iraq Abi Hanifah An-Nu'maan Bin Thaabit Al-Kufi, died 150." (6) The coprocreep after concealing by way of excision, the illustrious Name of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) and his famous Kitaab, the very first Kitaab in Aqaaid, mentions the name of an Aalim who arrived on the scene 75 years after Imaam A'zam. The hidden abhorrence for Imaam Abu THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 13 - Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) which these modern-day jaahil Salafis who operate under Saudi patronage harbour, is no secret. It is the Haqq of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah which is elaborated in Imaam A'zam's Fiqhul Akbar , which is intolerable to the Salafi coprocreep, hence he found no alternative to excising the Name of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) from Turki and Arnout's enumeration of the Ulama who had compiled works on the Aqaaid of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen. (7) Fiqhul Akbar of Imaam A'zam (rahmatullah alayh) upholds whatever our Ulama of Deoband subscribe to in the realm of Aqaa-id. That is why the coprocreep was constrained to immolate his brains with the attempt of concealing Fiqhul Akbar of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh). (8) Furthermore, the coprocreep has deleted the last two names from Turki's list. He has excised the kitaab, Al-Usool of Abu Amr Ahad Bin Muhammad Bin Abdillah At-Tilmanki Al-Abdulusi, died 427 A.H, and the kitaab, Al-I'tiqaad and Al Asmaa' was Sifaat, both by Al-Haafizul Kabeer Abi Bakr Ahmad Bin Al-Husain Bin Ali Al-Baihqi, died 457 A.H. The coprocreep deemed it incumbent to delete Imaam Baihqi (rahmatullah alayh) and his kitaab, Al- Asmaa' Was Sifaat, from Turki and Arnout's list in view of the abundance of evidence and arguments in negation of the tajseemi ideas of Allah Azza Wa Jal propagated by Ibn Taimiyyah and some of the Hambali followers who had deviated from the Straight Path of Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh). In his kitaab, Imaam Baihqi copiously cites all the kutub of Usool and Aqaaid, and in which he has compiled a huge treasure of the statements of the Salaf. In his kitaab, Imaam Baihqi stated that the Math-hab of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) regarding Allah Ta'ala (i.e. His Zaat and Sifaat) is silence, and that the tafseer of the allegorical verses pertaining to Allah Ta'ala is only Tilaawat. To recite and to believe, and to adopt silence In the tafseer of the aayat, "He (Allah) is with you wherever you are.", Imaam Baihqi states that the best Imaan of the Mu'min is that he should have firm conviction (yaqeen) that Allah Ta'ala is with him wherever he is. This is according to the Hadith of Hadhrat Ubaadah (radhiyallahu anhu). Imaam Baihqi has also clarified that the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah regarding the aayat in which is mentioned Istiwaa on the Arsh of Rahmaan, that it means Istiwa bila Kaif. In other words, the Istiwa of Allah Azza Wa Jal on the Arsh is beyond description. No one can ever encompass it. It may not be interpreted to mean that Allah Ta'ala is confined to the created space of the Arsh as Ibn Taimiyyah and the Hashawis propagate. On this issue Allaamah Anwar Kashmiri (rahmatullah alayh) states in Anwaarul Baari: "The vast difference between the beliefs and concepts of Hafiz Ibn Taimiyya and Imaam Ghazaali and others could be gauged from the fact that Ibn Taimiyyah had proclaimed Imaam Ghazaali and Imaamul Haramain to be kaafir, worse than even the Yahood and Nasaara. (See Muwaafaqatul Uqool of Ibn Taimiyyah). May Allah have mercy on us and on him." - Anwaarul Baari, Vol.19, page 494. It is only their doctrine of taqiyah (similar to the Shiah belief) which constrains these coprocreeps from openly proclaiming the Ulama of Deoband and the vast majority of the Ummah kaafir. When their Imaam, i.e. Ibn Taimiyyah, had no compunction in branding even Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) as a ‘kaafir, worse than the Yahood and Nasaara', what then do their hearts conceal for us? They come within the scope of the Qur'aanic verse: "Verily, hatred for you has become conspicuous from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is worse." (9) The penultimate stupidity ranted by the coprocreep at the end of his corrupted list in which he has committed fraud, is: "Shame on you, Deobandis, for forsaking all these scholars and taking such a deviant as your Imam in Aqeedah." The ‘shame' rebounds on the coprocreep for perpetrating fraud and falsehood, and for his subtle propagation of anthropomorphism for Allah Azza Wa Jal. Our Aimmah in Aqaa-id are Imaam A'zam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), and Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh). We are proud of these illustrious Souls whose Taqleed we adhere to blindly whilst your taqleed is the blindest following of a 7th century deviate whose textual knowledge was beyond his intellectual comprehension. At times Ibn Taimiyyah floundered in such a quagmire of confusion in which he could do nothing but sink. In such THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 14 - moments of desperate confusion he insanely proclaimed a Giant of Shari' Uloom and Taqwa such as Imaam Ghazaali to be a ‘kaafir worse than the Yahood and Nasaara' - Nauthubillah min thaalik. Know that our Imaam is the one whom you had surreptitiously excised from Turki's enumeration. First, acquire the rudiments of honesty before you open your copro-soiled tongue to disgorge your copro-substances. The copro-substances which your mouth excretes can not soil and tarnish the glittering Faces of Imaam Maturidi and our other Aimmah and our Ulama-e-Deoband. The effluence which the cocrocreep disgorges in his futile bid to deride the Aqaa-id of the Ulama of Deoband, which are the Aqaa-id of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) and of all the Salaf-e-Saaliheem, rebounds on to the face of this miserable, dishonest Salafi guilty of the perpetration of flagrant chicanery. (10) In the list of books enumerated by the coprocreep are the treatises of Ibn Khuzaimah, Daarimi and Imaam Abul Hasan Al-Ash’ari. Ibn Khuzaimah, whilst an accomplished Muhaddith, held absolutely corrupt views of anthropomorphism. Reference to his faasid beliefs shall be made further on in this treatise, Insha-Allah. Thus, Ibn Khuzaimah is not among the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. His kitaab on Tauheed is of no benefit for the Ahlus Sunnah. He is not regarded to be among the Ahlus Sunnah. Then, without applying his mind, the coprocreep forgot to delete from the list the kitaab of Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) as he had excised the kitaab of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah palayh) and two others mentioned above. In his ranting and raving, the coprocreep levelled his criticism against Imaam Ash’ari as well, yet he retained this Imaam’s name in the list he has stupidly submitted in defence of his copro-claims. In the very first paragraph of his diatribe, the coprocreep designates himself : “the Ash’ari-Maturidi crusher”. There is no support for the beliefs of the copro-Salafis in the works of Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) who was the contemporary of Imaam Maturidi. Ash’aris and Maturidis are in reality one Math-hab. Imaam Ash’ari was a formidable opponent against any anthropomorphic view. He did not hold the kufr views which Salafis entertain. The cornerstone of his Belief was that Allah’s Zaat and Sifaat cannot be conceptualized. As the Qur’aan states: “Nothing is like Him.” Daarimi is not among the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. He held exceptionally corrupt beliefs. He was a Tajseemi since he propounded anthropomorphic attributes for Allah Ta’ala. It is preposterous to even cite him as evidence in the debate against the Ulama of Deoband since he is condemned as a Tajseemi. Regarding Ibn Abil Izz, the Ulama of Deoband are not his muqallideen. His ta’weelaat (interpretations) of Imaam Tahaawi’s document on Aqeedah are in many aspects baseless and can be thoroughly refuted and demolished. However, this is not the occasion for such a refutation. His contemporary Hanafi Ulama had rebuffed his views. Any views and interpretations which lead to anthropomorphism are rejected. (11) The list of books presented by the coprocreep is no hujjat against Imaam Maturidi or the Ulama of Deoband. We are not subservient to the authors of the books, some of whom propagate copro-beliefs of anthropomorphism. It is indeed moronic to present this decrepit list of books as a daleel against anything said by Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh) and the Ulama of Deoband. What has happened to the so-called ‘Qur’aan and Sunnah’ of these copro-anti-Taqleedists? Whenever these misguided, deviant Salafis are bereft of valid arguments, they swiftly scurry into the folds of the very Taqleed which they so much despise. The personal views and interpretations of scholars are not binding on us. Whilst we are the Blind Followers of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), there is no share in our Taqleed for any of the entities who have authored the list of books enumerated by the coprocreep. (12) The coprocreep has presented such a corrupt list of books, which includes downright Copro- Anthropomorphists such as Ibn Khuzaimah and Daarimi (not to be confused with the author of Sunan Daarimi). His list exercises no attraction for us. WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOUR ‘IJTIHAD'? The coprocreep asks: "Why should we forsake all these scholars……in favour of your deobandi and Maturidi scholars in Aqeedah issues." There are several responses for this rubbish question. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 15 - (a) With your hypocritical slogan of ‘Qur'aan and Sunnah', and your claim of ‘ijtihad', you should not seek protection under the apron of scholars of your choice. Forget about the scholars, and restrict yourself to the Qur'aan and Sunnah. You abhor the Taqleed of the greatest Aimmah Mujtahideen, then you seek to impose on others the blind following of scholars who are of mediocre rank in relation to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh). La-math-habis have no entitlement to employ the principle of Taqleed to bolster any of their contentions. (b) We are not the muqallideen of any of the scholars mentioned by the coprocreep. Some of the scholars such as Ibn Khuzaimah, despite being a Muhaddith, held some extremely corrupt beliefs. Mentioning him, Ibn Jauzi said: "Qaadhi Abu Ya'la Al-Mujassam (the Anthropomorphist) opined that the Eye (for Allah Ta'ala) meant an attributed apart from Allah's Zaat. Abu Bakr Bin Khuzaimah preceding him, said regarding the aayat: ‘For our Rabb there are two eyes with which He sees'. I (i.e. Ibn Jauzi) say: This is a fabrication for which there is no daleel for them." Allaamah Anwar Kashmiri states in Anwaarul Baari about Shaikh Abu Bakr Khuzaimah: "He was a senior Muhaddith but lacked understanding in Ilm-e-Kalaam and Aqaaid. Therefore, in his Kitaabut Tauheed, like Naqdh Daarmi and Kitaabus Sunnah of Shaikh Abdullah Bim Ahmad, there are many corruptions. For example, from the aayat of the Qur'aan he has assigned feet to Allah Ta'ala just as the Mujassimah sect of Tabristaan and Isfahaan had done. He would frequently say: ‘If Allah is without hands, feet eyes and ears, shall we then worship a watermelon? Allah Ta'ala had criticized their idols because they had no limbs and bodily parts.' Allaamah Kauthari states in Maqaalaat, page 330, that besides feet, he (Ibn Khuzaimah) had made such derogatory statements which cannot be presented to the people of Knowledge…..If these three kitaabs (mentioned above) had not been published, people would not have known the extent of the corruption of their beliefs." We are under no obligation to make blind taqleed of the authors listed by the coprocreep. Our Taqleed of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) and of Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh) is adequate for the establishment of the Haqq. (c) All the scholars quoted by the coprocreep are not authorities in Aqaa-id. (d) Imaam Ibn Hambal does not support the baseless beliefs of Ibn Taimiyyah and these coprocreep Salafis. Imaam Baihqi has stated with clarity that on issues such as Istiwaa alal Arsh, the Math-hab of the Four Imaams is the same. Their Math-hab is the Math-hab of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. They do not assign a specific corner of creation to be the abode wherein Allah Ta'ala dwells as the corrupt theories of Ibn Taimiyyah and his muqallideen posit. There is no support for the coprocreep by Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh). Some followers of Imaam Ahmad despite having deviated from the Path of Imaam Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh), deceptively proclaimed themselves to be ‘Hanaabilah'. Perhaps they are Hanaabilah in Fiqhi furoo-aat. In fact, they do not follow Imaam Hambal in even all the furoo-aat. Two very salient departures of coprocreep Salafis from Imaam Ahmad are their 8 raka't practice of Taraaweeh, and their belief that three Talaaqs uttered in a single session are one Talaaq. But this is not the Math-hab of Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh). (e) Ibn Khuzaymah has been severely criticized by other authorities as well, besides those mentioned above. Whilst Ibn Khuzaymah was a Muhaddith, he is not an authority in the sphere of Aqaa-id. Allaamah Qadhaaee Shaafi'ee narrated that Allaamah Jauzi, in his kitaab Raddush Shubh has elaborately refuted Ibn Khuzaymah's kitaab, At-Tauheed. Imaam Raazi too has refuted Ibn Khuzaymah's kitaab, At-Tauheed, in his Tafseer. In fact, Imaam Raazi has given Ibn Khuzaymah's kitaab the designation, Kitaabush Shirk. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 16 - (f) Proffering a litany of names is meaningless and stupid. The coprocreep should argue academically and rationally, and refrain from seeking assistance under the mantle of selective Taqleed when he realizes the bankruptcy of his armoury of dalaa-il. We, the Muqallideen shall present Taqleed of the Aimmah Mujtahideen as the indispensable requisite for Rectitude for the guidance of the masses. INTERNAL CONFLICT? The coprocreep alleges: "The problem with all these internal conflicts is that Deos are trying to reconcile between Hadith, Maturidis and Sufism. This cannot happen." This is another stupid averment devoid of meaning and substance. There is no attempt to reconcile baatil with the Haqq. This has never been in the Minhaaj of the Ulama-e-Haqq of Deoband. The primary sources of the Shariah are the Qur'aan and Ahaadith. Ahaadith are categorized into different classes. Structures are raised on the foundations of Hadith on the basis of their classifications. If the Hadith is of the Tawaatur class, it will be on par with the Qur'aan and constitute a solid basis for the formulation of Ahkaam. If the class is Dhaeef it will be utilized for fadhaa-il, not for Ahkaam. There is never an attempt to reconcile any belief, act, view or tenet of the Sufis if such act, etc. is in conflict with the Dalaa-il of the Shariah. Such act/view/statement of the Sufi shall be set aside and not promulgated as a Shar'i law. Whilst ‘Maturidism' is pure Deen, Salafi'ism is Satanism. The stupid coprocreep has not presented a single solid conflict with the Shariah of any of the statements of Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh). Any conflict with the Nusoos of the Shariah is mardood . Reconciliation will incumbently be the principle where there exists apparent conflict in the Nusoos, not in any conflict between an unsubstantiated personal opinion with the Nusoos of the Shariah. But the coprocreep is too dumb in his stagnated brains to understand these issues. Our Akaabireen - and that refers to all the Ulama-e-Haqq from the era of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen - spoke on the basis of Dalaa-il-e-Shariah. They did not subject the Nusoos to their desires and fancies, nor did they bend the Ahaadith and Qur'aanic aayaat with their whimsical baatil misinterpretations to conform to nafsaani opinion, then shout: ‘Qur'aan and the Sunnah' as do these deviated Salafis of our age. The Tasawwuf of our Akaabireen - the Ulama of Deoband - conforms 100% with the Shariah. Any Tasawwuf which is in contradiction of the Shariah is Satanism. That is the status of most of the deviated so-called ‘sufi' orders existing today. Tasawwuf is nothing other than Tazkiyah-e-Nafs. It is compounded injustice and blatant slander to attribute the haraam singing and dancing of the deviated ‘sufi' tareeqas found in West and North Africa, in Syria, in Turkey and in India, such as the Grave- Worshipping Bareilwis, to the Ulama of Deoband. We have already presented the many glowing tributes which the Ulama of the Haramain Shareefain had lauded on the Ulama of Deoband. However, the problem is that those noble Mashaaikh and Ulama of Makkah, Madinah, Damascus and Cairo who had glowingly upheld the Aqaa-id of the Ulama of Deoband are also regarded as kaafir by the coprocreep Salafis since all of those Ulama were Muqallideen of the Math-habs. THE STANDARD AQEEDAH Disgorging some more rubbish, the coprocreep avers: "I believe the above content is sufficient for us to prove to the world the Deoband is not going to be the standard of Islamic Aqeedah in the world anytime soon." In response to this drivel, it will be salubrious to understand that with the rapid proximity of Qiyaamah advancing on us, the ‘standard' aqeedah will be KUFR. Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said: "There will dawn an age when people will gather in the Musjid and perform Salaat whilst not a single one will be a Mu'min." Furthermore, the advance of baatil, bid'ah, fisq, fujoor, kufr and shirk will darken the world and Muslims and Islam will become what Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: "Islam began in a forlorn state. Soon will it return to that forlorn state in which it began. Therefore congratulations to the Ghuraba (the Forlorn Ones). " In this age saturated with baatil and dhalaal, a small group of the Ulama-e-Haqq of Deoband - only of Deoband - are bearing aloft the Standard of Islam. They are the Ghuraba for whom Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had invoked Congratulations. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 17 - The standard and the only Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah in this age is the Aqeedah which the Ulama of Deoband expound. All other expositions are baatil and dhalaal. The coprocreep has said nothing other than ghutha - pure rubbish. His stupid disgorgement is devoid of Shar'i dalaa-il and academic substance. Nafsaani opinion is the minhaaj of all La-Math-habis among whom the coprocreep Salafis are in the forefront. ‘DUMB HANBALIS" On the issue of ‘dumb Hambalis, the coprocreep states: "According to Deobandis, the Taqleed they impose on themselves and others is strict Taqleed Mathabi, i.e. Taqleed of one school only. This means they should advocate that dumb Hanbalis should follow the Hanbali School in pointing to the sky before commencing slaughter." "Dumb" in this context refers to a person who is unable to speak. The reference is not to a stupid person such as the coprocreep. Undoubtedly, the Ulama of Deoband advocate strict adherence to the Math-hab. This adherence has gained greater meaning and importance in this age in which unbridled nafsaaniyat dominates. Every coprocreep has become a plastic ‘mujtahid' flaunting jahl-e-muraqqab (compound ignorance). In this age when the Ummah is floundering rudderless in the storms of nafsaaniyat, deviation and kufr, it is imperative for evey Muslim to cling with his jaws to his Math-hab. The Math-hab is the Ship of Salvation which will sail to Jannat. And, today there remain only Four Math-habs - Hanafi, Maaliki, Shaafi' and Hambali. In this era, the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah is confined to these Four Math-habs of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen. Salafi'ism is a deviant sect beyond the fold of the Ahlus Sunnah. The coprocreep wanders in a cesspool of confusion. He is simply oblivious of his incoherent ranting. The Ulama of Deoband are not promoting the idea that dumb Hambalis should not follow their Math-hab when they perform Thabah (slaughtering of animals). The Hambali Math-hab requires that a dumb person who slaughters should point his finger upwards to symbolize the Tasmiah which he us unable to verbally proclaim. The stupid coprocreep seeks to develop the baatil Aqeedah of Allah Ta'ala being confined to a specific spot in space on the basis of the dumb Hambali pointing upwards when he slaughters an animal. He fails to discern the insult he heaps on to his own brains with this stupidity. The issue of the dumb Hambali has also been explained earlier. Whilst the Hambali slaughterer is dumb in his tongue, the coprocreep Salafi is numb and numb in his brains. THE MATH-HAB OF THE LAYMAN In a futile attempt to show inconsistency in our propagation of strict adherence to one's Math-hab, the coprocreep says: "And as far as Taqleed is concerned, then it has been established that a layman does not have a school of law (his mathab is the mathab of his mufti whoever that may be), even if he professes to be a Hanbali, or a Shafi or Hanafi or Maliki." This fact is not in conflict with the rigid stance of Math-hab adherence. When an ignorant person is confronted with an issue which requires a Shar'i ruling, and he is unable to locate a Mufti of his Math- hab nor does he have access to reliable information to guide him along his Math-hab, then he is not allowed to appoint his nafs as his ‘math-hab', and follow whatever his stupid whimsical opinion decrees. He has to incumbently submit to the Shariah, and the only available relief for him in the circumstances he finds himself is to resort to any Mufti for guidance. When such a scenario prevails, then it becomes necessary for the Muqallid to acquire guidance from a Mufti of any one of the Four Math-habs available to him. This methodology is not in conflict with the stance of the Ulama of Deoband regarding firm adherence to the Math-hab. It is an extraordinary situation necessitated by circumstances. The ignorant layman is confronted by two problems: (1) Following his own nafsaani desires, and (2) Following the ruling of a Mufti from one of the Math-habs of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. There is no conundrum here. Every person whose brains have not become convoluted with copro-substances will understand the incumbency of adopting option No.2. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 18 - THE SLANDER OF "ALLAH IS NOWHERE" The coprocreep without a vestige of shame disgorges the following slander against the Ulama of Deoband and Imaam Maturidi: "…the cornerstone of Maturidism - "Allah is nowhere" - is at stark odds with what scholars of the Salaf said." He has not presented a single quotation from any of the kutub of the Ulama of Deoband or of Imaam Maturidi to support the above slander. When a charge is levelled, it is incumbent on the accuser, in fact the slanderer, to present his evidence. The story of Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) severely reprimanding the man who had enquired about the manner of Istiwa alal Arsh is not justification for the coprocreep's slander. This anecdote only warns people not to ask about issues which is beyond human comprehension. The coprocreep's slander is that according to Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh), "Allah is nowhere". What is his evidence for this slander. It devolves on the coprocreep to first prove that the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah (whom he terms ‘Maturidism') has propounded the doctrine of ‘Allah being nowhere'. Furthermore, the coprocreep has no entitlement of citing Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) in support of any of his contentions. Such citation is the function and right of only Muqallideen, not of those who abhor ‘Blind Taqleed'. Differences of opinion among the Salaf-e-Saaliheen abound. A Mujtahid does not have the right to impose his Taqleed on another Mujtahid. If another Mujtahid differs with Imaam Maalik regarding approach and methodology of answering questions, such methodology is the inviolable right of the Mujtahid. Another Mujtahid may have answered the questioner in another manner which would also be correct. Imaam Maturidi was a Giant who strode the firmament of Islamic Uloom. He may not be fettered to any Mujtahid in his sphere of expertise. He may not be accused of being in conflict with the Ahlus Sunnah if he differs with Imaam Maalik or Imaam Hambal on any issue. He is an authority in his own right. He is not the little brother of the coprocreep Salafis. Whatever views he has expressed are within the framework of the Shariah. He is not in conflict with any of the Nusoos of the Shariah. Incumbency to adopt the methodology of Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) or of any other Imaam did not devolve on Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh) as a necessary article of Faith to which he had to offer his taqleed. Nothing of his interpretation is beyond the parameters of the Shariah. If indeed there is any conflict, the coprocreep and the gangs of deviant Salafis should present an academic elucidation based on Shar'i rationality. Furthermore, valid interpretation of certain issues devolved as a necessity to combat and neutralize the anthropomorphic rubbish which deviant sects such as the Jahmiyyah, Karaamiyyah and the Salafi sect of this age have spawned as a direct consequence of their corrupt beliefs such as the assignment of a specific abode in space for Allah Azza Wa Jal, and their anthropomorphicizing the Sifaat of Allah Ta'ala. Even today these stupid Salafi coprocreeps prowl the streets accosting ignorant laymen and firing at them the uncalled for question: ‘Where is Allah?' They confuse and pollute the minds of laymen with issues which never existed in their imagination. Imaam Ibn Jauzi Hambali has specifically warned stupid ‘scholars' from confusing and corrupting the minds of innocent laymen with copro- questions. Every Muslim believes in Allah Ta'ala in the way the Qur'aan Majeed teaches. The Qur'aan says that Allah Ta'ala:  Is in the heavens and in the earth  Is with you wherever you are  Is in the east and the west  Is wherever you turn your face  Is on the Arsh  Is closer to you than your jugular vein. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 19 - The unpolluted minds of the masses do not delve into the philosophical nonsense introduced from the Greek philosophers by the likes of the Mu'tazili sect. With stupid questions, the present-day Salafis pollute the minds of the masses with uncalled for questions which corrupt their minds and Imaan. It appears that the only article of Salafi Imaan is the issue of Istiwa alal Arsh. In consequence of their obsession with this issue they subtly assert anthropomorphic tendencies for the Attributes of Allah Ta'ala. It is a total impossibility for the uncorrupted simple mind of the layman, in fact of even the greatest Scholar, to comprehend a being sitting on a created object in a specific spot in created space, who is devoid of the finite dimensions of direction and physical body. Whilst the Qur'aan declares: "Nothing is like Him", the coprocreeps constrain laymen to conjecture physical attributes and finite dimensions for Allah Ta'ala with their corrupt doctrine of cordoning off Allah Azza Wa Jal on the Arsh. Now when a coprocreep Salafi points his finger towards the sky and emphatically says that ‘Allah is only there', what idea of Allah Azza Wa Jal will be constructed in the mind of the layman? When a dumb person (one who is unable to speak) slaughters an animal, then according to the Hambali Math- hab, he should indicate Tasmiah by pointing his finger upwards. Despite dumb Hambali followers practising accordingly and although Hambali muqallideen are aware of this Fiqhi mas'alah, it never gave rise to the rotten doctrine of the coprocreep Salafis. It was accepted purely as a Fiqhi mas'alah in the same way that we face the Qiblah without believing Allah Ta'ala to be living inside the Ka'bah in the way coprocreeps believe Allah Azza Wa Jal lives on the Arsh. Muslims are aware that Allah Ta'ala is "nearer to us than our jugular veins". But this awareness never gave rise to any anthropomorphic ideas regarding the Being and Attributes of Allah Ta'ala. When it is said in the words of the Qur'aan: "Whichever way you turn your face there is the Face of Allah.", it never raced through the minds of ordinary Muslims that Allah Ta'ala is a physical being in the east and the west. Everyone accepts the Qur'aanic verse and what is said therein without asking and wondering of the manner of His Presence. How is He present? This question has developed only in the wake of Salafi rubbish conceptions. To neutralize the ideas and conceptions of kufr which form in the minds of ordinary people in the wake of Hashwi stupid propagations, Imaam Maturidi was constrained to present valid interpretation of certain issues. At no stage did Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh) claim that any of his interpreted views is immutable and that the reality is as he has interpreted. On the contrary, Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh) explains in his Tafseer, Ta'weelaatu Ahlis Sunnah: "The principle is what we have mentioned: viz. We do not measure His action with the action of creation nor His Attribute with the attributes of creation because, verily, He (Allah) has informed: "Nothing is like Him". -Surah Shuraa Further expounding on this principle, Imaam Maturidi states: "Verily, we attribute to Him that which has been revealed and in the manner it has come. We know that He has no resemblance to whatever has been narrated of the actions of others besides Him….… Verily, we believe that Allah - nothing is like Him, and it is not conceivable for Him to have a likeness in any thing." "THE ONE IN THE HEAVEN" Employing deceit or displaying abject jahaalat (ignorance), the coprocreep fraud/moron states: "Furthermore, the verses of Surah al-Mulk are explicit enough -"Or are you secure enough from the One who is in the Heaven that He shall not send down a storm upon you?" This can be rendered into a question and answer format - "Who is in the Heaven", answer: ‘Allah',……..This verse cannot be more explicit in its meaning,…" The conclusion the coprocreep has hallucinated from this Aayat is that it explicitly mentions that Allah Ta'ala is in the Heaven, hence it should be concluded that He is on the Arsh. This corrupt conclusion is the effect of the moron's stupidity as well as deceit. The response to this drivel is as follows: THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 20 - 1) The Presence of Allah Azza Wa Jal in the Heaven has never been denied by the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. 2) Allah's Presence in the Heaven does not negate His Presence elsewhere simultaneously. This aayat in no way whatsoever refutes Allah's Omnipresence. 3) The coprocreep moron has either conveniently forgotten or overlooked or displayed his ignorance regarding the other Aayat which explicitly confirms Allah's Presence in even the earth. Unequivocally confirming this fact, the Qur'aan Majeed states: "He Who is in the heaven is Allah, and He Who is in the earth is Allah." (Zukhruf, aayat 84) Whilst the aayat in Surah Mulk states the Divine Immanence in the heaven, the aayat in Surah Zukhruf proclaims the Divine Presence in the earth. This aayat dispels the deceit and stupidity of the moron coprocreep. Dismissing the stupid argument raised on the basis of the aayat cited by the coprocreep, Ibn Jauzi Hambali (rahmatullah alayh) states in his Daf'u Shubh: "I say that it has been unequivocally established that this aayat does not have a literal meaning because the term ‘in' (fi in this aayat) denotes zarfiyyah (containment in a confined space). But Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala cannot be contained (by space)." TA'WEEL (INTERPRETATION)? The moron coprocreep Salafi says: "…But, the bigots amongst the Deos love Ta'weel too much." This topic has already been explained earlier. Ta'weel (Interpretation), if valid, is perfectly permissible and even necessary. Ta'weel Baatil (baseless interpretation) is haraam. Once an Aalim from the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah discussing with the Saudi Salafi Shaikh Bin Ba'z (rahmatullah alayh), stated the necessity of Ta'weel which Bin Ba'z refuted. The Aalim then mentioned that in the Qur'aan Shareef comes the aayat: "Whoever is blind in this world will be blind in the Aakhirah and even more astray." (Al-Israa', aayat 72) If Ta'weel is not applied to this aayat it will follow that a blind man in this world will remain blind even in the Aakhirah. Thus, in terms of the Salafi minhaaj Shaikh Bin Ba'z who was physically blind here on earth will remain blind in the Aakhirah. Moreover, he will be ‘more deviated and astray' in the Aakhirah. This is the logical conclusion of the total rejection of Ta'weel. According to the minhaaj of the Salafi morons, Hadhrat Nabi Shuayb (alayhis salaam), Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) and many other Sahaabah and Auliya who were physically blind on earth will be blind even in the Aakhirah on the basis of the zaahiri and haqeeqi meaning of this Qur'aanic aayat - Nauthubillah! Even coprocreeps are compelled to resort to Ta'weel and interpret away the literal meaning of the aayat and to say that ‘blindness' in the context of this aayat refers to ‘spiritual blindness' - blindness of the heart such as the blind hearts of Salafi morons. There are numerous Qur'aanic verses and Ahaadith to which applies Ta'weel, and without interpretation there is no option. Furthermore, coprocreep Salafis despite denying the validity of Ta'weel, are the most dishonest perpetrators of Ta'weel. Every Qur'aanic aayat which mentions Allah's Presence elsewhere besides the Arsh is subjected to Ta'weel. Thus, denying the zaahir of the Qur'aan, they refuse to accept that Allah Ta'ala is in the east and west in the manner in which He is on the Arsh. They refuse to accept the Qur'aan's declaration of Allah's Presence in the literal sense ‘on earth', ‘with every person', ‘in the east and west' and ‘wherever you turn your face'. For all the verses which proclaim Allah's Omnipresence, they rush to deny the literal meaning with their baatil ta'weel. But they weirdly affirm the prohibition of Ta'weel only in relation to the aayat of Istiwa alal Arsh. The stupidity of these morons is staggering. In the Qur'aan-e-Kareem, Allah Ta'ala explicitly confirming His Omnipresence, says: "There is no secret discussion of three (persons), but He is the Fourth of them, not five, but He is the Sixth of them, neither less nor more than this, but He is with them wherever they may be…." (Al-Mujaadalah, aayat 7) When this and other similar Qur'aanic verses in which the Divine Immanence is explicitly declared, are mentioned to the Salafi coprocreeps, then without the slightest procrastination, and totally oblivious of their pretence of denying the validity of Ta'weel, they shamelessy subject these explicit Qur'aanic THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 21 - Verses to their baatil interpretation. They desperately endeavour to argue away these aayaat with the ta'weel that Allah Ta'ala is with His Knowledge with us and in the east and west. He is not in these declared places in the way He is cordoned off on the specific spot occupied by the Arsh in terms of coprocreep belief. So whilst they blatantly deny the validity of Ta'weel, they also blatantly resort to it selectively when they believe that it suits their whimsical opinions. The Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah on the other hand, are constrained by an imperative necessity to sometimes resort to valid interpretation of some of the Mutashaabihaat verses, not for the purposes of determining their precise meanings, for this is a total impossibility, but to eliminate the anthropomorphic rubbish which the misguided Salafis under Ibn Taimiyyah have unfortunately spawned in the minds of the ignorant, unwary, unsophisticated and rustic masses who are unable to comprehend in any way whatsoever a non-anthropomorphic Deity sitting on a Throne located in a fixed and specific spot in space or in creation. Neither can they nor the best scholarly minds comprehend nor accept that a created object can ever contain and bear the Eternal, Infinite, All-Powerful Azza Wa Jal. Now when the anonymous moron coprocreep can locate accommodation in his convoluted brain for interpreting Allah's declared Omnipresence with the ta'weel of knowledge, viz. Allah is Omnipresent with His Knowledge, then what prevents others from making the averment that Allah Azza Wa Jal is present on the Arsh with His Loftiness, Power and Control? The miscreant coprocreep states: "Allah does not punish taking these unseen nusoos at face value, but don't think that He is unaware of your corrupted Ta'weelaat - you will be asked every single pronouncement of yours regarding this….." In this statement he highlights his jahaalat and conceit. He acquits himself as if Hadhrat Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) had descended on him with wahi from Allah Ta'ala to make this stupid pronouncement sucked from his convoluted opinion which has no basis in the Shariah. Firstly, there is no such creature as "unseen nusoos". Nusoos refer to Qur'aanic verses and Ahaadith, and to even the authoritative statements of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen. These nusoos are not unseen. They are all well-documented in the written form. Secondly, no one has hitherto claimed that Allah Ta'ala will punish people for not probing the mutashaabihaat nusoos. In fact that is the Math-hab of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah from which Ibn Taimiyyah, Albaani and the Salafi anthropomorphists (Tajseemis) are excluded. Thirdly, whilst it is quite simple to make an allegation and contend that the Ta'weelat of the Ahlus Sunnah are ‘corrupted', it is entirely another issue to substantiate such a baatil claim. There are absolutely no grounds for contending that any interpretation which the Ahlus Sunnah has ventured due to necessity is corrupt. Whatever Ta'weel has been tendered, is within the parameters of the Shariah. There is no conflict between the Ta'weel of the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shariah. Fourthly, on the other hand, there is a stark conflict and irrationality with the bigoted ta'weelaat ventured by Salafi coprocreeps. For example, whilst they condemn any valid interpretation of Istiwa alal Arsh, they condone ta'weel of all the Qur'aanic verses which explicitly confirm the Divine Immanence, i.e. the Omnipresence of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Thus, whilst condemning the Ta'weel of the Ahlus Sunnah, the coprocreep Salafis promote ta'weel selectively whenever it suits their corrupt whimsical opinions which produce anthropomorphic attributes for Allah Azza Wa Jal. Fifthly, just as we shall be asked about our pronouncements, so too will the Salafi Tajseemis be vigorously interrogated on the Day of Qiyaamah for propounding such corrupt views which strip Allah Azza Wa Jal of His Eternity. Physical dimensions, cordoned off with space and time are of temporal origin, and are not attributes of Allah Ta'ala. Anything of temporal origin is perishable, hence it is a deficiency inconceivable for Divinity. The bigoted insistence that Allah Ta'ala is only in the Heaven, gives rise to the coprocreep's attribution of physical dimension to Allah Azza Wa Jal. Thus, the coprocreep contrary to his irrational assertion, is in fact a member of the Tajseemi gang. It is irrational to say that you are not an anthropomorphist (Tajseemi) when you attribute a specific place in created space for Allah Ta'ala. Furthermore, the affirmation of Allah Ta'ala being only in the heaven to the exclusion of all other places is a flagrant denial of the Qur'aanic aayat which categorically states that Allah is in the earth as well. Heaven and earth are the same to Allah Ta'ala. He cannot be measured and conceptualized in THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 22 - terms of the physical dimensions of heaven and earth. The Qur'aan clearly states: "There is nothing like Him." Thus, regardless of who the proponent may be, we do not follow him in his contention that Allah Ta'ala exists in only the heaven. We follow what the Qur'aan declares regarding His Presence, namely, He is in the east and west; with you wherever you may be; in the heaven and in the earth, and on the Arsh, and whichever way you may turn your face, there exists the Divine Countenance regardless of what the Salafi coprocreep Tajseemis opine. The coprocreep's insistence on Taqleed of the later Ulama is indeed laughable. He rants like an insane rabid dog in his desperate endeavour to hoist Taqleed on us in the issues he has selected to debate. We say to him: Put aside taqleed, and confront us with the Qur'aan and Hadith for that is supposed to be the minhaaj of Salafis - admut taqleed. Your attempt to drag into this picture Imaam Bukhaari, Hibatullah, Sulayman Taymi and others is a stupid joke for us. We want you to stick to the Qur'aan and Hadith. That is the slogan of the Salafi coprocreeps. You are among the worst of Bid'atis - worse than the Bareilwi grave-worshippers because you have directly attacked the Eternal Attribute of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Your aqeedah is corrupt, noxious - rotten to the core. You are a hypocritical Tajseemi regardless of your vehement protestations in denial of Tajseem. You follow an immaam who is in fact a Hashawi. If you can learn to utilize your brains you will understand that any being who is sitting on a physical stage or throne which itself is temporal in origin and created with fixed dimensions, will likewise be a physical being with fixed dimensions. This is the belief of the Tajseemi coprocreeps. To overcome this dilemma, Ibn Taimiyyah fabricated the kufr of the eternity of the Arsh, and the eternity of the univers – that these entities are uncreated and coexist with Allah Azza Wa Jal eternally. In propounding this rubbish kufr concept, Saldis sank further into the quagmire of baatil and kufr. TABLIGHIS? Degenerating further into his quagmire of confusion and deception, the coprocreep goes off at a wide tangent and introduces the Tabligh Jamaat in his attempt to ridicule the great Imaam of Aqeedah, Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh) and the illustrious Ulama of Deoband. Thus the coprocreep avers: "You never question Tablighis when they give you Da'wah to come to the mosque……" Why should we question the Tablighis when they invite to the Musjid? What is wrong with inviting to the Musjid? Are they going to dance and sing in the Musjid, which should constrain us to question them? What for are they inviting people to the Musjid? Furthermore, what is the relevance between the Tabligh Jamaat's inviting to the Musjid and the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah pertaining to the Omnipresence of Allah Azza Wa Jal? The stupidity of the coprocreep is indeed stupendous. It is his animosity for the Tabligh Jamaat which has compelled him to utilize this occasion to disgorge his hatred which he harbours for the Jamaat. When a man's heart is corrupted with malevolence, his brains go into topsy turvy drive, hence he introduced a totally unrelated issue into this debate on Aqeedah. PURE OPINION It should be remembered that all views on the topic of Istiwa alal Arsh are products of opinion. These opinions are not substantiated by explicit Nusoos of the Qur'aan and Hadith. The Sahaabah did not delve into the Mutashaabihaat (Allegorical) aayaat of the Qur'aan Majeed. They, and in their footsteps, the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah subscribe tenaciously to the Qur'aanic ta'leem: "None, but Allah knows its meaning, and those grounded in Knowledge say: ‘We believe in it (the Mutashaabihaat). All of (these Verses) are from our Rabb." (Aal-e-Imraan, aayat 7) Despite the Qur'aan Majeed stating with emphasis that only Allah is aware of the allegorical meanings, and that people in whose hearts there lurks a crookedness pursue the Mutashaabihaat in search of fitnah and for their meaning, coprocreep Salafis interpret the allegorical verses to satisfy their copro-beliefs. Although the issue of Istiwa alal Arsh is among the Mutashaabihaat whose meaning can never be fathomed by the best scholarly brains, the coprocreep Salafis insist that they have THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 23 - unravelled the Divine Mystery and have stumbled on the only correct meaning which is the Divine Presence on only the created Throne. The perfidy of their claim should be self-evident to people of understanding These coprocreeps have pursued the allegorical verses and have demarcated them with a specific meaning , namely, their baseless determination of Allah Ta'ala being in a fixed physical abode. In this perpetration they are in glaring conflict with the aforementioned Qur'aanic aayat. Whilst Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh) has presented different views, the emphasis is on acceptance just as it is stated in the Qur'aan - without Ta'weel. Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh), championing the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah in the mirror of Imaam Abu Hanifah's exposition, emphasises the Qur'aanic aayat: "Nothing is like Him." But the Salafi deviates with their convoluted conception fanatically propound their aqeedah as if it is the effect of Thuboot-e-Qat'i (Evidence of Absolute Certitude on par with the Qur'aan). With this attitude they imply rejection of Aayat 7 of Surah Aal-e-Imraan mentioned above. The opinion of Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh) is designed to eliminate the conception of Tajseem (physical body) from the Divine Attributes such as Yadd (Hand), Eyes, Saaq (Shin), etc. Whilst the Salafis are virulent enemies of the Taqleed of the Aimmah Mujtahideen, they have advocate Taqleed of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen shamelessly in any issue which they believe is supportive of their own views. Thus it is seen that they are quick to selectively cite Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) and other Aimmah in any matter which appears to substantiate their opinion. But they vehemently criticize the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah for making Taqleed of these great Imaams in all issues of the Shariah. THE SALAFI DECEPTION OF TA'WEEL AND TAQLEED Two salient features of the Salafis of this era are their professed abhorrence for Ta'weel (Interpretation) and Taqleed (Following the Imaams of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen). They liken even valid ta'weel to kufr, and Taqleed of the Aimmah to blind following comparable to the manner in which the mushrikeen followed their forefathers in their acts of idol-worship. However, in the matter of Aqeedah, Salafis have no independent dalaa-il and no minhaaj from the Qur'aan and Hadith, hence abandoning their professed abhorrence for Taqleed, they unreservedly resort to selective taqleed of our Aimmah among the Salaf of the Khairul Quroon and of even later times (the Muta-akh-kireen). Furthermore, they subject the views and comments of our Aimmah to their whimsical opinions to extravasate meanings to suit their corrupt contentions. For example, they have no option other than to cite Imaam Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh) despite the fact that this illustrious Imaam was a staunch follower of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), and he had championed the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah on the basis of Imaam Abu Hanifah's Fiqhul Akbar which the coprocreep has endeavoured to conceal and ignore despite the fact that the modernist Arnout and Turki whom he cites, have enumerated Fiqhul Akbar No.1 on their list of authorities of the Ahlus Sunnah in the matter of Aqeedah. The name Abu Hanifah is chagrin to the coprocreep and present-day miscreant Salafis. Then they cite a statement of Imaam Maalik and of other Imaams, but vehemently criticize the Muqallideen who follow these Imaams. The coprocreep, in a desperate attempt to bolster his ghutha cites Daarmi, Bukhaari, Hibatullah and others and expects us to blindly follow these later-day Ulama, the first one being a vulgar anthropomorphist, whilst he and his Salafi friends deny Taqleed of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen in the domain of Fiqh. We have already explained how the coprocreep very shamelessly resorted to ta'weel for extrapolating whimsical meanings from the Mutashaabihaat verses such as Istiwa alal Arsh. But for the valid Ta'weelaat of Imaam Maturidi and the Ahlus Sunnah he makes venomous comments. The Ta'weelat of Imaam Maturidi were to dispel the notions of anthropomorphism and denial of the Divine Attributes which the propagations of the early deviant sects such as the Khawaarij, Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah created. Imaam Maturidi and Imam Ash'ari were in the forefront defending the stance of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. Whilst the former was a follower of the Hanafi Math-hab, the latter followed the Shaafi' Math-hab. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 24 - The current day Salafis have inherited the creed of anthropomorphism from the Tajseemis and Hashawis whose teachings Ibn Taimiyyah disseminated. Regardless of their denial of tajseem, the logical conclusion of their corrupt beliefs is the attribution of anthropomorphism to Allah Azza Wa Jal. The stance of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah is exactly as Imaam Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh) states in his kitaab regarding the Divine Attributes and the Mutashaabihaat Qur'aanic verses. We believe in all of them just as Allah Azza Wa Jal has stated. For example, no one knows what exactly Istiwa, Yadd, Wajah, Saaq, etc. are. These are all Attributes of Allah Ta'ala, and their meaning and state are known to only Allah Ta'ala. We are required to only believe in all these Divine mysteries in obedience to the Qur'aanic command: "All (of these verses) are from Allah.", and "Nothing is like Him." Discarding this pure methodology of the Ahlus Sunnah, the coprocreep, on the basis of baatil ta'weel proclaims with ‘absolute certitude' that Allah Ta'ala sits on the Arsh - Allah Ta'ala is located only on the Throne to the exclusion of all other places in stark conflict with the explicit statements of the Qur'aan confirming Divine Omnipresence. The vulgarity of these coprocreep Salafis is appalling. In their stupid attempt to ‘prove' that Allah Ta'ala sits on the Throne like a physical being and to deny Omnipresence, they insolently ask: "Is Allah Ta'ala also in the toilet?" In addition to their insolence and vulgarity, this question betrays their hidden Tajseemi aqeedah of the attribution of anthropomorphic tendencies to Allah Ta'ala. Presence in the toilet demands physical body just as the fixation on the Throne demands physical body and finite dimensions. Since tajseem is their guideline, they think along anthropomorphic lines, hence the toilet question. Their brains are polluted with the copro substances which are found in the toilet. In the same way as their toilet question, it could be asked: Is Allah Ta'ala aware of what takes place inside the toilet? Does He see into the toilet? Can He hear what transpires inside the toilet? To all of this, the coprocreep tajseemis will reply with an affirmative, ‘yes'. Just as Presence is the Attribute of Allah Azza Wa Jal, so too are Seeing, Hearing, Knowing, etc. His Attributes. So by the same token, it can be said to the dumb coprocreep Salafi that you Salafis are extremely disrespectful to Allah Ta'ala for claiming that He is in the toilet! The very same conclusion applicable to Presence is applicable to all the other Attributes, none of which have physical form. Whilst there is no indication in the Nusoos regarding the kaifiyyah of Allah's Istiwa on the Arsh, the coprocreep deems it appropriate to resort to ta'weel and to describe the kaifiyyah. Thus, these miserable Salafi coprocreeps interpret Istiwa alal Arsh to mean that Allah Ta'ala sits on the Throne like a physical being - Nauthubillaah! Then they have the naked audacity of accusing Imaam Maturidi, Imaam Ash'ari and the Ulama of Deoband of resorting to baseless interpretation. In refutation of the Jahmi conception of attributes resulting from the ta'weel of coprocreep Salafis, Imaam Tahaawi states in his Aqeedah: "Whoever attributes to Allah Ta'ala any notion of the notions of (peculiar to) human beings, verily he has committed kufr." The coprocreep's interpretation of fixity for Allah Azza Wa Jal on the Arsh in denial of other explicit Qur'aanic Nusoos creates a resemblance between Allah Azza Wa Jal and human beings. It is therefore of utmost importance to beware of the deceptions propagated by the stooges of Saudi Arabia such as Turki, Arnout and the coprocreep ex- Deobandi who has donned the mantle of cowardice by concealing his identity in the veil of anonymity. DENIAL OF ALLAH'S SIFAAT The coprocreep alleges: "Tahawi intended to refute the anthropomorphists who said that Allah had Essence Attributes like the creation; he was not negating Essence Attributes (Sifaat al-Jawaarih) themselves. However, these words are now used by the Ahl al Kalaam to describe Allah not having any Essence Attribute at all." In this statement the coprocreep attempts to create the highly deceptive and slanderous notion that the Ahlus Sunnah, led by Imaam Maturidi and Imaam Ash'ari (rahmatullah alayhima) denied Allah's Sifaat. Nothing can be further from the truth. The coprocreep has perpetrated a notorious slander by trading the idea that the illustrious Ulama of the Science of Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah have either denied the Divine Attributes or have compared Allah's Sifaat with the attributes of human THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 25 - beings. Stating the view of the Ahlus Sunnah, Imaam Tahaawi Al-Hanafi says: "…..Allah has no Attributes which resemble the attributes of human beings." This then is the denial of the Ahlus Sunnah. We deny resemblance of attributes, not the Attributes of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Fiqhul Akbar of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), Aqeedatut Tahaawi of Imaam Tahaawi, the Writings of Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh) and Aqaaid Nasafi, etc. all confirm with emphasis and the greatest clarity the Sifaat of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Our stance, i.e. the stance of the Ulama of Deoband, which is the stance of the Ahlus Sunnah, is stated in a nutshell by Imaam Tahaawi Al-Hanafi (a staunch Muqallid or a ‘Blind' Follower of Imaam Abu Hanifah as we all are): "We do not interfere in it by interpreting with our opinions nor fantasize with our (baseless) desires…" Personal opinion and fantasy are the characteristics of the coprocreep and the deviant Salafis. These elements are not part of the Minhaaj of the Muqallideen who follow the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen. The valid Ta'weelaat of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah as expounded by Imaam Maturidi were in refutation of the anthropomorphists such as the Jahmis, and the negators of Sifaat such as the Mu'tazilis. Denouncing the coprocreep's Jahmi conception of Allah's Sifaat, Imaam Tahaawi states: "And whoever does not abstain from Nafi and Tashbeeh, has slipped and has not attained rectitude." In Sharhul Qaunawi, Abu Naeem Bin Hammaad (died 228 Hijri) says: "Whoever compares Allah with anything in His creation, verily, he has committed kufr, and whoever denies that (attribute) with which Allah has described Himself, verily, He has committed kufr." The interpretations of the coprocreep and the modernist Salafis lead to tajseemiyyat (anthropomorphism) which is kufr. Even if the coprocreep and the Salafis vigorously assert that they do not attribute anthropomorphist attributes to Allah Azza Wa Jal, this in fact is the logical conclusion of their materialistic concept and baseless interpretation of the Mutashabihaat aayaat of the Qur'aan-e-Kareem. By stupidly averring that Allah Ta'ala is only in one direction (jihat) and in one place (makaan), they ascribe anthropomorphism to Allah Azza Wa Jal whether they like it or not. In his Fiqhul Akbar which the coprocreep has conveniently ignored, Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) divides the Sifaat of Allah Azza Wa Jal into two categories. Thus Imaam A'zam states: "He is eternal with His Names and His Sifaatuth Thaatiyyah and (Sifaatul) Fi'liyyah. The Sifaatuth Thaatiyyah are Hayaat (Life), Qudrah (Power) Ilm (Knowledge), Kalaam (Speech), Sam'a (Hearing), Basr (Seeing) and Iraadah (Will). The Sifaatul Fi'liyyah are Takhleeq (Creation), Tarzeeq (Providence), Inshaa' (Origination), Ibdaa', San'a (these terms are similar to creation, etc.” This is not the occasion to delve into an exposition. It is abundantly clear that the allegation of denial of Sifaat attributed to the Ulama if Deoband by the coprocreep is contemptible and baseless. Mullah Ali Qaari, the Shaarih of Fiqhul Akbar, explaining the Incomparable Nature of Allah Azza Wa Jal, sates: "…Thus, He has no limits, nor can He be enumerated nor imagined nor is He composed of parts nor is He consigned to space nor is He a combination. He cannot be attributed with liquidity nor with colour, taste, odour, warmth, coldness, dryness and of any other attributes of physical bodies. Neither is he stationed in any place, neither above nor below nor anywhere besides these two (abodes, i.e. above and below). Time does not pass over Him as the (deviant sects of) Mushabbihah, Mujassimah and Hulooliyah hallucinate." In Fiqhul Akbar, Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) clarifies that the Qur'aanic terms, Yad (Hand), Wajah (Face), etc. mentioned in relation to Allah Ta'ala are of His Sifaat (Attributes). This clarification by Imaam Abu Hanifah is by way of valid Ta'weel, and these Sifaat are indescribable. Only Allah Ta'ala knows the meanings and nature of His Sifaat. This Ta'weel by Imaam Abu Hanifah was necessary for refuting the anthropomorphists such as the Mushabbihah and Mujassimah and such as the present-day coprocreeps who present such baatil ta'weel which leads to anthropomorphism for Allah Ta'ala. Mullah Ali Qaari has also clarified that there is no ‘aboveness' and no ‘belowness' attributable to Allah Ta'ala. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 26 - It should be noted that during the age of the Sahaabah none of these interpretations had existed since there was no need. There were no deviant sects during the age of the Sahaabah, hence no one was concerned with the meanings of the Mutashaabihaat verses. But after the age of the Sahaabah developed the deviant sects. This compelled the Ulama of the age to totally prohibit Ta'weel of the Mutashaabihaat. Nevertheless, there still existed a need for interpretation, hence it is on the basis of Ta'weel that Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) averred that these terms of Mutashaabihaat refer to Divine Attributes. If this interpretation had not been adopted, the tajseem conceptions of the deviant sects would have gained ascendancy among the masses. That Ta'weel was employed by even the illustrious Salaf-e-Saaliheen is undeniable. The affirmation that these terms refer to Sifaat was not acquired from the Sahaabah. This confirms the reality of valid Ta'weel. But the ta'weel of the coprocreep is baatil because it leads to the conclusion of anthropomorphic attributes for Allah Ta'ala, which develops from the notion of Him being capable of being cordoned off in finite space on a finite object, the Arsh. Stating the Maturidi Math-hab pertaining to Ta'weel, Mullah Ali Qaari says in his Sharah of Fiqhul Akbar: "Ijma' of the Salaf has been narrated on the prohibition of Ta'weel as is mentioned in Ar- Risaalatin Nizaaamiyyah. And, that is according to our Maturidi Ashaab. However, Ibn Daqeeq Al- Eed adopting latitude said: ‘Ta'weel shall be accepted if the interpreted meaning is close to the understanding of the Arabs.’" According to Ibnul Humaam interpretation will be acceptable if there is a need for Ta'weel for the understanding of the masses. Ibn Daqeeq Eed and Ibnul Humaam were not deviants. They were great authorities of the Shariah. All authorities resorted to Ta'weel - valid interpretation which does not produce any conflict with the Shariah nor create deficiency in the Zaat and Sifaat of Allah Azza Wa Jal as does the baatil interpretation of the coprocreep. Whilst the coprocreep and his Salafi masters deny the validity of Ta'weel, all the Salaf resorted to interpretation. Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu), interpreting the verse: "Then He (Allah) made istiwa on the Arsh,", said as follows:  "Istiwa - He resolved to create the Arsh, and it is (also) said: ‘He became established."  "It is said that He became established, and it is (also) said that He filled it (the Throne)."  "And it is said: "Istiwa, i.e. equal to Him is near and far in terms of the meaning of Knowledge and Power."  "It is said that it (Istiwa) is from the Mutashaabih which is not explained."  "It is said that He filled the Throne with His Names and Attributes.”  "He is established indescribably, and without being restricted with touch, without permeation (into the Throne) and without any change overcoming Him from what He was before creation of the Arsh." . Abdur Rahmaan Ibnul Jauzi Al-Hambali, in his Daf'us Shubhit Tashabuh mentions several meanings of istiwa. Although the standard attitude of the Salaf was to abstain from interpreting istiwa, nevertheless, great Ulama and authorities of the Shariah had resorted to interpretation. In his Daf'us Shubah, Ibn Jauzi explains many Ahaadith and Qur'aanic verses which may not be literally understood. Ta'weel is imperative in order to negate anthropomorphism for Allah Azza Wa Jal. Whatever meaning of istiwa which was selected by whomsoever, it was on the basis of Ta'weel because not a single one of the many interpretations advanced is substantiated by Qur'aanic or Hadith Nusoos. The meaning of ‘highness' which the coprocreep has interpreted for istiwa is unsupported by Qur'aanic and Hadith evidence. Furthermore, the ta'weel adopted by the coprocreep's Salafi masters is selective and irrational interpretation. Whilst these coprocreeps vehemently deny the validity of ta'weel, they do so only when it suits their whimsical opinions. They apply ta'weel to the half of an aayat and conveniently deny its application to the other half without the slightest vestige of evidence. For example, the Qur'aan states: "He is The Ilaah (God/Deity) in the heaven, and Ilaah in the earth." Subjecting the first half of the aayat to their whimsical interpretation, the coprocreeps say that Allah Ta'ala is literally in the heaven, and this "in" in relation to the Divine Presence in the heaven brooks no THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 27 - ta'weel. However, regarding the second half in which is mentioned with equanimity that Allah is also "in" the earth, they deny the literal meaning and without any evidence whatsoever, they shamelessly proclaim the idea that Allah is in the earth with His "Knowledge". What now prevents their adversaries from saying likewise, viz., Allah is in the heaven and on the Arsh with His Knowledge and Power (Qudrat)? Whilst irrationally, without evidence, clinging to one of the literal meanings of istiwa, and formulating on its basis the tajseemi (anthropomorphic) concept of Allah Azza Wa Jal being confined to the space of the Arsh, they deny the literal meaning of the aayats: "He is in the east and west", "He is with you wherever you may be", "He is nearer to you than your jugular vein". What is the criterion for this differentiation? And, whatever criterion they have, it will also be the product of ta'weel for the simple reason that there is no Qur'aanic or Hadith Nusoos to back up their whimsical contention. Even Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) had resorted to Ta'weel - albeit valid interpretation permitted by the Shariah - to categorize Allah's Sifaat into Sifaat-e-Thaatiyyah and Sifaat-e-Fi'liyyah, and for opining that there are eight Sifaat-e-Thaatiyyah. All the plethora of concepts advanced by even the Salaf-e-Saaliheen are the effects of Ta'weel. Interpretation was necessitated by the deviation which the miscreant anthropomorphists implanted in the minds of the simple laity. The deviates, that is, these Salafi coprocreeps of our age, are of the same ilk as the deviate Jahmis and Tajseemis of the early ages. Their common malady is to confuse the innocent minds of ordinary people who do not normally dwell in the confusion of these abstract issues and concepts. Today, too, these coprocreeps accost ignorant people and ask: "Where is Allah?" Then they attempt to ram down their throats the idea of Allah Ta'ala sitting on the Throne like a physical being. About these miserable coprocreeps, Ibn Jauzi states in his Daf'us Shubah: "Since this type of talk is incomprehensible to the ordinary person, we say; ‘Don't din into his ears that which he does not understand, and leave alone his belief without jolting it." The Qur'aan states: "Then He made istiwa towards the heaven and fashioned it seven heavens." Presenting tafseer and ta'weel, for this aayat, Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) said in his Tafseer: "Then He resolved to create the heaven. Thus He made it into seven heavens." Here Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) interprets istiwa to mean resolve or to intend to create. The context of the aayat clearly supports this Ta'weel. Consider the aayat: "That Day (of Qiyaamah) the Saaq (Shin or Foreleg) will be revealed." The Tajseemis, on the basis of the literal meaning, attribute a physical shin to Allah Ta'ala - Nauthubillaah! Whilst they refute any interpretation, we find Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) presenting the following interpretations: "A matter about which they were blind on earth will be revealed. And it is (also) said: An atrociously severe matter will be revealed. It is (also) said: The revelation will be a sign between them and their Rabb." Discussing the Saaq, Ibn Jauzi states: "Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid, Ibraaheem Nakh'i. Qataadah and the Jamhoor Ulama said: "He will reveal a severity (a severe matter)……Ibn Qutaibah said that the origin of this (i.e. the use of the term shin) is that when a man is involved in a grave matter which requires diligent effort, then he rolls up (his garments) from his shin. Thus, the shin is metaphorically employed on occasions of difficulty/hardship. Farra, Abu Ubaidah, Tha'lab and the linguists are also of this view. Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim have narrated in the Saheehain from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that, verily, Allah Azza Wa Jal will reveal His Shin. This is an attribution to Him. Its meaning is that He will reveal His Severity and Actions which are attributed to Him. The meaning of, ‘He will reveal it’, is ‘He will efface it.’ Aasim Bin Kulayb said: ‘I saw Saeed Bin Jubair very angry. He (Saeed) said: ‘They say He will reveal His Shin. Verily, that is an extremely severe matter……….In a Hadith narrated by Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu), Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘Allah will remove the veil from them. They will see Allah and fall down in prostration. Some people will remain standing (as if) in their backs are the spurs of cattle. They will intend to prostrate, but will be unable. That is the meaning of Allah's statement (in the Qur'aan): "That Day the shin will be revealed and they will be called to prostrate, but they will be unable (to prostrate).” THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 28 - That Saaq (Shin) is not an attribute of Allah Azza Wa Jal, has been maintained by innumerable Ulama, Muhaqqiqeen, Mufassireen and Muhadditheen of the Salaf. Narrating some of the views expressed by the Salaf, Ibn Katheer states in the tafseer of the ayyat: "That Day the Shin will be revealed…" It is a Day of (extreme) sorrow and severity. Jareer has narrated it…..Ibn Abi Najeeh said, narrating from Mujaahid: ‘It is a severe matter.' Ibn Abbaas said that it (the Saaq) will be the severest hour on the Day of Qiyaamah. Ibn Abi Talhah narrating from Ibn Abbaas said: ‘It is an extremely severe matter of the terrors of the Day of Qiyaamah.' Al-Aufi narrating from Ibn Abbaas said: ‘(It is the occasion) when the matter will be revealed and deeds will be exposed. The entry of Aakhirah will be revealed…." There are other interpretations as well. But none of these authorities said that the Saaq is an attribute of Allah Ta'ala as the coprocreeps contend. Furthermore, the different versions of the Saaq significantly confirm that all these interpretations are products of opinion. As long as the Ta'weel is not in conflict with any principle or Nass of the Shariah, it will be acceptable, but cannot be imposed on an authority who holds a contrary view, nor may it be intransigently declared to be the pivot of salvation in the Aakhirah. Since none of these views is substantiated by Dalaa-il-e-Qat’iyyah, non-acceptance is not kufr. But, the coprocreep whose stupid opinion is akin to kufr due to its anthropomorphic tendencies, contend that the Salafi view is the only immutable belief, rejection of which is kufr. But how did these coprocreeps reach their view? They have no Shar'i evidence. They grab statements like blind muqallideen from a variety of authorities whose Taqleed they denounce - that is, the Taqleed of the Aimmah Mujtahideen by the followers of the Sunnah. Yet, they garrulously cite our Aimmah to substantiate their copro-baatil opinions. Sight should not be lost of the fact that despite the coprocreep and his Salafi mentors criticizing the Ahlus Sunnah for resorting to Ta'weel, they themselves (i.e. the Salafis) perpetrate wholesale ta'weel. It is on the basis of interpretation that they arrive at their beliefs. They deny the Omnipresence of Alla Azza Wa Jal by way of ta'weel. It is by ta'weel that they claim that Allah Ta'ala is not in the East and in the West despite the Qur'aan categorically proclaiming the Divine Presence in all places and all directions. Allah Ta'ala says in the Qur'aan that "He is in the heaven and in the earth". Salafis say: ‘No! He is only on the Arsh.' And, this they say on the basis of their lopsided methodology of ta'weel. They interpret away every Qur'aanic aayat and every Hadith which affirm the Divine Omnipresence. Yet, they have the gall to deride others who resort to valid Ta'weel for obviating and refuting the kufr belief of anthropomorphism which corrupt beliefs attribute to Allah Ta'ala whether intentionally or unintentionally. There is simply no escape from Ta'weel. Everyone who has tackled the issue of Allah's Zaat and Sifaat was compelled by the very nature of the subject to resort to Ta'weel. But the logical conclusion of the kind of interpretation adopted by the Salafi coprocreeps is the attribution of anthropomorphism to Allah Azza Wa Jal. Whilst they endeavour to deny their ascription of physical nature to Allah Ta'ala, this attribution is uppermost in their minds, hence they insist that Allah Ta'ala is in one particular direction - the direction which to human beings is above. But above and below have no relationship with Allah Ta'ala. When direction and space are attributed to Him, He is given physical form, hence the coprocreep asks the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah: "Is He then in the toilet?" Nauthubillaah! It is because they have conjectured in their minds a physical form for Allah Ta'ala that they have this rude audacity to pose such a blasphemous question. This idea is the furthest from the minds of the Ahlus Sunnah in view of the fact that our conception of Allah's Omnipresence precludes space, physical body and dimensions. We simply proclaim that He is in the east and the west, wherever you may be, etc. because the Qur'aan Majeed states so. How is His Omnipresence? That no one knows, and there is no need to probe this issue. It is unfathomable and no amount of interpretation is satisfactory. It is among the Mutashaabihaat about which the Qur'aan says: "No one knows its ta'weel, except Allah." Since their heads are soiled with copro-substances, they pose the copro- question about the toilet. Their brains are fossilized stone, hence they hallucinate physical form for Allah Azza Wa Jal. Dwelling in stark ignorance, the coprocreep wallows in mental subjection to a materialistic ideology which spawns anthropomorphic attributes for Allah Azza Wa Jal. But this experiment of the coprocreep Salafis is most hazardous for Imaan. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 29 - THE PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES CONCEPT The coprocreep blatantly denying Imaam Tahaawi's negation of physical attributes (which the coprocreep terms ‘Sifaat al-Jawaarih' says: "…he (i.e. Imaam Tahaawi) was not negating Essence Attributes (Sifaat al Jawaarih) themselves…." Imaam Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh) unequivocally refuted and negated the concept of physical limbs (jawaarih) for Allah Azza Wa Jal - a kufr which the coprocreep Salafis affirm for Allah Ta'ala. In his Aqeedatut Tahaawi, Imaam Tahaawi states explicitly and emphatically: "He is beyond limits and restrictions. Neither does He have parts or limbs nor is He encompassed by the six directions." The term ‘jawaarih' means physical limbs, especially hands and feet. In an abortive attempt to conceal the Salafi anthropomorphic concept of Allah's Sifaat, the coprocreep refers to the physical limb concept with the term sifaat al-jawaarih which he stupidly appellates ‘Essence Attributes'. Whilst the word, attributes is the translation of sifaat, essence is not the translation of jawaarih. The translation of this word is physical limbs. Thus ‘sifaat al-jawaarih' means physcal limb attributes. The kufr of this anthropomorphic concept is thus quite obvious. The coprocreep is at pains to read this kufr meaning into Imaam Tahaawi's unequivocal negation of physical attributes for Allah Azza Wa Jal. Just reflect to what extent the coprocreep has employed baatil ta'weel to fabricate the kufr concept of sifaat al- jawaarih. Salafis are the worst perpetrators of ta'weel. CONFINING ALLAH TA'ALA TO DIRECTION Raising another stupid, unfounded objection, the coprocreep avers: "The same applies to the word ‘direction' (jihah) which Tahawi used. Tahawi meant that Allah is Muheet - the encompasser, not Muhaat - which is the opposite of Muheet (the encompassed). Negating Muhaat was expressed by Tahawi as "and He is not bound by the six directions like all created things are (bound)." Obviously, it would not be said like that today, but Tahawi's words should not be misinterpreted as well and should not be understood in Ahl al-Kalaam terminology. Ibn Abil Izz is sure that Tahawi did not mean that "Allah is nowhere" by this next." Again just ponder to what degree has the coprocreep sunk with his baatil ta'weel. Despite being ostensibly an implaccable foe of Ta'weel, this miserable coprocreep resorts to utterly baseless ta'weel to give Imaam Tahaawi's statement a bizarre meaning in the attempt to establish direction for Allah Azza Wa Jal. He then stupidly refers us to Ibn Abil Izz's interpretation centuries after Imaam Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh). Well, we are not the muqallideen of Shaikh Ibn Abil Izz. The stupidity of this coprocreep buffoon leaves us aghast. Who and where did any of the Ahlus Sunnah Ulama proffer the kufr theory of Allah Ta'ala being muhaat - encompassed, bordered off, restricted, cordoned off, etc, as the coprocreep falsely claims? This apodalic argument is a preposterous lie uttered against the Ulama of the Ahlus Sunnah. The logical conclusion of the idea that Allah Ta'ala is muhaat is that man is capable of encompassing Allah Ta'ala's Zaat and Sifaat. Such a theory is blatantly kufr in that it refutes the Qur'aan which categorically states that Allah Azza Wa Jal is not muhaat. "And, they (people) cannot encompass anything of His Knowledge except that which He desires.” (Aayat 255, Baqarah) "Verily, He is Muheet (All-encompassing) of every thing." (Aayat 54, Fussilat) There is absolutely no question and no argument regarding Allah's attribute of being Muheet. We do not know from which thumb the coprocreep has sucked the muhaat garbage. By confirming the Ahlus Sunnah's affirmation of Allah Ta'ala being Muheet, Imaam Tahaawi was acutely refuting all coprophilic ideas which are spawned by anthropomorphic ideologies such as the weird materialistic theories which Salafis ascribe to Allah Azza Wa Jal. Whilst the Salafi assignment of jihat (direction) to Allah's Presence most definitely leads to the ascription of confinement (being muhaat) for Allah Ta'ala, the Aqeedah of Omnipresence of the Ahlus Sunnah demolishes the muhaat kufr at the very roots. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 30 - It is the coprocreep who is misinterpreting the statement of Imaam Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh). We, the Ulama of Deoband and all the Ulama of the Ahlus Sunnah, believe in exactitude what Imaam Tahaawi has explained about Allah's attribute of being All-Encompassing. Imaam Tahaawi states explicitly and emphatically that Allah Azza Wa Jal is NOT bound by the six directions, yet Salafis confine Allah Ta'ala to a specific direction. With their baatil view of Allah Ta’ala being confined to the fintite dimensions of the Arsh, the Salafi coprocreeps have encumbered Allah Ta’ala with the attribute of muhaat (being encircled and encompassed by His Own creation).To overcome this insoluble problem which Salafis are facing since they are unable to refute Imaam Tahaawi, they resort to ta'weel, hence the coprocreep says: "Tahawi means that Allah is Muheet". There is no need for interpreting the statement of Imaam Tahawi. If someone says: ‘The sun is shining', one need not say: ‘He means that the sun is shining.' Such stupidity is the capability of only coprocreeps who create deficiency in Allah Azza Wa Jal by confining Him to created space and making him muhaat thereby negating His eternal Muheet attribute. There is absolutely nothing to interpret in Imaam Tahawi's statement. It means exactly what the words literally convey, viz. He encompasses everything in every aspect, and nothing and no one can ever encompass Him, and that direction does not apply to Him. The coprocreep has the obligatory duty to expound the conflict which he has hallucinated between the statement of Imaam Tahaawi and the Ulama of Kalaam. There is no conflict. The Ulama of Kalaam confirm the correctness of Imaam Tahawi's affirmation of Allah's "Muheetness". Furthermore, the Ahlus Sunnah do not say that Allah is ‘nowhere' as the coprocreep claims. They say that Allah Ta'ala is Immanent, Omnipresent, All-Pervading. By what stretch of coprophillic logic has he concluded that Divine Omnipresence means Divine non-existence - Nauthubillaah! We do not peddle the kufr that Allah Ta'ala is ‘nowhere'. We say: Allah Ta'ala is EVERYWHERE just as the Qur'aan Majeed says, and this Everywhere is devoid of makaan and any physical connotation.. Only Allah Ta'ala knows the manner of His Presence In a remarkable portrayal of ignorance, the coprocreep, in self-contradiction and without understanding what he rambles, says: "If the negators of Uluww - people of Ta'teel - had explained this issue in this manner (in that the total encompassment of Allah is not like the incomplete encompassment of the someof (sic! -Our comment -Mujlisul Ulama) the created things like the sky and the throne), they would have been guided to the right path….." What he means by ‘the some of' is a stupid conundrum. The coprocreep, unable to fault Imaam Tahaawi, the Hanafi authority - the student of Imaam Abu Hanifah via intermediaries - is at miserable pains in his abortive attempt to overcome the outright refutation of physical dimension which Salafis ascribe to Allah Azza Wa Jal. The coprocreep attempts to overcome Imaam Tahaawi's refutation by resorting to mendacity with an interpretation which is a palpable canard. The Ulu' (Uluww) - the Highness, Loftiness, Grandeur, Sublimity of Allah Azza Wa Jal is an affirmation confirmed by even every sect of deviation. No one ever denied the Sublimity and Higness of Allah Azza Wa Jal. But the coprocreep's Salafi concept of Uluww in relation to Allah Azza Wa Jal is extremely defective in that it posits a limited, physical Highness confined to physical space when in reality the Ulu' (Uluww) of Allah, Rabbul Aalameen has no relationship with physical dimension, hence Imaam Tahaawi's outright refutation of the ascription of the six points of direction to Allah Ta'ala . The belief of the confinement of Allah's Uluww to physical space is an incumbent corollary and a logical quotient of the Salafi belief of the confinement of Allah Ta'ala to the specific physical dimension indicated by their stupid fingers. Whilst the coprocreep laboriously, albeit abortively, struggles to negate the validity of the valid Ta'weel of the Mutashaabihaat resorted to by the Ahlus Sunnah, he flounders miserably, incompetently and aimlessly in his stupid interpretation of Imaam Tahaawi's categorical negation and refutation of jihaat (directions) for Allah Azza Wa Jal. Without the need for interpretation, the literal meaning, viz., negation of physical directions and dimension, is exactly what Imaam Tahaawi conveys. He refutes the Salafi concept without any ambiguity. The negation of physical direction and dimension for THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 31 - Allah Ta'ala in no way whatsoever amounts to a negation of Allah's Grandeur, Sublimity and Highness. Tajseemis (anthropomorphists) and Salafis following in their footsteps are the only characters who curtail the All-Encompassing attribute of Allah Azza Wa Jal. The ‘incomplete encompassment' of which the coprocreep speaks is actually the logical conclusion of the corrupt Salafi belief of fixing the Divine Location at some fixed physical point on the physical Throne where their fingers point to. The decollated ‘encompassment' of the Salafi creed is not the same as the All-Encompassing Divine Attribute. Although the coprocreep illogically in relation to his defective aqeedah, maintains that "the encompassment of Allah is not like the incomplete encompassment of a created being", this is precisely what stems from the corruptive belief of the coprocreep, for when it is proclaimed that Allah Ta'ala is there sitting on the physical Throne created by Him, the conclusion stemming therefrom is that the Throne has greater encompassment than even its Creator - Nauthubillaah! Stating a self-evident reality, the coprocreep avers: "..and Muheet also means by implication that Allah has knowledge and power over the Muhaat, and the Muhaat has no power over the Muheet." This character's jahaalat is indeed bizarre. Firstly, why does this opponent of Ta'weel resort to interpretation at every step in his argumentation? Secondly, what the coprocreep has averred here is not a derivation by implication of Imaam Tahaawi's statement. It is the literal meaning and the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. The belief of the ‘Muheetness' of Allah Azza Wa Jal being All- Encompassing is conspicuous - clearer than daylight. Any restriction attributed to Allah Azza Wa Jal denies the very attribute of Him being Muheet. It is thus superfluous and redundant in this argument to even say that Allah Ta'ala is Muheet over the muhaat. There is absolutely no need for this self-evident reality. The coprocreep has achieved absolutely no capital for his incongruous theories. IMAAM TAHAAWI Then, the coprocreep makes the following absurd and laughable comment: "Basically, their aims to target Tahawiyyah to be one of their own Aqeedah sources are pathetic. Imam Tahawi has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he is the Imam of the Hanaabilah, not the Ash'aris and Maturidis." Firstly, what the Salafis are propagating is not the belief of the Hanaabilah. It is the belief of some deviates who were of the Hambali Math-hab. Imaam Tahaawi is among the senior Fuqaha of the Hanafi Math-hab. Despite the vastness of his Knowledge and his insight, he was a Muqallid of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh). Whatever he narrated and expounded in Aqeedah was exactly the expositions of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh). The coprocreep's vain and stupid attempt to highjack Imaam Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh) to portray him as a hostage of Salafi'ism is preposterous and laughable. Anyone who has some insight in this matter will simply dismiss the coprocreep's absurd and stupid attempt of claiming Imaam Tahaawi as being a supporter of the defective, kufr beliefs propounded by the Salafis. The greatness and brightness of this noble Star of the Hanafi Math-hab are too illuminating for the coprocreep. He just could not resist the attempt to try an abortive hijacking. The coprocreep Salafis of this age and the deviates of former ages masquerading as Hanaabilah have no Ulama of the Ahlus Sunnah to support their creeds of kufr, hence the coprocreep insanely attempts to enlist Imaam Tahaawi Al-Hanafi for support. The coprocreep has failed to produce even a Scholar from the Hanaabilah to support his tajseemi cause. Whilst the coprocreep mentions that Imaam Tahaawi being a ‘Salafi' is proven, he has miserably failed to present even a semblance of evidence to bolster his legless claim. The Aqeedah expounded by Imaam Tahaawi is the Aqeedah expounded by Imaam Abu Hanifah and this is the precise Aqeedah of the Ulama of Deoband. The coprocreep in his many pages of rambling has not been able to pinpoint any conflict whatsoever between the beliefs of the Ulama of Deoband and the beliefs of Imaam Tahaawi. On the contrary, he has painfully laboured to interpret Imaam Tahaawi's statements in an abortive bid to extravasate some support, but he has miserably failed in the attempt. Aqeedatut Tahawi, is a Hanafi kitaab, and it has all along for centuries been taught as a primary Hanafi kitaab of Aqeedah. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 32 - Ranting and raving are not proofs for one's contentions. The coprocreep has presented only a mendacious diatribe to revile the Ulama of Deoband. However, he has miserably failed to present proof to show any error in the Aqeedah of our Ulama. To say that Imaam Tahaawi was among the Hanaabilah is ludicrous in the extreme. It only confirms the jahl-e-muraqqab of the coprocreep. And, furthermore, such a claim is not an intelligent refutation of the arguments of the Ulama of Deoband. HADHRAT MAULANA ASHRAF ALI THANVI Then, from one donkey the coprocreep jumps on to another ass. He first assails the entire Jamaat known as Ulama-e-Deoband. Then he descends lower into the gutter to scrape the very bottom by selecting Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) on whom to disgorge his stupid vituperation. The coprocreep disgorges his criticism on Hadhrat Thanvi's kitaab, A'maal-e-Qur'aani which has no relationship with Aqeedah, which is the subject matter under dispute and discussion. This Kitaab of Hadhrat Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) deals with Qur'aanic prescriptions for a variety of spiritual and mundane problems. Certain aayats could be recited and written and worn on one's person for cures and solutions to problems. The entire rambling of the coprocreep regarding the kitaab, A'maal-e-Qur'aani is bereft of intelligence and devoid of Shar'i substance. There is no resemblance and no link between this kitaab and the subject of Aqeedah which is the purported thrust of the coprocreep's rambling. Presenting his condemnation of Hadhrat Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh), the coprocreep alleges: "The scan (i.e. the page which he has reproduced from the kitaab) suggests that if one wants to break up a relationship between two people, he should carry out the aforementioned prescription. Although Maulana Thanawi says that it should not be done out of injustice, the point is that with such things in the public domain, it is very possible that some laymen (book is in Urdu, probably English too) will use this out of injustice." Then the coprocreep queries why do the Ulama of Deoband not ban the book to prevent abuse of the prescriptions by laymen. Firstly, this issue has no relationship with Aqeedah. Secondly, if it be assumed that it is unwise or erroneous to circulate this kitaab in the public domain, it should be noted that it is not the Ulama of Deoband as a Jamaat who have printed and published the kitaab. Thirdly, just who does the coprocreep think he is? Maulana Thanvi and the publishers of the book are not his muqallideen. They are under no obligations to submit to his stupid opinion. Fourthly, if in the coprocreep's opinion it is improper to distribute the book, there is no incumbency for others to submit to his opinion. Fifthly, the methodology which may be erroneous to the coprocreep is rectitude to others. Sixthly, the most which an adversary of Hadhrat Thanvi can venture is to contend that the kitaab should not be distributed in the public domain, which is a proposition which we do not accept. The view of the coprocreep was not delivered to him via the agency of Wahi. It is absurd to impose one's personal opinion on others, least of all on such a great man of Knowledge as Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh). Seventhly, all things have advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage as stated by the coprocreep is negligible. There is disadvantage - and great disadvantage and evil in the computer and the cell phone. So it is only logical that the coprocreep should call for a ban of the computer and the cell phone to the public. There are advantages and disadvantages in knives, guns and in the innumerable other bounties which Allah Ta'ala has provided for man's sojourn on earth. So call for a ban of all these things. Why direct the stupid call at only Hadhrat Thanvi's kitaab which provides pure Qur'aanic prescriptions for many problems, spiritual and mundane? Eighthly, there is a need to provide authentic Qur'aanic prescriptions to save the masses from becoming ensnared in the meshes of quacks, cranks and frauds who abound in the community. With their potions of kufr they mislead numerous Muslims. Their objective is to fleece ignorant and simple people who in desperation turn to just any fraud who presents an outward appearance of a qualified aamil. Ninthly, it is stupid to introduce A'maal-e-Qur'aani in the context of a discussion on Aqeedah. Nothing in Hadhrat Thanvi's kitaab is in conflict with Aqeedah. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 33 - Flaunting his copro-ignorance, the buffoon utters the following notoriety: "I had a discussion with a Deo Mullah (i.e. a Deobandi Aalim) specialising in amulets in Bradford about this issue of Thanawi's popular Behishti Zewer. I confronted him with the Kufr propagated in the book, like attaching verses to the thigh of the pregnant lady in labour." The coprocreep is not the first to proclaim Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) as ‘kaafir'. Whilst the Qabar Pujaaris (Grave Worshippers) label Hadhrat a ‘kaafir' for his strident criticism of their grave-worshipping stunts and other bid'ah activities, Salafis of the coprocreep ilk clutch at the straw of this one single Ta'weez prescription mentioned in A'maal-e-Qur'aani. Besides the coprocreep's ‘fatwa of kufr' being hilariously stupid, it displays his appalling ignorance of the Shariah. Before proclaiming Hadhrat Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) a ‘kaafir' on the stupid basis of the misconception of the Ta'weez around the thigh being an act of kufr, the coprocreep was supposed to have checked the kutub of the Shariah to ascertain what his primary Imaam, viz. Ibn Taimiyyah, and his secondary Imaam, viz, Hadhrat Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh), and the many other authorities of the Shariah have to say on the type of Ta'weez which constitutes the basis for the coprocreep's ‘fatwa' of jahaalat - his ‘fatwa of kufr' against Hakimul Ummat Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh). Let us first, with Ibn Taimiyyah's fatwa, dispel the copro-haze which shrouds the brains of the coprocreep. In his Majmu' Fataawa, Vol. 19, page 63, Ibn Taimiyyah states: "It is permissible to write from Kitaabullah (the Qur'aan Majeed) and His Thikr with permissible ink something for the benefit of one stricken (with a problem) and for sick persons, and to wash (what has been written from the Qur'aan) and to give it to them (the stricken and the sick) to drink as Imaam Ahmad and others have explicitly said. Abdullah, the son of (Imaam) Ahmad said: ‘I recited to my father (Imaam Ahmad) ---the chain of the Hadith - that Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) said: ‘When birth pangs become difficult for a woman, then write (The relevant Qur'aanic verses)…………………………………….. My father (Imaam Ahmad) said: ‘Aswad Bin Aamir narrated with his Chain of Narration similarly, and he said: ‘It should be written in a clean basin and given to drink.' My father (Imaam Ahmad) said: Waqee' added: ‘It should be given to her to drink and (the balance of the water) should be sprinkled (on the area) below her navel.' Abdullah (Imaam Ahmad's son) said: ‘I saw my father write (these Qur'aanic verses and the other athkaar) on a clean basin for a woman (in labour)." Whilst Hadhrat Maulana Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) prescribed a Ta'weez sewn securely in a cloth to be tied around the thigh of the lady suffering birth pangs, the Sahaabah, Taabi-een, Tab-e-Taabieen, Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal, Ibn Taimiyyah and all the Fuqaha and Auliya of Islam prescribed water on which Qur'aanic verses are recited to be sprinkled on the genital organ of the woman. Now whose ‘kufr' is greater? The ‘kufr' of Hadhrat Thaanvi or the ‘kufr' of the galaxy of illustrious personalities mentioned above? What is ‘worse' - the thigh or the genital organ? Whilst Hadhrat Thanvi's Ta'weez containing the mubaarak Qur'aanic verse is applied to only the thigh, the water on which the mubaarak verses are recited are applied to both the thigh and the genital organ in terms of the prescription of the illustrious personalities mentioned above. In the kitaab, Amalul Yaum wal-Lailah, page 188 appears the following narration: "Ibn Abbaas narrated from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): ‘When labour becomes difficult for a woman, then the verses… (of the Qur'aan)…………………………………. Should be written on a clean basin. Then it should be washed and given to the woman to drink, and it (the water) should be sprinkled on her stomach and her genital organ (farj)." Will the jaahil coprocreep Salafi now slap his fatwa of ‘kufr' on to even Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) and to even Rasulullah (salallahu alayhi wasallam)? There is the need for the coproceep to proclaim all of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen ‘kaafir' before even the slightest attention could be afforded to his branding of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh). His argument is bereft of even an iota of Shar'i substance. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 34 - Hadhrat Thanvi's Beheshti Zewer is indispensable for laymen. It is the ‘Scholar' which resides or should reside in the home of every follower of the Hanafi Math-hab. A'maal-e-Qur'aani is an extremely beneficial kitaab. Every prescription in this kitaab is fully in accord with the Shariah regardless of how much the coprocreep and the deviant Salafis howl and disgorge their epithets of kufr. THE DARS-E-NIZAAMI SYLLABUS OF DEOBAND In his diatribe the coprocreep presents a lengthy, but futile criticism of the Dars-e-Nizaami syllabus of the Daarul Ulooms affiliated to Daarul Uloom Deoband. All arguments he has proffered against this wonderful Dars-e-Nizaami syllabus are spurious. We have written a book in defence of the Dars-e- Nizaami. It will therefore be redundant to duplicate the effort here. Whoever is interested to understand what Dars-e-Nizaami is, may write for the book. Here we shall content ourselves by responding to some stupid and insipid titbits which the coprocreep has disgorged in his baseless criticism of Dars-e-Nizaami. Referring to some text books in the Dars-e-Nizaami syllabus, the coprocreep states: "But these books are not completed…." Yes, some of the kutub are not completed during the course of study. The reason for this is that the objective is not to complete a kitaab from cover to cover. The primary objective of Dars-e-Nizaami is to cultivate Isti'daad (Ability) in the students. The objective is not to achieve wus'ah in mutaala-ah (vastness in research). This objective is for the Molvi to pursue if he is inclined to an academic career after he has passed out from the Portals of the Daarul Uloom. The brief presence of a few years at a Daarul Uloom is to cultivate Isti'daad. Once the Ability has been inculcated, reading and understanding any kitaab, not only Madrasah text books, become a simple issue. As for gaining vastness in Knowledge, it is imperative for the Molvi to devote considerable and constant time to the kutub after he has passed out from the Daarul Uloom. The Daarul Uloom does not produce walking encyclopedias. It is the abode for the cultivation of solid Isti'daad which is imperative for success in life-long research. With the Isti'daad acquired at the Madrasah, provided the student is a true Taalib of Ilm, the Molvi is well-equipped to confront, tackle and resolve any developing contingency. The success of the Dars-e-Nizaami course of study is not to be measured by the masses of Molvis produced by the Daarul Ulooms. The criterion of success of the wonderful Dars-e-Nizaami system of Ta'leem is our Akaabir Ulama who stand out conspicuously like glittering stars in the firmament of Ilm and Taqwa. In every field of education, be it spiritual or secular, success cannot be scaled on the masses of products. The coprocreep states: "As a side-point, Hanafi Usool texts are mostly riddled with Maturidi theology, esp. in the first halves of the books mentioned, As nothing is done to counter them when lecturing, we can safely assume that Deobandi brothers are Maturidis." It appears that this coprocreep is the victim of some substance of mental abuse, hence he imagines and hallucinates stupidities. Why should it be assumed and concluded that the Ulama of Deoband are Maturidis when we vociferously and vigorously proclaim from the rooftops that we are Maturidis? The Ulama of Deoband are not concealing this fact. They are proudly advertising their Maturidi heritage. (3) Those living in glass houses should not throw stones. Whilst the coprocreep has criticized the Deoband system of teaching in which all the kutub are not covered from cover to cover, he conveniently or stupidly forgot that the Salafi, anti-Taqleed institutions for which he has praise, cover far less than the Darul Uloom syllabus. Their academic parameters are comparatively speaking extremely restricted. During his criticism of our Daarul Uloom system, he suddenly recalled this restrictiveness and paucity of the modernist, anti-Taqleed, Salafi institutions. Thus, coming out sheepishly in defence, he disgorges exactly what we have explained above regarding the objective of Dars-e-Nizaami. Defending the skeletal academic achievement of the modernist syllabus of the La Math-habi institutions, the coprocreep avers in response to the question: "What selected Hadith do they teach you? We cover everything!" "But little do they know what approach the contemporary Hanaabilah (this is a baseless coprocreep claim. It is not Hanaabilah. It is anti-Math-hab -freelancing nafsaaniyat) have in this regard. Hadith is THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 35 - a vast ocean and cannot be unlocked over four years, six years, eight years or even a decade of study; it is in fact all about preparing students for them to be able to conduct their own research." Just a page ago he was criticizing Deoband for not completing kitaabs. Now when it dawned on him that the anti-Math-hab institutions perpetrate this act to a greater degree and teach Hadith selectively, he abortively attempts to justify the paucity of Hadith ta'leem at the modernist institutions on which he lauds accolades. In fact, the anti-Math-hab institutions operate only crash courses in Hadith, and in Fiqh they are lamentably bankrupt. Regarding the Hadith structure of Deoband, the coprocreep says: "It (i.e. the Hadith structure or the system of teaching Hadith) is rooted in Taqlid with an invisible barrier between Hadith as understood by the later Hanafis………i.e. as understood and dealt with by the Mutaqaddimeen…." Undoubtedly, we are staunch Muqallideen of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh). We brook no departure from the Math-hab. But it is slanderous to infer from the rigidity of our Taqleed that the other Math-habs are despised or believed to be baatil. The possibility of our Imaam having erred and sawaab (rectitude) being with the other Math-hab, is a principle of the Ulama of Deoband. But, freelancing is not permitted because the Deen is not the playground of anyone. The Shariah was completed and perfected during the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Sunnah has reached us from the Salaf-e-Saaliheen via different channels of Asaatizah. It is absolutely contumacious to submit for scrutiny any mas'alah which any of the Four Math-habs teach, with the objective of effecting change to it. Such contumacy is in actual fact interference in the finality and perfection of the Deen. Masaa-il which were finalized and perfected during the Khairul Quroon may not be put up for auction. The Deen is not for experimenting. It is for implementation of every aspect which has been finalized and perfected during the age of Nubuwwat. Therefore, let the coprocreep endeavour to cleanse his vermiculated brain from the copro-substances which have deranged his intellectual equilibrium so that he understands well that the emphasis of our Daarul Ulooms is proudly rigid Taqleed, and that too, of the Hanafi Math-hab without detracting from the truth of the other Math-habs. The purpose is not to gain followers for the Hanafi Math-hab. The objective is to ensure the safety of the Deen in its original purity, hence we advocate vigorously that followers of Math-habs should staunchly adhere to their respective Math-habs. The battering which the dalaa-il of the other Math-habs is subjected to at our Daarul Ulooms is imperative for the academic assault to defend the veracity and truth of the Math-hab - to show that the Math-hab is not the figment of hallucination. But the robust manner in which the adversary's dalaa-il are neutralized does not create disrespect for the Muhadditheen and Fuqaha of the other Math-habs. In order to obviate any disrespect, our Ulama, prior to embarking on teaching Bukhaari Shareef, labour for days to implant in the minds of the students the invincibility of Imaam Bukhaari (rahmatullah alayh) in the field of Hadith. The utmost respect for the non-Hanafi Muhadditheen gets embedded into the hearts of the Hanafi students to enable them to maintain the high respect and love for the Muhadditheen and Fuqaha of the other Math-habs when the process of neutralizing dalaa-il and substantiating the Hanafi Math-hab begins. There is no better and no superior system of Deeni Ta'leem than the Dars-e-Nizaami syllabus. Write for our book, Fars-e-Nizaami, which explains this wonderful syllabus. LAMBASTING THE HANAABILAH? The coprocreep accuses the Ulama of Deoband of "lambasting the Hanaabilah". This accusation is slanderous. Our Ulama and every product of Deoband have the utmost respect and love for Hadhrat Imaaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh). We believe and teach that his Math-hab is the Haqq just as we believe with regard to the other Math-habs. Criticizing and neutralizing dalaa-il is not ‘lambasting the Hanaabilah'. Yes, we do lambast La Math-habis who masquerade as Hanaabilah. Whilst they are anti-Math-hab, they seek haraam cover in the folds of the Hambali Math-hab, then falsely dub themselves ‘Hanaabilah'. The practice of some followers of the Hambali Math-hab of attributing their corrupt beliefs and theories to Imaam Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh), and parading as Hanaabilah, is an old fraud which the THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 36 - likes of the coprocreep has inherited. Centuries ago, Abul Farj Ibnul Jauzi Hambali lamented this fraud in his treatise, Daf'u Shubit Tashbeeh: "I have seen from our Ashaab (Hanaabilah) those who professed incorrect views in Usool Three such persons, Abu Abdullah Bin Haamid, his companion Al-Qaadhi and Ibnuz Zaaghooni wrote such books which disgraced the Math-hab (of Imaam Ahmad). I saw them degenerate to the level of the masses. Thus, they gave the Sifaat (Attributes of Allah Azza Wa Jal) a literal interpretation. They heard (the narration) that Allah Ta'ala created Aadam in His form. Then they affirmed for Him a (literal) form and face over and above His Zaat, and two (physical) eyes, mouth, teeth, jaws, two hands, fingers, palm, breast, two forlegs and feet…… They applied the literal meanings to the words and described it (such literal meanings) Sifaat (Attributes). This is an innovation for which they have no evidence, neither narrational nor intellectual. They ignored the Nusoos which divert from the literal meanings……….Despite this, they claimed: ‘We are the Ahlus Sunnah', whilst their talk is explicitly Tashbeeh….. I said to them: ‘O our companions! Your great Imaam is Ahmad Bin Hambal….Therefore beware of innovating in his Math-hab what is not of it…………He who says that Allah made istiwa (on the Arsh) with His Zaat, verily he has likened Him to physical entities………If you had said: ‘We have recited the Ahaadith and we maintain silence.', then no one would have criticized you. But, your literal interpretation is vile. Therefore, do not enter into the Math-hab of this pious Man of the Salaf (Imaam Ahmad) what is not of it. Verily, you have cloaked this Math-hab with something exceptionally evil so much so that (you ) cannot be called Hambali, but Mujassimi…….” In his kitaab, Ibn Jauzi thoroughly demolishes the frauds who operate as ‘Hanaabilah'. They have nothing in common with Imaam Ahmad's Math-hab in the matter of Aqeedah. They assign anthropomorphic attributes to Allah Azza Wa Jal, then blatantly proclaim themselves to be Hanaabilah. NON-RECOGNITION? In this puerile criticism he laments the ‘non-recognition' by the Ahlus Sunnah represented by Imaam Maturidi of the deviant concepts of Aqeedah of so-called ‘Hanaabilah'. In response it will suffice to say that the Ahnaaf led by the illustrious Imaam Maturidi refuted the deviant innovators who were masquerading as Hanaabilah, and whom even the leading Hambali authority, Ibnul Jauzi lambasted. ILMUL KALAAM Ilmul Kalaam which the coprocreep vilifies, is a valid branch of Islamic Knowledge. It was initiated by noble Ulama to combat the baatil sects whose religion was Greek philosophy. Ilmul Kalaam did not introduce anything new into the Deen. It is merely a methodology of fighting the kufr of the deviated sects. Nothing in Imul Kalaam violates the Shariah. But the density of the coprocreep's brains cannot comprehend the wonderful service to the Deen rendered by the illustrious Ulama who had adopted the Ilmul Kalaam methodology of combating baatil and kufr. The coprocreep accuses Ilmul Kalaam of advocating "anti-Salaf theology". Far from this baseless accusation, Ilmul Kalaam on the contrary affirmed the Haqq propagated by the Salaf of the Khairul Quroon epoch. Besides ranting and raving epithets and calumny against the noble Ulama of Ilmul Kalaam and against the Ulama of Deoband in particular, the coprocreep is scandalously bankrupt of Shar'i arguments to bolster his copro-views. The incisive manner in which Ilmul Kalaam refutes all baatil theories and concepts pertaining to the Zaat and Sifaat of Allah Azza Wa Jal, spawned by deviates, including the frauds masquerading as ‘Hanaabilah', has bred in the hearts of the coprocreep deviates an inveterate hatred for the Ulama-e- Haqq who employ this science (Ilmul Kalaam). Scholars who have condemned Ilmul Kalaam were not the repositories of Wahi. Whilst a few may have criticized Ilmul Kalaam, there are the thousands of other Ulama who have upheld the utility and incumbency of this methodolgy to combat the kufr of the baatil concepts. The condemnation by a few scholars is not the Writ of Islam. It is their personal opinion which may not be hoisted on others who employ this effective methodology of combating baatil. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 37 - In fact, so awed was Ibn Taimiyyah by the methodology of the philosophers and the Ulama of Kalaam, that he found it irresistible. Despite his overt criticism of Ilmul Kalaam, he adopted its principles and methodology for fabricating his kufr theory of the eternity of the universe to the eternal regret and lament of even his muqallid, Al-Albaani. HADHRAT QAARI MUHAMMAD TAYYIB The coprocreep devotes several pages of his rubbish article to criticize a treatise written by Hadhrat Qari Muhammad Tayyib (rahmatullah alayh), who was the Principal of Daarul Uloom Deoband for several decades. The coprocreep attempts to refute Qaari Tayyib's exposition on the meaning of Ulama Deoband - Who they are. There is no real need to embark on a wasteful refutation of the drivel disgorged by the coprocreep in this regard. It suffices to say that no one is prepared to accept the coprocreep's understanding and on such stupid basis debunk the exposition of Qaari Tayyib (rahmatullah alayh) who was an outstanding authority on the subject he discussed in his treatise. The stupidity of the non-entity coprocreep is summarily dismissed with ridicule and contempt it deserves. The Ulama of Deoband are precisely those described by Hadhrat Qaari Tayyib (rahmatullah alayh), and the beliefs of these Ulama, which are the beliefs of the Sahaabah and the Ahlus Sunnah - are adequately explained in the kitaab Al-Muhannad authored by Hadhrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri (rahmatullah alayh). There is absolutely no ambiguous dimension in the identity of the Ulama of Deoband. Furthermore, the extravagance of the coprocreep's criticism of Hadhrat Qari Tayyib's treatise is entirely irrelevant to the subject of Aqeedah which he (the coprocreep) had initiated in his stupid diatribe against the Ulama of Deoband. He merely rambles incongruities. He attempts to create the idea that the Ulama of Deoband constitute a sect apart from the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. Anyone with brains who is aware of the Ta'leemaat of the Ulama of Deoband will dismiss the coprocreep's baseless claims. The manner in which he describes Imaam Maturidi, then linking the Ulama of Deoband to this illustrious Imaam, is aimed at presenting the idea that there is a sect called ‘Maturidism', and to which sect belong the Ulama of Deoband. Firstly, the Ulama of Deoband, far from concealing their allegience to Imaam Maturidi, proclaim it vociferously from the rooftops. Secondly, Imaam Maturidi was not the founder of a new sect. He expounded the Aqaaid of Islam stated by Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), which are presented in concise form by Imaam Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh) in the treatise, Aqeedatut Tahaawi. If anyone desires to label the Ulama of Deoband as Maturidis, such appellation is acknowledged with pride. In fact, the Ulama of Deoband designate themselves as followers of Imaam Maturudi. YES, WE ARE MATURIDIS! WE DO TEACH SHARH AQAAID! The coprocreep states: "So if we say you are Maturidi, they would reply we no longer teach Sharh Aqaaid. We say why you have Deo Aqeedah, they say Deo is not an Aqeedah group. We ask why do Deos support al-Muhannad, they reply that al-Muhannad does not contain all Deo beliefs." This is pure coprocreep fabrication and hallucination. Sharh Aqaaid is an integral constituent of the syllabus of Deobandi Madaaris. This kitaab is lauded and taught at our Madaaris. If in some Madaaris it has been discontinued, it will not be because of any belief of the kitaab propounding baatil. Different Madaaris chalk out their own syllabus to suit their peculiar circumstances. Deleting and adding text books are within the confines of the spirit and parameters of Dars-e-Nizaami which is proudly upheld as the best syllabus for imparting the Knowledge of the Deen. No institution has hitherto produced a syllabus to match Dars-e-Nizaami. We say unequivocally that the Ulama of Deoband are Maturidis; that the Deoband Madaaris teach Sharh Aqaaid, and that Al-Muhannad constitutes the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah – the Aqeedah which is the Creed of the Ulama of Deoband. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 38 - THE COPROCREEP’S SLANDERS The ignorance of the coprocreep is stark and scandalous. Like shaitaan who has undertaken the liability of opposing Allah Ta'ala, this Salafi coprocreep, miserably lacking in the understanding of the beliefs, practices and methodology of the Ulama, shamelessly accuses and slanders them of:  believing like the Mu'tazilis that the Kalaam of Allah Azza Wa Jal is a creation  Allah cannot be seen in Jannat  the Attributes of Allah are subject to human intelligence. If intelligence cannot comprehend an Attribute, it is non- existent.  Intelligence is superior to Wahi  Divine Sifaat (Attributes) are negated with intelligence  denying Allah's Attribute of Rahmah (Mercy)  denying Allah's Attribute of Kalaam (Speech)  denying that the Huroof (Letters) of the Qur'aan are from Allah Ta’ala  denying Allah's Attributes of Seeing and Hearing. This miserable specimen of human garbage may just as well have added to his list of slanders that the Ulama of Deoband believe in the Christian doctrines of trinity, atonement, the death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam), etc., and that they also believe in the million idols of the Hindus, and the idols of the pre-Islam Mushrikeen of Arabia, etc., etc. He may just as well have added all the kufr and shirk of every kaafir on earth and attribute it to the Ulama of Deoband. The aforementioned list of slanders should suffice to show that the coprocreep is mentally deranged. What logical response can be offered to a buffoon who accuses the Ulama of Deoband of believing in trinity, for example? We shall simply bypass the copro-rubbish disgorged by a maniac who fittingly comes within the scope of the Qur'aanic aayat: "Ignore them, for verily they are FILTH (RIJS).” - At- Taubah, aayat 95. And, his brains are deranged because Allah Ta'ala has cast ‘rijs' (filth) into his skull. "And, Allah casts rijs (filth) on (the brains of) those who lack Aql." - Yunoos, aayat 100. WAHI IS OUR CRITERION The coprocreep undertook the satanic liability of refuting a treatise of Hadhrat Maulana Qari Tayyib (rahmatullah alayh). When he fails to even understand what he has read, what academic worth can be attached to the drivel he disgorges. Consider the following statement which he quotes from Hadhrat Qari Tayyib's treatise: "They do not scrutinise Wahy on the measure of Aql, but in fact they would consider authentic Wahi to be a measure to distinguish between a sane Aql and a spiritually-sick Aql." The coprocreep cites this statement of Hadhrat Qari Tayib (rahmatullah alayh) in support of the following rubbish: "Classical Maturidism, which the Deos are the heirs to, has constantly denied Aqeedah established in Shariah via Aql. This is what QT (i.e. Hadhrat Maulana Qari Muhammad Tayyib -rahmatullah alayh) does not touch upon. He says that Deos (i.e. the Honourable Ulama and Mashaaikh of Deoband) do not establish anything via Aql. But he failed to say that Deos and their Maturidi elders deny anything and everything via Aql." Hadhrat Qari Tayyib, in the aforementioned quote, states with clarity the position of the Ulama of Deoband regarding the limits of the operation of Aql. There is no ambiguity in the stance of the Ulama of Deoband and Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh). According to them Aql is subservient to Wahi. Thus, Hadhrat Qari Tayyib (rahmatullah alayh) emphatically maintained that the Ulama of Deoband "do not scrutinize Wahi on the scale of Aql." The other way around is described by Hadhrat Qari Tayyib (rahmatullah alayh) as the effect of a "spiritually sick aql", which is a brain polluted with the rijs created by Allah Ta'ala - the rijs with which the brains of the coprocreep are afflicted. Throughout his diatribe of stupidity, the coprocreep resorts to similar incongruities to criticize and slander the Ulama of Deoband. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 39 - LAMBASTING NAQL? Another example of his jahaalat is his contention: "Maturidism has constantly lambasted Naql for being anthropomorphic and against Aql." No one in his sane mind will accept this absolutely baseless and false disgorgement. The stance of Imaam Maturidi and of the entire Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah is the superiority of Authentic Naql (Narration) which consists of the Qur'aan and Ahaadith Mutawaatarah/Mash-hoorah. Aql has no scope for operation in conflict with Authentic Naql. This should suffice to dismiss the garbage vomited by the coprocreep. THE MUTASHAABIHAAT – WE BELIEVE IN THEM ALL! Compounding his incongruities on the basis of his jahl muraqqab (compound ignorance), the coprocreep avers: "Maturidism considers the apparent meaning of the verses of sifaat to be tashbeeh and therefore kufr, meaning Allah sent down kufr." His logic is absolutely ludicrous and insane. He has proffered this absurd interpretation in a vain bid to sustain the anthropomorphism which is an incumbent corollary and a logical conclusion of the belief of the deviant Salafis. Imaam Maturidi and the Ahlus Sunnah at no stage ever denied the Mutashaabihaat verses of the Qur'aan. The simple and straightforward belief of the Ulama-e-Haqq in this regard is exactly what the Qur'aan states in the following aayat: "It is He (Allah) Who has revealed to you (O Muhammad!) the Kitaab. From it are the Muhkamaat Aayaat which constitute Ummul Kitaab, and the other (verses) are the Mutashaabihaat (Allegorical). Those (such as the coprocreep salafis and other deviates) in whose hearts there is a disease (the disease of kufr), follow the allegorical verses of the Kitaab searching for fitnah and seeking its meaning. And none knows their meaning besides Allah. (On the contrary) Those who are grounded in Ilm (such as Imaam Maturidi, Imaam Ash'ari and the Ulama of Deoband) say: ‘We believe in them (i.e. in the Mutashaabihaat). Everything (of it) is from our Rabb. And only the people of intelligence derive lesson." (Aal-e-Imraan, aayat 7) This then is the belief of Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh) and the Ulama of Deoband. In diametric conflict with the command of this aayat, the deviated Salafis resort to ta'weel of the Mutashaabihaat verses. Instead of leaving the meaning to Allah Ta'ala as commanded in the aayat, the deviates giving these verses a literal meaning, affirm anthropomorphic attributes for Allah Azza Wa Jal. The degree of their insistence on an interpretation which inevitably creates the concept of anthropomorphic attributes for Allah Azza Wa Jal, culminates in kufr. It equates Allah Azza Wa Jal with creation. It confines Him to space. It devastatingly detracts from His Uluw' (Grandeur and Sublimity). It envisages for Him a physical face, physical hands, physical eyes, physical ears, and physical everything. It reduces the Almighty, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, All-Knowing, All-Seeing, All Powerful Allah Wa Jal to the level of a created being. This is the sum total of the belief spawned by the anthropomorphic belief which the miserable coprocreep has abortively attempted to defend in his treatise of garbage disgorged against the Ulama of Deoband. Taimiyyites are hardcore Hashawis in disguise. May Allah Ta'ala save us all from the evil of the nafs, the snares and deceptions of shaitaan, and the kufr which shaitaan adorns with ‘deeni' hues with which he succeeds to beguile and destroy juhala such as coprocreep Salafis. DISGORGEMENT OF COPRO-CRITITICISM In the last few pages of the trash he has written, the coprocreep has degenerated to pure ranting and raving. His ranting and raving are devoid of even a semblance of rationality. There is nothing to respond to in these stupid pages of drivel he has ranted. He only accuses and slanders the Ulama of Deoband of criticizing and degrading the Hanaabilah. Every honest person who is aware of the Ta'leemaat of the Ulama of Deoband will know of the highest respect accorded to Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh) and his Math-hab. However, the coprocreep equates criticism for frauds and deceits masquerading as ‘Hanaabilah' to be an attack on Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh). In his miserable diatribe against the Ulama of Deoband, the coprocreep has miserably failed to provide any evidence for his slander of kufr hurled at these Ulama who in this age constitute the THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 40 - strongest bastion of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. It is only from this Fountain of Ilm that the true beliefs and practices of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen have been taught and defended against the heretics and the corrupt coprocreep Salafis of this era who by deceit seek to be recognized as being part of the Salaf- e-Saaliheen of the Khairul Quroon epoch. Their abandonment of Taqleed has led them into shaitaan's den where they are mired in baatil, unable to extricate themselves from the self-deception in which they are wallowing. Their math-hab revolves around the issue of istiwa. They perennially labour abortively to prove just this one doctrine which is the primary pivot of their imaan. The idea they struggle to impregnate into the minds of the ignorant and unwary is that Allah Ta'ala sits on His created Throne in a manner which leads to the belief that Allah Ta'ala and everything concerning Him are anthropomorphic attributes. A COPRO-PLOT In his concluding pages, he chalks out a plot for winning over Deobandi masses to the corrupt Salafi anthropomorphic creed. He proffers advice for ensnaring and convincing the unwary and ignorant that Salafi'ism is the true religion. Like the Barelwi Qabar Pujaaris, the coprocreep also targets the Ulama of Deoband accusing them of being exponents of kufr. And, like the Shiahs, the coprocreep advocates a methodology of entrapment akin to the Shiah doctrine of Taqiyah. Salafi coprocreeps slink within the folds of the Ahlus Sunnah and subtly undermine the Beliefs of the unwary and ignorant. It is therefore not permissible for laymen of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah (the followers of the Four Math-habs) to lend an ear to the khuraafaat (garbage and rubbish) which these Salafis disgorge. Followers of the Math-habs should not be deceived by the ‘Hanaabilah' badge which they display. They are liars in this respect. The baatil, anthropomorphic aqeedah they propagate has absolutely no relationship with Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh). TA'WEEL - THE SLIPPERY EEL Ta'weel or Interpretation is a slippery science which the coprocreep Salafis, including Ibn Taimiyyah, the Grand Imaam of Salafi'ism employ selectively whenever it suits their deviant minhaaj and math-hab. Regarding Ta'weel, the coprocreep in his diatribe of garbage, states: "The Ta'weel culture is the taaghut if Deoband…….I am not only talking about Ta'weel in the Attributes of Allah - I am talking about the hairsplitting Ta'weels in the Deen they perpetrate in EVERYTHING that is against them or is apparently against them." Whilst the Ulama of the Ahlus Sunnah (the Ulama of Deoband in this era) have inherited the science of Ta'weel from the Salaf-e-Saaliheen of whom they (the Ulama of Deoband) are Muqallideen, such Ta'weel is valid and securely within the parameters of the Shariah since it leads to no conflict with any principle, teaching or precept of the Deen. On the contrary, the ta'weel employed by Salafis, besides being selective and contradictory to their vociferous denunciation of all Ta'weel, is baatil interpretation, pure fabrication of the opinion which produces consequences violently in negation of even Islamic beliefs as expounded by the Salaf-e-Saaliheen. An example of their taaghuti ta'weel is the selective literal interpretation of the Qur'aanic averment, Istiwa alal Arsh (Istiwa on the Throne), i.e. Allah Ta'ala has made istiwa on the Throne. From a plethora of literal meanings, the Salafis baselessly selected the meaning of sitting, seat oneself firmly on. The term istiwa' literally also means to be just, equitable, to stand straight, to be upright, to reach manhood (the popular version is 40 years). In this meaning, a person's youth terminates; to straighten crookedness; to reach a person towards whom one is advancing. On the basis of ta'weel baatil (nafsaani opinion) do the Salafis select one of these literal meanings, viz., ‘to be seated firmly' to interpret istiwa alal arsh. Nowhere is it literally mentioned, either in the Qur'aan or in the Ahaadith that Alla Azza Wa Jal, ‘sits' on the Throne, or He is physically present on the Throne, or simply He is present on the Throne in a literal sense. It is by way of their concocted ta'weel that they have adopted the literal meaning of being seated on the Throne. Taimiyyah in his elaboration of istiwa alal arsh, meanders in a wierd labyrinth of incongruity which is narrationally and rationally absurd. Arguing the case for confining Allah Ta'ala to the Arsh, he erroneously and blatantly states: "And all of these statements mentioned by Allah Subhaanahu wa THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 41 - Ta'ala regarding Him being above (fauq) the Arsh and being together with us, is in its literal meaning which does not require interpolation." (Majmoo' Fataawa, Vol.3, page 142) It is significant to note at this juncture that Ibn Taimiyyah ascribes a literal (physical) meaning to Allah's ‘togetherness' with creation. In the Qur'aan Majeed Allah Ta'ala says: "And He is with you wherever you may be." This aayat has already been discussed several times in this treatise. Salafis, interpreting Allah's being together with us, say that He is with us with His Knowledge. They give the ‘togetherness' a figurative meaning by way of ta'weel. However, according to Ibn Taimiyyah , Allah Ta'ala is literally together with us wherever we may be. Thus, he concedes to Omniprence in the literal sense because he says, "being together with us is in the literal sense". Whilst generally Salafis negate the literal connotation for ‘togetherness', they affirm it for istiwa, interpreting it to mean that Allah Ta'ala sits on the Arsh. This is the anthropomorphism which they hallucinate for Allah Azza Wa Jal. Ibn Taimiyah, himself, is guilty of tahreef (interpolation) in the exposition he presents, for he says that Allah Ta'ala mentions that He is ‘fauqal arsh'. Nowhere is this mentioned, neither in the Qur'aan nor in the Ahaadith. The term used is istiwa. He has no valid basis for selecting the literal meaning which produces the effect of ‘fauq' (being above). A man who is ostensibly an enemy of Ta'weel is not supposed to throw stones, for he will soon find his own glass house being shattered. The stated belief of accepting the Mutashaabihaat verses as they are, without delving into the cesspool of interpretation, demands that the word istiwa be maintained in its Arabic form without ascribing any of the literal or figurative meanings to it. It suffices to say: "Then He made istiwa on the Arsh". What is ‘istiwa'? In the context of the Qur'aan, the coprocreep and the Salafis should respond: "We believe in it. Everything of it (of the allegorical verses) is from our Rabb. None knows its meaning besides Allah." They should further reinforce their position with Imaam Maalik's statement which they are fond to often quote. Despite presenting Imaam Maalik's statement as a daleel for their adversaries, they conveniently ignore it when they expound their own belief pertaining to istiwa on the Arsh. They venture into Ta'weel and fabricate a literal meaning which culminates in anthropomorphism. The response of the abnegators of Ta'weel should be the response of Ar-Raasikhoona fil Ilm. But to select one specific literal meaning from a list of meanings, then give it a specific interpretation such as ‘fauq' in this particular case, is brazen ta'weel which does not befit the deniers of Ta'weel. Diving deeper into the cesspool of ta'weel, Ibn Taimiyyah, in his endeavour to negate another meaning of istiwa', says: "Istiwa alal Arsh - if its meaning is taken as istilaa' over it (to overpower, to be in domination), then this (means) that He has power (and control) over entire creation, and that He had power (and control) over the Arsh even prior to creating it, whilst istiwa is specific with the Arsh after the creation of the heavens and the earth, as it is reported in His Kitaab. Thus, it indicates that at sometimes He is mustawee' over the Arsh, and at sometimes He was not mustawee' over the Arsh." (Majmoo' Fataawa of Shaikh Ibn Taimiyyah, Vol.5, page 122) At this juncture, the purpose of citing this explanation of Ibn Taimiyyah is not to discuss its rationality or irrationality or weirdness. The objective is merely to show how Ibn Taimiyah, a vociferous opponent of Ta'weel, delves into interpretation when it suits his theories. In order to refute the istilaa' meaning which others have adopted, Ibn Taimiyyah is constrained to resort to ta'weel and opinion. Just as Ibn Taimiyyah had adopted a specific meaning from a number of meanings, so too do others select specific meanings. Both groups present their dalaa-il for their own views. So, whether Ibn Taimiyya's argument above is valid or not, is not the issue here. The issue is that he was constrained to resort to Ta'weel to arrive at the meaning he ascribed to istiwa'. Furthermore, the Salafis are either ignorant of the tafseer which Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) presented of istiwa' alal arsh, or they have deliberately ignored it since it demolishes the entire structure of the Salafi aqeedah on this issue. Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) presenting the meaning of istiwa' alal arsh, says: "He resolved to create the Arsh. And, it is said: Istaqarra (He became established)." (Tanweerul Miqbaas min Tafseer Ibn Abbaas, page 54) Explaining the same aayat, which appears in Surah Ra'd, aayat 2, Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) says: "It is said: Istaqarra, and it is (also) said: Imtala-a (He filled) it (the Arsh). It is (also) said (that THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 42 - the meaning) is: ‘By Him, qareeb (being near) and ba-eed (being far away) is the same (i.e. istiwa-the same) in terms of the meaning of Knowledge (being aware) and Qudrah (Power)." (Tafseer ibn Abbaas, page 205) In the tafseer of aayat 5 of Surah Ra'd where the same aayat appears, Ibn Abbaas says: "It is said that it (istiwa alal arsh) is from the Mutashaabih, hence it should not be explained." (Tafseer Ibn Abbaas, page 260) Presenting another tafseer of istiwa alal arsh, Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) says: "He filled the Arsh with His Names and His Sifaat." (Tafseer Ibn Abbaas, page 304) Aayat 4 of Surah As-Sajdah states: "Allah is He Who has created the heavens and the earth and whatever is in between the two in six days, then he made istiwa' on the Arsh." Explaining the aayat. Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) says: "Allah was on the Arsh before He created the heavens and the earth, and He now is on that on which He was." The Ta'weel in the meanings proffered by Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) is manifest, and confirms the permissibility of valid Ta'weel. The Salafis find Ta'weel an indispensable tool in their attempt to bolster their beliefs. It matters not how vociferous they decry Ta'weel utilized by the Ahlus Sunnah led by Imaam Maturidi and Imaam Ash'ari (rahmatullah alayhima), they (the Salafis) have no alternative other than to submit to ta'weel to acquire succour for their aqeedah. Minus ta'weel, the only other daleel they have is crass, blind taqleed of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen whose Taqleed they despise and denounce in the issues of Fiqh. Insha'Allah, we shall soon appear on the scene of Taqleed to show their dubiousness and deceit in this sphere. The Qur'aan Majeed, while it categorically states Istiwa alal Arsh (Allah made istiwa' on the Arsh), which meaning is ambiguious due to the aayat being among the Mutashaabihaat, it (the Qur'aan) is explicit in declaring: a) "He is with you wherever you are." b) "East and West belong to Allah. Whichever way you turn your face, there is the Face of Allah." c) "We are closer to him (man) than his jugular vein." d) "It is He (Allah) Who is the Ilaah (Deity) in the heaven and the Ilaah in the earth." e) "There is no secret gathering of three persons, but He (Allah) is the Fourth One with them; nor of five persons, but He is the Sixth One of them; nor less than this not more, but He is with them wherever they are. Whilst Salafis affirm and confine the Divine Presence to a specific space above the seventh heaven on the Throne, they resort to ta'weel to negate the Divine Omniresence explicitly stated in these verses. In the fourth aayat above, it is explicitly mentioned that Allah is also in the earth. Yet, the Salafis whilst affirming the Divine Presence in the heaven, in diametric conflict with the Qur'aan deny the Divine Presence in the earth explicitly and emphatically affirmed in this aayat. And, they deny the Divine Presence in the east and the west whilst the Qur'aan categorically affirms Allah's Presence there and everywhere. How to they reconcile this conflict in their belief? They do so by means of ta'weel. Hence, Ibn Taimiyyah ) and the Salafis following him, interpret away the Divine Presence mentioned in these Qur'aanic verses by averring that “He is present with His knowledge and power." Lest sight of the objective is lost, we remind that we are not discussing the rationality or irrationality of the arguments on which the Salafis base their belief. The subject matter under discussion here is Ta'weel. Whether their beliefs oppose or coincide with the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah is not the contention here. The fact here is that they arrive at their conclusion and the ultimate destination of their opinion via the agency of Ta'weel. Neither the Qu'raan nor the Hadith makes explicit mention of the theory that the Divine Presence stated in many aayaat refers to "presence with knowledge and power (Ilm and Qudrat).” The deniers and denouncers of Ta'weel, bereft of dalaa-il, resort to interpretation and on the basis of ta'weel do they structure their theory of presence with Ilm and Qudrat, not with the Divine Zaat Whose Presence they restrict by way of ta'weel to the Arsh. Whilst the Ahlus Sunnah do not deny the Divine Presence on the Arsh, they affirm the Divine Presence just as the Qur'aan describes it. But the THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 43 - Salafis, resorting to ta'weel, split the Qur'aanic verses pertaining to Divine Presence into two classes: Presence of Zaat which they confine to only the Arsh, and Presence of Sifaat for which they affirm Omnipresence. But, we, the Ahlus Sunnah, affirm Omnipresence for Allah Azza Wa Jal just as is stated in the Qur'aan without utilizing opinion and ta'weel to divide the Divine Presence into categories. How is Allah Ta'ala present in the east, west, with everyone, in the heaven and in the earth? No one has the answer for this question. It is inexplicable. It transcends the created human mind whose reach is finite and extremely restricted. It is a total impossibility for a created entity to encompass the Uncreated, Eternal, Boundless Divine Being - Allah Azza Wa Jal. So, we say that Allah's Omnipresence is as He has stated. Its meaning and nature are unknown to us, and we do not probe that which cannot be probed. Since the Salafis are bereft of any daleel from the Qur'aan and Sunnah for their belief of restricting Allah's Presence to the Throne, despite the Qur'aan and Sunnah being their vociferous slogan in their anti-Taqleed campaign and tirade, they very obsequitiously seek refuge in the impregnable fortress of Taqleed on which is erected the Structure of Islam of the Ahlus Sunnah comprising of the Four Math-habs. Thus, we find Ibn Taimiyyah citing a litany of names of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen in his endeavour to accord credibility to his creed of selective and confined Divine Presence. The Four Imaams of the Math-habs, Ibn Mubaarak, Sufyaan Thauri, Fudhail Bin Iyaadh, Junaid Bagdhaadi (rahmatullah alayhim) are among the illustrious names he cites for assistance. Salafis who vehemently and with contempt vilify Taqleed, labelling it ‘blind' following, etc., have no qualms in degenerating to the same level of blind Taqleed as the Muqallideen of the Math-habs for the sake of adorning their creed with Shar'i substance. This ‘taqleed' of our Salaf-e-Saaliheen is not a daleel for the coprocreep and the deviant Salafis because ‘Taqleed' is an expletive in their vocabulary, and the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and the Muqallid Fuqaha are targets for Salafi vituperation. We should add here that all the explanation which the Salaf-e-Saaliheen have attached to the Mutashaabihaat is by way of Ta'weel. We fail to understand from whence did the coprocreeps obtain the licence to cling to blind Taqleed of our Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen, especially in the sphere of Aqeedah. Whilst Salafis harbour inveterate aversion for Taqleed in general, they spit more bile and venom when Taqleed is related to Aqeedah, yet they so audaciously jump on to the sacred Wagon of Taqleed of the Aimmah when they realise the utter bankruptcy of their armoury of ‘dalaa-il'. They seek to bamboozle the unwary and the ignorant among the Muqallideen with flimsy arguments such as the slave girl mentioned in the Hadith, pointing her finger towards the heaven to indicate the Presence of Allah Azza Wa Jal, and the Mi'raaj of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) into the heavens, the ascending of Angels towards their Rabb every morning, the dumb slaughterer ponting his finger, and many similar other narrations. Whilst these narrations indicate the Divine Presence in the heaven, they do not negate Allah's Omnipresence, nor may they be presented in negation of the Qur'aanic aayaat which explicitly affirm Omnipresence for Allah Azza Wa Jal. Ibn Taimiyyah also presents an extremely weak case for restricting Allah's Presence to the heaven by citing the Hadith in which appears the dua: "O Our Rabb Allah Who is in the heaven…. " Despite the deviation of Ibn Tamiyyah, he was a man of Knowledge. It is unexpected of a man of Knowledge to present passing straws as daleel. Whilst in this Dua is mentioned only Allah in the heaven, the Qur'aan mentions that Allah is in the heavens and in the earth. Ibn Taimiyyah also cites the Qur'aanic verse: "It (the Qur'aan) is a Tanzeel (that which has been brought down from a height, viz. the heavens) from The Wise One, The Praiseworthy One." There is no daleel in this aayat for restricting the Divine Presence to the heavens and for negating Omnipresence. The Qur'aan descending from a height is not to be interpreted as a negation of Omnipresence, nor is this any substantiation for the imagined confinement of Allah Ta'ala to created space. Shaitaan too was despatched from the heights of the heavens down to earth. The descent of the Qur'aan and the rising of the Angels are not dalaa-il for negation of Omnipresence. Furthermore, Ibn Taimiyyah proffers all such ambiguous narrations - ambiguous in relation to the Salafi claim - as his dalaa-il on the basis of ta'weel. He interprets these episodes for THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 44 - extravasating the objective of his opinion. There is no explicit mention of Allah’s confinement to the Arsh in any of the apodalic arguments he has proffered for his corrupt view. He furthermore, presents an extremely ludicrous argument. He cites the Qur'aanic verse: "O Haamaan! Build for me a tower so that I may reach the avenues - the avenues (leading) to the heavens so that I may view the Deity of Musa…. (Al-Mu'min, Aayats 36 and 37) This is the statement of Fir'oun which he directed to his minister, Haamaan. If Fir'oun believed that the Deity of Musa (alayhis salaam) inhabited the heavens in the way the Salafis believe, his view is not a daleel for negating Omnipresence and for affirming the Divine Presence exclusively in the heaven. Indeed Ibn Taimiyyah has scraped the very bottom of the barrel scrounging for arguments to bolster his anthropomorphic belief. He has degenerated to the level of calling on Fir’oun and Haamaan to come to his aid. The verse mentioning that a wholesome word rises towards Him, and that He elevates a virtuous deed, is not evidence for the negation of Omnipresence, neither proof for the belief that Allah Ta'ala is exclusively on the Arsh. This idea is debunked by the Hadith which mentions the Descent of Allah Azza Wa Jal to the fourth and the first heavens on different occasions. All the arguments of Ibn Taimiyyah, whether Qur'aanic verses or Hadith narrations, are apodals for the Salafi theory of restricting the Divine Presence to the heaven, and for their negation of Omnipresence. Whilst the verses and narrations mention one dimension of Divine Presence, they do not negate Divine Omnipresence which is confirmed by other Qur'aanic and Hadith Nusoos. A scrutiny of all the arguments of the coprocreep and the Salafis will reveal that they rely heavily on their taghoot of ta'weel. Their ta'weel is taghooti in view of their clandestine and deceptive approach to it, and because they overtly vehemently decry Ta'weel as well as Taqleed, both of which they are constrained to employ for the sake of maintaining their tottering, foundationless creed. The coprocreep has trumpeted much the Salafi ‘manhaaj'. On close examination it will be seen that they simply have no manhaaj. Ta'weel and Taqleed constitute the fundamental basis for even coprocreeps and Salafis in the sphere of any branch of the Deen. However, they perpetrate their ta'weel and taqleed selectively and deceptively to maintain the false image of each and every Tom, Dick and Harry in the Salafi clan of juhhaal being mujtahids. There are numerous Ahaadith which simply cannot be given a literal meaning. There is no escape from Ta'weel in this regard. Consider for example, the Hadith in which it is said that when the servant walks towards Allah, He runs towards the servant, and consider the Hadith in which it is mentioned that on the Day of Qiyaamah Allah Ta'ala will ask a person: ‘Why did you not feed Me when I was hungry? Why did you not give Me water when I was thirsty? Why did you not visit Me when I was sick?', and the Hadith in which Allah Ta'ala says that He becomes the eyes, the ears, the heart and the limbs of the pious servant by which he (the servant) acts and operates. If a literal meaning is ascribed, it will lead to the kufr idea of hulool, etc. - that Allah Ta'ala has -Nauthubillah - become incarnate in the human being. Whilst there is no explicit explanation in the Hadith for these ambiguous and allegorical terms, all the authorities of the Shariah have resorted to Ta'weel to explain such narrations. It is therefore highly repugnant for Ibn Taimiyyah and his Salafi muqallideen to refer us to the interpretations of the Salaf- e-Saaliheen because such a suggestion is the advocacy of ‘blind' following which is supposed to be abhorrent to the coprocreep and the imaams he follows. Referring us to the Imaams whom we follow is to direct us to an institution which the coprocreep has labelled the ‘taghoot of ta'weel'. Another apodal ‘daleel' which the coprocreep presents, and which Ibn Taimiyyah mentions in his Majmoo' Fataawa, is Imaam Abu Hanifah's (rahmatullah alayh) fatwa of kufr on a man who says: ‘I don't know if my Rabb is in the heaven or in the earth'. This fatwa of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) is irrelevant in the context of the discussion pertaining to Allah's Presence. The fatwa of kufr is clearly the consequence of the man's denial of the Qur'aanic aayat which explicitly says: "He is the Deity in the heavens, and He is the Deity in the earth." The fatwa of kufr is not for believing in the Omnipresence of Allah Azza Wajal, nor is this fatwa a daleel for the Salafi creed of Allah Ta'ala occupying a specific, cordoned off area in space in which His created Throne is located and being upheld by a number of massive created Malaaikah all occupying finite created space. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 45 - Ibn Taimiyyah also abortively presents the statement of Imaam Tirmizi (rahmatullah alayh). He says: "It has been narrated from Abu Isaa Tirmizi that he said: ‘He (Allah) is on the Arsh as He has stated in His Kitaab, and His knowledge, His power and His domination are in every place." Again, this is no daleel for negating Omnipresence nor for confirming exclusivity for the Divine Presence on the Throne or in the heaven. What Imaam Tirmizi (rahmatullah alayh) has said is our belief. It is the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah. But it does not negate our contention. The Salafis also quote Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) in their support whereas there is absolutely no daleel for their contention in the Imaam's statement. When someone had asked Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) about the meaning of istiwa', he was visibly annoyed. Then he replied: "Istiwa' is known. Its kaif (manner) is unknown. Imaan with it is Waajib, and asking about it is bid'ah." In this response, the only issues which Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) mentions are: The fact of Istiwa' is established in the Qur'aan.  What exactly it is, is not known. No one can explain it.  To believe in Allah's istiwa alal arsh is compulsory since the Qur'aan emphatically and explicitly mentions it in several aayaat.  To probe what is impalpable, in fact which can never be comprehended by the finite understanding of man, is bid'ah and sinful, hence not permissible. What Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) has said here is our belief. It is the belief and stance of the Ahlus Sunnah. On the other hand, the Salafis, whilst presenting this statement, act in conflict with it. They firstly assign a specific meaning by interpretation to istiwa, then they brand as kaafir those who do not submit to their opinion. Furthermore, they have made istiwa a perennial issue of conflict and controversy as if their entire Imaan pivots on this one aspect. By their stupid methodology they prod ignorant and unwary persons into the dilemma of Allah's Presence. They confuse the minds of simpletons with an issue which even a Nabi cannot comprehend in entirety. It suffices to say that we believe in Allah's istiwa' on the Arsh, and that the Arsh is a created object above the heavens, and that we do not know the kaifiyyat of His Istiwa'. To probe beyond this is the bid'ah which Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) castigated. If the coprocreep and his ilk adhere to the advice of Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh), they will not find themselves sagging deeper into the quagmire of incongruencies which they have fabricated in a futile bid to bolster their utterly baseless theory of assigning physical, created dimensions to Allah Ta'ala, with all its anthropomorphic consequences. IBNUL JAUZI'S EXPOSITION Abul Farj Abdur Rahmaan Bin Al-Jauzi Hambali (died 597 Hijri) was a genuine follower of Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh). He was not an imposter like the coprocreep and other Salafi frauds who pose as ‘Hanaabilah' in order to seduce and deceive the unwary and the ignorant. Elaborating on the aayat: "Then He made istiwa' on the Arsh", Ibn Jauzi writes: "Khaleel Bin Ahmad said that arsh means sareer (couch/sofa). Every sareer of a king is called arsh (throne). The meaning of arsh was well known to the Arabs during the time of Jaahiliyyah and in Islam. Allah Ta'ala said (in the Qur'aan): "He (i.e. Nabi Yusuf - alayhis salaam) raised his parents on to the arsh." And, Allah Ta'ala said: "Who of you will bring to me (i.e. Nabi Sulaimaan - alayhis salaam) her (i.e. Bilqees's) arsh?" Know that literally istiwa' has several meanings. Among these meanings are: (1) Al-I'tidaal: to be equal (2) Tamaamush shay': the completion of something. (3) Al-qasd ilash shay: to contemplate or resolve to do something as in the aayat: ‘Then He (Allah) made istiwa' towards the heaven.', i.e. He contemplated to create it (the heaven). (4) Al-Istilaa' alash shay: to be established over something; to be in control and domination over something. All the Salaf are of the view to accept the aayat as it appears without tafseer and ta'weel. Some of the later people gave this attribute a physical interpretation. Thus they said: "He made istiwa' on the THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 46 - Arsh with His Zaat.” This is an excess which has not been narrated (from the Salaf). They (the people of later times) understood that a person who makes istiwa' does so with his being (zaat). - (The Salafis of this era are entrapped in the same quagmire of baseless ta'weel by interpolating the ‘excess' with its anthropomorphic consequences - Mujlisul Ulama) Abu Haamid Al-Mujassam said: ‘Al-Istiwa' is His contact (with the Arsh) and an attribute of His Zaat. Its meaning is qu-ood (i.e. to sit). A group of our As-haab (i.e. from the Hanaabilah, which includes the coprocreep and the Salafis -Mujlisul Ulama) opined that Allah Subhaanahu Wa Ta'ala on His Arsh has filled it, and verily He sits on it, and His Nabi will sit with Him on the Arsh on the Day of Qiyaamah. Abu Haamid said: ‘Nuzool (to descend) is intiqaal (i.e. move from one position to another position). On the basis of what has been narrated (from these coprocreeps - Mujlisul Ulama) Allah's Zaat is smaller than the Arsh. Despite this, their statement: ‘We are not Mujassimis', is (extremely) surprising. (This is precisely what the coprocreep and these Salafis say. They deny anthropomorphism whilst their beliefs affirm physical attributes for Allah Ta'ala -Mujlisul Ulama) …………………………….Some (so-called Hanaabilah such as Ibn Taimiyyah) argued Allah being on the Arsh citing Allah's statement (the Qur'aanic aayat): "Unto Him does a virtuous statement rise, and He elevates a virtuous deed.”, and with Allah's statement: “He is Over-powering above (fauq) His servants." They interpreted fauqiyyah (aboveness) physically while they forgot that physical fauqiyyah is an attribute of a material body or of atoms, and that sometimes fauqiyyah refers to elevated status, thus it is said: ‘A certain person is higher (fauq) than another person.' Then, just as He (Allah Ta'ala) said: "fauqa ibaadihi (He is above his servants) , He has (also) said: ‘And He is with you.' The one who interprets this (i.e. being with you) as ‘knowledge' ( that is, He is with His knowledge with you), will find his adversary interpreting istiwa' as qahr (domination) or established or any other appropriate meaning. (Here Ibn Jauzi says that just as some say that the aayat means ‘Allah is with you with His knowledge', similarly will others be justified to interpret istiwa' as being qahr, etc.-- Mujlisul Ulama). Ibn Jauzi tenders the following very sound advice for the likes of the coprocreep Salafis: "Since this type of discussion is not understood by the masses, we say: ‘Do not cause them to hear it. (i.e. Don't broach this subject with them) And do not agitate them. It should be said: ‘Verily Allah Ta'ala has made istiwa' on His Arsh as it befits Him." Continuing his refutation of the literal meanings which culminates in anthropomorphism, Ibn Jauzi says: "And of the aayaat (the allegorical ones) is the verse: "Have you no fear that He Who is in the heaven….”(Mulk, aayat 16). It has been absolutely confirmed that this verse does not have a literal meaning because the word ‘fi' denotes ‘place'. Allah Subhaanahu Wa Ta'ala is without place." The very same applies to the verses in which the literal meaning is place. Allah Ta'ala does not occupy place and space. Ibn Jauzi says: "Similar is Allah's statement: "Your Rabb shall come.." Qaadhi Abu Ya'la said that Ahmad Bin Hambal said about Allah's statement: ‘He shall come to them', that it means His Qudrat and His Command…" Imaam Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh) also employed Ta'weel just as Imaam Maturidi and all the Salaf resorted to Ta'weel wherever necessary. TA'WEEL - A VALID PRINCIPLE In a nutshell, valid/correct Ta'weel is a valid principle of the Shariah, upheld and practised by all the Ulama of the Salaf and the Khalaf, including the Sahaabah, and in fact, also Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The kutub of the Shariah are replete with the Ta'weelaat of the Ulama of the Ahlus Sunna, both of the Salaf and the Khalaf. Stating the ending of Sehri, the Qur'aan Majeed says: "Eat and drink until the white thread becomes clear to you from the black thread of Fajr." (aayat 187, Baqarah) The literal meaning of al-khait is cotton thread. When this verse was revealed, some Sahaabah understood the literal meaning and tied black and white cotton threads around their legs, and they would continue eating until in the darkness of their small huts they could distinguish between the two threads. However, the literal meaning is discarded here since the words have a figurative connotation. Ta'weel is thus not a later development. It is integral to Islam from the very inception. There are two kinds of Ta'weel: THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 47 - (1) Valid Ta'weel which does not produce change or denial of any teaching or principle of the Deen, neither does it create a meaning which is repugnant to the Highness, Grandeur and Sublimity of Allah Azza Wa Jal. (2) The second kind of Ta'weel is Ta'weel Baatil or in the terminology of today's Urf ‘Copro-Ta'weel’, the type of interpretation employed by Ibn Taimiyyah and his Salafi muqallideen.. The consequence of applying Copro-Ta'weel to the Mutashaabihaat is the attribution of such blatantly corrupt meanings which reduce Allah Azza Wa Jal to a physical idol - Nauthubillaah! Copro-Ta'weel of the copro Salafis divests Allah Azza Wa Jal of His Uluw (Highness, Grandeur and Sublimity), creates deficiencies in His Zaat and Sifaat by the imposition of dimensional and physical restrictions and by making Allah Azza Wa Jal mazroof (i.e. an entity which is contained within the limits of a container). The Ta'weelaat of the Salaf and Khalaf are numerous. A book of a thousand pages can be written on this subject, then too it would not be exhaustive. If Allah Ta'ala grants us the taufeeq, Insha'Allah, further detailed elaboration shall be published to expose and refute the idolatrous beliefs of the coprocreep and his Salafi handlers. Regarding the validity of Ta'weel, Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alay) states in his Al-Majmoo': "…However, if there is a need for Ta'weel to refute the people of Bid'ah and their like, they (the Salaf) resorted to Ta'weel." This is in fact the stance adopted by the Jamhur Ulama of all ages. Salafis are perpetrating self-deception by denying the validity of Ta'weel. They are furthermore blatantly dishonest in trading the perception that they do not interpret any of the Qur'aanic verses, and that they ascribe to the Mutashaabihaat literally, without any Ta'weel. This contention is an example of their skulduggery. The consequence of attribution of physical form or dimensional form is to predicate finitude for Allah Azza Wa Jal by way of interpretation. In fact it is the worst form of copro- ta'weel perpetratred by these fake Hanaabilah whose ta'weeli beliefs relegate them into the camp of the Tajseemis (anthropomorphists). They resort to ta'weel regarding the Divine Hand, Shin, Istiwa', etc. to fabricate dimension for Allah Ta'ala. They resort to ta'weel for fabricating meanings to all the aayaat in which the Divine Presence is stated, e.g. "He is with you wherever you may be."; "The east and west belongs to Him. Whichever way you turn, there is His Face."; "He is the Deity in the heaven, and He is the Deity in the earth.", etc. To negate the Divine Presence stated in these and similar other Qur'aanic verses, the coprocreep Salafis are quick with their ta'weel. On the basis of ta'weel they maintain that "He is with His Knowledge wherever you may be." The Qur'aan does not say: "with His knowledge". It explicitly states: "He is with you". While Salafis resort to ta'weel to negate the Divine Presence stated in many Qur'aanic verses, others resort to Ta'weel to negate the copro-ta'weel of the Salafis, which leads to anthropomorphism for Allah Azza Wa Jal. Everyone's view is the product of Ta'weel. However, the difference is that whilst the Ta'weel of the Ahlus Sunnah is valid and authentic Ta'weel, the ta'weel of the Salafis is copro-ta'weel which is haraam. No one can escape the application of Ta'weel. We therefore find the Salafi anti- ta'weel pretenders resorting to wholesale copro-ta'weel in all the Mutashaabihaat Qur'aanic aayaat and even in the Ahaadith of allegory. Whilst they pretend and deceive with their vociferous assertion of abiding by the literal meanings, they employ their copro-ta’weel which is devoid of any rational principle, to produce kufr copro- consequences for Allah Azza Wa Jal - Nauthubillaah! One of the worst specimens of Salafi copro- ta'weel is Ibn Taimiyyah's crude interpretation, bordering on obscenity, of the Divine Descent to the first heaven during the later part of the night. Describing Ibn Taimiyya's crude kufr-copro-ta'weel of this Mutashaabih Hadith, Ibn Battuta states in his Tuhfatun Nuzzar: "When I arrived in Damascus, I found a man called Ibn Taimiyyah giving a discourse on the Deen. There appeared to be something in his brains (i.e. mental derangement). Once whilst he was delivering the Jumuah khutbah, he said: ‘Our Rabb descends to the first heaven….' (Then, to convey what he meant by descent, Ibn Taimiyyah descended two steps from the mimbar, and he said: ‘as is this my THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 48 - descending (ka nuzooli haatha).’" Ibn Hajr also confirmed the occurrence of this episode in his, Ad- Durar, Vol.1, page 153. That there was something strangely amiss with the brains of Ibn Taimiyyah is confirmed beyond doubt by his physical interpretation - by his copro-ta'weel - of the Hadith of Descent. His belief in the eternity of the universe – that the universe was not created by Allah Ta’ala, but that it is co-eternal with Him, also provides a window for viewing his state of mental disequiblirium. Some of our Ulama, who are generally extremely cautious when labelling deviates, mildly explained Ibn Taimiyya's mental dilemma by averring: ‘His textual knowledge was more than his understanding.' There are numerous examples of copro-ta'weel effects of Ibn Taimiyyah, which the jaahil Salafis of this age have lapped up and proffered as if it were the effects of their own brains. A typical example of lapping up Ibn Taimiyyah and Albaani's copro-disgorgement is the stupidities which the coprocreep has ranted in his diatribe of jahaalat against the illustrious Ulama of Deoband who have been the sole repositories and bastions of the Sunnah in the recent century. Whilst there were other contemporary Ulama of Haqq elsewhere as well acquitting themselves admirably in defence of the Sunnah, but as a Jamaat of Haqq - Taaifatum minal Haqq - the Ulama of Deoband stand out emblazoning the firmament of Uloom and Taqwa, with their emulous decapitation of all the baatil, kufr and bid'ah rubbish which the sects of Rubbish had interpolated into the Deen. In Surah Al-Fajr, aayat 22, the Qur'aan Hakeem, narrating the events of the Day of Qiyaamah, states: "And your Rabb and the Angels in rows shall come." The meaning of the Divine Coming has been explained by some as commencing the proceedings of Judgment. In terms of Salafi copro-ta'weel it means coming physically like a physical king with his legions of noblemen and soldiers trailing behind him in formation. Whatever the meaning of the aayat is, it is not the subject of discussion at this moment. The intention is to only show that ta'weel is employed by both groups to explain the aayat. The actual meaning of the Divine Coming could be more accurately explained by reference to the following verse of Surah Al-Hadeed, aayat 14: "Vain desires had deceived you until there came the Amr (Command) of Allah, and deception had deceived you with regard to Allah." We should, however, emphasize that even this ‘more accurate' meaning is likewise the quotient of Ta'weel for the simple reason that the first aayat (viz. No.22 of Al-Fajr) does not explicitly mention the word, amr (command). Thus, all the way, in every sphere of elaboration, Ta'weel is imperative and indispensable. Consider verse 18 of Surah Al-Hadeed: "…and they gave Allah Qardh Hasan (a beautiful loan)…" If the Salafi concept of literal copro-ta'weel is employed, the logical conclusion is that money - gold and silver - were given to a physical deity - an idol - which is the anthropomorphic idol stemming from Salafi copro-ta'weel. Valid Ta'weel explains that the aayat means giving Sadqah to the poor for the sake of gaining Allah's Pleasure. Whilst this meaning is 100% correct and fully in accord with the Shariah, the irrefutable fact remains that it is also the effect of Ta'weel. This discussion is not about the validity or invalidity of the meanings ascribed to the Qur'aanic verses and Hadith narrations. The issue is the fact that whatever the averred meaning may be, it is an attribution which is the conclusion of Ta'weel. So, it matters not how much dust the coprocreep has kicked up in his stupid diatribe against the Ulama of Deoband, the employment of wholesale copro- ta'weel by Salafis is irrefutable, and their science of ta'weel is Taghooti Ta'weel with which he has abortively attempted to paint the Ulama of Deoband, but which rebounds on himself. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 49 - SOME FACTS OF IMPORTANCE FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE DEVIATION OF THE COPRO-SALAFIS OF OUR AGE (1) IBN TAIMIYYAH'S OUTWARD ‘REPENTANCE' Like Shiahs, the Salafis also have an unwritten doctrine of Taqiyah (Holy Hypocrisy) on the basis of which they conceal their actual beliefs in order to deceive the Ahlus Sunnah. In our midst, we thus find copro-Salafis posing as Hanafis and Hambalis. The aim is to entice and ensare the unwary and ignorant into the mire of Salafi'ism. Salafis have inherited their Taqiyah tactic from their Imaam, Ibn Taimiyyah who had proclaimed his repentance and retraction from his kufr at the time of his trial. Describing the external facade of Ibn Taimiyyah's ‘repentence', Ibn Hajr Asqalaani states in his Ad-Durarul Kamina: "His (Ibn Taimiyya's) view was investigated by several Ulama (in Cairo- many centuries prior to the establishment of Deoband). In a written statement, Ibn Taimiyyah said: ‘I am an Ash'ari (a follower of the Shaaf'i Imaam Al-Ash'ari)…I believe that the Qur'aan is a meaning which exists in Allah's Zaat, and it is an Eternal Sifat (Attribute) of Zaat, and that it is uncreated. Allah's statement: "Ar-Rahmaan has established Himself over the Throne", does not have a literal meaning. Only Allah knows it. And, the meaning of His Descent is like His establishment." This was written by Ahmad Ibn Taimiyyah, and they (the audience present) witnessed that he had repented of his own free will from all that was in contravention of what has been mentioned above. This occurred on 25 Rabiul Awwal, 707 Hijri, and it was witnessed by a huge array of Ulama and others." It is salubrious to remember that Ibn Taimiyyah and all copro-Salafis claim to be Hanaabilah - the followers of Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh). Imaam Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh) was subjected to severe trial and torture for expounding the belief of the Qur'aan being the uncreated Word of Allah Azza Wa Jal. The more this great Imaam was whipped, and ordered to retract, the firmer he became, proclaiming whilst under the lashing of the whip: "Ma bainad duffatain ghair makhlooq." (Whatever is between the two covers of the Qur'aan is Uncreated). This illustrious Imaam of the Ahlus Sunnah did not falter. He did not retract the Haqq under duress and torture to save his mubaarak Skin from the torture being inflicted. On the other hand, we see Ibn Taimiyyah claiming to be a follower of Imaam Ahmad, buckling under the fear of imprisonment and verbally retracting his copro-anthropomorphical beliefs, whilst concealing his true ideas which are to this day being expounded and perpetuated by his Salafi followers. (2) IMAAM MATURIDI Imaam Abu Mansur Muhamad Bin Muhammad Bin Mahmood Maturidi Al-Hanafi (died 333 Hijri) was among the great Mashaaikh. He was a great Aabid, Zaahid and a Wali of Karaamat. He wrote excellent works on Aqaaid and Kalaam. He owned an orchard in which he would himself work manually. He would present to his guests out of season fruit. When the astonished people enquired about this phenomenon, the illustrious Imaam said: "I never commited a sin with my right hand, hence whatever I desire with my right hand, I obtain it.' Once when the people complained to him about the oppression of the king, Imaam Maturidi made a bow with grass and an arrow with a twig. Then he cast it in the direction of the king. It was later established that the king had died on that precise date and time. Via three intermediaries, Imaam Maturidi is the Student of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh). (3) THE AHLUS SUNNAH WAL JAMA'AH The followers of Imaam Maturidi and Imaam Ash'ari are known as the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. Most of the followers of the Shaafi', Maaliki and Hambali Math-habs are the followers of Imaam THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 50 - Ash'ari (rahmatullah alayh) whilst the followers of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) follow Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh). (4) ASH'ARI AND MATURIDI DIFFERENCES The differences between the Ash'aris and Maturidis are not serious. It will not be incorrect to say that they are one soul in two bodies. (5) AQEEDATUT TAHAAWI Imaam Abu Ja'far Ahmad Bin Muhammad, (died 321 Hijri), famously known as Imaam Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh) was among the greatest authorities of Hadith and Fiqh. There is consensus of all the Math-habs on Imaam Tahaawi's authority. The only lone person differing is Ibn Taimiyyah. Imaam Tahaawi's concise treatise on Aqeedah known as Aqeedatut Tahaawi is of fundamental importance in the sphere of Belief (Aqeedah). Numerous shuroohaat (commentaries) have been written on this famous concise treatise of Imaam Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh) who was a follower of the Hanafi Math-hab. Every commentator has employed wholesale Ta'weel in his presentation of commentary on the beliefs propounded by Imaam Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh) in his brief treatise. Here we draw attention to one particular commentary written by Abdullah Ansaari, a student of Ibn Taimiyyah. The name of his commentary is Al-Farooq. In Egypt a Salafi publisher had printed this commentary without mentioning the name of its author (Abdullah Ansaari). Ibn Taimiyyah (rahmatullah alah alayh) had attributed a notoriety to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) whom he claimed had stated in Fiqhul Akbar that Allah Ta'ala has a fixed abode in A'la Illiyyeen. This contention is utterly baseless. Neither is this falsity mentioned by Abul Laith (rahmatullah alayh) nor by any of the august Students of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) nor by any other reliable narrator. In fact, this falsehood is the interpretation (copro-ta'weel) of the author of Al-Farooq, the student of Ibn Taimiyyah. After this student who was a Mujassimi (anthropomorphist), narrated this falsehood, his Ustaadh Shaikh Ibn Taimiyyah (rahmatullah alayh) as well as others latched on to it to perpetrate their gross error. Another well-known commentary of Aqeedarut Tahaawi is the commentary of several hundred pages by Ibn Abil Izz. Imaam Tahaawi's famous treatise which forms the fundamental basis and backbone of the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah, is an extremely brief document of about 8 pages, yet hundreds of pages have been written by various authorities of the Shariah to expound and elaborate the words of Imaam Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh). One can just imagine the degree of wholesale Ta'weel which the authorities have employed in their respective expositions and commentaries. Are all these authorities astray, deviants and kaafirs on this account, and only the copro- Salafi anthropomorphists ‘Muslim'? (6) SHAIKH ABU BAKR MUHAMMAD BIN ISHAAQ BIN KHUZAIMAH Ibn Khuzaimah was an Muhaddith, but lacked depth in the branches of Ilmul Kalaam and Aqaaid. His kitaab, Kitaabut Tauheed contains much corruption. He has averred in his kitaab that Allah Ta’ala has feet. He would frequently say: “If Allah Ta’ala was bereft of hands, feet, eyes and ears, shall we then worship a watermelon?” – Nauthubillaah! Allaamah Kauthari (rahmatullah alayh) mentioned that besides this, he (Ibn Khuzaimah) has written such contemptible statements which cannot be presented to people of Knowledge. If Ansaarus Sunnah had not punlished these three kitaabs, namely Naqdh Daarami, Kitaabut Tauheed of Ibn Khuzaimah, and As-Sunnah of Abdullah Bin Al-Imaam Ahmad (this is not a reference to Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal) his (Khuzaimah’s, as well as Ibn Taimiyyah’s) faasid (corrupt) beliefs would have remained concealed. A study of these three works throw much light on the corrupt beliefs of the Salafis and Ghair Muqallideen. (7) THE VIEW OF HADHRAT MAULANA ASHRAF ALI THAANVI Hadhrat Maulana Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh) would frequently say: "Our differences with the ghair THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 51 - muqallideen is not restricted to Furoo-ee masaa-il. Their very beliefs are incorrect. Therefore Salaat behind ghair muqallideen who subscribe to erroneous beliefs is not permissible.” (8) IBN TAIMIYYAH'S DIFFERENCES WITH THE AHLUS SUNNAH Shaikh Ibn Taimiyyah (rahmatullah alayh) differed with the Ahlus Sunnah in numerous masaa-il, in excess of a hundred. Thirty nine are are violation and rejection of the Ijma' of the Ummah. (9) SOME OF IBN TAIMIYYAH'S CORRUPT BELIEFS Shaikh Ibn Taimiyyah (rahmatullah alayh) subscribed to some extremely corrupt views which he based on such hadith narrations which the Muhadditheen have labelled extremely weak and rejected. Among his corrupt beliefs are: (a) Allah Ta'ala sits on the Arsh just as a person sits on a couch. Eight goats are bearing aloft the Throne. (b) Allah Ta'ala physically weighs more than all the things in the world, therefore, the Throne creaks under His weight. (c) Allah Ta'ala's presence is located above, hence those who are on top of a mountain or living on the upper floors of buildings are closer to Him. (d) On the Day of Qiyaamah, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) will be seated on the Throne alongside Allah Ta'ala, and this is the meaning of Maqaam Mahmood mentioned in the Hadith. (e) In the morning at the time of Ishraaq, the weight of the Arsh becomes extremely heavy for the Bearers of the Throne. (f) No one had denied physical body for Allah Ta'ala. (g) One who denies Allah's sitting on the Arsh is a Jahmi and a Jahannami (inmate of Hell). (h) On the Day of Qiyaamah after everything has been annihilated, Allah Ta'ala will descend to the earth and walk all over the show. (i) On the Day of Qiyaamah Allah Ta'ala will sit on the Kursi (Chair) which is under the Throne. (j) The Arsh is eternal, i.e. it is an uncreated entity being co-eternal with Allah Ta'ala. (k) While there was nothing before Allah, it is probable that there has been something always with Him. (l) It is haraam to undertake a journey to visit the Raudhah of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), hence Qasr Salaat is not valid on such a journey. (m) Making Dua by the Waseelah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is shirk. (n) Rasulullah's Place of Rest is not superior to any other place. (o) It is not permissible to face the Holy Grave of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) when offering Salaam. Many Hadith narrations which the Muhadditheen had rejected were authenticated by Shaikh Ibn Taimiyyah (rahmatullah alayh), and on the basis of extremely weak narrations has he structured even Aqaaid. Veering to the opposite extreme, in his kitaab, Minhaajus Sunnah, he has downgraded and discarded even Saheeh Ahaadith to fulfil the objective of his baatil views. In raising his edifice of beliefs, Shaikh Ibn Taimiyyah (rahmatullah alayh) had resorted to wholesale copro-ta'weel. Every aspect of his beliefs is the product of interpretation, yet Salafis deceptively refute the validity of Ta'weel. (10) THE MEANING OF OMNIPRESENCE Allah Ta'ala is not a physical, corporeal Being. He has no physical and directional dimensions. He is not a spatial Entity. Space cannot contain Him since space is His creation. By Divine Immanence is meant exactly what Allah Ta'ala says in the following Qur'aanic verses: 5) "East and West belong to Allah. Whichever way you turn there is His Face." 6) "He is the Deity in the heaven, and He is the Deity in the earth." 7) "He is with you wherever you may be." 8) Similar other aayaat. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 52 - This omnipresence asserted by Allah Ta'ala is beyond man's comprehension. It is the obligation of the Muslim to merely repeat parrot fashion what Allah Ta'ala has attributed to Himself, and to refrain from ascribing meanings of his personal opinion to the meaning of Divine Presence. Makaan (space) is never intended by Omnipresence of Allah Azza Wa Jal, for space gives rise to anthropomorphism which is kufr in that it attributes deficiency to Allah Azza Wa Jal and compares Him to created beings. (11) WHO IS THE AHLUS SUNNAH? Imaam Shihaabuddin Qalyubi (died 1069 Hijri) states in his Kanzur Raaghibeen: "One who deviates from what Abul Hasan Ash'ari and Abu Mansur Maturidi narrated is not one of the Sunnah. These two Imaams followed in the footsteps of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah." Ibn Hajar Haitami (rahmatullah alayh) said in this regard: "A mubtadi (bid'ati/innovator) is one whose aqeedah is not transmitted unanimously by the Ahlus Sunnah. This consensus was transmitted by the two illustrious Imaams, Abul Hasan Ash'ari and Abu Mansur Maturidi. He whose beliefs differ from the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah is a man of bid'ah. The Faith of the Ahlus Sunnah is the Faith (propounded by) Abul Hasan Ash'ari, Abu Mansur Maturidi and those who follow them." (Fataawa Hadithiyyah) Besides the deviant Salafis, all authorities of the Four Math-habs uphold the status and the Aqeedah expounded by the two Imaams of Aqeedah - Abul Hasan Ash'ari and Abu Mansur Maturidi. (12) THE SAUDI-SALAFI-WAHHAABI BELIEF Shaikh Muhammad Saalih Uthaymin (rahmatullah alayh), a recent Saudi Shaikh states in his kitaab, Aqeedatul Muslim: "Allah's istiwa' on the Arsh means that He is sitting with His Zaat (in person) on His Arsh." This in a nutshell, sums up the entire belief of anthropomorphism which the copro-Salafis entertain about Allah Azza Wa Jal. Deny as much as they wish, the anthropomorphism which their corrupt beliefs attribute to Allah Azza Wa Jal is inescapable. (13) QAADHI ABU BAKR BIN TEEB BAAQILAANI (died 403 Hijri) After Imaam Maturidi and Imaam Ash'ari, the reins of Ilmul Kalaam and Aqaaid were in his hands. He was the foremost authority in this field, and was known as Saifus Sunnah (The Sword of the Sunnah). Although the coprocreep has degenerated to the lowest level in his vilification of the Ulama of Kalaam, Shaikh Ibn Taimiyah (rahmatullah alayh), the Imaam of the coprocreep Salafis, lauded considerable praise on Qaadhi Abu Bakr (rahmatullah alayh), calling him Afdhalul Mutakallimeen (The Noblest of the Mutakallimeen). He further said that there was no Mutakallim as great as Qaadhi Abu Bakr, neither before him nor after him. (Muqaddamatul Irshaad, Vol.1) (14) ALLAAMAH ABDUL WAHHAAB SHA'RAANI Allaamah Abdul Wahhaab Sha'raani (rahmatullah alayh) flourished during the 9th century Hijri. Some say that he was a Shaaf'i and some say Hanafi. He, like all the other many authorities who had criticized Shaikh Ibn Taimiyyah (rahmatullah alayh) for his anthropomorphic and deviant views and beliefs, appeared on the scene several centuries prior to the establishment of Daarul Uloom Deoband. Although the coprocreep Salafi struggles to peddle the idea that the views expressed by the Ulama of Deoband are the teachings of a ‘new sect', all the authorities of the Ahlus Sunnah had propagated the very same beliefs several centuries prior to the advent of the Ulama of Deoband.  In his, Kitaab Al-Yaaqut wal Jawaahir, Allaamah Sha'raani (rahmatullah alayh) negating every vestige of anthropomorphism stemming from the beliefs of coprocreep Salafis whose Imaam is Ibn Taimiyyah, says: "Verily makaan (space) encompasses them (creation) and zamaan (time) demarcates them. (But), Allah is totally different from His creation. He existed without space and time. His Sublime Zaat does not accept increase nor decrease. It is He Who has created time and space. Thus there is no direction for Allah Ta'ala………..He does not accept makaan (i.e. He is not confined by space). ….. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 53 - He has commanded His servants to make Sujood, and He has made it (the Sujood) the place of His Qurb (Nearness/Proximity) in His statement (in the Qur'aan): ‘Prostrate and come near (to Me).’, and in Rasulullah's statement: ‘The servant is closest to his Rabb when he is in Sajdah.' (He has commanded us to make Sujood to convey to us that with regard to fauqiyyah (aboveness) and tahtiyyah (lowness/bottomness) His relationship with His servant is the same. Therefore the one who prostrates seeks the sifl (bottom) with his face just as the one who stands seeks fauq (top/above) with his face, and he raises his hands towards the heaven during dua. Hence, the one who stands supplicating from Allah is not at all nearer than the bottom side (i.e. than the one whose face is on the ground in Sajdah). Allah Ta'ala has decreed Sujood relative to His Proximity to be the closest only to inform His servants that neither does fauq restrict him from taht (bottom) nor taht from fauq because He is free and pure of the attributes of His creation. .. It is known to every Aarif Billaah that Allah Ta'ala is not confined to space…….Allah's statement: ‘The virtuous word (al-kalimatut tayyib) rises to Him', does not mean that Allah is (only) in the direction above and nowhere else. The daleel for this is Allah's statement (in the Qur'aan): ‘He is Allah in the heavens and in the earth.'  There is consensus of the Muhaqqiqoon that communion with Allah Ta'ala in the state of Sujood is Sa-ood (i.e. to rise above as is mentioned in the aayat about a virtuous word rising towards Him), despite that fact that Sujood is the lowest of the low……. (Thus, sa-ood has a figurative meaning.) Al-Aarif Billaah Taqiyuddin Abi Mansoor says in his Risaalah: ‘It is not permissible to apply ma- ayyah (being together) to His Zaat just as it is not permissible to apply istiwa alal arsh to His Zaat. …….."  Allaamah Sha'raani (rahmatullah alayh) mentions in his kitaab a very interesting debate which took place between the authorities of the Ahlus Sunnah in Jamiah Azhar, Cairo in the year 905 Hijri. This is not the occasion to present the lengthy and intricate discussion. It will suffice here to say that three different views pertaining to Allah's ma-ayyah (Allah being together with His servants) were debated. The three views, all derivatives of Ta'weel as well as by inspiration from Allah Ta'ala are:  Shaikh Badruddin Al-Alaaee Al Hanafi, Shaikh Zakariyya and Shaikh Burhaanuddin Bin Abi Shareef opined that Allah is with us with His Asmaa' (Names) and His Sifaat (Attributes), not with His Zaat.  Shaikh Ibraaheem Al-Mawahib Ash-Shaazli said that Allah is with us with His Zaat and Sifaat.  Shaikh Aarif Billaah Muhammad Al-Maghribi Ash-Shaazli who was the Shaikh of Jalaluddin As- Suyuti, said that the Ma-ayyah of Allah Ta'ala was Azli (Eternal). It has no beginning and no ending. It is not temporal. The purpose of mentioning these variant views is not to probe them, but to show that Ta'weel was invoked by all authorities of both the Salaf and the Khalaf on all issues pertaining to the Mutashaabihaat (15) ISTIWA' ALAL ARSH Discussing Istiwa' on the Throne, Allaamah Sha'raani (rahmatullah alayh) says in his Al-Yaaqut wal Jawaahir: "This is from the most difficult subjects. O my Brother! We shall elaborate on this subject with the explanations of the Mutakallimeen and Aarifeen so that the Haqq becomes conspicuous for you, Insha-Allah Ta'ala. Shaikh Safiyuddin Bin Abil Mansoor said in his Risaalah: ‘It is incumbent to believe that Allah made istiwa on His Arsh with his Attribute of Mercy which befits His Greatness as He said (in the Qur'aan): ‘Ar-Rahmaan made istiwa' on the Arsh. It is not permissible to apply istiwa' to The Sublime Zaat (saying) that He made istiwa on the Arsh (with His Zaat) despite Sifat being inseparable from Zaat relative to Allah Ta'ala……………………………..It has been established that Allah Ta'ala does not accept direction nor space. With regard to proximity to him, highness (Ilw) and lowness (Sifl) are the same….. The attributes of Istiwal alal Arsh, Nuzool ila Samaaid Dunya (Descent to the first heaven) and Fauqiyyah (aboveness) are eternal whilst the Arsh and whatever it encompasses are creations. On this THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 54 - issue there is consensus (Ijma'). The attributes of Istiwa' and Nuzool existed with Allah Ta'ala before He created entire creation just as He was Khaaliq (Creator) and Raaziq (Provider) when there was no creation and no one to sustain………" The discussion is lengthy and extremely intricate. This is not the occasion for reproducing it. The purpose is merely to show that Ta'weel is used extensively and intensively employed by all authorities. (16) IMAAM TAQIUDDEEN'S REFUTATION Imaam Taqiuddeen Abu Bakr Al-Hisni (died 729 Hijri) was a very great senior authority of the Shaafi' Math-hab. He flourished about six centuries before the advent of Daarul Uloom Deoband and the glorious Taa-ifah-e-Haqq known as the Ulama of Deoband. We are sure that his extremely harsh criticism of Ibn Taimiyyah and the anthropomorphist Salafi clique was not the inspiration of the Ulama of Deoband which this illustrious Imaam received some 6 centuries before the birth of Deoband. Imaam Taqiuddeen Hisni (rahmatullah alayh) wrote a kitaab in which he securely nailed Ibn Taimiyyah into a coffin for unceremonious disposal. He exposed and utterly demolished with incisive arguments the deviation and kufr of Ibn Taimiyyah. The name of his kitaab is Daf'u Shubhi Man Shab- baha wa Tamarrada wa Nasaba Thaalika ilas Sayyidil Jaleel Al-Imaam Ahmad. (Refutation of the Doubt of the One Who Anthropomorphizes, and Who (satanically) Rebels, and Attributes it (his Satanism) to As-Sayyid Al-Jaleel Al Imaam Ahmad). We shall content ourselves with some extracts from this treatise which throws considerable light on the satanic deviation of Ibn Taimiyyah. The book was written by the great Imaam Taqiuddeen Hisni in refutation of Ibn Taimiyyah. Imaam Taqiuddeen states in his book many centuries prior to Deoband: (1) "The reason for me presenting these words is the perplexity caused to me by some men with evil souls. (This is a reference to Ibn Taimiyyah and his followers). They professed to be related to the Math-hab of the great Sayyid Imaam Ahmad (Bin Hambal) whilst in reality they are in conflict of it (the Hambali Math-hab)………They corrupt the intelligence of the masses and of weak students with shaitaani adornment and with (their) display of piety and narration of Ahaadith. All of this (their stunts) are falsehood and deceptive adornment….." (2) "Ibn Taimiyyah and his followers negate the perpetuity of punishment (in Jahannaum for the kuffaar) . Know that among his beliefs is his opinion that the Fire will perish. Allah Ta'ala will cause it to terminate and its punishment will cease." (Imaam Taqiuddeen then presents a detailed refutation of this kufr propagated by Ibn Taimiyyah). In fact, even the Salafi imaam of recent times, Al-Albaani, refutes Ibn Taimiyyah on this issue. Whilst Ibn Taimiyyah, in diametric conflict with the Qur'aan, Ahaadith and Ijma' of the Ummah, held the kufr opinion of Jahannum coming to an end, Al-Albaani states in the introduction of the kitaab, Raf'il Astaar: "How can Ibn Taimiyyah say: ‘If punishment (of Jahannum) has no end then mery would not be absolute.' Thus, according to him (Ibn Taimiyyah) there is no Rahmat (Mercy) except by including the rebellious and satanic kuffaar. Is this then not the greatest proof for the error of Ibn Taimiyyah, and for him and his followers being very far from rectitude in this mas'alah of vital importance?" The view of Jahannum coming to an end is the baseless opinion of the Jahmi sect. Ibn Taimiyyah and his followers have followed Jahm Bin Safwaan who was the first to proclaim this view of kufr. (3) Imaam Taqiuddeen Al-Hisni criticizing Ibn Taimiyyah for his belief of the eternity of the world, namely, that the world had no temporal beginning, lambasts him with epithets such as : "This khabeeth has an inordinate desire to denigrate the position of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Sometimes his denigration is almost explicit; sometimes it is by apparent implication, and sometimes by subtle signs……….It will inform you of the khubth (filth) in his heart and of his spiritual blindness……The silence of the khabeeth in this regard is a daleel for the evil of his heart regarding Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)… THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 55 - ….and it is in this kitaab (of Ibn Taimiyyah) the allusion that he and some of his followers are of the view of reincarnation…. It is not surprising that some of the Aimmah have branded Ibn Taimiyyah a total Zindeeq……His books are replete with Tashbeeh (likening Allah Ta'ala to creation), Tajseem (anthropomorphism), with ridicule for Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and Shaikhain (Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar - radhiyallahu anhuma), takfeer (to proclaim as kaafir) of Abdullah Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) and that he was a mulhid; he accused Abdullah Bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) of being a criminal and that he was astray and an innovator. He mentioned these things in his book called As- Siraatul Mustaqeem War Radd ala Ahlil Jaheem (The Straight Path and the Refutation of the People of Hell). I have also come across several of his statements in which he makes takfeer of the Four Imaams. Some of his followers said that he (Ibn Taimiyyah) exposed the fraud of the Four Imaams. With this he intended to mislead this Ummah because they (the Ummah) are the followers of these Four Imaams all over the world.. ….This is the statement of this jaahil (ignorant) mubtadi' (innovator, i.e. Ibn Taimiyyah) who was severely punished and imprisoned in the year 725 Hijri in Cairo." (4) Criticizing Ibn Taimiyyah for his kufr belief that the Mubaarak Body of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has decomposed and has disintegrated into sand in the grave, Imaam Taqiuddeen Hisni (rahmatullah alayh) says: "This khabeeth (vile, filthy) article of his is in conflict with Allah Azza Wa Jal, His Rasool and the belief of the People of Islam from the time they were Muslims until the Day of Qiyaamah. They (Ibn Taimiyyah and his followers) have embarked on this filthy view on the basis of their other filthy view, viz., the Rooh of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) according to these (miserable wretches) has perished and presently Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has no Rooh by Allah. His body in his grave is sand, hence his Nubuwwat has become null and void. His Risaalat ended with his death according to them. We seek refuge with Allah from this statement which is explicit kufr in which there is no doubt." On this issue pertaining to Ibn Taimiyyah's view of the decomposition of Rasulullah's Body, Imaam Taqiuddeen labels him (Ibn Taimiyyah) with the epithets of the Zindeeq of Haraan, the Fossilized Zindeeq, Jaahil…. He says: "That view of his is absolute kufr and zandaqah." (5) Regarding Ibn Taimiyyah's view that it is not permissible to undertake a journey to make ziyaarat of Rasulullah's Grave, Imaam Taqiuddeen Hisni (rahmatullah alayh) said: "No one but he in whose heart is the disease of the munaafiqeen and who is of the progeny of the Yahood and the enemies of the Deen, criticizes this. This Ummah of Muhammad has always undertaken journies to him from all over the world. Groups, individuals, Ulama, Mashaaikh, the old and the young had always journied (to make ziyaarat). Then appeared in this aakhiruz zamaan (the last of ages) an innovator from the Zindeeqs of Haraan confusing people with deceptive talk as perpetrated by his imaam, the Shaitaan, who prevented them from the Path of the People of Imaan with his adorned deception and by deflecting them from Siraatul Mustaqeem………." These few random extracts from hundreds of pages, are merely to convey to readers that the criticism of Ibn Taimiyya and his progeny of coprocreep Salafis was intensely undertaken by numerous Ulama and Fuqaha of all Math-habs centuries before the establishment of Daarul Uloom Deoband. The Ulama of Deoband are simply perpetuating the mission of Haqq and defending the Sunnah which Ibn Taimiyyah and his progeny have and are transmogrifying with their kufr. The Ulama of Deoband have arrived very late on the scene - centuries after the Arab Ulama and other Mashaaikh in the Islamic World had incinerated Ibn Taimiyyah and the legions of anthropomorphists and other baatil sects. (17) AL-ALBAANI'S CRITICISM OF IBN TAIMIYYAH Whilst the coprocreep has painfully, stupidly and abortively struggled to portray imagined inconsistencies in the noble Minhaaj of the illustrious Ulama of Deoband, he has either concealed or is THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 56 - ignorant of the many inconsistencies which exist in the erractic and confused manhaaj of the imams of the Copro-Salafis. There are many inconsistencies and mutual conflicts between Ibn Taimiyyah, Ibn Qayyim and Al-Albaani. The conspicuous corruption of many of Ibn Taimiyya's copro-beliefs has constrained even Al-Albaani, the recent imaam of the Salafis to criticize the great imaam of the Salafis, namely, Ibn Taimiyyah Among the severe differences between Ibn Taimiyyah and Al-Albaani are the following: (1) The eternity of the world. Whilst Ibn Taimiyyah held the kufr view of the earth having no temporal origin and it being co-eternal with Allah Azza Wa Jal, Al-Albaani refuted this vile kufr contention. (2) According to Ibn Taimiyyah, Jahannum will perish and come to an end. Al-Albaani rejecting this kufr says that Jahannum is everlasting just as Jannat is everlasting. (3) Ibn Taimiyyah propagated that Allah Ta'ala has settled physically (istiqraar) on the Throne and that Allah Ta'ala can similarly settle on the back of a misquito. Refuting this kufr, Al-Albaani labels it bid'ah. (4) Ibn Taimiyyah and his student Ibn Qayyim believed that Allah Ta'ala sits (qu-ood) on the Throne while Al-Albaani refutes this contention. (5) According to Al-Albaani, Ibn Taimiyyah had audaciously denied the validity of even Saheeh Hadith. (6) Whilst Ibn Taimiyyah and some of his mentally fossilized followers totally denied the validity of figurative meanings (al-majaaz) of the Qur'aan, Al-Albaani maintained its validity. Whilst Ibn Taimiyyah denied this type of ta'weel (interpretation), he himself is guilty of wholesale and baseless ta'weel which he perpetrates in the Qur'aanic verses. (7) Al-Albaani differs with Ibn Taimiyyah regarding the interpretation of the Hadith that Allah Ta'ala had created Aadam (alayhis salaam) in His form. (8) Al-Albaani differed with Ibn Taimiyyah on the issue of Allah's Ma-ayyah, i.e. the manner of Allah Ta'ala being ‘together' with creation. (9) They differed on the issue of Simaa-ul Amwaat, i.e. the ability of the dead hearing. (10) Ibn Taimiyyah maintained that the Mushabbihah sect should not be criticized. Al-Albaani criticized this baatil sect of kufr and anthropomorphism. This sect created resemblances for Allah Ta'ala with His creation in diametric conflict with the Qur'aan's declaration: "Nothing is like Him.” (11) Al-Albaani refuted Ibn Taimiyyah's belief of harkat (motion/movement) for Allah Ta'ala. Al-Albaani differs with Ibn Taimiyyah on the question of hadd (limits) for Allah Ta'ala. While Ibn Taimiyyah ascribes hadd for Allah Ta'ala and declares as kaafir the denier of hadd, Al-Albaani refutes this contention. (12) Differences between them on the question of Tawassul, i.e. Making dua by the medium of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). According to Ibn Taimiyyah it is Sunnah and beautiful to use the fingers, etc. to count the number of Tasbeeh one recites. But according to Al-Albaani doing so is an evil bid'ah. He brands those who proclaim this practice Sunnah as being among the Ahl-e-Hawa (the People of Lust/Desire). Thus, THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 57 - whilst Al-Albaani is a muqallid of Ibn Taimiyyah, he stupidly brands even his imaam as a member of Ahl-e-Hawa. These are some of the major inconsistencies in the Salafi ‘manhaaj'. Whilst the coprocreep has laboured in vain to establish inconsistencies in the Minhaaj of the Ulama of Deoband, he has conveniently or ignorantly overlooked or ignored the major inconsistencies existing among the major propounders of copro-Salafi'ism, namely, Ibn Taimiyyah, Ibn Qayyim and Al-Albaani. (18) THE MATH-HAB OF THE AHLUS SUNNAH WAL JAMA'AH The Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah are the followers of the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah. Today the Ahlus Sunnah consists of the followers of the Four Math-habs. Outlining the Math-hab of the Ahlus Sunnah, Shaikh Ahmad Bin Yahya Bin Ismaaeel who flourished during the 7th Islamic century states in refutation of Ibn Taimiyyah: "Verily, Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not teach people that Allah Ta'ala is in the direction above (jihatul ilw) nor has anything been narrated (from the Nabi -sallallahu alayhi wasallam) about istiwa' on the Arsh which the claimant (Ibn Taimiyyah) has made his fundamental basis (article of faith)…..What this claimant says, Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not teach to his Ummah…….We say that One should not delve into issues of this nature. Silence should be observed in relation to it just as Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Ashaab had done. What was permissible for them is permissible for us. They were silent (on the issues of Sifaat). Therefore, you will not find anyone among us (the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah) instructing the masses to delve into anything pertaining to the Sifaat (Attributes of Allah Azza Wa Jal) whereas this group (Ibn Taimiyyah and his followers) have made it their occupation to probe and dig into the Sifaat, and to instruct (people) in this regard. What resemblance is there with the Salaf (in this attitude and mannerism of this group)? We narrate here the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah. Our Aqeedah is: Allah is eternal having neither beginning nor ending. Nothing is like Him. He has no direction and no place. Time does not pass over Him. Where cannot be directed to Him. Nothing whatsoever of time, space and dimensions refer to Him. He is now just as He was since eternity. This is the Math-hab of the Ahlus Sunnah and the Aqeedah of the Mashaaikh of the Tareeq. Ja'far As-Saadiq (rahmatullah alayh) said: "Whoever opines that Allah is in something or of something or on something, verily, he has committed shirk, for if He had to be in something, He would be confined (to that container). If He had to be on something (e.g. the Throne), He would be borne by that thing. If He had to be of something, He would be temporal (not eternal)." Abu Uthmaan Al-Maghribi said: "I used to incline towards the belief of jihat (direction for Allah Ta'ala). However, when I went to Baghdad, that idea disappeared from my heart. Then I wrote to my companions in Makkah: ‘Verily, I have renewed my Islam.’" Then everyone who had followed him retracted from that (corrupt belief). These are the statements of the Beacons of the People of Tauheed and the Aimmah of the Jamhoor Ummah besides this small group (i.e. Ibn Taimiyya & Co.). Their books are replete with that (i.e. the belief of corruption)……………….. This claimant (i.e. Ibn Taimiyyah) claims that Allah is on the Arsh literally (and physically) and he based his view on the aayat: ‘Then He (Allah) made istiwa on the Arsh.', He interpreted this aayat to mean that Allah Ta'ala informs that He is on the Arsh, yet every intelligent person with sound understanding knows that istiwa alal arsh does not mean to be literally on the throne. We have already explained this earlier……………….. You (O Ibn Taimiyyah!) are the one who said what Allah, His Rasool, the Predecessors among the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, the Taabieen and the Mashaaikh of the Ummah did not say from the things any one of you had fabricated regarding Allah being in the direction above. You have said explicitly and have argued and have understood from what has been narrated about fis-samaa' (in the heaven), fauqas sama (above the heaven), fil arsh (in the throne) and fauqal arsh (above the throne) that it THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 58 - means jihatul ilw (the direction above). Now tell us: Who said these things? Did Allah or His Rasool or the early Predecessors among the Muhaajireen and the Ansaar or their Taabieen (followers) say this? Do not heap on us stupid incongruities. And, We seek Allah's aid." Refuting the kufr consequences stemming from Ibn Taimiyyah's copro-interpretations, the Shaikh says: "This (baatil) which he has said is the domain in which madness has assailed him and in which shaitaan has driven him to insanity with his touch. Now we say about that which you say, which has been narrated regarding plurality of Eyes (for Allah Ta'ala), the mention of one side, one foreleg, and the mention of hands (plural - more than two) - if we have to accept the literal meaning the effect will be a being who has one face on which there are many eyes, a being who has one side, many hands and one foreleg. Now who on earth can be uglier than such a being? And, if you steer away from this (ugly) meaning and resort to interpretation, then why did Allah and His Rasool and the Salaf of the Ummah not mention this?" Let us explain what the Shaikh is saying here. Allah Ta'ala mentions in the Qur'aan Majeed certain terms which He relates to Himself. Such verses are: * "And, construct the ship in front of Our Eyes." * "Woe to me for the neglect I committed regarding the Side (Jamb) of Allah." * "That Day when the Shin/Foreleg (Saaq) shall be revealed." * "Verily, We have created for them animals from that which Our Hands have made." According to Ibn Taimiyyah and his legion of anthropomorphists, the highlighted words must be understood in the literal sense, not in a figurative meaning. Now if the literal meaning has to be accepted, it will give rise to a hideously ugly being - a being with one face, numerous eyes, one side, one foreleg and numerous hands. Thus, Ibn Taimiyyah's moronic contention creates a veritable Hindu idol of hdeous and ugly form and proportion. Continuing his criticism of the anthropomorphists, including Ibn Taimiyyah and his clique, Shaikh Al-Kalaabi Al-Halbi says: "O claimant! These views have been acquired from the students of the Yahood….It is not hidden from all the Khawaas (Ulama) and from numerous of the masses that the Yahood are mujassimah and mushabbihaat. How can the opposite of tajseem and tashbeeh be acquired from them? Regarding the Mushrikoon - they were worshippers of idols. The Aimmah have explained that the worshippers of idols were the students of the mushabbihah, and the basis of worshipping idols is tashbeeh. How is it possible to acquire the opposite of tashbeeh from them (their students)? ……..Auzaa-ee did not say that Allah is above the Arsh literally (as Ibn Taimiyyah claims). From whence did you obtain this excess? Then he (Ibn Taimiyyah) narrated from Maalik Bin Anas, Thauri, Laith and Auzaa-ee that they said regarding the Ahaadith pertaining to the Sifaat: ‘Accept them as they have come (i.e. without interpretation).' So, why don't you adhere to that which the Aimmah have instructed? On the contrary, you have attributed to Allah jihatul ilw (that He is located above in the literal sense)……" We have here merely presented random extracts from the Shaikh's criticism of Ibn Taimiyyah and the anthropomorphists to indicate that the Ulama centuries ago, long before Deoband came into being, had severely criticized Ibn Taimiyyah and his kufr beliefs. (19) IMAAM MAALIK'S STATEMENT We have already mentioned earlier that when a man came to Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) to enquire about the meaning of Istiwa alal Arsh, Imaam Maalik said: "Believing it is Waajib and asking about it is bid'ah.." Then he ordered the man to be expelled. The coprocreep making taqleed of his deviant imams sought to extravasate capital from Imaam Maalik's statement to ‘prove' his ‘ilw' contention. However, there is not a vestige of support in Imaam Maalik's statement for the Salafi belief of istiwa'. Imaam Maalik did not propagate that Allah Ta'ala is in jihatul ilw. His answer to the enquirer does not remotely allude to istiwa' meaning jihatul ilw. He adopted silence on the issue. He did not branch off into ta'weel of istiwa' as do the copro-Salafis in emulation of their imaam, Ibn Taimiyyah. Whilst Ibn Taimiyyah and the coprocreep Salafis resort to THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 59 - baatil ta'weel (baseless copro-interpretation) to forge a literal meaning for istiwa' giving rise to anthropomorphistic attributes for Allah Azza Wa Jal, Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) and all the Salaf of the Ahlus Sunnah steered far away from the kufr conclusion of Ibn Taimiyyah's literal interpretation. There is absolutely nothing in Imaam Maalik's statement to support even remotely the literal interpretation which the coprocreep Salafis give the term, istiwa'. There is no support for the corrupt jihatul ilw view which the coprocreep propagates by blindly following Ibn Taimiyyah who contrary to his stance against the Mutakallimeen, emulated the minhaaj of the Greek philosophers. (20) THE DEVIATION OF IBN TAIMIYYAH In Anwaarul Baari, Hadhrat Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri (rahmatullah alayh) states: "Haafiz Ibn Taimiyyah and his Najdi and Salafi followers have clashed with the Jamhur Ummah more in the Usool and Aqaaid than in Furoo-i Masaa-il. Before Ibn Taimiyyah scores of books were written on the subject of Usoool-e-Deen in which the Akaabir Ulama of the Ummah had explained the correct beliefs in the light of the Salaf of the Sahaabah, Taabieen and Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen. However, Haafiz Ibn Taimiyyah had effected changes in these beliefs, and in many issues he has deviated from the Maslak of Imaam Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh), and he joined the ranks of those Hanaabilah who had abandoned the Maslak of Imaam Ahmad. Allaamah Ibnul Jauzi Al-Hambali (died 597 Hijri) had written his very famous kitaab, Daf'u Shubhatit Tashbeeh War-Rad alal Mujassimah min May Yantahilu Math-habal Imaam Ahmad, in refutation of those who had abandoned the Hambali Math-hab (but preached their anthropomorphic corruption under cover of being Hanaabilah). Then, after Ibn Taimiyyah, Allaamah Taqiyuddeen Abu Bakr Hisni Damashqi (died 829 Hijri) had written a highly authoritative kitaab, Daf'u Shubhah Man Shabbaha Wa Tamarrada Wa Nasaba Thaalika Ilas Sayyidil Jaleel Al-Imaam Ahmad. A correct understanding of Ibn Taimiyyah's beliefs can be acquired from these two kitaabs. Studying these two kitaabs is extremely important." (21) IMAAM GHAZAALI The extremely wide chasm between Ibn Taimiyyah and Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) could be gauged from the fact that Ibn Taimiyyah had branded Imaam Ghazaali and Imaamul Haramain kaafir who are worse than the Yahood and Nasaara. (Mawaafaqatul Uqool of Ibn Taimiyyah). (22) CONFINING ALLAH TA'ALA TO SPACE The severest and most virulent dispute between the Ash'aairah (the followers of Imaam Ash'ari) and the anthropomorphists masquerading as Hanaabilah was the issue of jihat (direction). The fraudulent ‘hanaabilah' propagated that Allah Ta'ala is stationed on the Arsh. Ibn Taimiyyah adopted this view. The Ash'aairah as well as the Maturidiyyah maintained that the effect of this copro-belief was to conceptualize a material body for Allah Ta'ala. It led to Tajseem (anthropomorphism). Since all material/physical bodies are of temporal origin and inherently perishable, it logically follows that these same defects will necessarily apply to Allah Ta'ala - Nauthubillaah! - as a logical consequence of the copro-belief of Allah's confinement to the Arsh. According to the Ashaairah, Allah Ta'ala cannot be confined to a specific place. Neither fauq (being above) nor taht (being below) applies to Allah Azza Wa Jal, hence there is no specific direction for Allah Ta'ala. According to all the Salaf, Istiwa alal Arsh means the lofty, sublime status of Allah Ta'ala. They regarded this to mean Ilw-e-Shaan, not istiqraar (to literally rest and settle) and juloos (to sit). The hands being raised towards the heaven when making dua is because the heaven is the ‘qiblah' for Dua, not because it (the heaven) is the abode of Allah's istiqraar and juloos. The following kitaabs are outstanding in this field. They provide the searcher of the truth with a panoptical survey of the subject. The jihat view is thoroughly decollated and demolished. The three kitaabs, worthy of studying, are: f) Al-Asmaa' Was-Sifaat by Imaam Baihqi g) Iljaamul Awaam an Ilmil Kalaam by Imaam Ghazaali THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 60 - h) Majmul Muhtadi Wa Rajmul Mu'tadi by Allaahamah Fakhruddin Quraishi Shaafi. Haafiz Ibn Jauzi as well as other senior Hanaabilah have also proved that Imaam Ahmad is free from the any anthropomorphic view regarding Allah Ta'ala. Imaam Baihqi states in Manaaqibul Imaam Ahmad that Imaam Ahmad refuted those who held the view of anthropomorphism. Similarly, the other Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen had also refuted this baatil concept. Allaamah Taqiyuddeen Hisni states in his kitaab, Daf'u Shubh that Ibn Taimiyyah had once practically demonstrated how Allah Ta'ala, according to his belief, descends from the Throne. He then practically descended two steps from the mimbar. The people were so agitated by this kufr that they manhandled him, pushing, jostling and hitting him. He was apprehended and taken to the authorities. Elsewhere in this Refutation this incident has also been explained. Allaamah Taqiyuddeen Hisni mentioned that Ibn Taimiyyah, in his book, Al-Arsh, has mentioned that Allah Ta'ala sitting on His Throne has left some space vacant which will be occupied by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Allaamah Subki states in his kitaab, As-Saifus Swaqeel, that the book, Al-Arsh, is among the most abominable of Ibn Taimiyyah's writings. It was on account of this vulgar book that Shaikh Abu Hayyaan had dissociated himself from Ibn Taimiyyah. Prior to this, Abu Hayyaan had lauded much praise on Ibn Taimiyyah. In his book, At-Ta'sees, Ibn Taimiyyah mentioning Daarimi, said that if Allah Ta'ala wants to sit on a mosquito, he can do so. So why can't He sit on the Arsh. This Daarimi should not be confused with Haafiz Abdullah Bin Abdur Rahmaan Daarimi As-Samarqandi (died 255 Hijri), the compiler of Sunan Daarimi. The Daarimi who was Ibn Taimiyyah's mentor was a crude, incorrigible Mujassimi. Indeed, only a person whose scorbutic brain is mired in the bowels of kufr can so audaciously venture such idolatrous concepts for Allah Azza Wa Jal. From His Shaan-e-Ilw - from His incomprehensible Status of Sublime Loftiness and Grandeur, Ibn Taimiyyah and his progeny of Salafi coprocreeps have brought Allah Ta'ala down into the dregs of Hindu idolatrous myths and fiction. In refutation of Ibn Taimiyyah's monstrous concept of jihat leading to its hideous anthropomorphic consequences, Allaamah Shahaabuddeen Kilaabi (died 733 Hijri) had written a treatise which Allaamah Taajuddeen Subki has narrated in his Tabqaat. Since both these kitaabs had not been published, Ibn Taimiyyah's kufr views on the issues of istiqraar alal arsh, jihat, etc. have remained somewhat concealed. However, in Ghazwal Juyoosh on page 88, Ibn Qayyim, the student of Ibn Taimiyyah, mentions that the latter frequently emphasised the need to publish Daarimi's book, An-Naqdh. Ibn Taimiyyah held this book in high regard. Thus, the haze and the veil which had concealed the vile anthropomorphic concepts of Ibn Taimiyyah have been lifted. Daarimi's An-Naqdh has been published. On page 33 it is mentioned that Allah Ta'ala has a limit, i.e. Allah Ta'ala is a finite being. The space He occupies also has a limit. He is on His Arsh above the heavens in space. These are two limits. In fact, it is mentioned that every person is more aware of Allah's makaan than the Jahmis. On page 79 is mentioned that the negation of limit for Allah Ta'ala is the belief of the Jahmiyyah. Thus, it is clearly implied that Imaam Tahaawi and all the Ulama and Aimmah of the Ahlus Sunnah who negate limits of any kind for Allah Azza Wa Jal, are Jahmis and Jahannamis. The coprocreep Salafis are hemmed in by their own anthropomorphic kufr stemming from their corrupt ta'weelaat of the Mutashaabihaat Qur'aanic verses. On page 84 of An-Naqdh is mentioned that Allah Ta'ala is seated on the Kursi, and there remains a space of four inches on the Kursi. On page 85 he mentions that if Allah Ta'ala desires, He can settle on the back of a mosquito. He adds, when by Allah's power the mosquito can bear Allah Ta'ala aloft, then why the hesitation to accept Allah's sitting on the Throne? On page 100 he states that the peak of a mountain in relation to its foot, and the dome of a minaret in relation to its base, are closer to Allah Ta'ala. On page 121 it is mentioned that Allah's istiwa (i.e. literal sitting) on the Arsh is eternal. In other words, the Arsh is uncreated. It has no temporal origin. It is co- eternal with Allah Ta'ala. On page 286 he compares Allah's ‘physical' weight on the Arsh with stones and iron. Ibn Taimiyyah and Ibn Qayyim are in support of all these idolatrous copro-concepts which have created for Allah Ta'ala an anthropomorphic concept. May Allah Ta'ala save us from all this kufr THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 61 - which deranged minds have conjectured. Says the Qur'aan: "So has Allah cast rijs (filth) on those who have no intelligence." Sight should not be lost of the fact that the Salafis of our age have published An-Naqdh of Daarimi, Kitaabut Tauheed of Ibn Khuzaimah and As-Sunnah of Abdullah Bin Al-Imaam Ahmad (not to be confused with Imaam Ahmad bin Hambal). These three books of kufr are loaded with anthropomorphic copro-kufr beliefs and concepts. Despite the coprocreep Salafis of our age denying and concealing on the basis of their doctrine of Taqiyah, their actual beliefs of a physical deity with physical limbs akin to the gods of the Greeks and Hindus, their publication of the books of kufr held in high esteem by their imaam, Ibn Taimiyyah, has ripped off their evil mask behind which they have tried to hide their anthropomorphic understanding of Allah Azza Wa Jal. In view of the publication of the aforementioned three books of kufr, every person now has access to the views, beliefs and concepts of Ibn Taimiyyah. Everyone can ascertain first-hand the kufr of the coprocreeps. In the introduction of An-Naqdh of Daarimi, it is mentioned that this book is being published in accordance with the instruction and directive of Ibn Taimiyyah and Ibn Qayyim, and both are in agreement with the views expressed by Daarimi. In fact, the miserable coprocreep has listed Daarimi in his rambling diatribe as one of the authorities of Salafi'ism. Let him comment on the kufr anthropomorphic teachings of this mentor of Ibn Taimiyyah. Ibn Khuzaimah, in his book, Kitaabut Tauheed, in the tafseer of aayat 195 of Surah A'raaf, has ‘proven' that Allah Ta'ala has feet, literally speaking. In Fathul Baari, Haaafiz Ibn Hajar has thoroughly denounced and refuted Ibn Khuzaimah. It is clear from the Tafseer of Imaam Raazi (rahmatullah alayh), that Ibn Khuzaimah's book, At-Tauheed is a rotten book of shirk and kufr. Yet the coprocreep expects Muslims to be awed at the mention of Ibn Khuzaimah simple because he happened to be a muhaddith. It is salubrious to note that there are Munkar (Rejected and Noxious) narrations in the so-called ‘Saheeh' of Ibn Khuzaimah. (23) SHAIKH ABU HAYYAAN ANDALUSI The famous Mufassir and Lughwi (Lexicologer), Shaikh Abu Hayyaan Andalusi was a contemporary of Ibn Taimiyyah. Initially he had considerable praise for Ibn Taimiyyah. Later, when he was apprised of the deviations of Ibn Taimiyyah, he vigorously rebutted these. In his Tafseer Bahr Muheet and in An-Nahar, he very stridently and vigorously refuted the copro-propagations and views of Ibn Taimiyyah. In An-Nahar, in the commentary of the aayat, "His Kursi encompasses the heavens and the earth", Shaikh Abu Hayyaan states: "I have read in the kitaab, Al-Arsh, written by my contemporary, Ahmad Ibn Taimiyyah that Allah Ta'ala is sitting on the Kursi, and that He has left a space on it alongside Him, which space will be occupied by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)." This kitaab was acquired from Ibn Taimiyyah by Taaj Muhammad Bin Ali Bin Abdul Haq on the pretext of disseminating his (Ibn Taimiyyah's) mission, i.e. to spread his ideas, beliefs and concepts. "I have seen in some of his fataawa that the Kursi is the stool on which Allah Ta'ala rests His feet. ….Similarly, it does not stem from Allah Ta'ala saying (in the Qur'aan): ‘I have created Aadam (alayhis salaam) with My two hands.', that the literal meaning is not intended. The meaning in this regard is the same as it applies to us." (In other words, Allah Ta'ala has two hands literally just as human beings have two hands - Nauthubillaah!) After citing the statements of Abu Hayyaan Andalusi, Allaamah Taqiyuddeen Hisni states: "It's is clear that Ibn Taimiyyah holds the view of Tashbeeh (resemblance of Allah Ta'ala with created beings). He confirms this in his commentary on Istiwa alal Arsh. (24) THE SKULDUGGERY OF THE COPROCREEP The coprocreep, in emulation of his deviant imams, has resorted to skulduggery and deception in a bid to bamboozle the unwary and the ignorant by citing a litany of names of the Salaf and Khalaf. Thus, Ibn Taimiyyah mentions Auzaa-ee, Thauri, Imaam Maalik and many other illustrious authorities of Islam of the Salaf era. But his attempt to bamboozle fails. Whilst names are rattled off, the THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 62 - coprocreep has miserably failed to produce the statements of the illustrious Salaf to support his baatil jihatul ilw contention structured on his corrupt interpretation of the term, istiwa'. Neither Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) nor a single Sahaabi nor any one of the Aimmah Mujtahideen nor any of the noble Salaf the coprocreep mentioned, had propounded the jihatul ilw view. If any one of them did, the coprocreep should produce his evidence. The jihatul ilw belief is a fabrication of Ibn Taimiyyah and others centuries after the Khairul Quroon (25) AQEEDAH IS BASED ON QAT'IYYAT Aqeedah or Belief is not the effect of opinion and deduction. Aqeedah is based on Dalaail the slightest vestige of doubt. Such evidence is the Qur'aan and Qat'iyyah - such evidence which is explicit and which does not brook Ahaadith Mash-hoorah. Aqeedah is not deducted on the basis of conjecture or in terms of the understanding of persons regardless of their status. No one is the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). No authority has the right to impose his view on the Ummah to accept as Aqeedah. The basis for the Aqeedah of Ibn Taimiyyah is extremely flimsy, in fact baseless. He has no Qat'i Daleel for any of his corrupt beliefs. Ibn Taimiyyah's jihatul ilw aqeedah which constitutes the pivot of his ‘imaan' and the most important fundamental of his ‘islam', has been forged by interpreting unrelated Aayaat and Ahaadith narrations such as: * The Hadith pertaining to the African slave woman pointing towards the heaven * Good words rise upwards to Allah * Fir'oun's attempt to locate Nabi Musa's Allah in the heaven * Raising the hands when making dua * A dumb man having to raise his finger when slaughtering according to the Hambali Math-hab. On the basis of verses and narrations of this kind, and even on weak Ahaadith, do the Salafis fabricate beliefs which have anthropomorphic effects. Beliefs are established by explicit Nusoos, not by deduction, interpretation and conjecture. The Aqaaid of Islam - Tauheed, Risaalat, the Ambiya, the Malaaikah, the Kutub, the Last Day, Resurrection, Taqdeer, etc. - are all beliefs explicitly and categorically pronounced by the Qur'aan and Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatarah. These Aqaaid are not structured on conjecture and opinion, least of all the opinion of some wayward entities such as Ibn Taimiyyah, who mushroomed on the Islamic scene seven centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). There is no ambiguity and no argument in the Aqaaid which have reached us from the Sahaabah and the Salaf-e-Saaliheen. The conundrums of Jihatul Ilw, Istiwa alal arsh, confusing and perplexing incongruities pertaining to Zaat and Sifaat and the like were never even alluded to by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahaabah and the illustrious Ulama and Mashaaikh of the Khairul Quroon era. All of these noble Salaf taught the fundamental beliefs of Islam simply, without the destructive encumbrance of philosophical paraphernalia. The validity of Imaan is not dependent on pointing the finger skywards. When a person embraces Islam, pointing the finger upwards is not a requisite nor does it have any status in the array of Shar'i practices. The solitary case when the illiterate slave woman was asked about Allah Ta'ala, and in response she pointed skywards was her peculiarity. It was confined to only this one female. Furthermore, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not ask her to point skywards. It was her own mode of convincing Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) of her belief in The One Allah. By her pointing upwards she negated the worship of the idols in the Ka'bah. Pointing the finger upwards like a dumb slaughterer for the validity of Thabah in terms of the Hambali Math-hab, is not a requisite for Imaan. Not a single Math-hab requires this act for the validity of Imaan. No one besides coprocreep Salafis, had ever made the pointing of the finger a constituent of Aqeedah. Location or space is not attributed to Allah Ta'ala, hence we are required to only believe in the existence of Allah Ta'ala with all His Attributes of Excellence without formulating concepts for His Attributes. Jihatul Ilw and Istiwa alal arsh concepts are the fabrications of the anthropomorphists among whom are the coprocreep Salafis of this age. There is no validity in their denial. Innumerable THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 63 - Ulama of the Ahlus Sunnah of all Four Math-habs, centuries before the era of Deoband, had criticized and conclusively decreed the dhalaal, baatil and even kufr of Ibn Taimiyyah and his legion of anthropomorphists. The coprocreep has miserably failed to sustain the falsehood with which he has laboured to paint the Ulama of Deoband. He has tried to make the Ulama of Deoband a scapegoat for his total inability of responding to the solid criticism of the many Ulama who have written against Ibn Taimiyyah centuries ago. Were all the noble Ulama of the Four Math-habs who appeared several centuries before Deoband also ‘Deobandis'? The honest searcher in the quest for the truth will not fail to discern that whatever the Ulama of Deoband have proclaimed is exactly what the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah has propagated since the time of the Sahaabah. In this refutation we have merely presented samples of the Haqq. There is, however, a need to publish short treatises on all the corrupt beliefs of the Taimiyyite Salafis. The masses find it too tedious to wade through voluminous books. Therefore, if Allah Ta'ala bestows to us the taufeeq, Insha-Allah, short treatises in refutation of Salafi coprocreep beliefs shall be written. In concluding, we should express our thanks and appreciation to the coprocreep for having alerted us to this need. After perusing his ramblings in his erratic diatribe against the Ulama of Deoband, the need to refute Taimiyyite beliefs is incumbent for the safety of the Imaan of the masses who are deceived by the false slogan of the Salafis, namely Qur'aan and the Sunnah. There is no Qur'aan and no Sunnah in the beliefs and arguments of the coprocreep Salafis. Their religion is Taimiyyism presented under cover of Qur'aan and Sunnah. (26) IBN TAIMIYYAH’S VILEST KUFR The worst dimension of Ibn Taimiyyah’s kufr is his belief of the eternity of the universe and of the Arsh (Throne) of Allah Ta’ala. In fact, eternity of all creation. Commenting on this vilest kufr, Haafiz Ibn Hajr Asqalaani (rahmatullah alayh) in his Fathul Baari, Vol.13, page 410 on the Hadith: ‘Allah existed and nothing existed before Him.’ says: “This Hadith is the most explicit (narration) in refuting the one who has formulated (the concept): hawaadithu la aw-wala laha (i.e. temporal things have no origin). This (concept) is among the vilest concepts attributed to Ibn Taimiyyah. I observed him in his discussion on this issue giving preference to a narration on this issue over another narration (thus effectively discounting the other Hadith), despite the fact that the principle of combining (or reconciling) demands that this narration should be applied to the narration pertaining to the origin of creation, not the opposite way. Al-Jam’u (combining by reconciliation) by ittifaaq (consensus) has priority over Tarjeeh (according preference).” Either Ibn Taimiyyah was ignorant of this principle in the science of Hadith, or he simply ignored it for the sake of giving credibility to his abhorrent creed of temporal objects having no origin. In several of his books, Ibn Taimiyyah has written the irrational monstrosity that despite perishable objects (Hawaadith) being the creations of Allah Ta’ala, they have no beginning. In the annotation, Minhaaj Sunnah,Vol.1, page 245 of the treatise, Mawaafaqatu Saheeh Manqulihi li Sareehi Ma’qulihi, Ibn Taimiyyah states: “Therefore, most certainly Incumbent (laazim) Eternity (azli) is Nau- ul Haadith, not Ainul Haadith…..” Let us explain this irrational kufr conundrum excreted by the scorbutic brains of Ibn Taimiyyah. He describes the universe including the Divine Throne with the term Nau-ul Haadith, not Ainul Haadith. All temporal objects are Haadith which means they have a beginning in time and they are the subject of annihilation. On the other hand, Azli means eternal, that is, something which has no temporal origin and will never perish or come to an end. There is absolutely not the slightest vestige of doubt according to the Ahlus Sunnah that the only Eternal Being is Allah Azza Wa Jal. In emulation of the Greek philosophers who expounded the concept of the eternity of the universe, Ibn Taimiyyah went one step further to compound this irrationality by formulating in his copro sensorium a concept which he dubbed Nau-ul Haadith La Ainul Haadith. According to this Nazgh Shaitaani (evil whisper of the devil), the physical object undergoes perpetual/eternal change of kind (nau) whilst retaining its being. Example: Allah’s Arsh according to the copro-concept is Qadeem THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 64 - (eternal) bin Nau ( in kind). Thus, the Arsh is eternally being replaced by a new Arsh. There was no beginning for this process nor will there be an end to it. It is eternal in perpetuous generation. Similarly is it with the universe. Indeed the Qur’aan Majeed has issued its Fatwa in the following aayat: “And, He (Allah) casts rijs (filth) on those who lack intelligence.” In the very same book, Ibn Taimiyyah shamelessly utters the following copro-falsehood: “The majority of the People of Hadith and those who conform to them do not aver that Nau (his copro- concept) is haadith (temporal). On the contrary it is qadeem (eternal).” - Vol.2, page 75\ In his Sharah Saheeh Bukhaari, Haafiz Ibn Hajar has also refuted this kufr concept of Ibn Taimiyyah. On this same issue, Muhaqqiq Haafiz Ibn Daqeequl Eed who was a contemporary of Ibn Taimiyyah, states in Al-Fatah, Vol. 12, page 202: “He (i.e. Ibn Taimiyyah) who claims to be an expert in the rational sciences and who has inclined to the (Greek) philosophers has fallen into this issue. Thus, he hallucinated that the one who opposes the temporality of the universe shall not be declared a kaafir because (doing so) is from the category of Ijma’……..Indeed his argument is baseless even according to a blind person, for verily, the temporality of the universe is by way of such Ijma’ (Consensus) which is established by narrational Tawaatur.” Ibn Taimiyyah had degenerated further in his quagmire of irrational kufr by abnegating the existence of Ijma’ on the fact that Allah Alone is Eternal. He rejected this immutable Belief and amended and mutilated it with his copro-belief of the Arsh and the universe being co-eternal with Him – Nauthubillaah! He stated this kufr in his treatise, Naqd Maraatibil Ijma’, page 168. The obnoxiousness of this belief of vile kufr constrained even Al-Albaani to comment: “In the Hadith: ‘Verily, the first thing which Allah Ta’ala had created was the Qalam (The Pen).’, is also a refutation for the one who claims that a temporal object had no beginning, and that it is not a creation except that it was preceded with a creation before it in this way that it had no beginning so that it cannot be said that: ‘This is the first creation.’ However, the Hadith negates this view and is supported by the fact that the Qalam (Pen) was the first creation. Thus, prior to it there was absolutely no makhlooq (created being). Ibn Taimiyyah has expounded at length in his refutation of the philosophers in the attempt to prove that temporal objects had no beginning. But during the course of this (exposition) he propounded something which bewilders intelligences and which the majority of hearts cannot accept. That view of his (i.e. of Ibn Taimiyyah) is unacceptable. In fact it is marfoodh (rejected with disgust) with this Hadith. Many a time we wished that Ibn Taimiyyah had not delved in this domain (We say in this quagmire of kufr – Author) because, verily, indulgence in it is tantamount to (indulgence) in philosophy and Ilmul Kalaam….” (Saheeh of Al-Baani, Vol.1, page 208) – End of Al- Albaani’s comment and lament. In his Sharhul Mukhtasar li Aqeedatit Tahaawiyah, page 35, Al-Albaani commenting on this corrupt belief of his Imaam, Ibn Taimiyyah, says: “The aforesaid difference indicates that the Ulama are unanimous on the fact that there was a first creation. Those who hold the view that temporal beings had no origin are in conflict with this Consensus because they explicitly maintain that there was a created being before every created being as Ibn Taimiyyah has explicitly stated this in some of his books.” The copro-Salafis of our era, Al-Albaani and ostensibly even Ibn Taimiyyah, are the implacable foes of philosophy and of even Ilmul Kalaam which is the branch of Knowledge which the Ulama-e-Haqq had formulated to counter, negate and demolish the kufr which the heretical sects had introduced in Islam via the avenue of Greek philosophy whose corrupt works they had translated into Arabic. But, this corrupt belief of kufr propounded by Ibn Taimiyyah is the direct result of the impact of Greek philosophy with which he had dabbled and into whose snare he was entrapped. Even Al-Albaani failed to extricate his imaam from this quagmire of kufr. He was thus compelled to abandon his imaam to continue sinking into the quagmire unto eternity or until the Day he will be hauled into the Divine Court to answer for his kufr. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 65 - Whilst Ibn Taimiyyah was also the implacable foe of Ta’weel , at least ostensibly to beguile others, this haraam aqeedah of kufr formulated by him provides a window into Ibn Taimiyyah’s monumental science of ta’weel. It is by kufr and baatil ta’weel that Ibn Taimiyyah had formulated the hideously abominable concept of kufr – the concept of created beings being eternal with Allah Ta’ala. The contention that a makhlooq (created being) having no temporal origin is undoubtedly the effect of such insanity which is the effect of shaitaani influence on the brains of a man whom Allah Ta’ala, in His Wisdom has decreed for deviation. Says the Qur’aan: “They do not stand except as one who has been driven to madness by the touch of shaitaan.” “And, Allah leads astray whomever He wishes.” According to the Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that when a person abstains from Fajr Salaat and continues sleeping until after sunrise, then shaitaan urinates into his ear. In the light of this Hadith it appears to us that shaitaan had urinated into the brains of the one who had formulated the abominable kufr theory of temporal things have no origin. It is sheer satanic madness and stupidly irrational and ludicrously self-contradictory to propound the moronic idea of a ‘created’ being having no ‘origin’. In a miserable endeavour to overcome this monstrous stupidity, Ibn Taimiyyah was constrained to fabricate another stupid, irrational concept which he termed: qadeem bin nau’ which means that the tangible object itself, e.g. a donkey, is not eternal and that it does perish, but the nau’ (i.e. the species or kind) is eternal. In other words, the donkey in front of you is not eternal since it was preceded by another donkey which was preceded by another donkey which was preceded by another donkey and so on ad’infinit’um – forever and forever and forever in both spheres of the past and present. This vile kufr monstrosity leads logically to the conclusion that once upon a time in eternity there was a donkey which had no temporal origin, but had been existing with the existence of Allah Ta’ala, being eternal in the past whilst not eternal in the future. Nauthubillah! May Allah Ta’ala save us from such satanic insanity. Ibn Taimiyyah having dabbled with Greek philosophy which is simply another domain of Greek mythology, was faced with the dilemma of ta-addud-e-qudamaa’, (i.e. plurality of eternal beings). Since this concept of plurality of eternal beings is palpable shirk, Ibn Taimiyyah tries to surmount this insurmountable problem in terms of the principles of philosophy with which he had become enamoured. He thus forged his theory of qadeem bin nau’ without understanding that even in terms of his own corrupt and convoluted idea, there had once upon a time in eternity existed a donkey which was not created by Allah Ta’ala – Al-iyathubillaah! – and which had no temporal origin, but at the same time there was another donkey before it. One sinks deeper and deeper into a stinking quagmire of kufr and irrationality with this weight of kufr like a dead albatross around the neck. The effect of this theory is that Allah Ta’ala is, Nauthuibillah, not a conscious Creator, and that makhlooq (creation) is by spontaneous generation, one after the other without the active control, plan and volitional power of Allah Azza Wa Jal – Nauthubillaah! Just like the philosophers, Ibn Taimiyyah too has reduced Allah Ta’ala to an inanimate, impersonal creative force which creates without the effects of the Divine Attributes of perfection, glory and splendour as we know and believe. Allah Ta’ala, in terms of these kufr philosophical theories is like the sun which emanates heat and light without its volitional control, intent, knowledge, etc. Just as the sun lacks the ability of withholding its light and heat, so too is it with Allah Ta’ala Who in terms of this kufr concept has no control over creation. Despite what Ibn Taimiyyah says in his religious books, this is the precise ultimate effect of his theory which supplements the atheism of the philosophers. People who formulate such corrupt philosophical theories are in fact atheists. In the quest for establishing a rational aetiological concept for Allah Azza Wa Jal, which quest itself is kufr, Ibn Taimiyyah compounded his kufr and shirk with his qadeem bin nau’ and hawaadithu la aw-wala laha theories. (27) IBN TAIMIYYAH, PHILOSOPHY, ILMUL KALAAM – HIS FALSE FAÇADE Ibn Taimiyyah and his legion of Copro-Salafis usually exhibit the notion that they are vehemently opposed to Greek philosophy which was the religion of the early baatil sects which had developed in THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 66 - Islam, and also opposed to Ilmul Kalaam which was the methodology of Ulama-e-Haqq of the early era of Islam to combat the kufr which the deviant philosophers had introduced in the Ummah. Innumerable people, including many Ulama had also deviated from Siraatul Mustaqeem as a consequence of the onslaught of the philosophers of the baatil sects. The opposition of the Copro-Salafis and Ibn Taimiyyah is a fraudulent façade. A study of some of the books of Ibn Taimiyyah, e.g. Mawaafaqatu Saheeh Manqulihi, Al-Hasanatu Was-Sayyiary, Ar-Rad alal Mantiqiyyeen, As-Safdiyah, etc., testifies to the fact that he had made an indepth study of both Greek philosophy and Ilmul Kalaam. Not only this – he had in fact fully employed the principles, rules and methodologies of these two sciences to substantiate his own baatil concepts of kufr such as hawaadithu la awwala laha and qadeem bin nau’. It is abundantly clear that Ibn Taimiyyah was enamoured by the methodology as well as by the concepts formulated by the philosophers. Following in their footsteps, he forged his own concepts which are not very dissimilar to the ideology of the philosophers. Ibn Taimiyyah’s indulgence in philosophy constrained even Al-Albaani to lament: “Many a time we wished that Ibn Taimiyyah had not delved into this domain because, verily, in it is a resemblance with philosophy and Ilmul Kalaam.” The Saheeh of Al-Albaani, Vol.1, page 208) (28) AL-ALBAANI REFUTES IBN TAIMIYYAH Ibn Taimiyyah is the ‘mujtahid’ imaam of the Copro-Salafi-Taimiyyite math-hab which was initiated in the 7th century. Al-Albaani and all Copro-Salafis of this age are the blind followers of Ibn Taimiyyah. However, so obnoxious is the concept of temporal things have no origin, and the theory of the eternity of the species of the universe, that even Al-Albaani was constrained to write in rebuttal of his Imaam. In his kitaab, Silsilatul Ahaadith As-Saheeh, commenting on the Hadith: ‘Verily, the first thing which Allah created was the Qalam (The Pen). He commanded it to write everything which will happen.’, Al-Albaani says: “This Hadith refutes the one who says that temporal things have no origin, and that there is no creation but it was preceded by a creation before it ad’infinit’um so that it is impossible to say that this (e.g. the Qalam) is the first creation. This Hadith rebuts this view and supports the view that the Qalam was the first created object. Hence, before it there was absolutely no makhluq (creation). Verily, Ibn Taimiyyah – May Allah have mercy on him – in his refutation of the philosophers, has discussed at length in the attempt to prove that temporal things have no origin (i.e. no beginning in time). During the course of his discussion he mentioned such things which bewilder the intelligence, and which the majority of hearts cannot accept. Thus his adversaries accuse him of saying that created objects (makhluqaat) are eternal, having no temporal origin despite him explicitly saying that every makhluq is preceded by non-existence. But, together with this, he maintains the continuity of created things ad infinit’um. This view is unacceptable. In fact, it is rebutted by this Hadith. Many a time we wished that Ibn Taimiyyah – May Allah have mercy on him - should not have delved into this domain, for verily, delving in this resembles philosophy and Ilmul Kalaam of which we have been taught to beware and from which to flee. ( Al-Albaani in a specious attempt to exonerate Ibn Taimiyyah from this concept of kufr, adds): But, what Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) had said is the truth, namely: ‘There is no one from among us who has refuted and who was refuted except the inmate of this grave (i.e. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).’” That is, only Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasalam) was free from the commission of blunders which everyone else commits. Note how coyly and flabbily Al-Albaani defends his Imaam despite the colossal belief of kufr and shirk expounded by Ibn Taimiyyah. But for the Mutakallimeen Ulama-e-Haq who constituted the bulwark of Islam’s defence against the avalanche of kufr introduced by the many deviant sects such as the Mu’tazilah, Mujassimah, Hashwiyyah, Karaamiyyah, Baatiniyyah, Qadriyyah, Jabriyyah, Jahmiyyah, etc., he (Al-Albaani) and the Copro-Salafis in subservience to their imaam, Ibn Taimiyyah, have nothing but vulgar condemnation, yet not a single view propounded by the Mutakallimeen is kufr or in conflict with any precept and tenet of Islam. In his annotation on Al-Aqeedatut Tahaawiyyah, Al-Albaani states: THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 67 - “…Verily there is consensus of the Ulama that there was a first creation. Those who maintain the view of hawaadithu la awwala laha (temporal things have no origin) are in conflict with this Hadith (which mentions that the Pen was the first created object), because they explicitly say that before every created object (makhluq) was another created object ad infinit’um as Ibn Taimiyyah has explicitly mentioned in some of his books. Therefore if they (Ibn Taimiyyah and others who hold this view) accept that the Arsh was the first creation, then their theory of hawaadithu la awwala ha collapses. And, if they do not say that the Arsh was the first creation, then they conflict with the Consensus (Ittifaaq of the Ulama). Ponder this, for verily it is vital.” Al-Albaani here refutes Ibn Taimiyyah on several issues: (1) His baseless theory of temporal things having no beginning in time. (2) His indulgence in philosophy (3) His conflict with the Saheeh Hadith (4) His conflict with Ijma’ (29) IBN TAIMIYYAH’S VIRULENCE AGAINST THE MUTAKALLIMEEN The rancorous attitude exhibited by the Copro-Salafis for the Mutakallimeen, is in emulous imitation of the unjustified virulence which Ibn Taimiyyah harboured for these Ulama-e-Haq who were the bastions of the Sunnah. Whilst Ibn Taimiyyah conjectured and fabricated concepts of kufr, the Mutakallimeen countered, refuted and demolished the kufr and baatil stemming from Greek philosophy which had infiltrated into the fabric of Islam when the works of Arastu (Aristotle), Suqtaat (Socrates), Aflatoon (Plato), etc. were translated into Arabic and studied by numerous of the Muslim intelligentsia of the early era of Islam. Shaitaan had succeeded in ensnaring the intelligentsia who considered it honourable to be known as philosophers in the same way as ignorant westernized Muslims of today believe that it is honourable to be scientists. Just as philosophy was their god, today technology has become the god. To combat the deluge of kufr, the Ulama-e-Haqq of the time formulated a dialectical science akin to philosophy in which the principles of logic were utilized to neutralize the views of kufr of the Greek philosophers. The Mutakallimeen’s one and only fundamental objective was to defend and guard the Aqaaid of the Sunnah. They had no other business. They did not formulate concepts. They did not introduce new concepts into Islam as did Ibn Taimiyyah and the numerous other deviates who preponderated in the early epoch of Islam. Ilmul Kalaam was merely a weapon or a methodology for defending all the existing Beliefs of Islam. The methods of imparting the knowledge of the Deen and of Jihad have changed considerably over the centuries. Islam does not advocate fossilization in methodology. Whilst the Aqaaid of the Deen are cast in rock and gold, and are immutable, methodology is subject to change. However, inveighing against the noble Mutakallimeen Ulama, Ibn Taimiyyah rails: “These Mutakallimeen combined in their talk haqq and baatil. They combated baatil with baatil. They refuted bid’ah with bid’ah when they debated with the philosophers on the issue of the temporality of the universe, and similar other issues. ……” This is not the occasion to discuss and debate the issue of the temporality or eternity of the universe. In brief, the eternity of the world is baatil and a theory of kufr. The point to highlight here is merely the fact that the Mutakallimeen were defending the beliefs of Islam, e.g. that the world has a temporal origin; that it originated in time and is a creation of Allah Ta’ala. The animosity which Ibn Taimiyyah harboured for the Mutakallimeen deranged his mental equilibrium. Instead of supporting the Mutakallimeen, he produced arguments to show weaknesses in the arguments of the Mutakallimeen, thereby strengthening the cause of the philosophers. Whilst the Mutakallimeen had originated a methodology to counter and neutralize the kufr concepts of the philosophers, the philosophers propounded beliefs of kufr. Ignoring the objective of the Mutakallimeen, Ibn Taimiyyah made their methodology of defending the Haqq the target for his invective conveying the impression that the Mutakallimeen themselves were propounding baatil beliefs. But this is horrid slander against these illustrious Ulama of Islam. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 68 - On the contrary, to prove his kufr theory of qadeem bin nau’ (eternity of species), Ibn Taimiyyah employed the principles of the very Ilmul Kalaam he was lambasting, to the eternal regret of Al- Albaani and the Copro-Salafi scholars of successive ages. It would be no exaggeration to contend that Ibn Taimiyyah and the philosophers were on the same side of the fence in an alliance against the Mutakallimeen. On the issue of the eternity of the universe, Ibn Taimiyyah and the philosophers are on the same wavelength. Whilst the philosophers believe that the universe is eternal, Ibn Taimiyyah also believes that the world is eternal albeit in a deceptive, fraudulent way. The philosophers affirm eternity for quiddity (ain) while Ibn Taimiyyah affirms eternity for species (nau’). Ibn Taimiyyah’s theory of the eternity of the universe is a round about way of holding the nose. The philosopher, in order to hold his nose, places his hand directly on to his nose. Ibn Taimiyyah curls his hand around the back of his head to reach his nose. This is the only difference. The objective of both deviants is the same, viz., reaching and holding the nose. Thus the eternity of the universe is the kufr objective of both the philosophers and of Ibn Taimiyyah, and for which the Copro-Salafis can find no defence and no valid grounds for exonerating their chief imaam, Ibn Taimiyyah. Whilst Ibn Taimiyyah labels the methodology of the Mutakallimeen bid’ah and baatil, it is surprising that a scholar of his calibre and ability being ignorant of the Shar’i meaning of bid’ah. Whilst Shar’i objectives remain static and do not change, methods for the attainment of the objectives (Maqaasid) do change and have always changed. Methodology is an evolutionary process which comports to the Shariah. It is open to elaboration and expansion. Methodology is not presented by the Shariah in a frozen cocoon or as an immutable tenet which brooks no change whatsoever. Provided there is no conflict with any principle or tenet of the Deen in the new methodology for achievement of the original objective of Islam, there can be no valid objection against it. Thus, Ibn Taimiyyah’s invective against the Mutakallimeen on the basis of their methodology is baseless and unjustified. It devolves on the coprocreep to pinpoint any conflicts with the Deen which has been hallucinated by Ibn Taimiyyah and his legion of Copro-Salafis in the methodology of the Mutakallimeen. It is the irrational lament of morons to brand the methodology bid’ah and baatil without providing the reasons for their castigation. The methodology of the Mutakallimeen regardless of it being chagrin to Ibn Taimiyyah, is not subsumed by the Shar’i meaning of Bid’ah. The coprocreeps should return to Madrasah to acquire the requisite expertise for understanding the principles of the Shariah. The objurgatory attitude which Copro-Salafis display for the Mutakallimeen in emulation of Ibn Taimiyyah simply exposes their jahaalat. The irrational concept of created beings having no temporal origin is not a new creation of Ibn Taimiyyah. It is old kufr hat of prehistoric philosophers who wallowed in mythology and Satanism. The theory of temporal beings having no origin is known as abiogenesis or spontaneous generation. It is a corrupt, stupid, moronic theory labouring to explain the origin of creation. The theory is too moronic and too demeaning for the Muslim intelligence to even seek elucidation. Everyone is aware of faeces and its process of excretion. There is therefore no need to probe it further. What is remarkable in this vile saga is the falsehood and nifaaq of the likes of Al-Albaani and the whole gamut of Salafi sheikhs. Despite them all unanimously rejecting this kufr of Ibn Taimiyyah - they do not deny its attribution to Ibn Taimiyyah - they persist in glorifying and ‘deifying' the misguided Ibn Taimiyyah. They continue to regard him as their Imaam in all departments of Islam. Yet, they label as kaafir the entire Ummah comprising of the followers of the Four Math-habs for not accepting the copro-belief of Allah Ta'ala being seated like a human king on the throne, and for not accepting the validity of the copro-belief of jihatul ilw, i.e. Allah Ta'ala is literally and physically stationed in and confined to such space which in relation to terrestrial beings is ‘above' (fauq). Whilst they laud and applaud Ibn Taimiyyah despite his beliefs of kufr (it is not only the kufr of the eternity issue), they believe that the mass slaughter of the followers of the Math-habs is permissible - that they are Mubaahud Dumm. They believe that the wealth and property of the adherents of the Ahlus Sunnah (consisting of the Four Math-habs) are amwaalul ghaneemah (spoils of war). They believe that it is permissible to enslave us and that our women folk could be made Milk-e-Yameen, i.e. property possessed by the right hand. All of this is justified on the basis of their notion that all the followers of THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 69 - the Math-habs are kuffaar. It was on this very basis that the Saudi nomads who were installed as the rulers of Hijaaz by the British and to whom they owe their appellation of royalty, had perpetrated the mass slaughter of the inhabitants of the Haramain Shareefain. No one should be fooled and befogged by the present ‘civilized' attitude of the Saudi rulers. Modernity, western culture and oil-wealth have taken their toll and have compelled the Saudi Salafis to polish their nomadic abrasiveness and compromise with even Yahood and Nasaara kufr, hence we find them (the Saudi Salafis) at the forefront of the kufr interfaith movement whose objective is the destruction of Islam. Ibn Tamiyyah's vile concept of Qadeem bin Nau' has in effect stripped Allah Azza Wa Jal of His Power, Independence, and of all His Attributes of Excellence, for the necessary corollary of this satanic concept is that Allah Ta'ala is a creative energy/force who has no power and no control over the flow of creation emanating from Him. He is like the sun which is a source of heat and energy, but which has no power and control over its emanations. The heat, light and energy emanate from the sun without its volitional creation and control - Nauthubillah! Let us supplicate that Allah Ta'ala sustains the validity of our Imaan and that He blesses us with correct Imaan until our souls take flight from our earthly bodies. No one knows what the morrow holds for him/her. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: "Imaan is suspended between fear and hope." If the Salafis had been men of the truth, they would have openly and emphatically dissociated from Ibn Taimiyyah on account of this massive belief of kufr. When Imaam Ash'ari (rahmatullah alayh) whom the Salafis condemn, and who had initially been a Mu'tazili, realized the kufr deviation of his Mu'tazili teacher, he broke away from the Mu'tazili sect and initiated his crusade against this baatil sect. But, Al-Albaani and the Salafi sheikhs of today have only perpetuated the baatil of Ibn Taimiyyah. (30) THE FALLACY OF IMAAM ASH'ARI'S ALLEGED RETRACTION The coprocreep echoing the ghutha (rubbish) of his Salafi mentors, claims that Imaam Ash'ari (rahmatullah alayh) had on his deathbed forsaken his mission of defending the Ahlus Sunnah, and had adopted the way of the deviates masquerading as Hanaabilah. Copro-Salafis are at pains to enlist Imaam Ash'ari as a supporter of their Hashwiyyah religion of vulgar anthropomorphism. In the parlance of our age, the Salafi Hashwiyyah are referred to as Copro-Salafis. Several centuries after the initiation of the Mujassimah/Hashawi sect of copro-anthropomorphists, Ibn Taimiyyah in the 7th century of the Islamic era undertook the satanic task of reviving the anthropomorphism preached by his predecessors - Ibn Hamid, Abu Ya'la and Zaaghooni who have been exposed by Allaamah Ibnul Jauzi Al-Hambali for their beliefs of tajseem.. The first copro-anthropomorphist (Hashawi) who had attempted to portray Imaam Ash'ari (rahmatullah alayh) as a supporter of Taimiyyi tajseem was Ibn Taimiyyah himself. In history he was the very first copro-anthropomorphist to claim that Kitaabul Ibaanah, a kitaab allegedly authored by Imaam Ash'ari supported the math-hab of the copro-anthropomorphists. The attempt of the Copro- Salafis, inspired by Ibn Taimiyyah, has been to create the idea that Kitaabul Ibaanah was Imaam Ash'ari's final book. Ibn Taimiyyah and his legion of Hashwis - the Copro-Salafis of our age - have latched on to Kitaabul Ibaanah to bolster their anthropomorphic math-hab despite the fact that Ibn Taimiyyah and the Copro-Salafis in general are in vehement criticism of Imaam Ash'ari. As far as the book, Kitaabul Ibaanah is concerned, there appears this Copro-Hashawi, Ibn Taimiyyah, four centuries after Imaam Ash'ari to claim that this treatise was his last work whereas no one before Ibn Taimiyyah held the view that Kitaabul Ibaanah was Imaam Ash'ari's final work. His final work was in fact Kitaabul Luma. There even exists sharp disagreement among Ash'aris regarding the author of Kitaabul Ibaanah. They are not agreed on authorship of the book, whether Imaam Ash'ari was at all its author. There is a strong view that the Copro-Anthropomorphists (Hashawis) had fabricated this kitaab to create the impression that Imaam Ash'ari too was in support of their copro-beliefs. Nothing is furtherst from the truth than this contemptible fallacy and falsehood fabricated by Ibn Taimiyyah, the reviver of the Hashwiyyah religion in the 7th century. Imaam Ash'ari (rahmatullah alayh) was an implacable foe of anthropomorphism. If Kitaabul Ibaanah, assuming it is the work of Imaam Ash'ari, if it was his final THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 70 - kitaab, there would have been Ash'aris from amongst his close followers as well as contemporaries who would have confirmed this contention. But there is not a single Ash'ari who maintains that Kitaabul Ibaanah was his final work. It was the anthropomorphist reviver, Ibn Taimiyyah who had made this preposterous claim in the seventh century, four centuries after Imaam Ash'ari (rahmatullah alayh). The Math-hab of Imaam Ash'ari (rahmatullah alayh) is what is asserted in Kitaabul Luma and what the Ash'ari Ulama have propagated over the centuries. If Imaam Ash'ari had retracted his position at the end of his life as the Copro-Salafis and their Copro-Imaam claim, then surely such retraction would not have remained hidden for four centuries, and it would not have been left for an anthropomorphist 4 centuries later to proclaim the hallucinated retraction. Any retraction by Imaam Ash'ari would most assuredly have been adopted by at least a handful of Ash'aris, if not by the majority. But not a single Ash'ari has followed his Imaam in the supposed retraction hallucinated by Ibn Taimiyyah. There is absolutely no historical evidence to support the copro-contention of Ibn Taimiyya and his legion of Copro-Salafis. There is absolutely no support for the Hashwi doctrines which Ibn Taimiyyah and the Copro-Salafis propound. Debunking Ibn Taimiyyah's allegation pertaining to Kitaabul Ibaanah and the hallucinated retraction of Imaam Ash'ari, and even rejecting the claim of Imaam Ash'ari even being the author of the book, the following appears on the book, The Attributes…: “A number of scholars of the past and the present have rejected the idea that Kitaab al-Ibaana was written by Shaykh Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari. Amongst them is a contemporary by the name 'Isaa ibn `Abd Allah Maani` al-Himyari. This is what he says in his book, Tashih al-Mafaahim: ‘As for Kitab al-Ibaana ascribed to Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, may God show his mercy, there is debate about that [ascription) for a number of reasons: First: Ibn Furak and others of the companions of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari did not mention this book as being one of his works. Likewise, the rest of his pupils have not mentioned it to our knowledge; Second: There is much discrepancy between the [different] copies and there is conflict in their texts; something that confirms the Hashwiyya's meddling with this book; Third: There are expressions in Kitaab al-Ibaana that contradict the apparent meanings of the texts of Abu al- Hasan al-Ash'ari that he mentions in his other books, especially Kitaab al-Luma' ` al-Saghir and al-Kabir, which is the last of what he wrote. Likewise, it contains expressions that contradict the words of his pupils and the Imaams of his madhhab while they are those who have transmitted the madhhab from him; Fourth: Some of the Mutamaslifa ("Salaf-s") attempted to attribute the 'aqida of anthropomorphism (tajsim) to Imaam al-Ash'ari but they were not able to, and I knew that one of the students of an esteemed Islamic university undertook this task but failed.’” The explanation pertaining to Kitaabul Ibaanah is in reality superfluous to the topic of our current Refutation of the coprocreep in view of the fact that the stupid diatribe of the Hashwi coprocreep is directed at the Ulama of Deoband and Imaam Maturidi. Whether Kitaabul Ibaanah is the work of Imaam Ash'ari or not, or whether it was his first kitaab or his last kitaab, germane to the dispute between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Copro-Salafis, it is a peripheral factor which is not the determinant for any of the issues of dispute between the Ahl-e-Haqq (Imaam Maturidi and his followers) and the Ahl-e-Bid'ah and Baatil (the Copro-Salafis and their Imaam Ibn Taimiyyah). (31) “CUT THEIR HANDS AND FINGERS” – IMAAM AHMAD BIN HAMBAL Whilst these Copro-Salafis predicate literal/physical hands and appendages for Allah Azza Wa Jal, Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh) severely threatened the anthropomorphists. Shahrastaani in Al-Milal wan Nihal says: “Imaam Ahmad and his Math-hab abhorred tashbeeh (likening Allah Ta’ala to creation) so much so that he used to say: ‘Whoever moves his hand whilst reciting the aayat: ‘I created with My Hand’, or indicates with his fingers when narrating the Hadith: ‘The heart of the Mu’min is between the two fingers of Ar-Rahmaan,’ cut off his hand or fingers’.” From this strident stance of Imaam Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh) it is quite clear that the Hashawis – the Copro-Salafis – and their Imaam, Ibn Taimiyyah, fraudulently claim to be Hanaabilah since their THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 71 - insistence on the literal meanings for the Mutashaabihaat aayaat which mention the Hand, Eyes, Shin, Face, etc. of Allah Ta’ala, incumbently affirms tajseemi (anthropomorphic) attributes and appendages for Allah Ta’ala – Nauthubillaah! Imaam Ahmad’s command to cut off the hands and fingers of those who gesture with their hands and fingers implying thereby tashbeeh and tajseem for Allah Ta’ala, is a stern warning for the Copro- Salafis to desist from their corrupt ta’weel leading to anthropomorphism. (32) THE COPRO-SALAFI’S DECEPTIVE OPPOSITION TO TA’WEEL Although the Copro-Salafis blow a lot of hot air piping their anti-ta’weel song, they are the worst offenders in the perpetration of ta’weel. They are deceits and frauds in this regard. Their opposition to Ta’weel is a canard and a massive deception. They are adept in practising selective ta’weel whenever it suits their corrupt whimsical anthropomorphic beliefs. Consider their corrupt belief regarding the Istiwa alal Arsh issue. The Copros vigorously howl that the literal meaning of the term applies to Istiwa, namely, Allah Ta’ala is literally and physically on the Arsh. In the books of the imaams of the copros such as Ibn Taimiyyah, Ibn Khuzaimah and Daarimi (not the Muhaddith Daarimi of Sunan Daarimi), the shocking details of their anthropomorphic concept of Allah’s literal presence on the Arsh are stated vividly. They have converted Allah Azza Wa Jal into an idol. Under the deceptive guise of their concept of ‘tauheed’, they believe in an idol. They say that we should accept the literal meaning of istiwa which means to sit, to settle on. In rebuttal of their ghutha, we say: Why do you now resort to interpretation? On what basis have you selected the literal meaning? The Qur’aan clearly states that the meaning should be assigned to Allah Ta’ala. The Qur’aan says: “Those grounded in Knowledge, say: ‘We believe in all these verses. All these verses are from Allah.’” But those “in whose hearts there is a crookedness search for their meanings to pursue fitnah.” Ibn Taimiyyah and the anthropomorphists who preceded him such as Ibn Khuzaimah and Daarimi are guilty of the ‘fitnah’ mentioned in this Qur’aanic aayat. They were not content to leave the meaning to Allah Ta’ala. They delved into the quagmire of the Mutashaabihaat and fabricated their copro-anthropomorphic beliefs and convoluted concepts, saying that if Allah Ta’ala is devoid of hands, feet, eyes, ears, etc., then it will be like worshipping “a watermelon” – Nauthubillaah! Regarding the verses, “He is Allah in the heavens and in the earth. Wherever you may be, He is with you. East and West belong Allah. Whichever way you turn, there is His Face.”, and similar other aayaat, the Copro-Salafis make a round about turn and brazenly resort to ta’weel to steer away from the literal meaning. With regard to these aayaat, they do not employ the same rule which they apply to Istiwa alal Arsh. On the basis of ta’weel, they say that Allah is with His Knowledge in the East and West, and with us, etc., but He is with His Being (Zaat) on the Arsh. Their selective employment of ta’weel demonstrates the inconsistency in the stupid manhaaj of the Copro-Salafis. Allah’s Presence in a confined space on the created Throne must be accepted as a fundamental belief according to the Copro-Salafis. But as far as His Presence everywhere as explicitly affirmed in the Qur’aan, they say by way of interpretion: “He is in the east and west and everywhere with His Knowledge.” This is the type of corrupt ta’weel which comes within the scope of their ‘no- ta’weel’ self-contradictory principle. (33) RIJS (FILTH) ON THE BRAINS The Qur’aan Majeed says: “Thus, does He (Allah) cast rijs (filth) on those who cannot understand.” Regarding Ibn Taimiyyah’s deviation from the Path of the Ahlus Sunnah, Allaamah Subki (rahmatullah alayh) attributed it to his lack of comprehension, saying that “his knowledge superseded his understanding”. Ibn Taimiyyah’s knowledge was more than his understanding or beyond his comprehension. Hidaayat (guidance) is the prerogative exclusively of Allah Ta’ala. One does not attain hidaayat on the basis of one’s knowledge. Shaitaan had vast textual knowledge, but all of his knowledge did not secure Hidaayat and Imaan for him. Similarly, Ibn Taimiyyah, Ibn Khuzaimah, Daarimi and many others, despite having an abundance of textual knowledge, miserably failed to understand the THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 72 - knowledge. They were bereft of the Noor of Ilm. Thus, they deviated from the Minhaaj of the Salaf-e- Saaliheen – the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah – and lost themselves in a cesspool of evil concepts and beliefs. Consider Ibn Taimiyyah’s beliefs of the eternity of the universe and the Throne of Allah Ta’ala. He fabricated a belief which besides being kufr, is shockingly moronic and irrational. By appellating the moronic eternity of the universe concept with his fabricated technical term, he sought to camouflage its crass silliness. He described his concept of the eternity of the universe and the Arsh with the term qadeem bin nau’ (eternal in kind). This abject stupidity has already been explained earlier. Here attention is drawn to the failure of Ibn Taimiyyah’s brains to understand an extremely simple, self-evident truth, which is the irrefutable fact that not the Qur’aan, not Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and not any of the Sahaabah, and not any one of the Aimmah and Ulama of the Salf-e- Saaliheen had ever even breathed anything about qadeem bin nau’. Yet, he, more than 6 hundred years after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forged this concept and expected the Ummah to believe in it as if it was the product of Divine Revelation. Ibn Taimiyyah, despite the abundance of his knowledge and the numerous books he authored, could not understand that the concept of qadeem bin nau’ was an excretion of his own brains, and that there is absolutely no daleel for it in the Qur’aan, Sunnah and the teachings of the Salaf. The divinely cast rijs did not permit his brains to understand that he was alone in the fabrication of this kufr concept, and that too more than six centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). So how could a concept which originated after so many centuries ever have any relationship with the Aqeedah of Islam? Another example of the failure and seizure of Ibn Taimiyyah’s brains is his belief of the annihilation of Jahannum – that Jahannum will one day be extinguished. There is consensus of the Ummah that this belief is kufr. However, even if we set aside temporarily this consensus, and for entertaining the argument, if it is conceded that Jahannum will one day be annihilated, the fundamental questions are: From whence did Ibn Taimiyyah acquire this belief? Did Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) or the Sahaabah or the Salaf-e-Saaliheen ever propagate this belief? In the more than six centuries before Ibn Taimiyyah, did anyone of Islam’s authorities proclaim this belief? There is not a single one of these Authorities of the Deen prior to Ibn Taimiyyah who had held this belief of kufr. This is a simple fact which Ibn Taimiyyah had failed to comprehend. Whatever was excreted by his brains, he treated it as if it was the product of Wahi. (34) THEIR SLOGAN: THE QUR’AAN AND THE SUNNAH The Copro-Salafis of our age are very vociferous in the assertion of their hallucinated minhaaj being the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. This slogan of the “Qur’aan and Sunnah” is their stunt to bamboozle the ignorant and the unwary. Coupled to their deceptive slogan is their implacable aversion for Taqleed which they brand, ‘Blind Following”. However, when Copro-Salafis find no arrows in their quiver of ‘Qur’aan and Sunnah’, they swiftly change their tune, forget about Qur’aan and Sunnah, and speak about the Salaf, although they denounce the ignorant masses for following the Math-habs of the Four Imaams. It will be salubrious for them when they choose to debate with the Ahlus Sunnah – the Ulama of Deoband in this age – to divest themselves of their selective penchant of ‘taqleed’ when they find themselves lacking in the ability to debate on the basis of only the Qur’aan and Sunnah. We are not interested to hear from Copro-Salafis – Hashawis who abhor our Math-habs - about Imaam Maalik, Imaam Auzaa-ee and the many other Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen who are our seniors to whom we offer Blind Taqleed. Despite our Blind Taqleed, we are not interested to hear the illustrious names of these august Stars of Uloom from the copro-soiled lips of the anthropomorphist Salafis. The very term ‘Salafi’ is a misnomer for them. They are not Salafis. They are Mujassimis and Hashawis. Dear Coprocreep! When you contemplate discussing with us via your stupid ranting diatribes, do so on the basis of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, for this is a common platform. Our Salaf are not a daleel for you Taimiyyite believers in a physical deity. Don’t seek cover in the shade of the Aimmah-e- Mujtahideen. There is no affinity between Ibn Taimiyyah, your Imaam, and the Aimmah of the Four Math-habs. The Maaliki qaadhis had condemned Ibn Taimiyyah to prison for his kufr beliefs. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 73 - Innumerable Maaliki, Hanafi, Shaafi’ and Hambali Fuqaha and Mashaaikh in every century had condemned the zandaqah of Ibn Taimiyyah. So just adhere to the Qur’aan and Sunnah when you choose to debate with the Muqallideen of the Math-habs. Our Minhaaj is the Qur’aan and Sunnah via the Taqleed of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) whose Aqeedah was expounded by Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh) whose Blind and Proud followers are we the Ahnaaf Ulama of Deoband. We trust that you have understood this clear message. The Ulama of Deoband do not subscribe to any taqiyah doctrine as the Copro-Salafis and Shiahs do. Thus, the Ulama of Deoband do not conceal their unflinching adherence to the Minhaaj of Imaam Maturidi as you, Copro-Salafis hide your blind taqleed of Ibn Taimiyyah under the hollow slogan of ‘Qur’aan and Sunnah’. (35) AKAABIR (SENIOR) ULAMA OF THE UMMAH WHO HAVE CRITICIZED IBN TAIMIYYAH The scourge of anthropomorphism (ascribing physical attributes to Allah Azza Wa Jal) was initiated by some Hanaabilah who had deviated grossly from the Math-hab of Imaam Ahmad Ibn Hambal (rahmatullah alayh). Senior Ulama of the Hanaabilah such as Allaamah Ibnul Jauzi (rahmatullah alayh) had severely and vigorously condemned these anthropomorphists who were masquerading as Hanaabilah. This aspect has already been explained in this Refutation against the Salafi coprocreep who has taken cover under the veil of anonymity. The idolatrous religion of anthropomorphism was initiated centuries before Ibn Taimiyyah. When Ibn Taimiyyah appeared on the scene during the 7th Islamic century, he revived and gave new impetus to the cult of anthropomorphism initiated by his predecessors such as Uthmaan Bin Saeed Daarimi (died 280 Hijri), Abu Abdullah Ibn Haamid (died 403 Hijri), Qaadhi Abu Ya’la (died 458 Hijri) and Zaaghooni (died 527 Hijri) . Abu Muhammad At-Tameemi said regarding Abu Ya’la: “Abu Ya’la has so abhorrently disgraced the Math-hab (of Imaam Ahmad) that the waters of the oceans cannot wash it (the disgrace) away.” Complaining of these impostor ‘Hanaabilah’, Allaamah Jauzi says in his Daf’u Shubh: “You have disgraced this Math-hab (of Imaam Ahmad) so shamefully that when the word, ‘Hambali’ is mentioned, it is understood that he is one who likens Allah Ta’ala to His creation.” However, Ibn Taimiyyah borrowed the Shi’i doctrine of Taqiyah (holy hypocrisy) under cover of which he tried to conceal his many kufr beliefs of anthropomorphism. He camouflaged his cult by proclaiming it to be the Deen of the Salaf. Whilst he was swift in rattling off the names of the illustrious Aimmah and Ulama of the Salaf, he has miserably failed to produce even one of the Salaf Ulama to corroborate his beliefs of kufr – the beliefs of jihat, literal istiwa (sitting) on the throne, eternity of the universe and Arsh, etc., His many beliefs of kufr have already been enumerated and briefly refuted earlier. Ibn Taimiyyah had given new impetus to the beliefs of the anthropomorphists. The followers of Ibn Taimiyyah call themselves ‘Salafis’ despite them having no resemblance in belief with the Salaf who constituted the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. The list of Ulama who had severely criticized Ibn Taimiyyah is indeed formidable. He was criticized and condemned from his very age, and in every era the Ulama of the Ahlus Sunnah of all Math-habs vehemently condemned him centuries before Deoband came into existence. Hereunder follows a list of some of these noble and great Ulama. Be assured that not a single name is that of a Deobandi Aalim. 1. Haafiz Ibn Daqeeq Al-Eed (d.702 Hijri), the contemporary of Ibn Taimiyyah 2. Shaikh Saalih Bin Abdullah Al-Bataahee (d. 707) 3. Shaikh Kamaaaluddeen Ar-Rifaai Al Qarshi Ash-Shaafi 4. Shaikh Taajuddeen Ahmad Bin Araaullah Ash-Shaazali (d.709) 5. Qaadhiyul Qudhaat Ahmad Bin Ibraaheem As-Surujee 6. Al-Hanafi (d.710) 7. Allaamah Ibn Raf’ah (d.710) 8. Allaamah Fakhruddeen Qureshi Shaafi’ (d. 714) THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 74 - 9. Shaikh Ali Bin Muhammad Bin Khattaab Al-Baaji (d.714) 10. Shaikh Safiuddeen Hindi Shaaf’i, a contemporary of Ibn Taimiyyah (d.715) 11. Al-Muhaddith Al-Faqeeh Muhammad Bin Umar Bin Makki Ibnul Marhal Ash-Shaafi’ (d. 716) 12. Shaikh Sadruddeen Ibnul Wakeel (d.716) 13. Qaadhiyul Qudhaat Al-Maaliki Ali Bin Makhluf (d. 718). He declared: “Ibn Taimiyyah proclaimed Tajseem. According to us (Maalikis) whoever believes this, is a kaafir, and his execution is Waajib.” 14. Al-Faqeeh Shaikh Muhammad Bin Ali Al-Maazini Ad- Duhhaan (d.721) 15. Allaamah Muhaddith Wafqeeh Nuruddeen Bikri (d.724) 16. Shaikh Zainuddeen Bin Rajab Hambali (d. 725). He was the student of Ibn Qayyim 17. Qaadhiyul Qudhaat of Madinah Munawwarah Shaikh Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Muslim Bin Maalik Al-Hambali (d. 726) 18. Qaashu Kamaaluddeen Bin Zamlakaani (d.727) 19. Shaikhul Islam Allaamah Abul Hasan Ali Bin Ismaaeel Qaunawi (d.728) 20. Qaadhiyul Qudhaat Shaikh Taqiyuddeen Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Akhnaa-ee (d.732) 21. Allaamah Ibn Jahbal (d.733) 22. Shaikh Abdullah Bin Jamaa-ah (d.733) 23. Shaikh Shahabuddeen Ahmad Bin Yahya Al-Kalaabi (d. 733 Hijri) 24. Al-Faqeeh Abul Qaasim Ahmad Bin Muhammad Ash- Shiraazi (d.733) 25. Shaikh Umar Bin Abil Yamanil Khummi Al-Faakah Al- Maaliki (d.734) 26. Qaadhi Kamaaluddeen Ibn Zamkaani (d.737 Hijri) 27. Qaadhiyul Qudhaat Jamaaluddeen Ansaari (d.738) 28. Al-Faqeeh Al-Muhaddith Jalaaluddeen Muhammad Al- Qazooni Ash-Shaafi’ (d.739) 29. Shaikh Eesa Az-Zawaawi Al-Maaliki (d.743) 30. Shaikh Ahmad Bin Uthmaan At-Turkamaani Al-Juzjaani Al-Hanafi (d.744) 31. Shaikh Abu Hayyaan Andalusi (d. 744 Hijri), a Contemporary of Ibn Taimiyyah 32. Al-Faqeeh Shamsuddeen Muhammad Adlaan Ash-Shaafi (749) 33. Haafiz Alaa-ee Shaafi’ (d 761 Hijri) 34. Haafiz Zahbi. He was a contemporary of Ibn Taimiyyah. Despite him subscribing to tajseem (anthropomorphism), he severely criticized Ibn Taimiyyah after initially holding a high opinion of him although the Copro-Salafis are now denying this fact. 35. Shaikh Taqiyuddeen Subki Kabeer (d. 756) 36. Ibn Shaakir Al-Kanbee (d.764). He was Ibn Taimiyyah’s student. 37. Shaikh Mahmood Bin Muhammad Bin Ibraaheem Ibn Jumlah (d.764) 38. Shaikh Afeefuddeen Abdullah Bin As’ad Al-Yaafi (d.768) 39. Allaamah Afeedud Deen Yaaf’i (d.768) 40. Shaikhul Islam Taajuddeen Subki (d. 771) 41. Shaikh Abu Abdullah Bin Arfah At-Tuneesi Al-Maaliki (d.803) THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 75 - 42. Shaikhul Islam Al-Bulqeeni (d. 805) 43. Imaam Sharif Al-Jurjaani (d.816) 44. Shaikh Taqiyuddeen Hisni Damashqi (d. 829 Hijri) 45. Shaikh Alaauddeen Bukhaari Al-Hanafi (d. 841 Hijri). He had declared Ibn Taimiyyah a kaafir and said that whoever addresses him with the title, Shaikhul Islam, is also a kaafir. 46. Haafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalaani (d.852) 47. Shaikh Abdul Azeez An-Nahraawi 48. Shaikh Hasan Bin Ajmad Bin Muhammad Haseeni 49. Shaikh Muhammad Uthmaan Al-Bureeji 50. Shaikh Muhammad Bin Ahmad Humaiduddeen Al-Farghaani Al-Hanafi (d.867) 51. Shaikh Ahmad Zarruq Al-Faasi Al-Maaliki (d.899) 52. Shaikh Daawud Abu Sulaimaan 53. Al-Haafiz Sakhawi (d.902) 54. Shaikhul Islam As-Suyuti (d. 911) 55. Shaikh Jalaauddeen Dawwaa-ee (d.918) 56. Allaamah Ahmad Bin Muhammad Bin Abi Nafe Abdul Malik Qustulaani (d. 923) 57. Sanadul Muhadditheen Muhammad Al-Bareesi 58. Shaikhul Islam Zakariyya Al-Ansaari (d.926) 59. Shaikh Abdun Naafi’ Bin Muhammad Bin Iraaq Damashqi (d.962) 60. Shaikh Ahmad Muhammad Al-Khawaarzami Ibnul Qura’ (d.968) 61. Shaikhul Islam Ibn Hajar Haitami (d. 974) 62. Imaam Al-Shirbeeni Khateeb (d. 977) 63. Shaikh Ahmad Bin Muhammad Al-Watree (d.980) 64. Allaamah Muhaddith Mullah Ali Qaari (d.1014) 65. Muhaddith Muhammad Bin Ali Bin Alaan As-Siddiqi Al-Makki (d.1057) 66. Qaadhi Al-Bayaadhi Al-Hanafi (d.1098) 67. Allaamah Abdu Abdullah Bin Muhammad Zurqaani (d.1122) 68. Imaam Ibn Alawi Al-Haddaan (d. 1132) 69. Hadhrat Shah Abdul Azeez Muhaddith Dehlwi (d.1239) 70. Allaamah Ibn Aabideen Shaami (d. 1252) 71. Allaamah Aalusi (d.1270) Author of Tafseer Ruhul Ma-aani 72. Allaamah Shaukaani (d. 1250) Despite being a Ghair Muqallid, he also criticized Ibn Taimiyyah. 73. Shaikh Abu Saamid Bin Marzooq (d.1315) 74. Allaamah Shaikh Muhammad Zaahid Al-Kauthari (d.1371) 75. Allaamah Shaikh Salaamahu Qadhaa-ee Shaafi (d.1376) This list is not exhaustive. This list of impressive names of great Ulama who glittered in the firmament of Islamic Knowledge, and who hail from all Math-habs, did not criticize, revile and reject Ibn Taimiyyah for no reason. The fact that innumerable great Ulama of the Ahlus Sunnah undertook the obligation of refuting Ibn Taimiyyah should be sufficient evidence for the deviation of Ibn Taimiyyah and his anthropomorphic math-hab. There are numerous other great Ulama who had criticized and refuted Ibn Taimiyyah, and the lambasting of so numerous Ulama was centuries before the advent of the Ulama of Deoband. Yet the coprocreep, in his diatribe of ghutha has acquitted himself in a manner to convey the falsehood that the Ulama of Deoband had initiated a new sect and that the criticism against Ibn Taimiyyah is their initiation. Furthermore, the moderation employed by the Ulama of Deoband in their criticism of Ibn Taimiyyah and the high academic level they have maintained, has perplexed us juniors. We wonder why did our Akaabireen not outrightly brand Ibn Taimiyyah a murtad as the Arab and other Ulama had done centuries ago despite the stark beliefs of kufr propounded by him. Whilst the attitude of bias in favour of Ibn Taimiyyah by many Ulama of Deoband is understandable due to their defective research in this field, the ambivalent attitude of our other very senior Ulama who were experts in Taimiyyism is a conundrum. Perhaps this conundrum dissipates when taking into account the exceptionally lofty THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 76 - standard of Akhlaaq-e-Hameedah of the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband. Whilst criticizing the corrupt beliefs of Ibn Taimiyyah, they abstained from slapping the fatwa of kufr on him. In this sphere, we as juniors, and blind muqallideen even in Taqleed-e-Shakhsi, have no option but to adopt the attitude of our Akaabireen. In this refutation we have mentioned the views of the Ulama of all Math-hab – views and fatwas which were issued centuries before the advent of the Ulama of Deoband. The Fatwa of kufr mentioned elsewhere in this refutation is that of the Arab and other Ulama who had their valid grounds for expressing what they believed is the Haqq. However, as for us non-entities, we are subservient to our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband. We follow their Minhaaj. Since they had steered away from the Fatwa of Kufr, so too do we maintain silence on this issue. And, Allah knows best. SUMMARY (1) The Ulama of Deoband are staunch followers of the Hanafi Math-hab. They follow Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) in both Fiqh and Aqeedah. (2) The Ulama of Deoband are the followers of Imaam Abu Muhammad Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh). This illustrious Imaam expounded and elaborated the Aqeedah propagated by Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh). (3) Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh) as well as the Ulama of Deoband assign Wahi the highest pedestal. Aql (intelligence) is subservient to Wahi. In a conflict, Aql is set aside. Revelation (Wahi) is never bent to conform to rationality. For us, it is the other way around. Aql is constrained to comply with Wahi. (4) We (i.e. the Ahlus Sunnah who includes Imaam Maturidi, Imam Ash'ari and the Ulama of Deoband) believe in all the Mutashaabihaat (Allegorical) aayaat of the Qur'aan Shareef. The true meanings of these Verses are known to only Allah Azza Wa Jal. No one can present the true meanings of these verses. For the understanding of the masses, appropriate interpretation is valid, and has been upheld by the Ahlus Sunnah. (5) Anthropomorphism in which Salafi beliefs culminate are vehemently rejected by the Ulama of Deoband, the followers of Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh). (6) The ta'weel (interpretation) of the Mutashaabihaat aayaat to which the Salafis resort leads to the conclusion that Allah Ta'ala is - Nauthubillaah! - a physical being whilst the Ta'weel of the Ahlus Sunnah maintains the grandeur and sublimity of Allah Azza wa Jal, and it negates the slightest anthropomorphism for Allah Ta'ala - the anthropomorphic kufr in which Salafi literal interpretation culminates. Although the Taymiyyites ostensibly deny the validity of Ta’weel, they are the worst criminals guilty of perpetrating baatil ta’weel which culminates in their anthropomorphic beliefs, theories and concepts. (7) The Minhaaj of the Ulama Deoband is stated concisely in the kitaab, Al-Muhannad, which was written by Hadhrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri (rahmatullah alayh) in response to 26 questions which the Ulama of the Haramain Shareefain had posed. The Ulama of the Arab countries, of all four Math-habs, had glowingly complimented the illustrious author of Al-Muhannad for the Haqq which he had beautifully presented in his kitaab. (8) Differences of opinion among the Ulama of Deoband on certain issues is normal and an incumbent corollary of academic knowledge. Copious differences existed between all the great Imaams of the Math-habs and their closest Students who were Fuqaha of the loftiest status. Such differences are not ‘inconsistencies' as the coprocreep would like the world to believe. Differences of the Ulama are based THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 77 - on solid dalaa-il, something which is beyond the intellectual grasp of the coprocreep since his brains are afflicted with a disease which brings him within the purview of the aayat: "And, Allah casts rijs (filth) on those who lack intelligence." (9) Ilmul Kalaam is a wonderful subject of Islamic Knowledge. Its objective is to demolish the kufr of Greek philosophy which had been introduced to Muslims by deviates of the Mu'tazili sect. It affirms the Sifaat of Allah Azza Wa Jal, and it negates the slightest suggestion of anthropomorphism for Allah Azza Wa Jal. The Ulama of Kalaam had rendered sterling service to the Deen in the field of Aqeedah. They protected the Beliefs of Islam from the kufr depradations of heretics and deviates. (10) The Ulama of Deoband follow the Chsihti Silsilah in the sphere of Tasawwuf which is nothing other than Tazkiyah of the nafs (reformation of the nafs). In this regard, we have published a book, Baseless Criticism of Tasawwuf in refutation of anothert Salafi deviate who had baselessly criticized Tasawwuf. This book is included in this compilation. Although the Copro-Salafis vehemently condemn Tasawwuf, Ibn Taimiyyah himself spoke highly of Tasawwuf, claiming to be a follower of Shaikh Abdul Qaadir Jilaani (rahmatullah alayh). (11) Our book, Dars-e-Nizaami And The Call of the Morons is an adequate response for the drivel which the coprocreep has disgorged against the syllabus of Daarul Uloom Deoband. This book is also available from us. (12) Ibn Taimiyyah was the seventh century reviver of the anthropomorphism cult initiated by Daarimi, Ibn Haamid, Abu Ya’la and Zaghooni, all having been of the Hanaabilah. They veered sharply from the Path of Imaam Ahmad and brought enduring disgrace to Imaam Ahmad’s Math-hab with their beliefs of kufr. (13) Ibn Taimiyyah propagated the abhorrent kufr belief of the eternity of the universe and Arsh, these being co-eteral with Allah Ta’ala in terms of his kufr theory. (14) Whilst the Copro-Salafis (Hashawiyyah) of this age deny being anthropomorphists, their books are replete with such teachings which they vigorously propound. With their fanatical insistence on literal interpretation of the Mutashaabihaat aayaat, they hopelessly fail to escape the charge of anthropomorphism. (15) There is not a single one among the illustrious authorities of the Salaf and the Khalaf of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah who had propagated the literal meaning of Istiwa’, Nuzool (Descent of Allah Ta’ala), Hand, Shin, Eyes, Face, etc., nor did any of these noble Souls teach the beliefs of jihat and makaan for Allah Azza Wa Jal. All of these beliefs propounded by the Copro-Salafis are the products of their baatil ta’weel. (16) All the beliefs propagated by the Ulama of Deoband existed in the Ummah since the era of Khairul Quroon. There is not a single belief of our Ulama which can be shown to be an innovayion or which was not inherited from the Salaf-e-Saaliheen of the Khairul Quroon. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 78 - CONCLUSION WARNING AND ADMONITION Najaat - Salvation in the Aakhirah is dependent on correct Imaan. Imaan is the pivot on which hinges the life of the Mu'min. Imaan may not be trifled with. It is imperative to ensure that Imaan is not contaminated with bid'ah, shirk, kufr and baatil. In this regard there are a few simple basic facts which every Muslim, even the worst ignoramus, understands. Knowledge is not a requisite for understanding these simple basic facts. Firstly, every Muslim knows that the inception, completion and perfection of Imaan occurred during the very life of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In the Qur'aan Majeed, Allah Ta'ala states: "This Day have I perfected for you your Deen, completed for you My Favour, and chosen for you Islam as your Deen." (Aayat 3, Al-Maaidah) Secondly, the Sahaabah were the Students and Devotees of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). No one understood the Deen better than the Sahaabah. Thirdly, after the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahaabah fanned out into the world and conducted their own Madaaris where they imparted the Knowledge of the Deen. Fourthly, from the Students of the Sahaabah emerged the first noble group of Aimmah-e- Mujtahideen, and these Mujtahideen gave birth to the illustrious Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen such as Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) and numerous others. Fifthly, these Aimmah Mujtahideen imparted the Knowledge of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which had reached them from the Sahaabah. Sixthly, Islam is what these great personages of Islam taught, and all the authorities of Islam flourished during the era called Khairul Quroon. Seventhly, Islam did not begin more than 600 years after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with the advent of an anthropomorphist called Ibn Taimiyyah. Bearing these basic facts in mind, it will not be difficult to understand that beliefs, theories and concepts conjectured by Ibn Taimiyyah in the 7th century and which are at variance with the teachings of Islam as known during the Khairul Quroon, or beliefs and ideas which the Sahaabah did not teach, are mardood (rejected) and mal'oon (accursed). Such beliefs are kufr which expels one from the fold of Islam. The beliefs and concepts evolved by Ibn Taimiyyah and which he propagated as integral constituents of Imaan are: a) Allah Ta'ala is literally seated on the Throne. b) Allah Ta'ala has, literally speaking (haqeeqatun), hands, eyes, ears, face, feet, etc. c) The universe is co-eternal with Allah Ta'ala. d) The Arsh too is co-eternal with Allah Ta’ala. The Arsh is perpetually being recreated. In other words, the present Arsh is destroyed and a new Arsh takes its place. This process has been in existence in eternity. Billions and billions and trillions and ‘imposibillions' of thrones are created and destroyed, one after the other in rapid succession. This is a never-ending process. This process of spontaneous generation is called abiogenesis. Thus, the Arsh is co-eternal with Allah Ta'ala Who according to this kufr theory is dependent on the Throne. THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 79 - e) Jahannum will one day perish and the Fire will be extinguished. f) Space contains Allah Ta'ala, i.e. He has limitations since he is confined to the space of the Throne. g) Allah Ta'ala is physically located in a specific direction, namely, what is called ‘above' in relation to us. h) Allah Ta'ala physically descends to the first heaven just as a person descends from a flight of steps. Not a single one during the Khairul Quroon among the authorities of Islam had ever propagated any of these beliefs of kufr. The Sahaabah did not teach any of these obnoxious ideas of kufr. All of this filth was propagated by Ibn Taimiyyah in the 7th century which is the time when the current Copro- Salafi math-hab came into being. Muslims are warned to be on their guard against the predatory onslaught of the Copro-Salafis. Their cunning trick and trap is their hollow slogan of "the Qur'aan and the Sunnah", yet not a single one of these beliefs is corroborated by the Qur'aan and Sunnah. Their other camouflage is the falsehood of being Hanaabilah (the followers of Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal). Do not be misled by these claims. They are not the followers of Imaam Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh) On the contrary, they have sullied and disgraced the Math-hab of Imaam Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh). They have no platform of Haqq to stand on, hence they masquerade as Hanaabilah. The simple logical fact is that Islam did not commence more than 600 years after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with the Hashawi called, Ibn Taimiyyah. The safety of Imaan is securely fettered to Blind Taqleed of the Math-habs. Cling with your jaws to your Math-hab, for this is the only Path of Najaat. The Four Math-habs are as old as Islam. All Four Math-habs existed during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) although the names did not exist. These Math-habs teach only what Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah taught. It is indeed gross ignorance and satanic deviation to abandon the superior Taqleed of the Math-habs to adopt the stupid taqleed of the anthropomorphists - the Copro-Salafis - the Hashawis - who were fielded by Iblees to mislead the Ummah. “Say: ‘Verily, Allah leads astray whomever He wills, and He guides whomever He wills. He is The Mighty, The Wise.” (Qur’aan) “IN REALITY, WE STRIKE THE HAQQ ON TO BAATIL, THEN IT (THE HAQQ) SMASHES OUT ITS (BAATIL’S) BRAINS. THEN SUDDENLY IT (BAATIL) VANISHES. AND FOR YOU, THERE IS WAIL (RUIN AND JAHANNUM) FOR THAT WHICH YOU FABRICATE.” (QUR’AAN) THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 80 - Subscribe to: The Majlis “Voice of Islam” Presenting the Knowledge of Islam, the Qur’aan and the Sunnah in Pristine Purity. Presenting the Deen of Islam as propounded and practised by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his illustrious Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum). Rates R30.00 (South Africa) US$15 (Neighbouring States) US$20 (Rest of the world) Send your subscriptions to: The Majlis, Subscription Dept. P.O. Box 3393, Port Elizabeth, 6056, South Africa Printed by: As Saadiqeen Islamic Centre (A.S.I.C) Email: assaadiqeen@gmail.com THE SCOURGE OF SALAFI’ISM (PART 2) - 81 - THESE PUBLICATIONS ARE DISTRIBUTED FREE OF CHARGE Your contributions may be forwarded to: Bank: Nedbank Acc name: As Saadiqeen Islamic Centre (A.S.I.C) Acc no: 1039 363 458 Branch Code: 1284-05 Ref: Publications Swift code: NEDSZAJJ Please send confirmation of deposit to : Fax: 086 260 3071 Email: assaadiqeen@gmail.com Some of our other publications 1. The Scourge of Salafi’ism PT 1 2. The Deviation of the Salafis 3. Taqleed and Ijtihaad 4. Four rakaats of salaah before the Jumah khutbah 5. The Feet in Salaat the salafi error 6. The Kufr and Shirk of Ibn Taimiyyah Hard copies of the books may be requested from: or The Publisher: Mujlisul Ulama Of South Africa P.O. Box 3393, Port Elizabeth, 6056 South Africa The printer: As-Saadiqeen Islamic Centre (Asic) P.O. Box 818 De Deur, 1884 South Africa Email:assaadiqeen@gmail.com