Bin Baz accused Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal of bida on an "aqida" matter. So who is right? Bin Baz or Imam Ahmad?
https://x.com/Haqiqatjou/status/1883358519057096913
https://x.com/Haqiqatjou/status/1883358519057096913
X (formerly Twitter)
Daniel Haqiqatjou (@Haqiqatjou) on X
WAS IBN HANBAL GUILTY OF BID'A AND DOES IBN TAYMIYYA RESEMBLE A PROPHET?
There is no doubt that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, al-Albani, and Bin Baz have views on worship, shirk and aqida that are significantly different from those of Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya.
…
There is no doubt that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, al-Albani, and Bin Baz have views on worship, shirk and aqida that are significantly different from those of Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya.
…
👍94❤11🤮10🔥6😁2🤔1
Aqida Test for Farid.
Let's see if he hides his aqida.
Remember, aqida testing like this must be done constantly to make sure everyone is on pure tawhid. Wasnt that what that mail man was saying that Farid has been cheerleading for the past months?
https://x.com/Haqiqatjou/status/1883555355013058874
Let's see if he hides his aqida.
Remember, aqida testing like this must be done constantly to make sure everyone is on pure tawhid. Wasnt that what that mail man was saying that Farid has been cheerleading for the past months?
https://x.com/Haqiqatjou/status/1883555355013058874
👍96🔥16🤔7😢6🤮5
For the idiotic followers of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, anyone who does not takfir the entire Ummah and declare jihad on them is either:
1. "an aqida liberal" or
2. "soft on aqida" or
3. "doesn't understand the importance of aqida"
1. "an aqida liberal" or
2. "soft on aqida" or
3. "doesn't understand the importance of aqida"
👍127😁29🤮14🤔4🤬3
Wahhabis laughingly call Ibn al-Jawzi "Ibn al-Jahmi".
They are waging both a military war against the people of Ahl al-Sunna (e.g., via ISIS), as well as an effort to discredit and destroy every single scholar of Ahl al-Sunna, from Abu Hanifa, to al-Tabari, Bukhari, to Muslim, to al-Ghazali, to al-Nawawi, to Ibn Hajar.
They are waging both a military war against the people of Ahl al-Sunna (e.g., via ISIS), as well as an effort to discredit and destroy every single scholar of Ahl al-Sunna, from Abu Hanifa, to al-Tabari, Bukhari, to Muslim, to al-Ghazali, to al-Nawawi, to Ibn Hajar.
🤬161👍21🤮11🤔7😢7😁4✍3❤3
Let me explain to you Wahhabi taqiyya because some are confused about my posts.
Wahhabis are diverse on what they publicly say about Asharis and other non-Salafis.
Group 1 says they are kafir.
Group 2 says they are deviants, outside Ahl al-Sunna (like postman Jake)
Group 3 doesn't openly say except for passive agressive remarks (like Farid)
All three groups are doing taqiyya.
Group 1: they hide the fact that there are also MANY statements from their scholars who also takfir the likes of Bukhari, Muslim, Tabari, etc. If you are consistent, why do you only take seriously the takfir of the Ashari scholars but not other scholars who were later accepted by your manhaj? This is inconsistent.
Group 2: They hide the fact that many of their scholars takfir the Asharis, Maturidis, and their scholars by name. So why do you just stop at calling Asharis, et al., deviant, rather than kafir? Why are you only giving half measure? Is it because you're an aqida liberal? Is it because you don't want to be lumped in with the Haddadis and labeled a takfiri extremist? So you're just cucking on the Asharis to save face and not alienate people? Why don't you man up and cite all the Ahl al-Hadith who takfir the Asharis?
Group 3: they do taqiyya by simply not talking about the issue. They keep silent about MBZ building Hindu temples, about the scholars of the Asharis being kafirs, about everything. They just sit on the sidelines and let others do the dirty work, periodically chiming in with a passive aggressive remark or to cheerlead their friends in Group 2.
Guess what? The era of Wahhabi grifting is over. No more taqiyya. Stop hiding and make your aqida clear 🤣
Wahhabis are diverse on what they publicly say about Asharis and other non-Salafis.
Group 1 says they are kafir.
Group 2 says they are deviants, outside Ahl al-Sunna (like postman Jake)
Group 3 doesn't openly say except for passive agressive remarks (like Farid)
All three groups are doing taqiyya.
Group 1: they hide the fact that there are also MANY statements from their scholars who also takfir the likes of Bukhari, Muslim, Tabari, etc. If you are consistent, why do you only take seriously the takfir of the Ashari scholars but not other scholars who were later accepted by your manhaj? This is inconsistent.
Group 2: They hide the fact that many of their scholars takfir the Asharis, Maturidis, and their scholars by name. So why do you just stop at calling Asharis, et al., deviant, rather than kafir? Why are you only giving half measure? Is it because you're an aqida liberal? Is it because you don't want to be lumped in with the Haddadis and labeled a takfiri extremist? So you're just cucking on the Asharis to save face and not alienate people? Why don't you man up and cite all the Ahl al-Hadith who takfir the Asharis?
Group 3: they do taqiyya by simply not talking about the issue. They keep silent about MBZ building Hindu temples, about the scholars of the Asharis being kafirs, about everything. They just sit on the sidelines and let others do the dirty work, periodically chiming in with a passive aggressive remark or to cheerlead their friends in Group 2.
Guess what? The era of Wahhabi grifting is over. No more taqiyya. Stop hiding and make your aqida clear 🤣
❤118👍40😁16🔥12🤮6✍3😢2🤔1
The best response these Wahhabis have given so far is "hurr but the Asharis takfired Ahl al-Hadith too durrr."
WOWW BREAKING NEWS GUYS
I cited exactly this back and forth takfiring in my fiqh of takfir debate. The point I made was that takfir is an easy weapon. For every single scholar and every single group, you can find another scholar who has made takfir of them. So what? If we go by that standard, there is no one who remains a Muslim!
That's exactly why the great scholars like al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyya, Allah have mercy on them, had the genius to step back and say, this constant civil war has to stop. We need principles for takfir, not just "imam fulan in the 3rd century takfired Abu Hanifa, therefore he's a kafir." They laid out these principles and set a very high bar. They said, we need to have more tolerance and widen the circle.
These are the things I cite and base my positions on. The Wahhabis, however, do not want to widen the circle. They want to cut out Asharis, Maturidis, and all non-Salafi Wahhabis. So they adopt a hard takfir or hard tabdi stance and wield it like a sword against me and others. But they are not consistent with their hard takfir stance and when you call them out on it, they do taqiyya.
Like I said, grift is over.
WOWW BREAKING NEWS GUYS
I cited exactly this back and forth takfiring in my fiqh of takfir debate. The point I made was that takfir is an easy weapon. For every single scholar and every single group, you can find another scholar who has made takfir of them. So what? If we go by that standard, there is no one who remains a Muslim!
That's exactly why the great scholars like al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyya, Allah have mercy on them, had the genius to step back and say, this constant civil war has to stop. We need principles for takfir, not just "imam fulan in the 3rd century takfired Abu Hanifa, therefore he's a kafir." They laid out these principles and set a very high bar. They said, we need to have more tolerance and widen the circle.
These are the things I cite and base my positions on. The Wahhabis, however, do not want to widen the circle. They want to cut out Asharis, Maturidis, and all non-Salafi Wahhabis. So they adopt a hard takfir or hard tabdi stance and wield it like a sword against me and others. But they are not consistent with their hard takfir stance and when you call them out on it, they do taqiyya.
Like I said, grift is over.
🔥102👍34❤14🤮7✍2🤔2😁1🤬1
I ask Farid "Responds" very basic questions about aqida, but he refuses to answer them. What is he hiding?
Just last month, Farid joined his postal worker friend to demand that I answer their aqida questions.
This is the pure hypocrisy of the Wahhabis. They subject everyone to never-ending aqida tests, but regular Muslims aren't allowed to ask them anything back.
Just last month, Farid joined his postal worker friend to demand that I answer their aqida questions.
This is the pure hypocrisy of the Wahhabis. They subject everyone to never-ending aqida tests, but regular Muslims aren't allowed to ask them anything back.
😁109👍21🔥8😢5🤮4❤2🤬2🤔1
It is hard to keep track of all the contradictions of the Wahhabis, but here is a HUGE one.
Wahhabis are radically inconstent in how they approach the opinions of Imam Ahmad and other ancient 9th century Ahl al-Hadith.
When Imam Ahmad and the ancient Ahl al-Hadith endorse calling on angels and jinn, and tawassul, and tabarruk, as we've seen, the Wahhabis say that this was simply their fallible ijtihad, and that other earlier Muslims differed from them.
Wahhabis say this because they reject Imam Ahmad's views on calling to angels, jinn, tawassul, and tabarruk.
But when Imam Ahmad and the ancient Ahl al-Hadith endorse a literal understanding of Allah's attributes (sifat) - the Wahhabis claim that this is NOT simply their fallible ijtihad, which some earlier Muslims differed with.
Rather they claim that Ibn Hanbal's opinions are infallible aqida and that whosoever differs from them in the slightest is an extreme deviant or kafir.
Wahhabis say this because they support Imam Ahmad's views on sifat.
Then the Wahhabis claim that their radically inconsistent views embody the "way of the Salaf," and that disagreement with them is oppostion to the Salaf. 🤣
Sheer dishonesty and lack of principles!
Wahhabis are radically inconstent in how they approach the opinions of Imam Ahmad and other ancient 9th century Ahl al-Hadith.
When Imam Ahmad and the ancient Ahl al-Hadith endorse calling on angels and jinn, and tawassul, and tabarruk, as we've seen, the Wahhabis say that this was simply their fallible ijtihad, and that other earlier Muslims differed from them.
Wahhabis say this because they reject Imam Ahmad's views on calling to angels, jinn, tawassul, and tabarruk.
But when Imam Ahmad and the ancient Ahl al-Hadith endorse a literal understanding of Allah's attributes (sifat) - the Wahhabis claim that this is NOT simply their fallible ijtihad, which some earlier Muslims differed with.
Rather they claim that Ibn Hanbal's opinions are infallible aqida and that whosoever differs from them in the slightest is an extreme deviant or kafir.
Wahhabis say this because they support Imam Ahmad's views on sifat.
Then the Wahhabis claim that their radically inconsistent views embody the "way of the Salaf," and that disagreement with them is oppostion to the Salaf. 🤣
Sheer dishonesty and lack of principles!
😁81👍24🔥12🤮4🤔3✍1❤1
The followers of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab commonly claim that the Pre-Islamic pagan Quraysh had complete Tawhid al-Rububiyya and ascribed no independent power to their gods Lat, Manat, and Uzza.
If this is true, how did these gods differ from jinn?
If this is true, how did these gods differ from jinn?
👍69🔥16😁16🤮4✍1🤔1