when you read imam sabuni's aqidah - without the commentaries, you find that he quotes from the likes imam hakim - well known ash'ari imam. he mentions abu bakr al-ismayili al-jurjani, who is among the students of imam abul hasan al-ash'ari. he passed away in 371 AH. he was 94 years old. --- here he even praises ibn mahdi because "he followed the salaf" along with his "expertise in ilm al-kalam" and who is ibn mahdi? he is abul hasan ali ibn muhammad ibn mahdi al-Tabari, among the students of imam abul Hasan al-ashari. here he quotes shaykh abu bakr al-ismayili: here he mentions the anecdote of imam malik concerning istiwa: 'kayf ghayr ma'lum" no wonder the zanadiqah had to write 200 pages of footnotes to forcibly push their putrid aqidah.
but the mad'khali zindiq takes the cake. he writes five pages on it and the zindiq starts with: "firstly: he was a human, and humans make errors. he was not ma'sum". this is an easy argument. anything their hawaa does not approve of, say: 'he was a human, made a mistake'. but can ibn taymiyyah have a mistake? hasha lillah! how can he? filthy liars and their accursed lies claiming they follow the salaf. the reason i highlighted pages of the original book and wahabi editions is because of this. if you read sabuni's work, he comes across as an ash'ari quoting famous ashayira! but the zanadiqah, try to distort and claim they follow the salaf. la'anatullahi ala'l kadhibeen.
in the commentary, ghunayman is confident that sabuni is wrong. he has ilm ghayb on what sabuni actually meant and what he said was according to ibn taymiyyah. "it cannot be that this was his intention [i.e. to visit the qabr of nabiyAllah] - because one cannot travel to visit only the qabr of nabiy alayhis salatu wa's salam. none of these zanadiqah have an explicit hadith that prohibits visit to the grave of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam why do they do ta'wil of masjid with qabr? indeed, if the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam wished to prohibit it, he would have explicitly done so. do they not read the hadith: ==== so why do they not act upon this hadith? and other ahadith of this meaning?
looked up the jadeeyi edition: this aHmaq is second-guessing sabuni. and even invented a fanciful explanation. "maybe he meant journey to the masjid of RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam - because some ulama use the expression: "visit to the grave" to mean "undertake a journey" and then of course, he fell down in prostration to his taghut ibn taymiyyah thereafter. ---- this is quite amusing. describing 'safar' / 'journey' - some ulama used the expression "visiting the grave" imagine this: wahabi 1: "i have a conference in london" wahabi 2: "ok. when are you going to visit the grave?" w1: "oh, my visit to the grave is on the 3rd" morons. ==== the second is more deeper. anything they do not agree, they blacken the pages with extensive explanation - lots of verbosity, and citing ibn taymiyyah over and over to the point of nausea. how can you even cite sabuni? it would be better if they just abandoned him, instead of forcing his book to conform to their fasid aqidah. -----
we tried the mansuri edition, p.34 this idiot is at different level. "I say: it is not permitted by shariah to undertake a journey to visit the grave of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam this is because of the hadith of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam: "it is not permitted to undertake a journey except towards 3 masajid - my masjid, masjid al-haram, and masjid al-aqsa" so where is he following the "salaf"? he is openly contradicting him. sabuni may say so but it is not right. you do not follow the salaf. "i say" look at the arrogance... --- suddenly the simple salafi method goes on a hike. where did the hadith include qabr? if it is absolute, then no one should undertake ANY journey. if it is explained, then why should ibn taymiyyah's explanation be treated as wahy? i invite all the worshippers of ibn taymiyyah to do tawbah, and become muslims.
the miskin shamsuddin is does not seem to be a fully rabid. he has the disease, but he is willing to accept this 'qabr visit' as well. -- lets check the badr al-badr edition. he doesn't have much to say, except where he has to correct the author whom they deem 'salaf'. the first correction: so this badr zindiq says: "it was better if the author - may Allah have mercy upon him - if he said: "visit the masjid of the Prophet" because that which is allowed by shariah is undertaking a journey with the intention of visiting masjid of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam not his qabr. for detailed explanation on this refer to the two books of shaykhul islam ibn taymiyyah..." see? their claim of following salaf is a lie. their manner indicates that even if the prophet alayhi's salatu wa's salam or even the Lord of Creation, sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala had explicitly said something - these filthy zanadiqah would argue and say: 'it would be better if Allah had said this way. because ibn taymiyyah's opinion is THE LAW". al iyadhu billah, astaghfirullah, ta'ala Allahu uluwwan kabiraa. it is this kind of imbeciles, the qur'an refuted:
in a sixth version, edited by one shamsuddin, the book is 202 pages. --- as you can see the old edition with the tahrif was difficult to justify, so all these modern wahabi editions, reverted to "qabrin nabiy" BUT with lengthy footnotes correcting imam sabuni. so you know the false claim follow. check: here, he acknowledges that some printed editions said "masjid" but it is not found in manuscripts and "qabr" is the correct word. after this, he writes a lengthy footnote on how sabuni actually meant: "masjid". this is because their biggest idol ibn taymiyyah, the first heretic to broach this aqidah, and it appears all these morons worship ibn taymiyyah. they will even do tahrif of the quran to prove their taghut right. --- instead of simply acknowledging that the salaf visited the qabr of nabi sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. and it is a practice of the salaf - these madmen, who rave worse than rabid dogs - try to correct the "salaf". who is following the salaf?
so i downloaded five different versions - all printed by wahabis and one by the rabid-heretic madkhali. may Allah destroy them all and their fitna. ---- now, this risalah in manuscript is MS1 is 34 pages MS2 is also 34 pages MS3 is sparsely written 96 pages [15 lines and generous margins] see MS3 sample below: ---- the old print [without footnotes, explanations and commentary] is also 65 pages --- why do i say this? because the wahabi editions are THICK - in both meanings of the word. 1. nasir ibn abdul rahman al-jadeey edition, 392 pages. / actual book starts at p.155 2. abdullah ibn muhammad al-ghunayman edition, 281 pages (this is a commentary) 3. abu'l yameen al-mansuri edition, 144 pages / book starts at p34 4. badr al-badr edition, 160 pages / book starts at p18 5. rabeey ibn hadee al madkhali edition / 357 pages this is a commentary. ---- so when the so called salafi says "sabuni's work" he means, sabuni as interpreted by the wahabi anthropomorphists. the hashawi devils. therefore sabuni's work on its own will hang the salafi. he needs the poison of the wahabis/madhkali shayateen to make his point. you may think i am being unreasonable. watch.
the wahabis extol sabuni's work, "aqidah salaf ahl al-hadith" and present as if they accept it as their aqidah. whereas they are accursed liars and frauds, who use the book where they feel it supports their arguments and freely disagree and even try to correct the author. so their claim of following 'salaf' is flexible. like saying "paint the car any colour as long as it is black". let me give you an example. --- in the opening of his book, imam sabuni mentions the reason he wrote it and this was printed by a salafi thus. [i tried to find this edition, but couldn't. however it is posted on wikipedia article: https://tinyurl.com/ye242zny] i was taken aback. because, this term "ziyarat masjid al-nabiy" is a post ibn taymiyyah mendacity. so i checked a few manuscripts: in all these cases, the correct word was: "wa ziyarati qabri nabiyyihi alayhi's salatu wa's salam". i found a fairly old PLAIN edition as well:
