PDA

View Full Version : But their actions belie...



highway_trekker
11-05-2008, 07:18 PM
Four things that most people believe in but their actions belie.

Shaqique Ibne Ibrahim rahmatullahi alayh says: People seem to agree with me when they say that they believe in four things, but their actions belie what they claim to believe:-


1 They say that they are slaves (bondsmen) of Allaah but their actions betray that they regard themselves to be freemen;

2 They say that Allaah has taken upon Himself the responsibility to give us our sustenance, but they never rest content until they hoard enough of worldly provisions;

3 They say that akhiraah is preferable to this world, but they are ever engaged in amassing wealth, and are least concerned about akhirah.

4 They say that death is inevitable, but they are absorbed in worldly activities as though they were to live here forever.

(Tanbeehul Ghaafileen)
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
doorster
11-05-2008, 07:55 PM
2 They say that Allaah has taken upon Himself the responsibility to give us our sustenance, but they never rest content until they hoard enough of worldly provisions;
:sl:

  • “The fundamental attitude of Islam towards man's position in the world is that Allah the Almighty has made the earth for his benefit. He has given him control over it. Then it becomes man's duty to profit from this favour and to exert himself to seek Allah's bounties throughout the earth.“


  • “....It is not permitted for a Muslim to stay idle doing nothing to make a living on the pretext of devoting his life to worship or putting trust in Allah. He should know that the sky never rains gold or silver.....“

being broke is no picnic...:w:
Reply

doorster
11-06-2008, 03:27 AM
the key word are in the title: "But their actions belie..."

which in my version of "truth" means: accusation of hypocrisy

just as same school cant tell the differences between:

Pride and arrogance
being patriotic and being racist

strange thing is when I accuse any non-Muslims or non-Sunnis of "being here to promote their ideologies" I get asked whether I am a mind reader or do I claim to know what is in their hearts

then same dudes come to defend a post where hypocrisy (based on assumption) is alleged against hard working Muslims

most time these allegations are made by full-time nitpicking layabouts who do nothing but sit there writing decrees trying to find new things to make haraam (citing out of context ancient texts)
Reply

Ibn Abi Ahmed
11-06-2008, 05:03 AM
Originally Posted by doorster
the key word are in the title: "But their actions belie..."

which in my version of "truth" means: accusation of hypocrisy

just as same school cant tell the differences between:

Pride and arrogance
being patriotic and being racist

strange thing is when I accuse any non-Muslims or non-Sunnis of "being here to promote their ideologies" I get asked whether I am a mind reader or do I claim to know what is in their hearts

then same dudes come to defend a post where hypocrisy (based on assumption) is alleged against hard working Muslims

most time these allegations are made by full-time nitpicking layabouts who do nothing but sit there writing decrees trying to find new things to make haraam (citing out of context ancient texts)
:sl: Brother,

'Tanbih ul-Ghafilin (Informing the Heedless) is a book by Imam Abul-Layth Nasr as-Samarqandi and is a collection of statements of the Sahabah and the Tabieen. The Imaam (d. 373) was a faqeeh of the Hanafee school. Imaam adh-Dhahabee described him as, 'A renowned scholar in jurisprudence and Hadeeth and an ascetic person.' He has a famous Tafseer (as-Samarqandi). He also has a book compiling his Fataawa. He was known as Imaam al-Hudaa in his time.

So when he added these narrations to his book, he knew what he was adding and he had a better understanding than us of whether the narration was an "accusation of hypocrisy" or whether it attacked "hard working Muslims". More so, the one who originally spoke these words knew better what he was saying.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
doorster
11-06-2008, 02:57 PM
Originally Posted by Abu Sayyad
:sl: Brother,

'Tanbih ul-Ghafilin (Informing the Heedless) is a book by Imam Abul-Layth Nasr as-Samarqandi and is a collection of statements of the Sahabah and the Tabieen. The Imaam (d. 373) was a faqeeh of the Hanafee school. Imaam adh-Dhahabee described him as, 'A renowned scholar in jurisprudence and Hadeeth and an ascetic person.' He has a famous Tafseer (as-Samarqandi). He also has a book compiling his Fataawa. He was known as Imaam al-Hudaa in his time.

So when he added these narrations to his book, he knew what he was adding and he had a better understanding than us of whether the narration was an "accusation of hypocrisy" or whether it attacked "hard working Muslims". More so, the one who originally spoke these words knew better what he was saying.
wa alaikum salam
A renowned scholar in jurisprudence and Hadeeth and an ascetic person.
I am no ascetic person for I indulge in all halal pleasures and I am not in to severe "religious" exercises or self-mortification.

In my version of "truth" all halal pursuits are part of Ibaadat e Allah. I am not a person who dedicates his life to pursuit of contemplative ideals and practices extreme self-denial or self-mortification for religious reasons. Even if I had been, It would not give me a right to cast aspersions on motives of a huge number of people (who was it that told me in Saudi thread; not to judge many based on my perception of what I might think is evil of few?)

are you now seriously wanting me to believe that wealth creators amongst us are not being judged and vilified based on such texts? or that the man was a Seer of people's intentions/circumstances 1200 years in to the future?

I do not think that all of us have oil wells oozing out of our front yard nor are all of us living on grants from Al-Saud to be able to spread the ideal of some mythical form of Islam

I do not want to get tangled up in an argument that I know I am bound to loose suffice it to say that there is no asceticism in Islam. The rigorous austere practices which cause torture to human body are strictly prohibited.

Wealth creation is no sin for Muslim except according to those who are serving our oppressors and want to keep us in "our place"

:w:

edit:
(I think that) another one of his "gems" was wanting to stop children from laughing:rollseyes
... man passed by a boy on the street while he was laughing, so he said to him: My son, have you passed the bridge over Hell?
The boy said: No.
The man said: Has it been made clear to you whether you will end up in Paradise or in Hell?
The boy said: No.
The man said: So what is all of this laughter for?
So, the boy was never seen laughing after that moment....
:(

so now is it safe to conclude that laughing is another impermissible thing?:cry:

I bet you that if we all started following his teachings, we'll all end up looking as if we've just buried our mothers, every moment of our life and fall even further behind than the miserable state we are in currently

:w:
Reply

highway_trekker
11-06-2008, 06:21 PM
Originally Posted by doorster
:sl:

  • “The fundamental attitude of Islam towards man's position in the world is that Allah the Almighty has made the earth for his benefit. He has given him control over it. Then it becomes man's duty to profit from this favour and to exert himself to seek Allah's bounties throughout the earth.“


  • “....It is not permitted for a Muslim to stay idle doing nothing to make a living on the pretext of devoting his life to worship or putting trust in Allah. He should know that the sky never rains gold or silver.....“

being broke is no picnic...:w:

What was your point? Yes Islaam permits that a Muslim seeks sustenance….that he goes out and earns his living by halaal means... and yet not to hoard and become too attached to worldly possessions to the point where the dunyaa and preoccupation with it distances you from Allaah... and I guess preoccupying yourself to a point where you 'hoard' worldly possessions without giving away things you do not need and amassing wealth which could benefit others is not from the way of a believer...
Reply

Ibn Abi Ahmed
11-06-2008, 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by doorster
wa alaikum salam
I am no ascetic person for I indulge in all halal pleasures and I am not in to severe "religious" exercises or self-mortification.
:sl: Brother,

Do you know the Arabic term for asceticism? It is called zuhd, and it was practiced by our salaf, many of them wrote books on this very same subject.

Just because you believe a certain sect falls into extremes in this concept, doesn't mean that the concept itself is alien to Islaam! If you look at the books where our scholars describe other scholars, you'll notice that the term zahid is used over and over - because indeed our scholars were ascetic, i.e. they were zahid.

Now the problem here isn't with the term itself, its with the actual definition which I think you've misunderstood. The Prophet (salalahu alayhi wa sallam) himself commanded us to observe zuhd:

Abu Al-'Abbas, Sahl ibn Sa'd As-Sa'idi said that a man came to the Messenger of Allah (salalahu alayhi wa sallam) and then said, "O Messenger of Allah (salalahu alayhi wa sallam)! Inform me of a (good) deed that if I performed it, Allaah will love me and the people will love me."

He said,
"Practice Az-Zuhd (modesty in the way of life is lived) in the Dunya (the life of this world), and Allah (swt) will love you; and practice Az-Zuhd (disinterest) in what people own (or have, or possess), and the people will love you."
Ibn Majah, and refer to Sahih Al-Jami'

Do you know that Imaam Muslim has a book in his Sahih which he entitled: 'Kitab Al-Zuhd wa Al-Raqa'iq' ?

Zuhd is not abstaining from the halal, it is abstaining from the haraam while still enjoying the halal. It doesn't mean you cannot be rich, because many Companions themselves were rich and many scholars after them. It simply means disliking the Dunya in preference for the Hereafter, not falling in love with this life to the extent that we forget about the Hereafter. It is keeping the life of the Dunya in our hands and the Aakhirah in our hearts. It is balance in living the life of this world and avoiding extremism in abandoning it and extremism is running after it. If you wish, I can bring you many statements from the salaf about condemnation of the life of this world.

Please understand that everything isn't black and white, there are shades of gray in between.

In my version of "truth" all halal pursuits are part of Ibaadat e Allah. I am not a person who dedicates his life to pursuit of contemplative ideals and practices extreme self-denial or self-mortification for religious reasons.
Zuhd does not entail the underlined portion from your post.

Even if I had been, It would not give me a right to cast aspersions on motives of a huge number of people (who was it that told me in Saudi thread; not to judge many based on my perception of what I might think is evil of few?)
Akhi, if you believe yourself to be more righteous and more knowledgeable of the religion than our Salaf, then really, there is nothing more I can say to you.

are you now seriously wanting me to believe that wealth creators amongst us are not being judged and vilified based on such texts?
Please show me where I've stated this or rather where the Imaam stated this?

or that the man was a Seer of people's intentions/circumstances 1200 years in to the future?
Did he state this?

I do not think that all of us have oil wells oozing out of our front yard nor are all of us living on grants from Al-Saud to be able to spread the ideal of some mythical form of Islam
Don't let your blind hate and bias against Saudi dictate your perspectives on matters of the religion. Extremism leads to destruction on all sides of the playing field.

I do not want to get tangled up in an argument that I know I am bound to loose suffice it to say that there is no asceticism in Islam.
Please bring me proof that there is no Zuhd in Islaam. I want statements from the Prophet (salalahu alayhi wa sallam), his Companions, and the Tabieen.

The rigorous austere practices which cause torture to human body are strictly prohibited.
Whoever told you that this is zuhd (asceticism) was clearly misinformed. Zuhd and torturing oneself are like black and white, complete opposites.

Wealth creation is no sin for Muslim except according to those who are serving our oppressors and want to keep us in "our place"
I fail to see the logic here.

edit:
(I think that) another one of his "gems" was wanting to stop children from laughing:rollseyes
:(
... man passed by a boy on the street while he was laughing, so he said to him: My son, have you passed the bridge over Hell?
The boy said: No.
The man said: Has it been made clear to you whether you will end up in Paradise or in Hell?
The boy said: No.
The man said: So what is all of this laughter for?
So, the boy was never seen laughing after that moment....
1) Akhi, firstly, loose that arrogant attitude. If you don't understand something, then ask because perhaps there are others who can explain the context to you, which you are so obviously lacking.

2) The context: Look at the time this was said in. This was a time when Islaam was at it's peak - scholarship was high and the people themselves were of a much higher level of zuhd than what we are at today. It is not suprising that an Imaam from the Salaf would remind a child to remember the aakhihrah. And really, it is even more important to remind the youth of the aakhirah today than at that time because of high level of fitnah in today's world.

3) Look at the effect a reminder of the Aakhirah had upon the youth. Today we hear it everyday, yet our own hearts are too hardened for the reminder to have any effect. Yet a youth of that time had hearts that are softer than ours. He took the aakhirah seriously (in the context of his time). And in contrast today, you're making fun of them?! (with your use of smileys and arrogant language).

I believe the reminder will benefit whoever wants to benefit, and the mockers - they will continue to mock.

so now is it safe to conclude that laughing is another impermissible thing?:cry:
I didn't reach that conclusion, nor have I heard of anyone else reaching that conclusion until now except you.

I bet you that if we all started following his teachings, we'll all end up looking as if we've just buried our mothers, every moment of our life and fall even further behind than the miserable state we are in currently

:w:
Sure our state today isn't good - but believe me when I tell you that there were times in Islamic history when compared to them, our lives would be the likes of royalty. Change doesn't come about with changing the rulers - because the rulers are only a reflection of the people they govern. Indeed in the past when the Khawarij tried to kill Uthman (ra), Ali (ra), Mu'awiyah (ra) they too believed that everything would be solved by replacing the rulers. It didn't work then, it won't work now and do you know what happened? They were given worse rulers like al-Hajjaj. Change comes from the grassroots up, not from the treetop down. Once we, the people rectify ourselves, change is inevitable.

:w:
Reply

doorster
11-06-2008, 07:43 PM
now! this is is the Al-Madani we loved! welcome back brother!

and don't forget to compare posts numbers 1 & 3 with this one @ #8

I feel that I've achieved what I wanted to in this thread, for that jazakAllah khair wa janat al firdous :)

edit: I still have some differences with post # 8 (but those are not really worth fighting over or it will be back and forth forever)

:w:
Reply

alcurad
11-06-2008, 10:30 PM
Originally Posted by Abu Sayyad
:sl: Brother,

Zuhd is not abstaining from the halal, it is abstaining from the haraam while still enjoying the halal. It doesn't mean you cannot be rich, because many Companions themselves were rich and many scholars after them.
you're contradicting yourself in the rest of your reply though...

Originally Posted by Abu Sayyad
Abu Al-'Abbas, Sahl ibn Sa'd As-Sa'idi said that a man came to the Messenger of Allah (salalahu alayhi wa sallam) and then said, "O Messenger of Allah (salalahu alayhi wa sallam)! Inform me of a (good) deed that if I performed it, Allaah will love me and the people will love me."

Please bring me proof that there is no Zuhd in Islaam. I want statements from the Prophet (salalahu alayhi wa sallam), his Companions, and the Tabieen.
many ahadeeth like the one you mention are taken out of context, the prophet would be addressing the poor and needy, who didn't have much to begin with, or when the times were hard and so on, it's not for every time-every place.

Originally Posted by Abu Sayyad
Akhi, if you believe yourself to be more righteous and more knowledgeable of the religion than our Salaf, then really, there is nothing more I can say to you.
we worship Allah, as he told us to, through his prophet. it doesn't matter if one is a 'salafi' or not, "things are not black and white".
Reply

Ibn Abi Ahmed
11-06-2008, 11:54 PM
Originally Posted by alcurad
you're contradicting yourself in the rest of your reply though...
:sl: Brother,

How so?

many ahadeeth like the one you mention are taken out of context, the prophet would be addressing the poor and needy, who didn't have much to begin with, or when the times were hard and so on, it's not for every time-every place.
There were many occasions where the Prophet (salalahu alayhi wa sallam) would condemn this world, regardless of who was around him. Here is one such hadeeth on the authority of Jabir b. Abdullah (radiyallahu anhu):
Jabir b. Abdullah reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) happened to walk through the bazar coming from the side of 'Aliya and the people were on both his sides. There he found a dead lamb with very short ears. He took hold of his ear and said: "Who amongst you would like to have this for a dirham?" They said: "We do not like to have it even for less than that as it is of no use to us." He said: "Do you wish to have it (free of any cost)?" They said: "By Allah, even if it were alive (we would not have liked to possess that), for there is detect in it as its ear is very short; now it is dead also." Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: "By Allah, this world is more insignificant in the eye of Allah as it (this dead lamb) is in your eye."
Sahih Muslim, Kitaab az-Zuhd wa al-Raqaiq.

But let's assume that he (salalahu alayhi wa sallam) said it to those who were already poor, does that change the fact that zuhd is part of the religion? It sure doesn't.

we worship Allah, as he told us to, through his prophet. it doesn't matter if one is a 'salafi' or not, "things are not black and white".
I don't believe I mentioned the word 'salafi' anywhere in my post.

Yes, I did mention the Salaf though. Is there anything incorrect about that? The first three generations are in essence the direct recipients of the religion and without doubt their knowledge about the religion is most pure and correct because these were direct students of the Prophet (salalahu alayhi wa sallam) or students of his students. It is folly to abandon their understanding of the religion for an understanding that does not work with theirs.
Reply

alcurad
11-08-2008, 11:11 PM
yes,I believe there is something incorrect with that brother, if the "salaf" were so pious and had such perfect knowledge of Islam, why did they fight and kill each other starting from the time of the third khailfah Othman?
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
11-09-2008, 12:19 AM
Originally Posted by alcurad
yes,I believe there is something incorrect with that brother, if the "salaf" were so pious and had such perfect knowledge of Islam, why did they fight and kill each other starting from the time of the third khailfah Othman?
:salamext:

There isn't really a short answer to that question because you need to study the live's of the two khulafa before 'Uthman in order to really understand what happened during his khilafa as well as after it.

During the Khilafa of Abu Bakr and 'Umar the muslims had a very powerful leadership because these two were very decisive and pious leaders. And 'Umar specially was feared by those under him because the governers he apointed in distant lands, once those lands were conquered and he apointed people to govern them, would still have a lot of fear for him. In fact there is a story that once 'Umar was walking with 'Alee ibn Abu Talib and 'Umar just happened to turn around randomly, there happened to be a pregnant woman behind him who when she saw 'Umar turn around got so scared that she had a miscarriage. Shows how much people use to fear him. Anyway, the point is during the khilafa of Abu Bakr and 'Umar the muslim army was probably at it's highest peak, with the likes of Khalid ibn Waleed in their ranks were conquering city after city. After both Abu Bakr and 'Umar had passed away, there were new muslims in the conquered lands who did not have the deep roots of taqwa that the sahaba had and it was the hypocrit jew under the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba who made himself seem like a god fearing muslim amongst the people, and once the people believed him (i.e. in his piety and rightousness), Abdullah ibn Saba started spreading false rumours and lies against 'Uthman. He travelled to different lands, such as Iraq, egypt and even Syria but he couldn't do much in Syria because of the presence of Mu'awiyah. In Syria he also tried to befool the sahabi Abu Dhar but Abu Dhar saw right through him and accused him of being a jew working against Islam. So Abu Dhar drove him out of damascus.

After some time he managed to make a lot of people believe in the lies that he was telling them, one of many lies such as 'Uthman using the public treasury to serve of his own interest.

When Abdullah ibn Saba had enough people believing in him, they came to madina, besieged 'Uthman and thus it lead to his (ra) martyrdom.

And what really got to me about this story is that just before 'Uthman was killed he was reading the Qur'an, and when he was killed his blood fell on the verse "So, Allah will suffice you against them. And He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower" [2:137]

This sparked dark clouds of confusion amongst the sahaba as well as other muslims because everyone wanted to know the truth about this incident and the killers of 'Uthman. So in order to find the truth they ended up fighting a war with each other because of the presence of the party of 'Abdullah ibn Saba who put a lot of doubts in their minds about each other. This is where the army of 'A'isha came, and the khilafa of 'Ali was about sorting out internal affairs and he was right to do so.

This is all verrry brief, I would suggest you look into history books and you will find your answers.
Reply

جوري
11-09-2008, 12:39 AM
This is an amazing thread...
Haven't seen threads like this in a while..

I actually like the point of views you all presented here...

will step back and try to immerse in each point of view separately, before I merge them...

Jazakoum Allah khyran

:w:
Reply

Ibn Abi Ahmed
11-09-2008, 01:48 AM
Originally Posted by alcurad
yes,I believe there is something incorrect with that brother, if the "salaf" were so pious and had such perfect knowledge of Islam, why did they fight and kill each other starting from the time of the third khailfah Othman?
Like Br. 'Abd-al Latif said, to understand the reasons and the historical context and the different forces that led up to these events will take a while and a post online isn't sufficient to do justice to everything. Nor is it justice to abandon the Companions simply because they fought each other out of their own Ijithad - they didn't fight for worldly reasons - they fought because they thought they were on the truth out of their own Ijithad. Did you know that they would fight, but when the time for salah would arrive they would abandon fighting and pray with each other in the same lines? That they would marry amongst each other? The least you can do would be to take some time and learn, and here is one resource that will help, you can download the following lecture called 'The Fitnah' and listen. It covers from the life of Uthman r.a. until the martyrdom of Abdullah b. Zubair (r.a.):

http://www.hoor-al-ayn.com/kamal-el-mekki.html
Reply

Snowflake
11-15-2008, 01:28 AM
assalamu alaykum

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said:

"I guarantee a house in Paradise for whoever leaves an argument, even if he was right, and a house in the middle of Paradise for whoever leaves lies, even if he was joking, and a house at the top of Paradise for whoever who has good manners." (Reported by Abu Dawood.)
Reply

Snowflake
11-15-2008, 01:44 AM
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
“The believer is not given to cursing, slandering or obscene and foul speech.”
Narrated by Ahmad, 3948; al-Tirmidhi, 1977
:thumbs_up
Reply

alcurad
11-15-2008, 01:52 AM
thank brother Scents of Jannah, we do indeed require reminders constantly.
on the other hand, if you meant that for my post, could you kindly show me where is the cursing and obscenity:?
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-17-2013, 09:00 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-24-2012, 07:55 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-16-2010, 06:35 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-25-2007, 01:06 AM
  5. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 05-28-2006, 05:29 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!