Allah ‘Sits Cross-Legged’? Shia Lie Debunked

One of the many lies of the Rafidaht that comes in the form of a shubhah (doubt/spurious argument) and that I have encountered a number of times myself online by the principle enemies of Ahlus-Sunnah, the Rafidah, is the claim that Sunnis (‘Vahhabis‘) believe that Allah sits ‘cross-legged’. The ignorant Rafidah usually cite some proofs (spoofs) that they don’t understand without realising that of course.

One particular individual who shamelessly repeats this shubhah is zindiq Syed (Sayed) Ali Imam (head of the ‘Bayaat al-Ghadeer‘ loser group), he even did so in one of their videos where they tried to divert people from the disaster which is the pagan nature of Imamism with the (notorious Rafidi) distraction tactic that is shifting the attention to the names and attributes of Allah (a topic which is way above the pay grade of these ignoramuses who can’t recite a Fatihah with semi-correct Tajwid).

As for the shubhah:

عن عبيد بن حنين قال بينا أنا جالس إذ جاءني قتادة بن النعمان فقال انطلق بنا يا ابن جبير إلى أبي سعيد فانطلقنا حتى دخلنا على أبي سعيد الخدري فوجدناه مستلقيا رافعا رجله اليمنى على اليسرى فسلمنا و جلسنا فرفع قتادة بن النعمان يده إلى رجل أبي سعيد فقرصها قرصة شديدة فقال أبو سعيد سبحان الله يا ابن أم لقد أوجعتني فقال له ذلك أردت إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال إن الله لما قضى خلقه استلقى فوضع رجله على الأخرى و قال لا ينبغي لأحد من خلقي أن يفعل هذا فقال أبو سعيد والله لا أفعله أبدا

On the authority of ‘Ubaid ibn Hunayn who reports: While I was sitting, Qatadah ibn al-Nu’man came to me and said, “Come with me, O Ibn Jubayr, to Abu Sa’id.”

So we walked until we reached Abu Sa’id al Khudri’s presence and found him lying on his back with his right leg raised upon his left. We greeted and sat down. Qatadah ibn al Nu’man raised his hand and pinched Abu Sa’id’s leg very viciously. Abu Sa’id screamed, “Glory be to Allah, O son of a mother. You hurt me.”

“That is what I intended,” Qatadah responded, “certainly the Apostle of Allah (ﷺ) said: When Allah completed His creation, He lied on His back and placed His one leg on the other and declared, ‘It is not appropriate for anyone after Me to do this.’”

Abu Sa’id said, “By Allah, I will never do it again.”

Reference: Ibtal al-Ta`wilat by Abu Ya’la Muhammad ibn al-Husayn Ibn al-Farra` (458 A.H ), commonly known as al-Qadi Abu Ya’la or simply as Ibn al-Farra` the Hanbali

The Rafidah juhhal emphasise the following marked part on the right:

Abu Muhammad al-Khallal said: “All of the narrators of this hadith are truth worthy, and they’re all truth worthy according to the conditions of two Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim.”
The person who has translated the right part for them forgot the left page, and this is how Allah exposes the Rafidah with their own hands. On the left page (see arrow in the footnotes) we read:
“Al-Albani mentioned the hadith in his al-Dha’ifah (755, collection of weak and unreliable reports) and declared it as having discrepancies and that it is from the Isra`iliyyat (which are not to be taken in matters of creed or fiqh).”

In short: this narration is a fabrication, al-Khallal and other than him merely spoke on the Isnad (chain of narration). Of the ABC of hadith science is that even if the chain of narration of an athar or hadith is (seemingly) sahih, the matn (text) will also be taken into consideration and also hidden defects in the chain (‘illal).

Also, even if al-Khallal authenticated the narration (and not just its chain), he and bigger than him are not infallible Imams of Ahlus-Sunnah, and the truth is that the narration about Allah allegedly ‘sitting cross-legged’ is unreliable and from Isra`iliyyat and thus has never been declared as an attribute of Allah by the jumoor (generality) of Sunni-Salafi scholarship.

As a matter of fact, only the likes who were known for their ghuluw (excessiveness) in the matter of ithbat al-Sifat (the affirmation of the attributes of Allah) where they relied on weak and flimsy reports) accepted such narrations and attributes, may Allah forgive them for that, they do not represent Sunni-Salafi creed, their opinions are shadh ( irregular, abnormal, etc.) and therefore no hujjah (argument) against Ahlus-Sunnah. Simple.

These are again basics that the ignorant Rawafid are of course clueless about.

Sunni-Salafi scholars on the alleged attribute of Allah sitting cross-legged:

Shaykh Al-Albani said regarding the hadith of Allah ‘sitting cross-legged’:
قال الألباني رحمه الله في ” ظلال الجنة ” (1/ 249):
” إسناده ضعيف ، والمتن منكر ، كأنه من وضع اليهود ” انتهى .

وقال في ” الضعيفة ” (755) : ” منكر جدا ” .

“The isnad is weak and the matn (text) is munkar like as if it was fabricated by the Jews.”

[Al-Albani said in his ‘Dhilal al-Jannah’ (249/1):]
He also said: “It is extremely munkar (denounced).” (Silsilat al-Ahadith al- Dha’ifah wa al-Mawdhu’ah, 755)

Shaykh al-Abani rightfully referred to the narration as a (likely) Jewish fabrication. The scholars know these matters for the simple fact that the matn (text) was never part of the creed of the Salaf. Also, Shaykh al-Albani cites as evidence (the narration being of Judaic origin) the following piece:

ثم وجدت في بعض الآثار ما يشهد لكون الحديث من الإسرائيليات ، فروى الطحاوي في ” شرح المعاني ” ( 2 / 361 ) – بسند حسن – أنه قيل للحسن ( وهو البصري ) : قد كان يكره أن يضع الرجل إحدى رجليه على الأخرى ؟ فقال : ما أخذوا ذلك إلا عن اليهود ” .
ثم رأيت البيهقي سبقني إلى الكلام على الحديث بنحو ما ظهر لي ، فقال في ” الأسماء والصفات ” ( ص 355 ) بعد أن ساقه من طريق إبراهيم بن المنذر عن محمد بن فليح : ” فهذا حديث منكر ، ولم أكتبه إلا من هذا الوجه ، وفليح بن سليمان مع كونه من شرط البخاري ومسلم ، فلم يخرجا حديثه هذا في ” الصحيح ” ، وهو عند بعض الحفاظ غير محتج به ” .

ثم روى بسنده عن ابن معين قال : لا يحتج بحديثه . وفي رواية : قال : ضعيف . قال : وبلغني عن النسائي أنه قال : ليس بالقوي . قال : ” فإذا كان فليح بن سليمان المدني مختلفا في جواز الاحتجاج به عند الحفاظ لم يثبت بروايته مثل هذا الأمر العظيم . وفيه علة أخرى ، وهي أن قتادة بن النعمان مات في خلافة عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه . وصلى عليه عمر ، وعبيد بن حنين مات سنة خمس ومائة ، وله خمس وسبعون سنة في قول الواقدي وابن بكير ، فتكون روايته عن قتادة منقطعة ، وقول الراوي : وانطلقنا حتى دخلنا على أبي سعيد لا يرجع إلى عبيد بن حنين ، وإنما يرجع إلى من أرسله عنه ، ونحن لا نعرفه ، فلا تقبل المراسيل في الأحكام ، فكيف في هذا الأمر العظيم ؟! ” .

In a summarised: Al-Albani quotes authentic reports from the Salaf (like Hasan al-Basri) where they affirmed that such a belief – Allah sitting cross-legged – is Judaic in origin and not from Islam. He also quotes further pieces of evidence (by al-Bayhaqi) to strengthen his point.

Shia objection:

But this has been mentioned in your highly revered books like Kitab al-Sunnah by Ibn Abi Qasim!


The Imam, the Great Hafidh, the one who closely followed the narrations, Abu Bakr Ahmad bin ‘Amr bin Abi Asim al-Dahhak ibn Makhlad al-Shaybani (206/822 – 287/900), famously known as Ibn Abi Asim was an Imam from among the Imams of the Salaf. He was born in present-day Iraq but later in his life left Basra for Isfahan (pre-Safavid-Shi’i i.e. Sunni Persia) where he was granted a position as a judge. He died in Isfahan in the year 900. According to Sunni Iranian historian Abu Nu’aym, Ibn Abi Asim was buried in Isfahan’s Doshabaz cemetery (the anti-Sunni Safavid authorities desecrated his and all Sunni scholars’ graves in modern-day Iran).

Indeed, he’s the author of Kitab al-Sunnah, however, it includes reliable and unreliable narrations. Yes, of course, it serves as a source ‘aqidah and manhaj, however, not unrestrictedly, and no Sunni-Salafi authority has claimed otherwise (i.e. that it is a completely sahih book). On the contrary, Sunni-Salafi scholars have commented on it (just like they have done on other similar books) and rejected weak and unreliable content in it, a delicate fact that Shia polemicists and their likes won’t mention of course.

The Sunni-Salafi scholar Jabir ibn Idris ibn ‘Ali Ameer writes in his famous book and doctoral thesis called:

مقالة التشبيه وموقف أهل السنة منها

The notion of al-Tashbeeh (resemblance i.e. likening Allah to the creation) and the position of Ahlus-Sunnah with regards to it

<img class=”alignleft size-full wp-image-2989″ src=”

Highlighted parts:

‘Despite the clear methodology of Ahlus-Sunnah regarding the Nusoos al-Sifat (reports about the attributes of Allah) which are based on the Book (of Allah) and the authentic Sunnah, some of the Ahlus-Sunnah had their shortcomings with regards to abiding by this methodology when they included some weak and fabricated narrations in their books which have served the mu’atillah (sifat deniers like the Jahmiyyah, Mu’tazilah, Khawarij, Rawafid, and their likes) in their accusations of Tashbeeh (resemblance i.e. likening Allah to the creation) and hashw*
*Hashw or Hashawiyyah is a derogatory term (meaning the worthless, lowly ones) originating with the Mu'tazilah who used it against those who did not make ta`weel of the sifaat (attributes) that they (the Mu'tazilah) rejected. It was then taken up by the Rafidah, Zaydiyyah, Ibadhiyyah, Maturidiyyah, and Ash'ariyyah who used it against the people of Sunnah and Hadith for their affirmation of the Attributes.
Shaykh Ameer proceeds:
‘As an example, among these hadith is the one reported by Ibn Abi ‘Asim […] “have you not heard the Apostle of Allah (ﷺ) saying: When Allah completed His creation, He lied on His back and placed His one leg on the other and declared, ‘It is not appropriate for anyone to do this.’”

Abu Sa’id said, “Yes.”

Indeed, this hadith is weak and its matn (text) is munkar (denounced) as if it was concocted by the Jews, as mentioned by Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Albani.’

[Jabir ibn Idris ibn ‘Ali Ameer, The notion of al-Tashbeeh (resemblance i.e. likening Allah to the creation) and the position of Ahlus-Sunnah with regards to it, pg. 342-343]

Of course, Shaykh al-Albani was not alone in his verdict. Here the website of the famous Salafi-Athari Shaykh (of Syrian origin) Salih al-Munajjid where he beautifully breaks down why the narration is weak and munkar:
Plenty of evidence is cited, among them:
Ibn Kathir:
وقال ابن كثير رحمه الله :
” هذا إسناد غريب جداً ، وفيه نكارة شديدة ، ولعله متلقى من الإسرائيليات ، اشتبه على بعض الرواة فرفعه إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ” .
انتهى من ” جامع المسانيد والسنن ” (7/ 91) .”This chain is very odd and it contains severe discrepancies, perhaps it was taken from Isra`iliyyat and some of the narrators confused it and attributed it to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.” (Jami’ al-Masanid wa al-Sunan, 91/7)
Al-Bayhaqi said:

وقال البيهقي على هذا الحديث :
” هَذَا حَدِيثٌ مُنْكَرٌ ، وَلَمْ أَكْتُبْهُ إِلَّا مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ ، وَفُلَيْحُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ مَعَ كَوْنِهِ مِنْ شَرْطِ الْبُخَارِيُّ وَمُسْلِمٍ ، فَلَمْ يُخْرِجَا حَدِيثَهُ هَذَا فِي الصَّحِيحِ ، وَهُوَ عِنْدَ بَعْضِ الْحُفَّاظِ غَيْرُ مُحْتَجٍّ بِهِ .

“This hadith is munkar (denounced)…”

Sahih narrations like the following further prove that the narration about Allah allegedly ‘sitting cross-legged’ are nothing but a fabrication:

عن عبد الله بن زيد رضى الله عنه أنه رأى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مستلقياً في المسجد، واضعاً إحدى رجليه على الأخرى‏. (‏‏(‏متفق عليه‏)‏‏)‏‏‏.

‘Abdullah bin Zaid (may Allah be pleased with them) reported:

“I saw Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) lying down on his back in the mosque, placing one leg on the other.” (Bukhari and Muslim)

وعن جابر بن سمرة رضى الله عنه قال‏:‏ كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا صلى الفجر تربع في مجلسه حتى تطلع الشمس حسناء‏.‏ حديث صحيح، رواه أبو داود وغيره بأسانيد صحيحة‏.‏

Jabir bin Samurah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported:After the Fajr (dawn) prayer the Prophet (ﷺ) used to sit crossed legged in the same place in which he had prayed till the sun shone brightly. (Abu Dawud)

As matter of fact, Imam Nawawi put an entire chapter in his Riyadh al-Salihin called:

باب جواز الاستلقاء على القفا ووضع إحدى الرجلين على الأخرى إذا لم يخف انكشاف العورة وجواز القعود متربعاً ومحتبياً

Chapter: Manners of Lying down on one’s back and placing one leg upon the Other

These authentic narrations prove that it is indeed permissible for anyone to sit cross-legged, thus, the narration that claims that it is not appropriate for anyone to sit cross-legged except for Allah is a clear fabrication.

Finally: Al-Khallal (nor Ibn al-Qayyim to whom this lies is also attributed) never said that it is permissible for anyone to say that Allah sits cross-legged, his actual belief is based on a sahih hadith that is identical to many verses in the Qur’an:

البخاري عن قتادة بن النعمان رضي الله عنه قال : سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول : ” لما فرغ الله من خلقه استوى على عرشه

When Allah finished with His creation, He rose over His Throne.” (Bukhari)

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said:

قال ابن القيم رجمه الله :

” وَرَوَى الْخَلَّالُ فِي كِتَابِ السُّنَّةِ بِإِسْنَادٍ صَحِيحٍ عَلَى شَرْطِ الْبُخَارِيِّ عَنْ قَتَادَةَ بْنِ النُّعْمَانِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: ( لَمَّا فَرَغَ اللَّهُ مِنْ خَلْقِهِ اسْتَوَى عَلَى عَرْشِهِ )” انتهى من ” اجتماع الجيوش الإسلامية على غزو المعطلة والجهمية ” (2/ 107) .

“Al-Khallal has narrated in his book ‘al-Sunnah- with a sahih chain…: When Allah finished with His creation, He rose over His Throne.” (Ijtimah’ al-Juyush al-Islamiyyah ‘ala Gahzu al-Mu’attilah wa al-Jahmiyyah by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah)

Al-Dhahabi agrees with him in his al-‘Uluww, p. 63.

As for al-Khallal stating that The chain of narration in whole is trustworthy along with it on the criteria of Al Bukhari and Al Muslim. then as mentioned before, every beginner student (except the Rafidah) of the Alif Baa` of hadith science knows that such statements do not equate that the hadith itself is sahih, especially not if experts in the field, i.e. muhaddithoon have pointed out and proven the weakness and discrepancies of the hadith (e.g. all narrators can be thuqat/trustworthy but the chain as a hidden defect or its chain is not connected or the narrators made mistakes and thus the matn is corrupt).

Of course, the disingenuous and deceptive Rafidi ‘scholars’ and polemicists and those who repeat these kinds of shubuhat won’t mention such delicate facts, why would they? It would just expose them as the charlatans they are, even in the eyes of their gullible following (may Allah guide them).

In either case, it is sufficient that major Sunni-Athari authorities (classical and contemporary ones) have rejected this hadith and so-called attribute (Allah allegedly ‘sitting cross-legged’) and proven it to be weak and of fabricated nature.

But some Sunni scholars did affirm the attribute of Allah sitting cross-legged!


From the usool of Islam is that:

أقوال العلماء يحتج لها لا بها

‘The statements of the scholars are not proof in and by themselves, rather they need to be backed with proof.’

So  anybody’s words (if not substantiated with sound proofs) can be rejected, or in the words of Imam Malik (or what is attributed to him and was said by others before him) when he pointed to the Prophet’s (ﷺ) grave:

كل يُؤخذ من كلامه ويُرد إلا صاحب هذا القبر

‘Everyone’s statement can be taken or rejected except for the companion of this grave’

The only person whose speech was ever taken without skepticism was the Prophet (ﷺ), so the principle enemies of Ahlus-Sunnah, the Rafidah, are clutching at straws when they cite a minority of scholars who believed in the attribute of Allah sitting cross-legged based on flimsy narrations that have been deemed as weak by the highest Sunni authority of hadith in the past and today.

What the Rafidah do in their deception (and desperation) is to cite a bunch of Sunni scholars who merely commented on the isnad (chain of narration) of the narration, and as explained earlier, from the basics of hadith science is that a scholar declaring a chain of narration to be sahih =/= hadith sahih i.e. excepted as a Prophetic tradition and part of Sunni/Salafi creed.

So don’t fall for the names and scans they show on their websites, they mean nothing and they lie when they claim that the majority of Athari scholars authenticated the narration of Allah sitting-cross-legged. Authenticating means more than commenting on the isnad, the truth is – as proven in this article – major Sunni scholars of the past and contemporary ones have strongly rejected the hadith and declared it a fabrication (worse than just being weak!), thus it is thus not surprising to find out that none other than a few odd Sunni scholars (who were harshly criticised by their peers) actually authenticated the hadith i.e. the sanad and the matn and accepted it as an attribute of Allah. Among them is al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la al-Baghdadi also known as al-Farra` al-Hanbali (458H) who said:


–  أبو يعلى الفراء الحنبلي ( المتوفى سنة 458 هـ )

قال في كتابه « اعلم أن هذا الخبر يفيد أشياء منها جواز إطلاق الاستلقاء عليه ، لا على وجه الاستراحة ، بل على صفة لا تعقل معناها ، وأن له رجلين كما له يدام وأنه يضع إحداهما على الأخرى على صفة لا نعقلها ، إذ ليس في حمله على ظاهره ما يحيل صفاته » إبطال التأويلات ج1/ ص190

‘Know that this report carries benefits, like resting of (Allah) on His back, not as in resting, rather as an attribution that we cannot comprehend . And He also has two legs just like he has two hands and he puts one (leg) over the other in a manner that we can’t comprehend…’
[Ibtal al-Ta`wilat, vol. 1, pg. 190]

As you can see, this is actually the most blatant statement and actual authentification of the hadith, yet it holds zero weight as it is not based on any authentic reports. On top of that, those statements were uttered by a scholar who fell into some forms of ghuluw (extremism) concerning the issue of Ithbat al-Sifat (affirmation of attributes) due to his weakness in hadith.

Abu Ya’la no doubt had a lot of truth with him, since he supported the generality of the way of the Salaf, except that he had a type of falsehood which is ghuluw (exaggeration) in ithbat, and these are not my words but the words of major Sunni-Salafi authorities like Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Dhahabi:

Al-Dhahabi mentions in al-Siyar (18/90):

He (Abu Ya’la) compiled the book Ibtal ta’weel al-Sifaat and so they stood against him on account of what it contained of weak and fabricated narrations … and the book Ibtaal al-Ta’weel was carried to al-Qadir Billaah (the ruler) and it amazed him, and many affairs and tribulations occurred, we ask Allah for safety. Then the minister, ‘Ali ibn al-Muslimah rectified between the two parties (Ash’arites and Abu Ya’la and his followers), and he announced openly, “The Qur’an is the speech of Allah and the reports pertaining to the attributes are to be passed on just as they have come.”

In al-Siyar 18/91 he mentions:

He (Abu Ya’la) did not have great experience in the knowledge of hadith, and perhaps he used weak narrations as proof.

It is from the justice of Ahlus-Sunnah that they have criticised and scolded their own, as in the case of al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la who was criticised by both, the people of the Sunnah and his opponent. Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that Abu Ya’la did not have the expertise in these areas of separating the weak from the authentic that the earlier Imams did:

And whilst he connected (the chains) of the ahadith he (Abu Ya’la) mentioned, and also mentioned their narrators, there are many fabricated ahadith therein, such as the hadith of the [Prophet’s] seeing [Allah] with the eyes on the night of the ascent [of the Prophet] and its likes. And also within them are things from some of the Salaf, which some of the people reported in marfu’ form , such as the Prophet (ﷺ) sitting on the Throne, some of the people have narrated this through many routes of transmission in marfu’ form, but all of them are fabricated … for this reason and others, Rizqullah al-Tamimi [d. 448H] and others from the [later] associates of Ahmad spoke against al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la’s authorship of this book with very harsh words, and his enemies poured scorn upon him on account of things he was innocent of, as he mentioned at the end of the book.

[Ibn Taymiyyah, Dar’ al-Ta’arudh al-‘Aql wa al-Naql, 5/237-238]

So the likes of Abu Ya’la fell into what they fell into due to them not being grounded in the field of hadith and so they affirmed baseless narrations, however, they were not Mujassimah nor Mushabbihah in the real sense of the word as their principles were sound but their conclusions were faulty (due to their reliance on weak reports).
And this, my brothers and sisters, is actually the best the Rafidah and other Jahmites can put forward their futile attempts to refute and defame Ahlus-Sunnah. To their despair, none other than major Sunni-Salafi scholars have refuted the likes of Abu Ya’la (may Allah have mercy upon him) and his ghuluw pertaining to the attribution of repugnant baseless matters for Allah.


The Rafidi shubhah (like all other of their spurious arguments) reaffirms what the scholars, the people of knowledge, agree upon, namely that the Rafidah are most lying and ignorant of all of the (deviant) groups when it comes to the transmittal and the knowledge of narrations. This is because lying amongst them is an ancient matter, and for this reason, the Scholars of Islam used to know that they are distinguished with abundant lying.

الرافضة أكذب طوائف الأمة على الإطلاق ، وهم أعظم الطوائف المدّعية للإسلام غلوا وشركاً
مجموع فتاوى لشيخ الإسلام بن تيمية
The Rafidah are by far the most lying of all groups of this Ummah. They are the most extreme and polytheistic of all groups that ascribe to islam.” (Majmu’ al-Fatawa by Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah)

وقال في وصف الرافضة: «ولا يوجد في جميع الطوائف لا أكذب منهم، ولا أظلم منهم، ولا أجهل منهم

منهاج السنة لشيخ الإسلام بن تيمية

“No is no [deviant] group more lying and unjust and ignorant as them (the Rafidah).” (Minah al-Sunnah by Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah)

And Imam al-Shafi’i said:

الإمام الشافعي رحمه الله
لم أر أحداً من أهل الأهواء أشهد بالزور من الرافضة! – الخطيب في الكفاية والسوطي

“I have not seen among the people of desires (heretics) a people more famous for falsehood than the Rafidah.” (narrated by al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi/al-Kifayah)

Challenge to all Rafidah:

If you are truthful in your claim (Salafis/Sunnis believe Allah sits cross-legged) present us a single Sunni-Athari book of creed that mentions that Allah sits cross-legged and that this is from the ‘Aqidah of the Salaf/Ahlus-Sunnah!The mere existence of such reports (as explained) in books that contain weak narrations (Kitab al-Sunnah by Ibn Abi ‘Asim) means nothing, what obviously counts is evidence is the adoption of such a belief by Sunni scholars who have declared it as a belief of Ahlus-Sunnah.

It should be an easy task really, Sunni-Salafi books of ‘Aqidah have been translated into numerous languages, the following books represent the creed of Ahlus-Sunnah wa al-Athar:

– Al-Wasitiyyah
– Al-Hamawiyyah
– Aqidah of the two Razis (Persian Sunni-Salafis)
– Al-Tahawiyyah (with Shuruh)

Which Sunni authority has declared that Allah sitting-crossed-legged as a sifah/attribute of Allah (other than those with shadh/irregular and rejected opinions who were scolded)? If this is part of Sunni-Salafi creed then it shouldn’t be difficult to cite the books of ‘Aqidah and thousands upon thousands of lectures of the scholars that are available with the mentioning and affirmation of such a belief.

Of course, nobody can prove such a belief, as it is not Sunni-Salafi belief; the simple truth is that the bulk of Ahlus-Sunnah wa al-Athar have always rejected such fabrications and the Rafidah are in no position to dictate what and what is not Sunni-Salafi belief, for Ahlus-Sunnah would certainly not fear the humiliated Rafidah.

If you can’t find our scholars affirming the batil/false belief stating that Allah sits cross-legged, then know that the curse of Allah is on the liars, whenever you claim that it is a Sunni-Salafi belief.

Ahlus-Sunnah have filled their books of creeds with authentically reported sifat of Allah, like Him, subhanahu wa ta’ala, putting His foot over the Hellfire which is as ‘anthropomorphic’ (the real issue of the Jahmites is the Qur’an, it is inherently anthropomorphic to them) as Allah grabbing the Heavens with his hand:

وَمَا قَدَرُوْا اللّٰهَ حَقَّ قَدۡرِهٖ ​ۖ  وَالۡاَرۡضُ جَمِيۡعًا قَبۡضَتُهٗ يَوۡمَ الۡقِيٰمَةِ وَالسَّمٰوٰتُ مَطۡوِيّٰتٌۢ بِيَمِيۡنِهٖ​ ؕ سُبۡحٰنَهٗ وَتَعٰلٰى عَمَّا يُشۡرِكُوۡنَ‏ –39:67

“They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him.”

[Noble Qur’an 39:67]

But what can we expect from the most humiliated and ignorant of all creation, the Rawafid, whose ‘learned’ people are utterly ignorant of the Qur’an like in the case of the jahil murakkab Syed (‘Sayed) Ali Imam (Bayat Al Ghadeer) who wasn’t even aware of the aforementioned verse and subsequently, based on his sheer ignorance and incompetence accused the Sahihayn and Ahlus-Sunnah of carrying anthropomorphic beliefs, not realising that the hadith he’s quoting is basically a paraphrased Qur’anic verse.

And this is the difference between us, Ahlus-Sunnah, and the Rafidah. We refute them left, right, and centre, we expose their polytheistic and kufri religion for the zandaqah (heresy) it is by quoting their top scholars of the past and present who utter shirk, kufr, zandaqah after zandaqah, whereas the Rafidah have to dig in our books in order to find some flimsy and non-representative reports (i.e. weak and fabricated narrations) or as an old Chinese prover goes, “Muddy waters makes it easy to catch fish” or as the Arabs say:

الصيد في الماء العكر

‘To Fish in Troubled Waters’

4 thoughts on “Allah ‘Sits Cross-Legged’? Shia Lie Debunked”

  1. This is a response to Dhulfikar Mashriqi’s article called: Hooman’s Ignorance and the Tradition of his God sitting crosslegged

    I’ve replied to your gibberish on your blog and I copy my response here as well:

    To being with, I don’t know you, you are an anonymous nobody, at least I show my face. Having said that, I have not insulted you, nor have I hurled insults at your jahil friend Syed Ali Imam. Terminologies like ‘jahil’ or ‘zindiq’ are not slur words, they are Islamic terminologies that I apply to you lot as it describes your reality. Having said that, you have written a lot of text with little substance, at times you have refuted yourself (typical for Rawafid), let me shoot you down and relieve you from your misery:

    1. O ignoramus, nobody has ever claimed that every person of desires is a heretic. Every Muslim (due to not being ma’soom) follows his desires at times. There are different levels of desires and lies, the worst people of Ahwa and Akadheeb are the Rafidah.

    2. Secondly it’s jarh not ‘jarah’, ya jahil” (go correct it quickly)

    3. The statement attributed to al-Shafi’i is neither related to ahkam nor Islamic aqidah, it is not a hadith nabawi or even riwayah attributed to a Sahabi. It is a true statement and hence acceptable, and don’t let me pull out the aqwal of the Shawafi’ who support these words.

    4. You are a jahil if you think (you even reluctantly admit that you are not sure) if only al-Albani weakened it.

    You said:

    “Can someone please inform this poor soul when you build an argument. It is based upon the main content of the Book not what researcher write in footnotes. That is researcher’s own opinion which can differ depending on methodology the scholar uses. Since he accepts Albani as an authority let us take a look at his view concerning the throne of Allah (swt);”

    Leave the red-herrings, my whole argument is built upon the fact that the author himself did not believe in the authenticity of the narration (and of course the researcher’s opinion is to be taken into consideration, especially if he is a major muhaddith).

    5. I have proven from SAHIH narration that sitting-cross-legged is permissible, this overrides the dha’if narration that you clutch onto, this holistic approach of mine is academic and if you had an ounce of sincerity you would admit to that.

    6. You said ‘Scholars are agreed upon that it is compulsory to act upon Authentic narration even if Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim have not quoted them in their books’

    Yes, but what you fail to understand is that weak and flimsy reports are to be viewed in the light of stronger narrations, especially the one in Bukhari, I’ve already explained it in point 5.

    7. In your ignorance you quoted: ‘Narrated from Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari who said: Prophet (saw) forbid us to sit with one leg upon another.

    Al Haythami then adds: Narrated by Tabarani in Awsat with all narrators reliable.’

    – All narrators reliable =/= hadith sahih
    – This is the exact SAME narration that not only al-Albani but the likes of Ibn Kathir, Dhahabi, and others declared as weak and munkar.

    8. You said:

    “Albani has accepted valid difference of opinion on the issue of sitting of a person with cross legged himself! He even tried to reconcile between the two types of narrations.”

    Show us his quote. Secondly, him agreeing on a difference of opinion can’t be based on narrations that claim that only Allah sits cross-legged as he completely rejects them. Show us if it is otherwise.

    9. You mentioned the likes of Abu Ya’la:

    “Abu Yala al Far’a”

    And that he authenticated such reports? So? Since when is Abu Ya’la anybody’s infallible Imam and the final word?

    Ibn Taymiyyah himself mentions that the likes of Abu Ya’la had ghuluw when it came to ithbat of alleged sifat (based on weak narrations):

    الغلو في الإثبات (أبو يعلى، والزاغوني، والهروي).

    You use big words, but you are not aware of such basics, embarrassing yourself like your Syed Ali Imam. The likes of Abu Ya’la are not a Hujjah to nobody on these matters.

    You also mentioned al-Khallal:

    “Abu Muhammad Al Khallal (Died 439 AH):

    He says: The chain of narration in whole is trustworthy along with it on the criteria of Al Bukhari and Al Muslim.”

    I already responded to that, there is no evidence that he declared the HADITH as SAHIH, refer to the end of my post.

    10. You said:

    “He was not even able to translate the whole text himself and yet he is lectures others on reading the footnotes!”

    I have translated entire treatises, so don’t nitpick, especially if you deceitfully cut my screenshot in half (see point 11). I have now translated the whole line, what difference does it make? It makes your case even worse as al-Abani rightfully refers to it as a (likely) Jewish fabrication and if you ask how he knows: the scholars of hadith know these matters for the simple fact that a sifah called cross-legged has never been authentically established by any authority, let alone being accepted by the jumhoor as Sunni creed.

    11. You said:

    “Anyone can read above that Al Haythami has not made any judgement on the narrations rather he has said:

    “Out of three teachers of Al Tabarani two are unknown and one is unreliable, and rest of the narrators are from Sahih Bukhari.”

    I stand corrected, but the irony is that you have refuted yourself. Yes, I was not al-Haythami who said it’s weak, but al-Haythami gave a clear indication when he said that there are UNKNOWN narrators and one unreliable one. If that was not enough, I correctly stated that al-Bayhaqi COMMENTED on the narration by al-Haythami and declared it as weak:

    Al-Haythami narrated it in his Majma’ al-Zawa’id vol. 8 pg. 100 and classified it as dha’if (weak).
    Al-Bayhaqi said:

    وقال البيهقي على هذا الحديث :
    ” هَذَا حَدِيثٌ مُنْكَرٌ ، وَلَمْ أَكْتُبْهُ إِلَّا مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ ، وَفُلَيْحُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ مَعَ كَوْنِهِ مِنْ شَرْطِ الْبُخَارِيُّ وَمُسْلِمٍ ، فَلَمْ يُخْرِجَا حَدِيثَهُ هَذَا فِي الصَّحِيحِ ، وَهُوَ عِنْدَ بَعْضِ الْحُفَّاظِ غَيْرُ مُحْتَجٍّ بِهِ

    You deceitfully cut out the bit where al-Bayhaqi says it’s weak!

    I challenge you to show everybody a single Sunni-Athari book of creed that mentions that Allah sits cross-legged! If this is our ‘Aqidah (that you and your dull Syed Ali Imam want to impose on us) then it should be the easiest task for you. The truth is that the scholars of the past and present have spoken about it and rejected it with the harshest words, and yes, Allah will put his feet in the hellfire just like Allah will grab the heavens with his right hand:

    “They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him.”

    Remember, the jahil Syed Ali Imam (due to his ignorance) wasn’t aware of this verse thus he accused Ahlus-Sunnah of Tajseem for a hadith that almost contains the same wording:

    12. You said:

    “Narrated from Ibn Umar who said, “The Throne of Allah (swt) is supported by giant Snake and Revelations descend upon Earth via Chains”

    The Investigator of this book Shaykh Albani says the following about this:

    I say the chain of Narration of this is Sahih (Authentic). It has been narrated by Abu Shaykh in Al Izma’h 1/2-33 [ 197] with this chain………. Then it has also been narrated by Ahmad in Al Sunnah – Page 150 with this chain……….”

    A sahih doesn’t equate that the hadith is sahih, learn these basics. And even *if* he declared it sahih, every beginner student of hadith knows that al-Albani is mutasaahil in tas-heeh (hence he is not always relied upon his tas-heeh), however, he is relied upon on this tadh3eef. Al-Albani’s tas-heeh here means nothing, especially since he is only speaking about the chain. A quick search (at least I am capable to research without help, you don’t even know Arabic with your desi-freshie transliteration) shows that al-Abani did taraju’ i.e. he changed his mind and corrected his position and declared the narration weak in a later stage:

    الألبانى ضعف هذا الحديث فى (( ضعيف الترمذى ))(3/481) ، و (( ضعيف النسائى ))(6/147) اذا فهوة تراجع عن تصحيحه

    Thus the hadith is munkar and extremely weak, just like Rafidism is.

    Finally: Don’t mess Ahlus-Sunnah, kids like you I have dealt with a decade ago. If you are man enough debate Imamah with me on camera, but if you are a coward like Syed Ali Imam then keep running and make accusations (damage control).

    Signed by: Ebn Hussein, lover of Ahlul-Bayt, and my issue is not my beloved Ahlul-Bayt (A), as a matter of fact, I wage war with my pen against Twelver pagan Rafidism as it has tarnished their names, I do it due to my love for them till the day I die, in sha Allah.


  2. Dhulfikar (it’s fiqar but the jahil can’t even write his own name correctly…) responded, so here my response to his weak attempt of a response, enjoy:

    Miskeen, who is humiliating himself? You don’t even get basic Islamic terminology right, you fool, on the top of your website you wrote “Ibn Qayyum”. It’s Qayyim… *face palm*,, but it is alright I will humiliate you a bit more, and I start in the name of Allah and ask Help from Allah alone:

    You said:

    “Response: Now Shimrani claimed that only ‘some people of desires’ are heretics not all, while anyone can read from his article, he didn’t make any such distinction. Without any shame he then went on to repeat the same spiel “Rafidah are worst of people of desires and lies.””

    Of course, not all people who follow their desires at times are heretics, this is a basic principle of Islam that you don’t know due to your jahl. Every Muslim sins and at times follows his desires, however, the worst of all firaq are the Rafidah, as lying and following their desires is a trademark of theirs. Big difference. Don’t be salty because you got schooled on basics, my friend.

    You said:

    Quote: Secondly it’s jarh not ‘jarah’, ya jahi” (go correct it quickly)

    Response: As they say “’If you can’t win an argument, correct their grammar instead”. This ladies and gentlemen is what we call typical ‘Ad hominem’. And for your kind information its ‘jahil’. Don’t worry, we’ll also be dealing with your arguments too 🙂”

    The definition of ad hominem:

    “marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival.”

    You would have a point if I had only pointed out your stupidity and your lack of knowledge of basic basic Arabic terms, however, I pointed that out WHILST also refuting your points. So I did not attacked your jahil character only. Yes, mine was a typo (jahi) whlst you fool write ‘Ibn Qayyum’ (such name doesn’t even exist). But keep on humiliating yourself, your biggest Maraji’ are after all clowns at basic tajweed.

    You said:

    “Response: the statement of Shaf’i is related to Usul e Hadith and you cannot cite his testimony against Rawafid, which isn’t even proven to have originate from him to begin with. In which case do you not accept statements of your scholars that are unrelated to Ahkam and Aqeedah? If indeed these are the words of Shafi, then he himself declared himself a Rafidi, which means by your standards, he was a liar!

    وقال الشافعي رضي الله عنه ۔۔۔۔ إن كان رفضاً حب آل محمد فليشهد الثقلان أنى رافضي

    Shafi said: “If a Rafidhi is one who loves the family of the Prophet (saw), then I testify before the mankind and Jinns that I am a Rafidhi””

    You are ignorant of the words of al-Shafi’i, even if proven, this is called balagha, it’s like me saying: If loving Abu Bakr and Omar makes me a Nasibi, then I am a Nasibi and if loving Ali makes me a Rafidi then I am a Rafidi.

    Ya miskeen, this is basic Arabic balagha, don’t embarrass yourself more. The sentence is actually a negation, Imam al-Shafi’i and his school are harsh against Rawafid and you know that. Also it is Usool (or Usul) al-Hadith not ‘e hadith’ we are not in Qom, have some respect for basic Arabic Islamic terms. Lastly, al-Shafi’is statement is related to firaq, not to general Shia narrators, his statement is in line with the statements of other big scholars of the Salaf and Khalaf who referred to your mushrik Rafidi sect as the worst and most lying of all sects.

    You said:

    “Response: Red herring is what Shimrani had done with # 2 by trying to correct a spelling of a word. It seems his vocabulary is limited to the words ‘Miskeen’, ‘Jahil’ all of course while trying to mock his own mother tongue in spelling words in English to imitate the accent of his own community.”

    I don’t mock my mother tongue, this is your fallacious understanding from my legit criticism against your disastrous mistakes that you constantly repeat (like the jahil you are). As a matter of fact I am proud of my heritage and have written about the Islamic history of Iran:

    And even the beauty of the Persian language:

    So I am in no way mocking the Persian language, what you ignorants don’t realise is that I mock your DISTORTION of the Arabic language. Your top Ayatullats are known for their disastrous Arabic and even basics like tajweed (that non-Arab kids easily master).

    You said:

    “It is common for any individual to say that “I’m not sure or,Allah knows best.”. It is a way to encourage or prompt the audience to present their evidence against it. But instead of answering it, you want us to mention others who have? Would you like some milk in a bottle too? Since you made the claim the majority deemed it weak we eagerly await your reply. The onus is on the claimant to present evidence.”

    No, the onus is on YOU. There is no Sunni book of creed that mentions that Allah sits-cross-legged. Scholars of the past and modern-day scholars have weakened it, so YOU have to prove your claim (and the claim of the foolish Syed Ali Imam) that it is Salafi creed i.e. that Allah sits cross legged.

    You said:

    “More importantly, if the author didn’t believe in its authenticity, why did he himself declare the narration to have many beneficial points and then later goes on to quote Ibn Taymiyyah Al Harrani saying that Abu Yala Far’a exaggerated in “Asbat of these Sifat.””

    A report can have beneficial points yet still can’t be deemed as a Prophetic narration (although I disagree with anybody who says that it has any benefit). Don’t you even know such basics? And yes, the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah and other Salafis were honest and just and admitted that some of the Hanabilah had ghulu in matters of ithbat, I hold the same belief, all learned Salafis hold this belief, it is just that you had no clue about that and I have (as usual) schooled you. But it is alright kiddo, you will learn much more, once upon a time I was a zealous Rafidi Imam worshipper like yourself, don’t forget that.

    You said:

    “Response: Yes If any more authentic narration contradicts it, then it makes this Shaadh which is already in the definition of Sahih Narration…so go home and first read the basic books on Usool e Riwayah.”

    It’s called Usool al-Riwayah (or Riwayat), ya Jahil. These are not typos (like in my case) but constantly repeated mistakes. How many times more you want to humiliate yourself? And of course the narration is shaadh, hence scholars of the past and modern-day times have harshly rejected it and thus it is not part of creed (to your misery) whatsoever.

    You said:

    “Response: Al Haythami said ” All Narrators of this narration are Reliable”.

    For those who are aware of the methodology of Al Haythami. He always uses these terms when he authenticates any narration. When he believes there is any defect in narration, he used to note it along with authenticating its narrators. This narration is also found in Sahih Muslim and this too debunks your arguments that it isn’t Authentic.
    As for Al Bayhaqi, he should not be Hujjah for you since he had Ashari inclinations and quoting his statement is of no use for a proud Athari like yourself, since Asharis declare these narrations to be weak.”

    You are wrong and you have proven your ignorance once more. Many scholars were inclined to Asharism, were full-blown Asharis or were inclined to tasawwuf (bid’i forms). As Ahlus-Sunnah we don’t reject anybody, not even Zaydis as long as the person doesn’t carry bid’ah kufriyyah, this is why we narrate from Shia, Nawasib, and Khawarij (you Rafidah too, btw), these are basics, so please don’t waste my time.

    You said:

    “To make matters even more embarrassing the same narration which is declared weak by Ibn Kathir etc. While this narration i.e, from Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari and the main narration under discussion is from Qatada bin Na’uman.

    A troll who can’t differentiate between Qatada and Jabir is discussing here ….”

    I am the one who fearlessly shows his face, is a public person and has humiliated your speakers and mushrik religion, you are a nobody troll with an effeminate mask who hides his identity. Secondly, you absolute buffoon, you didn’t even get what I meant, of course, we are discussing the narration of Qatadah, however, you also brought up the narration of Jabir (r) in Majmoo’ al-Zawa`id and that is narrated by Tabarani who mentioned the WEAK narrators and only declared the rest as reliable.

    You said:

    “Response: Albanis discussion on the valid difference on putting one leg upon another refer to his book of “Silsila Al Hadeeth Al Dhaee’fah wa Al Mawdhu’h”. This will be your homework as you don’t read books but instead copy paste responses word for word from other sites.

    Read this for further research on this issue.

    No, my friend, we all know that I do speak and read Arabic at least, you don’t, so you can’t even do that homework yourself, you have just exposed yourself. Also, in your ignorance, you did not understand that neither I nor anyone doubts that al-Albani denies that there is a difference of opinion about certain SITTING/LAYING position. Do you even understand what you quote (probably using google translate, lol). The link you provided doesn’t mention a single word about Allah sitting cross legged (or that it is a khilafi belief), this is because it is outright rejected. All that is mentioned are narrations in the Sahihayn that I have already mentioned, like the following one:

    أما القول ، فأخرجه مسلم في “صحيحه” (2099) ، من حديث جابر بن عبد الله : ” أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنِ اشْتِمَالِ الصَّمَّاءِ ، وَالِاحْتِبَاءِ فِي ثَوْبٍ وَاحِدٍ ، وَأَنْ يَرْفَعَ الرَّجُلُ إِحْدَى رِجْلَيْهِ عَلَى الْأُخْرَى وَهُوَ مُسْتَلْقٍ عَلَى ظَهْرِهِ ”

    Wallahi, you should feel ashamed and bury yourself. The link you posted literally refutes your entire premise and argument, for all that al-Albani argues for is the hukm of استلقى , not a single word he mentions about this being related to the false/batil hadith about ‘Allah sitting-cross legged. So yes, there is a difference of opinion, however, ya jahil murakkab, the difference of opinion is based on the hukm of استلقى not on the batil hadith that you wish to be true and part of Sunni-Salafi creed (which it is not).

    I remind you and the readers who will surely see through your lies (typical Rafidi after all) and ignorance (typical Rafidi) of your previous words:

    “Albani has accepted valid difference of opinion on the issue of sitting of a person with cross legged himself! He even tried to reconcile between the two types of narrations.”

    And I said:

    Show us his quote. Secondly, him agreeing on a difference of opinion can’t be based on narrations that claim that only Allah sits cross-legged as he completely rejects them. Show us if it is otherwise.

    And I was right! Nowhere does Al-Abani use the batil and fabricated narration in order to reconcile it with more authentic ones.

    You are already finished but I will give you the icing, in sha Allah.

    You said:

    “Response: Neither Abu Yala is infallible nor is your Prophet Ibn Taymiyyah. But Abu Yala was one of your Imams. So his statement has same weight as that of the others.

    You quoted Ibn Taymiyyah about the Ghuluw of Abu Yal’a while Ibn Taymiyyah has been criticised by Ibn Hajar himself for his Ghuluw on his criticism on Ali and his supporters (Refer to Lisan Al Mizan)”

    Who said Abu Ya’la is one of my Imams? Since when does a Rafidi appoint my Imams? Go read any study by scholars on Abu Ya’la, he had ghulu in the masa`il of ithbat, just like some scholars had ghulu in other matters, nobody follows them blindly, we are not Rafidah who follow their Ayatullats blindly so don’t turn yourself into a laughing stock with such cheap arguments. As for Ibn Hajr: So what, we check his criticism, he might be right or wrong, and there is no doubt that Ibn Hajar was wrong, but alas! You jahil don’t know Arabic otherwise you would know that many have refuted Ibn Hajr (may Allah have mercy on him and forgive him) on that matter, even students of knowledge:

    I myself have refuted your dull friend and utter Jahil Syed Ali Imam when he parroted such shubuhat (in more disastrous Arabic than yours, imagine!):

    Sufi inclined mubdati’ah use these shubuhat and we are well aware of them, so be prepared to be refuted (as usual).

    You said:

    “Again, Khallal declared it Authentic on the criteria of the two sheikhs.”

    1. That is irrelevant, even if true.
    2. What is it? He declared the ISNAD as sahih, which means nothing, and of course, you skipped the part that proves that he did not believe in it, so I quote myself: “I already responded to that, there is no evidence that he declared the HADITH as SAHIH, refer to the end of my post.”

    You said:

    “As for challenging us to show any single book on Athari creed which mentions this narration, well Ibn Abi Asim has quoted this narration in a Chapter of his book As Sunnah. Hooman has previously himself praised this book and declared it a book on Athari creed. Game Over! Oops!”

    No, it is game over for YOU, this is because

    1. Kitab al-Sunnah contains a number of weak and munkar narrations, but a jahil like you probably thinks it is like Bukhari to us.
    2. You did not quote me fully (typical Rafidi), I said:

    I challenge you to show everybody a single Sunni-Athari book of CREED that mentions that Allah sits cross-legged! If this is our ‘Aqidah (that you and your dull Syed Ali Imam want to impose on us) then it should be the easiest task for you. The truth is that the scholars of the past and present have spoken about it and REJECTED IT it with the harshest words

    And guess what, I was right. Sunni-Salafi scholars have COMMENTED on the false narrations in kitab al-Sunnah, so it’s mere existence means nothing, al-Albani actually commented on the narration by Ibn Abi Asim and REJECTED it. Besides, ya Jahil, Kitab al-Sunnah is a collection of Athar, it is not a sharh of the Aqidah of Ahl Al-Sunnah. Books of Aqidah that are taught and in which you find Sunni-Salafi creed are:

    – Al-Wasitiyyah
    – Al-Hamawiyyah
    – Aqidah of the two Razis (Persian Sunni-Salafis)
    – Al-Tahawiyyah (with Shuruh)

    These are known books of ‘Aqidah that are agreed upon, undoubtedly kitab al-Sunnah by ibn Abi Asim is a great book, but is not a book from which we take Aqidah based on every single narration in it. So I repeat, in which of our AQIDAH books does one of our scholars say that it is from the belief of Ahlus-Sunnah that Allah sits cross-legged? Thanks for making me improve my article, I just made a quick bahth and found out how yet another Salafi scholar commented on the false narration that you try to shove down our throat in Kitab al-Sunnah.

    You said:

    “Response to this and #11/12: There is no such thing as ‘Jumhoor’ in Sunni creed. Kindly tell us what is the Jumhoor Sunni Creed you speak and follow. Since you like correcting peoples spelling its ‘Albani’ not ‘Abani’ and ‘deceitfully’ not ‘deceitfuly’ quick edit it before nobody else notices it. Again, Sahih Narration and its Criteria when it is declared so have been already discussed in main refutation. No need to repeat them here. Shimrani has quoted some blog that Albani later retracted his position on the Narration of Snakes around the throne the Athari God. If it is so then proven his Silsila was written after his research on Mukhtasar Al Ulwu. Till then your copy paste research is of no use here as these are direct rebuttals exposing your ignorance on the most fundamental pillar of Islam which is Tawheed.”

    Me = typos
    You (Rafidi) = repeatedly making mistakes in writing basic Arabic-Islamic terminologies, but what can be expected from a humiliated Qommite? Also, I provided evidence:

    الألبانى ضعف هذا الحديث فى (( ضعيف الترمذى ))(3/481) ، و (( ضعيف النسائى ))(6/147) اذا فهوة تراجع عن تصحيحه

    Thus the hadith is munkar and extremely weak, just like Rafidism is. He changed his opinions on tadh3eef and tas-heeh many times, that is well known, in either case, it is irrelevant anyway, as he’s mutasaahil.

    Of course there is jumhoor, there is Salafi-Sunni creed that I follow, there are found in major books of Aqidah like:

    – Al-Wasitiyyah
    – Al-Hamawiyyah
    – Aqidah of the two Razis (Persian Sunni-Salafis)
    – Al-Tahawiyyah (with Shuruh i.e. correction of mistakes)

    Finally, I will ignore you (I have no time to correct your tons of mistakes, even basic mistakes in Islamic terminologies, you should be grateful that I am paying a nobody like you any attention, take it as a badge of honour) from now, I have proven what an ignorant you are, however, I will respond *if* you prove the crux of the matter i.e. the allegation of your dull Rafidi friendd ‘Sayed’ (Syed) Ali Imam i.e. that Salafis believe that Allah sits cross-legged.

    If you are truthful in your claim (Salafis/Sunnis believe Allah sits cross-legged lie) present us a single Sunni-Athari book of creed that mentions that Allah sits cross-legged *and* that this is from the ‘Aqidah of the Salaf/Ahlus-Sunnah! It should be an easy task, our books of ‘Aqidah have been translated into numerous languages. If you can’t find our scholars *affirming* this belief then know that the curse of Allah is on the liars, and undoubtedly you Rafidah polytheists are cursed.


  3. One last round in refutation of the Dhul-Himar:

    You said:

    “Reply: You keep diverting from the actual topic by responding to these petty side things like it is Qayyim not Qayyum.. Insh’Allah you will be humiliated academically by the grace of Allah (swt). Afterall, all you cam resort to is trying to correct peoples grammar or making personal attacks even though you claim they are not ad hominem. Look up the other meanings you poor soul.”

    But ahmaq and miskeen poor soul, why is it that you clown don’t know any Arabic (i.e. can’t do any research all you do is copy pasting and taken translations that are not your own, loser), you can’t even write the name of the scholar you try to refute? LOL, standards lower than the well of Jamkaran or the cave of your 12th mythical saviour boy.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: Basic principle of Islam yet on your blogs and on numerous videos you categorically declare everyone who does not follow your version of Sunnism as heretics.’

    Nope, not true, I am actually very moderate and believe that many moderate Asharis are just as Sunni as Atharis and that difference are often based on semantics and misunderstanding. Our enemies are the extremists from among the Quburis, like the extremist Mutasawwifah and the Rafidah Mushrikun. Not even all of them, as many Rafidah are actually people who loosely ascribe to Shiism, especially in Iran.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: Yet you were unable to prove that this statement was from Shafi about Rafidah.. What a clown we are dealing with. Poor soul.’

    It is accepted by the a’lam of the Shawafi’ to be from him + it is in accordince with other proven statements from him that are not less severe. So nothing wrong in accepting it, it is a true statement and at worst it can be said it is said that he said. Even for hadith we say: ‘kama …’

    Stop whining.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: ‘Basic Basic’ another example of your own Jahl. An individual who wasn’t even able to translate the full wordings from Arabic blogs while on the other hand he is giving us lessons on Arabic and English spelling mistakes Rofl! About your refutation it is clear for readers who has been grinded in this discussion. Poor soul.’

    Clear typo, whereas you wrote names of scholars wrong on the HEADER of your website, lol, to this very moment actually, you clown.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: So, your mistakes are all Typos while ours are all Jahl and Stupidity, let us all give a standing ovation for you. Poor soul.’

    Not all my mistakes are typo, I didn’t say that, I mentioned a specific one, as for yours, they are clearly mistakes that are based on your Shia-Majoosi tajwid.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: Who is telling you to reject the Asharis? However, when we are making a argument against you it must be based upon testimony of only those scholars who are acceptable as per your creed. You do not even know how a discussion is done and then you go around wanting to debate people. Stick to debating old men in the Speakers Corner it suits you better. Poor soul.’

    You didn’t get it, kiddo. Keep hiding like a coward behind a mask. And it is because YOU and your ilk are SCARED to debate me, otherwise why don’t you step forward if it is so easy to refute me?

    You said:

    ‘Reply: firstly, its not Tthis, its this. Secondly, wow…Your school accepts narrations from Rawafid, whom you previously called Heretics. Your religion is a joke since their testimony is accepted (and they must have fulfilled the conditions to be reliable narrators to be included) even though those who you deem Rafidah are by no means the same by our standards. Poor soul.’

    Yes, clearly a typo, unlike your Majoosi-Tajwid mistakes, isn’t it? As for accepting narrations from Rawafid: Nope, the asl is we don’t, except few exceptions (like in Bukhari), with mutaba’at, etc. The asl remains that you lot are a lying nation and EXCEPTIONS prove the rule, ya miskeen.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: When we have extremist terrorist sympathizers and advocates like yourself can you really blame me? Instead of focusing on my mask deal with the arguments presented. Poor soul.’

    Now you scared of me, pussy? So I will murk you on a zoom session? What kind of pathetic excuse is this? Poor Mushrik soul.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: It isn’t weak Narrators, Ya Jahil rather this narration is quoted by Al-Tabarani from his three teachers (Shayukh) and Al Haythami then declared that two among them are unknown and ONE is weak. And this will not affect its weakness as these three narrators have been supported by other reliable narrators in books like Abta’l Tawelaat by Abu Yal’a Far’a, Kitab Sunnah by Khallal etc. It is called ” Mutab’at = متابعت ” in Usool e Hadith. Poor soul.’

    Mutaba’at come with shurut. And the scholars have rejected the narration, deal with it.

    You said:

    ‘Reply :Where did I say that the link says Your God sits cross legged? This link that was provided to show there is valid difference of opinion on anyone being allowed to sit cross-legged as there is difference due to differing reports. Poor soul.’

    Yeah, yeah, excuses upon excuses. The correct opinion is that the hadith ALL those narrations are rejected as FABRICATION that is why I would like to debate you, humiliating you while sitting cross-legged, what about that?

    You said:

    ‘reply: Alhamduillah you too accepted now that there is a difference of opinion on the issue of sitting cross-legged. Essentially you have refuted yourself in which you had provided the narrations from Bukhari etc to prove otherwise. The narration of Qatada forbids one to sit cross-legged is against the authentic narration hence declared Munkar. Poor soul.’

    I said certain positions AND that al-Albani holds the correct view that the asl is a FABRICATION i.e. that Allah sits like that. Get over it. So I’ve not refuted myself, I’ve in fact strengthened my point with clear statements of the scholars who called ALLAH sitting cross-legged a fabrication.

    You said:

    ‘But now when you have accepted that there is valid difference due to contradictory narrations. How could you use the narrations of Sahih Al Bukhari to declare the narration of Qatada to be Munkar? More importantly you can not even verify Bukhari itself to be authentically attributed to the author himself! Poor soul.’

    Please, now you are getting childish, don’t act stupid due to bias. You know well that the sahih reports have nothing in common with the fabrication.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: Ibn Abi Asim mentioned it in his book of creed, and you are stuck with Ibn Taymiyyah’s Wasitiyah etc and yet you say Allah sitting crosslegged is a Khalafi belief.’

    That means you understood NOTHING. It is not a khilafi belief, it is NOT a mu’tabar khilaf, as the asl is a fabrication and those who authenticated it were wrong. Simple. You want to force Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Albani, myself and Salafis to believe in fabrications, just because it fits your narrative? Get a grip you freak.

    You said:

    ‘Don’t worry we will show you some of his creedal beliefs from this book. Then you can stop trying to behave like a Ashari when you get stuck on these Kuffari narrations. Actually skip from Athari and Ashari Postions when it cones to debates. Poor soul.’

    It’s not kufr anyway, saying that Allah hears, laughs, sits, none of that is kufr, all of that includes human traits based on language, the divine principle is to make no tashbih and takyif etc. However, just because the principle is correct, that doesn’t mean we can accept everything like saying Allah sits-cross-legged. This is alien and was only accepted by some who had leniency in the matter of ithbat of Sifat like some Hanabilah, they were criticised for that and their opinions rejected, so you can quote all you like, nobody will turn into an Ash’ari for you, you fool, it’s just that nobody is bound to accept those narrations, no matter in what books.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: As I have said Albani has discussed in his Silsilah and it was your homework and you yourself accepted that there is valid difference on a person sitting cross legged. Still, you must read it from Silsilah? Atleast you will learn something from our discussion?’

    Your jahl is painful, at least I can read the silsalah, how can a semi-Hindu like you who doesn’t know Arabic read the silsalah? You see how you refute yourself? As for khilaf, ya miskin, al-Albani can mention that there were scholars who believed such and such based on such and such. Is it a KHILAF mu’tabar? PROVE IT! Prove that al-Albani said that sitting cross legged is a KHILAF MU’TABAR due to the narrations that state that Allah allegedly sits cross-legged. PROVE IT! You can’t because al-Albani refuted that belief.

    You said:

    ‘eply: What a moron, you don’t even read your own books. Look who has called him Imam. Poor soul.

    Al Dhahabi calls him Imam in his book Siyar. He says:

    أبو الحسين بن الفراء و الإمام العلامة ، الفقيه القاضي ، أبو الحُسين محمد ابن القاضي الكبير أبي يعلى محمد بن الحسين بن محمد بن خلف بن الفراء الحنبلي البغدادي

    Can we declare Al Dhahabi a Rafidhi now?! Poor soul.’

    Oh my Allah! I said MY Imam as in following ALL his words like a muqallid Rafidi. He is an Imam, may Allah have mercy on him. Of course, he was called an Imam. I call him an Imam but he’s not my ma’sum Imam, better? Isn’t it obvious what I mean ya mushrik? Imam Dhahabi also calls TONS of Ash’aris as Imams(he even calls Kulayni as great as in great for Rafidah). Shall I follow all their opinions on everything too, ya ahmaq? What kind of a moron are you? Typical Rafidi, no aql and no din sahih. Poor soul in every sense of the word.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: Ibn Hajar is wrong? Let us make it even more unpleasant for you. Albani has also criticised Ibn Taymiyyah on the same ground. Why do all your roads end on Ibn Taymiyyah? He was from Khalaf and Abu Yala Far’a and Ibn Abi Asim are from Salaf. I guess you should call yourself Khalafi rather than Salafi. Poor soul.’

    Red-herrings. Al-Albani did indeed RIGHTLY criticised Ibn Taymiyyah and also Ibn Abdul-Wahhab for his extremism, that’s the beauty of not being a blind following mud-bathing and shrine crawling Rafidi Mushrik. And Ibn Taymiyyah is not the dead end, we have the Raziyayn and many more.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: Albani even declared that there are weak narrations in Sahih Al Bukhari.’

    Yes, and he was right and he has SALAF in that (Daraqutni).

    You said:

    ‘Same is the case with Kitab Sunnah which was written upon the Athari creed earlier and nobody attacks these reports.’

    Wrong, they include weak reports, there are studies in Arabic (but you copy/paste clown can’t read them) and the scholars explained well that due to the fitnah of the jahmiyyah/sifat deniers some scholars became lenient in accepting narrations about sifat i.e. they became mutashaddid in ithbat al-Sifat. Before al-Albani scholars rejected it, so do Atharis today, so you and the dull Syed Ali Imam can’t swallow this fact because it makes it harder for you to lie on your opponents, may Allah curse you deceptive Mushrik Rafidah.

    You said:

    ;The narration in discussion from Qatada can’t be labelled as Munkar or weak as asserted by you since even the objection made by Albani does not hold any weight. Afterall we know how inconsistent he is himself when it comes to his methodology as he is known to contradict himself in many places.
    Besides the same can be said about any book written by the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah, Tahawi, Ibn Ezza etc. Poor soul.;

    Ok, Niqab-wearing ‘Allamah, I am sure your words hold weight. Get a grip.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: We have already fulfilled your challenge and yet keep on repeating the same thing like a parrot. Unless you believe Abtaal ul Tawelaat and Kitab Sunnah by Ibn Abi Asim are our books of creed. Poor soul.’

    Ok, shall I spoon feed you? Books of creed (even tahawis) have commentary, even du’a books like hisn al-Muslim have. No accepted Salafi-Sunni book of creed includes the belief that Allah sits-cross-legged WITHOUT being challenged by ATHARI scholars themselves. Fact.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: That is what we want to prove. The Athaar have more weight than Sharah (Commentary) by a Scholar from Khalaf. Commentary is just the perspective of the author who writes the view regarding the report from the Prophet (saw) and even Companions. It can be right and wrong but since this Hadith, it was implemented practically by some of your predecessors all the other gymnastics you are trying will not work it. Poor soul.’

    No, you fool, that is ONLY the case if they are thabitah, not if they are weak and fabricated and rejected (before and after al-Albani).

    You said:

    ‘Reply: He changed his opinions many times and yet could not prove that he declared the narration of Snakes around
    throne of Allah to be Weak in a book written later than his research on Mukhtasar Al Ulwu. Thanks for admitting Albani was a Mutasahil. Poor soul.’

    Ya jahil, every mini-talib knows that al-Albani was mutasahil in tashih. Is that news to you?

    You said:

    ‘Reply: Yes, you can ignore these replies but If you’re so confident and sincere about your beliefs why not have a debate (with Hasan Allayari or Sayed Ali Imam) on this over Zoom so we can see your real belief on Tawheed? Poor soul.’

    I challenged your Allatyari (who openly believes in Tahrif of the nass of the Qur’an) who OPENLY stated later that he LIED in order to lure us into a discussion about Tahrif instead of Imamah. Your dull Apu of a Syed Ali Imam is also scared to debate Imamah. He wants to debate if I am a terrorist based on his false accusations and 2005 style produced youtube videos, may Allah curse that bastard son of a mushrik. I can also play these games, I say that Syed Ali Imam is homosexual and I want him to disprove it. Leave all these games, ya poor soul. It is time to grow up, you are hiding behind a mask, you are scared, Syed Ali Imam is scared, you clowns make mistakes in every sentence yet want to correct my English and Arabic? You KNOW you would be humiliated in a debate, I know deep inside you KNOW how pagan Rafidism is, from all angles, how flimsy the nonsensical Imamah belief and the useless non-guiding 12th Imam fairy tale is.

    This is why you are scared to debate me, nothing else. You did not deserve this last reply, but I say it again: Whenever you man-up, I will be ready to debate you in sha Allah, on the crux of the matter. If Athari aqidah is proven wrong then this still doesn’t prove Rafidism, Rafidism is based on Imamah, if that’s proven than all other isms are disproven, so contact me whenever you are ready, until then keep making basic tajwid mistakes (even in the top banner of your blog, lol) and hide.


Comments are closed.