A SUMMARY OF FACTS       COMPARING THE BELIEFS      OF MUSLIMS VS. THOSE OF      IBN TAYMIYYAH AND THE           PHILOSOPH...
agreementsFALSE PROPAGANDA & ACCUSATIONSA common accusation of the wahabis and other anthropomorphiststhroughout history, ...
BELIEFS VS PHILOSOPHERSThe below table outlines some of the fundamental principles of beliefthat are disputed between the ...
philosophers          Sunnis                   Taymiyyah                      (Asħˆariyys,                      Maaturiidi...
cannot cease           We only know that it      (something otherto exist (Adħ-         will continue by the      than Aļļ...
other parts of the     six directions} up,      (see footnote 1). Heworld, are eternal.    down, front, back,       is the...
them the negation      true of Aļļaah,of some meaning.       and are not mere(Adħ-Dħakħiirah,       negations of flaws.106...
One that Creates like   ascribed to Aļļaah in                       what does not           the scriptures as             ...
in reality its effect,   different creations of      he is close to thei.e. the causes          Aļļaah, thus the hit      ...
necessitate that the     that it is shrinkable,                     stone has infinite       as seen in the               ...
in existence in                    the first place, so                    one cannot say it                    becomes imp...
conclusion that                   Muĥammad ibn                   ˆAbduļļaah was                   indeed the              ...
sayings oragreements[1] Ibn Taymiyyah said:“This middle saying among the three sayings of Al-Qaađii Abuu Yaˆlaais the one ...
He is also of the opinion that creation as a kind has always existedwithout a beginning, because he believes that Aļļaah’s...
for its kind or each distinct movement? The first is impossible, but thesecond is accepted as true.” (Dar’ Taˆaaruđ A-ˆAql...
“This attribute is beginningless, since it is impossible that He beattributed with it as some particular time (and not oth...
[9] See also this article.[10] Ibn Taymiyyah said:“Some of the authors in Kalaam science make the affirmative beliefin the...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

A Summary of Facts Comparing the Beliefs of Muslims vs. Those of Ibn Taymiyyah and The Philosophers’

730 views
676 views

Published on

Published in: Spiritual
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
730
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A Summary of Facts Comparing the Beliefs of Muslims vs. Those of Ibn Taymiyyah and The Philosophers’

  1. 1. A SUMMARY OF FACTS COMPARING THE BELIEFS OF MUSLIMS VS. THOSE OF IBN TAYMIYYAH AND THE PHILOSOPHERS’August 29, 2011Posted by Sheikh Abu Adamhttp://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/A QUICK LOOK AT THE RESULTS OBTAINED MUSLIM sayings Ibn Taymiyyah’s versus those of the sayings versus philosophers those of the philosophersNumber of 13 6disagreementsNumber of 1 5agreementsNumber of 0 3similaritiesTotal number of 14 14beliefs compared% of agreements 7% 36%% of similar 0% 21%sayings% of similar 7% 57%sayings or
  2. 2. agreementsFALSE PROPAGANDA & ACCUSATIONSA common accusation of the wahabis and other anthropomorphiststhroughout history, is that the mainstream scholars of Islam, theSunnis, the Asħˆariyys and Maaturiidiyys, took their beliefs from theAristotelian philosophers. For someone with insight into the scienceof belief, this is obviously ridiculous, as they are bitter enemies, butthose who do not have this insight might be affected by such fearmongering.FACT 1In reality, however, the reason why Sunni scholars engaged deeplyinto arguments based on pure reasoning, was to refute the beliefsof the philosophers. Accordingly, they studied their concepts andterminology, and then showed how the Aristotelian arguments werewrong using the terminology of philosophy.FACT 2On the other hand, Ibn Taymiyyah also studied Aristotelian arguments,particularly as presented by the Spanish philosopher Ibn Rusħd (thegrandson). His purpose, however, was quite different. What he wantedwas to find arguments against the Sunnis that could be used to defendand support his anthropomorphist belief that Aļļaah is somethingwith a size, in a location, that moves and goes through changes.During this process he even adopted some beliefs that are identical orequivalent to those of the Aristotelians.He was however a rhetorician of proportions, knowing how to soundconvincing to the naïve, without actually saying much at all. He rarelydefines his terms or clarifies exactly what the point of disagreementis. He sidetracks a lot and makes long and useless discussions arguingabout terminology, “if you by this word this, then I say that,” evenwhen he knows very well that this is not what his opponent means.He also hides his own views by arguing through quoting others, or bysaying, “it could be said to that…” or the like. That is why you find himextremely long winded and incredibly vague. It is because he beatsaround the bush so much, that many scholars never discovered himand caught him red handed with his anthropomorphist agenda.ANALYSIS OF COMPARISON OF MUSLIM & IBN TAYMIYYAH
  3. 3. BELIEFS VS PHILOSOPHERSThe below table outlines some of the fundamental principles of beliefthat are disputed between the philosophers, the Sunnis and IbnTaymiyyah, to see who resembles one another more. Be forewarnedthat the Wahabis will try to skew the results below by making two ofthe principle issues into many issues.The first principle issue is that Aļļaah is not a body, i.e. not somethingin a direction that can be pointed at. It is based on this principle thatthey denied that any of the words ascribing meanings to Aļļaah inthe Qur’aan and the Sunnah, such as nazala, jaa’, istawa, wajh, yad,ˆaynayn, janb, qadam, ‘işbiˆ, and yamiin, can be understood in termsof movement, shape, parts, limbs or the like. So it becomes accordingto them, nazala (descend by movement), jaa’ (came by movement),istawa (become settled), wajh (face), yad (forelimb), ˆayn (organ ofsight), janb (side), qadam (foot), ‘işaabiˆ (fingers), and yamiin (righthand side), etc. In contrast, the ‘Asħˆariyys will either simply narratesuch words, when apparently ascribed to Aļļaah, without assigningany meaning, but denying a bodily meaning, or they will look at whatthe Arabic language allows of meanings, and choose one meaningthat befits the Creator. For example, jaa’ becomes “His orders came,”and “istawa” becomes “controls”, and wajh becomes “what is done forHis sake”, and so on. This is not denial of attributes, as the followersof Ibn Taymiyyah claim, it is a denial of limbs, and this comes backto one principle belief, namely that Aļļaah is not a body, i.e. notsomething with size or shape or borders. Since Ibn Taymiyyah believesthat Aļļaah is a body, he interprets any word that can be understoodin a bodily manner as having a bodily meaning, whereas Muslimsinterpret such words in ways that do not involve bodily attributes.There are therefore many differences on interpretation that in realitycome back to one single principle.The second principle issue is the Muslim principle belief that Aļļaah isnot something that events happen in, not something that changes,in contrast with the opposite belief of Ibn Taymiyyah. This is anotherprinciple belief with many sub questions in the same manner as thefirst principle issue. For example, ghađab will be interpreted by IbnTaymiyyah as emotional change, whereas Muslims will understand itas Aļļaah willing punishment, without Him changing or being in time.That being said, here are the details of the analysis:The belief of the The belief of the The belief of Ibn
  4. 4. philosophers Sunnis Taymiyyah (Asħˆariyys, Maaturiidiyys and noble Ĥanbaliyys)1. Most of the Nothing is eternal He believed thatphilosophers other than Aļļaah, Aļļaah is an eternalbelieved that the and He is not a body. body (i.e. limitedworld is eternal. Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy said: in all 6 directionsThey believed {He is now as – a 3 dimensionalthat matter is He always was, shape) and thateternal and that eternally with His there have alwaysthere are one attributes, before been other bodiesor more eternal His creation came with Him, comingbodies (something into being.} The into existence,with size) (Adħ- existence of a body one after anotherDħakħiirah, 13). without a beginning eternally without a(Adħ-Dħakħiirah is is impossible, beginning.[1]a book written by because it needs a Accordingly, therea Turkish scholar creator to specify its is one eternal body,to judge between shape. Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy while other bodiesAl-Ghazaaliyy and said {in brackets}: are eternal in kind inthe philosophers, {The six directions} his view.as ordered by up, down, front,Muĥammad Al- back, left and rightFaatiĥ) {do not contain Him} because that would make Him {like all created things}Similarity to Disagree Identical (inphilosophers meaning, but not in naming; he calls the eternal body Aļļaah, while the philosophers do not.)2. The philosophers It is rationally Ibn Taymiyyah saidsaid that the possible for the it is not rationallyworld (anything world to cease to possible that thereother than Aļļaah) exist completely. be no creation
  5. 5. cannot cease We only know that it (something otherto exist (Adħ- will continue by the than Aļļaah),Dħakħiirah, 65). In scriptures that tell us because Aļļaah mustother words, it is a about resurrection always create.[2]must to them that and eternal life in This is becauseother than Aļļaah Paradise or torture in his actions are notexists. Hell. beginningless and endless according to Ibn Taymiyyah, but happen one after another.[3] In other words, it is a must to him that other than Aļļaah exists.Similarity to Disagree Identical inphilosophers meaning, but not in naming.3. The philosophers The Sunnis say that Ibn Taymiyyah saiddo not accept to Aļļaah has a Will, and that Aļļaah mustsay that Aļļaah has that it is impossible always create, aschoice in whether that Aļļaah should mentioned. He saidto create or not need/ be compelled Aļļaah has a choice in(Adħ-Dħakħiirah, to create. what to create, but71). not whether to create or not.[4]Similarity to Disagree Identicalphilosophers4. The philosophers The Sunnis said that Ibn Taymiyyahcannot prove that all other than Aļļaah cannot prove thatthe world needs need to be created by the world needs aa creator based Him, and that He is creator based onon their premises. not of created kind, his premises. This isThis is because such as bodies, so because he said thatthey claimed that He does not need a Aļļaah himself is in amatter, and what creator. place and has 6 limitsthey call “the first Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy said (i.e. 3 dimensional)mind”, and some {in brackets}: {The and yet is not created
  6. 6. other parts of the six directions} up, (see footnote 1). Heworld, are eternal. down, front, back, is therefore unable(Adħ-Dħakħiirah, left and right {do not to establish that87) contain Him} because things with 6 limits that would make need a creator, i.e. Him {like all created all the world as we things} know it. After all, if such a complex body can exist without a creator, then what about simpler ones?Similarity to Disagree Identicalphilosophers5. The philosophers Aļļaah has the power Aļļaah has the powersaid that it is only to create infinitely to create infinitelypossible for Aļļaah many creations many creationsto create one appearing over time. appearing over time.single thing, andHe cannot createa body. (Adħ-Dħakħiirah, 99).Similarity to Disagree Disagreephilosophers6. The philosophers Sunnis said that He said that Aļļaahrefused to Aļļaah is attributed is attributed withascribe to Aļļaah with knowledge, knowledge, power,attributes that power, life, will, life, will, hearing,affirm meanings hearing, seeing and seeing and speechto Aļļaah Himself, speech that are not that are not merelyand are not mere merely negations negations of theirnegations. That is, of their opposites. opposites. He said,knowledge, power, They said that these however, that theselife, will, hearing, are eternal and change over time.seeing, and speech. unchanging attributesEven when they that are not in timeuse these words, and affirm meaningsthey intend by that are eternally
  7. 7. them the negation true of Aļļaah,of some meaning. and are not mere(Adħ-Dħakħiirah, negations of flaws.106).Similarity to Disagree Disagreephilosophers7. The philosophers Although there are Ibn Taymiyyahagreed to say differences regarding believed that thethat the creator the details of this creator is a bodyis not a body, nor issue, Sunnis said located abovelike a body, and that Aļļaah is not in creation,[5] withHe is not in time, time or in place, or created events in it,place, direction, direction. The bases such asor existing in for this is the movement.[6]Hissomething else. Quranic, “He does basis for this isThat is, to ascribe not resemble taking all scripturesattributes to Aļļaah anything”, which is ascribing a meaningthat negate what understood literally, to Aļļaah accordingdoes not befit Him. and any other to the customaryThey also agreed scripture is meanings; theto ascribe to Him understood in light of meanings that applymeanings related it. The reason for to creation. He thento creating, such as this is that the interprets theproviding, creating, reality of the Quranic, “He doescontrolling etc. Creator’s existence not resemble(Adħ-Dħakħiirah, must be complete in anything”106) perfection, and accordingly. He created existence is understands this non- need in each and resemblance to every sense, mean different from because it needs a creation the way creator. Since Aļļaah created things differ is not created, He from one another, so cannot resemble He is bigger in size created things. This than anything else, is shown by the stronger, etc. Quranic Accordingly, he rhetorical, “Is the interpreted words
  8. 8. One that Creates like ascribed to Aļļaah in what does not the scriptures as create?” meaning physical attributes and change, such as limbs, place, movement, emotions, and so on.Similarity to Identical Disagreephilosophers8. The philosophers Aļļaah knows He said that Aļļaahdenied that Aļļaah everything with an knows everything,knows particulars. eternal knowledge but that it changes(Adħ-Dħakħiirah, that does not change. over time in terms172). of particulars as the future becomes past.[7]Similarity to Disagree Similar (becausephilosophers this means he believed that Aļļaah’s knowledge is bounded by time. )9. The philosophers The Sunnis said there I haven’t seen Ibndiscussed whether is no way of knowing Taymiyyah mentionthe universe itself, such a thing without this, so we’ll give himas a total body, has revelation from the benefit of thea self that speaks Aļļaah. doubt.and moves by will.(Adħ-Dħakħiirah,179).Similarity to Disagree Disagreephilosophers10. The The Sunnis said that Ibn Taymiyyah isphilosophers said the hit to the floor very vague on thisthat normal cause and the breaking of issue. However,actually influences the glass are two it appears that
  9. 9. in reality its effect, different creations of he is close to thei.e. the causes Aļļaah, thus the hit muˆtazilite view,between created has no real influence, namely that thingsthings, such as only apparently and do have actualglass hits floor according to the intrinsic influence– glass breaks is normal correlation on each other, buta matter of real that Aļļaah has that this is createdinfluence. (Adħ- created between in them, and theyDħakħiirah, 219). things, such as: use it by Aļļaah’s heat (one creation) permission.[8] This is – burn (another half way to the belief creation), of the philosophers, hit (one creation) who believed that – break (another such influence is not creation), created. For example, jump off cliff (one it could be then, creation) – fall down according to him heat (another creation), (one creation) – burn etc. (a creation brought into existence by heat.)Similarity to Disagree Similarphilosophers11. The The Asħˆariyys Ibn TaymiyyahAristotelians agreed that if bodies agreed with thebelieved that are divided, one Aristotelians andbodies do not would eventually criticized thecontain indivisible reach an element Asħˆariyys forelements that are that is not divisible. their claim thatnot divisible in the Not by force, and all bodies mustmind’s eye. not even in the consist of indivisible mind’s eye could it particles.[10]This is be divided. This is because he believed because if one said Aļļaah to be a body, e.g. that a stone is and did not want to infinitely divisible into say openly that this infinite quantities, body is divisible. then this would He did however say
  10. 10. necessitate that the that it is shrinkable, stone has infinite as seen in the quantity, which would quote in last quoted mean that its size paragraph ofthis is infinite, and this article. is clearly not the case.[9]Similarity to Disagree Identicalphilosophers12. The Platonic It is impossible that Since Ibn Taymiyyahphilosophers other than Aļļaah allows for createdbelieved that the could exist without a kinds to be eternal,human soul is beginning. he would say thatbeginningless. the human soulAristoteleans as a kind could bedisagreed. (Adħ- beginningless, evenDħakħiirah, 248). if he did not say this about the soul in particular.Similarity to Disagree Similarphilosophers:13. The Since the apparent Ibn Taymiyyah hasphilosophers meaning of the no dispute withdenied bodily scriptures is that Sunnis on this matterresurrection, as there will be bodily – as far as I know.well as Hell and resurrection and HellParadise, and or Paradise for them,said that what we must accept this.the prophets said There is no reliableregarding this evidence contrary toare all figures of this. The philosophersspeech. (Adħ- reasoned that theDħakħiirah, 261). non-existent cannot re-exist, because it will be something else. The answer is that it was possible
  11. 11. in existence in the first place, so one cannot say it becomes impossible in existence after that.Similarity to Disagree Disagreephilosophers14. The The primary bases Ibn Taymiyyahphilosophers for religious claims to stick todeveloped their knowledge are the the scriptures moreopinions on Qur’aan and than anyone, buttheology without ĥadiitħ.[11] As for due to his blindnesssupport from the mind, its role is he ended uprevelation. (Adħ- to conceptualize and understanding themDħakħiirah, 270). judge in terms of in a contradictory true and false. It is manner,[12] and in the tool by which the a way that ruins the scriptures can be premises for proving understood through that Aļļaah exists by sound deductive observing creation. reasoning, and For details see the avoiding PDF article: contradictory ideas. Rational Quranic It is not in itself a Islam vs Wahabism tool for knowing See also: facts of religion. For children: “How However, the can we know that all knowledge that other religions than Aļļaah exists, has Islam are incorrect Will, Power and when there are so Knowledge can be many?” achieved without scripture, because creation definitely needs a creator. Likewise, the mind alone can reach the
  12. 12. conclusion that Muĥammad ibn ˆAbduļļaah was indeed the Messenger of Aļļaah. In short, the premises for knowing that the Qur’aan and the Prophet’s teachings are sources of true information are reached by the mind by observation of the nature of creation.Similarity to Disagree Disagreephilosophers MUSLIM sayings Ibn Taymiyyah’s versus those of the sayings versus philosophers those of the philosophersNumber of 13 6disagreementsNumber of 1 5agreementsNumber of 0 3similaritiesTotal number of 14 14beliefs compared% of agreements 7% 36%% of similar 0% 21%sayings% of similar 7% 57%
  13. 13. sayings oragreements[1] Ibn Taymiyyah said:“This middle saying among the three sayings of Al-Qaađii Abuu Yaˆlaais the one that agrees with what Aĥmad says and others among theimaams. He [i.e. Aĥmad ibn Ĥanbal – and this is a lie, Aĥmad believedwhat Muslims believe, but that is another matter (Trans.)] has stated,“Aļļaah is in a particular direction, and He is not spread out in alldirections. Rather, He is outside the world, distinct from His creation,separate from it, and He is not in every direction.”This is what Aĥmad, may Aļļaah have mercy upon him, meant when hesaid,“He has a limit that only He knows.”If Aĥmad had meant the direction towards the ˆArsħ (Throne) only,then this would be known to Aļļaah’s slaves, because they know thatAļļaah’s limit from this direction is the ˆArsħ, so we know then thatthe limit they do not know is unqualified, and is not specified for thedirection of the ˆarsħ.” (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/438)Accordingly, Ibn Taymiyyah’s saying was that Aļļaah has one limitwhich is known, and that is the ˆArsħ, and that the other directionsare also limited, but these are unknown to us. This is understood fromhis support to the expression “He is not spread out in all directions”.This is made even clearer in his statement:“That something existing should not be increasing, or decreasing, orneither increasing nor decreasing, and yet exist and not have a size –this is impossible.” (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/601)In other words, he is of the opinion that everything that exists,including the Creator, must have a size. According to Ibn Taymiyyahthen, Aļļaah has a size limited by 6 limits.
  14. 14. He is also of the opinion that creation as a kind has always existedwithout a beginning, because he believes that Aļļaah’s creatinghappens in time. Therefore, he argues, Aļļaah has always been doingone act after another (i.e. creating) without a beginning. He says:“It is a necessity of Aļļaah’s self to act, but not an act in particular, andnot having something done in particular, so there is no eternal objectin the world, and He is not a complete cause for anything in the world,but He has in beginningless eternity always been a complete cause forsomething, one after another…” (Aş-Şafadiyyah, 2/97) Since nothingexists in his belief, except what has a size, we can understand that hebelieves bodies to be eternal in kind, even if each individual body hasa beginning, except the Creator’s.[2] He says:“It is a necessity of Aļļaah’s self to act, but not an act in particular, andnot having something done in particular,…” (Aş-Şafadiyyah, 2/97)[3] Ibn Taymiyyah said:“It has become clear that nothing can come into existence except froman actor that does something one after another.” (Aş-Şafadiyyah, 2/141) He also said:“An act is impossible except bit by bit.” (Aş-Şafadiyyah, 2/141)[4] See footnote 2.[5] See footnote #1[6] Ibn Taymiyyah said :In the above statement, Ibn Taymiyyah addresses his opponent, whohas stated that movement must have a beginning, so it cannot be anattribute of perfection. Ibn Taymiyyah responds to this: “Beginning
  15. 15. for its kind or each distinct movement? The first is impossible, but thesecond is accepted as true.” (Dar’ Taˆaaruđ A-ˆAql wa-n-Naql, 4/160)In other words, it is not impossible that there are infinitely manymovements in the past in Ibn Taymiyyah’s view, and it can be anattribute of Aļļaah, since it is an attribute of perfection in his view. Thisis based on his belief that Aļļaah is a body, because a body that cannotmove is “stuck” and it is better to be able to move than to be stuck.Sunnis believe that Aļļaah is not a body, so the attributes of beingable to move or being stuck do not apply to Him. Note that movementis not an attribute of perfection, because movement happens due tothe need to move, although being stuck is even worse, as it signifiesinability to do what one needs to to do. Both movement and beingstuck are thus attributes of imperfection.Ibn Taymiyyah also said:“So this is not correct except according to what they innovated bytheir saying “Aļļaah does not move and things do not come intoexistence in Him,” by which they denied that He settled on the throneafter being unsettled and that He comes on the Day of Judgment andother things that Aļļaah described Himself with in the Qur’aan andĥadiitħ.” (Al-Fataawaa Al-Kubraa, 5/128)He also said:It has become clear that other than the necessary in existence caninfluence the necessary in existence (the necessary in existence, i.e.Allaah(.This shows that Ibn Taymiyyah considered Aļļaah to have bodilyattributes based on his understanding of the scripture texts. Heunderstood them according to the customary meanings that are true ofcreation.[7] Ibn Taymiyyah said regarding Aļļaah’s attribute of knowledge:
  16. 16. “This attribute is beginningless, since it is impossible that He beattributed with it as some particular time (and not others). However,one should not delve deeply on this and end up saying what thekalaam scholars say: “Verily He knows the event when it happenswith a beginningless knowledge,” for this implies that the knowledge ofsomething previously non-existing during both its existence and non-existence one single knowledge. This is irrational, because knowledgefollows what exists.”He says this, because He believes Aļļaah to must be in time,since He believes He is a body (see footnote1,) and that Aļļaah’sbeginninglessness is a beginningless series of moments. See oneof Ibn Taymiyyah’s follower’s argument for this with a rebuttalhere:Aļļaah is not in time.[8] Ibn Taymiyyah plays word games on this issue, so it is hard tocatch what he is actually saying. However, the following phrase of hisis telling. Because he rejects the idea that created things have realinfluence, as the Sunnis say, and then states:He says: If Aļļaah created causes, and created through them otherthings, and controlled the matters of the skies and the earth, then thiswould be more complete in ability than creating something by itself,without creating another power, other than it, by which He creates it.In other words, He is saying that the power of creating can be putin causes, and other created things. This means that he believesthat Aļļaah could have partners in creating, which is another shirk toadd to the list of the other ones he commits. This belief is identicalto that of the Muˆtazilah. This is not perfection, as he claims, butin contradiction to it, because it is among the perfect attributes ofAļļaah that His Power is not merely a possibility, but an uncreatedeternal necessary attribute. Aļļaah’s attribute of Power is necessary inexistence, and therefore not amendable. Had it been amendable, orshareable, then this would mean that it was not necessary in the firstplace, and it would have needed a creator, like anything that is subjectto specification and change. Actually, Ibn Taymiyyah’s argument isidentical to Christian arguments like this one. A related topic regardingomnipotence is also presented here.
  17. 17. [9] See also this article.[10] Ibn Taymiyyah said:“Some of the authors in Kalaam science make the affirmative beliefin the indivisible particle of bodies the saying of the Muslims, andclaim that denying it is the saying of the non-Muslims. This is becausethey don’t know anything about the sayings of the Muslims exceptwhat they found in the books of their shaykħs, the people of kalaamscience, the innovation in religion that the Salaf and the Imams spokeagainst.” (Minhaaj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah, 138)[11] Scholarly ijmaaˆ consensus and Islamic legal analogy (qiyaas)are also proofs, of course, but these are established as proofs byQur’aan and ĥadiitħ.[12] This article addresses this problem: The ‘Simple’ Wahabi Belief II:Contradiction versus narration

×