Before I list them, I’ll post the admission of Al Subki that this statement is the statement of the Salaf:
المعتزلة وافقوا السلف في أن الإيمان قول وعمل ونية ولكن أخرجوا العاصي عن الإيمان والسلف لا يخرجونه
“The Mu’tazilah agreed with the Salaf in that Iman is statement [of the tongue], action [of the limb] and intention [action of the heart] however they [the Mu’tazilah] excommunicated the Sinner from Iman whilst the Salaf didn’t”
This thread gathers just a few illuminating lights from the Salaf & Khalaf that have been labelled Hashawiyyah by this Thawr.
Al Zuhri, both Sufyans, Al Awzaa’i, Al Shafi’i, Abu Ubayd, Ahmad, Ishaq, Al Bukhari etc.
How you can defend Islam with incorrect arguments that opens the door for us to be attacked by the enemies of Islam.
Here are 100 widespread mistaken responses that many accounts dedicated to calling to Islam make in their attempts at defending the Deen from doubts thrown at it
.@BroHajji says that he “takes knowledge from Shaykh Abdul Aziz Al Turayfi”
The Najdi Imams and I were labelled Takfeeri & ISIS forefathers/sympathisers by this ignoramus for saying that you cannot be a Muslim and a Mushrik at the same time
Let’s see if he is consistent
Abdul Aziz Al Turayfi says:
ولهذا نقول: نثبت الأسماء على من ظهر منه موجبها, ونُتْبِع الحكم إذا قامت الحجة عليه
Here we learn two points
1/ Al Turayfi affirms the name upon whomever we see doing something that necessitates that name being attached unto them
2/ Al Turayfi says we then follow up the giving of this name with the [relevant] ruling when the Hujjah is established
2- Why didn’t you read and translate the passage “وإن كنا لا نحكم على هذا الشخص لعدم قيام الحجة عليه? which comes right after the passage quoted above (Point 3)
It’s important to note that what we judge is based on what’s apparent and the Batin is left for Allah.
As for the statement that “الباطن يتبعه بعض احكام الدنيا” then if what’s intended is that the Istitabah etc is something that shows the Batin of an individual then this is fine
But still everything in this world is based upon the apparent.
Because we cannot label someone a Kafir except through what is apparent.
إذا كان يعمل بالكفر والشرك، لجهله، أو عدم من ينبهه، لا نحكم بكفره حتى تقام عليه الحجة؛ ولكن لا نحكم بأنه مسلم، بل نقول عمله هذا كفر، يبيح المال والدم، وإن كنا لا نحكم على هذا الشخص، لعدم قيام الحجة عليه؛ لا يقال: إن لم يكن كافرا، فهو مسلم، بل نقول عمله عمل الكفار