The Relationship Between the Shafi'is and the Ash'aris

[Omar del Sur]

so this is about disagreements in aqeedah amongst shafi'i scholars

this translation is from chatgpt, I think it gives the gist of the passage

 

[Omar del Sur]

I want to say

1- I've been here a long time, I'm semi-retired. so don't think it's a great victory for the Ash'aris if they respond and I don't debate them. I have a lot to say but I'm busy.

2- I think you should pick a madhhab and try to follow it. I don't agree with people who think it's something praiseworthy to not have a madhhab. We are not scholars, we shouldn't be presumptious, I believe we should follow a madhhab. So unless you are with some other madhhab, I think you should follow the madhhab of Imam Shafi'i. Now does that entail following Imam Shafi'i or following later Shafi'is? Are you a follower of Imam Shafi'i or of scholars who came later?

 

[Omar del Sur]

This (the text in bold at the top, not the sharh, of course) is from Imam Al-Muzani, he was a student of Imam Shafi'i:

 

[Lumo]

Interesting

However this could also be seen among "Salafis" and how they cling to Athari/Hanbali despite even bigger splits and dissagreements, especially in terms of aqeedah.

If you follow the Shafi madhab you will most likely end up studying ashari scholars. Thats just the reality. A student with different theological views dosen't negate that particularly when shafi'ism is about islamic jurisprudance.

 

[Omar del Sur]

If you follow the Shafi madhab you will most likely end up studying ashari scholars. Thats just the reality. A student with different theological views dosen't negate that particularly when shafi'ism is about islamic jurisprudance.

 

[Lumo]

This is comical.

Athari, Ashari, Maturidi and the 4 Madhabs are all Ahlu Sunnah.

I don't like aqeedah wars. Because it has been debated 1000+ years by people a lot more knowledge than most today.

Ask anyone in real life who has studied shafi'ism and they will refute this.

I also note the videos you posted is by a "Salafi" Maliki. Who undoubtedly has an agenda. He/She needs to reconcile their salafi aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah with that of Imam Ahmad and Malik before they claim any creed and madhab.

 

[Omar del Sur]

This is comical.

Athari, Ashari, Maturidi and the 4 Madhabs are all Ahlu Sunnah.

blatant misinformation. Atharis are ahlul sunnah, not Ash'aris and Maturidis.

I don't like aqeedah wars.

as you raise your spear in defense of deviants.

it has been debated 1000+ years by people a lot more knowledge than most today.

the jahmiyyah were wrong even back then.

Ask anyone in real life who has studied shafi'ism and they will refute this.

if they will prove Imam Shafi'i and his students were Ash'aris then next they should draw a triangle with four angles. the book I posted from in OP is a whole book on aqeedah disputes between Shafi'i fuqaha. the author investigated and wrote a whole book on the subject. that the early Shafi'i scholars were what we might call Atharis and that Ash'arism was a thing of the later Shafi'is.... this is just a historical fact... the most learned Shafi'i Ash'ari in this dunya could not refute it.

I also note the videos you posted is by a "Salafi" Maliki. Who undoubtedly has an agenda.

You're referring to Redman, I assume. "has an agenda" kulaha. He's an Athari Maliki like myself. That is the "agenda". So... yes.. a guy who translated pro-Athari videos is Athari. I admit it.

He/She needs to reconcile their salafi aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah with that of Imam Ahmad and Malik before they claim any creed and madhab.

Everyone except those "neo-Hanbali" astray people knows that Imam Ahmad was an Athari.

I wasn't going to respond to your post but I am doing so since you wanted to try to bring the Maliki madhhab into it.

The Maliki madhhab is the same story as the Shafi'is. The early scholars were upon the way of the salaf in aqeedah and then Ash'arism became a thing among the later scholars.

I don't want to say who sent me that because I haven't asked his permission and I don't want to give his username without permission but that was sent to me by one of the top Maliki accounts on twitter. also, anyone who is familiar with the Maliki madhhab should know that many of the top Malikis of today are Salafi in aqeedah.

 

[reer]

blatant misinformation. Atharis are ahlul sunnah, not Ash'aris and Maturidis.

so you thrown out so many shafi ulama from ahlus sunnah. you do know that youre saying the shafi madhab is basically not ahlus sunnah. salafis cant say "half of the shafi madhab is not even ahlus sunnah. its a bad madhab and not really ahlus sunnah because too much asharis." because they will lose credibility.
do you know when you learn 7 qiraat from the way of shatibiyyah your chain goes through imam al shatibi (he was ashari)?

 

[Omar del Sur]

so you thrown out so many shafi ulama from ahlus sunnah. you do know that youre saying the shafi madhab is basically not ahlus sunnah. salafis cant say "half of the shafi madhab is not even ahlus sunnah. its a bad madhab and not really ahlus sunnah because too much asharis." because they will lose credibility.

yes, some of the later Maliki and Ash'ari scholars like al-Qurtubi (of the famous tafsir) and Nawawi had issues in aqīdah. There, I said it. So what?

You learn fiqh from your madhhab. Just because a scholar has an issues in aqīdah doesn't mean you can't benefit from their work in other areas. If someone did great work in fiqh but had issues in aqīdah- then you take from then when it comes to fiqh not aqīdah. Yourself and some others keep repeating this shubuhat like it's much stronger than it really is. There are tons of Maliki Atharis who follow a madhhab where many of the later scholars were Ash'ari, yet they are able to follow their madhhab just fine.

 

[reer]

yes, some of the later Maliki and Ash'ari scholars like al-Qurtubi (of the famous tafsir) and Nawawi had issues in aqīdah. There, I said it. So what?

You learn fiqh from your madhhab. Just because a scholar has an issues in aqīdah doesn't mean you can't benefit from their work in other areas. If someone did great work in fiqh but had issues in aqīdah- then you take from then when it comes to fiqh not aqīdah. Yourself and some others keep repeating this shubuhat like it's much stronger than it really is. There are tons of Maliki Atharis who follow a madhhab where many of the later scholars were Ash'ari, yet they are able to follow their madhhab just fine.

as usual you are not sticking to your principles. it is not one scholar or "some of the later scholars". you cannot avoid asharis in our madhab. "so and so imam is NOT from ahlus sunnah. but i will study his fiqh" doesnt make sense. you dont make tabdee on imam al shatibi (not shafi'i) and declare him out of ahlu sunnah because of his ashari beliefs. how can you study 7 recitations from someone who is "not ahlu sunnah" because you will completely lose credibility by attacking transmitters of Quran.
if you can take from scholars who are "not ahlu sunnah" why dont you take ibadi hadiths?
a major salafi wont come out and say "half or most of the shafi madhab is not ahlu sunnah" "most of the hanafi madhab is not actually ahlu sunnah". dont do taqiyyah.
@World

 

[Omar del Sur]

 

[Omar del Sur]

as usual you are not sticking to your principles.

I myself read books by Ash'ari scholars. It doesn't go against my principles. I wouldn't refuse to read the 40 hadith of Nawawi just because I disagree with the author on some aqīdah issues.

 

[World]

I posted this in the other thread.

Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work like that.

Zamakhshari is the author of Tafsir Al-Kasshaf, one of the most important Tafsir of the Qur'an in history, and the greatest linguistic commentary of the Quran, focusing on grammatical and rhetorical analysis. As he was founded the Arabic science of Al Balaghah, it is studied by everyone today including Salafis. Zamakhshari created his Tafsir because he wanted (his) Mu'tazilla to have their own Tafsir of the Qur'an based on their views.

And the Mu'tazila also founded the Usul ul Fiqh of the Hanbali, Shafi'i and Maliki madhab. These three schools are called usul al mutakalimin, because their founders were the Ulema of kalam who used to introduce their books by first explaining the Mu'tazila aqeedah and arguing their positions. The Hanafis on the other hand followed the deductive approach from Abu Hanifa.

 

[Lumo]

blatant misinformation. Atharis are ahlul sunnah, not Ash'aris and Maturidis.



as you raise your spear in defense of deviants.



the jahmiyyah were wrong even back then.



if they will prove Imam Shafi'i and his students were Ash'aris then next they should draw a triangle with four angles. the book I posted from in OP is a whole book on aqeedah disputes between Shafi'i fuqaha. the author investigated and wrote a whole book on the subject. that the early Shafi'i scholars were what we might call Atharis and that Ash'arism was a thing of the later Shafi'is.... this is just a historical fact... the most learned Shafi'i Ash'ari in this dunya could not refute it.



You're referring to Redman, I assume. "has an agenda" kulaha. He's an Athari Maliki like myself. That is the "agenda". So... yes.. a guy who translated pro-Athari videos is Athari. I admit it.



Everyone except those "neo-Hanbali" astray people knows that Imam Ahmad was an Athari.

I wasn't going to respond to your post but I am doing so since you wanted to try to bring the Maliki madhhab into it.

The Maliki madhhab is the same story as the Shafi'is. The early scholars were upon the way of the salaf in aqeedah and then Ash'arism became a thing among the later scholars.

View attachment 329575

I don't want to say who sent me that because I haven't asked his permission and I don't want to give his username without permission but that was sent to me by one of the top Maliki accounts on twitter. also, anyone who is familiar with the Maliki madhhab should know that many of the top Malikis of today are Salafi in aqeedah.

Again your trying to equate the "Salafi" Aqidah of Ibn Taymiyyah with Atharism despite them being incompatible. Same story with the Hanbali madhab.

Salafis have long tried to hijack the Athari creed and the Hanbali madhab.


People often forget that Ibn Taymiyyah was not part of the Salaf and those who were rejected anthropomorphism (Imam Malik included)

Ahmad Ibn Hanbal

Imam Ibn al-Jawzi

Shaykh Muhammad as-Sayyid a leading scholar of the Hanbali madhab in Al-Azhar explains how scholars dealt with Ibn Taymiyyah's deviations in terms of aqeedah.



Whether you believe Athari to be the right aqidah is irrelevant. My point is that many salafis claim to follow the salaf but in reality it's the teachings and opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah, which at times contradicts the salaf.

The question remains. Why do salafis put more emphasis into what Ibn Taymiyyah says rather than the four Imams and the salaf in general?


@Omar del Sur
Your original post was about how the Shafi fiqh is at odds with the Ashari creed.

I've shown how the "Salafi" creed is at bigger odds with the salaf. This might not even apply to you because you seem to just be an athari that follows the salaf and not a taymi.

But in my opinon those who claim to be salafi tend subscribe to Ibn Taymiyyah's views and should'nt call themselves Salafis/Atharis/Hanbali since his views are at odds with the madhab and aqidah.

 

[reer]

it is some of the later scholars

here is a hanbali sheikh talking about shafi fiqh. count the number of asharis in the list of scholars here.

 

[Omar del Sur]

here is a hanbali sheikh talking about shafi fiqh. count the number of asharis in the list of scholars here.

some people keep pressing this point but it's a weak objection.

as you said:

here is a hanbali sheikh talking about shafi fiqh.

 

[Kizaru]

Niggas fighting bout sub sects now

 

[reer]

some people keep pressing this point but it's a weak objection.

as you said:

so you dont say asharis are from ahlu sunnah but at the same time recognise the shafi madhab being dominated by asharis? salafis are a minority. most scholars from the shafis are ashari for centuries. hanafis are usually maturidi. zaytoonah institute (maliki) in north africa is ashari.
so that leaves the salafis, the hanbalis as ahlu sunnah and a minority of hybrid salafi/shafi salafi/maliki salafi/hanafi scholars as ahlu sunnah.

 

[نور]

According to Asharis and Maturidis ahlus sunnah is only them and all other sects whether Hanbali, mu'tazili etc are heretics

Similarly for the Atharis Ahlus sunnah is only them and Asharis and Maturidis are massive deviants

This is clear from their statement