Ovalı

From Sydney, Turkish background, part-time English teacher. Adherent of the Hanbali school. Currently reading Majmoo al-Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah

[Ovalı @ovali1978]

@MHKIRBASOGLU ibn Teymiyye mehdi rivayetlerini sahih kabul etmesiyle birlikte kılıcını kuşanıp er meydanlarında bulunan, sultanı ordu toplamaya ikna eden ve Dımeşk düştüğünde Gazan Han ile görüşüp esirlerin bırakılmasını talep etmiştir. Bunun neresinde tembellik var?

[Farid @Farid_0v]

Three minutes are needed to read the resolution by the International Association of Genocide Scholars regarding the situation in Gaza.

[Mr.Elliot @yapayaracIar]

Kedinizin oyuncu hallerine bakıp onun avcı içgüdüsüne inanmayabilirsiniz, ama kediler dünyanın en tehlikeli avcılarındandır, dünya genelinde 33 hayvan türünün yok olmasına sebep oldu ve her yıl 6,9-20,7 milyar hayvanın ölümünden sorumlu.

[Ovalı @ovali1978]

@Zwxsh That’s a BIG IF…

[Abdul Rahman (TAP) @abdul_now]

Ibn Taymiyya on Excusing in the Question of Allah’s ‘Uluww:

“Moreover, anyone to whom the binding prophetic proof has not been made clear through the established reports is not to be declared an unbeliever merely on account of his denial. This shows that the generality of those who pray are believers in Allah and His Messenger, even if they differ in their beliefs about the One they worship and His attributes, with the exception of the hypocrite who professes faith with his tongue while concealing disbelief in the Messenger. Such a person is not a believer.

Whoever outwardly professes Islam and is not a hypocrite is a believer. He possesses faith in proportion to what he has been granted of it, and he is among those who will be brought out of the Fire, even if in his heart there is only an atom’s weight of faith.

This extends to all those who dispute about the [divine] attributes and predestination, despite their differing doctrines. If Paradise were reserved only for those who know Allah as His Prophet ﷺ knew Him, then his ummah would never enter Paradise. This is because they, or at least most of them, cannot attain such knowledge. Rather, they will enter Paradise, and their ranks there will differ according to their faith and their knowledge.”

[Gazete 360 @360Gazete]

Tarihçi Yaşar Gören'den Kemalistleri kızdıracak iddia:

Mustafa Kemal ile ilgili resmi tarih tamamen uydurmadır

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk İngilizlerden valilik istedi

İşgal altındaki Samsun dağlarında İngilizlere karşı savaşan Türk gruplarını silahsızlandırmak için gitti

[Ovalı @ovali1978]

@stats_feed Turkiye

[Ovalı @ovali1978]

@KotFatsa @falconofturk Kim ahlaklı ve terbiyeli olması gerekiyor?

[Zerka @ylmzzms]

"Egemeni neşelendirmesi dışında faydasını göremedim." diyerek sözde laf soktunuz değil mi :)

Fikret hocam, gerek sözleriniz gerek tavırlarınızla sık sık ilmî ahlaktan uzak bir tutum sergilediğiniz, bu X ortamında artık mütevatir derecede maruf hale geldiğinin çok büyük ihtimalle farkındasınız. Bu söylediğimi iyi düşünün lütfen, zira bence toparlamanız için hâlâ geç değil.

Bir de sizin için size karşı yapılan her itiraz peşinen "boş" her muhalefet de "yanlış anlama" oluyor zaten. Dünya ne güzel bir yer sizin gözünden. Mis gibi hayat yemin ederim:).

[Abdul Rahman (TAP) @abdul_now]

Ibn Taymiyya says:

“Many among those who denounce innovations in worship or custom are themselves negligent in practicing the Sunnah in those very matters, or in urging others to it. It may even be that the state of many of them is worse than that of those who perform devotions that carry elements of makrūh.

Rather, the dīn is built on enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil. Neither stands without the other. One must not forbid an evil without at the same time calling to a good that can take its place, just as we are commanded to worship God, exalted is He, and forbidden to worship anything besides Him. For at the core of this whole affair is the testimony that there is no god worthy of worship but Allah.

The human soul was created to act, not merely to abstain. Abstention is only sought for the sake of what it leads to. If a person does not occupy himself with a righteous deed, he will not truly give up a bad deed, or at best only a deficient one. And the reason some bad deeds are prohibited is precisely because they spoil and undermine righteous deeds; so they are forbidden in order to safeguard the soundness of righteous deeds.

Thus, certain people may honour the Prophet’s birthday and treat it as a special occasion, and for them, there may be great reward in it on account of their good intention and their reverence for the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him. As I have already explained: what may be acceptable from some people could be unbecoming from an upright believer who is on the right path.

For this reason, it is related that Imam Ahmad was asked about a ruler who spent a thousand dinars, more or less, on a mushaf. He replied: “Leave them be; this is the best thing they have spent their gold on,” or words to that effect. Even though his view was that adorning the mushaf is makrūh.

Some scholars understood this to mean the money was spent on fine paper and elegant script. But this was not what Ahmad’s intended. His point was that in this act there is good, but also a corrupting element, for which it is deemed makrūh. And if such people were prevented from this, they would instead spend on outright corruption in which there is no good at all: like books of depravity, collections of frivolous tales or amorous poetry, or the “wisdom” of the Persians and the Romans.

So reflect deeply on the reality of the dīn. Weigh what actions contain of shar’i benefits and harms, until you can discern the ranks of what is good and the ranks of what is evil, and give priority to what is greater when matters compete. For this is what it means to have true knowledge of what the Messengers were sent with.”

Iqtida as-Sirat al-Mustaqim

[Ovalı @ovali1978]

@iluminatibot #KASPA is a better proof of work crypto than bitcoin. Research it.

[Farid @Farid_0v]

A new publication on the attribution of al-Radd 'ala al-Jahmiyyah to Imam Ahmad.

[Ovalı @ovali1978]

@iluminatibot Ned Kelly

[Ibn al-Qayyim @qayyimtaqleed]

Ibn Hajar’s ilzām upon the Ash’arīs

Ibn Hajar makes mentions of the Ash’arī belief in Kalām Nafsī and that Allah doesn’t speak sounds or letters

Then he says:
“It’s necessary for those who believe in this to say that the Quran is created although they attempt to flee from this”

[Abdul Rahman (TAP) @abdul_now]

These guys reason as if the soundness of a position or argument is dependent on what a hypothetical skeptic “might” say, so they end up building their entire theology around imagined objections, and then they lock themselves into views that naturally invite those same doubts and questions.

I can further explain and flesh things out for you, but you should first understand that an infinite series of “I’m not convinced, prove it” responses isn’t going to get you very far with me. I don’t measure truth by whether a guy who keeps saying “prove it” finally says "ah, ok".

Before I answer the question, note the irony of how you're proving the point of the post you’re commenting on. Through this very line of questioning, you're trying to imply that we can’t answer such "objections" unless we first rule out an infinite regress. That means you see God as only causally relevant if He's needed to get the ball rolling. If an infinite past is possible in any sense, then on your view nothing else in the world signals dependence on anything beyond the series itself (yet you're also somehow an occasionalist..?). That is exactly the soft-deist picture I was pointing to in the OP.

On our view, that does not follow at all. We do not tie our dependence on God to a "first moment". We say that everything we witness in creation is dependent here and now, and known to be as such regardless of how many things existed before it. A single thing is dependent. A finite chain is dependent. An infinite chain is dependent. None of them has what it takes to stand on its own, so the whole thing points beyond itself to an independent source. Whether you accept my view or not, its implication is that any "slice" of creation you pick still needs an independent creator. The implication of yours is that God is only needed to get the ball rolling. At least we can agree on that.

That aside, we're discussing dependence and why an infinite series of dependent things requires an outside explanation.

We start with a few simple principles:

a) Causal dependence is one way: what does the explaining isn’t itself explained by the very thing it explains

b) Explanation has to end somewhere: in causal terms, at some point you hit something that does the "making" without needing the very sort of help it’s supposed to give. Otherwise nothing is really doing any making.

That latter principle can be put in the terms used by many scholars from different sects across the board: kullu ma bil-arad la budda an yantahi ila ma bil-dhat (what’s derivative ultimately terminates in what’s essential).

Now assume some hypothetical idiot proposes the following:

“Take a lot of causally dependent things. Maybe, taken together, they explain each other and the whole needs nothing outside of itself.”

This is like someone explaining why the earth doesn’t "fall" by appealing to a turtle under it that doesn’t fall. Then you naturally ask, “Well, why doesn’t the turtle fall?” So he says, “Easy. There’s another turtle under that one.” And under that, another. And another. Turtles all the way down.

Now reframe our hypothetical idiot’s claim in this turtle language. He’s basically saying, “Look, if you can’t prove that the stack of turtles has to end somewhere, then maybe the turtles together hold each other up, and we don’t need to explain anything else here so let's call it a day.” And if you say “that makes no sense”, he just shrugs and says, “Prove it. Prove it.”

And the same game could be played with any basic principle, like “everything that begins to exist has a cause.” He could just sit there saying “prove it prove it” all day long.

At that point, it’s clear you’re dealing with someone who’s willing to throw away the most basic starting points of reasoning just to keep the back-and-forth going. The biggest mistake you can make here is to play along on his terms. That's like playing by the skaptic's rules when trying to "prove" that the external world exists. The only thing you can do with that sort of person is try to make the point clearer with examples and analogies, but you can’t stop them from just repeating “prove it prove it” forever if that’s all they want to do.

The basic idea here is simple: A chain where every link “hangs” from another link with no hook doesn’t become self-supporting by just being long. At every point you still have “this is hanging because that is hanging” with nothing that hangs without borrowing its "hanging". Adding up borrowers doesn’t magically create an owner that can intelligibly ground whatever it is they're borrowing to begin with. If no part has the ability to hold itself up, then no combination of them will suddenly gain that ability.

So either you stop with the endless stack of turtles (none of which explains why there is an endless stack of turtles) or you end the dependence in something independent. Those are the only live options. Your mission is to choose the one that sounds less retarded.

*ALL* schools of Islamic theology agree with the above line of reasoning about dependence and explanation. Not just with the conclusion, but with the reasoning itself (cuz the brother was saying something like ThE reAsonIng is WeAk" earlier).

That's nothing like the claim that a mere infinite past is impossible. There isn’t even agreement on that among the mutakallimin themselves, let alone across all schools.

[Abdul Rahman (TAP) @abdul_now]

87 pages and counting. Soon, insha'Allah 🦾

[al-Darawardi @SchizoPashtun]

This is the manuscript of the hadith work Tahdhib al-Kamal by Imam al-Mizzi, in his own handwriting.

Imam al-Mizzi often read parts of it in the presence of his son, daughter, and grandchildren, and was close to Imam Ibn Taymiyyah as well as the father-in-law of Imam Ibn Kathir.

[OnePath Network @OnePathNetwork]

NZ Green Party Co-Leader Suspended After Calling for Sanctions on Israel

Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has been expelled from New Zealand’s Parliament after delivering a fiery address calling on the government to impose sanctions on Israel for its ongoing war crimes against the Palestinian people. During a heated debate on Tuesday, Swarbrick condemned the government’s reluctance to act, declaring that only “six of 68 Government MPs with a spine” were needed to stand on the right side of history. Her refusal to retract the statement or apologise saw Speaker Gerry Brownlee order her removal from the chamber, effectively silencing one of the most outspoken voices in support of Palestinian rights.

[Ovalı @ovali1978]

@ShamsTameez Allah rahmet eylesin üstat.

[Ahmet Hüsrev @AhmedHusrv]

Kevseri, Ehli sünnet akidesinin altını oymak için mücadele etmiş üçkağıtçı bir Çerkes milliyetçisidir. (Çerkes milliyetçiliği konusunda Ali Ulvi Kurucu'nun hatıralarına bakabilirsiniz)
Mısır'da Arap dünyasının klasik İslami eserlere yönelmesi sonucunda ehli sünnetin temel anlayışı olan selef akidesinin yeniden parlamasını sabote etmek için tashih edilmeye başlanılan el yazmaları konusunda devamlı yalan ve tahrife başvurmuş, bununla da yetinmeyip selef imamlarına dil uzatıp şahsiyetlerinin değerini düşürerek başarılı olabileceğini zannetmiş düşük profilli bir mezhepçidir.
Türkiye'de yükselen selefiliği bu düşük profilli meddahın yalanlarını tekrarlayarak durduracaklarını zannediyorlar. Yıllarca Türkiye'de ehli sünnetin temel anlayışı sanki Muhammed b. Abdulvahhab veya ibni Teymiyye'den sadır olmuş gibi propaganda yaptılar fakat son 10 yılda klasik İslami eserlerin özellikle ehli sünnet akidesinin temel metinlerinin tercüme edilmesiyle insanlar bu akidenin hiç te ibn Teymiyye'den değil direk sahabeden ve ehli sünnetin ilk imamlarından geldiğini gördü, Kevseri de zaten zamanında bu yüzden o âlimlere dil uzatıp itibarsızlaştırmaya çalıştı, onun nezdinde bir hanefinin ehli sünnet yerine mutezili veya cehmi olması "haşevi" olmasından iyiydi.
Henüz bu küçük kevseri mukallitleri hocaları gibi ileriye gitmeye cesaret edemiyorlar, sözkonusu Ahmed b. Hanbel, imam Buhari gibi isimler olunca saygıyla anıyor kendi değerleriymiş gibi savunuyorlar fakat sözkonusu bu imamların akidesine gelince hepsi ölü taklidi yapıyor, aslında burada mesele bir anlayışa muhalif olmakta değil, tarih boyunca isim sıfat meselesi veya akidevi farklılıklar ekollerinin alimleri tarafından karşılıklı tartışılmış ve reddiyeler verilmiş fakat kendi düşüncesinin doğruluğunu ispatlamak için sahtekarlığa başvurmak bu başka bir seviye...
Hele bir de bu sahtekar ve yaydığı yalanlar yüceltiliyorsa acınacak hale düşmüşsünüz farkında değilsiniz.

[Ovalı @ovali1978]

Eğer tecsim ve teşbih ehilinin (ki bunlardan kasıt ehli hadis ulemanın ekseriyetidir) korkulu rüyası bu müfteri ve azgın mutaassıp ise, biz size gidin daha kaliteli alim getirin deyip tebessüm eder geçeriz.

[إسماعيل القمر @el_esari1]

Tecsim ve teşbih ehlinin korkulu rüyası bir ilim hazinesi Muhammed Zahid el-Kevseri (rah).

Rabbim İslam'a yaptığı hizmetleri izzetli dergahında kabul etsin. Amin