Talk:Al-Ahbash/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
  • Talk:Al-Ahbash/Archive 3

Contents

Al-Ahbash / Habashies DENY the TOTALITY of the Quran

These are few of the links which doesn't only expose the Al-Ahbash / Habashies but also point out the FUNDAMENTAL and SUBSTANTIAL difference (s) between the Al-Ahbash / Habashies and the mainstream Sunnis and Muslims. The most FUNDAMENTAL / CRUCIAL difference IS that Al-Ahbash / Habashies DENY the TOTALITY of the Quran.[1],[2], [3]

Is there any suprise that Al-Ahbash / Habashies are trying to remove the CRUCIAL link, Al-Ahbash: Their History and Their Beliefs, from a WikiPedia NPOV-compliant page?

McKhan

Wikipedia:personal attacks by mckhan : Racial ephithets , Another

Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor.

mckhann you can't prove your claims just by pasting links that follow The Wahhabism .

Any one can make links and claim many thing in them ...

As for Accusing us of Terrorism ... I'm just smiling now (Thanks for making me happy)

Do you think if we were Terrorists The US government will Allow us to have activity on The US sole ?

AICP (Association if Islamic Charitable Projects) or as u Call Al-Ahbash (for Sheikh Abdullah Al Habashi follower) have more than 10 Schools in The USA many Mosques and The North American Head Quarter is Based in The USA (Philadelphia).

And for Australia , just to make you happy today They Got The Renewal of The Government Radio LISCENCE for 5 years , Which They Give for Muslims in Australia .

All racist and religious Attack against Wikipedian are not acceptable especially by a Wahhabi follower of the 9/11 World Trade Center Attack .

You will not be Able and we will not allow you to spread Defamation against Sunni Muslims on Wikipedia .--Muslim sunni 02:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash, are the a group of people that is defending the original sunni muslim creed. They follow the shafii and ashaari schools of thought and the one who go against that creed is the one that is deviated from the sunnah. These deviants cannot refute the Ahbash by the sayings of the great scholars of Islam like Abu-Hanifa and Shafii and Malik and Ahmad bin Hanbal, so instead they start generating lies against Al-Ahbash like saying that Ahbash deny the totality of Al Qur'an and that they allow sins and other lies. Still that are not able to stop Ahbash but AICP with few material resources (compared to the well financed deviant groups) is the most rapidly growing Islamic associations in the Middle-East and in the west.

I profess that no one is GOD except Allah and I profess that Muhammad is the Messenger of ALLAH

http://www.sunna.info

Wikipedia must NOT allow these personal and slandrous attacks on its contributors + McKhan is a mainstream Sunni Muslim and NOT a Wahabi + Only MAINSTREAM, INDEPENDENT, ACADEMIC and / or RELIGIOUSLY AUTHOROTATIVE sources have been quoted

"Wahhabism claim to be Sunnis and most Muslims know that they are Terrorists , or in a sleeping mode (Sleeper Cell) I'm happy that you are hiding from the Term Wahhabi because it's a shame word nowadays." Muslim_sunni

Above statement and other statements made by Al-Ahbash / Habashies about me, WITHOUT ANY SHRED OF EVIDENCE from THE INDEPENDENT AND BONA-FIDE SOURCES, constitues to slandrous and personal attacks and defemation of one's character and therefore totally unacceptable. It should not be allowed on Wikipedia. If WikiPedia Administrators will continue to encourage and not take any action in due course then I will be more than happy to take this matter to the pertinent authorities.

It should be noted that I have NEVER attacked personally anybody on Wikipedia. This Wikipedia page, Al-Ahbash, is NOT about me, an individual, but about Al-Ahbash, a group. All I am trying to do is to differentiate between mainstream Sunnis and Al-Ahbash, a group, which claims to be mainstream Sunnis and yet deny the totality of the Quran, under the Wikipedia's own stated Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) guidelines. Nothing more and Nothing less.

I have repeatedly said that I, McKhan, am a mainstream Sunni whose family is Sunni for centuries. Anything beyond than that, WITHOUT ANY SHRED OF EVIDENCE from THE INDEPENDENT AND BONA-FIDE SOURCES, constitutes to fabrication of the facts and personal attacks (e.g. calling someone a "a Wahhabi follower of the 9/11 World Trade Center Attack" .etc) under Wikipedia guidelines.

As far as my quotations are concerned, I invite everybody to visit these links to certify that nothing I have quoted is fabricated:

McKhan

Wikipedia:personal attacks by mckhan : Racial ephithets

Yes and we have repeatedly said that we Are mainstream Sunni Muslim so accusing us of deniying the totally of the quran is a pure defamation and posting links from Wahhabies links will not prove anything .

Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor.

mckhann you can't prove your claims just by pasting links that follow The Wahhabism .

Any one can make links and claim many thing in them ...

As for Accusing us of Terrorism ... I'm just smiling now (Thanks for making me happy)

Do you think if we were Terrorists The US government will Allow us to have activity on The US sole ?

AICP (Association if Islamic Charitable Projects) or as u Call Al-Ahbash (for Sheikh Abdullah Al Habashi follower) have more than 10 Schools in The USA many Mosques and The North American Head Quarter is Based in The USA (Philadelphia).

And for Australia , just to make you happy today They Got The Renewal of The Government Radio LISCENCE for 5 years , Which They Give for Muslims in Australia .

All racist and religious Attack against Wikipedian are not acceptable especially by a Wahhabi follower of the 9/11 World Trade Center Attack .

You will not be Able and we will not allow you to spread Defamation against Sunni Muslims on Wikipedia .--Muslim sunni 02:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW (NPOV) Guidelines must be implented, respected and adhered to.... Tearlach's version continues to be Wikipedia NPOV-compliant...

I only look forward to contibute to Wikipedia project as it aspires to follow the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV).

Having said that I would like to elaborate further that there are two parties:

  • McKhan, a mainstream Sunni whose family has been Sunni for centuries
  • Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, a religious sect / cult, which denies the TOTALITY of the Quran [4],[5], [6] and have SUBSTANTIAL and FUNDMENTAL differences with mainstream Sunnis and yet classifies itself as a Sunni and thereby hides itself behind the mainstream Sunnis like myself, to seek legitimacy and recruitment (You are more than welcome to read Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context, a research report by an INDEPENDENT / ACADEMIC outlet)

Tearlach is NOT a mainstream Sunni NOR he belongs to Al-Ahbash / Habashies group. He got involved and wrote a WikiPedia-NPOV compliant version.

I totally appreciate the fact and have repeatedly acknowledged that if two parties don't see each other eye-to-eye then only a NEUTRAL / INDEPENDENT party can do the job.

However, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP don't appreicate that nor the fact that if I will write that page according to my wishes, that page will NOT be somewhat NEUTRAL like the way Tearlach has written.

Here is

and - here is

By comparing both versions, it will become quite obvious that Tearlach's version of 'Al-Ahbash' page is more WikiPedia NPOV-compliant.

Furthermore, Tearlach has already addressed all the objections raised by the Al-Ahbash / Habashies on his version as per following:

Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's Objections: "an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufism" ? + "anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical" ? [7], [8], [9]

NPOV / Tearlach's Response: It was an attempt to summarise and merge the descriptions at the three cited sources: their own promotional website; a critical description; and what appears to be a fairly balanced and properly-sourced paper in an academic journal. It incorporated other academic sources such as Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context. Tearlach 15:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC) + Read NPOV. I chose those links because they represent a spread of views: one well-referenced and (as far as I can tell neutral) academic article; one from the official AICP site, which is completely uncritical of Al-Ahbash; and one fairly representative of what its critics say about it. Tearlach 02:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Morever, fairly and impartially speaking, Tearlach has already given AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies quite favorable but blanced POV on WikiPedia:

  • a). by not calling them a CULT but merely a "sect"
  • b). by providing an external link to Al-Ahbash / Habashies' arch web-site and to another contrary link
  • c). by quoting their claim that AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies advocates pluralism, and opposition to political activism and violence

and

  • d). by quoting AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies' FRADULENT slogan from their own web-site, "the resounding voice of moderation" (despite the fact that the very same "the voice of moderation" castigates every that individual / web-site / organization / outlet - which - expose the Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' agenda and beliefs as either "Wahabi", "Kaafir", "non-Muslim", "Islamist" or part of a "smear compaign" .etc)

Consequently, I, as a party, support Tearlach's version of 'Al-Ahbash' page, WikiPedia NPOV-compliant version - over - Al-Ahbash / Habashies' version of 'Al-Ahbash' which doesn't offer any balance nor it offers what the ciritics say about Al-Ahbash / Habashies. It also completey removes a very crucial link, Al-Ahbash: Their History and Their Beliefs, from their version altogether.

It is suffice to say that IF Wikipedia is serious about aspiring to its stated motto of achieving Neutral Point of View (NPOV) on each and every page then Al-Ahbash should be NO EXCEPT and Wikipedia NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW (NPOV) Guidelines must be implented, respected and adhered to - not only by the contributors but also by the Administrators, otherwise, aspiration to NPOV is categorically futile.

McKhan

mckhan goal on Wikipedia is Defamation

I only look forward to contibute to Wikipedia project as it aspires to follow the Neutral Point Of View(mckhan)

It's clear from your history contribution that your only goal in wikipedia is defamation , any admin can look at your background and see that wherever you go you make problems . *** McKhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) *** --Muslim sunni 11:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

wahhabism exposed

I have pointed out in my earlier posts the sectarian methodology by which the wahhabie sect ‎conduct business aiming by their ideology at pointing out all non wahhabies as blasphemers ‎thus the wahhbies would give themselves the “right” to texterminate oponants by all means.‎

Now if someone claims not to be a wahhabie nevertheless promotes wahhabie links that incite ‎violence and terror besides calling all others as blasphemers all but themselves!, this would ‎leave a big Q mark on his/her claims.‎

Those wahhabie links promote the violent ideology adopted by figures, wahhabie take as ‎their scholars, such figures have been refuted by the Muslim Sunni scholars since this wahhabie ‎sectarian ideology have evolved.‎


wahhabie deviated sect exposed


Aiysha


Tearlach's WikiPedia NPOV-compliant version vs. Al-Ahbash / Habashies' Marketing-flyer Version = Tearlach's version continue to meet the WikiPedia Guidelines

These are few of the links which doesn't only expose the Al-Ahbash / Habashies but also point out the FUNDAMENTAL and SUBSTANTIAL difference (s) between the Al-Ahbash / Habashies and the mainstream Sunnis and Muslims. The most FUNDAMENTAL / CRUCIAL difference IS that Al-Ahbash / Habashies DENY the TOTALITY of the Quran.[10],[11], [12]

None of the above link promote / incite "Terrorism" of any kind. Is there any suprise that Al-Ahbash / Habashies are trying to remove the CRUCIAL link, Al-Ahbash: Their History and Their Beliefs, from a WikiPedia NPOV-compliant page?

Instead of promoting, respecting and adhering to WikiPedia NPOV guidelines by leaving Tearlach's WikiPedia NPOV-compliant version alone, Al-Ahbash / Habashies are trying to push their own biased and partially written version (which very conveniently omits a very crucial link,Al-Ahbash: Their History and Their Beliefs, as well as looks like a marketing flyer of Al-Ahbash / Habashies rather than a WikiPedia NPOV compliant version) which is tantamount to disrespecting the guidelines of the very same outlet which gives them an opportunity to express themselves.

Comparing the two, it is obvious that Tearlach's version continue to meet the WikiPedia Guidelines.

McKhan

Scandal of The Wahhabi mckhan (Wahhabism are responsable of the 9/11 world trade center attack )

mckhan have been denying that his follow the Wahhabism Sect (9/11 Terrorist , responsible for the World Trade Center Attack)

He have been posting links that (Promote Violence , Defamation and Wahhabism Defence)

Always claiming that he's a Mainstream Sunni .

Now just taking a fast look at the sites he's Posting we can verify that he's a real follower of the Wahhabism sect or in another word (Terrorist) or also known as Sleeper cell .

  • - he first posted a link to : islam-qa.com , if we do a simple search on this site we can find the following :

Question : Why is so much of what is said about so called Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab so hostile, and why are his followers called Wahhabis?.

reference : http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ds=qa&QR=36616&ln=eng

The only answer we can find in this link is defence of Wahhabism .


  • - The Third Link : so called (islamicweb.com) we can find the following post :

Justifying Wahhabism under this link http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/creed/wahhab.htm again only defence for Wahhabism .

  • - As for the fourth link mckhan posted (a forum) it's clear that he made it , anyone with some visual knowledge can see that its the same post mckhan have been posting on wikipedia .
  • - For the Australian news the wahhabi mckhan posted , the answer is on the site it self ..

The president of al-Ahbash in Australia, Ghayath Al-Shelh, has rejected the criticisms.

He says some of the signatories signed the statement after being misled by the office of Sheik Al Hilaly (Al Hilaly is a Wahhabi in Australia)

- So mckhan after all those scandal do you still say that you are not a Wahhabi ?

Stop your vandalizing and spam & defamation in Wikipedia .

you already got banned twice , isn't it enough for you ?

Al-Ahbash are NOT on Wikipedia to help but to promote themselves + Wikipedia must NOT allow these personal and slandrous attacks on its contributors + McKhan is a mainstream Sunni Muslim and NOT a Wahabi + Only MAINSTREAM, INDEPENDENT, ACADEMIC and / or RELIGIOUSLY AUTHOROTATIVE sources have been quoted + Tearlach's WikiPedia NPOV-compliant version vs. Al-Ahbash / Habashies' Marketing-flyer Version = Tearlach's version continue to meet the WikiPedia Guidelines

According to Mr. Thomas Pierret, The International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM): "At first sight, devices such as live interactive lessons or voice chat groups seem to encourage debates within the movement, but, on the contrary, close examination reveals that these instruments are primarily used by the leadership to increase its ideological control on their followers and to attract new devotees. Similarly, if one checks the AICP's unofficial e-forums ( www.talkaboutislam.com), one discovers that they function as ideological spider webs. Nothing points to the fact that these websites, which only present themselves as being "Islamic," are actually part of the Ahbash's cyber network. For instance, they are not related to the official websites by any hypertext link. Therefore, the random visitor is normally unaware that he or she is exposed to a set of selected opinions through carefully controlled debates. Firstly, zealous participants frequently post chapters of books edited in Lebanon by the AICP, but without any reference to the author or the editor. Secondly, veteran members answer questions concerning fiqh (jurisprudence) and reprimand novices whose religious knowledge is considered "deviant." Thirdly, a team of regulators supervise the discussions and are in charge of censoring the Ahbash who are too keen to use takfir (excommunication) —since such a stance is considered a mark of extremism by most of the Sunnis—but above all of eliminating most of the messages posted by participants of Salafi persuasion. Ideological hegemony is thus achieved by the creation of a neo-traditionalist virtual space in which they assess very critically the ideas of leading Islamic personalities such as Amr Khalid, Khalid al-Jundi and Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In the same way they reduce the Wahhabi doctrine to a mere "heresy" in line with the Ottoman scholarly tradition of which they consider themselves to be the inheritors." (Source: http://www.isim.nl/files/Review_15/Review_15-50.pdf )

Keeping up with their hedious strategy, they are aggressively inserting hidden links to their web-sites on projects like Wikipedia, yet again, to seek legitimacy and recruitment under the guise of Jamat Ahl Wa Sunna.

They are not on Wikipedia to contirbute anything but to pursue their agenda to seek legitimacy and seek recruitment under the guise of mainstream Sunnis.

Here is how Al-Ahbash / Habashies' strategy works:

Nowadays, If you type "Al-Ahbash / Habashies" or any other topic in Google, the first link (s) which appears among the search resluts are the results from Wikipedia. Since Al-Ahbash / Habashies cannot manipuate the Google search results, they are using Wikipedia pages to insert hidden links for link-farming for their web-sites, propaganda and to market their group to pursue their agenda and beliefs to seek legitimacy and recruitment. For Al-Ahbash / Habashies, due to Wikipedia's "anybody-can-edit" approach and exposure on Google and other search engines, Wikipedia provides an ideal opportunity to promote themselves. And they are using it to its maximum extent.

It is a well-known and established fact that Al-Ahbash / Habashies castigate / excommunicate EVERY that person, entitiy or outlet .etc, who exposes them, as "Wahabi" (Though, initially, they were supported by the Wahabi by themselves - Please, feel welcome to search the web.), "Ikhwan", "Terrorist" or even "Kaafir." In their own eyes, they are the only ones who are right and on the "correct" path, rest all the Muslim, specially the Sunnis, to whom behind they hide, are either "Ikhwan" or "Kaafir" altogether.

None of the following links / web-sites are owned by the "Wahabis." They belong to mainstream Sunnis, mainstream organizations like ABD Radio Australian, independent and / or academic - and can be verified. Indeed, Al-Ahbash / Habashies will deny that because it doesn't fit to their agenda. Once again, I invite everybody to visit these links to certify that nothing I have quoted is fabricated:

No matter how Al-Ahbash / Habashies deny, the fact remain the same: The most FUNDAMENTAL / CRUCIAL difference IS that Al-Ahbash / Habashies DENY the TOTALITY of the Quran.[13],[14], [15]

Indeed, It is very sad but true that instead of promoting, respecting and adhering to WikiPedia NPOV guidelines by leaving Tearlach's WikiPedia NPOV-compliant version alone, Al-Ahbash / Habashies are trying to push their own biased and partially written version (which very conveniently omits a very crucial link,Al-Ahbash: Their History and Their Beliefs, as well as looks like a marketing flyer of Al-Ahbash / Habashies rather than a WikiPedia NPOV compliant version) which is tantamount to disrespecting the guidelines of the very same outlet which gives them an opportunity to express themselves.

Comparing the two, it is obvious that Tearlach's version continue to meet the WikiPedia Guidelines.

McKhan

Stop hiding behind your finger

Those links belong to the wahhabie sect (an outcast sect), as did its context obviously show. ‎The wahhabie sect, to which the carriers of the biggest terrorist attacks belong.‎

Now your posts are kind of sloppy and untidy, long and suffering from lack of coherence on ‎top of being nothing but a “POV” copy paste illegitimate stuff.‎


The wahhbie deviated sect exposed


Aiysha

Table

I don't know anything about Ahbash, but that table was quite useful for people like me. Can anybody please help me understand why the table was removed? thx. --Aminz 08:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody please at least explain to me the reason that why the first row of the table was bad. It seemed informative?! -- Aminz 08:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Because this table was made by The Wahhabi mckhan (Wahhabies are 9/11 World Trade Center attack) it's full of lies and defamation .--Muslim sunni 11:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is important that who we are. Can you please discuss the content of the table. Let's focus on the first part of it. Do you agree with (Mainstream Islamic belief)_(Tawheed (Monotheism)) or not? I would like to hear which sentence do you disagree most and for what reason. thx. --Aminz 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
It is Important to show that the writer of the table is a Wahhabi follower of The Terrorist Group Ousama Ben laden and co , he is trying to spread his belief and promote violence links .
As for Ahbash beliefs , we dont hide nore we fake on people , We Are Muslims Sunni's following the Shafiee School , All informations about (Association of islamic charitable Projects - AICP - AHBASH) Can be found here :
For The topic you are asking about : Allah Exists Without A Place

I still think that our identity does not matter as long as the wikipedia is concerned (though I think your argument is that McKhan's edits are his own POV). So, I ask everybody to discuss the passages of the table one by one. All POVs should be added to the article. --Aminz 01:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


Thank you, Aminz. I entirely agree. The points of doctrine discussed in the chart are all interesting, and should be dealt with one by one, as you say, with both sides presenting their views, and editors writing about them as neutrally as possible.Timothy Usher 01:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I have requested Anonymous editor to give a revert to the article and lock it again since we really still don't know anything if the table is NPOV or not(and it seems to be offensive to some people here). I appologize if I didn't do it before. We will then go over the table item by item. --Aminz 01:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This article

This is one of the most offensively one-sided and mean-spirited articles I've ever seen. To lock this version - established by an anonymous user with a grand total of two edits, both to this page - is simply outrageous.Timothy Usher 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am simply shocked to read Mr. Timothy Usher calling the Table "most offensively sone-sided and mean-spirited articles." If it were one-sided, the there wouldn't have any Talbe with two columns for comparison at all. This is the only effective way to clear the confusion and let Habashies prove that they believe in exactly what the mainstream Muslims believe and that whatever is associated with them in the right hand coloumn is absolutly baseless and wrong. That will bring an end to the cycle of the debate. Let the Habashies publicly admit all the points in the right hand column as wrong and they will become part of the mainstream Muslims by default. Abid Jan
No, it should be locked, since people were engaged in revert war rather than discussion. And I personally prefer not to judge people that I may not be judged.--Aminz 01:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Lets educate ourselves before calling something "one of the most offensively one-sided and mean-spirited articles." This version, minus the table, was written by an INDEPENDENT party Tearlach. Tearlach is NOT a mainstream Sunni NOR he belongs to Al-Ahbash / Habashies. Here is what Tearlach said in defense of his version in response to Al-Ahbash / Habashies' objections:
Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's Objections: "an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufism" ? + "anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical" ? [16], [17], [18]
NPOV / Tearlach's Response: It was an attempt to summarise and merge the descriptions at the three cited sources: their own promotional website; a critical description; and what appears to be a fairly balanced and properly-sourced paper in an academic journal. It incorporated other academic sources such as Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context. Tearlach 15:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC) + Read NPOV. I chose those links because they represent a spread of views: one well-referenced and (as far as I can tell neutral) academic article; one from the official AICP site, which is completely uncritical of Al-Ahbash; and one fairly representative of what its critics say about it. Tearlach 02:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
As far as the table is concerned, it has incorporated mainstream Sunni Scholars' (which includes but NOT limited to, MAINSTREAM Sunni scholars like Dr. Ahmad H. Sakr (founding member and president of the Muslim Students Association of the U.S.A and Canada - AND - the Islamic Society of North America (or ISNA) and Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi (former President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)) Religious Decrees (FATWAs) to Al-Ahbash / Habashies' own sources. Should you like to have a crash-course on this subject then please, feel welcome to visit the following links:
I invite everybody to visit these links to certify that nothing I have quoted is fabricated.
McKhan


This is as far from NPOV as it gets. I accept that these reflect your own dim view of the sect, but at no point do you give them a chance to speak for themselves. It may as well be titled "Why Al-Ahbash is Heretical and Wrong." It doesn't matter that you've found sources which reflect your POV. You cannot act as the sole arbitrer of truth here.Timothy Usher 01:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Lets not get into argument for the sake of argument. I know very well what NPOV stands for. As far as, POV is concerned, your name, my name .etc also constitutes to POV. Should we change our names coz we are on Wikipedia? Lets NOT get into that futile discussion. I will recommend that you should educate yourself about the topic and then indulge yourself in POV and NPOV aspects of this page. Just to let you know, I have seen your contributions to Wikipedia. You seem to be quite far away NOT only from New Mexico but also your area of expertise. McKhan
Just what are you trying to say here?Timothy Usher 01:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Please, educate yourself about the subject. There are plenty of sources available on the web and off the web. You have completed some complicated projects. This shouldn't be a big deal for you. McKhan

Please hold on for awhile. I am very slow. I will not able to catch up if you edit this fast. thx. --Aminz 01:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Table?

McKhan, can you please let us know what do you like us to discuss first? The table? --Aminz 02:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets be fair. Since Timothy Usher is quite eager to contribute to this page, lets give him sometime that he could educate himself about the subject. McKhan
Don't be rude. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
McKhan, I know next to nothing about this sect, and like Aminz would like to learn more about them. It does sound as if they take different views on matters of doctrine, some of which I, like you and your sources, find rather questionable. But cannot just write an article that comes out and says, they're misguided heretics, even if in truth they are. That's not how wikipedia works. Instead, you have a source which has a claim. Then you have a sentence saying, "Mainstream Sunni scholars such as so-and-so claim that..." and state what they're saying. Then if someone else has a different POV, we do the same thing in a calm and methodical manner.Timothy Usher 02:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


McKhan, can we please actually get into real discussion. I should confess, I am 100% ignorant about Al-Ahbash. I would like to educate myself and will not be able to do it unless you guys help me. I prefer to get into real discussion and not discussion about discussion. I think we should discuss the table. Since you added the table, I should ask the other party to help me understand why it is not NPOV.Let's take the first row of it at the moment. What is specifically wrong with it? The first row, first column (the beliefs of mainstream Muslims) at the high level looks fine to me though can be much improved. I am waiting for the other party’s comments. --Aminz 02:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Guys, I should go somewhere now. Will be back in a couple of hours. Take care all, --Aminz 02:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


I should add I have not carefully read the first column, first row. More precisely, the beginning of it makes sense to me. --Aminz 02:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Ibn Taymiyah attacked Ibn e Arabi, the famous Sufi that claimed for the first time that Allah exists everywhere and he claimed that Allah and his creations are the same thing." should be rewritten in order not to persuade the reader to a particular position. It can be improved. --Aminz 02:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, feel welcome to improve. McKhan
McKhan, I agree with your comment way back in the talk page, "However, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP don't appreicate that nor the fact that if I will write that page according to my wishes, that page will NOT be somewhat NEUTRAL like the way Tearlach has written."Timothy Usher 02:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, I can see from the very beginning that you are not serioulsy researching or educating yourself about the subject. You want others to do all the work for you that you could apply the Wikipedia NPOV / POV guidelines as per your own discretion. You are simply eager to contribute to Wikipedia (at least to this page) without doing any research or educating yourself about the subject. Let me start by pointing out to your statement (s): "To lock this version - established by an anonymous user with a grand total of two edits, both to this page - is simply outrageous." Here are the questions: 1]. Did you bother to check who has been editing this page in the past almost 2 weeks and with what type of version? Hint: Here you may find the answer -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&action=history 2]. Did you even pay attention that Anonymous_editor is an Administrator NOT an "anonymous user with a grand total of two edits, both to this page" per se? If you truly are serious to contribute to this page (...and / or to Wikipedia's other pages) then please educate yourself about the subject first. And last but NOT the least, you wrote, "It does sound as if they take different views on matters of doctrine, some of which I, like you and your sources, find rather questionable. But cannot just write an article that comes out and says, they're misguided heretics, even if in truth they are." So, you are trying to say that Religious Decrees (FATWAs) issued by mainstream Sunni scholars, which includes but NOT limited Dr. Ahmad H. Sakr, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi and others, under the light of Islamic Jurisprudence and Al-Ahbash / Habashies' own sources are NOT good enough for Wikipedia and / or merely hersay or POV? McKhan


The anonymous user to whom I was referring was User:151.151.21.99, who wrote the last version before the page lock, not Anonymous editor. And yes, fatwas are by definition POV's. That they were issued is fact, but to say they were correctly decided, or represent the last word on the subject, is POV. Why not go back to the version we both agree is neutral, and build from there?Timothy Usher 03:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
If thats what you believe then I must add that Religious Decrees (FATWAs) constitutes to EXPERT "POV" NOT merely heresay as they are decided / issued / furnished under the light of Islamic Jurisprudence, the basic tenets of Islam and the other party's own sources / writings .etc. (That is something else if one doesn't respect Islamic Jurisprudence, the basic tenets of Islam .etc. If one doesn't then I will recommend that that individual should refrain from contributing to Wikipedia Islam-related pages as those contributions will not be impartial.) In the case of Al-Ahbash / Habashies, mainstream Sunni scholars categorically point out that Al-Ahbash / Habashies are in the denial of the TOTALITY of the Quran as well as the Tawheed (Monotheism). As far as the neutral verions is concerned, in my humble POV, Tearlach's version continues to be Wikipedia NPOV-compliant so far. In the context of this back-and-forth over NPOV and POV, I consider these lines of yours, "And yes, fatwas are by definition POV's. That they were issued is fact, but to say they were correctly decided, or represent the last word on the subject, is POV," a POINT OF VIEW. See, how far can that go? Once again, I will recommend that you should educate yourself about the subject that you could justify with this page without having any shred of agenda of any kind. McKhan


i want add here that every person has right to opinion so mudslinging on any one by calling him/her wahabbi etc is wrong . we shud focus on what is the fact and it is the fact that ahbashi's claim to be sunni muslim but there views are unislamic and heretical. Imfatima2001

Hello Fatima,

I agree with you that the mudslinging was ridiculously out of hand, and was (and still is) wrong. No one should be personalizing this discussion. But it's not a "fact", at least not on wikipedia, that the Ahbashis are unislamic and heretical, rather it's a POV. We need to put the information out there without pre-deciding the case for the reader.Timothy Usher 04:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Timothy Usher 04:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me be blunt here - By saying, "But it's not a "fact", at least not on wikipedia, that the Ahbashis are unislamic and heretical, rather it's a POV," - Are you admitting that you have got an agenda to sanitize as well as Islmasize the Al-Ahbash / Habashies through / on Wikipedia? McKhan


Believe it or not, not everyone has any strong opinion or agenda re Al-Ahbash, starting with me. I'm not out to sanitize, islamize, demonize or do anything else to them.Timothy Usher 04:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It has NOTHING to do with having "mild" or "strong" opinions about Al-Ahbash / Habashies. It is the matter of Islamic Jurisprudence as well as the basic tenets of Islam, which I am doubtful, that you have any respect for. McKhan

Why don't we add the "fatwa's" to the article? --Aminz 07:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash / Habashies doesn't want anything contrary to what they want to be on that page. McKhan

This should be of course added to the article. At the moment, I am working on the first row, first paragraph of the table. It can be improved a lot. My problem is that I am not good in english. But I'll do my best. --Aminz 08:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Great Thanks for your kind and precious help. Regarding your English, I think you are just being humble. :) McKhan

McKhan, Can you please help me improving the first column, first row of the article? I want the POV of all people to be included. You have provided a wealth of material which is good but I think should be summerized. I am trying to gather all different views and make a summery of them. Regarding the Attributes to Allah and his status, the following is attributed to Ali, the fourth Khalipha. It is just very hard to make a summary of everything.

Praise is due to Allah whose worth cannot be described by speakers, whose bounties cannot be counted by calculators and whose claim (to obedience) cannot be satisfied by those who attempt to do so, whom the height of intellectual courage cannot appreciate, and the divings of understanding cannot reach; He for whose description no limit has been laid down, no eulogy exists, no time is ordained and no duration is fixed. He brought forth creation through His Omnipotence, dispersed winds through His Compassion, and made firm the shaking earth with rocks.

The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute. Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.

Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence. ________________________________________

Praise be to Allah who is proof of His existence through His creation, of His being external through the newness of His creation, and through their mutual similarities of the fact that nothing is similar to Him. Senses cannot touch Him and curtains cannot veil Him, because of the difference between the Maker and the made, the Limiter and the limited and the Sustainer and the sustained. He is One but not by the first in counting, is Creator but not through activity or labour, is Hearer but not by means of any physical organ, is Looker but not by a stretching of eyelids, is Witness but not by nearness, is Distinct but not by measurement of distance, is Manifest but not by seeing and is Hidden but not by subtlety (of body). He is Distinct from things because He overpowers them and exercises might over them, while things are distinct from Him because of their subjugation to Him and their turning towards Him.

He who describes Him limits Him. He who limits Him numbers Him. He who numbers Him rejects His eternity. He who said "how" sought a description for Him. He who said "where" bounded him. He is the Knower even though there be nothing to be known. He is the Sustainer even though there be nothing to be sustained. He is the Powerful even though there be nothing to be overpowered.

Praise be to Allah Who lies inside all hidden things, and towards Whom all open things guide. He cannot be seen by the eye of an onlooker, but the eye which does not see Him cannot deny Him while the mind that proves His existence cannot perceive Him. He is so high in sublimity that nothing can be more sublime than He, while in nearness, He is so near that no one can be nearer than He. But his sublimity does not put Him at a distance from anything of His creation, nor does His nearness bring them on equal level to Him. He has not informed (human) wit about the limits of His qualities. Nevertheless, He has not prevented it from securing essential knowledge of Him. So he is such that all signs of existence stand witness for Him till the denying mind also believes in Him. Allah is sublime beyond what is described by those who liken Him to things or those who deny Him.

--Aminz 08:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Why don't we simply use the above quite in its entirity in the artice? That way, we will not be divulging or misquoting any essential elment of the quote. McKhan

Can you please explain more. Do you mean using the quote attributed to Ali in the article?? Thanks --Aminz 09:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? What do you suggest? That table basically summarizes both, mainstream Sunnis' and Al-Ahbash / Habashies', belief in one place by using their own quotes and writings .etc. McKhan

Of course we can always rephrase parts of it or have some parts of it but I am afraid I can not agree with having the whole quote since 1. It is copyrighted 2. It is better to quote from Qur'an, and then from Hadiths and then from Ali or other companions of Muhammad. I think at the end of the day it should not differ much since they are all roughly saying the same thing. What I am looking for is a 2 or 3 line brief summary of Muslim beliefs for each part. The reader will get tired and lose interest otherwise. Short and Informative! We can then assure that the reader will read the whole article. --Aminz 09:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I categorically agree with your logic as well as the sequence of quotations, from the Quran to Ali and others. Okay, I will try to summarize it tomorrow. :) McKhan

Thank you! Islamic concept of God also seems to be useful. --Aminz 09:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Got it

Here it is: Islamic concept of God --Aminz 08:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

aminz as u asked for the concept of ibe arabi about god. i wud like to comment that ibne arabi interpret the attribute of God omnipotance which means he is present every where differently, he believed in pantheism. he said God is every where through his creature. every creation in God itself.


Thanks for your response. I have heard Ibn Arabi to be a very towering and important figure and personally respect him. I should say, I don't know anything about his ideas to be able to make any judgment about him. It seems to me that he is looking at the problem from a different point of view. Somehow philosophic, poetic? It may be possible that we are misunderstanding Ibn Arabi here. He should have compared his view with other views. I would like to hear what his responds has been? You can help us learn about him. --Aminz 10:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The table

Friends, Can we please have the tearlach's version to be posted? We can then discuss the elements of the table one by one and will apply them to the article gradually. --Aminz 20:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Any objection? --Aminz 21:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a brief background as well as Tearlach's version which continues to meet the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines, so far. May I take this opportunity to request everybody who would like to contribute to this page to educate him / herself about the subject before contributing to this page. This will help everybody to be on the same page in terms of context and background information. McKhan

McKhan, I know you agree with this, but I needed to re-ask everybody in order get a partial consensus. --Aminz 21:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We both agreed that Tearlach's version was far more neutral than what is up there now.Timothy Usher 23:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not personally sure if it is more neutral or not, but we should to respect the other party. --Aminz 01:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Judging from the history, the other party didn't appear to be handling things very well, either. We must avoid further personalization of this discussion as per WP:NPA. And I suspect McKhan is right to have accused him/her/them of sockpuppetry. In any case, we cannot make him/her/them appear.Timothy Usher 01:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The Table. McKhan

i agree with abid jan that there are two columns in the table.In my view its the best way to compare n contrast the views of main stream sunni muslims n ahbashi's.i agree with aminz as well that we shud respect all parties but when someone claims to be which he/she is nt. we call it identity crises.Abhashi claim that they are sunni muslims proved to be incorrect through this table.aminz while describing attributes of God u said"Senses cannot touch Him and curtains cannot veil Him, because of the difference between the Maker and the made"When one believes in panthism n says there is no difference b/w the maker and the made.Then how wud he/she sense the creator whom we never saw but can sense only through his creations ||user:imfatima2001:imfatima2001||

No, it doesn't prove that they are not Sunni muslims, except circularly, as you're saying no true Sunni Muslim (as per "no true Scotsman") would have the beliefs you're ascribing to them.Timothy Usher 01:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, This is your POV and you are entitle to have your POV. As far as Muslims (whether "true" Sunni or not), Islamic Jurisprudence and the basic tenets of Islam are concerned, denial of the TOTALITY of the Quran as well as the basic tenets (Tawheed .etc) in any shape or form puts one out of the circle of Islam. It is plain and simple. McKhan

I ask my question again: Does anybody object to post the Tearlach's version. We can then add the table gradually after arriving at consensus.--Aminz 02:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Tearlach, We muslims have firm believe that Quran is the word of Allah nt of gabriel. alahbash claims Quran as gabriel's word and this claim put them out of the circle of Islam.As far as table is concerned it shud be there to prove the differences.||user:imfatima2001:imfatima2001||

It shouldn't be a table, although some of the points in the table can be raised. The very nature of the table, as admitted, is to prove that Al-Ahbash is heretical.
Traditionally speaking, Tables are more user-friendly and oftenly used to re-cap the depth of a complicated or lengthy subject. And thats what exactly Imfatima2001 did by creating that table (I Wikified it into the shape of a table). As far as your POV about the usage of "heretical" is concerened, please, read what Tearlach has to say in response to Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's Objections: "an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufism" ? + "anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical" ? [19], [20], [21]
NPOV / Tearlach's Response: It was an attempt to summarise and merge the descriptions at the three cited sources: their own promotional website; a critical description; and what appears to be a fairly balanced and properly-sourced paper in an academic journal. It incorporated other academic sources such as Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context. Tearlach 15:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC) + Read NPOV. I chose those links because they represent a spread of views: one well-referenced and (as far as I can tell neutral) academic article; one from the official AICP site, which is completely uncritical of Al-Ahbash; and one fairly representative of what its critics say about it. Tearlach 02:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC) - McKhan


Aminz is working on a text version discussing the first point, I believe. In the meantime, please read WP:NPOV.Timothy Usher 02:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes, it should prove. But we just want to START with that article. We WILL re-write and add the table later. I ask for your patience (Inna allaha ma'a saberin). Any objections now? --Aminz 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you can't post things that *do* prove it. Though I don't know much about them, some of the doctrines do seem unorthodox, to say the least. But, it can't be a hit piece as it was before. The whole concept of the table is specifically to show how they are not Sunnis. Instead, we should discuss what they say that is notably different in a section entitled Doctrines. Then we have a section entitled Criticisms of Al-Ahbash, in which these objections can be raised with an encyclopedic tone.Timothy Usher 03:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, Lets meet half-way by reaching to NP (Neutral Point) hoping that "View" will join the NP sooner or later. Why don't we have both, a Table as well as your proposed sections? Mainstream Encylopedias do have both and even more. McKhan
Not like that, they don't. Though I'm not opposed to a table per se, the entries should be bullet points, and neutrally stated, not long rants which openly ridicule their position. Perhaps we can have one column entitled "traditional interpretation" and another entitled "Al-Ahbash teaching". That they are unorthodox should be evident enough, supposing you are representing their positions accurately.Timothy Usher 03:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid, they do. I would also like to take the opportunity to point out, without having the intention to offend or intimidate anybody, that Wikipedia is different than the mainstream Encyclopedias in many ways: For example, its "anybody-can-edit" approach and "NON-experts-contributing-to-out-of-their-area-of-expertise" .etc
As far as the the Table is concerned, it:
  • Incorporates mainstream Muslims' (whether Sunni or NOT) belief (s) - as well as - Al-Ahbash / Habashies' belief (s) quoting their pertinent sources
  • Incorporates mainstream Sunni scholars' Religious Decrees / FATWAs) / EXPERT POVs (under the light of Quran, Islamic Jurisprudence, the basic tenets of Islam .etc) - as well as - Al-Ahbash / Habashies' / FATWAs) / Expert POVs (under the light of Al-Ahbash / Habashies' founding Shaikh)
Consequently, lets leave upto the readers' discretion and understanding whether he / she treats this table as a tantamount to a difference between mainstream Muslims (whether Sunni or NOT) and Al-Ahbash / Habashies or it just highlights each party's basic belief (s) .etc.
Indeed, that table is open to improvements providing that the facts are accurate under the light of pertinent sources .etc. McKhan

Al-Ahbash

The following article, which mckhan tried hard to iliminate, hold official links of Alahbash (The Islamic Sunni organization). Therefore, only what will be found on these links, which represent a ligitimate content of what Alahbash represent, will be subject to discussion not a twisted anonymous hearsay. If any would like to educate himself about this organization please do read the info on the links provided and come back with your questions Aiysha :)


  • Al-Ahbash is a religious organisation and political party in Lebanon; alternative names are: The Ahbash, Habashis, al Habashiyyin, and Jam'iyyat al- Mashari' al-Khayriyya al-Islamiyya (in English, Association of Islamic Charitable Projects - AICP).

It follows the teachings of Shaykh Abdallah ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Hirari al-Shibi al- Abdari, also known as al-Habashi ("the Ethiopian" and cognate to Habesha), an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunnitheology with Sufism. It advocates pluralism, and opposition to political activism and violence (its slogan is "the resounding voice of moderation"). It also promotes its beliefs internationally through a major Web presence and regional offices, notably in the United States. It is highly controversial within Islamism for its religious stance (anti-Wahhabism, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical) and its political alliances (pro-Syria and conciliatory toward the West).

See also

References

A Sufi response to political islamism: Al-ahbash of Lebanon A. Nizar Hamzeh and R. Hrair Dekmejian, International Journal of Middle East Studies 28 (1996), 217-229.

External links


www.alsunna.org/nahjuna.htm

You don't ask a astronomer about metamorphisis....like wise, you don't ask a christian about Islam...this is why tearlach version is completely invalid, becasue frankly, he isn't habahsi, thus he knows not what he is talking about. this is one of the most basic laws in the world of common sense. you ask those who know, you don't as a baker about cabinets, you don't ask a carpenter about fish, you don't ask a leyman about tawwasul, and you don't ask GWBush about war tactics....

If you want to know about a subject, you ask those that know about that subject [ie, the people who study it and/or are a part of it. I am almost asure you tearlach does know know abotu the Aqqedah of ibn Asakir or at-tawaiyah, or who imam ashari is, so why would one trust the quality of hiw article?

if the topic were not locked, i would continue to revert the vandalism. Crono 00:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Both competing versions are unacceptably POV. McKhan claims that only traditional Muslims (as he defines it) have the right to determine wheter Habashis are Muslims or not; the poster above insists that only Habashis have a right to edit the article. Neither stance is valid from a wikipedia standpoint. Please read WP:NPOV.Timothy Usher 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not a subject that has any point of view what so ever, we only teach one thing, and what is taught is what should put posted..what is debated is what these thinsg we teach are considered by others. Its not somehting you have to have two points of view on. There is only one answer..just like 5 x 5 is alwasys going to be 25, you don't break down this math problem into ;points of view' becasue it is known by nessecity what the answer is, it is the same with this group AICP, we only teach one thing, and what we teach is what should be written, if you want a logical stand point. Alot of the wiki NPOV guidelines are 1 sided imho. Beacsue in the end we must conform to the POV of wiki when it comes to what IS or is NOT NPOV. Crono 03:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Okay, so are you saying that the current article states that Habashis teach something that they don't? I'd agree with you, then, that matters of verifiable fact should be correct. What points of fact in the current article are inaccurate?Timothy Usher 04:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Crono, It is your job to make a new version of the article. I believe it is better than reverting the current version of the article. I believe the main part of the article should be written by Ahbashi's. Are you an Ahbashi? If you are, please help us understand what Ahbashi's think. There should be a section on criticism of Ahbashi's at the end of the article. All fatwa's against Ahbashi's should be presented there. All criticisms should be briefly reflected there. Following that section there will be another section containing the Ahbashi's responses to the criticisms. All the article except one part belongs to you. We are not familiar with Ahbashi's views but if you quote from a website, we can check and confirm it. We don't need to be omniscience to be able to contribute in wikipedia. --Aminz 04:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

i didn't revert it, i made the first edit, and McKhan started to revert it, the two main points I think are incorrect is that we mis shia theology [btw, shia have the same theology in most cases as muslim, but they have added MAJOR sinful beleifs], and when i say theology i mean the core beleifs in god. And that our beleifs are sen as 'heretical'...'heretical' to whom? That line makes it sound like it is just somehtign that is factualy known, like its a fact that are beelifs are heretical, which they arn't.

I left this debate with mckhan early on becasue it got ignorant, and there is no point in trying to argue to a birck wall, as it stands, i don't much care for the article now, as every time i do get into these situations, it is hard to leave them without makeing muslims as a whole [real muslims] look bad. My two main qualms abotu the article are the 'they mis shia theology with this own' and the 'beleifs seen as heretical', the reason i won't write the WHOLE article over is becasue of one time...and becasue i am not in a position to speak on behald of AICP on a major site such as this one, i am sure though there are people with more knowlage than i who are able to do so, like Advisor.Crono 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So your concrete suggestions are:
1.”It follows the teachings of Shaykh Abdallah ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Hirari al-Shibi al- Abdari, also known as al-Habashi ("the Ethiopian" and cognate to Habesha), an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufism.”
Should be reduced to
“It follows the teachings of Shaykh Abdallah ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Hirari al-Shibi al- Abdari, also known as al-Habashi ("the Ethiopian" and cognate to Habesha).”
2. This should be rewritten: “It is highly controversial within Islamism for its religious stance (anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical) and its political alliances (pro-Syria and conciliatory toward the West).”

Can you please rewrite this one sentence for us. Is the sect pro Syria or not?

Are these your main concerns? --Aminz 02:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
re your sentence :"btw, shia have the same theology in most cases as muslim, but they have added MAJOR sinful beleifs" Please stop attacking others; your sentence should be written as: "btw, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT shia have the same theology in most cases as muslim, but they have added MAJOR sinful beleifs". Thanks --Aminz 02:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


that's not an opinion, thats a fact, read a shia book of Aqqedah....better yet, read The Aqqedah fo bin Asakir.Crono 12:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's your opinion that that's a fact.Timothy Usher 12:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


No, it sin't, the shia even say what we say, though otuside the realm of aqqedah, they innovate major bidah, which makes most shia fasiq. Go ask them if you don't believe me, are you also going to say that 12x12=144 is also my opinion? Its not my opinion, becasue if you read up on the Shai aqqedah and the Sunni aqqedah, you will see too many similarities to even count, but if you look at the shariah or the fiqh or practices of the two gorups, you seee major diffrences, and these are in msot acses the only diffrences, now, IMHO the shia are the least of the muslism worries. Also, your asumeing that the information we teach is 'unknown' [aka, we don't knwo what we teach[sunnis and shia] and thus anythign we say is our 'opinion] which is wrong, its not a mystry what we teach, and it isn't a lie, or else there would be no reason to exist [yeah, we are going to start an anti tobacco group, but wre will tell everyone we love ciggarettes] (see the flaw in YOUR logic?)What we teach is as known to us as 5+5=10 is known to us, it is not a mystry or somehtign hidden, the problem is when people try to make it look 'bluury' when it isn't. Crono 21:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Corno, as I said before, please do not personalize the discussion. I respect your personal opinions, but JUST as your personal opinions and NOTHING MORE. I don't want to correct what, according to my personal opinion, is "your misconception about shia". It is strange that on one hand you complain that Al-Ahbashi's are being falsly accused, and on the other hand you accuse Shia's. Anyway, we are here to merely discuss about the article. This is not an article on Shia beliefs. Isn't it better to answer to my above suggestions about the article rather than accusing others? thx. --Aminz 06:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


Who made an aqusation abotu the shia? i am only telling you what they say. that's not an acusation, that is called relaying the message. i told you my qualms about the article, and you responded with questiosn, which are answered in my first post.Crono 20:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't confirm point #1 above and didn't made any comments on point #2. --Aminz 21:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


and i quote -- ""beleifs seen as heretical" is a point of view, ALSO you didn't specify WHO they are heretical to?..According to whom are they heretical? etc?...you cannot just say they advocate heretic beleifs without stateing according to WHOM are the beleifs heretical. The same way i cannot go to a christian article and say "these are all kafirs"..i CAN however say "according to muslims, these are kafirs" beacsue i am stateing who this point of view belongs to, simply stateing they are kafirs is a point of view with no soruce, if you DO have a soruce which supports your claime, then you say "According to *source* this group teaches heretical beleifs"

Please follow the NPOV policy. Crono 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)cronodevir" Like i said, i answered this one, as for the pro syria comment, i don't have any opinion on that, and i never did. Crono 22:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Good. The sentence "beleifs seen as heretical" should be removed from intro BUT we will have a section at the end of the article containing all fatwa's against Al-Ahbash's. There we can be specific and go into all details. --Aminz 00:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol, a fatwa against aicp?..go ahead, i won't care. Crono 03:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

alahbash AND mulims

here i want to tell crono that im nt a non muslim neither a christian but a main stream sunni muslim although i dont agree with his/her premise that a christian cant understand Islam or vice versa. Still i want to say being even a sunni muslim i strongly believe that ahbash views r totally different from the muslims{both sunni n shia). i can say this thing cos nt only the table but the following links which contain main strean sunni muslims views proves this fact.http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/cult/habasi history.htm http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/muslims_beware.htm http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544180 HTTP://WWW.ISLAMQA.COM/INDEX.PHP?CS=PRN&LN=ENG&QR=8571&DGN=4&DGN=2 By summing up the whole discussion i want to say alahbash is nt even muslim sect.||userimfatima2001|imfatima2001||

Imfatima2001, why don't you work on a section of criticism of Ahbashi's. You can have a look at the article such as "criticism of Islam, criticism of christianity, criticism of bible" to get an idea of how this part should be written. thx. --Aminz 04:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

aminz i have already done on the pattern of that page http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Ahmadi||userimfatima2001|imfatima2001||


I couldn't get into your link but had a look at the table at http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Ahmadi if this was what you mean. We can have a table but apparently people prefer to not to use it. We are better to use a simple template (several subsections). Moreover the table should be summerized. The readers will get tired. Two or three lines for each part. --Aminz 05:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Protestants cosnider themselves mainstrem, catholics consider themselves mainstream shai cosnider themselves main stream, eqwan cosnider themsleevs mainstream, whahabies consider themselves main stream, etc..i hope you gte my point, just becasue one says 'we are mainstream' [includeing us] does nto amke you ro us right, what does is the beleifs in Allah that conform to what is revealed and those that don't conform to what is revealed.

and you as a christian most likely just went to the first website that said 'we are mainstream' or you went to the first website that was politicly correct Or you went to the first website you agreed with, its always one of the three with MOST people, do you know about ibn asakir or atahawiy? do you know the diffrence between aqqedah fiqh and tawwasul?..i didn't think so, thus it is in my humble opinion that you don't really know what your talking about, and you don't learn a whole religioun in a day, and i am sure you woudl agree that you would not follow me if i found 'proof' that christianity was wrong would you?

People come in three catagories, The Knowlageable, the Ignorant, and the Evil.Crono 01:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not personalize the discussion. It is also better to avoid irrelevant statements. We are here to have a discussion just about the article. Your main point is that "every sect considers itself truth". 100% correct! I agree that the following sentence should be revised: "It is highly controversial within Islamism for its religious stance (anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical) and its political alliances (pro-Syria and conciliatory toward the West)."
Mentioning the sect being controversial in the INTRODUCTION is unnecessary (since all sects are controversial in a sense) BUT there should be a section titled "criticism of Al-Ahbashi's" containing all other POV's. Thanks --Aminz 02:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

New Changes

Here is a brief summary of my suggestions:

  • Removing all anti-Al-ahbash sentences from introduction.
  • Making a new section titled "criticism of Al-Ahbash". This section will include all the fatwas against al-Ahbash and will contain a summerized version of the table(maybe not in the form of a table).
  • We will have a section titled "Ahbashi answers to the criticism" in which Ahbashi's can write their POV.

Any feedback? --Aminz 05:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, specify all "Anti-Al-Ahbash" sentences. As I have already suggested that we can have both, table and the proposed sections of Timothy Usher. McKhan
Well, I don't know exactly what they are. As I understood from Corno, he doesn't like "It is highly controversial within Islamism for its religious stance (anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical) and its political alliances (pro-Syria and conciliatory toward the West)." ::: specially "(anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical)"
which makes sense since Al-Ahbashis don't like to be called "heretical or Islamism" i guess.
We can however move this sentence to the criticism of Al-Ahbashi if he insists.
I expect Corno to specify the "Anti-Al-Ahbash" sentences for us. --Aminz 06:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I am fine with table, but it just didn't look nice to me. It was too hard for me to go through it. I think the table will look better if we summerize the table. --Aminz 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Imfatima2001 is working on a summarized version of the table. McKhan
Great! We also need references for fatwa's against Al-Ahbashi's. We need the exact information of who issued the fatwa's and when. --Aminz 06:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Most of the FATWAs has been issued by the religiously authorotative and mainstream Muslim scholars which, of course, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP refuse to accept. There is also a book, "Habashis: A Warning and Refutation of the Heretical Group Known as the Habashis Al-Ahbash," Translated by Abu Zakariya, which should be listed on that page. McKhan
Yes, this is a good addition to the article. --Aminz 06:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


The mixing of shia theology [as understood by most people [the stuff about Jibril amin makeing a mistake etc...] this stuff is nto taught by us, and to avoid confuseion, the line should eb removed, and 'heretical' is a POV, wether you consider it true or not is not my concern, my concern is that it isn't NPOV, and yes, we are anti-whahabi [the ones that call themselves salafi/mckhan], and anti-apologist [hamza yusuf and his ilk] other than that nothign seems to jump out at me, i don't care if you have a critisisms section, it should go something like this in the article... First section is what is true to be known about the group [ie. what they teach, thier goal etc, stuff that can't possiable be blurry or grey area] and then a crtiisisms section, then a anti-critisms section. Then extra stuff.Crono 12:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Corno, I asked you to stop attacking others. The "the stuff about Jibril amin makeing a mistake", or "shia are using a different Qur'an" are all forgeries. See misconceptions about the Shi'a. --Aminz 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I, McKhan, am NOT a Wahabi or Salafi per se. Cronodevir must stop attacking people who know the reality of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP very well and simply trying to help Wikipedia to keep the integrity and credibility of its Islam-related pages under the light of its own stated Wikipedia guidelines (NPOV, VERIFY .etc). "Heretical" is NOT a POV but it is an established characteristic of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP by the independent / academic sources [22][23] (Please, READ: Wikipedia Verifiability guidelines) under the light of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's own teachings, religious decrees, material and strategies. Here is the pertinent section, "The Shi'a Dimension," of an independently and academically written article. That is something else that Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP are bent backward to camoflaudge their agenda and beliefs under the guise of Jamat Ahl Wa Sunna for strategic and demographic reasons to seek legitimacy and recruitment. As for as Sunni or Shia or any other Muslims are concerned, under the light of Islamic Jurisprudence and basic tenets of Islam, IF a sect / cult denies the TOTALITY of the Quran and Tawheed, that sect / cult is, automatically, out of the circle of Islam. As far as Tearlach's version is concerned, Tearlach used / wrote "seems as heretical." In other words, Tearlach still gave Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, the benefit of the doubt. I would like to take the opportunity to point out that in the past almost 9 months of this back-and-forth, Cronodevir didn't care about Wikipedia NPOV guidelines and suddenly now he cannot stop quoting them. Indeed, "what goes around, comes around" and "Truth, eventually, sets everybody free." McKhan
Thanks McKhan for the links. --Aminz 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Seen as heretical" by whom? Crono 21:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

By those who issued fatwa against them. --Aminz 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


So becasue soem random guy who knows nothign about islam gives a 'fatwa' this automaticly makes it a FACT that our views are seen as heretical?..Well, sence i am giveing a fatwa agaisnt you now [sence random guys are allowed to give fatwas now [see McKhans links for random guys giveing fatwas] does it automaticly make it a fact that your incorrect?...Hardly, in situations like this, people need substantial evidence, and proof for that evidence, from classical scholarship, not ISNA apologists or Whahabies or anyone else but classical scholarship [ie, SHafi, Malik, Hanbal, Hanafi, Ashari, Askair, Ghazali, Nawawi, tahawiy..etc....] which NONE of the links posted by mckhan contain valid judgements agaisnt us or anythign we say. So i ask, who is it that sees our views as heretical, that it woudl merit enough to be aprt of the main description of AICP? If it were in the POV of the critics section, i wouldn't mind. Becasue heretical is a POV, "seen as heretical" = POV. Crono 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew it. Now, Cronodevir is "challenging" the scholarship of those academics / scholars who wrote, "A Sufi response to political islamism: Al-ahbash of Lebanon," the very same link / article which, by the way, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's agents maintained, so far, in their own version (s) through out their TWO (September 2005 - and - April 2006) orchestrated campaigns / attacks of complex vandalism / delibrate reverting on this page. They never liked another independently and academically written report, "Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context" as it highlighted the real strategy of Al-Ahbash / Habashies in online / offline "discussions" [by using tactics, which includes but not limited to: frequently refering to their books / material edited in Lebanon by the AICP, but without any reference to the book, author or the editor, considering others' religious / non-religious knowledge as "deviant," "inferior," "non-academic," "un-adequate," and / or "non-scholary," insisting and forcing hegemonic superiority of their Shakih's intepretations of the Quran, Islamic Jurisprudence, the basic tenets of Islam (Tawheed .etc), excercising ex-communication upon others or by castigating / intimidating them as Salafi, Wahabi, Ikhwan .etc to shun / discredit the other party .etc - and - more] to seek funding, legitimacy and recruitment - and - to seek Ideological hegemony over others, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. I cannot help but to reiterate the same thing which I have reiterated several times in the past almost 9 months of this futile back-and-forth that Wikipedia is NOT a Muslims' or Al-Ahbash / Habashies' platform. As far as Wikipedia's guidelines are concerneced, Non-Muslims as well as Muslim academics / scholars have established that Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP are seen as heretical and more. Since this characteristic, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP being seen as heretical, has been established by both, Muslims' and Non-Muslims' acedmics / scholars, it constitutes to NPOV under Wikipedia NPOV guideliens. Even - if one agrees with the "logic" / "definition" of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's agents that being "seen as heretical" is a "POV," then one must add that it is NOT merely a "POV" per se but an EXPERT / VERFIABLE "POV" which falls, yet again, under the Wikipedia Verifibility guidelines. Al-Ahbash / Habashies must stop "challenging" the scholarship of academics / scholars, Muslim or Non-Muslim, who don't agree with them and / or write about them academically / scholarly under the light of established, respected academic, scholarly standards / guidelines and / or Islamic Jurisprudence, the basic tenets of Islam (Tawheed .etc). And last but not the least, they must stop pushing their agenda on Wikipedia by twisting its guidelines (NPOV, VERIFY, Three-revert rule (3RR) .etc). I and lots of other people on Wikipedia are simply trying to help Wikipedia to keep the integrity and credibility of its Islam-related pages under the light of its own stated Wikipedia guidelines. Nothing more, Nothing less. McKhan


No, that scholarship doesn't meet ISLAMIC standards on what IS cosnidered scholarship, ie they are not, by the definitions set in the Sunnah of the Propeht, scholars, they are fraudlent. Its not a challenge, it is a fact that none of the 'scholars' you quote have any ijaza whatso ever, and it is harram for a leyman to speak without knowlage, which is what your lackys in thsoe lniks have been doing, and the fact that a non-muslim is trying to qwrite an artcile on islam, is imho laughable, it boils down to those who know. And those who don't. Don't ask a Democrat about Republican agendas, you ask a Republican. Also, Heretical, the word, in itself is POV, just like 'Ugly' is point of view, and "Beautiful" is POV, all these words are inhearnitly soemones point of view, there is nothign that can be universally ugly or beautiful or heretical, if everyoen cannot agree that soemthign is X, than that means there is dissagreement, and X turns into a POV of one of the debateing parties., again, McKhan, in all your wirteing, and trying to use 'big words' you still fail.Crono 06:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


I always find it quite ironic and sad that Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP denies the TOTALITY of the Quran and Tawheed under the light of Islamic Jurisprudence and the basic tenets of Islam - and - yet - they have got the audacity to demand "Islamic" standard of scholarship (READ: The enforcement of their agenda and beliefs.. under the light of their Shaikh's interpretation of Islamic Jurisprudence, the basic tenets of Islam .etc) and to castigate others as "laymen," "lackies," "Wahabis," "Ikhwan," "Salafis," "Kaafir," .etc. If Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP are looking for initiation / endorsement from mainstream Muslims / non-Muslims to seek their Shakikh's "Ijaza" (Permission) before they utter / write a single word about Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP - then - I am afraid, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP will continue to wait till the doom's day. In the meantime, people will continue to follow Wikipedia guidlines, while at Wikipedia, under which "seen as hertical" is NOT a POV. McKhan
McKhan, when you attack Habashis - i.e. nearly every post, and knowing full well Habashis are on this page with you - you are personalizing the discussion. Wikipedia is not the place to demonize and attack those whose religious convictions differ from your own. For the umpteenth time, please stop. Thank you.Timothy Usher 09:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, I am not personalizing the discussion, however, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP are. Wikipedia doesn't conduct new / original research. It simply wants its contributors to use the mainstream research. And for Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, all those academics, scholars .etc are just McKhan's "lackies" and without "Ijaza" (Permission) and cosequently whatever they are writing about Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP is "Haram" and "non-Islamic." If you are here to defend / enforce / adhere to Wikipedia guidelines, then, I will recommend to pay attention to that aspect as well. And last but not the least, please, make sure to read both side of the story before leaving your casual comments / "advise." Thank you. McKhan
Guys, I think McKhan at least has presented enough facts to establish that there are some views in which Habashi's are viewed as heretical. Corno's point is that this will not prove that Habashi's are really heretical. My suggested solution is this:
1. IN THE INTRO, We can just mention that there are some fatwa's in which Habashi's are declared as heretical. This is a fact. In intro, we just report existence of views.
2. IN THE CRITICISM OF AHBASHI'S section, we add that Ahbashi's are accused of denying the TOTALITY of the Quran, etc. I believe these claims if true are clear enough to make the Muslim readers to come into the conclusion McKhan wants. The criticism of Ahbashi's section will belong to anti-ahbashi's POV's.
3. There will be a following section dedicated to Ahbashi's POV, to let them defend themselves.
How is this? --Aminz 10:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It is feasible as long as we keep the footnotes / links intact and prominent. Example: "It is highly controversial within Islamism for its religious stance (anti-Salafi, and with Sufi and other beliefs seen as heretical by some academics and scholars [24][25]) and its political alliances (pro-Syria and conciliatory toward the West)." - McKhan

I'll get back soon (need to sleep now). --Aminz 10:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly McKhan, according toy uor unqualified scholars - we deny the 'totality' of the Quran, but that fact that your 'shcolars' arre unqualified [they don't have ijaza, ijaza is basicly like a degree or phd etc, you need to get ijaza for diffrent subjects in the religioun inorder to teach it, just like you need to get a dgree in certain subjects to teach those] McKhan, your 'research' isn't mainstream, that is the point. ISNA is a minority sect in this world. there aren't even a million people, if that. AND they are only in north ameirca,...go to Lebenon or Egypt or Ethiopia and ask about ISNA or any of the 'shcolars' involved with this group. AND isna denies the authenticity of classical shcolarhsip. Also, according to wiki, "seen as heretical" is a POV, sence SOMEONE has to 'see' it. Crono 19:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It has NOTHING to do with ISNA. We are talking about Lebanese, Egyptian, Syrian, Dutch, , Australians, French and other nationalities' scholars / academics with Ph.Ds all saying the same thing: Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP denies the TOTALITY of the Quran and Tawheed under the light of Islamic Jurisprudence, the basic tenets of Islam - and - under the light of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's own material and books. Here are some of the Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's (...and others') sources quoted by these academics and scholars: Izhar Al-Iqedah Al-Sunnyah, Al-Nahj Al-Saleem, Al-Daleel Al-Qaweem, Sareeh Al-Bayan, Beghyat Al-Taleb, Manar Al-Huda Magazine and many more.. McKhan


Phd isn't valid in Shariah to give religious fatwas anyways..., one must meet many requirements that those bookies don't meet, such as haveing a reliable chain of teachers from himself up to the propeht sallalahu alayhi wa salaam. you must have permission [ijaza] from your shiekh. and you must know atleast the obligitory knowalge. Which none of your men even have, the whole idea of "getting a phd to teach religious information" is a bidah. this 'phd' system didn't exist during the time of the propeht sallalahu alayahi wa salaam, nor in the time of the Salaaf, nor in any time after that. Crono 13:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's mention in the intro that According to some muftis such as Mr. A, B, C consider Ahbashi's heretical. In the criticism of Ahbashi's section, the accusation can be explicitly mentioned. How is this? --Aminz 01:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


the introduction is about AICP, not abotu the critisisms of AICP. that should be enough. Crono 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not a criticism. It is a report. --Aminz 03:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of this Talk Page Now by Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's agent 131.91.136.169 = Reverted back to Swatjester's archived version

Please, note that Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's agent 131.91.136.169 VANDALIZED this page by deleting my comments which were kindly archived by Swatjester. I have reverted back to Swatjester's archived version. McKhan

Who teaches The Tawheed that speaks of substance and unessentials?

Al-Habashi says:

"As for substance and unessentials in the fundaments of the science of tawheed, we say:

1. He doest not contain substance, and He is sustained in His [dhat - Essence]

2. He does not possess unessentials in His [dhat - Essence] like color."

In your opinion, dear reader, who are the scholars of tawheed whom al-Habashi is refering to? Does he mean the salaf, like Ahmad, Abu Hanifa, Malik and Shaf'iy, or Bukhari, al-Rabee'a, Abu Yusef, al-Auwzaa'ee and, Ishaq bin Rahawiyah?

For these people are the scholars of tawheed according to us, their knowledge and virtue have been attested to. These are the Imams of tafseer and hadeeth and tawheed and fiqh .etc

The topic of substance and unessentials is not from their madh-hab nor have they sought principles to govern such things. It was not discussed by them, nor was it debated. Rather it was prohibited by them and labeled as the talk of innovators.

For that we quote Ibn al-Jawzi from Ibn 'Aqeel the following text;

"Stop with what the companions explained, and they were not familiar with substance and unessentials. Be pleased with what they were pleased. Indeed, I see what the path of the mutakalimeen originated during the time of Abu Bakr and Umar, and I see adversity." (Source: "Talbees Iblees" - by Ibn al-Jawzi)

Al-Haruwi reports from Hamad Rustam that Abu Hanifa was asked,

"What do you say about the new talk of the people about unessentials and form?" So, he said,

"It is philosophical talk. What [you are obliged to follow] are the reports and way of the salaf. Beware of every new thing, for indeed it is innovation." (Source: "Kitab al-Intisaar" - by Abi al-Mudhafir al-Sam'aaniy; "Sawn al-Muntaq wa al-Kalaam," and "Dham al-Kalaam" - by al-Haruwi)

Allah's Messenger said,

"Nothing caused the people to deviate after they had been guided except that they were given over to arguing." Then He recited,

"They do not mention it to you but for argument, but no, they are a contentious people." (Source: Tirmidhi, who said "hasn-sahih," Ibn Majah and Ahmad. The verse is Zukhruf: 58)

In fact arguing with the verses of Allah is reprehesible as proven by Allah;

"Those who dispute concerning Allah's signs without any authority given to them..." (Ghaafar: 35)

(Source: An excerpt from "Habashis: A Warning and Refutation of the Heretical Group Known as the Habashis Al-Ahbash," Translated by Abu Zakariya)


McKhan, you can include these arguments briefly in response to Ahbashi responses in the "criticism of Ahbashi" section. Then they can again answer to it in their part and ... (we should do this in an organized way like the criticims of Islam article for example). --Aminz 04:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawheed: According to Al-Habashi

Tawheed

Tawheed, usually defined as the unity of Allah or His oneness, is actually a term which means the process of repeatedly singling out Allah. The issue had arisen where people lost the concept of tawheed, and in fact, the popular mistranslation of the word tawheed is a result of this misunderstanding. It became necessary to explain tawheed in detail, to discuss its rules and principles etc. The reasons for this were may, however the overriding factor was that Islam had spread all over the world an deach society that accepted added more deviant concepts about Allah and worshipping Him. So, the concept is explained:

Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah

The act of singling out Allah in all aspects of Lordship.

Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah (or Tawheed al-'Ibaadah)

The act of singling our Allah as the only diety, the only god, the only one who is in reality divine. It is the act of singling Him out for worship.

Tawheed al-Asmaa wal Sifat

It is the act of singling out Allah with all of His Beautiful names and Majestic Attributes, without denial of any of them, without likening them to anything, without claiming a similarity for them, and without distorting either their meanings or their actual wordings.

This has lead to the scholars to further state that terminology which has not been used to describe Allah either by Allah Himself, or His Messenger may not be utilized to describe Allah. Why? Because many words contain misleading or unclear meanings behind them, and it does not befit Allah who best knows Himself, that we describe Him with descriptions that He did not use, nor His Messenger. We also refrain from denying specific things from Allah if they have not been denied from Him. This is, as well, because in order to be sure of how. So were an individual to claim that Allah does not have this or that etc. and these things being specifically denied were not denied by Him T'ala or His Prophet then we may not deny them. It is not permissible to estimate Allah as how He should be based upon human understanding. It is only allowed that we claim what He has claimed, or what His Messenger has informed us reaching us by way of authentic narration.

So, the above method of understanding and implementing tawheed must be utilized completely in order for one's tawheed to be acceptable. If one of the categories above is missing, then this person does not have the correct creed, and he is not properly worshipping Allah alone. Some scholars have revised the above principles so that they utilize two instead of three, and they explain it as Tawheed al-Asmaa wal Sifat, including all of the Names and Attributes, as well as the characteristics of Lordship, and Tawheed al-'Ibaadah. This, too, is a beneficial approach for the subject.


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~


Al-Habashi's tawheed is divided into three principles or categories:

1. The denial of the proper concept that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] has many qualities, and his (Habashi) false interpretation of the words al-Ahad and al-Samad

2. The denial of any similarity to Allah in His [dhat - Essence] Essence and attributes

3. Allah is alone creating, originating and maintaining. So, there is no contributor in inventing, manufacturing, and sustaining the invented things.


The First Category


The denial of the proper concept that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] has many characteristics.

We know that the source for this principle is Plato, for it was he who said,

"The many is not found in Him at all, as the idea of assembly does not relate to Him under any circumstances. Therefore, He is simply one in Himself."

Then he says,

"And because He is one from every angle, you cannot describe Him with a description that implies numerous substance."

Al-Habashi's source for this first principle is purely Platonic. Though, he did not copy it immediately from Plato, perhaps, he copied it from the books of the philosophers and the people of kalaam who studied Plato, Aristotle and others. Like Faraaby, Ibn Seena, Ibn al-Rumi, Ibn Rushid, Juwainy .etc

Here, elucidating the influence that the Greek Philosophers had over them is the saying of al-Faraaby,

"The Inevitable Existence cannot be divided with divisions of quantity or meaning, otherwise each part of it's division must have it's own existence, so inevitably there are many esisting." (Source "Fusuws al-Hikam by Farrabiy. Inevitable Existence: 'al-waajib-alwujoob' ; This is one of the few terms from Ilm al-Kalaam which is used in this book. It is used in quotations of philosophers. It is the Greek Philosophical concept of Sustainer or Lord. It is the concept of that which must exist; which controls the existence.)

and the saying of Ibn Seena,

"The Inevitable Existence does not divide in meaning or quantity." (Source: Al-Ishaaraat - by Ibn Seena)

This verfies that al-Habashi wants to strip away the attributes in order to confirm Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] and that it disturbs him that the Essence [dhat - Essence] which is ONE could possess more than one quality.

Bu al-Habashi neglected the fact that this is Palto's theory, who was so excessive in his theory that he would not describe Allah with His many correct qualities. Yet he described Allah [with an additional quality] as khair [good] even theough he attempted to avoid describing Allah with a description implying many qualities in His Essence [dhat - Essence]. Plato, according to his own views says,

"We do not describe Him as a substance or with appearance because the substance and appearance are relative things. So, describing Him as a substance demands the imagination to picture the appearance or design along with it. Because the imagination does not stop simply at picturing it as a substance only rather it goes on to picture it's parts as well and that is the design which without a doubt must have and abundance of contents."

The reader may notice that this is from the sayings of the Greek Philosophers; the knowledge of reason which drove many groups like the Jahmiyya, the Mu'tazila, the Haruriya, and others to deny the attributes of Allah. They stated their argument as Plato had; that describing Allah with something will lead to many things, which in itself denies the ONENESS of Allah.

Furthermore, he who theorized this principle is the same who 'assigned' the attribut of khair [good] to Allah [after being excessive in his theory that ONE cannot be described with more than one characteristic] and this is a contradiction and it amounts to nothing less than hesitation [in affirming Allah's attributes] and no rational Muslim believes that Allah accepts the philosophical principles, ideas or ways. For what Muhammad was sent with was enough, and in the opinion of those Greek Philosophers, no one truly knows these things but Allah. Yet their words cam from other than Him.

This brings us to al-Habashi's interpretation of al-Ahad, the One. That is, that [something that is one] cannot have a description or division in its essence [dhat - Essence] and there are no parts in it as Allah T'ala said, al-Ahad, al-Samad. However, you will not find that something which is described with characteristics cannot be called Ahad in the Arabic language. Contrarily it is proven that Ahad is a description of the creatures in the Qur'an as Allah T'ala said,

"And if one [Ahad] of the idolators seek protection from you..." [Tawaba: 6]

"An not join any one [Ahadan] in the service of his Lord." [Kahf: 110]

"Leave Me and him whom [Created alone [Waheedan]." [Mudathir: 11]

Reference to people as alone/one or Ahad is made in these verses and these creatures are described with descriptions that befit them. Therefore, how is it correct that something which is Ahad cannot be described or divided? If al-Habashi's assertion was correct then Allah would not describe the creatures with Ahad. Yet these creatures are described with appearance, substance and with many attributes which lead to many qualities (as they calim).

It is known that Allah quotes the believer saying,

"...and I do not associate anyone [Ahadan] with my Lord." [Kahf: 38]

So, if none can be described as Ahad "One" except Allah (as there is no attribute for Him which denies His Onenees) and Allah has described His creatures with it, and they have many qualities in them -- then this concept of al-Habashi is baseless. For this reason Ahad serves as a witness falsifying al-Habashi's explanation of tawheed.

Here then, al-Habashi is disproven from three directions:

1. The Qur'an. For the Qur'an has been revealed i the pure Arabic language which does utilize the term Ahad to name something which has various characteristics and qualities. This proves that using this description is known to the Arabs and is acceptable in the language.

2. The Arabic language. Because it is not a rule in the language that a thing cannot be caleld Ahad simply because it can be described or divided.

3. The Greek Philosophers and Plato. Because these it is who forbade refering to Allah with attributes that would "increase" His unity, and then described Allah as khair [good].


The Second Category


The Second category of tawheed according to al-Habashi is the negation of any similarity to Allah in His Essence [dhat - Essence] and His Attributes.

There is no difference between us and al-Habashi in that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is not similar to any of His creatures, and that His attributes are not like those describing the creatures. However, concerning the attributes it is important to clarify the following:

No sane Muslim would assert that Allah's Attributes were in reality similar to those of His creatures. Just as it is true that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is not like that of His creatures. Allah has said,

There is nothing like Him." [Shura: 11]

So, His Attributes are not like that of His creation. The similarity is in the word describing the attribute, not in its reality...

And this is distinguished by His sayings;

"There is nothing like Him." [Shura: 11]

"None is comparable to Him." [Ikhlas: 4]

"Do you know any one who is called by His name?" [Maryam: 65]

Yet Allah has described Himself with the words, Sameea [Hearing] Baseera [Seeing] while describing humans with the words hearing, seeing through seeing and hearing for humans is not like that of the Creator.

Allah has described Himself with the term Raouf [kind] Raheem [Merciful]

"Indeed Allah is kin, merciful with the people." [Baqarah: 143]

and He has said abou the Messenger [Muhammad],

"With the believers (he is) kind, merciful." [Tawbah: 128]

But the Prophet's mercy is not like Allah's Mercy.

So, denying similarity between the attributes of created things and the Attributes of Allah is in fact denying a similarity in the reality of these attributes not their terms. Because utilizing similar terms for both Creator and the created is normal and has been proven, whereas utilizing the reality of similar terms for both the Creator and the created is false and incorrect.

"There is nothing like Him." [Shura: 11]

Using similar terms for reference is proven in the Book, but it is not proven in the sense of having a common reality. So, similarity does not exist between the reality of Allah's attributes and those of His creatures.

Contrarily, one finds the opposite in Allah's book - that is - one finds many verses proving that it is not possible to find any similarity at all between Allah and His creatures in any of His Attributes.

An example is the Attributes of power in Allah's Book about which He Azza wa Jalla said:

"Indeed, Allah has power over all things." [Baqarah: 20]

"Surely, your Lord makes plentiful the means of sustenance for whom He pleases and strengthens them." [Israa': 30]

and compare it with the power that is possessed by Hi creation as He says,

"Except for those who repent before you gain power over them..." [Ma'idah: 34]

"...and (He) adds force to your stength." [Hud: 52]

Then read His saying,

"Allah is He who created you weak, and then after your weakness He made you strong, and then after your strength He made you weak and gray haird." [Ruwm: 54]

Then it is clearly proven that there is no comparison between the attribute of Allah and that of the creatures. But simply because the words are the same, it does not imply that the reality behind the meanings are the same. This is all the more clear when there is a verse in Allah's Book which forbids a common reality in the meaning of these attributes.

"There is nothing like Him." [Shura: 11]

So, if al-Habashi says that there is nothing comparable to Allah, then this is true, and if he says that nothing is comparable to His attributes, this is also true, and that we are looking for. However, that does not mean that one should deny an attribute of Allah simply because one finds that word in Allah's Book describing one of His creatures. As Allah T'ala said,

"Indeed, Allah hears and sees [everything]." [Nisaa': 58]

and He T'ala said about man,

"And We gave him hearing and sight." [Insan: 2] (Translator's Note: One must take note here, the Arabic descriptions are the same in both verses, although, we have translated them differently due to the preceding words and the context.)

It does not befit Allah to describe Himself as 'hearing', seeing' and then to describe the human as 'hearing, seeing' as if the two attributes were the same in each case. But we see the human and we know how he sees and hears but as for Allah - "There is nothing like Him" - so nothing will cause us to compare Him to His creatures - even - if the word attributed is the same. For the sole reason that similarity is in the word, not in its reality. Otherwise there would be no reaon for Him T'ala to say, "There is nothing like Him," and it would be just a verse being recited with no use for it in this chapter. But no mind would think that Allah is like any of His creatures in their true characteristics. The only common thing between the descriptions of Allah and His creatures is the word which is used for the description. In order to confirm the characteristics of Lordship in all of what is attributed to Allah, we have what is common between Him and His creatures, for if this common pronunciation in the attributes did not exist, then we would have no idea what the attributes of Divinity meant. Just as there is no proof that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is like any other essence, and Allah's Existence does not mean that He Exists like others, it is the same concerning the attributes - they are not similar to the attributes of the creatures.

So, Allah Exists and the creatures exists and there is no comparison in this existence. Therefore, if we confirm Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming] to Allah, this does not mean the ascending, descending, or coming of the creatures. This is the same if we confirm Hand, the Face, the Eyes... it does not mean the same hands, face or eyes of the creatures. So, according to al-Habashi, it is a must to withhold the attributes of Allah and their interpretation. Because confirming to him equals similarity. So, he combines most of the attributes ino the following:

  • - Hearing;
  • - Seeing;
  • - Power;
  • - Intent;
  • - Speech;
  • - Knowledge;
  • - Life;
  • - Existence;
  • - Everliving;
  • - Eternal;
  • - Oneness

Te remaining attributes are combined by al-Habashi into innovated attributes such as:

  • - Mukhalifat lil Hawadath (Not an Event) - This is another of the Ilm al-Kalam terms. It refers to the concept of something which does not do anything, or does not move, or does not change, or is unaffected .etc; it also implies one who has no parts. Al-Habashi attributes it to Allah as do many of the Mutakalimoon and their like. Stating that Allah will be seen on the Day of Resurrection without him being, "...short, long, light, dark, not moving, moving, and touching anything." (As quoted in al-Habashi's followers in their "Izhar Al-Iqedah Al-Sunnyah" - The Authentic Beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah - Ahbash). It is a Greek philosophical attributes of the divine.

and

  • - Qiyaam binafs (Self-subsisting / Self-sustaining) - Another of the Ilm al-Kalam terms used by al-Habashi to describe Allah. It is used to imply, "Self sustaining." However, attesting to the implied concept has lead its inventors to claim that Allah will be seen on the Day of Resurrection without Him being, "...standing up, sitting on, leaning against, attatched to, unattatched to, seperated from, in front of, in the back of [anything]." (As quoted by al-Habashi's followers in their "Izhar Al-Iqedah Al-Sunnyah" - The Authentic Beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah - Ahbash).

Regardless of the fact that Allah has clearly described Himself with Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming], according to al-Habashi, the attributes of Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming] are anthropomorphized by the imagination. Other than this, according to him, they do not have to be spoken of. Yet, al-Habashi does not believe that the seeing attribute causes the imagination to make similarity, so here he contradicts himself.

As for the remaining known attributes, he has combined them as we discovered before, even though Allah Subhannahu wa T'ala has specifically mentioned them concerning Himself. So, where then is the benefit is combining or abbreviating them?

This is why we say that tawheed, according to al-Habashi, equals T'ateel [Denial / Denying]. And the solution for all of this is,

"There is nothing like Him, and He is the [All] Hearing, the [All] Seeing." [Shura: 11]

The first part of this verse is the cure for the filth of tashbeeh [Anthropomorphism] - "...Nothing like Him". The second part is the cure for the desease of T'ateel [Denial / Denying] - "...and He is the Hearing, the Seeing". Only by this method is tawheed of Allah perfected.


The Third Category


The third category tawheed according to al-Habashi is stated by him as,

"Allah is unique in creating, originating and organizing, so there is no contribution in inventing, manufacturing, or organizing the invented things."

No one disagrees with al-Habashi that Allah doesn't have any partners or associates in manufacturing or organizing creations. Even the idolaters agree with that. They are aware that Allah is the Creator, the Sustainer, the One who gives life and death, and they don't believe that anyone is a partner with Him in His Creating. This is well-known from the Book of Allah T'ala, Allah said,

"And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient?' they will certainly say, 'Allah'." [Ankboot: 61]

"And if you ask them, 'Who sends down water from the sky, then gives life to the earth after it were dead?' They will certainly say, 'Allah'." [Ankbooth: 63]

"And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth?' they would most certainly say, "'The Might, Knowing One has created them'." [Zukhruf: 9]

So, they didn't claim that their idols were partners to Allah in organizing, creating, sustaining, and giving life or death. But the idolators' argument for worshiping the idols was their claim,

"We only worship them to bring us nearer to Allah." [Zumar: 3]

The reason that they worshipped the idols was not because they thought that they created and sustained, and the proof for that is that if they were asked who created the heavens and the earth and gave life to the earth after its death they would say, "Allah" they did not say, "Allah, and our gods." Yet, this still wasn't enough for their tawheed to be correct, for if it was sufficient, the Prophet Muhammad would have left them alone with their idols. The idolators themselves know that their gods don't hear, benefit or harm them, and this is Ibrahim's argument against them when He asked them,

"He said; Do they hear you when you call, or can they benefit or harm you?" [Sha'ara: 72]

And the idolators knew that if they answered no, then it would be an argument against them, and if they answered yes, then it would be a proof that they were lying, and that is what made them excuse themselves from answering this question by saying,

"We found our fathers doing this." [Sh'ara: 74]

Likewise, the Quraish did not deny the portion of Muhammad's message, which stated that one Lord gives life and death, creates and sustains .etc. But they denied what they thought was his implication; that all of their gods were really only one god. They said,

"Did he make all of the gods just one god; this is surely a strange thing." [Saad: 5]

Most of the idolators admit that all of the partners they claim for Allah belong to Him. All belong to the creator of this World, Allah Glorious is He. It is known that when they would encircle the K'aba the idolators would say, "We obey You, No partner have You, except a partner for You, You own him and that which he owns." Abd al-Muttalib told Abraha, "The House has a Lord to protect it." This was when Abraha wanted to destroy the house of Allah. Abd al-Muttalib also said, "This is the house of Allah and his friend Ibrahim, so if He kept you away, that would be because it is His House." (Source: "Tahdheeb al-Seerat al-Nubuwiyya" by Ibn Hishaam) This, then, is a proof as Allah said,

"And you forget those who you associated..." [An'am: 41]

When the idolators are in trouble or hardship they forget the gods whom they associated with Allah and when the trouble ceases, by Allah's Will, they forget again, and they associate partners with Allah once more. Likewise, when Abd al-Mutaalib knew in his heart that they could not prevent Abraha from destroying the House he submitted to the truth and said, "The House has a Lord to protect it," and he did not assocaite partners in that with Him, and he submitted that Allah alone protects and defends the K'aba.

This tawheed is referred to as tawheed of ruboobiyya (Lordship), this is the tawheed that implies that Allah is the Lord and the Creator, the Sustainer, the Giver of life and death, and the All Powerful. Yet, this was not enough and it must be accompanied with another form of tawheed - tawheed of uloohiyya - that is the forbiddance of Allah's creatures to take others as gods besides Allah. As it does not benefit a creature to believe that there is no creator, maker organizer, except Allah - unless - he worships this maker and does not woship anything with Him, believing that He is the only one worthy of worship. Since the false gods are incapable of Allah's ability, they do not deserve to be associated with Him in worship.

The idolators do not benefit by believing that Allah is alone in sustaining, giving life, and death even if they call it tawheed of rububiyya because they do not include tawheed of uloohiyya with it, which states that if the Lord is the Creator, Sustainer, Giver of life and death, then He is the Lord for all creation and there is no other Lord beside Him.

Al-Habashi does not differentiate between these two types of tawheed, and he assumes that tawheed of rububiyya is the tawheed for the ability of inventing and organizing, which he mixed in with the tawheed of uloohiyya. So, in other words, to him whoever admits that Allah is the One who invents, then he has grasped the pure tawheed. Then he tries to prove this point of his by citing the statement of Allah,

"If they had any gods besides Allah they (the heavens and the earth) would have been in a state of disorder." [Anbiyya: 22]

Then, al-Habashi claimed that this kind of tawheed is called 'proof of inability.' This is incorrect because the idolators did not claim that there is more than one who has the all encompassing ability or more than one creator. They believed that the creator is one and - yet - they still worshipped many gods and this is proven from the Book of Allah by His saying,

"And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient?' they will certainly say, 'Allah'." [Ankboot: 61]

and for that Allah asked them afterwards;

"...do you not admit?" [Anbiya:67]

So, we learn from this, that al-Habashi's usage of the verse

"If they had any gods besides Allah they (the heavens and the earth) would have been in a state of disorder." [Anbiyya: 22]

as proof for Allah's unity in creating and inventing is not an evidence - because - Allah has mentioned to use that the idolators admit that Allah is the only creator and inventor, but what he means in this verse is that only the the true god should be given tawheed of uloohiyya. So, He is a god with divinity in its real meaning and this is why Allah sent the Messengers calling to single out this divinity. He also meant by this that the idolators admit to His Lordship - yet - they deny His divinity or uloohiyya.

"Did he make all of the gods one god?" [Saad: 5]

Each Prophet started His invitation to Allah with the saying;

"Worship Allah; you have no god bu Him." [Ar'af: 59]

And Allah Azza wa Jall said,

"And ask those of Our Messengers whom We sent before you, 'Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent God'...?" [Zukhruf: 45]

Concerning the fact that there is only one creator and organizer, the idolators have admitted to this. Thus, al-Habashi does not support pure tawheed which eradicates shirk from its very roots, rather he approves of what the idolators said. His evidence fails to show the truth and it fails to nullify the falsehood.


(Source: Excerpts from "Habashis: A Warning and Refutation of the Heretical Group Known as the Habashis Al-Ahbash," Translated by Abu Zakariya)

If it is NOT on AICP.org, it doesn't mean that Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP can disown all their books / material / tapes in Arabic. Above article, "Tawheed: According to Al-Habashi" and other academics / scholars quote from the books of al-Ahbahs / Habashies / AICP, whiich include but not limited to: "Izhar Al-Iqedah Al-Sunnyah" - The Authentic Beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah - Ahbash, "Al-Nahj Al-Saleem," "Al-Daleel Al-Qaweem," "Sareeh Al-Bayan," and "Beghyat Al-Taleb." Are Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, now, denying all their own books / material / tapes in Arabic? McKhan



Alas, if it iasn't from AICP.org, you simply reject it, and this, isn't from aicp.org :)the first flaw with this entier articel is that it implied Allah has parts, thus the entier artivcle is invalid.

This is our aqqedah:

Shaykh Fakhrud-Din Ibn ^Asakir, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Know, may Allah guide us and you, that it is obligatory upon every accountable person to know that Allah is the only God in His Dominion.

He created the entire world, the upper and lower, the ^Arsh and Kursiyy, the heavens and earth, and what is in them and in between them.

All the creation is subjugated by His Power. No speck moves except by His will.

He has no manager for the creation with Him, and has no partner in Dominion.

He is attributed with Life and is Qayyum. He is not seized by somnolence or sleep.

He is the One Who knows about the unforeseen and what is evidenced by His creation. Nothing on earth or in heaven is hidden from Him. He knows what is on land and in sea. Not a leaf does fall but He knows about it. There is no grain in the darkness of earth, nor anything which is moist or dry but is inscribed in a clear Book. His Knowledge encompasses everything. He knows the count of all things.

He does whatever He wills. He has the power to do whatever He wills.

To Him is the Dominion and He needs none; To Him belong the Glory and Everlastingness. To Him are the Ruling and al-Qada' (the Creating). He has the Names of Perfection. No one hinders what He decreed. No one prevents what He gives. He does in His dominion whatever He wills. He rules His creation with whatever He wills. He does not hope for reward and does not fear punishment.

There is no right on Him that is binding, and no one exercises rule over Him.

Every endowment from Him is due to His Generosity and every punishment from Him is just. He is not questioned about what He does, but they are questioned.

He existed before the creation. He does not have a before or an after. He does not have an above or a below, a right or a left, an in front of or a behind, a whole or a part.

It must not be said: When was He? Or where was He? Or how is He? He existed without a place. He created the universe and willed for the existence of time. He is not bound to time and is not designated with place.

His management of one matter does not distract Him from another. Delusions do not apply to Him, and He is not encompassed by the mind. He is not conceivable in the mind. He is not imagined in the self nor pictured in delusions. He is not grasped with delusions or thoughts.

http://www.aicp.org/IslamicInformation/images/aqida.gif

This Ayah means: [Nothing is like Him and He is attributed with Hearing and Sight.]

ibn asakair was amougn the salaf, as was Ashari. Watch McKhan as he denies the salaf.Crono 11:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Are Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP denying, now, their own books / material / tapes in Arabic ?

If it is NOT on AICP.org, it doesn't mean that Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP can disown all their books / material / tapes in Arabic. Above article, "Tawheed: According to Al-Habashi" and other academics / scholars quote from the books of al-Ahbahs / Habashies / AICP, whiich include but not limited to: "Izhar Al-Iqedah Al-Sunnyah" - The Authentic Beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah - Ahbash, "Al-Nahj Al-Saleem," "Al-Daleel Al-Qaweem," "Sareeh Al-Bayan," and "Beghyat Al-Taleb." Are Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, now, denying all their own books / material / tapes in Arabic? McKhan

No, but by reading your article, i can verify that the article is NOT from us, and it was a leyman who wrote it [logical inconsistancies mostly]Crono 21:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes you "represent" Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP and sometimes you don't. Are you excercising "Taqqiya"? Most of the time, you don't even bother to read the links which gets posted on this page about Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP. Your above comments demonstrates the fact and your "accusation" that it is "McKhan's article" that you didn't even bother to see the by-line let alone reading the whole article. Here is the Source: Excerpts from "Habashis: A Warning and Refutation of the Heretical Group Known as the Habashis Al-Ahbash," Translated by Abu Zakariya. McKhan
i think the table shud be inserted again so that we can know on which points al.ahbash disagrees with the rest of the mulsims and what r the basic issues which differenciate them from the muslims.[imfatima2001]

You don't have to read the entier bible, to know it is wrong.Crono 11:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I am really confused. The section "criticism of Al-Ahbash" can be always added to the article if you have one. I encourage Corno to work on responses to criticisms. --Aminz 17:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahbash المشاريعيون، الأحباش، جماعة من أهل السنّة

The Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (A. I. C. P.), a non-profit international organization.


Shaykh ^Abdullah al-Harariyy

  In 1983, under the guidance and supervision of the great, honorable, and beloved scholar of Islam: Shaykh ^Abdullah al-Harariyy, the A.I.C.P. assumed a new era of responsibility.  
Shaykh ^Abdullah emphasizes the rich and moderate face of Islam—that of justice, truth, trustworthiness, knowledge, generosity, manners, excellence, and sound intellect. Continue...


Shaykh Nizar al-Halabi

  From 1983 to 1995, under the chairmanship of the late Shaykh Nizar Halabiyy, the A.I.C.P. focused its efforts on teaching Islam; teaching how to live and treat others with righteousness, honesty, and justice; and working for social rectification through programs of religious education as well as cultural and social enlightenment. This was implemented throughout Lebanon, a country war-weary and clouded with corruption and transgression. 
Within thirteen (13) years, these efforts spread across six (6) continents, throughout forty (40) countries worldwide. Continue...


Shaykh Husam Qaraqirah

  In 1995, Shaykh Husam Qaraqirah was unanimously elected by the Executive Committee to continue the guidance and management of the A.I.C.P. endeavors worldwide--along the lines of moderation, religious education, and cultural and social enlightenment. 
His Eminence Shaykh Husam Qaraqirah is well known for his scholastic abilities and for his major contribution in structuring the A.I.C.P. organizationally and educationally. He was authorized by great scholars such as Shaykhs ^Abdullah al-Harariyy, al-Fadaniyy, and al-Ghumariyy, among many others, to narrate and give instruction in the Religious Knowledge. Continue...

Ahbash المشاريعيون، الأحباش، جماعة من أهل السنّة

المشاريعيون، الأحباش، جماعة من أهل السنّة

تتبع السلف والخلف وليس عندها أفكار جديدة تدعو الناس إليها

صفحة خاصة للتعريف بجمعيّة المشَاريع الخَيريّة الإسْلاميّة التي تعمل برعاية الشيخ عبد الله الهرري



الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلاة والسلام على سيدنا محمد الأمين وعلى ءاله وصحبه الطيبين الطاهرين


بالكلمة الطيبة والمنهج المعتدل ، بالحكمة و الموعظة الحسنة بدأت المسيرة... تَعَلُّمٌ وتعليم ، إرشادٌ وإصلاح، تعاون وانفتاح ، أمانة في حمل تعاليم الشريعة وأدائها واهتمام عريض بكل نافع لمجتمعاتنا ، كل ذلك حمل الجمعية إلى مصاف الجمعيات العالمية ، فمثّلت لأبناء الأمة في بلاد الله الواسعة ملاذا أمينا وحصنا مكيناً ينهلون من معينه صفاء العلم ويتفيأون ظلال المحبة في الله . إنها جمعية المشاريع الخيرية الإسلامية. جمعية علم بإخلاص وعمل بإتقان ، لتكون عقد مؤسسات بُنيت للخير ونشر الفضائل وبلسمة الجراح ، ولترسي أسس التعاون ضمن علاقات واسعة امتدت عبر القارات كلها لتؤدي دورًا متميزًا ومهمًا في نشر مبادئ الحق وضياء العلم بين الصغير و الكبير.

وهكذا نالت الجمعية ثقة المرجعيات و المؤسسات الإسلامية التي حرصت على التواصل مع الجمعية والاتصال بها فتأصلت علاقاتها مع مئات الآلاف في بلاد الله الواسعة ، يرسلون إليها فرحهم وحزنهم وشؤونهم وشجونهم ، يثنون ويؤيدون ويُكْبِرون للجمعية إنجازاتها ونشاطاتها وأهدافها الشريفة السامية ومنهجها المعتدل الصافي الذي قرظه و أيده مئات المشايخ والمفتين في أكثر من سبعين بلدا وشهدوا له بأنه طريق الصالحين ومنوال العلماء العاملين.

ولذلك كان للجمعية مشاركة فاعلة في عدد من المؤتمرات العربية والدولية حيث كان يحرص المنظمون القائمون على هذه المؤتمرات من مؤسسات ومرجعيات على دعوة الجمعية وطلب مشاركتها والتعاون معها ، وقد أثمر ذلك كله عن توقيع اتفاقية تعاون علمي وثقافي بين الجمعية وجامعة الأزهر الشريـف ذات المكانة المعروفة في مشارق الأرض ومغاربها ليؤكد على مصداقية هذه الجمعية ونقاء منهجها الشرعي و توثيق مسارها العلمي و صفاء اعتدالها وجدية مؤسساتها.


توقيع اتفاقية التعاون مع جامعة الأزهر الشريف بتاريخ التاسع من شعبان عام 1420 هجرية الموافق في 17 تشرين الثاني 1999

تم توقيع اتفاقية تعاون علمي وثقافي بين الجمعية و جامعة الأزهر الشريف ليكون ذلك شهادة حق في مصداقية الجمعية ونقاء منهجها الشرعي و توثيق مسارها العلمي والتأكيد على اعتدالها وجدية مؤسساتها من قبل جامعة الأزهر التي مضى على تأسيسها أكثر من ألف عام والتي تضم عشرات الكليات المتعددة في العلوم النظرية والتطبيقية فضلا عن كليات الشريعة وأصول الدين. اتفاقية الإزهر ::>

منهاج الجمعية إن جمعية المشاريع الخيرية الإسلامية استقت منهاجها من كتاب الله عز وجل وسنة نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم وما قرره علماء الإسلام أصحاب المذاهب الإسلامية المعتبرة كالإمـام الشافعي والإمـام أبي حنيفة والإمام أحمـد بن حنبل والإمام مالك رضي الله عنهم ، ولا تتبع منهجا جديدا ولا فكرة مستحدثة إنما هي على المنهج الذي ينتسب إليه مئات الملايين من المسلمين أشعرية شافعية، أشعرية من حيث العقيدة التي هي عقيدة مئات الملايين من المسلمين ، والإمام أبو الحسن الأشعري هو إمام أهل السنة الذي لخص عقيدة الصحابة والتابعين ، وشافعية من حيث الأحكام العملية مع الاعتقاد بأن أئمة المذاهب المعتبرة أئمة هدى وأن اختلافهم في فروع الأحكام رحمة بالأمة، وترى الجمعية أن طرق الصوفية الحقة على اختلاف أسمائها إنما تنهل من معين الشريعة الغراء.

كما أن الجمعية تباين المنهج التكفيري الشمولي للأمة فلا تستحل اغتيال رجالات الحكومات لأجل أنهم يحكمون بالقانون ، ولا تستبيح دماء الشيوخ والنساء والأطفال لأجل أنهم يعيشون في هذه الدول، والجمعية بريئة من هذه الفئة وليست مسخرة لدولة من الدول لأجل الإمداد المالي ، كما أنها ترفض الفكر الشاذ الذي يكفر المسلمين وينعتهم بالقبوريين وعبدة الأنبياء والأولياء وتحذر من تمدد الفكر المتطرف المنحرف والهدام وتعتبر ما يجري اليوم في الوطن العربي والإسلامي من ممارسات شاذة متطرفة باسم الدين يصب في خدمة أعداء الإسلام وفي مقدمتهم الحركة الصهيونية التي لا تألو جهدا في العمل على تفتيت الأمة الإسلامية وضربها من الداخل.

هذا ردنا على أصحاب الفتنة الذين يعمدون بين حين وءاخر إلى تشويه صورة جمعية المشاريع الخيرية الإسلامية البيضاء منهجا واعتدالا ، فعملا بقول الله تعالى : ( ‏يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنْ جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا ‏أَنْ تُصِيبُوا قَوْمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ ‏ ‏‏فَتُصْبِحُوا عَلَى مَا فَعَلْتُمْ نَادِمِينَ ) سورة الحجرات ءاية 6 ، وبقول الله تعالى : ( ‏قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ ‏ ) سورة البقرة ءاية 111، وبقول رسول اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ:" كَفَى بِالْمَرْءِ كَذِبًا أَنْ يُحَدِّثَ بِكُلِّ مَا سَمِعَ " رواه مسلم ، وبقول النَّبِيِّ صَلَّـى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ َ" إِيَّاكُمْ وَالظَّنَّ فَإِنَّ الظَّنَّ أَكْذَبُ الْحَدِيثِ " رواه البخاري ومسلم وغيرهما ، وبقول رسول اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ :" إِنَّهَا سَتَأْتِي عَلَى النَّاسِ سِنُونَ خَدَّاعَةٌ يُصَدَّقُ فِيهَا الْكَاذِبُ وَيُكَذَّبُ فِيهَا الصَّادِقُ وَيُؤْتَمَنُ فِيهَا الْخَائِنُ وَيُخَوَّنُ فِيهَا الأمِينُ وَيَنْطِقُ فِيهَا الرُّوَيْبِضَةُ قِيلَ وَمَا الرُّوَيْبِضَةُ قَالَ السَّفِيهُ يَتَكَلَّمُ فِي أَمْرِ الْعَامَّةِ " رواه الإمام أحمد .

نرد كل الاتهامات الباطلة التي يحاول المشوشون إلصاقها بجمعية المشاريع الخيرية الإسلامية جمعية الخير والاعتدال ، حسدا منهم وبغضا وغيظا ، في محاولة منهم لصرف نظر الرأي العام عن خلافاتهم الداخلية التي فاحت رائحتها . إنها فتنة يريدون منها شق صف المسلمين وتمزيق أبناء أمتنا ولهم فيها مآرب وأهداف ، فنتوجه إلى كل أبناء أمتنا أن يكونوا على حذر مما يخطط له هؤلاء المشوشون.

ونقـول نحن المشاريعيين جماعة من أهل السنة نتبع من قبلنا من السلف والخلف ، نحن مع مئات الملايين من المسلمين ، ليس عندنا أفكار جديدة ندعو إليها الناس ، من عرفنا فقد عرفنا ومن لم يعرفنا فليعرفنا الآن . والحمد لله لم نتلق علومنا الشرعية عن خارجي أو معتزلي أو مجسم أو جهمي ونحوهم ، إنما عن علماء أهل السنة أتباع المذاهب الأربعة بالسند المتصل إلى أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، ونحن نتحدى كل طاعن فينا على أنه لا يستطيع أن يثبت علينا أننا خرجنا عن الأئمة المجتهدين في الأحكام كالإمام الشافعي وأبي حنيفة ومالك وأحمد وأشباههم . أما في العقيدة فنحن مقتصرون على ما يوافق إمامي أهل السنة أبا الحسن الأشعري وأبا منصور الماتريدي فقد اطلعنا بحمد الله على متفرقات كلامهما والله أعلم وكفى بالله حسيبا .

ولكن من حين إلى ءاخر ينبري فتـّـان ليشكك الناس بمنهجية جمعية المشاريع الصافية النقية ويدافع دفاعا مميتا عن المتطرفين أصحاب الأفكار الغريبة الذين شوهوا سمعة المسلمين بل وكفروهم واستحلوا دماءهم وأموالهم .

ومن هذه الأفكار الغريبة الدخيلة على الإسلام والتي يحمل لواءها أحمد بن تيمية رأس المتطرفين في القرن السابع الهجري والذي قضى قضاة المذاهب الأربعة الشافعية والمالكية والحنفية والحنابلة بحبسه الحبس الطويل بفتوى موقعة منهم سنة 726 هـ ، ورد عليه وذمه وعابه وبدّعه مئات من علماء أهل السنة والجماعة أهل الورع والاحتياط في الدين كالقاضي بدر الدين بن جماعة الشافعي والقاضي محمد بن الحريري الأنصاري الحنفي والقاضي محمد بن أبي بكر المالكي والقاضي أحمد بن عمر المقدسي الحنبلي والحافظ المجتهد تقي الدين السبكي والحافظ أبي سعيد العلائي والقاضي كمال الدين بن الزملكاني والمفسر النحوي أبي حيان الأندلسي وقاضي القضاة نجم الدين بن صصري والقاضي صفي الدين الهندي والقاضي جلال الدين القزويني وقاضي قضاة المدينة المنورة أبي عبد الله محمد بن مسلّم بن مالك الصالحي الحنبلي والعلامة أبي الحسن علي بن إسماعيل القونوي وقاضي قضاة المالكية علي بن مخلوف بمصر وقاضي القضاة بالديار المصرية أحمد بن إبراهيم السروجي الحنفي والحافظ ابن حجر العسقلاني والحافظ ولي الدين العراقي والفقيه تقي الدين أبي بكر الحصني الشافعي والشيخ زين الدين ابن رجب الحنبلي ومفتي الديار المصرية الشيخ محمد بخيت المطيعي ووكيل المشيخة الإسلامية في دار الخلافة العثمانية الشيخ محمد زاهد الكوثري، ومن لا يحصى من العلماء .

وهذه الأفكار الشاذة هي تضليل ابن تيمية للمتوسلين والمستغيثين بالأنبياء والصالحين ولزوار قبورهم طلبا للبركة من الله ( انظر كتابه التوسل والوسيلة ص 24 و ص 150 والفتاوى الكبرى ج1/ص 142 ) وقوله بفناء النار ( انظر كتاب حادي الأرواح ص 579 و 582 )وقوله :"إن الله على العرش والملائكة حملة العرش تشعر بثقل الجبــار" ( كما في كتابه تلبيس الجهمية ج1 ص 573 ) وقوله : "ان محمدا رسول الله يجلسه ربه على العرش معه " ( كما في كتابه مجموع الفتاوى ج 4 / 374 ) ، وقوله: "الملائكة أعوان الله " يعني الله يستعين بهم ( انظر كتابه مجموع الفتاوى ج5 ص 507 ) ، وطعنه بسيدنا علي رضي الله عنه ( انظر منهاجه ج2 /171 و ج2/203 و ج4/65 وفي عدة مواضع أخرى) ، وطعنه بالسيدة فاطمة رضي الله عنها بنت رسول الله محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم وقوله عنها:" فيها شَبَهٌ بالمنافقين "( انظر كتاب البرهان الجلي ص 56 )، وانحرافه عن الخلفاء الراشدين الأربعة ، فقد قال ابن تيمية : إن أبا بكر أسلم شيخا لا يدري ما يقول ، وإن عثمان يحب المال ، وإن عمر مخطىء ، وإن عليـا ما صح إسلامه لأنه أسلم صبيا وإنه مخذول وقاتل للرئاسة وأخطأ في سبعة عشر موضعا خالف فيها نص الكتاب ( انظر كتاب الدرر الكامنة ج1/153 و 154 ) ، ونسب الكفر والشرك إلى الصحابي الجليل عبد الله بن عمر رضي الله عنهما لأنه كان يتتبع الأماكن التي صلى فيها رسول الله لأجل الصلاة فيها ( كما في كتابه اقتضاء الصراط المستقيم ص 390 ) إلى غير ذلك من ضلالات يصعب حصرها في مقال صغير .

وكذلك من الأفكار الدخيلة المتطرفة فكرة الخوارج التي أحياها سيد قطب و الذي كان ملحدا كما اعترف هو بذلك في كتابه "لماذا أعدموني" وكتابه " معالم في الطريق " ولم يكن فقيها ولا مفسرا ولا نحويا ولا من علماء العقيدة الإسلامية ، بل داع للنساء والرجال للعري التام وأن يعيشوا عرايا كما ولدتهم أمهاتهم ، كما في مجلة روز اليوسف 29-7-1996 العدد 3555 ص 36 وكاتب في الروايات السينمائية والقصص الغرامية ، كما في كتابه "أشواك " ،وهذه الفكرة الشاذة هي تكفير المسلمين أجمعين ، بمن فيهم الأئمة والعلماء والمؤذنون والأطباء والمهندسون والفلاحون وغيرهم كلهم بنظره كفار دمهم حلال ، ولم يستثــن إلا جماعته ، كما في كتابه المسمى ( في ظـلال القــرءان ) مجلد 2 ص590 وص 841 وص 972 وص 1057 وص 1077 وعبارته في المجلد 2 ص 1077 :"البشرية بجملتها بما فيها أولئك الذين يرددون على المآذن كلمات لا اله إلا الله بلا مدلول ولا واقع وهؤلاء أثقل إثما وأشد عذابا يوم القيامة لأنهم ارتـدوا إلى عبادة العباد ". ومجلد 3 ص 1198 و ص 1257 ، وعبارته في المجلـد 3 ص 1257 : وإن الإسلام اليوم متوقف عن الوجود مجرد الوجود . ا.هـ بحروفه .

نقول: هذا تكفير عام للمسلمين الموجودين على وجه الأرض ،ويقرر سيد قطب في المجلد الثالث ص 1449 وما بعدها أن على المسمين بالجماعة الإسلامية أو حزب الأخوان انتزاع زمام الحكم من الحكام والقضاء على نظمهم والثورة وإحداث الانقلابات في الدول . بل وتعدى أمره إلى تكفير خليـل الله إبراهيم عليه السلام كما في كتابه المسمى ( التصوير الفني في القرءان) ص 133 ، والطعن بسيدنا موسى ويوسف عليهما السلام كما في كتابه المسمى ( التصوير الفني في القرءان) ص 162 و 166 ، ويقرر سيـد قطب أيضا في كتابه المسمى ( في ظلال القرءان ) المجلد الرابع ص 2012  : أن الاشتغال بالفقه الآن بوصفه عملا للإسلام فهو مضيعة للعمر والأجر أيضا إهـ.

نقول: فهذا من أسباب تفشي الجهل بين جماعته لأنه يزهدهم في طلب العلم الشرعي ويحثهم على القتل والتكفير والاغتيالات . وحتى جامعة الأزهر الشريف لم تسلم منه فقد قال سيد قطب : " أيها الأزهر فقد أضعت الدين وأفسدت الدنيا " ا.هـ . أنظر مجلة أتباعه " الأمان " العدد الرابع السنة الأولى 26 ربيع الأول 1399هـ . ولخطورة هذه الأفكار الهدامة التي تهدف الى تمزيق الأمة تصدى له عدد كبير من العلماء والمشايخ كشيخ الأزهر الشيخ محمود عبد الحليم الذي سمى سيد قطب "إمام التكفير والأب الروحي لجماعات العنف" والشيخ حسن ألبنا رحمه الله الذي قال :" إن سيد قطب شاب متأثر بالبيئة الغربية هي التي تغذيه بمثل هذه الأفكار" . كما في مجلة روز اليوسف العدد 3555 تاريخ 29/7/96 ص 36، و كالشيخ مصطفى صبري الذي ذمه في كتابه ( موقف العقل والعلم والعالم ) ج 1/327 ، وكذلك الشيخ الدكتور حسين الذهبي وزير الأوقاف والمدرس في كلية أصول الدين في مصر الذي اغتاله أتباع سيد قطب ! والشيخ محمود خطاب السبكي والشيخ أبي الخير المصري مدرس الحديث في الأزهر والشيخ فهيم أبو عبيه رئيس البعثة الأزهرية في لبنان وغيرهم .

والجماعات المتطرفة التي تدعي الإسلام زورا وبهتانا تستقي أفكارها من ابن تيمية وسيد قطب ففي مقابلة أجرتها مجلة الوطن العربي في عددها الصادر في 7/12/1992 ص 14 مع أحد زعماء حزب سيد قطب في لبنان قال :" إن الجماعة الإسلامية استقت أفكارها من أمثال ابن تيمية وسيد قطب "إ هـ .

ومـن الأفكار الشاذة التي استقوها منهما تكفير المسلمين قاطبة ، ففي كتابهم المسمى ( الدين الخالص ) الجزء الأول ص 140 طبع دار الكتب العلمية يقولون عنوان ( تقليد المذاهب من الشرك ) ا.ه بحروفه والعياذ بالله ، فهذا تصريح منهم بتكفير الشافعية والحنفية والمالكية والحنابلة وسائر أهل المذاهب المعتبرة ، وفي الجزء الأول ص160 من الكتاب المذكور يقولون : ( والصحيح أن الشرك إنما وقع من حواء ) ا.هـ حتى السيدة حواء رضي الله عنها ما سلمت منهم، وفي كتابهم المسمى "هل المسلم ملزم باتباع مذهب معين من المذاهب الأربعة" ص 18 يقولون :( وإذا حققت المسئلة حق التحقيق ظهر لك أن هذه المذاهب إنما أشيعت وروّجت وزيّنت من قبل أعداء الإسلام لتفريق المسلمين وتشتيت شملهم) .ا.هـ

وفي كتابهم المسمى ( فتح المجيد ) طبع مكتبة دار الفيحاء ومكتبة دار السلام ص 191 بتعليـق ابن باز : ( يكفرون أهل لبنان وسوريـا وفلسطين والأردن ومصر والعراق واليمن والحجاز وغيرهم ). وفي كتابهم المسمى " كيف نفهم التوحيد " ص 16 يقولون  : ( أبو جهل وأبو لهب أكثر توحيدا لله وأخلص إيمانا من هؤلاء المسلمين الذين يقولون لا اله إلا الله محمد رسول الله .)ا.هـ

وكفروا المستغيثيـن والمتوسلين بالأنبياء والصالحين ، كما في كتابهم المسمى " مجموعة التوحيد" ص 139 وكفروا كل من يقول "يا محمد " و " يا رسول الله " كما في كتابهم "الأصول الثلاثة " و"التوسل والوسيلة "، ورموا الصحابي بلال ابن الحارث المُزَني رضي الله عنـه بالكفر كما في تعليقهم على فتح الباري طبع دار الريـان للتراث ج2 / ص 575 ، وصرحوا في عدة من كتبهم ككتابهم المسمى "مجموعة التوحيد " ص 266 و 281 :" أن الأمة المحمدية في زماننا مشركة وشركها أشد من شرك الجاهلية عباد الأوثان.

وفي كتابهم المسمى ( كيف ندعو إلى الإسلام ) طبع مؤسسة الرسالة ص 12 يقولون : " واليوم يشهد العالم أجمع ردة عن الإيمان بالله وكفرا جماعيا وعالميا لم يعرف لهما مثيل من قبل" ا.هـ حتى الشيخ حسن ألبنا رحمه الله الذي تبرأ منهم قبل وفاته كما في كتاب " من معالم الحق في كفاحنا الإسلامي الحديث " طبع دار الكتب الحديثة ص 264 ، لم يسلم منهم، كفروه ، كما في مجلة " المجلة " العدد 830 كانون الثاني 1996 .

نقول: فهذه أفكار ابن تيمية وسيد قطب المخالفة لصريح القرءان والسنة وإجماع الأمة ، فلماذا تركوا القرءان الكريم والسنة النبوية و علماء أهل السنة الشافعية والمالكية والحنفية وفضلاء الحنابلة وهم بالملايين واتبعوا ابن تيمية وسيد قطب ؟! أليس هذا شذوذا ؟! فقد قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم  : وَمَنْ شَذ شَذ إِلَى النَّارِ " رواه الترمذي .

على أنه يوجد بين المتطرفين أنفسهم تناقضات، فهاكم من جملة التناقضات بين الفرقتين ( الوهابية ) والمسماة ( الجماعة الإسلامية ) أن الوهابية صرّحت بتكفير سيد قطب ، كما في كتابهم ( مطاعن سيد قطب في أصحاب رسول الله ) وكتابهم ( المورد الزلال في التنبيه على أخطاء الظلال ) وكتابهم ( الضلال في الظلال ) وغيرهم .

ونحن نحمد الله الذي وفقنا أن جعلنا مع جمهور الأمة المحمدية، فالحق أحق أن يتبع ، ومن عرف الحق عرف أهله. فالحمد لله الذي هدانا لهذا وما كنا لنهتدي لولا أن هدانا الله.


وإلى هؤلاء المشوشين نقول لماذا تفترون على جمعية المشاريع الخيرية الإسلامية؟

ألأنها لا توافقكم في تكفيركم المسلمين واستحلال دمائهم وأموالهم كما فعلتم وتفعلون في مصر والجزائر وغيرهما؟؟؟

ألأنها لا توافقكم في تضليلكم لمن يقرأ القرءان الكريم على الأموات المسلمين ؟؟؟

ألأنها لا توافقكم في تضليلكم لمن يصلي على النبي جهرا عقب الأذان ؟؟؟ ألأنها لا توافقكم في تضليلكم للمتوسلين والمستغيثين بالأنبياء والصالحين ؟؟؟

ألأنها لا توافقكم في تضليلكم لزائري قبور الأنبياء والصالحين طلبا للبركة من الله ؟؟؟

ألأنها لا توافقكم في تضليلكم لمن يحتفل بذكرى مولد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ؟؟؟

ألأنها لا توافقكم في تحريمكم صلاة التراويح عشرين ركعة ؟؟؟

ألأنها لا توافقكم في تحريمكم لكلمة" استغفر الله" ؟؟؟

أم لأنها لا توافقكم في تحريمكم قول" لا إله إلا الله "خلف الجنازة ؟؟؟

وكيـف ستوافقكم على هذا الفكر الشاذ الذي يخالف ما عليه جمهور الأمة المحمدية، فاتباع الجمهور خير من تحريفاتكم.


ونقـــول: ونحن اليوم أبناء هذه الأمة بأمس الحاجة إلى جمع الكلمة ورص الصفوف إزاء ما يحيط بأمتنا من مؤامرات ومخططات لتفتيت مجتمعاتنا من الداخل عبر الدعاة إلى الفتنة وأشباههم ، فإزاء هذا الخطـر الداهم على الأمة من قبل دعاة الفتنة لا بد من إطلاق دعـوة مخلصة إلى الخيرين والغيورين على مصلحة أمتنا إلى التعـاون والوحدة والتماسك ، فهلا مد طلاب الوحدة أيديهم لنشر جسور التعاون والتكاتف والوحدة . وهلا كف من يطلقون الشائعات والافتراءات وتأكد الآخرون من صحة ما يسمعـون ، إنها دعوة مخلصة نطلقها من جمعية المشاريع الخيرية الإسلامية للتعاون والوحدة على الحق .

وإننا يهمنا أن نؤكد أن جمعيـة المشاريع الخيرية الإسلامية من هذا المجتمـع وله وفي خدمة الإنسـان وتثقيفه وتقديمه لبنة صلبة في بناء الصرح الاجتماعي ، فالمشاريع مؤسسات خير ، عنوانها وضوح مسيـرة وصفـاء سريـرة ، فكونـوا عونـا لها، يقول الله تعالى:( فَأَمَّا الزَّبَدُ فَيَذْهَبُ جُفَاءً وَأَمَّا مَا يَنْفَعُ النَّاسَ فَيَمْكُثُ فِي الأَرْضِ ) سورة الرعد ءاية17. لمن يريد التزود للمعرفة عن هذه الجمعية ونشاطاتها الخيرية فلديهم موقع: www.aicp.org


ملخص لهذه الصفحة الخاصة:

جمعية المشاريع الخيرية الإسلامية جمعية مشاريع للخير ولخدمة المسلمين متمسكة بالكتاب والسنة لخدمة الوطن والمجتمع نشر العلم على ما عليه مئات الملايين من المسلمين دأبها العلم والعمل على منهج الرسول والصحابة شعار جمعية المشاريع للتزود عن نهج هذه الجمعية الخيرية تفضل بزيارة موقعها www.aicp.org

Ahbash are purely following Imam Shafi^iy

If one sees otherwise, please advise and post your proof.


Authentic References:

We chose Sayings and Books of the most famous and great scholars of Islam, such as:

Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayiniyy, Abu Nu^aym al-Asbahaniyy, ^Abdul-Wahhab, Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Juwayniyy, ^Abdul-Malik Abul-Ma^ali al-Juwayniyy Abu Mansur at-Tamimiyy, al-Isma^iliyy, al-Bayhaqiyy, ad-Daraqutniyy, al-Khatib al-Baghdadiyy, Abul-Qasim al-Qushayriyy and his son Abun-Nasr, Abu Ishaq ash-Shiraziyy, Nasr al-Maqdisiyy Imam al-Ghazaliyy, Al-Farawiy, Abul-Wafa' Ibn ^Aqil al-Hanbaliyy, The Hanafiyy judge: ad-Damghaniyy.

And Imam Abul-Walid al-Bajiyy, Ahmad ar-Rifa^iyy, Abul-Qasim Ibn ^Asakir, as-Silafiyy, Al-Qadi ^Iyad al-Malikiyy, Imam an-Nawawiyy, Imam Fakhrud-Din ar-Raziyy, Al-Qurtubiyy, Izzud-Din Ibnu ^Abdis-Salam, Abu ^Amr Ibnul-Hajib, Al-Qadi Ibnu Daqiq al-^Id. Also, Imam ^Ala’ud-Din al-Bajiyy, Taqiyyuddin as-Subkiyy, al-^Ala’iyy, Zaynud-Din al-^Iraqiyy, Ibn Hajar al-^Asqalaniyy, Imam Murtada az-Zabidiyy, Zakariyya al-Ansariyy, Baha’ud-Din ar-Rawwas, Waliyyullah ad-Dahlawiyy, Muhammad ^Ulaysh al-Malikiyy, Shaykh ^Abdullah ash-Sharqawiyy, Abul Mahasin al-Qawuqjiyy, Imam Husayn al-Jisr at-Tarabulsiyy, Abdullah al-Harariyy, Salahud-Din al-Ayyubiyy. Those are Ahlus-Sunnah, the righteous group that carried the banner of Islam.


We ask Allah to enable us to do the good deeds and to make us among the sincere servants and defenders of Islam.

Allah knows best.

Ahbash, Sufi response against wahabies نهجنا

نهجنا

(وَلاَ تَكُونُواْ كَالَّذِينَ تَفَرَّقُواْ وَاخْتَلَفُواْ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ وَأُوْلَئِكَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ)

قررت اتخاذ ما عليه جمهور العلماء، واتباع ما أجمع عليه الفقهاء من المسائل العقيدية والفقهية، وهذا ما أوصانا به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم: "أوصيكم بأصحابي ثم الذين يلونهم ثم الذين يلونهم". منهاجها مستقى من كتاب الله عز وجل وسنة نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم وما قرره علماء الإسلام أصحاب المذاهب الإسلامية المعتبرة:

كالإمـام الشافعي

والإمـام أبي حنيفة

والإمام أحمـد بن حنبل

والإمام مالك..

رضي الله عنهم ، ولا تتبع منهجا جديدا ولا فكرة مستحدثة إنما هي على المنهج الذي ينتسب إليه مئات الملايين من المسلمين أشعرية شافعية، أشعرية من حيث العقيدة التي هي عقيدة مئات الملايين من المسلمين ، والإمام أبو الحسن الأشعري هو إمام أهل السنة الذي لخص عقيدة الصحابة والتابعين ، وشافعية من حيث الأحكام العملية مع الاعتقاد بأن أئمة المذاهب المعتبرة أئمة هدى وأن اختلافهم في فروع الأحكام رحمة بالأمة، ونرى أن طرق الصوفية الحقة على اختلاف أسمائها إنما تنهل من معين الشريعة الغراء.

ونحن نحب الصوفية الحقة أمثال:

الإمام الجنيد البغدادي

والإمام أحمد الرفاعي

والإمام عبد القادر الجيلاني

والإمام ذو النون المصري

والإمام النووي

والإمام معروف الكرخي..

وغيرهم.. فهم من سلكوا مسلك التصوف السليم الخالي من البدع القبيحة والشطحات المذمومة. فحقيقة التصوف هو اتباع الشريعة، والعمل بالكتاب والسنة، ومجاهدة النفس، ومخالفة الهوى. أما أدعياء التصوف اليوم الذين يقولون بالحلول أن الله ساكن في كل مكان والعياذ بالله أو أن الله جسم أو نور بمعنى الضوء أو بأفضلية أحد من عامة الناس على الأنبياء، فهم شاذون منحرفون عن الحق.


مراجعنا

(أَطِيعُواْ اللهَ وَأَطِيعُواْ الرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِي الأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَىْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللهِ وَالرَّسُولِ)

مراجع الكتب والردود والبحوث ترجع إلى مؤلفات أشهر علماء أهل السنة والجماعة من العلماء الشافعية والمالكية والحنفية والحنابلة وغيرهم من علماء الحديث الشريف أصحاب السنن:

الشيخان، الإمام البخاري

والإمام مسلم رحمهما الله..

وغيرهم من علماء الأصول والتفسير وعلى رأسهم:

الإمام ابن عباس رضي الله عنه وغيره من المتقدمين والمتأخرين

كالامام ابو عبد الرحمن عبد الله بن يحيى بن المبارك

والامام المجتهد المفسّر ابو جعفر محمد بن جرير الطبري

واللغوي ابراهيم بن سهل الزجاج

والامام ابو منصور محمد بن محمد الماتريدي

وإمام الحرمين عبد الملك الجويني الشافعي

والحافظ عبد الرحمن ابن الجوزي الحنبلي

والامام ابو عمرو بن الحاجب المالكي

والإمام القرطبي..

وغيرهم من الفقهاء واللغويين والمحدثين والمجتهدين:

كالإمام الحافظ المجتهد البيهقي

والإمام المجتهد السبكي

والحافظ العراقي

والإمام الاسفراييني

والإمام أبو نعيم الأصبهاني

والامام الجويني

والإمام الخطيب البغدادي

والإمام القشيري

والإمام الدارقطني

والإمام الباجي

والإمام النووي

والإمام الغزالي

والإمام السخاوي

والإمام الباقلاني

والإمام الجويني

والإمام الشيرازي الفقيه الشافعي

والإمام الدامغاني الحنفي القاضي

وخاتمة الحفاظ الإمام ابن حجر

والإمام القاوقجي الطرابلسي

وشيخ الأزهر في زمانه عبد الله الشرقاوي

والشيخ سليم البشري

ومفتي بيروت مصطفى نجا

والحافظ المحدّث الشيخ عبد الله الهرري

والحافظ المحدّث الشيخ عبد الله الغماري محدث المغرب

وغيرهم كثير من علماء السلف والخلف والتابعين من المتأخرين والمتقدمين، شافعية أم حنفية كالماتريدي والبياضي والإمام النسفي والإمام أبي جعفر الطحاوي رأس علماء السلف في زمانه وغيرهم ممن تولاّه الله برحمته ورعايته. فرحمة الله عليهم أجمعين وجزاهم الله عن الأمة الإسلامية خيراً، ونفعنا الله بهم وبعلمهم.

Tawheed: According to Al-Habashi

Tawheed

Tawheed, usually defined as the unity of Allah or His oneness, is actually a term which means the process of repeatedly singling out Allah. The issue had arisen where people lost the concept of tawheed, and in fact, the popular mistranslation of the word tawheed is a result of this misunderstanding. It became necessary to explain tawheed in detail, to discuss its rules and principles etc. The reasons for this were may, however the overriding factor was that Islam had spread all over the world an deach society that accepted added more deviant concepts about Allah and worshipping Him. So, the concept is explained:

Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah

The act of singling out Allah in all aspects of Lordship.

Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah (or Tawheed al-'Ibaadah)

The act of singling our Allah as the only diety, the only god, the only one who is in reality divine. It is the act of singling Him out for worship.

Tawheed al-Asmaa wal Sifat

It is the act of singling out Allah with all of His Beautiful names and Majestic Attributes, without denial of any of them, without likening them to anything, without claiming a similarity for them, and without distorting either their meanings or their actual wordings.

This has lead to the scholars to further state that terminology which has not been used to describe Allah either by Allah Himself, or His Messenger may not be utilized to describe Allah. Why? Because many words contain misleading or unclear meanings behind them, and it does not befit Allah who best knows Himself, that we describe Him with descriptions that He did not use, nor His Messenger. We also refrain from denying specific things from Allah if they have not been denied from Him. This is, as well, because in order to be sure of how. So were an individual to claim that Allah does not have this or that etc. and these things being specifically denied were not denied by Him T'ala or His Prophet then we may not deny them. It is not permissible to estimate Allah as how He should be based upon human understanding. It is only allowed that we claim what He has claimed, or what His Messenger has informed us reaching us by way of authentic narration.

So, the above method of understanding and implementing tawheed must be utilized completely in order for one's tawheed to be acceptable. If one of the categories above is missing, then this person does not have the correct creed, and he is not properly worshipping Allah alone. Some scholars have revised the above principles so that they utilize two instead of three, and they explain it as Tawheed al-Asmaa wal Sifat, including all of the Names and Attributes, as well as the characteristics of Lordship, and Tawheed al-'Ibaadah. This, too, is a beneficial approach for the subject.


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~


Al-Habashi's tawheed is divided into three principles or categories:

1. The denial of the proper concept that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] has many qualities, and his (Habashi) false interpretation of the words al-Ahad and al-Samad

2. The denial of any similarity to Allah in His [dhat - Essence] Essence and attributes

3. Allah is alone creating, originating and maintaining. So, there is no contributor in inventing, manufacturing, and sustaining the invented things.


The First Category


The denial of the proper concept that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] has many characteristics.

We know that the source for this principle is Plato, for it was he who said,

"The many is not found in Him at all, as the idea of assembly does not relate to Him under any circumstances. Therefore, He is simply one in Himself."

Then he says,

"And because He is one from every angle, you cannot describe Him with a description that implies numerous substance."

Al-Habashi's source for this first principle is purely Platonic. Though, he did not copy it immediately from Plato, perhaps, he copied it from the books of the philosophers and the people of kalaam who studied Plato, Aristotle and others. Like Faraaby, Ibn Seena, Ibn al-Rumi, Ibn Rushid, Juwainy .etc

Here, elucidating the influence that the Greek Philosophers had over them is the saying of al-Faraaby,

"The Inevitable Existence cannot be divided with divisions of quantity or meaning, otherwise each part of it's division must have it's own existence, so inevitably there are many esisting." (Source "Fusuws al-Hikam by Farrabiy. Inevitable Existence: 'al-waajib-alwujoob' ; This is one of the few terms from Ilm al-Kalaam which is used in this book. It is used in quotations of philosophers. It is the Greek Philosophical concept of Sustainer or Lord. It is the concept of that which must exist; which controls the existence.)

and the saying of Ibn Seena,

"The Inevitable Existence does not divide in meaning or quantity." (Source: Al-Ishaaraat - by Ibn Seena)

This verfies that al-Habashi wants to strip away the attributes in order to confirm Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] and that it disturbs him that the Essence [dhat - Essence] which is ONE could possess more than one quality.

Bu al-Habashi neglected the fact that this is Palto's theory, who was so excessive in his theory that he would not describe Allah with His many correct qualities. Yet he described Allah [with an additional quality] as khair [good] even theough he attempted to avoid describing Allah with a description implying many qualities in His Essence [dhat - Essence]. Plato, according to his own views says,

"We do not describe Him as a substance or with appearance because the substance and appearance are relative things. So, describing Him as a substance demands the imagination to picture the appearance or design along with it. Because the imagination does not stop simply at picturing it as a substance only rather it goes on to picture it's parts as well and that is the design which without a doubt must have and abundance of contents."

The reader may notice that this is from the sayings of the Greek Philosophers; the knowledge of reason which drove many groups like the Jahmiyya, the Mu'tazila, the Haruriya, and others to deny the attributes of Allah. They stated their argument as Plato had; that describing Allah with something will lead to many things, which in itself denies the ONENESS of Allah.

Furthermore, he who theorized this principle is the same who 'assigned' the attribut of khair [good] to Allah [after being excessive in his theory that ONE cannot be described with more than one characteristic] and this is a contradiction and it amounts to nothing less than hesitation [in affirming Allah's attributes] and no rational Muslim believes that Allah accepts the philosophical principles, ideas or ways. For what Muhammad was sent with was enough, and in the opinion of those Greek Philosophers, no one truly knows these things but Allah. Yet their words cam from other than Him.

This brings us to al-Habashi's interpretation of al-Ahad, the One. That is, that [something that is one] cannot have a description or division in its essence [dhat - Essence] and there are no parts in it as Allah T'ala said, al-Ahad, al-Samad. However, you will not find that something which is described with characteristics cannot be called Ahad in the Arabic language. Contrarily it is proven that Ahad is a description of the creatures in the Qur'an as Allah T'ala said,

"And if one [Ahad] of the idolators seek protection from you..." [Tawaba: 6]

"An not join any one [Ahadan] in the service of his Lord." [Kahf: 110]

"Leave Me and him whom [Created alone [Waheedan]." [Mudathir: 11]

Reference to people as alone/one or Ahad is made in these verses and these creatures are described with descriptions that befit them. Therefore, how is it correct that something which is Ahad cannot be described or divided? If al-Habashi's assertion was correct then Allah would not describe the creatures with Ahad. Yet these creatures are described with appearance, substance and with many attributes which lead to many qualities (as they calim).

It is known that Allah quotes the believer saying,

"...and I do not associate anyone [Ahadan] with my Lord." [Kahf: 38]

So, if none can be described as Ahad "One" except Allah (as there is no attribute for Him which denies His Onenees) and Allah has described His creatures with it, and they have many qualities in them -- then this concept of al-Habashi is baseless. For this reason Ahad serves as a witness falsifying al-Habashi's explanation of tawheed.

Here then, al-Habashi is disproven from three directions:

1. The Qur'an. For the Qur'an has been revealed i the pure Arabic language which does utilize the term Ahad to name something which has various characteristics and qualities. This proves that using this description is known to the Arabs and is acceptable in the language.

2. The Arabic language. Because it is not a rule in the language that a thing cannot be caleld Ahad simply because it can be described or divided.

3. The Greek Philosophers and Plato. Because these it is who forbade refering to Allah with attributes that would "increase" His unity, and then described Allah as khair [good].


The Second Category


The Second category of tawheed according to al-Habashi is the negation of any similarity to Allah in His Essence [dhat - Essence] and His Attributes.

There is no difference between us and al-Habashi in that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is not similar to any of His creatures, and that His attributes are not like those describing the creatures. However, concerning the attributes it is important to clarify the following:

No sane Muslim would assert that Allah's Attributes were in reality similar to those of His creatures. Just as it is true that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is not like that of His creatures. Allah has said,

There is nothing like Him." [Shura: 11]

So, His Attributes are not like that of His creation. The similarity is in the word describing the attribute, not in its reality...

And this is distinguished by His sayings;

"There is nothing like Him." [Shura: 11]

"None is comparable to Him." [Ikhlas: 4]

"Do you know any one who is called by His name?" [Maryam: 65]

Yet Allah has described Himself with the words, Sameea [Hearing] Baseera [Seeing] while describing humans with the words hearing, seeing through seeing and hearing for humans is not like that of the Creator.

Allah has described Himself with the term Raouf [kind] Raheem [Merciful]

"Indeed Allah is kin, merciful with the people." [Baqarah: 143]

and He has said abou the Messenger [Muhammad],

"With the believers (he is) kind, merciful." [Tawbah: 128]

But the Prophet's mercy is not like Allah's Mercy.

So, denying similarity between the attributes of created things and the Attributes of Allah is in fact denying a similarity in the reality of these attributes not their terms. Because utilizing similar terms for both Creator and the created is normal and has been proven, whereas utilizing the reality of similar terms for both the Creator and the created is false and incorrect.

"There is nothing like Him." [Shura: 11]

Using similar terms for reference is proven in the Book, but it is not proven in the sense of having a common reality. So, similarity does not exist between the reality of Allah's attributes and those of His creatures.

Contrarily, one finds the opposite in Allah's book - that is - one finds many verses proving that it is not possible to find any similarity at all between Allah and His creatures in any of His Attributes.

An example is the Attributes of power in Allah's Book about which He Azza wa Jalla said:

"Indeed, Allah has power over all things." [Baqarah: 20]

"Surely, your Lord makes plentiful the means of sustenance for whom He pleases and strengthens them." [Israa': 30]

and compare it with the power that is possessed by Hi creation as He says,

"Except for those who repent before you gain power over them..." [Ma'idah: 34]

"...and (He) adds force to your stength." [Hud: 52]

Then read His saying,

"Allah is He who created you weak, and then after your weakness He made you strong, and then after your strength He made you weak and gray haird." [Ruwm: 54]

Then it is clearly proven that there is no comparison between the attribute of Allah and that of the creatures. But simply because the words are the same, it does not imply that the reality behind the meanings are the same. This is all the more clear when there is a verse in Allah's Book which forbids a common reality in the meaning of these attributes.

"There is nothing like Him." [Shura: 11]

So, if al-Habashi says that there is nothing comparable to Allah, then this is true, and if he says that nothing is comparable to His attributes, this is also true, and that we are looking for. However, that does not mean that one should deny an attribute of Allah simply because one finds that word in Allah's Book describing one of His creatures. As Allah T'ala said,

"Indeed, Allah hears and sees [everything]." [Nisaa': 58]

and He T'ala said about man,

"And We gave him hearing and sight." [Insan: 2] (Translator's Note: One must take note here, the Arabic descriptions are the same in both verses, although, we have translated them differently due to the preceding words and the context.)

It does not befit Allah to describe Himself as 'hearing', seeing' and then to describe the human as 'hearing, seeing' as if the two attributes were the same in each case. But we see the human and we know how he sees and hears but as for Allah - "There is nothing like Him" - so nothing will cause us to compare Him to His creatures - even - if the word attributed is the same. For the sole reason that similarity is in the word, not in its reality. Otherwise there would be no reaon for Him T'ala to say, "There is nothing like Him," and it would be just a verse being recited with no use for it in this chapter. But no mind would think that Allah is like any of His creatures in their true characteristics. The only common thing between the descriptions of Allah and His creatures is the word which is used for the description. In order to confirm the characteristics of Lordship in all of what is attributed to Allah, we have what is common between Him and His creatures, for if this common pronunciation in the attributes did not exist, then we would have no idea what the attributes of Divinity meant. Just as there is no proof that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is like any other essence, and Allah's Existence does not mean that He Exists like others, it is the same concerning the attributes - they are not similar to the attributes of the creatures.

So, Allah Exists and the creatures exists and there is no comparison in this existence. Therefore, if we confirm Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming] to Allah, this does not mean the ascending, descending, or coming of the creatures. This is the same if we confirm Hand, the Face, the Eyes... it does not mean the same hands, face or eyes of the creatures. So, according to al-Habashi, it is a must to withhold the attributes of Allah and their interpretation. Because confirming to him equals similarity. So, he combines most of the attributes ino the following:

  • - Hearing;
  • - Seeing;
  • - Power;
  • - Intent;
  • - Speech;
  • - Knowledge;
  • - Life;
  • - Existence;
  • - Everliving;
  • - Eternal;
  • - Oneness

Te remaining attributes are combined by al-Habashi into innovated attributes such as:

  • - Mukhalifat lil Hawadath (Not an Event) - This is another of the Ilm al-Kalam terms. It refers to the concept of something which does not do anything, or does not move, or does not change, or is unaffected .etc; it also implies one who has no parts. Al-Habashi attributes it to Allah as do many of the Mutakalimoon and their like. Stating that Allah will be seen on the Day of Resurrection without him being, "...short, long, light, dark, not moving, moving, and touching anything." (As quoted in al-Habashi's followers in their "Izhar Al-Iqedah Al-Sunnyah" - The Authentic Beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah - Ahbash). It is a Greek philosophical attributes of the divine.

and

  • - Qiyaam binafs (Self-subsisting / Self-sustaining) - Another of the Ilm al-Kalam terms used by al-Habashi to describe Allah. It is used to imply, "Self sustaining." However, attesting to the implied concept has lead its inventors to claim that Allah will be seen on the Day of Resurrection without Him being, "...standing up, sitting on, leaning against, attatched to, unattatched to, seperated from, in front of, in the back of [anything]." (As quoted by al-Habashi's followers in their "Izhar Al-Iqedah Al-Sunnyah" - The Authentic Beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah - Ahbash).

Regardless of the fact that Allah has clearly described Himself with Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming], according to al-Habashi, the attributes of Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming] are anthropomorphized by the imagination. Other than this, according to him, they do not have to be spoken of. Yet, al-Habashi does not believe that the seeing attribute causes the imagination to make similarity, so here he contradicts himself.

As for the remaining known attributes, he has combined them as we discovered before, even though Allah Subhannahu wa T'ala has specifically mentioned them concerning Himself. So, where then is the benefit is combining or abbreviating them?

This is why we say that tawheed, according to al-Habashi, equals T'ateel [Denial / Denying]. And the solution for all of this is,

"There is nothing like Him, and He is the [All] Hearing, the [All] Seeing." [Shura: 11]

The first part of this verse is the cure for the filth of tashbeeh [Anthropomorphism] - "...Nothing like Him". The second part is the cure for the desease of T'ateel [Denial / Denying] - "...and He is the Hearing, the Seeing". Only by this method is tawheed of Allah perfected.


The Third Category


The third category tawheed according to al-Habashi is stated by him as,

"Allah is unique in creating, originating and organizing, so there is no contribution in inventing, manufacturing, or organizing the invented things."

No one disagrees with al-Habashi that Allah doesn't have any partners or associates in manufacturing or organizing creations. Even the idolaters agree with that. They are aware that Allah is the Creator, the Sustainer, the One who gives life and death, and they don't believe that anyone is a partner with Him in His Creating. This is well-known from the Book of Allah T'ala, Allah said,

"And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient?' they will certainly say, 'Allah'." [Ankboot: 61]

"And if you ask them, 'Who sends down water from the sky, then gives life to the earth after it were dead?' They will certainly say, 'Allah'." [Ankbooth: 63]

"And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth?' they would most certainly say, "'The Might, Knowing One has created them'." [Zukhruf: 9]

So, they didn't claim that their idols were partners to Allah in organizing, creating, sustaining, and giving life or death. But the idolators' argument for worshiping the idols was their claim,

"We only worship them to bring us nearer to Allah." [Zumar: 3]

The reason that they worshipped the idols was not because they thought that they created and sustained, and the proof for that is that if they were asked who created the heavens and the earth and gave life to the earth after its death they would say, "Allah" they did not say, "Allah, and our gods." Yet, this still wasn't enough for their tawheed to be correct, for if it was sufficient, the Prophet Muhammad would have left them alone with their idols. The idolators themselves know that their gods don't hear, benefit or harm them, and this is Ibrahim's argument against them when He asked them,

"He said; Do they hear you when you call, or can they benefit or harm you?" [Sha'ara: 72]

And the idolators knew that if they answered no, then it would be an argument against them, and if they answered yes, then it would be a proof that they were lying, and that is what made them excuse themselves from answering this question by saying,

"We found our fathers doing this." [Sh'ara: 74]

Likewise, the Quraish did not deny the portion of Muhammad's message, which stated that one Lord gives life and death, creates and sustains .etc. But they denied what they thought was his implication; that all of their gods were really only one god. They said,

"Did he make all of the gods just one god; this is surely a strange thing." [Saad: 5]

Most of the idolators admit that all of the partners they claim for Allah belong to Him. All belong to the creator of this World, Allah Glorious is He. It is known that when they would encircle the K'aba the idolators would say, "We obey You, No partner have You, except a partner for You, You own him and that which he owns." Abd al-Muttalib told Abraha, "The House has a Lord to protect it." This was when Abraha wanted to destroy the house of Allah. Abd al-Muttalib also said, "This is the house of Allah and his friend Ibrahim, so if He kept you away, that would be because it is His House." (Source: "Tahdheeb al-Seerat al-Nubuwiyya" by Ibn Hishaam) This, then, is a proof as Allah said,

"And you forget those who you associated..." [An'am: 41]

When the idolators are in trouble or hardship they forget the gods whom they associated with Allah and when the trouble ceases, by Allah's Will, they forget again, and they associate partners with Allah once more. Likewise, when Abd al-Mutaalib knew in his heart that they could not prevent Abraha from destroying the House he submitted to the truth and said, "The House has a Lord to protect it," and he did not assocaite partners in that with Him, and he submitted that Allah alone protects and defends the K'aba.

This tawheed is referred to as tawheed of ruboobiyya (Lordship), this is the tawheed that implies that Allah is the Lord and the Creator, the Sustainer, the Giver of life and death, and the All Powerful. Yet, this was not enough and it must be accompanied with another form of tawheed - tawheed of uloohiyya - that is the forbiddance of Allah's creatures to take others as gods besides Allah. As it does not benefit a creature to believe that there is no creator, maker organizer, except Allah - unless - he worships this maker and does not woship anything with Him, believing that He is the only one worthy of worship. Since the false gods are incapable of Allah's ability, they do not deserve to be associated with Him in worship.

The idolators do not benefit by believing that Allah is alone in sustaining, giving life, and death even if they call it tawheed of rububiyya because they do not include tawheed of uloohiyya with it, which states that if the Lord is the Creator, Sustainer, Giver of life and death, then He is the Lord for all creation and there is no other Lord beside Him.

Al-Habashi does not differentiate between these two types of tawheed, and he assumes that tawheed of rububiyya is the tawheed for the ability of inventing and organizing, which he mixed in with the tawheed of uloohiyya. So, in other words, to him whoever admits that Allah is the One who invents, then he has grasped the pure tawheed. Then he tries to prove this point of his by citing the statement of Allah,

"If they had any gods besides Allah they (the heavens and the earth) would have been in a state of disorder." [Anbiyya: 22]

Then, al-Habashi claimed that this kind of tawheed is called 'proof of inability.' This is incorrect because the idolators did not claim that there is more than one who has the all encompassing ability or more than one creator. They believed that the creator is one and - yet - they still worshipped many gods and this is proven from the Book of Allah by His saying,

"And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient?' they will certainly say, 'Allah'." [Ankboot: 61]

and for that Allah asked them afterwards;

"...do you not admit?" [Anbiya:67]

So, we learn from this, that al-Habashi's usage of the verse

"If they had any gods besides Allah they (the heavens and the earth) would have been in a state of disorder." [Anbiyya: 22]

as proof for Allah's unity in creating and inventing is not an evidence - because - Allah has mentioned to use that the idolators admit that Allah is the only creator and inventor, but what he means in this verse is that only the the true god should be given tawheed of uloohiyya. So, He is a god with divinity in its real meaning and this is why Allah sent the Messengers calling to single out this divinity. He also meant by this that the idolators admit to His Lordship - yet - they deny His divinity or uloohiyya.

"Did he make all of the gods one god?" [Saad: 5]

Each Prophet started His invitation to Allah with the saying;

"Worship Allah; you have no god bu Him." [Ar'af: 59]

And Allah Azza wa Jall said,

"And ask those of Our Messengers whom We sent before you, 'Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent God'...?" [Zukhruf: 45]

Concerning the fact that there is only one creator and organizer, the idolators have admitted to this. Thus, al-Habashi does not support pure tawheed which eradicates shirk from its very roots, rather he approves of what the idolators said. His evidence fails to show the truth and it fails to nullify the falsehood.


(Source: Excerpts from "Habashis: A Warning and Refutation of the Heretical Group Known as the Habashis Al-Ahbash," Translated by Abu Zakariya)

The above nonsense is full of lies and distortions! The author of the aforementioned book, his name is not even Abdullah Shami rather it is Abdur-Rahman Dimashqiyah a lebanese man who became a wahhabi. I know his family very well and he is a disgrace! He was even kicked out of Al-Azhar in Lebanon because he caught performing sexual acts with another man and he even admitted it over the internet. The guy is a total liar. In this every book he put photos of strange acts being performed by people on National Geopgraphic and claimed that these were Ahbash.


(AICP.org – Association of Islamic Charitable Projects)OF LEBANON THE KINSHIP OF THE NEW MILLINIUM

A grand and distinguished development was the focus of attention in the city of Beirut on the 9th of Sha^ban coinciding with the 17th of November 1999. On that day a historic agreement was signed between the Academy of Islamic knowledge-Al-azhar of Egypt and the Institute of Islamic teachings of the Association of Islamic Charitable ProjectsBeirut Lebanon. This remarkable agreement outlined a collaborative exchange in Islamic knowledge, culture and the Sciences, between the two highly acclaimed sources of Islamic references.


Dr. Ahmad ^Omar Hashem, Head Master of Al-Azhar arrived at Beirut accompanied by Dr. Mohammad Saleh, Dean of the Faculty of Cultural Sstudies and Modern Sciences, in response to an invitation received from the Association of Islamic Charitable ProjectsBeirut Lebanon.


The ceremony which signified the mutual agreement of support was held at the Commodore Hotel in Beirut. Official attendants included Sheikh Hussam Qaraqira International AICP President. Dr. ^Adnan Taraboulsi AICP Vice President, AICP executive members, Honorary Sheikhs, Head Masters, educators, and trainers of the AICP education Colleges and Training Centres.


The ceremony was initiated by a glorious recitation from the honorable Qur’an. Sheikh Ussama Al-Sayed, Head of the AICP Biqa^ branch delivered the first word in which he welcomed the honorary guests and commended the achievements and progress of Al-Azhar and the crucial impact the agreement in focus will have on the Islamic nation. Afterwards Dr. Hashem and Sheikh Hussam Qaraqirah proceeded with signing the symbolic agreement; the product of negotiations outlining a collaboration of Islamic Cultural Knowledge and the Sciences to be exchanged between Al-Azhar and the AICP. A clear understanding of shared interests and goals was established. This lead to the conclusion, the AICP would be consulted with, to help coordinate the academic curriculum taught at Al-Azhar, making shared responsibility inevitable.


This was followed by a word by Dr. Ahmad Hashem reaffirming the purpose of the agreement. “It signifies the shared interest and concern towards preserving the Islamic Legacy of Al-Azhar bound by the Islamic knowledge, culture and ethics”. Dr. Ahmad Hashem recogized the befitting aims of the AICP and said, “ in recognizing the authenticity and principles of moderation adopted by the AICP, potential students will be sent to the AICP to acquire essential fundamental and supplementary Islamic knowledge. This will empower such students to become moderate Islamic activists working within the boundaries of moderation exercised by the AICP”. He added “ we welcome students from around the world aspiring to acquire Islamic knowledge from Al-Azhar”.

http://www.alsunna.org/aicpAzhar.jpg

Dr. Ahmad commented on the presnt situation of the Muslim nation and the effect of knowledge for empowerment. He said, “It is well known that the present Islamic nation faces enormous challenges that we as Muslims must confront with knowledge and intellect in order to defeat the infectious propagation against Islam”. He added “we need to readapt to the authentic Islamic heritage. For the achievement of this goal we welcome the contribution and support of the Scholars and Sheikhs of the AICP. I have observed the AICP to be the fortress of knowledge and the shield of sound intellect necessary to our nation. The nation of Islam, presently totaling a fifth of today’s global population, needs to reunite and to congregate like we gather here today. We must adhere to the orders of Allah and diffuse the factors of friction and division. Prophet Muhammad warned us against becoming disunited and disrupted. We as a nation possess the secret power of this nation—we possess the Holly Qur’an, which embeds the principles of victory and success”. To clarify this fact and point to the impressions held by non Muslims towards the Quran, Dr. Hashem darw on a statement made by a non Muslim. He said, “this true fact is evidently recognized even by the enemies of Islam. Reportedly, one such enemy who was present in a formal session once said ‘we have no hope of achieving resolution as long as the Qur’an remains the possession and constitution of Muslims’”.


Dr. Hashem then declared, “we are in need of Islamic Institutions and Colleges active in spreading the Qur’anic teachings,the authentic Islamic culture, the sound intellect and exceptional conduct such as that inherent in the practice of the AICP. That which is free from exaggerations and extremism”. Dr. Hashem concluded his compelling speech by expressing his great joy in signing this agreement with the AICP. He forecast this to be the beginning of a relationship committed to mutual interest and cooperation. He supplicated that the AICP continue flourishing in the realms of progress and achievement.


Sheikh Hussam Quaraqira delivered the climax of the evening in an equally compelling speech in his rank as the International President of the AICP. After welcoming Dr. Ahmad Hashem, Dr. Mohammad Saleh and guests, Sheikh Hussam gave recognition to the vital role played by Al-Azhar up until its present day. He ascertained Al-Azhar is a prominent source of Islamic reference relied upon even beyond its national borders. The Honorable Sheikh Hussam added, “Al-Azahr remains immune from the spread of misinformation produced by the many imposter associations that have emerged to inject a disease into the pure teachings of Islam. The Azhar reamins diligent in preserving authentic Islamic scripts and the teachings of acclaimed Muslim scholars and their consensus”.


Dr. Ahmad Hashem took the stage once again to present two wall plaques to AICP officials representing the gratitude and high regard Al-Azhar holds for the AICP. Dr. Ahmad Hashem presented the first plaque to Sheikh Hussam Qararqira and the second to Dr. ^Adnan Taraboulsi. The ceremony was sealed by the alluring voices of the chanting group.


During their visit to Beirut, Dr. Ahmad Hashem and Dr. Mohammad Salah paid a special visit to the Honorable Shiekh ^Abdullah Al-Harrariy at his home. They were accompanied by the Honourable Shiekh Hussam Qaraqira, Dr. ^Adnan Taraboulsi and a number of Sheikh’s and other executive administrative members of the AICP.


The visit was aromatized with a discussion about general Islamic matters and the current situation of the Islamic mission and its missionaries. The topics of emphasis were the importance of the spread of the Islamic knowledge and its culture and heritage as well as to teach the methodology of prophet Muhammad in order to remain on the true path of success. Dr. Hashem then underlined the discussion insisting that the Academy of Al-Azhar will continue to bind relations with scholarly Awliya’ who have committed their lives to serve the nation of Islam such as the Honorable Shiekh ^Adullah Al-Harrariy whom Dr. Hashem recognized as being “a symbol of knowledge and piety”.


Dr. Hashem and Dr. Salah rounded off their visit to Beirut with tours around the schools and other educational institutions of the AICP and visits to Presidential and Parliamentary Government officials. In addition Dr. Hashem was the honorary official to launch the opening of the Mosque of Al-Houda in Bshamoun Beirut at the opening ceremony.


http://www.alsunna.org/aicpAzhar2.jpg


Mainstream Muslims' Tawheed vs. Al-Ahbashs' Tawheed

Mainstream Muslims' Tawheed

Tawheed, usually defined as the unity of Allah or His oneness, is actually a term which means the process of repeatedly singling out Allah. The issue had arisen where people lost the concept of tawheed, and in fact, the popular mistranslation of the word tawheed is a result of this misunderstanding. It became necessary to explain tawheed in detail, to discuss its rules and principles etc. The reasons for this were may, however the overriding factor was that Islam had spread all over the world an deach society that accepted added more deviant concepts about Allah and worshipping Him. So, the concept is explained:

Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah

The act of singling out Allah in all aspects of Lordship.

Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah (or Tawheed al-'Ibaadah)

The act of singling our Allah as the only diety, the only god, the only one who is in reality divine. It is the act of singling Him out for worship.

Tawheed al-Asmaa wal Sifat

It is the act of singling out Allah with all of His Beautiful names and Majestic Attributes, without denial of any of them, without likening them to anything, without claiming a similarity for them, and without distorting either their meanings or their actual wordings.

This has lead to the scholars to further state that terminology which has not been used to describe Allah either by Allah Himself, or His Messenger may not be utilized to describe Allah. Why? Because many words contain misleading or unclear meanings behind them, and it does not befit Allah who best knows Himself, that we describe Him with descriptions that He did not use, nor His Messenger. We also refrain from denying specific things from Allah if they have not been denied from Him. This is, as well, because in order to be sure of how. So were an individual to claim that Allah does not have this or that etc. and these things being specifically denied were not denied by Him T'ala or His Prophet then we may not deny them. It is not permissible to estimate Allah as how He should be based upon human understanding. It is only allowed that we claim what He has claimed, or what His Messenger has informed us reaching us by way of authentic narration.

So, the above method of understanding and implementing tawheed must be utilized completely in order for one's tawheed to be acceptable. If one of the categories above is missing, then this person does not have the correct creed, and he is not properly worshipping Allah alone. Some scholars have revised the above principles so that they utilize two instead of three, and they explain it as Tawheed al-Asmaa wal Sifat, including all of the Names and Attributes, as well as the characteristics of Lordship, and Tawheed al-'Ibaadah. This, too, is a beneficial approach for the subject.


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~


Al-Habashi's tawheed is divided into three principles or categories:

1. The denial of the proper concept that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] has many qualities, and his (Habashi) false interpretation of the words al-Ahad and al-Samad

2. The denial of any similarity to Allah in His [dhat - Essence] Essence and attributes

3. Allah is alone creating, originating and maintaining. So, there is no contributor in inventing, manufacturing, and sustaining the invented things.


The First Category


The denial of the proper concept that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] has many characteristics.

We know that the source for this principle is Plato, for it was he who said,

"The many is not found in Him at all, as the idea of assembly does not relate to Him under any circumstances. Therefore, He is simply one in Himself."

Then he says,

"And because He is one from every angle, you cannot describe Him with a description that implies numerous substance."

Al-Habashi's source for this first principle is purely Platonic. Though, he did not copy it immediately from Plato, perhaps, he copied it from the books of the philosophers and the people of kalaam who studied Plato, Aristotle and others. Like Faraaby, Ibn Seena, Ibn al-Rumi, Ibn Rushid, Juwainy .etc

Here, elucidating the influence that the Greek Philosophers had over them is the saying of al-Faraaby,

"The Inevitable Existence cannot be divided with divisions of quantity or meaning, otherwise each part of it's division must have it's own existence, so inevitably there are many esisting." (Source "Fusuws al-Hikam by Farrabiy. Inevitable Existence: 'al-waajib-alwujoob' ; This is one of the few terms from Ilm al-Kalaam which is used in this book. It is used in quotations of philosophers. It is the Greek Philosophical concept of Sustainer or Lord. It is the concept of that which must exist; which controls the existence.)

and the saying of Ibn Seena,

"The Inevitable Existence does not divide in meaning or quantity." (Source: Al-Ishaaraat - by Ibn Seena)

This verfies that al-Habashi wants to strip away the attributes in order to confirm Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] and that it disturbs him that the Essence [dhat - Essence] which is ONE could possess more than one quality.

Bu al-Habashi neglected the fact that this is Palto's theory, who was so excessive in his theory that he would not describe Allah with His many correct qualities. Yet he described Allah [with an additional quality] as khair [good] even theough he attempted to avoid describing Allah with a description implying many qualities in His Essence [dhat - Essence]. Plato, according to his own views says,

"We do not describe Him as a substance or with appearance because the substance and appearance are relative things. So, describing Him as a substance demands the imagination to picture the appearance or design along with it. Because the imagination does not stop simply at picturing it as a substance only rather it goes on to picture it's parts as well and that is the design which without a doubt must have and abundance of contents."

The reader may notice that this is from the sayings of the Greek Philosophers; the knowledge of reason which drove many groups like the Jahmiyya, the Mu'tazila, the Haruriya, and others to deny the attributes of Allah. They stated their argument as Plato had; that describing Allah with something will lead to many things, which in itself denies the ONENESS of Allah.

Furthermore, he who theorized this principle is the same who 'assigned' the attribut of khair [good] to Allah [after being excessive in his theory that ONE cannot be described with more than one characteristic] and this is a contradiction and it amounts to nothing less than hesitation [in affirming Allah's attributes] and no rational Muslim believes that Allah accepts the philosophical principles, ideas or ways. For what Muhammad was sent with was enough, and in the opinion of those Greek Philosophers, no one truly knows these things but Allah. Yet their words cam from other than Him.

This brings us to al-Habashi's interpretation of al-Ahad, the One. That is, that [something that is one] cannot have a description or division in its essence [dhat - Essence] and there are no parts in it as Allah T'ala said, al-Ahad, al-Samad. However, you will not find that something which is described with characteristics cannot be called Ahad in the Arabic language. Contrarily it is proven that Ahad is a description of the creatures in the Qur'an as Allah T'ala said,

"And if one [Ahad] of the idolators seek protection from you..." [Tawaba: 6]

"An not join any one [Ahadan] in the service of his Lord." [Kahf: 110]

"Leave Me and him whom [Created alone [Waheedan]." [Mudathir: 11]

Reference to people as alone/one or Ahad is made in these verses and these creatures are described with descriptions that befit them. Therefore, how is it correct that something which is Ahad cannot be described or divided? If al-Habashi's assertion was correct then Allah would not describe the creatures with Ahad. Yet these creatures are described with appearance, substance and with many attributes which lead to many qualities (as they calim).

It is known that Allah quotes the believer saying,

"...and I do not associate anyone [Ahadan] with my Lord." [Kahf: 38]

So, if none can be described as Ahad "One" except Allah (as there is no attribute for Him which denies His Onenees) and Allah has described His creatures with it, and they have many qualities in them -- then this concept of al-Habashi is baseless. For this reason Ahad serves as a witness falsifying al-Habashi's explanation of tawheed.

Here then, al-Habashi is disproven from three directions:

1. The Qur'an. For the Qur'an has been revealed i the pure Arabic language which does utilize the term Ahad to name something which has various characteristics and qualities. This proves that using this description is known to the Arabs and is acceptable in the language.

2. The Arabic language. Because it is not a rule in the language that a thing cannot be caleld Ahad simply because it can be described or divided.

3. The Greek Philosophers and Plato. Because these it is who forbade refering to Allah with attributes that would "increase" His unity, and then described Allah as khair [good].


The Second Category


The Second category of tawheed according to al-Habashi is the negation of any similarity to Allah in His Essence [dhat - Essence] and His Attributes.

There is no difference between us and al-Habashi in that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is not similar to any of His creatures, and that His attributes are not like those describing the creatures. However, concerning the attributes it is important to clarify the following:

No sane Muslim would assert that Allah's Attributes were in reality similar to those of His creatures. Just as it is true that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is not like that of His creatures. Allah has said,

There is nothing like Him." [Shura: 11]

So, His Attributes are not like that of His creation. The similarity is in the word describing the attribute, not in its reality...

And this is distinguished by His sayings;

"There is nothing like Him." [Shura: 11]

"None is comparable to Him." [Ikhlas: 4]

"Do you know any one who is called by His name?" [Maryam: 65]

Yet Allah has described Himself with the words, Sameea [Hearing] Baseera [Seeing] while describing humans with the words hearing, seeing through seeing and hearing for humans is not like that of the Creator.

Allah has described Himself with the term Raouf [kind] Raheem [Merciful]

"Indeed Allah is kin, merciful with the people." [Baqarah: 143]

and He has said abou the Messenger [Muhammad],

"With the believers (he is) kind, merciful." [Tawbah: 128]

But the Prophet's mercy is not like Allah's Mercy.

So, denying similarity between the attributes of created things and the Attributes of Allah is in fact denying a similarity in the reality of these attributes not their terms. Because utilizing similar terms for both Creator and the created is normal and has been proven, whereas utilizing the reality of similar terms for both the Creator and the created is false and incorrect.

"There is nothing like Him." [Shura: 11]

Using similar terms for reference is proven in the Book, but it is not proven in the sense of having a common reality. So, similarity does not exist between the reality of Allah's attributes and those of His creatures.

Contrarily, one finds the opposite in Allah's book - that is - one finds many verses proving that it is not possible to find any similarity at all between Allah and His creatures in any of His Attributes.

An example is the Attributes of power in Allah's Book about which He Azza wa Jalla said:

"Indeed, Allah has power over all things." [Baqarah: 20]

"Surely, your Lord makes plentiful the means of sustenance for whom He pleases and strengthens them." [Israa': 30]

and compare it with the power that is possessed by Hi creation as He says,

"Except for those who repent before you gain power over them..." [Ma'idah: 34]

"...and (He) adds force to your stength." [Hud: 52]

Then read His saying,

"Allah is He who created you weak, and then after your weakness He made you strong, and then after your strength He made you weak and gray haird." [Ruwm: 54]

Then it is clearly proven that there is no comparison between the attribute of Allah and that of the creatures. But simply because the words are the same, it does not imply that the reality behind the meanings are the same. This is all the more clear when there is a verse in Allah's Book which forbids a common reality in the meaning of these attributes.

"There is nothing like Him." [Shura: 11]

So, if al-Habashi says that there is nothing comparable to Allah, then this is true, and if he says that nothing is comparable to His attributes, this is also true, and that we are looking for. However, that does not mean that one should deny an attribute of Allah simply because one finds that word in Allah's Book describing one of His creatures. As Allah T'ala said,

"Indeed, Allah hears and sees [everything]." [Nisaa': 58]

and He T'ala said about man,

"And We gave him hearing and sight." [Insan: 2] (Translator's Note: One must take note here, the Arabic descriptions are the same in both verses, although, we have translated them differently due to the preceding words and the context.)

It does not befit Allah to describe Himself as 'hearing', seeing' and then to describe the human as 'hearing, seeing' as if the two attributes were the same in each case. But we see the human and we know how he sees and hears but as for Allah - "There is nothing like Him" - so nothing will cause us to compare Him to His creatures - even - if the word attributed is the same. For the sole reason that similarity is in the word, not in its reality. Otherwise there would be no reaon for Him T'ala to say, "There is nothing like Him," and it would be just a verse being recited with no use for it in this chapter. But no mind would think that Allah is like any of His creatures in their true characteristics. The only common thing between the descriptions of Allah and His creatures is the word which is used for the description. In order to confirm the characteristics of Lordship in all of what is attributed to Allah, we have what is common between Him and His creatures, for if this common pronunciation in the attributes did not exist, then we would have no idea what the attributes of Divinity meant. Just as there is no proof that Allah's Essence [dhat - Essence] is like any other essence, and Allah's Existence does not mean that He Exists like others, it is the same concerning the attributes - they are not similar to the attributes of the creatures.

So, Allah Exists and the creatures exists and there is no comparison in this existence. Therefore, if we confirm Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming] to Allah, this does not mean the ascending, descending, or coming of the creatures. This is the same if we confirm Hand, the Face, the Eyes... it does not mean the same hands, face or eyes of the creatures. So, according to al-Habashi, it is a must to withhold the attributes of Allah and their interpretation. Because confirming to him equals similarity. So, he combines most of the attributes ino the following:

  • - Hearing;
  • - Seeing;
  • - Power;
  • - Intent;
  • - Speech;
  • - Knowledge;
  • - Life;
  • - Existence;
  • - Everliving;
  • - Eternal;
  • - Oneness

Te remaining attributes are combined by al-Habashi into innovated attributes such as:

  • - Mukhalifat lil Hawadath (Not an Event) - This is another of the Ilm al-Kalam terms. It refers to the concept of something which does not do anything, or does not move, or does not change, or is unaffected .etc; it also implies one who has no parts. Al-Habashi attributes it to Allah as do many of the Mutakalimoon and their like. Stating that Allah will be seen on the Day of Resurrection without him being, "...short, long, light, dark, not moving, moving, and touching anything." (As quoted in al-Habashi's followers in their "Izhar Al-Iqedah Al-Sunnyah" - The Authentic Beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah - Ahbash). It is a Greek philosophical attributes of the divine.

and

  • - Qiyaam binafs (Self-subsisting / Self-sustaining) - Another of the Ilm al-Kalam terms used by al-Habashi to describe Allah. It is used to imply, "Self sustaining." However, attesting to the implied concept has lead its inventors to claim that Allah will be seen on the Day of Resurrection without Him being, "...standing up, sitting on, leaning against, attatched to, unattatched to, seperated from, in front of, in the back of [anything]." (As quoted by al-Habashi's followers in their "Izhar Al-Iqedah Al-Sunnyah" - The Authentic Beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah - Ahbash).

Regardless of the fact that Allah has clearly described Himself with Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming], according to al-Habashi, the attributes of Istawa' [Ascension] and Nuzool [descending] and Majee'ya [Coming] are anthropomorphized by the imagination. Other than this, according to him, they do not have to be spoken of. Yet, al-Habashi does not believe that the seeing attribute causes the imagination to make similarity, so here he contradicts himself.

As for the remaining known attributes, he has combined them as we discovered before, even though Allah Subhannahu wa T'ala has specifically mentioned them concerning Himself. So, where then is the benefit is combining or abbreviating them?

This is why we say that tawheed, according to al-Habashi, equals T'ateel [Denial / Denying]. And the solution for all of this is,

"There is nothing like Him, and He is the [All] Hearing, the [All] Seeing." [Shura: 11]

The first part of this verse is the cure for the filth of tashbeeh [Anthropomorphism] - "...Nothing like Him". The second part is the cure for the desease of T'ateel [Denial / Denying] - "...and He is the Hearing, the Seeing". Only by this method is tawheed of Allah perfected.


The Third Category


The third category tawheed according to al-Habashi is stated by him as,

"Allah is unique in creating, originating and organizing, so there is no contribution in inventing, manufacturing, or organizing the invented things."

No one disagrees with al-Habashi that Allah doesn't have any partners or associates in manufacturing or organizing creations. Even the idolaters agree with that. They are aware that Allah is the Creator, the Sustainer, the One who gives life and death, and they don't believe that anyone is a partner with Him in His Creating. This is well-known from the Book of Allah T'ala, Allah said,

"And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient?' they will certainly say, 'Allah'." [Ankboot: 61]

"And if you ask them, 'Who sends down water from the sky, then gives life to the earth after it were dead?' They will certainly say, 'Allah'." [Ankbooth: 63]

"And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth?' they would most certainly say, "'The Might, Knowing One has created them'." [Zukhruf: 9]

So, they didn't claim that their idols were partners to Allah in organizing, creating, sustaining, and giving life or death. But the idolators' argument for worshiping the idols was their claim,

"We only worship them to bring us nearer to Allah." [Zumar: 3]

The reason that they worshipped the idols was not because they thought that they created and sustained, and the proof for that is that if they were asked who created the heavens and the earth and gave life to the earth after its death they would say, "Allah" they did not say, "Allah, and our gods." Yet, this still wasn't enough for their tawheed to be correct, for if it was sufficient, the Prophet Muhammad would have left them alone with their idols. The idolators themselves know that their gods don't hear, benefit or harm them, and this is Ibrahim's argument against them when He asked them,

"He said; Do they hear you when you call, or can they benefit or harm you?" [Sha'ara: 72]

And the idolators knew that if they answered no, then it would be an argument against them, and if they answered yes, then it would be a proof that they were lying, and that is what made them excuse themselves from answering this question by saying,

"We found our fathers doing this." [Sh'ara: 74]

Likewise, the Quraish did not deny the portion of Muhammad's message, which stated that one Lord gives life and death, creates and sustains .etc. But they denied what they thought was his implication; that all of their gods were really only one god. They said,

"Did he make all of the gods just one god; this is surely a strange thing." [Saad: 5]

Most of the idolators admit that all of the partners they claim for Allah belong to Him. All belong to the creator of this World, Allah Glorious is He. It is known that when they would encircle the K'aba the idolators would say, "We obey You, No partner have You, except a partner for You, You own him and that which he owns." Abd al-Muttalib told Abraha, "The House has a Lord to protect it." This was when Abraha wanted to destroy the house of Allah. Abd al-Muttalib also said, "This is the house of Allah and his friend Ibrahim, so if He kept you away, that would be because it is His House." (Source: "Tahdheeb al-Seerat al-Nubuwiyya" by Ibn Hishaam) This, then, is a proof as Allah said,

"And you forget those who you associated..." [An'am: 41]

When the idolators are in trouble or hardship they forget the gods whom they associated with Allah and when the trouble ceases, by Allah's Will, they forget again, and they associate partners with Allah once more. Likewise, when Abd al-Mutaalib knew in his heart that they could not prevent Abraha from destroying the House he submitted to the truth and said, "The House has a Lord to protect it," and he did not assocaite partners in that with Him, and he submitted that Allah alone protects and defends the K'aba.

This tawheed is referred to as tawheed of ruboobiyya (Lordship), this is the tawheed that implies that Allah is the Lord and the Creator, the Sustainer, the Giver of life and death, and the All Powerful. Yet, this was not enough and it must be accompanied with another form of tawheed - tawheed of uloohiyya - that is the forbiddance of Allah's creatures to take others as gods besides Allah. As it does not benefit a creature to believe that there is no creator, maker organizer, except Allah - unless - he worships this maker and does not woship anything with Him, believing that He is the only one worthy of worship. Since the false gods are incapable of Allah's ability, they do not deserve to be associated with Him in worship.

The idolators do not benefit by believing that Allah is alone in sustaining, giving life, and death even if they call it tawheed of rububiyya because they do not include tawheed of uloohiyya with it, which states that if the Lord is the Creator, Sustainer, Giver of life and death, then He is the Lord for all creation and there is no other Lord beside Him.

Al-Habashi does not differentiate between these two types of tawheed, and he assumes that tawheed of rububiyya is the tawheed for the ability of inventing and organizing, which he mixed in with the tawheed of uloohiyya. So, in other words, to him whoever admits that Allah is the One who invents, then he has grasped the pure tawheed. Then he tries to prove this point of his by citing the statement of Allah,

"If they had any gods besides Allah they (the heavens and the earth) would have been in a state of disorder." [Anbiyya: 22]

Then, al-Habashi claimed that this kind of tawheed is called 'proof of inability.' This is incorrect because the idolators did not claim that there is more than one who has the all encompassing ability or more than one creator. They believed that the creator is one and - yet - they still worshipped many gods and this is proven from the Book of Allah by His saying,

"And if you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient?' they will certainly say, 'Allah'." [Ankboot: 61]

and for that Allah asked them afterwards;

"...do you not admit?" [Anbiya:67]

So, we learn from this, that al-Habashi's usage of the verse

"If they had any gods besides Allah they (the heavens and the earth) would have been in a state of disorder." [Anbiyya: 22]

as proof for Allah's unity in creating and inventing is not an evidence - because - Allah has mentioned to use that the idolators admit that Allah is the only creator and inventor, but what he means in this verse is that only the the true god should be given tawheed of uloohiyya. So, He is a god with divinity in its real meaning and this is why Allah sent the Messengers calling to single out this divinity. He also meant by this that the idolators admit to His Lordship - yet - they deny His divinity or uloohiyya.

"Did he make all of the gods one god?" [Saad: 5]

Each Prophet started His invitation to Allah with the saying;

"Worship Allah; you have no god bu Him." [Ar'af: 59]

And Allah Azza wa Jall said,

"And ask those of Our Messengers whom We sent before you, 'Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent God'...?" [Zukhruf: 45]

Concerning the fact that there is only one creator and organizer, the idolators have admitted to this. Thus, al-Habashi does not support pure tawheed which eradicates shirk from its very roots, rather he approves of what the idolators said. His evidence fails to show the truth and it fails to nullify the falsehood.


(Source: Excerpts from "Habashis: A Warning and Refutation of the Heretical Group Known as the Habashis Al-Ahbash," Translated by Abu Zakariya)