They got triggered by this but will we see similar anger when we find that this same Aamidi labelled the Imams of the Salaf as “Hashawiyyah”?
Al Aamidi says in his book Ghaayat Al Maraam:

وبهذا أيضاً يتبين فساد قول الحشوية أن الإيمان التصديق بالجنان والإقرار باللسان والعمل بالأركان

He says that he has shown the statement of the Hashawiyyah to be manifestly invalid

What is this statement of the Hashawiyyah?
That Iman is belief in the heart, statement of the tongue & action of the Limbs.

Damn! This is the statement of the Hashawiyyah??

What does this word Hashawiyyah mean?

See islamic-content.com/dictionary/wor…

Who are the Hashawiyyah who said this?

Oh…just the Imams of the Salaf
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.
رحم الله ابن قيم الجوزية إذ قال:
شرح مختصر لطيف لهذه الأبيات من @Mkashfah جزاه الله خيرا

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with آل معلم

آل معلم Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Aal_Moalim

17 Sep
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
1- There are cases in which the inheritance of a woman is greater than that of a man

2- Qawaamah (stewardship) only means to serve your wife.

3- Islam came to abolish slavery in a gradual process
4- The lack of a woman’s intellect was identified by the Messenger ﷺ and he limited it to only cases of bearing testimony

5- Slavery is solely based on reciprocity, so if the disbelievers stop capturing us, we will stop capturing them.
Read 61 tweets
13 Sep
.@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

What Ruling?
Read 18 tweets
12 Sep
The ignoramus attempted a reply to my thread here. Let us provide a quick reply
Tweet 1:



Reply:

Regarding point 1 it seems you haven’t even understood the point of contention here

As we explained here, The Najdis do not apply the ruling of Kufr
(ie they don’t make a specific individual’s blood and wealth halal) until they establish the Hujjah Al Risaaliyyah upon said individual.

However, they don’t label an individual who is in the state of Shirk a Muslim as we showed here:
Read 23 tweets
11 Sep
Some questions to this ignoramus:

1- Where in the text highlighted with the red arrow does it say “but their blood and their wealth is permissible”?
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)
3- This ignoramus gives a horrible translation to Point 5 that completely distorts the intended meaning as shown in the linked tweet

Read 13 tweets
11 Sep
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.
Read 4 tweets
11 Sep
If the three previous threads are understood, we can now understand a statement of some Najdi scholars that is commonly shared
The statement:

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
Read 21 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(