to islamists on pf!

[HalloIsBack]

i love sushi!

[Zubr-Zubr]

i love sushi!

Why do you hate Muslims? Why do you love the enemies of Islam and the kuffaar?

[HalloIsBack]

[Toramana]

Why do you hate Muslims? Why do you love the enemies of Islam and the kuffaar?

Hallo is not an enemy of Muslims. She has a critical view of Islamists as most of moderate common Muslims (99.5%) do also have. By the way, these are Islamists that are enemies of Muslims as well as wider humanity.

[کیش]

again, what I this "Islamist", "Jihadist" words.

99,5% of Muslim are some bytch niggas. selfish, hatred, and ignorant. real Muslims are G's, that's just the truth.

[کیش]

same source.. Different Paths...Equally lost...

[Herat]

i love sushi!

[Badlun]

No. For all the four , it is not the same source. Hanafi fiq is mainly based on Quran and Reasoning(Qiyas) not on Sunnah as such. This is why Hanafis are the majority of Muslims(about 70%). It is more practicable and wise and not based on some fabricated and unwise traditions.

Hanbali is the most traditionalist. Jafari Fiq of Shia has many similarities with hanafi as Imam Jafar Sadiq was teacher of Imam Abu Hanifa. This is why you do not see problems between Hanafis and Shias. Mostly Salafis and Hanbalis oppose Shias.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

No. For all the four , it is not the same source. Hanafi fiq is mainly based on Quran and Reasoning(Qiyas) not on Sunnah as such. This is why Hanafis are the majority of Muslims(about 70%). It is more practicable and wise and not based on some fabricated and unwise traditions.

Hanbali is the most traditionalist. Jafari Fiq of Shia has many similarities with hanafi as Imam Jafar Sadiq was teacher of Imam Abu Hanifa. This is why you do not see problems between Hanafis and Shias. Mostly Salafis and Hanbalis oppose Shias.

There are many holes in theory, predominantly pushed by Shia, that Abu Hanifa learned under Jafar Sadiq as opposed to being contemporaneous and learning under great scholars of the era.

The other history you are not giving is that Jafar Sadiq was himself unique in his lineage to Abu Bakr. The other issue I recall from hearing Ronald Messier speak on the subject was the narrations of Ibn Uqda are not considered canonical (he was one of the common narrators regarding the close relationship) because he was himself a Shiite.

That being said, I agree with you that the pictorial is simplistic. What it doesn't depict is the theological detail (i.e. these 4 madhabs are not in active conflict across in Iraq but rather its a sectarian sunni-shia, sunni tribal versus centralized maliki Shiite). It ignores the fact that the tribal sheikhs themselves are using ISIS as a bargaining chip and telling the US and Baghdad that until their representative demands are met they will not rise up against it and are rather, stepping aside.

On an interesting side note, Ahmad Shah Durrani wrote to the Caliph of his time and advocated that the Jafari Shiite be considered in a 5th madhab as he was on the verge of conducting an Iran invasion.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

No. For all the four , it is not the same source. Hanafi fiq is mainly based on Quran and Reasoning(Qiyas) not on Sunnah as such. This is why Hanafis are the majority of Muslims(about 70%). It is more practicable and wise and not based on some fabricated and unwise traditions.

Hanbali is the most traditionalist. Jafari Fiq of Shia has many similarities with hanafi as Imam Jafar Sadiq was teacher of Imam Abu Hanifa. This is why you do not see problems between Hanafis and Shias. Mostly Salafis and Hanbalis oppose Shias.

You are also mischaracterizing Abu Hanifa's stance on the sunnah. To simplify his dynamic approach for those listening, he never disavowed sunnah but viewed logical decision making as an adjunct. One prominent example he gave was that of the famous Hafiz and preserver of the Quran in Yemen and Companion, Muadh ibn Jabal. He noted an instance where Ibn Jabal would look to the Quran sequentially first and then sunnah sequentially second and then reason should he need details above and beyond to answer the issue at hand.

There is not a single quote in the corpus of literature attributed to Abu Hanifa disavowing the sunnah.

[Badlun]

You are also mischaracterizing Abu Hanifa's stance on the sunnah. To simplify his dynamic approach for those listening, he never disavowed sunnah but viewed logical decision making as an adjunct. One prominent example he gave was that of the famous Hafiz and preserver of the Quran in Yemen and Companion, Muadh ibn Jabal. He noted an instance where Ibn Jabal would look to the Quran sequentially first and then sunnah sequentially second and then reason should he need details above and beyond to answer the issue at hand.

There is not a single quote in the corpus of literature attributed to Abu Hanifa disavowing the sunnah.

Imam Abu Hanifa did not disown or disavow Sunna or Hadith but not used them as source for his jurisprudence. It is very famous for him that he believed in only 16 hadith. May be he was differentiating hadith and sunna.

He was not aware of the words or was not believing in those words but was following sunna the way he knew it but not by hadith as all important books of hadith were compiled after him.

For example in Pakistan or Afghanistan, you will find differences , even killing each others,between Deobandis and Shias but not Brelvis/Sufis and Shias because Brelvis are Hanafis while Deobandis are more salafis than Hanafis.

I find Shias better than Salafis or Wahabis. At least they are not terrorists. Hizbullah is a political party and their struggle is more against Isarel than against Sunnis or even Salafis. they use Ijtihad, women are not totally covered like corpses, women take active part in society and are more spiritual and intrinsic than Salafis who are totally literalists.

[Herat]

No. For all the four , it is not the same source. Hanafi fiq is mainly based on Quran and Reasoning(Qiyas) not on Sunnah as such. This is why Hanafis are the majority of Muslims(about 70%). It is more practicable and wise and not based on some fabricated and unwise traditions.

Hanbali is the most traditionalist. Jafari Fiq of Shia has many similarities with hanafi as Imam Jafar Sadiq was teacher of Imam Abu Hanifa. This is why you do not see problems between Hanafis and Shias. Mostly Salafis and Hanbalis oppose Shias.

There is some truth in what you say but it has nothing to do with the traditions or maddhabs per se but rather what they call aqidah, the issue that you are trying to get at is over hermeneutics (especially over the issue of kalam, historically): the whole mutazilite, ashari, maturidi and athari controversy. You have two extremes: the mutazilites who were the extreme rationalist group and the athari (this is the one associated with the Hanbalite and the Salafist schools), who are extreme textual literalists. The aqidahs associated with the other two schools are basically in between these two extremes, and these are the ones adopted by the other three madhabs.

[Badlun]

There is some truth in what you say but it has nothing to do with the traditions or maddhabs per se but rather what they call aqidah, the issue that you are trying to get at is over hermeneutics (especially over the issue of kalam, historically): the whole mutazilite, ashari, maturidi and athari controversy. You have two extremes: the mutazilites who were the extreme rationalist group and the athari (this is the one associated with the Hanbalite and the Salafist schools), who are extreme textual literalists. The aqidahs associated with the other two schools are basically in between these two extremes, and these are the ones adopted by the other three madhabs.

Yeah but in other 3 schools, Hanafis are more rationalists and wise people as compared to Malikis and Shafiyees. I think it goes like this from one extreme to another
Hanbalis/salafis----Shafiyees-----Malikis---Hanafis==Jafaris(Shias)

Mutazilite, ashari, maturidi and atharis are now extinct. No one claim to be part of them at least in a visible way. The extinction of Mutazilites is a big loss to Muslims as now they are guided by Mullahs not scholars.

[کیش]

This I what I meant. it's not a hadith, it's straight from the Qu'ran.

I get labeled a lot of things, but I do not belong to any sects, or school of laws.


Chapter (6) sūrat l-anʿām (The Cattle)


Sahih International: Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects - you, [O Muhammad], are not [associated] with them in anything. Their affair is only [left] to Allah ; then He will inform them about what they used to do.
Pickthall: Lo! As for those who sunder their religion and become schismatics, no concern at all hast thou with them. Their case will go to Allah, Who then will tell them what they used to do.
Yusuf Ali: As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.
Shakir: Surely they who divided their religion into parts and became sects, you have no concern with them; their affair is only with Allah, then He will inform them of what they did.
Muhammad Sarwar: Some of those who have divided their religion into different sects are not your concern. Their affairs are in the hands of God Who will show them all that they have done.
Mohsin Khan: Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad SAW) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allah, Who then will tell them what they used to do.
Arberry: Those who have made divisions in their religion and become thou art not of them in anything; their affair is unto God, then He will tell them what they have been doing.