Hello & Welcome to our community. Is this your first visit? Register
Ads by Muslim Ad Network


Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast
Results 601 to 640 of 716
  1. #1
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    128
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    103 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Exclamation The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than ISIS

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. And may the peace and blessings be upon the Master of all Messengers - our Prophet Muhammad - and upon his family and companions and those who followed them in goodness until the day of judgement.

    To proceed:

    Al-Salamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah,

    I've read some threads on this forum and saw that there are people here who dislike the crimes of IS / ISIS against the Muslims and other innocent people, but at the same time they admire Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and the original Najdi movement. This shows that there is huge amount of lack of information regarding the original Najdi movement and the level of their fanaticism.
    Know that IS / ISIS has not even committed 10 % of that which the original Najdi / Wahhabi movement committed against the Muslims in the time of the first Saudi state.

    The reason why it's important to know about the history of the original Wahhabiyyah is because it's necessary in order to understand the roots of fanaticism of an organization like ISIS and also in order not to be fooled by the deception, lies and propaganda of the Mashayikh of so called "Salafi" movement, who are exploiting the thirst of young people - especially those living in the West - to learn the religion. The reason why young people in the West are easily fooled by these so called "Salafis" is because of the ignorance regarding the [true] religion (i.e. Islam) that is unfortunately prevelant in the West.

    In this thread I'll insha`Allah try to lessen this lack of information concerning the original Najdi movement.

    Before I begin I would like to make an important note: This thread is NOT for the sake of dicussion and argumentation, but rather in order to inform those brother and sisters who don't know the reality of this movement and to warn them from being influenced by them or their descendants (i.e. the "Salafis"). I would also like to request that no one starts blindly defending Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his original followers in time of the first Saudi state, because I'm quite sure that you haven't read some of the Hardcore-Takfiri books of the original Najdis. All the informations that I will mention are from those books. If you want a proof for anything that I'll mention, then please write a comment here and I'll bring you the relevant qoutes in Arabic [from Najdi books] (and summarize its content).


    These are the most important Najdi sources in order to know the reality of this movement:

    - Tarikh Najd by the Wahhabi historian Hussayn bin Ghannam (d. 1225 AH): It's a history book and the author is a supporter and direct student of Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab.
    - 'Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd by the Wahhabi historian 'Uthman bin Bishr (d. 1288 AH): It's also a history book and the author lived during the time of the first and the second Saudi state. Similar to the book of Ibn Ghannam it's full of shocking passages where the author proudly reports how they attacked the cities of the Arabian peninsula and the surrounding areas and how "the Muslims" (while refering to themselves, i.e. the Najdis) killed the "Mushrikin" and "Murtadin" (while refering to the Muslims of the whole region!).
    - Mufid al-Mustafid fi Kufri Tarik al-Tawhid by Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH): He wrote this book after he had made Takfir upon a whole town in Najd (i.e. Huraymila`) and tried to justify it. The reason for his Takfir was first and foremost that the people of the city didn't support his unjustified Takfir and call to bloodshed anymore.
    - Al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyyah: These are the personal letters that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab sent to the scholars, people of authority and other imporant people. In these letters you'll see him making all kind of crazy statements like making Takfir upon the scholars of his time and claiming that he alone has understood Tawhid.
    - Al-Durar al-Saniyyah: A compilation of statements from Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his [blind] followers (whom the "Salafis" refer to as "scholars of Najd"). It was meant as a defence of their creed.

    So let's now begin with the important part:


    Who are the Wahhabiyyah and who is their leader?

    The Wahhabiyyah are the followers of Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH).
    He was the son of a Hanbali scholar and was born in al-'Uyayynah, a village in Najd. He started to study Islam and to become a student of knowledge (Talib al-'Ilm), but somehow he developed strange and extreme views.

    He became obsessed with graves:
    He regarded the wrong actions concerning the graves, which according to classical understanding are either forbidden (haram) or disliked (makruh), as Shirk akbar (polytheism). He did not stop here: He even regarded actions which are allowed according to all 4 accepted Madhahib of the Ahl al-Sunnah (like for example the seeking of intercession through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - (i.e. Tashaffu')) as "Shirk akbar" and regarded it as a nullifier of one's Islam.

    When his father saw that his son had developed these strange views and had deviated from the way of the Ahl al-Sunnah, he disallowed him to spread his wrong views. He feared however that his son would be the cause of great tribulations after his demise and he was indeed right with this feeling.

    When his father died, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab started to try to spread his new call.
    Before I proceed I would like to show you what this person thought about himself, so that you do not have any doubts regarding his deviance from the way of the Ahl al-Sunnah and the Sawad al-A'dham of this Ummah.


    Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab: "No one knows Tawhid except me"

    He said in one of his letters:

    وأنا أخبركم عن نفسي والله الذي لا إله إلا هو لقد طلبت العلم واعتقد من عرفني أن لي معرفة وأنا ذلك الوقت لا أعرف معنى لا إله إلا الله، ولا أعرف دين الإسلام قبل هذا الخير الذي من الله به. وكذلك مشايخي ما منهم رجل عرف ذلك، فمن زعم من علماء العارض أنه عرف معنى لا إله إلا الله أو عرف معنى الإسلام قبل هذا الوقت أو زعم عن مشايخه أن أحداً عرف ذلك فقد كذب وافترى ولبس على الناس ومدح نفسه بما ليس فيه

    "And I inform you about myself - I swear by Allah whom there is none worthy to worship except Him - I have sought knowledge and those who knew me believed that I had knowledge while I did not know the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah at that time and did not know the religion of Islam before this grace that Allah favored. As well as my teachers (Mashayikh) no one among them knew that. And if someone from the scholars of al-'Aridh (the lands of Najd and surrounding areas) claims that he knew the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah or knew the meaning of Islam before this time, or claims on behalf of his teachers that someone from them knew that, then he has lied and said falsehood and deceived the people and praised himself with something he does not possess."

    Source: al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyyah and al-Durar al-Saniyyah 10/51

    Just look at the arrogance and narcissm of this person and how he claims that he alone knows Tawhid while accusing the scholars (!) of the whole region of not knowing it. And where did this "knowledge" come from if no one teached it him?
    And you'll be surprised how many times he makes such crazy statements in his letters and how he sometimes lies (like for example by accusing anyone who critises him of "Sabb al-Din"/"cursing the religion") in a very clear way without having any shame whatsoever! May Allah ta'ala give him what he deserves!


    What was his connection to the first Saudi state?

    After he was thrown out of his hometown he met the Amir of al-Dir'iyyah (which is a town in Najd), Muhammad bin Sa'ud (d. 1179 AH), in the year 1157 AH. Ibn Sa'ud accepted his call after Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had told him that the people of Najd and the surrounding were upon "polytheism" and "ignorance" and after he explained to him his new religion. (Ibn Bishr has mentioned the incident.) Ibn Sa'ud and Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab made an alliance and agreed that the polical power shall be for Ibn Sa'ud (and his sons after him) and that the religious power shall be for Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his new ideas. This was the birth of the first Saudi state and he was the "Mufti" of this [accursed] state.


    The first Saudi state: The worst and most bloodthirsty Khawarij in the history!

    After the alliance was made Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab started throwing around with Fatawa of Takfir and to claim that most people of his time were are upon "Shirk akbar" (polytheism), so that the soldiers of the new born Saudi state could take this as a justifcation to fight the surrounding areas and occupy these regions. The Najdis first started with the towns and villages of Najd and attacked them one after the other.

    But they did not stop with Najd. Soon they started to attack the whole Arabian peninsula. They also attacked all surrounding areas like 'Iraq, Sham, Yemen, 'Oman, etc.
    They did no even shy away from making Takfir against the people of Makkah al-mukarramah and Madinah al-munawwarah and harming them and occupying these blessed cities!!

    If you read how the two Wahhabi historians Ibn Ghannam and Ibn Bishr proudly and without any shame reported these incidents you'll be shocked. They reported how they made Takfir upon whole towns and villages, attacked them and killed them on the streets, the markets and even in their houses. They even killed the Amir of al-'Uyayynah inside the mosque (!!!) after he had prayed the Salat al-Jum'ah. (Not even the houses of Allah had any sanctity for them!)
    They also reported how they burned and destroyed the fields of Muslims (while referring to them as "polytheists" and "apostates"), robbed and stole from them whatever they could take!
    They even reported what a great fear their attacks caused in the heart of the people (this was during their attack on al-Sham) or how the people - innocent Muslim men and women!!! - ran away from them and died from hunger and thirst in the desert (this is what happened to the people of al-Riyadh) or how the people fled to the ocean and drowned in the water (this happened to the people of al-Basrah). They also reported how they made an embargo against different cities which caused the people to die from hunger (this happened to the people Makkah al-mukarramah!).


    And as if all of these crimes are not enough: When they occupied Makkah al-mukarramah they stopped the people from the other Muslim lands from making Hajj for several years, because they regarded all of them to be "polytheists" and "apostates". The first time this happened in the year 1221 AH.

    When their tyranny and bloodshed had reached its peak, the Ottomans - who were the biggest "Mushrikin" (polytheists) upon this earth according the Najdis - decided to stop these criminal Mariqin and Khawarij and to retake every single city that they had occupied. The Ottomans crushed their Khariji state and the first Saudi state ceased to exist by the help of Allah and his permission.


    What is build upon deviation does not lead to anything except more deviation:

    After the first state they had a second state, but the second state was only in Najd and was weak compared to their first state. As for the third state: It's the current Saudi state and it was build upon treason against the whole Ummah of Islam.

    In the time of their first State the Wahhabiyyah were hated by all Muslims of the region (because everyone saw and knew of their crimes) and the people did not accept their views. However when time passed by the people started to forget about them.

    During the third state (i.e. the actual one) the government started to spread the so called "Salafi" Da'wah with huge amounts of money (because there is still an alliance between the Saudi rulers and the Wahhabi Al al-Shaykhs, who are the descendents of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab). This and the widespread ignorance regarding the religion in our times are the main reason why the "Salafis" have spread. It should be noted that the so called "Salafi" Da'wah has nothing to do with the Salaf al-salih or the Ahl al-Sunnah. It's the result of a mix of the ideas of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and some other controversial personalities.

    So beware from whom you take religion and do not let these deceivers influence you.

    And our last call is that all praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. And may the peace and blessings be upon our Master Muhammad - the seal of the Prophets and Messengers - and upon all of his familiy and companions.

  2. #601
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    So that's what you call a defense? Qouting something without even knowing the context!?!

    First of all: The people of Huraymila were not that which you people refer to as "grave worshippers".
    And another thing: You're mocking other Muslims in the same way the disbelievers say "I thought Islam is peace...". So listen very well: Muslims have the right to defend themselves against ANYONE (whether they are Harbi Kuffar or Khawarij) who is trying to oppress them. Did you get that?

    Now let's see what the people of Huraymila actually were: Your historian Ibn Ghannam (d. 1225 AH) mentioned that the following happened in the year 1160 AH):

    ثم قدم عليهما ومعه وجوه اهل حريملا والعيينة وعهدهما على الجهاد والقيام بنصرة الدين ولو في اي مكان

    "He ('Uthman Ibn Muammar, governor of Al-Uyyayna) came to them (IAW and Ibn Saoud) and there were with him the people of Al-Huraymila and Al-Uyayyna, they pledged to do jihad and stand for triumph of the religion no matter where they are"

    - end of the qoute -
    (Translation taken from brother Pluma)

    Suprise Suprise: The people of Huraymila were supporter of the Wahhabiyyah and even fought under their banner.

    But when the scholars warned them against spilling Muslim blood and also when they saw that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was crossing all limits, they stopped supporting them and stopped making Takfir upon other Muslims. According to Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab this is apostasy, because being against his Takfir is Kufr!

    So let's see what Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) said after he had already declared them as apostates:

    فإذا قال هؤلاء بألسنتهم: نشهد أن هذا دين الله ورسوله، ونشهد أن المخالف له باطل، وأنه الشرك بالله، غر هذا الكلام ضعيف البصيرة. وأعظم من هذا وأطم أن أهل حريملا ومن وراءهم يصرحون بمسبة الدين، وأن الحق ما عليه أكثر الناس، يستدلون بالكثرة على حسن ما هم فيه من الدين، ويفعلون ويقولون ما هو من أكبر الردة وأفحشها. فإذا قالوا: التوحيد حق والشرك باطل، وأيضا لم يحدثوا في بلدهم أوثانا، جادل الملحد عنهم. وقال: إنهم يقرون أن هذا شرك، وأن التوحيد هو الحق، ولا يضرهم عنده ما هم عليه من السب لدين الله، وبغي العوج له، ومدح الشرك، وذبهم دونه بالمال واليد واللسان

    Source: Mufid al-Mustafid

    Here he we see him attacking and lying against the people of Huraymila by claiming that they curse the religion of Allah (i.e. they were against Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab). At the same time he admits that they regarded Tawhid as correct and Shirk as batil and that there were no idols in their town (i.e. what he intends here that there were no erected graves or mausoleums in their town).

    This means that even according to IAW the poeple of Huraymila were not that which the "Salafis" would refer to as "Quburis"! Did you get that abufulaans?




    Actually they did none of this! Even the liar Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab did not accuse them of this (except for "attacking real Tawhid")! You should seriously fear Allah! How many times do you want to make Takfir without having a single proof?

    By the way: The ruling for slaughtering for other than Allah depends upon the intention and therefore not necessarily Shirk akbar. Making Tawaf aroung graves is disallowed and again not Shirk akbar (please for God's sake look into some classical Fiqh books before making such claims!).
    As for asking the dead: If that which the classical scholars referred to as Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighathah is intended, then this is allowed and in no way Shirk. And if the intent is to ask the Anbiya` and Awliya` in the same way one asks Allah ta'ala, then that is of course not allowed, but Takfir is not made, because this issue is again something that is bound to the intention.

    As for attacking real Tawhid: Your Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab is guilty of that!
    Firstly بارك الله فيك for correcting me and will avoid mixing issues up unintentionally InshaAllah

    I still see the takfeer as valid, in other words, they had a good understanding of what shirk and kufr was, yet still defended grave worshippers and attacked the people of tawheed, this too is riddah
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

  3. #602
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    128
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    103 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    http://www.al-moammar.com/pages/history_da3wa_10.htm

    What's extremely strange is that you have to bring all these unclear issues with little information regarding them to attack the dawah of the sheikh
    I assumed he was one of those who fought tawheed with the people of shirk, but it really isn't clear and I can't comment due to the lack of information on the whole issue altogether
    Abufulaans you're not realising it, but you're a cultist. For you everything Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab said is somehow "Tawhid' and anyone being against him is automatically "against Tawhid".
    FYI: Tawhid existed before Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab! The classical scholars had a 1000 times better understanding of Tawhid and Shirk than him.

    Your Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was actually that idiotic to act as if polytheists of Makkah had pretty much the same beliefs regarding Allah ta'ala as Muslims, while according to the Qur`an al-karim the Arab polytheists believed that angels were daughters of God and other shirki things.

    This and other than this just shows that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had no understanding of the Qur`an and the Sunnah at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    I still see the takfeer as valid, in other words, they had a good understanding of what shirk and kufr was, yet still defended grave worshippers and attacked the people of tawheed, this too is riddah
    If you say so. You're basically just affirming what I said: Being against Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's (d. 1206 AH) Takfir is Riddah according to the original Najdis!
    Seems like the scholars of his time were pretty much all "apostates' for disagreeing with IAW. This is how easy it is according to original Najdis.
    "What you're saying that Tawaf around graves is just not allowed, but not necassarily Shirk akbar? You worthless Quburi, we'll slaughter you and your town for repeating something that is in accordance with classical Fiqh books!'... that's Najdi logic for you.

  4. #603
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    Abufulaans you're not realising it, but you're a cultist. For you everything Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab said is somehow "Tawhid' and anyone being against him is automatically "against Tawhid".
    FYI: Tawhid existed before Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab! The classical scholars had a 1000 times better understanding of Tawhid and Shirk than him.

    Your Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was actually that idiotic to act as if polytheists of Makkah had pretty much the same beliefs regarding Allah ta'ala as Muslims, while according to the Qur`an al-karim the Arab polytheists believed that angels were daughters of God and other shirki things.

    This and other than this just shows that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had no understanding of the Qur`an and the Sunnah at all.



    If you say so. You're basically just affirming what I said: Being against Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's (d. 1206 AH) Takfir is Riddah according to the original Najdis!
    Seems like the scholars of his time were pretty much all "apostates' for disagreeing with IAW. This is how easy it is according to original Najdis.
    "What you're saying that Tawaf around graves is just not allowed, but not necassarily Shirk akbar? You worthless Quburi, we'll slaughter you and your town for repeating something that is in accordance with classical Fiqh books!'... that's Najdi logic for you.
    Really? The mushrikeen in hardship would turn to Allah alone, mushriks of today even call upon their wali in hardship, why the sheikh made the comparison is completely correct, this is something I have no doubt about

    2) wait are you saying even tawaaf around graves isn't shirk, what about slaughtering to get closer to a dead person?

    3) Akhi I don't get your problem, this is the exact dawah of the prophet ﷺ, to call people to tawheed and to make takfeer on those who remain upon batil, and if they persist then they are fought until the deen is for Allah alone, just because prove say the shahadah doesn't mean anything if they openly nullify it
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

  5. #604
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    128
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    103 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    Really? The mushrikeen in hardship would turn to Allah alone, mushriks of today even call upon their wali in hardship, why the sheikh made the comparison is completely correct, this is something I have no doubt about
    The comparison is actually completely wrong because the belief of Muslims regarding Allah ta'ala is not the same like that of polytheists... likewise the belief of Muslims regarding Anbiya` and Awliya` is not the same as that of polytheists regarding their idols [and that which these idols represent]. I've already mentioned one example which is proven by the Qur`an and that is the belief of Arab polytheists that angels are the daughters of god (and they worshipped them based upon this belief).
    It's true that some of these calls upon the Awliya` by some Muslims are wrong, but Takfir is not made that easily (even scholars, who were in agreement with Ibn Taymiyyah's position regarding this issue said that to IAW). And some of these calls are not even wrong according to classical scholars.

    As for the rest of the questions and statements... I'll answer insha`allah when I get time.

  6. #605
    أبو حمزة Salman Al-Farsi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    34,474
    Mentioned
    344 Post(s)
    Quoted
    130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    424

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Great discussion but why in the void? Should be in the lounge or history section! I guess the forum has reached the kind of decline where such discussions are either being curtailed or not of interest!!

    Abu Sulayman, bit late to this discussion, I have to say as much as I agree with the message of your argument there is something unsettling about the logic and the manner!

    Firstly, we have to evaluate individuals, doctrines and socio-political ideas separately, so.. doctrines are the driving force behind actions, actions are carried out by individuals, individuals make bad decisions, doctrines are only as good as the individual following or propagating it.

    So IAWN invented a new doctrine of tawheed, considered his opponents apostates and either him or his movement were involved in mass killing, rebellion, treachery and became knowing or unknowingly tools of colonialists. Did this encompass his worldview of tawheed? I very much doubt it, he made grave mistakes but so did everyone else.. why single him out like this? It does show to his followers who often indulge in bashing others to check out your own dude.. but I think this point is wasted here.

    He deserves to be refuted on doctrinal and fiqhi issues just as almost every single scholar in the entire history has been, people who think he’s above that are deluded.

    But the political issues need to be viewed from a different lense when those making the moves do so based on a scholarly understanding. Whether you accept or not, I understand that IAWN was a mujtahid who made mistakes which should be exposed as they caused irreparable damage but courtesy needs to extended for the goodness which came out of it and the fact that he was a scholar of Islam. You have to acknowledge there is goodness which came out of IAWN and co as a basic truth which will define the contention points and make your research productive otherwise it’s just another sufi vs salafi debate!
    "The objective behind Shari'ah is to liberate individuals from his desires in order to be a true Abd (slave) of Allah and that is the legitimate Maslaha... Violating the Shari'ah under the pretext of following Maqasid al-Shari'ah is like the one who cares about the spirit without the body and since the body without the spirit is useless therefore the spirit without the body is useless too." ~ Imam Shatibi - The greatest intellectual founder of Maqasid al-Shari'ah

  7. #606
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    116 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1561 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    118

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    The position of Imam an Nawawi

    Source http://www.sunnah.org/ibadaat/ziyara.htm#Shaykh al-Islam al-Hafiz al-Imam Nawawi


    "As for him who cannot memorize all of this or who does not have the time to recite it, it is enough to recite a part of it, as a minimum the words al-Salamu `alayka ya Rasul Allah
    Then, if someone has asked him to convey Salams to Allah's Messenger, let him say al-Salamu `alayka ya Rasul Allah min Fulan ibn Fulan (Greetings to you, O Messenger of Allah, from So-and-so, the son of So-and-so), or some such greeting, after which he steps an arm's length to the right and sends Salams to Abu Bakr because he stands at the shoulder of Allah's Messenger; then he says al-Salamu `alayka ya Aba Bakrin safiyya rasulillahi wa thaniyahu fi al-ghari, jazakallahu `an ummat al-nabiyyi khayran, (Greetings to you, O Abu Bakr, the Intimate Friend of Allah's Messenger and his second in the Cave! May Allah grant you the best reward on behalf of the Prophet's Community). Then he steps an arm's length to the left of his original position, to the space before Umar, saying: al-salamu `alayka ya `umara a`azz allahu bika al-islam, jazak allahu `an ummati muhammadin khayran (Greetings to you O `Umar, Allah has strengthened Islam through you, may Allah reward you well on behalf of the nation of Muhammad).
    Then he returns to his original position, directly in front of Allah's Messenger, and he uses the prophet as his means in his innermost (fa yatawassalu bihi fi haqqi nafsihi), and seeks his intercession before his exalted and mighty Lord (wa yatashaffa`u bihi ila rabbihi subhanahu wa ta`ala), and one of the best things that he can say is what has been narrated by our colleagues on al-`Utbi's authority, and they admired what he said:
    As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Beduin Arab came and said: "Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: "If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful" (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord." Then he began to recite poetry:
    O best of those whose bones are buried in the deep earth,
    And from whose fragrance the depth
    and the height have become sweet,
    May I be the ransom for a grave which thou inhabit,
    And in which are found purity, bounty and munificence!
    Then he left, and I dozed and saw the Prophet in my sleep. He said to me: "O `Utbi, run after the Beduin and give him glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him."

    The pilgrim should next advance to the head of the grave and stand between the grave and the pillar that is there, facing the Qibla [without turning his back on the grave]. Let him praise and glorify Allah and supplicate for himself regarding what concerns him and what he loves, for his parents, and for whomever he likes among his relatives, revered teachers, brothers, and Muslims in general; then he comes to the Rawda and increases his supplication and prayer. It established in the two Sahihs in a narration from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet said: "Between my grave and my Minbar lies one of the Gardens of Paradise, and my Minbar overlooks my Pool (hawd). Let him stand by the Minbar to make supplication.
    Eighth: It is impermissible (la yajuz) to circumambulate the grave of the Prophet, and it is reprehensible (makruh) to stand so close to the grave that one's entire front or back is in direct contact with it. This is according to the opinion of al-Halimi and others. Also reprehensible is rubbing the grave with one's hand or kissing it. The good etiquette is to stay a distance from it, as one would from a living person. This is what the `ulama have said, and we should not be misled by such actions of common people that are in violation of these good manners; we should only follow the prescriptions of the scholars, without paying attention to the behavior of the common people."


    @Abu Sulayman @abufulaans

    1) According to the Aqidah / Dawah of MIAW , what is an Nawawi?

    2) According to Ibn Uthaymeen what is an Nawawi

    3) If he is a Kaafir or a Mushrik , why do Salafis praise and promote him in fiqhi matters.

    ( There is a video online of someone questioning Shaykh Saalih al Fawzaan , asking " What is your opinion on the one who calls Imam Nawawi an innovator ?

    His response was , " The one who calls him an innovator is himself an innovator. " )

    Please address this.


  8. #607
    الحمد لله‎ .Hajar.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Gender
    Girl Female
    Posts
    13,121
    Mentioned
    388 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1645 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    434

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Salman Al-Farsi View Post
    Great discussion but why in the void? Should be in the lounge or history section! I guess the forum has reached the kind of decline where such discussions are either being curtailed or not of interest!!

    ....
    It IS in the History section, akh. I moved it from the Lounge weeks ago, topics like these (of historical significance/ discussion) belong in this section.
    Last edited by .Hajar.; 13-09-17 at 05:18 PM.



  9. #608
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    The comparison is actually completely wrong because the belief of Muslims regarding Allah ta'ala is not the same like that of polytheists... likewise the belief of Muslims regarding Anbiya` and Awliya` is not the same as that of polytheists regarding their idols [and that which these idols represent]. I've already mentioned one example which is proven by the Qur`an and that is the belief of Arab polytheists that angels are the daughters of god (and they worshipped them based upon this belief).
    It's true that some of these calls upon the Awliya` by some Muslims are wrong, but Takfir is not made that easily (even scholars, who were in agreement with Ibn Taymiyyah's position regarding this issue said that to IAW). And some of these calls are not even wrong according to classical scholars.

    As for the rest of the questions and statements... I'll answer insha`allah when I get time.
    See the problem is that you have not understood tawheed properly

    Allah in the Quran mentions various types of shirk that the mushrikeen commited, there is a reason for this, saying Allah has a partner is different to calling upon other then Allah in hardship, saying Allah has sons/daughters is different to doing sujood to idols
    How you lump all these various types of shirks together is completely against the Quran,

    Even Allah says the mushrikeen affirmed he is the lord of absolutely everything, do you realise what this means? Hold on a second
    It means they believed Allah was the first
    It means they believed Allah controlleled everything
    It means they believed nothing they called upon could do anything was it not for Allah allowing it
    It means they believed Allah created the heavens and earth and everything in it

    Yet none of this prevented them from falling into shirk

    It's very similar to the case of the Jews, they did not realize they were doing shirk until the prophet ﷺ told them, mushrikeen grave worshippers today too think they are not doing shirk,
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

  10. #609
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Salman Al-Farsi View Post
    Great discussion but why in the void? Should be in the lounge or history section! I guess the forum has reached the kind of decline where such discussions are either being curtailed or not of interest!!

    Abu Sulayman, bit late to this discussion, I have to say as much as I agree with the message of your argument there is something unsettling about the logic and the manner!

    Firstly, we have to evaluate individuals, doctrines and socio-political ideas separately, so.. doctrines are the driving force behind actions, actions are carried out by individuals, individuals make bad decisions, doctrines are only as good as the individual following or propagating it.

    So IAWN invented a new doctrine of tawheed, considered his opponents apostates and either him or his movement were involved in mass killing, rebellion, treachery and became knowing or unknowingly tools of colonialists. Did this encompass his worldview of tawheed? I very much doubt it, he made grave mistakes but so did everyone else.. why single him out like this? It does show to his followers who often indulge in bashing others to check out your own dude.. but I think this point is wasted here.

    He deserves to be refuted on doctrinal and fiqhi issues just as almost every single scholar in the entire history has been, people who think he’s above that are deluded.

    But the political issues need to be viewed from a different lense when those making the moves do so based on a scholarly understanding. Whether you accept or not, I understand that IAWN was a mujtahid who made mistakes which should be exposed as they caused irreparable damage but courtesy needs to extended for the goodness which came out of it and the fact that he was a scholar of Islam. You have to acknowledge there is goodness which came out of IAWN and co as a basic truth which will define the contention points and make your research productive otherwise it’s just another sufi vs salafi debate!
    Yes this is true, infact I lean the view that they were infact wrong for making takfeer on those who solely go to graves to ask them to ask Allah,
    HOWEVER
    This in reality would change nothing, because many other forms of shirk were prevalent in the lands at the time, so they still deserved to be fought as they persisted upon shirk of various forms and insulted and hated pure tawheed
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

  11. #610
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    The position of Imam an Nawawi

    Source http://www.sunnah.org/ibadaat/ziyara.htm#Shaykh al-Islam al-Hafiz al-Imam Nawawi


    "As for him who cannot memorize all of this or who does not have the time to recite it, it is enough to recite a part of it, as a minimum the words al-Salamu `alayka ya Rasul Allah
    Then, if someone has asked him to convey Salams to Allah's Messenger, let him say al-Salamu `alayka ya Rasul Allah min Fulan ibn Fulan (Greetings to you, O Messenger of Allah, from So-and-so, the son of So-and-so), or some such greeting, after which he steps an arm's length to the right and sends Salams to Abu Bakr because he stands at the shoulder of Allah's Messenger; then he says al-Salamu `alayka ya Aba Bakrin safiyya rasulillahi wa thaniyahu fi al-ghari, jazakallahu `an ummat al-nabiyyi khayran, (Greetings to you, O Abu Bakr, the Intimate Friend of Allah's Messenger and his second in the Cave! May Allah grant you the best reward on behalf of the Prophet's Community). Then he steps an arm's length to the left of his original position, to the space before Umar, saying: al-salamu `alayka ya `umara a`azz allahu bika al-islam, jazak allahu `an ummati muhammadin khayran (Greetings to you O `Umar, Allah has strengthened Islam through you, may Allah reward you well on behalf of the nation of Muhammad).
    Then he returns to his original position, directly in front of Allah's Messenger, and he uses the prophet as his means in his innermost (fa yatawassalu bihi fi haqqi nafsihi), and seeks his intercession before his exalted and mighty Lord (wa yatashaffa`u bihi ila rabbihi subhanahu wa ta`ala), and one of the best things that he can say is what has been narrated by our colleagues on al-`Utbi's authority, and they admired what he said:
    As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Beduin Arab came and said: "Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: "If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful" (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord." Then he began to recite poetry:
    O best of those whose bones are buried in the deep earth,
    And from whose fragrance the depth
    and the height have become sweet,
    May I be the ransom for a grave which thou inhabit,
    And in which are found purity, bounty and munificence!
    Then he left, and I dozed and saw the Prophet in my sleep. He said to me: "O `Utbi, run after the Beduin and give him glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him."

    The pilgrim should next advance to the head of the grave and stand between the grave and the pillar that is there, facing the Qibla [without turning his back on the grave]. Let him praise and glorify Allah and supplicate for himself regarding what concerns him and what he loves, for his parents, and for whomever he likes among his relatives, revered teachers, brothers, and Muslims in general; then he comes to the Rawda and increases his supplication and prayer. It established in the two Sahihs in a narration from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet said: "Between my grave and my Minbar lies one of the Gardens of Paradise, and my Minbar overlooks my Pool (hawd). Let him stand by the Minbar to make supplication.
    Eighth: It is impermissible (la yajuz) to circumambulate the grave of the Prophet, and it is reprehensible (makruh) to stand so close to the grave that one's entire front or back is in direct contact with it. This is according to the opinion of al-Halimi and others. Also reprehensible is rubbing the grave with one's hand or kissing it. The good etiquette is to stay a distance from it, as one would from a living person. This is what the `ulama have said, and we should not be misled by such actions of common people that are in violation of these good manners; we should only follow the prescriptions of the scholars, without paying attention to the behavior of the common people."


    @Abu Sulayman @abufulaans

    1) According to the Aqidah / Dawah of MIAW , what is an Nawawi?

    2) According to Ibn Uthaymeen what is an Nawawi

    3) If he is a Kaafir or a Mushrik , why do Salafis praise and promote him in fiqhi matters.

    ( There is a video online of someone questioning Shaykh Saalih al Fawzaan , asking " What is your opinion on the one who calls Imam Nawawi an innovator ?

    His response was , " The one who calls him an innovator is himself an innovator. " )

    Please address this.

    Ok il do my best InshaAllah

    1) I will bring the kalaam of sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul wahhab where he says that although these scholars had deviant views, they were still great scholars of Islam, he specifically mentioned Al haitami at the end of the message and I'm sure he meant others like Al nawawi first and foremost, in other words, he saw what's posted above as shirk, but excused them and considered them muslims

    As for his students, I don't know their view regarding him

    2) A great Muslim scholar with mistakes

    3) We don't say he is kafir and take alot of knowledge from him, but we say he unintentionally had partly corrupt aqeedah due to his place and time, we don't even say he was misguided because he didn't openly and intentionally call to misguidance unlike some other scholars before and after him,
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

  12. #611
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    116 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1561 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    118

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    Ok il do my best InshaAllah

    1) I will bring the kalaam of sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul wahhab where he says that although these scholars had deviant views, they were still great scholars of Islam, he specifically mentioned Al haitami at the end of the message and I'm sure he meant others like Al nawawi first and foremost, in other words, he saw what's posted above as shirk, but excused them and considered them muslims

    As for his students, I don't know their view regarding him

    2) A great Muslim scholar with mistakes

    3) We don't say he is kafir and take alot of knowledge from him, but we say he unintentionally had partly corrupt aqeedah due to his place and time, we don't even say he was misguided because he didn't openly and intentionally call to misguidance unlike some other scholars before and after him,


    1) but this is not shirk asghar like riyaah. This is the exact thing this scholar is fighting ( literally ) against , and making takfir of individuals based upon. Mind you , no one in his time is greater in knowledge than Imam Nawawi.

    It seems that the idea that this being shirk , is bid'ah.

    Can you provide anyone other than him who says it is shirk akbar? And also why would any scholar get a pass. Excuse of ignorance can apply to a primarmu mujtahid of a madhab?

    2) Thought Ibn Uthaymeen viewed tashaffa'a as major shirk - do you disagree with Abu Sulaymans analysis on his creed ?

    Thank you

  13. #612
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post


    1) but this is not shirk asghar like riyaah. This is the exact thing this scholar is fighting ( literally ) against , and making takfir of individuals based upon. Mind you , no one in his time is greater in knowledge than Imam Nawawi.

    It seems that the idea that this being shirk , is bid'ah.

    Can you provide anyone other than him who says it is shirk akbar? And also why would any scholar get a pass. Excuse of ignorance can apply to a primarmu mujtahid of a madhab?

    2) Thought Ibn Uthaymeen viewed tashaffa'a as major shirk - do you disagree with Abu Sulaymans analysis on his creed ?

    Thank you
    1) But that's the thing, this wasn't the only shirk he saw prevalent among the people at all, I would agree with you that if he made takfeer on this issue alone then he would have been wrong, but that wasn't the case
    As for imam al nawawi, of course he had alot of knowledge in 1000s of issues, but that doesn't mean he wasn't mistaken in a few of them, especially considering that this belief was very widespread in his time, he also said Allah is not really above the throne and other things regarding sifaat,

    See the state that sheikh MIAW saw would be similar to a mix of asharis, bralwis and pure jahil grave lovers today, it was a lot worse then you think, read the opening pages of the book tareekh najd to read a short description (although I think it's somewhere in the first few pages of this thread too)

    2) I will need to check this up, it might be correct because this is a common view among many Salafi scholars, all I read it that Ibn uthaymeen saw it as a bad bidah leading to shirk

    3) Other then Ibn Taymiyyah who may have said it's shirk (if not bidah definitely), no I don't know another who said it's shirk akbar, really it all comes down to the two hadiths that are used to prove its permissibility, but anyway it was for this reason I see it as bidah that can lead to shirk (and as we see in history and many sects, it clearly led to shirk, there's a reason why there are people today who ask the dead for things)
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

  14. #613
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    116 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1561 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    118

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    1) But that's the thing, this wasn't the only shirk he saw prevalent among the people at all, I would agree with you that if he made takfeer on this issue alone then he would have been wrong, but that wasn't the case
    As for imam al nawawi, of course he had alot of knowledge in 1000s of issues, but that doesn't mean he wasn't mistaken in a few of them, especially considering that this belief was very widespread in his time, he also said Allah is not really above the throne and other things regarding sifaat,

    See the state that sheikh MIAW saw would be similar to a mix of asharis, bralwis and pure jahil grave lovers today, it was a lot worse then you think, read the opening pages of the book tareekh najd to read a short description (although I think it's somewhere in the first few pages of this thread too)

    2) I will need to check this up, it might be correct because this is a common view among many Salafi scholars, all I read it that Ibn uthaymeen saw it as a bad bidah leading to shirk

    3) Other then Ibn Taymiyyah who may have said it's shirk (if not bidah definitely), no I don't know another who said it's shirk akbar, really it all comes down to the two hadiths that are used to prove its permissibility, but anyway it was for this reason I see it as bidah that can lead to shirk (and as we see in history and many sects, it clearly led to shirk, there's a reason why there are people today who ask the dead for things)


    1) Yes , there were other things , but this specific one appears to be a kharijite position - held by none before him - and needs to be refuted today as a bid'ah and extremism.

    If we see someone at the grave site asking the Prophet to ask Allah to forgive them - following the ayah which calls the people to do so , we shouldnt call them kuffar.

    Perhaps one could say it is bid'ah / haram / misinterpretation ( even though Nawawi brings forth hadith for it )

    If one says those in the grave are incompetent of such tasks , well we do know

    1) They are alive in barzarkh
    2) They make dua / pray in barzarkh
    3) There are hadith with says the Prophet prays for his Ummah when he see's good ( every friday I believe )
    4) Majority scholars , including ibn taymiyyah / ibn al qayyim believed the dead can hear
    5) Hadith of the Sahabi / Bedouin

    Im not telling anyone what to do / believe , just expressing what I see , in hopes to learn and not blindly follow personalities in such critical matters.

    Hope to also hear from @Abu Sulayman

  15. #614
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post


    1) Yes , there were other things , but this specific one appears to be a kharijite position - held by none before him - and needs to be refuted today as a bid'ah and extremism.

    If we see someone at the grave site asking the Prophet to ask Allah to forgive them - following the ayah which calls the people to do so , we shouldnt call them kuffar.

    Perhaps one could say it is bid'ah / haram / misinterpretation ( even though Nawawi brings forth hadith for it )

    If one says those in the grave are incompetent of such tasks , well we do know

    1) They are alive in barzarkh
    2) They make dua / pray in barzarkh
    3) There are hadith with says the Prophet prays for his Ummah when he see's good ( every friday I believe )
    4) Majority scholars , including ibn taymiyyah / ibn al qayyim believed the dead can hear
    5) Hadith of the Sahabi / Bedouin

    Im not telling anyone what to do / believe , just expressing what I see , in hopes to learn and not blindly follow personalities in such critical matters.

    Hope to also hear from @Abu Sulayman
    1) Kharijite opinion, interesting, I still think the issue is more complicated, they based it upon what they knew and what they seriously thought the scholars of Islam said, the way the khawarij made takfeer was a bit different but I see where your coming from,

    Oh the ayah doesn't call them to do so, there's just two weak hadiths on the issue, if the ayah called for that then we would have 10s, if not 100s of sahih hadith showing that the sahabah called the prophet ﷺ after he passed away, but we don't, because the ayah doesn't call for that simply put

    2) True, but it just gets alot worse from there, people then start putting their trust in the dead saint, start thinking you have to ask the dead saint to ask Allah all the time ect...and eventually it leads to asking the dead saint directly at the grave, and then even worse, asking the dead saint in hardship far away from the grave

    Therefore its a bidah that leads to shirk
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

  16. #615
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    116 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1561 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    118

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    1) Kharijite opinion, interesting, I still think the issue is more complicated, they based it upon what they knew and what they seriously thought the scholars of Islam said, the way the khawarij made takfeer was a bit different but I see where your coming from,

    Oh the ayah doesn't call them to do so, there's just two weak hadiths on the issue, if the ayah called for that then we would have 10s, if not 100s of sahih hadith showing that the sahabah called the prophet ﷺ after he passed away, but we don't, because the ayah doesn't call for that simply put

    2) True, but it just gets alot worse from there, people then start putting their trust in the dead saint, start thinking you have to ask the dead saint to ask Allah all the time ect...and eventually it leads to asking the dead saint directly at the grave, and then even worse, asking the dead saint in hardship far away from the grave

    Therefore its a bidah that leads to shirk
    Well the reason why the term "kharijite" is proposed is due to the fact that something which was an accepted practice by some Ulama , which they justifty from some ahadith from the time of the Salaf ..

    Or a practice which was not accepted by a faction of scholars on the basis that it is a misrepresentation of the ayah [ 4 : 64 ] - which ceases to apply after the death of the Prophet (saws) - and was not the practice of the khula ar rashideen ..

    But to claim it is shirk akbar , how is that not a kharijite position , making something which is at most haram , in to something which takes you out the deen ?

    Regardless , it is not so important to call him a khariji. But it is absolutely important to recognize that this positon is extreme , it is bid'ah , and falsehood to spread.

    1) No Muslim prior to him has ever said this. ( Don't Salafis argue against sufis using similar reasoning? Apply that reasoning in this situation)

    2) There are texts from the Salaf ( A bedouin / Sahabi ) being apart of this act while no scholar from that era until Ibn Taymiyyah ever criticised it.

    The lack of criticism of the well known ahadith is a proof in and of itself for it's acceptability to some degree.

    I guess you can argue that the lack of quality Sahabah / quantity in proofs can not validate a practice not ordered by the Prophet (saws) and would result in a clear bid'ah which can lead to shirk.

    ^ I would agree that it is fair and principled , and I can imagine a faqeeh using such reasoning , and requiring something more decisive , in order to stamp validity in to a practice. But to suggest that the act is shirk akbar in and of itself , is farfetched , not historical , and thus against true 'Salafiyyah' ( In it's linguistic and sound meaning , not hizbiyyah )

    What do you think of this analysis ?

    Barak Allah feekum
    Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 13-09-17 at 11:56 PM.

  17. #616
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    Well the reason why the term "kharijite" is proposed is due to the fact that something which was an accepted practice by some Ulama , which they justifty from some ahadith from the time of the Salaf ..

    Or a practice which was not accepted by a faction of scholars on the basis that it is a misrepresentation of the ayah [ 4 : 64 ] - which ceases to apply after the death of the Prophet (saws) - and was not the practice of the khula ar rashideen ..

    But to claim it is shirk akbar , how is that not a kharijite position , making something which is at most haram , in to something which takes you out the deen ?

    Regardless , it is not so important to call him a khariji. But it is absolutely important to recognize that this positon is extreme , it is bid'ah , and falsehood to spread.

    1) No Muslim prior to him has ever said this. ( Don't Salafis argue against sufis using similar reasoning? Apply that reasoning in this situation)

    2) There are texts from the Salaf ( A bedouin / Sahabi ) being apart of this act while no scholar from that era until Ibn Taymiyyah ever criticised it.

    The lack of criticism of the well known ahadith is a proof in and of itself for it's acceptability to some degree.

    I guess you can argue that the lack of quality Sahabah / quantity in proofs can not validate a practice not ordered by the Prophet (saws) and would result in a clear bid'ah which can lead to shirk.

    ^ I would agree that it is fair and principled , and I can imagine a faqeeh using such reasoning , and requiring something more decisive , in order to stamp validity in to a practice. But to suggest that the act is shirk akbar in and of itself , is farfetched , not historical , and thus against true 'Salafiyyah' ( In it's linguistic and sound meaning , not hizbiyyah )

    What do you think of this analysis ?

    Barak Allah feekum
    I understand what your saying about the khariji type opinion, I will have to think about this because scholars in the past have made takfeer on strange things before him aswell, they were mistaken but to call it khawarij takfeer seems incorrect aswell. As for it being extreme and incorrect, yes I agree with that actually and I actually have held this view for a few years now

    Besides that, what I'm trying to say that his dawah and war against the mushrikeen as a whole was still correct, even if he was mistaken on this opinion

    1) That seems correct, no one called it shirk akbar as far as I know before the scholars of najd,

    2) This is completely wrong, a number of scholars said this act is not permissible, il post a few statements in the next post, however as you rightly stated, none of them called it shirk akbar and made takfeer on Muslims over it for doing that alone, they just stated it's not permissible or a bidah

    I agree, salafis should reject incorrect views no matter who they are from,

    بارك الله فيك
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

  18. #617
    أبو حمزة Salman Al-Farsi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    34,474
    Mentioned
    344 Post(s)
    Quoted
    130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    424

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    Yes this is true, infact I lean the view that they were infact wrong for making takfeer on those who solely go to graves to ask them to ask Allah,
    HOWEVER
    This in reality would change nothing, because many other forms of shirk were prevalent in the lands at the time, so they still deserved to be fought as they persisted upon shirk of various forms and insulted and hated pure tawheed
    The issue here is this ‘Pure Tawheed’ you mentioned, regardless of prevalent practices they were wrong according to IAWN & co’s understanding of ‘pure tawheed’ which they decided to enforce upon masses. For example, I may consider ‘pure Tawheed’ to be Haakamiyah would I then be justified in fighting iwan & co and their aal-saud allies for their shirk in obedience to other than Allah ta’ala? You may not understand or recognise what I am saying because this is not laid down in IAWN’s doctrine of selective pure tawheed.

    And if they were so eager to eliminate shirk in all forms replacing it with this newly contructed understanding of ‘pure tawheed’ why stop at the Arabian peninsula why not take it further? Was the world beyond not steeped in these shirky practices! Could it be that their role in the colonialist plan had territorial limitations? But that’s a different discussion altogether.

    When I said ‘goodness’ I meant in the years to come, IAWN’s teachings became source of guidance to masses of people who found the shredded refined Islam more attractive than what Islam had become in the hands of traditionalists! Whilst the only thing that came out during IAWN's time and the peak of his movement was consolidation of aal-Saud and Colonialist plan for Arabian peninsula... it served that agenda well. So we have to balance things out!
    Last edited by Salman Al-Farsi; 14-09-17 at 03:21 PM.
    "The objective behind Shari'ah is to liberate individuals from his desires in order to be a true Abd (slave) of Allah and that is the legitimate Maslaha... Violating the Shari'ah under the pretext of following Maqasid al-Shari'ah is like the one who cares about the spirit without the body and since the body without the spirit is useless therefore the spirit without the body is useless too." ~ Imam Shatibi - The greatest intellectual founder of Maqasid al-Shari'ah

  19. #618
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Salman Al-Farsi View Post
    The issue here is this ‘Pure Tawheed’ you mentioned, regardless of prevalent practices they were wrong according to IAWN & co’s understanding of ‘pure tawheed’ which they decided to enforce upon masses. For example, I may consider ‘pure Tawheed’ to be Haakamiyah would I then be justified in fighting iwan & co and their aal-saud allies for their shirk in obedience to other than Allah ta’ala? You may not understand or recognise what I am saying because this is not laid down in IAWN’s doctrine of selective pure tawheed.

    And if they were so eager to eliminate shirk in all forms replacing it with this newly contructed understanding of ‘pure tawheed’ why stop at the Arabian peninsula why not take it further? Was the world beyond not steeped in these shirky practices! Could it be that their role in the colonialist plan had territorial limitations? But that’s a different discussion altogether.

    When I said ‘goodness’ I meant in the years to come, IAWN’s teachings became source of guidance to masses of people who found the shredded refined Islam more attractive than what Islam had become in the hands of traditionalists! Whilst the only thing that came out during IAWN's time and the peak of his movement was consolidation of aal-Saud and Colonialist plan for Arabian peninsula... it served that agenda well. So we have to balance things out!
    1) Honestly, if you don't know what tawheed is then it's your problem, a bralwi and Sufi both claim to have tawheed, do we say they are both right? Of course you will say no maybe both are wrong, but then the question arises which sect has the correct aqeedah and understanding of tawheed. It has nothing to do with I think, you think, at the end of the day one of us is right, and no doubt we will all fight eachother over it, only one upon the Haqq and the rest upon batil

    2) They tried, as soon as they started expanding, they lost the war against sufis from the ottoman empire I believe, don't know the exact details,

    3) I believe the first two Saudi states were built upon tawheed, the third one however used the dawah to attain authority and power alone, it's no surprise they submitted to the British so the saudi state could be established. Bad rulers have always existed, even soon after the rightly guided khulafaa, this doesn't mean the dawah was bad at all.
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

  20. #619
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    116 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1561 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    118

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post

    2) This is completely wrong, a number of scholars said this act is not permissible, il post a few statements in the next post, however as you rightly stated, none of them called it shirk akbar and made takfeer on Muslims over it for doing that alone, they just stated it's not permissible or a bidah

    I agree, salafis should reject incorrect views no matter who they are from,

    بارك الله فيك
    Assalamu alaykom

    I am curious to see what you have in store - not to rush you , you may have been busy.

    Sufis usually claim that the tawasul we attack them on has no criticism prior to Ibn Taymiyyah. This claim extends over both asking the dead at the grave site to ask Allah / Istighatha , which is direct dua to the dead from any place.

    As for the first tawasul , it appears that there is some basis for this and great scholars even recommended it.

    As for Istighatha , then this becomes more problematic , with little to no definitive daleels to prove it - and it is problematic in front of many ayat and also ahaadith.

    Wa Allahu alam

  21. #620
    Odan Abu Kamel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    5,438
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1469 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    174

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    There are numerous lies, falsehoods, slanders, distortions, omissions on this thread in regards to shaykh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab (rh) and the "salafi dawah", and even of historical events.
    It will take numerous hours to deconstruct this web of deceit and misguidance.

    And the worst aspect is knowing WHY.

    Why has there been so many lies, distortions, falsehoods projected onto him and the dawah that he led?

    The OP Abu Sulayman admits here:
    to understand the roots of fanaticism of an organization like ISIS and also in order not to be fooled by the deception, lies and propaganda of the Mashayikh of so called "Salafi" movement, who are exploiting the thirst of young people - especially those living in the West - to learn the religion. The reason why young people in the West are easily fooled by these so called "Salafis" is because of the ignorance regarding the [true] religion (i.e. Islam) that is unfortunately prevelant in the West.
    So, according to the OP, the problem is NOT the reality of the situation of the Muslim world, and the world at large, but the problem is the "fanaticism" of Muslims and Islamic groups and "ignorance".

    The sincere believer looks at and gathers knowledge and comprehension of the reality. The Prophet did this in Makka prior to the Wahy. He understood the problems from the ideological/religious, doctrinal, to the micro economic and social.

    But instead of addressing the reality of the Muslim world, or any given Muslim country, the OP adopts a myopic and apparently prejudiced, slanted viewpoint consistent with American ideological interests.

    And he brought up IS aka ISIS. The problem in Iraq is not the invasion, occupation, colonization of Iraq by America and its imperial forces, its massacring of entire cities of Muslims. Nor is the problem of Rawafid, their alliance with America, the empowerment and impunity of Shia death squads ethnic cleansing Baghdad, and subjugating Muslim cities to Shia and American dominance. Nor is the problem the imposition of liberal democratic republicanism.

    The only problem that the OP is so obsessed about is "salafi dawah" and how IS is less harsh than the movement of shaykh Muhammad.

    First, I will address the biography of the shaykh, and the distortions, omissions, lies, projected upon him.
    Allahumma, aranee al haqqu haqqan wa arzuqnee itiba`ahu, wa aranee al baatilu baatilaan wa arzuqnee ijtinaabahu.Oh Allah! show us the truth as true, and inspire us to follow it. Show us falsehood as falsehood, and inspire us to abstain from it.
    " Do you know what destroys Islam? A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray

  22. #621
    أبو حمزة Salman Al-Farsi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    34,474
    Mentioned
    344 Post(s)
    Quoted
    130 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    424

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    1) Honestly, if you don't know what tawheed is then it's your problem, a bralwi and Sufi both claim to have tawheed, do we say they are both right? Of course you will say no maybe both are wrong, but then the question arises which sect has the correct aqeedah and understanding of tawheed. It has nothing to do with I think, you think, at the end of the day one of us is right, and no doubt we will all fight eachother over it, only one upon the Haqq and the rest upon batil

    2) They tried, as soon as they started expanding, they lost the war against sufis from the ottoman empire I believe, don't know the exact details,

    3) I believe the first two Saudi states were built upon tawheed, the third one however used the dawah to attain authority and power alone, it's no surprise they submitted to the British so the saudi state could be established. Bad rulers have always existed, even soon after the rightly guided khulafaa, this doesn't mean the dawah was bad at all.

    1) In my opinion, no sect has truly grasped Tawheed because to understand it you have to understand the teachings of Sayduna Mustafa (saw), his Ashab (ra), the Taba tabayieen and the Salaf as –Saliheen, not some 17th century cult and definitely not one emerging from Najd or some village in India for that matter. So we will be divided upon our understanding until we acquaint, learn and understand the teachings of the likes of Layth ibn Sad, Ibrahim al-Nakhai, Imam Malik, Sufyan al-Thawri, Hassan al-Basri, Abu Hanifa etc (may Allah ta’ala be pleased with them all), as they were the closest to the truth. So we don’t really have to fight each other we just have to learn the kitab and Sunnah and teachings of the blessed generation and we will find common ground.

    2) Perhaps you should find out the exact details because what you are saying that they fought the Ottoman State is not what your scholars are saying from the Islamqa fatwa posted earlier.

    Also don’t you find a bit strange that when the entire Muslim world - from east Africa, middle east, Indian sub-continent, North Africa and Central Asia were fighting against the British, French, Italians, Russians, Spanish and other enemies - under the banner of Ottoman khilafah or in co-ordination with it - that followers of najdi sect decided now is good time to wash off the shirk from them by fighting them even if it means paving way for the kuffar.

    Did you know how great their timing was? The Russians were at the doorstep of Anatolya, while the bulk of ottoman army was engaged in Balkans and fighting the last of the Crusades, leaving the Caliph helpless. So the Porte had to order the Wali in Egypt to deal with the Najdi situation leaving Egypt vulnerable. So, whilst Egyptian army dealt with the Najdi cult... Nepolean Bonaparte landed on Egyptian shore with an army taking over without a fight!! For the Najdi sect this maybe an act of ‘Pure Tawheed’ but for rest of the Musilm world was nothing short of treachery and the first seed of hate for this new cult spreading over time.

    My question would be, from the scholars I mentioned above – the real salaf, and all those who lived in that time… lived under some rulers who made the ottoman look great. Some of these rulers were ruthless killers of pious Muslims, evildoers, Mutazila and so on... but which of those scholars decided to conspire against the rulers? Agitated people against them or lifted arms against them??? No doubt, they were brave and never shy in holding them to account publicly and even went prison for it, but never caused civil war because these were known traits of the khawarij. Even when the Muslim rulers fought each other or the great civil war between Bani Ummayah and Abbasiya none of the great scholars took part, or sided with one party or the other, refraining from it and actively worked to rebuild. This for you my friend is ‘Pure Tawheed and Aqeedah’ Sample 1. Verdict: Najdi sect fail.

    Furthermore, none of the scholars of the Salaf allied with the rulers of their time, even the pious ones and refrained from their company and wrote extensively on dangers of relationship between rulers and scholars and scholars who attend the court of rulers. They never made distinction between good rulers and bad rulers, just that a good scholar stays away from the association of rulers. ‘Pure Tahweed and Aqeedah’ Sample 2, verdict: Najdi sect fail by colluding with aal-Saud.


    3) Yes of course, when IAWN raised arms to fight shirk was ‘Pure Tawheed’. When he allied with aal-Saud to establish Saudi hegemony was also ‘Pure Tawheed’. When they killed Muslims because they didn’t fit in with their newly invented ‘Pure Tawheed’ was also highly Islamic. When followers of IAWN went against his teachings by rebellion and treachery against Ottoman Khilafa was also ‘Pure Tawheed’. When aal-Saud allied with British against Ottoman state and were gifted Arabian Peninsula in return was also ‘Pure Tawheed’. When Aal-Saud and Wahabbis invited US to establish military bases in Saudi to attack Muslims was also ‘Pure Tawheed’…. and wahabbi scholars subservience to aal-Saud is also ‘Pure Tawheed’.
    If that’s you, then please step out of the illusion.. seek ‘Pure Tawheed’ beyond the Najdi cult or the sufi cult for that matter.
    "The objective behind Shari'ah is to liberate individuals from his desires in order to be a true Abd (slave) of Allah and that is the legitimate Maslaha... Violating the Shari'ah under the pretext of following Maqasid al-Shari'ah is like the one who cares about the spirit without the body and since the body without the spirit is useless therefore the spirit without the body is useless too." ~ Imam Shatibi - The greatest intellectual founder of Maqasid al-Shari'ah

  23. #622
    Odan imran1976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    21,599
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Quoted
    829 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    171

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Salman Al-Farsi View Post
    1) In my opinion, no sect has truly grasped Tawheed because to understand it you have to understand the teachings of Sayduna Mustafa (saw), his Ashab (ra), the Taba tabayieen and the Salaf as –Saliheen, not some 17th century cult and definitely not one emerging from Najd or some village in India for that matter. So we will be divided upon our understanding until we acquaint, learn and understand the teachings of the likes of Layth ibn Sad, Ibrahim al-Nakhai, Imam Malik, Sufyan al-Thawri, Hassan al-Basri, Abu Hanifa etc (may Allah ta’ala be pleased with them all), as they were the closest to the truth. So we don’t really have to fight each other we just have to learn the kitab and Sunnah and teachings of the blessed generation and we will find common ground.

    2) Perhaps you should find out the exact details because what you are saying that they fought the Ottoman State is not what your scholars are saying from the Islamqa fatwa posted earlier.

    Also don’t you find a bit strange that when the entire Muslim world - from east Africa, middle east, Indian sub-continent, North Africa and Central Asia were fighting against the British, French, Italians, Russians, Spanish and other enemies - under the banner of Ottoman khilafah or in co-ordination with it - that followers of najdi sect decided now is good time to wash off the shirk from them by fighting them even if it means paving way for the kuffar.

    Did you know how great their timing was? The Russians were at the doorstep of Anatolya, while the bulk of ottoman army was engaged in Balkans and fighting the last of the Crusades, leaving the Caliph helpless. So the Porte had to order the Wali in Egypt to deal with the Najdi situation leaving Egypt vulnerable. So, whilst Egyptian army dealt with the Najdi cult... Nepolean Bonaparte landed on Egyptian shore with an army taking over without a fight!! For the Najdi sect this maybe an act of ‘Pure Tawheed’ but for rest of the Musilm world was nothing short of treachery and the first seed of hate for this new cult spreading over time.

    My question would be, from the scholars I mentioned above – the real salaf, and all those who lived in that time… lived under some rulers who made the ottoman look great. Some of these rulers were ruthless killers of pious Muslims, evildoers, Mutazila and so on... but which of those scholars decided to conspire against the rulers? Agitated people against them or lifted arms against them??? No doubt, they were brave and never shy in holding them to account publicly and even went prison for it, but never caused civil war because these were known traits of the khawarij. Even when the Muslim rulers fought each other or the great civil war between Bani Ummayah and Abbasiya none of the great scholars took part, or sided with one party or the other, refraining from it and actively worked to rebuild. This for you my friend is ‘Pure Tawheed and Aqeedah’ Sample 1. Verdict: Najdi sect fail.

    Furthermore, none of the scholars of the Salaf allied with the rulers of their time, even the pious ones and refrained from their company and wrote extensively on dangers of relationship between rulers and scholars and scholars who attend the court of rulers. They never made distinction between good rulers and bad rulers, just that a good scholar stays away from the association of rulers. ‘Pure Tahweed and Aqeedah’ Sample 2, verdict: Najdi sect fail by colluding with aal-Saud.


    3) Yes of course, when IAWN raised arms to fight shirk was ‘Pure Tawheed’. When he allied with aal-Saud to establish Saudi hegemony was also ‘Pure Tawheed’. When they killed Muslims because they didn’t fit in with their newly invented ‘Pure Tawheed’ was also highly Islamic. When followers of IAWN went against his teachings by rebellion and treachery against Ottoman Khilafa was also ‘Pure Tawheed’. When aal-Saud allied with British against Ottoman state and were gifted Arabian Peninsula in return was also ‘Pure Tawheed’. When Aal-Saud and Wahabbis invited US to establish military bases in Saudi to attack Muslims was also ‘Pure Tawheed’…. and wahabbi scholars subservience to aal-Saud is also ‘Pure Tawheed’.

    If that’s you, then please step out of the illusion.. seek ‘Pure Tawheed’ beyond the Najdi cult or the sufi cult for that matter.
    Salman sahab,
    I don't have words to praise this post-- My exact feelings, I don't think, I could have ever explained this in such a precise and eloquent manner.

    ALLAH swt' Aap ko jaza'e khair A'ta farma'ey.
    “One (child) means loneliness, Two means rivalry, Three means balance, and Four means abundance.
    And God takes care of the rest,” ------ Recep Tayyip Erdogan



  24. #623
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    128
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    103 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    See the problem is that you have not understood tawheed properly
    This is also what Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) claimed against the scholars of his time in general and he even called them explicitly as 'Ulama` al-Mushrikin (scholars of polytheists). But we'll see insha`allah who understood Tawhid and who not.

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    Allah in the Quran mentions various types of shirk that the mushrikeen commited, there is a reason for this, saying Allah has a partner is different to calling upon other then Allah in hardship, saying Allah has sons/daughters is different to doing sujood to idols
    How you lump all these various types of shirks together is completely against the Quran,
    Believing that Allah ta'ala has a partner or a daughter/son is Shirk. Prostrating for an idol is Kufr.
    As for calling the names of the Anbiya` and Awliya` while having correct beliefs, then it's not Shirk. This call is made metaphorically. The real help is expected from Allah ta'ala while Anbiya` and Awliya` are a mean (sabab) in attaining that need. This has been explicitly mentioned by classical Shafi'i scholars (and other than them).
    Some people do however use wordings that are not allowed.

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    Even Allah says the mushrikeen affirmed he is the lord of absolutely everything, do you realise what this means? Hold on a second
    This is exactly where all misunderstanding of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab started. If you know what the old greeks, the old egyptians, the hindus and other polyhteists believe, it should be easy for you to know that you're getting something wrong here.
    Yes many polytheists accepted the existance of a major divine being, but they still doubtful regarding Him (see the Ayat 44:7-9 and 52:35-36).
    And their belief regarding that being was not like that of Muslims (see below) and they still affirmed the existance of other divine beings besides Him (see the Ayah 25:42).


    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    It means they believed Allah was the first
    It means they believed Allah controlleled everything
    It means they believed nothing they called upon could do anything was it not for Allah allowing it
    It means they believed Allah created the heavens and earth and everything in it
    This is what Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab claimed in his Kashf al-Shubuhat, when he said that the polytheists used to accept the Rububiyyah (lordship) of Allah ta'ala completely (فإن قال: هؤلاء الآيات نزلت فيمن يعبد الأصنام، كيف تجعلون الصالحين مثل الأصنام أم كيف تجعلون الأنبياء أصنامًا؟ فجاوبه بما تقدم فإنه إذا أقر أن الكفار يشهدون بالربوبية كلها لله، وأنهم ما أرادوا ممن قصدوا إلا الشفاعة).
    This is however a claim that is in direct opposition to the Qur`an al-karim.

    The polytheists were ready to curse Allah, if one were to curse their idols (see the Ayah 6:108).
    They doubted that Allah ta'ala could revive us after our death (see the Ayah 36:78). Thereby they rejected that Allah ta'ala has power over everything.
    They did not believe that Allah ta'ala knows everything (see 41:22-23) and hears everything (see Sahih al-Bukhari).
    They did not believe that Allah ta'ala alone could preserve and dispose this big creation (see the Ayah 38:4-5) and that he needs help in this. See what scholars like Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) said in the Tafsir regarding the Ayah 38:5. See also what Imam al-Razi (d.606 AH) said in his Tafsir of the same Ayah.
    They believed in an intercession without the permission of Allah ta'ala.

    Should I keep on? I mean the Qur`an is full of these type of Ayat, but it seems you did not realize that?!
    Now tell us for God's sake: What is more truthful: The Qur`an al-karim or Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab? Do you see how he went clearly against the statement of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala?

  25. #624
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    128
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    103 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    This is what Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab claimed in his Kashf al-Shubuhat, when he said that the polytheists used to accept the Rububiyyah (lordship) of Allah ta'ala completely (فإن قال: هؤلاء الآيات نزلت فيمن يعبد الأصنام، كيف تجعلون الصالحين مثل الأصنام أم كيف تجعلون الأنبياء أصنامًا؟ فجاوبه بما تقدم فإنه إذا أقر أن الكفار يشهدون بالربوبية كلها لله، وأنهم ما أرادوا ممن قصدوا إلا الشفاعة).
    This is however a claim that is in direct opposition to the Qur`an al-karim.

    Please read this article:


    According to Wahhābī belief, the Mushrikūn of Quraysh in the time of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) affirmed Tawḥīd al-Rubūbiyya; that is, they believed:

    1. Allāh alone is the Creator, Sustainer and Bringer of benefit and harm

    2. These qualities are not affirmed for any of their false gods.

    It will be demonstrated below from the Qur’ān, ḥadīths & historical reports that the Mushrikūn did not affirm tawḥīd in rubūbiyya, but associated partners with Allāh in qualities of rubūbiyya. First, it will be shown that the Mushrikūn did not have a correct understanding of the attributes of Allāh to begin with. It will then be shown that the Mushrikūn ascribed independent powers to their objects of worship i.e. qualities of rubūbiyya.

    [For a full refutation of Wahhābī belief on this subject (not limited to a discussion on only the Mushrikūn of Arabia), see Naqd al-Ru’yat al-Wahhābiyyah (Critique of Wahhābī Ideology) by ‘Uthmān al-Nābulsī.]

    The Mushrikūn did not believe Allāh Knows Everything

    The Qur’ān states that in the ākhirah, it will be said to the idolaters of Makkah:

    ظننتم أن الله لا يعلم كثيرا مما تعملون
    “You believed that Allāh does not know a lot of what you would do.” (Qur’ān, 41:22)

    Imām al-Ṭabari explains:

    يقول جلّ ثناؤه: ولكن حسبتم حين ركبتم في الدنيا ما ركبتم من معاصي الله أن الله لا يعلم كثيراً مما تعملون من أعمالكم الخبيثة

    “He – Exalted is His Praise – says: ‘But you assumed, when you perpetrated what you perpetrated of disobedience to Allāh, that Allāh does not know much of what you do, of despicable acts.” (Tafsīr al-Ṭabari, Maktaba Hajr, 20:411)

    The Qur’ān continues to says:

    وذلكم ظنكم الذي ظننتم بربكم أردكم

    “This is your belief that you conceived of your Rabb that has ruined you.” (Qur’ān, 41:23)

    Imām al-Ṭabari explains:

    يقول تعالى ذكره: وهذا الذي كان منكم فى الدنيا من ظنكم أن الله لا يعلم كثيرا مما تعملون من قبائح أعمالك ومساوئها هو ظنكم الذي ظننتم بربكم فى الدنيا أردكم يعني: أهلككم

    “He – Exalted is His Mention – says: ‘Your belief in the dunyā that Allāh does not know much of what you do, of despicable and bad deeds, is your belief that you conceived of your Rabb in the dunyā. It has ruined you.’” (Tafsīr al-Ṭabari, Maktaba Hajr, 20:412)

    It is clear from this that the Mushrikūn did not believe Allāh is All-Knowing and All-Aware.

    The Mushrikūn did not Believe Allāh Hears Everything

    According to a ḥadīth of Bukhārī & Muslim, ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (رضي الله عنه) said:

    اجْتَمَعَ عِنْدَ الْبَيْتِ ثَلَاثَةُ نَفَرٍ، قُرَشِيَّانِ وَثَقَفِيٌّ، أَوْ ثَقَفِيَّانِ وَقُرَشِيٌّ، قَلِيلٌ فِقْهُ قُلُوبِهِمْ، كَثِيرٌ شَحْمُ بُطُونِهِمْ، فَقَالَ أَحَدُهُمْ: أَتُرَوْنَ اللهَ يَسْمَعُ مَا نَقُولُ؟ وَقَالَ الْآخَرُ: يَسْمَعُ، إِنْ جَهَرْنَا، وَلَا يَسْمَعُ، إِنْ أَخْفَيْنَا وَقَالَ الْآخَرُ: إِنْ كَانَ يَسْمَعُ، إِذَا جَهَرْنَا، فَهُوَ يَسْمَعُ إِذَا أَخْفَيْنَا

    “Three people (from the Mushrikūn) gathered around the Ka‘bah…One of them said: ‘Do you think Allāh hears what we are saying?’ The second said: ‘He hears if we are loud and He does not hear if we are quiet.’ The third said: ‘If he hears when we are loud, then He (must) hear when we are quiet.’” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim)

    This shows some Mushrikūn did not believe Allāh is All-Hearing, while others expressed doubts about it.

    The Mushrikūn did not Believe Allāh has Power Over Everything

    It is well-known that the Mushrikūn denied that Allāh is able to bring the dead back to life. Allāh says in the Qur’ān:

    وَضَرَبَ لَنَا مَثَلاً وَنَسِيَ خَلْقَهُ قَالَ مَن يُحيِي ٱلْعِظَامَ وَهِيَ رَمِيمٌ

    “He (man) gives an example of Us, forgetting his creation. He says: Who will give life to the bones when they are rubble?” (36:78)

    In relation to this, Imām al-Ḥākim narrates with an authentic chain to ‘Abdullāh ibn al-‘Abbās (رضي الله عنهما) that he said:

    جاء العاص بن وائل إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعظم حائل ففته فقال: يا محمد، أ يبعث الله هذا بعد ما أرى؟ قال: نعم، يبعث الله هذا ثم يميتك ثم يحييك ثم يدخلك نار جهنم

    “Al-‘Āṣ ibn Wā’il came to the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) with a decaying bone, and he crushed it (in his hand). He said: ‘Muḥammad, will Allāh resurrect this after what I have seen?!’ He said: ‘Indeed! Allāh will resurrect this. Further, He will cause you to die, then bring you to life, and then put you in the fire of Jahannam!” (Mustadrak al-Ḥākim)

    Imām al-Ḥākim said “this ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ according to the condition of the two shaykhs (al-Bukhārī and Muslim) although they did not relate it”, and al-Dhahabī agreed with him. (Mustadrak al-Ḥākim, Dār al-Ma‘rifah, 2:429) The editors of the Dār al-Ta’ṣīl edition of Mustadrak al-Ḥākim agree, saying: “this chain is according to the condition of the two shaykhs.” (Mustadrak al-Ḥākim, Dār al-Ta’ṣīl, 4:354)

    Hence, the Mushrikūn did not believe that Allāh had the power to bring the dead to life, which is denial of His omnipotence.

    In some places, the Qur’ān states the Mushrikūn did not believe in Allāh (e.g. 2:28, 57:8). This may refer to the doubts they had in the existence of Allāh, as will be explained below. But it could also refer to the fact that they denied the power of Allāh. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) relates from Allāh in a ḥadīth qudsī:

    كذبني ابن آدم ولم يكن له ذلك..فأما تكذيبه إياي فقوله: لن يعيدني كما بدأني

    “The son of Ādam rejects me, though he has no right to do that…His denial of Me is his statement: ‘He will never recreate me as He created me’.” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī)

    The Mushrikūn would say: “Does He Make the Gods One God?!”

    The Mushrikūn would say about the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم): “Does he make the gods one god? This is surely a strange thing.” (Qur’ān, 38:5) They found it strange because they did not understand how One Being could be aware of the affairs of all creation, and hear the supplications of all people. This was on account of perceiving Allāh in human terms. Hence, Imām al-Ṭabarī said in the explanation of this verse:

    وقوله: { أجَعَلَ الآلِهَةَ إِلهاً وَاحِداً } يقول: وقال هؤلاء الكافرون الذين قالوا: مـحمد ساحر كذّاب: أجعل مـحمد الـمعبودات كلها واحداً، يسمع دعاءنا جميعنا، ويعلـم عبـادة كل عابد عبدَه منا { إنَّ هَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجابٌ }: أي إن هذا لشيء عجيب، كما:

    “These disbelievers who say Muḥammad is a lying magician, say: ‘Does Muḥammad make all the gods one, Who hears all our supplications, and knows the worship of every worshipper who worships Him? This is surely a strange thing.’” (Tafsīr al-Ṭabari, Maktaba Hajr, 20:18)

    Ṭabarī then narrates this explanation from the great mufassir from the Tābi‘īn, Qatādah ibn Di‘āmah.

    Hence, the Mushrikūn’s perception of Allāh was nothing like the Muslim understanding of Allāh. They did not regard Allāh as All-Knowing, All-Hearing and All-Powerful.

    Based on this, it can be said the Mushrikūn did not recognise a Rabb, let alone affirm tawḥīd in rubūbiyyah. Hence, the great ṣaḥābī, Mughīrah ibn Shu‘ba (رضي الله عنه), said about their condition in Jāhiliyya:

    كُنَّا قَوْمًا نَعْبُدُ الْحِجَارَةَ وَالْأَوْثَانَ، فَإِذَا رَأَيْنَا حَجَرًا أَحْسَنَ مِنْ حَجَرٍ أَلْقَيْنَاهُ وَأَخَذْنَا غَيْرَهُ، وَلَا نَعْرِفُ رَبًّا

    “We were a people that would worship stones and statues. When we saw one stone-idol more attractive than another, we would throw it away and take that one! We did not recognise a Rabb.” (Mustadrak al-Ḥākim, Dār al-Ma‘rifah, 3:451) Al-Dhahabī says it is ṣaḥīḥ (ibid. 3:452).

    The Mushrikūn would Ascribe Powers to their False Gods/Stars

    Allāh says about the Mushrikūn:

    وَٱتَّخَذُواْ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ آلِهَةً لَّعَلَّهُمْ يُنصَرُونَ

    “They adopted gods besides Allāh so that they may be helped.” (Qur’ān, 36:74)

    In explanation of this, Ibn Kathīr says:


    يقول تعالى، منكرًا على المشركين، في اتخاذهم الأنداد آلهة مع الله، يبتغون بذلك أن تنصرهم تلك الآلهة, و ترزقهم, و تقربهم إلى الله زلفى

    “He – Exalted is He – is saying in condemnation of the Mushrikūn for adopting rivals as gods with Allāh, by which they desired that those gods will support them, provide them and bring them near to Allāh…” (Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Aẓīm, Maktaba Awlād Shaykh, 11:382)

    The Qur’ān says the Mushrikūn would threaten the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) with their idols:

    وَيُخَوِّفُونَكَ بِٱلَّذِينَ مِن دُونِهِ

    “They would threaten you with those beside Him” (39:36)

    Al-Ṭabarī explains:

    يقول تعالى ذكره لنبيه محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم: ويخوّفك هؤلاء المشركون يا محمد بالذين من دون الله من الأوثان والآلهة أن تصيبك بسوء، ببراءتك منها، وعيبك لها، والله كافيك ذلك. وبنحو الذي قلنا في ذلك قال أهل التأويل

    “He – Exalted is His Mention – states to His Prophet, Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم): These Mushrikūn threaten you, Muḥammad, with those besides Him amongst the idols and (false) gods, that they will afflict you with harm because of your disassociation from them and your criticism of them. Allāh will take care of that for you. The scholars of tafsīr said the same as what we said.” (Tafsīr al-Ṭabari, Maktaba Hajr, 20:210)

    When the ṣaḥābī, Ḍimām ibn Tha‘labah, accepted Islām at the hands of the Prophet, Ibn ‘Abbās narrates:

    ثم خرج حتى قدم على قومه فاجتمعوا إليه، فكان أول ما تكلم به أن قال: بيست اللات والعزى، قالوا: مه يا ضمام ، اتق البرص والجذام، اتق الجنون. قال: ويلكم إنهما والله لا يضران ولا ينفعان

    “Then he left until he arrived at his people, and they gathered around him. The very first thing that he said is: ‘Evil is Lāt and ‘Uzzā!’ They replied: ‘Stop, Ḍimām! Beware of baraṣ, beware of judhām [2 types of leprosy]. Beware of madness!’ He said: ‘May you be destroyed! Indeed, by Allāh, they do not harm and they do not benefit.’”

    Haythamī said: “Aḥmad and al-Ṭabrānī narrated it, and the narrators of Aḥmad have been considered trustworthy.” (Majma‘ al-Zawā’id, 1599) The editors of Musnad Aḥmad (2380) commented: “a ḥasan ḥadīth.”

    Hence, the Mushrikūn believed Lāt and ‘Uzzā could inflict punishment and cause harm.

    Abū Bakr (رضي الله عنه) freed a female slave called Zinīrah. After freeing her, she became blind. The Mushrikūn said: “Lāt and ‘Uzzā blinded her”, and according to another transmission: “Nothing but Lāt and ‘Uzzā took away her eyesight.” Zinīrah responded: “They lied…Lāt and ‘Uzzā give no benefit”, so Allāh returned her eyesight. (al-Iṣāba, Markaz Hajr, 13:413-4)

    The Mushrikūn would also believe that the stars bring down rain. They would believe the stars do this independently; hence, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) reported in a ḥadīth qudsī that Allāh says:

    أَصْبَحَ مِنْ عِبَادِي مُؤْمِنٌ بِي وَكَافِرٌ، فَأَمَّا مَنْ قَالَ: مُطِرْنَا بِفَضْلِ اللَّهِ وَرَحْمَتِهِ، فَذَلِكَ مُؤْمِنٌ بِي وَكَافِرٌ بِالكَوْكَبِ، وَأَمَّا مَنْ قَالَ: بِنَوْءِ كَذَا وَكَذَا، فَذَلِكَ كَافِرٌ بِي وَمُؤْمِنٌ بِالكَوْكَبِ

    “Some of My slaves believe in Me and others disbelieve. Those who say: ‘We were given rain by the grace and mercy of Allāh’ believe in Me and disbelieve in the stars. Those who say: ‘We were given rain by such and such a star’ disbelieve in Me and believe in the stars.” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī)

    Al-Khaṭṭābī comments in A‘lām al-Ḥadīth that this was the practice of the people of Jāhiliyya.

    The Mushrikūn would not only refer to their false gods as “ālihah” but would also call them “rabb.” It is narrated with an acceptable chain to the great Tābi‘ī, Abu ‘Uthmān al-Nahdī, who lived in Jāhiliyya for a long time before accepting Islām at the hands of the ṣaḥābah:

    كنا فى الجاهلية نعبد حجرا فسمعنا مناديا ينادي: يا أهل الرحال إن ربكم قد هلك، فالتمسوا ربا، فخرجنا على كل صعب وذلول، فبينا نحن كذلك، إذ سمعنا مناديا ينادي: إنا قد وجدنا ربكم

    “In Jāhiliyya, we would worship stone idols. We once heard someone call out: ‘People in the camps, your rabb is ruined, so go search for a rabb!’ We came out to every rough and smooth land. While we were so, we heard someone call out: ‘We have found your rabb!’…” (Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, 4:176)

    The Mushrikūn Believed Allāh had Children and Relatives

    The Mushrikūn would believe Allāh has daughters (16:57) and the jinn were related to Allāh (37:158). This is making partners in rubūbiyya as it is affirming beings similar to, and related to, Allāh.

    Weak Confessions of Belief

    Some verses say the Mushrikūn would affirm qualities of rubūbiyyah for Allāh. For example:

    وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ

    “If you ask them Who created the heavens and the earth and subdued the sun and moon? They will certainly say: Allāh.” (Qur’ān, 29:61)

    However, merely affirming qualities of rubūbiyya for Allāh does not mean they would negate these qualities from those besides Allāh.

    Moreover, this proclamation of faith was something the Arab Mushrikūn inherited from their forefathers, a remnant of the legacy of their ancestor, Ibrāhīm (عليه السلام). But they had no firm belief in this. Hence, Allāh says:

    لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ رَبُّكُمْ وَرَبُّ آبَائِكُمُ الْأَوَّلِينَ بَلْ هُمْ فِي شَكٍّ يَلْعَبُونَ

    “There is no deity but Him. He gives life and He causes death. Your Rabb and the Rabb of your forefathers. But, they are in doubt, playing.” (Qur’ān, 44:8-9)

    Qurṭubī explains

    بَلْ هُمْ فِي شَكٍّ يَلْعَبُونَ } أي ليسوا على يقين فيما يظهرونه من الإيمان والإقرار في قولهم: إن الله خالقهم؛ وإنما يقولونه لتقليد آبائهم من غير علم فهم في شك

    “Meaning, they have no certainty in what they profess of faith and admission when they say: ‘Allāh created them.’ They say it in blind imitation of their fathers without knowledge, so they are in doubt.” (al-Jāmi‘ li Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 19:105)

    Ibn Kathīr also pointed out that they had no certainty in what they were saying:

    و هذا إنكار عليهم في شركهم بالله, و هم يعلمون أنه الخالق وحده لا شريك له, و لكن عدم إيقانهم هو الذي يحملهم على ذلك

    “This is a denunciation of them in associating partners with Allāh, while they know that He alone is the Creator having no partner. But their uncertainty is what drove them to this.” (Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Aẓīm, 13:239)

    Imām Abu Ḥayyan al-Andalūsī (d. 745) said in his well-known tafsīr:

    إذا سئلوا: من خلقكم وخلق السماوات والأرض؟ قالوا: الله، وهم شاكون

    When they are asked: ‘Who created you and created the heavens and the earth?’ They say: ‘Allāh,’ but they are in doubt.” (al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 8:149)

    Such doubt is not regarded as true faith (īmān).

    “We don’t worship them but so that they bring us near to Allāh”

    In one verse of the Qur’ān, it states that the Mushrikūn would claim that “we don’t worship them but so that they bring us near to Allāh.” (Qur’ān, 39:3) The Mushrikūn would believe the idols were rivals (andād) of Allāh, and had intense love for them (Qur’ān, 2:165). They believed these idols were in such a position of authority that they could compel Allāh to act against His will. This is what the Mushrikūn meant when they said these gods are their “intercessors” with Allāh and that they “will draw them near to Allāh.” Hence, this belief was itself shirk in rubūbiyyah. They did not believe in intercession “with the permission/approval of Allāh”. Hence, Ibn Kathīr explains in the commentary of this verse that Allāh responds to the Mushrikūn in the following way:

    وأخبر أن الملائكة التي فى السماوات من المقربين وغيرهم كلهم عبيد خاضعون لله، لا يشفعون عنده إلا بإذنه، وليسوا عنده كالأمراء عند ملوكهم، يشفعون عندهم بغير إذنهم فيما أحبه الملوك و أبوه، فلا يضربوا لله الأمثال تعالى الله عن ذلك

    “Allāh explained that the angels in the skies…are all subservient slaves of Allāh, not interceding with Him but by His permission. They are not (as the Mushrikūn would believe) to Him like governors to their kings, with whom they intercede without permission, whether the kings approve or disapprove. So (O Mushrikūn ) not make comparisons of Allāh. Allāh is far beyond that.” (Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Aẓīm, 12:112)

    Nonetheless, as explained earlier, the shirk of the Mushrikūn was not limited to taking their gods as intercessors with Allāh. They would say the above statement to make their shirk more palatable (See: Tafsīr al-Biqā‘ī, 16:445), although their shirk was not limited to only this. Hence, Ibn Kathīr includes other things in their shirk, not just seeking to get closer to Allāh:

    يقول تعالى، منكرًا على المشركين، في اتخاذهم الأنداد آلهة مع الله، يبتغون بذلك أن تنصرهم تلك الآلهة, و ترزقهم, و تقربهم إلى الله زلفى

    “He – Exalted is He – is saying in condemnation of the Mushrikūn for adopting rivals as gods with Allāh, by which they desired that those gods will support them, provide them and bring them near to Allāh…” (Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Aẓīm, Maktaba Awlād Shaykh, 11:382)

    Imām Ṭabarī says the Mushrikūn would Regard their Gods as “Rabbs”

    Based on the above evidence, it is clear the Mushrikūn would regard others as rabbs besides Allāh, and affirmed qualities of rubūbiyyah for them. Al-Ṭabari has explained in several places of his Tafsīr that the Mushrikūn would regard their idols as “rabbs”, not just “ālihah.” For example, in the commentary of verse 3:26, he says:

    الأنداد التي اتخذها الأميون ربًّاً

    “The ‘rivals’ that the unlettered Arabs would regard as rabbs.” (Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī, 5:304)

    In explaining verse 17:56, he says:

    يقول تعالى ذكره لنبيه محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم: قل يا محمد لمشركي قومك، الذين يعبدون من دون الله من خلقه، ادعوا أيها القوم الذين زعمتم أنهم أرباب، وألهة من دونه، عند ضر نزل بكم، فانظروا هل يقدرون على دفع ذلك عنكم أو تحويله عنكم إلى غيركم؟

    “He – Exalted is His Mention – is saying to His Prophet Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم): Say, Muḥammad, to the Mushrikūn of your people who worship other than Allāh from His creation: O people, call those you regard as rabbsand ālihah apart from Allāh when a calamity befalls you, and see if they are able to repel that from you and turn it away from you to another.” (Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī, 14:626)

    In explanation of verse 12:106, where Allāh describes the Arabs as Mushrikūn, he says:

    وهم به مشركون في عبادتهم الأوثان والأصنام واتخاذهم من دون الله أربابا وزعمهم أن له ولد

    “They are Mushrikūn, in their worship of statues and idols, and adopting them as rabbs besides Him, and their belief that He has children..” (Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī, 13:372)

    Summary

    In summary:


    1. The Mushrikūn of Arabia did not believe Allāh is All-Hearing, All-Powerful and All-Knowing

    2. They did not have full conviction (yaqīn) in the existence of Allāh or Him being the Creator and Sustainer

    3. They believed Lāt and ‘Uzzā could inflict punishment, like leprosy, madness and blindness

    4. They believed the stars could cause rain to fall

    5. They believed Allāh has daughters and that the jinn are related to Him

    6. They believed their false gods could intercede with Allāh against His will


    Conclusion: This is not a belief in Tawḥīd al-Rubūbiyyah.

  26. #625
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    128
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    103 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Kamel View Post
    So, according to the OP, the problem is NOT the reality of the situation of the Muslim world, and the world at large, but the problem is the "fanaticism" of Muslims and Islamic groups and "ignorance".
    Could you please spare me your Wahhabi tactics. Hopefully you know that lying is forbidden in Islam?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Kamel View Post
    And he brought up IS aka ISIS. The problem in Iraq is not the invasion, occupation, colonization of Iraq by America and its imperial forces, its massacring of entire cities of Muslims. Nor is the problem of Rawafid, their alliance with America, the empowerment and impunity of Shia death squads ethnic cleansing Baghdad, and subjugating Muslim cities to Shia and American dominance. Nor is the problem the imposition of liberal democratic republicanism.
    Please don't get me started. I'm myself from 'Iraq and am living there.
    Whether it's America, the Zionist state, the Rafidhah militias or the Wahhabi militias: All of them are criminals and oppressors and enemies of Allah ta'ala!!

  27. #626
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    You will see how your understanding fails completely, you have used the typical cherry pick ayaat method, the issue is actually extremely simple
    This will take a while to reply to, give me time
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

  28. #627
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    128
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    103 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    You will see how your understanding fails completely, you have used the typical cherry pick ayaat method, the issue is actually extremely simple
    This will take a while to reply to, give me time
    Actually I'm sure you'll start cherry picking. Let me guess: You'll post Ayat were the polytheists are asked who created the heavens and earth and they reply Allah. And also about them being in hardship and calling upon Allah alone. This however does not prove the claim of IAW.

    Let me repeat: Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab claimed that the polytheists completely affirmed the Rububiyyah of Allah ta'ala. This is not correct with absolute certainity. And this has been already shown.

  29. #628
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    116 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1561 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    118

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    As for calling the names of the Anbiya` and Awliya` while having correct beliefs, then it's not Shirk. This call is made metaphorically. The real help is expected from Allah ta'ala while Anbiya` and Awliya` are a mean (sabab) in attaining that need. This has been explicitly mentioned by classical Shafi'i scholars (and other than them).
    Some people do however use wordings that are not allowed.
    Can you explain this issue in detail or refer us to what you believe the mainstream orthodox position is , in opposition to the doctrine of the Salafis ? ( I have heard deobandi Hanafi scholars say something similar to what you have mentioned )

    Is this like calling the Prophets name as a form of tawasul , while actually seeking Allah's aid ? Almost like " O'Allah for the sake of the Prophet , aid me " ?

    What is your view on one who calls upon the Prophet from a distance , seeking his aid , believing he has the ability to grant you what you desire himself. ( For example a son , instead of a daughter ) ?
    Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 15-09-17 at 08:52 PM.

  30. #629
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    Actually I'm sure you'll start cherry picking. Let me guess: You'll post Ayat were the polytheists are asked who created the heavens and earth and they reply Allah. And also about them being in hardship and calling upon Allah alone. This however does not prove the claim of IAW.

    Let me repeat: Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab claimed that the polytheists completely affirmed the Rububiyyah of Allah ta'ala. This is not correct with absolute certainity. And this has been already shown.
    We will take them all and understand them together
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

  31. #630
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    94
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    74 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by imran1976 View Post
    Salman sahab,
    I don't have words to praise this post-- My exact feelings, I don't think, I could have ever explained this in such a precise and eloquent manner.

    ALLAH swt' Aap ko jaza'e khair A'ta farma'ey.
    i agree with you brother @imran1976 i couldnt explain better but i can give an example / a real story about "makkah amir / emir "Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca" and north cyprus turkish republic former president Rauf DENKTAŞ.

    here http://www.star.com.tr/pazar/mekke-e...haber-1025840/

    im trying to translate the most important part of it , sorry for my bad english

    "..........sharif hussain of makkah had to flee to Cyprus, he realized that he was deceived/mocked/cheated by westerners. and his residual life was full of regret for his betrayal to Ottoman State. Sharif hussain died in 1930 during his stay with his son Abdullah in Jordan and buried in Quds.

    North Cyprus Turkish Republic 1. president Rauf DENKTAŞ witnessed his family friend Shariff Hussain's regret/regret days and told that "my dad was kissing his hands when we visit him and he was crying all time and saying " what did i do? why we betrayed Ottomans? We are suffering what we did, Raif, (father of president Rauf ) tell me about İstanbul's weather, and was letting me kiss his hands and gave me money" "
    @Salman Al-Farsi
    Last edited by ebubekir01; 16-09-17 at 04:53 AM.

  32. #631
    Odan imran1976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    21,599
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Quoted
    829 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    171

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by ebubekir01 View Post
    i agree with you brother @imran1976 i couldnt explain better but i can give an example / a real story about "makkah amir / emir "Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca" and north cyprus turkish republic former president Rauf DENKTAŞ.

    here http://www.star.com.tr/pazar/mekke-e...haber-1025840/

    im trying to translate the most important part of it , sorry for my bad english

    "..........sharif hussain of makkah had to flee to Cyprus, he realized that he was deceived/mocked/cheated by westerners. and his residual life was full of regret for his betrayal to Ottoman State. Sharif hussain died in 1930 during his stay with his son Abdullah in Jordan and buried in Quds.

    North Cyprus Turkish Republic 1. president Rauf DENKTAŞ witnessed his family friend Shariff Hussain's regret/regret days and told that "my dad was kissing his hands when we visit him and he was crying all time and saying " what did i do? why we betrayed Ottomans? We are suffering what we did, Raif, (father of president Rauf ) tell me about İstanbul's weather, and was letting me kiss his hands and gave me money" "
    @Salman Al-Farsi
    much appreciated.

    Yeah the realization came only after the Brits ditched him -- he shouldn't have cried that crocodile tears.
    “One (child) means loneliness, Two means rivalry, Three means balance, and Four means abundance.
    And God takes care of the rest,” ------ Recep Tayyip Erdogan



  33. #632
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Well this is great, wrote a 30 mins reply and I pressed a icon which deleted it
    Il be back in the evening or tomorrow
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

  34. #633
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    This is also what Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) claimed against the scholars of his time in general and he even called them explicitly as 'Ulama` al-Mushrikin (scholars of polytheists). But we'll see insha`allah who understood Tawhid and who not.
    Well considering they defended those who fell into shirk and considered those who say the shahadah muslim even if they fall into nullifiers of Islam, its no suprise he said that.

    Believing that Allah ta'ala has a partner or a daughter/son is Shirk. Prostrating for an idol is Kufr.
    As for calling the names of the Anbiya` and Awliya` while having correct beliefs, then it's not Shirk. This call is made metaphorically. The real help is expected from Allah ta'ala while Anbiya` and Awliya` are a mean (sabab) in attaining that need. This has been explicitly mentioned by classical Shafi'i scholars (and other than them).
    Some people do however use wordings that are not allowed.
    This seems to be what Subki the innovator said regarding tawwasul, something that is close to shirk and can easily lead he masses to shirk, and I hope your not reffering to something similar to what Ibn 'Aqeel said:

    قال الإمام أبو الوفاء علي بن عقيل الحنبلي رحمه الله : إن من يعظم القبور ويخاطب الموتى بقضاء الحوائج ، ويقول : يا مولاي ويا سيدي عبد القادر : (إفعل لي كذا) ؛ هو كافر بهذه الأوضاع ، ومن دعا ميتا وطلب قضاء الحوائج فهو كافر

    ''Indeed the one who venerates the graves and adresses the dead asking them to fulfill his needs by saying ''O sayyid Abdul Qadir do this for me'' he is a kafir....''

    This is exactly where all misunderstanding of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab started. If you know what the old greeks, the old egyptians, the hindus and other polyhteists believe, it should be easy for you to know that you're getting something wrong here.
    Yes many polytheists accepted the existance of a major divine being, but they still doubtful regarding Him (see the Ayat 44:7-9 and 52:35-36).
    The verse could mean that some of them did doubt the existance of Allah or it could mean they doubted the message that came to them, ok

    And their belief regarding that being was not like that of Muslims (see below) and they still affirmed the existance of other divine beings besides Him (see the Ayah 25:42).
    They indeed belived in other divine beings, not sure what this verse specifially has to do with Rububiyyah because it could just mean they worship and venerate them.


    This is what Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab claimed in his Kashf al-Shubuhat, when he said that the polytheists used to accept the Rububiyyah (lordship) of Allah ta'ala completely (فإن قال: هؤلاء الآيات نزلت فيمن يعبد الأصنام، كيف تجعلون الصالحين مثل الأصنام أم كيف تجعلون الأنبياء أصنامًا؟ فجاوبه بما تقدم فإنه إذا أقر أن الكفار يشهدون بالربوبية كلها لله، وأنهم ما أرادوا ممن قصدوا إلا الشفاعة).
    This is however a claim that is in direct opposition to the Qur`an al-karim.
    Ok lets see what sheikh MIAW says just before that:

    فبعث الله إليهم محمدًا يجدد لهم دين أبيهم إبراهيم عليه السلام، ويخبرهم أن هذا التقرب والاعتقاد محض حق الله لا يصلح منه شئ لغير الله لا لملك مقرب، ولا لنبي مرسل فضلًا عن غيرهما، وإلا فهؤلاء المشركون مقرون ويشهدون أن الله هو الخالق وحده لا شريك له وأنه لا يرزق إلا هو، ولا يحيي إلا هو، ولا يميت إلا هو، ولا يدبر الأمر إلا هو، وأن جميع السماوات السبع ومن فيهن والأراضين السبع ومن فيها كلهم عبيده وتحت تصرفه وقهره.

    He says the mushrikeen belived in the following things:

    1) That he is the creator of everything alone
    2) That he provides for everthing alone
    3) That he gives and takes life alone
    4) That he controls all affairs
    5) That everything in the heavens and earth is under his control

    No where does he make a mention of the things you said below, why is this? Its because he means the mushrikeen believed in all of the usool of Rububiyyah, if he meant that they believed exactly in Tawheed like a muslim, then he would have even mentioned that they believe fully in the ressurection and that they believe he hears and sees absolutely everthing, but he didn't because

    1) He didn't mean that
    2) His point was that just tawheed of Rububiyyah wont save somone from shirk alone, and the question is, what exactly is shirk in worship? We will discuss this later aswell

    The polytheists were ready to curse Allah, if one were to curse their idols (see the Ayah 6:108).
    Insulting Allah is kufr, not sure why you meantioned it here

    They doubted that Allah ta'ala could revive us after our death (see the Ayah 36:78). Thereby they rejected that Allah ta'ala has power over everything.
    Indeed they did, but at the same time they belived Allah gives and takes life, so the asl of Rububiyyah is there while they contradicted themselves,

    They did not believe that Allah ta'ala knows everything (see 41:22-23) and hears everything (see Sahih al-Bukhari).
    Yet they believed Allah could hear them in the ocean and created their hearing and seeing, again it was part of their corrupt aqeedah

    They did not believe that Allah ta'ala alone could preserve and dispose this big creation (see the Ayah 38:4-5) and that he needs help in this. See what scholars like Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) said in the Tafsir regarding the Ayah 38:5. See also what Imam al-Razi (d.606 AH) said in his Tafsir of the same Ayah.
    They believed in an intercession without the permission of Allah ta'ala.
    Indeed, and sheikh MIAW makes no mention of this in his book, meaning he didn't say they they believe in this. But again, the asl of Rububiyyah was present in them, did they believe the idols created themselves and then gave themselves this authority, in that case who created Allah according to them, the idols aswell? The answer is that Allah created them and they and whatever power they have, but this again is a contradiction in their belief and againnst the tawheed of Allah.

    A similar example would be to believe that Allah created everything and has control over everthing, and then saying that he has a son that he controls, this too is shirk in Rububiyyah but the asl belief is still correct, that Allah creates everthing and controls everthing.

    Another example would be a mushrik saying that Allah has given this idol such and such power, is this shirk? Of couse it is, but at the same time the asl of Rububiyyah is there, that Allah alone gives power.

    Should I keep on? I mean the Qur`an is full of these type of Ayat, but it seems you did not realize that?!
    Now tell us for God's sake: What is more truthful: The Qur`an al-karim or Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab? Do you see how he went clearly against the statement of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala?
    Here I will explain why the shiekh said all of this, lets look at this ayah


    ''And if you asked them, "Who created the heavens and the earth?" they would surely say, " Allah ." Say, "Then have you considered what you invoke besides Allah ? If Allah intended me harm, are they removers of His harm; or if He intended me mercy, are they withholders of His mercy?" Say, "Sufficient for me is Allah ; upon Him [alone] rely the [wise] reliers."
    The prophet (SAW) asked the mushrikeen this question (about the idols harming and benifiting) and they were silent. They were silent because they know in reality that Allah created and controls everthing yet they still held beliefs that contradicted their own beliefs, how foolish they were. Also:


    ''And if you asked them who created them, they would surely say, " Allah ." So how are they deluded?''
    What is Allah saying here is that their acceptance of Rububiyyah necessistates that they worship him alone, now I'm going to say this for the sake of argument. It makes sense to worship others with Allah if there are other lords beside Allah that can bring harm and benifit, what doesnt make sense is to accept that Allah is the true Lord yet worship others beside him. This is why Allah asks ''So how are they deluded''. The point being that even if the mushrikeen had a perfect belief in Rububiyyah like a muslim, they would still fall into shirk by calling upon others beside Allah, this is how they are deluded and contradict themselves. Ibn Kathis says about the verse:

    وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ ٱللَّهُ فَأَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ } أي ولئن سألت هؤلاء المشركين بالله العابدين معه غيره { مَّنْ خَلَقَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ ٱللَّهُ } أي هم يعترفون أنه الخالق للأشياء جميعها وحده، لا شريك له في ذلك، ومع هذا يعبدون معه غيره ممن لا يملك شيئاً، ولا يقدر على شيء، فهم في ذلك في غاية الجهل والسفاهة وسخافة العقل، ولهذا قال تعالى { فَأَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ }؟ وقوله جل وعلا { وَقِيلِهِ يٰرَبِّ إِنَّ هَـٰؤُلاَءِ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يُؤْمِنُونَ } أي وقال محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم قيله، أي شكا إلى ربه شكواه من قومه الذين كذبوه، فقال يا رب إن هؤلاء قوم لا يؤمنون كما أخبر تعالى في الآية

    ''Meaning, if you asked these mushrikeen that worship other with Allah [who created them, they will say Allah], meaning they admit that he alone is the creator of absolutely everything (I say, including their idols!!!), yet they still worship others with him that neither own anything nor have control over anything, so they are in the furthest level of ignorance and and foolishness, this is why Allah says ''So how then are the deluded''''.

    There are other verses about this aswell, their belief of Rububiyyah was hujjah against them, all of this shows that shirk of worship is generally seperate to shirk in the lordship of Allah.
    Last edited by abufulaans; 16-09-17 at 05:51 PM.
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

  35. #634
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Poster View Post
    The statements of the shaykh himself refute the fact he makes mass takfeer. Follower or not, to make a judgement on an individual from a small number of quotes is unjust, especially when there is counter evidence to dispel the points made.



    I'm aware of the incidents but they all happened after the death of the shaykh, unless I'm mistaken?



    What is in between tawhid and kufr?

    As for the bit in bold the shaykh himself rejects that in his statements.
    The issue has been clarified by sheikh Ali Al-Khudir
    Refer to his book:
    المُتممة لكلام أئمة الدعوة في مسألة الجهل في الشرك الأكبر
    Easy pdf download if your interested
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

  36. #635
    Odan Abu Kamel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    5,438
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1469 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    174

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    In response to the accusation that shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh) adopted positions on tawassul that no one adopted before him:

    With regard to the issue mentioned here, concerning which the questioner said, based on the views of others, that Shaykh al-Islam went against consensus concerning it, there are proven reports from more than one of the scholars, especially the Hanafis, which state that it is prohibited and is not allowed.

    Al-‘Allaamah al-Haskafi said in ad-Durr al-Mukhtaar (5/715):

    In at-Taatarkhaaniyyah, quoting from al-Muntaqa, (it is narrated) from Abu Yoosuf, from Abu Haneefah, that it is not appropriate for anyone to call upon Allah except by virtue of His attributes, and the supplication that is allowed and enjoined is what may be understood from the words of Allah, may He be exalted (interpretation of the meaning): “And (all) the Most Beautiful Names belong to Allah, so call on Him by them” [al-A‘raaf 7:180].

    The same text appears in al-Muheet al-Burhaani (5/141)

    Al-‘Allaamah al-Kaasaani (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Badaa’i‘ as-Sanaa’i‘ (5/126):

    It is makrooh for a man to say in his supplication: I ask You by the status of Your Prophets and Messengers, and by the status of So and so – because no one could impose anything on Allah, may He be glorified and exalted.

    The same text appears in Tabyeen al-Haqaa’iq Sharh Kanz ad-Daqaa’iq by az-Zayla‘i (6/31). This view was attributed to three scholars, namely: Abu Haneefah and his two companions, Abu Yoosuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. Al-‘Inaayah Sharh al-Hidaayah by al-Baabarati (10/64); Fath al-Qadeer by Ibn al-Humaam (10/64); Durar al-Hukkaam (1/321); Majma‘ al-Anhur Sharh Multaqa al-Abhur (2554).

    As-Sayyid Nu‘maan Khayr ad-Deen al-Aloosi al-Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Jala’ al-‘Aynayn (516-517):

    In all their texts it says that for a worshipper who is seeking a divine response (tawassul) to say “by the virtue of the Prophets and the awliya’ (close friends of Allah), by virtue of the Sacred House and the holy place”, is makrooh in the sense of it being haraam, and it is like that which is haraam in terms of punishment in Hell, according to Muhammad. They gave us the reason for that, as they said: Because the created being cannot impose anything on the Creator. End quote.

    To see what as-Sayyid Nu‘maan narrated from al-‘Allaamah as-Suwaydi ash-Shaafa‘i, please see: Jala’ al-‘Aynayn (505 ff).
    https://islamqa.info/en/114142

    __________________________

    Regarding the hukm on Tawassul:

    I have been discussing the subject of using "waseela" while supplicating to Allah (swt) with some Muslims, and have come to know that there are quite different opinions about fact whether the use of "waseela" in duaa is halaal or haraam. Could you please provide me with some information about this subject, some ayaat from the Holy Qur'an or authentic ahaadeeth? With the term "use of waseela" I mean asking via the agency of someone, fx "I ask You (O Allah) to grant me forgiveness via the agency of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him and his household)" or via the agency of other Prophets (Peace be upon them), saints or other pious Muslims.
    Published Date: 1999-06-20
    Praise be to Allaah.

    What is meant by tawassul and waseelah is four things:

    the kind of tawassul without which faith cannot be complete, which is seeking to reach Allaah (tawassul) by believing in Him and His Messengers, and obeying Him and His Messenger, This is what is meant in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

    “O you who believe! Do your duty to Allaah and fear Him. Seek the means of approach to Him…”

    [al-Maa’idah 5:35]

    This includes seeking to approach Allaah through His Names and Attributes, or by doing acts of obedience and worship by which one seeks to approach Allaah, and so on.

    Seeking to approach Allaah by asking His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to make du’a’ for one during his lifetime, and the believers asking one another to make du’aa’ for one another. This follows on from the first type and is encouraged.

    Seeking to approach Allaah by virtue of the status and virtues of some created being, such as saying, “O Allaah, I ask You by virtue of Your Prophet” and so on. This is allowed by some of the ‘ulama’, but this opinion is da’eef (weak). The correct view is that it is definitely haraam, because there can be no tawassul in du’aa’ except by virtue of the Names and Attributes of Allaah.

    Tawassul as it is understood by many of the Muslims of later times, which is calling on the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and seeking his help (or seeking the help of the dead and so-called awliya’). This is a form of major shirk, because calling on or seeking help from anyone other than Allaah with regard to something that that only Allaah is able to do is a kind of worship, and directing worship to anyone or anything other than Allaah is major shirk. And Allaah knows best.

    Islam Q&A
    Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

    https://islamqa.info/en/979
    Allahumma, aranee al haqqu haqqan wa arzuqnee itiba`ahu, wa aranee al baatilu baatilaan wa arzuqnee ijtinaabahu.Oh Allah! show us the truth as true, and inspire us to follow it. Show us falsehood as falsehood, and inspire us to abstain from it.
    " Do you know what destroys Islam? A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray

  37. #636
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    128
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    103 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    Can you explain this issue in detail or refer us to what you believe the mainstream orthodox position is , in opposition to the doctrine of the Salafis ? ( I have heard deobandi Hanafi scholars say something similar to what you have mentioned )
    The Jumhur of the classical scholars regarded Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istaghathah with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa Allan - as permitted. The first one to actually disagree was Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH), who regarded Tawassul as an innovation (bid'ah), Tashaffu' as some thing that leads to polytheism (dhari'ah ila al-shirk). As for Istighathah: He called it as shirk, but he refrained from doing Takfir.
    During his times and after him major scholars responded to his view and clarified the issue.

    There are different proofs for its permissibility and among that is the Ayah 4:64, the Hadith of the man in need and the Hadith of the blind man, the Athar of Malik al-Dar, the Tawassul of Adam - peace be upon him, the statement of Imam Malik (d. 158 AH) to Abu Ja'far al-Mansur (d. 179 AH) to seek intercession (which the Malikiyyah had accepted and acted upon) and also the practise of the Salaf to say "O slaves Allah, I've lost my way. Help!" or what is similar to that when they would get lost and other than that.
    The Salafis act as if all these proofs are not authentic, but let them face the reality that the classical scholars did actually regard these proofs as authentic and acted upon them.
    And even the Tawassul of 'Umar through al-Abbas - may Allah be pleased with both of them - is another proof [against them and not for them], because the Tawassul of 'Umar goes back to the high rank and status of Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - which is why he does not simply say "through al-'Abbas", but rather "through the uncle of your Prophet"

    In Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighathah differrent wordings are used, but it goes basically all back to the same meaning and that is to get help from Allah ta'ala by the means of our Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.


    Tawassul is to ask Allah ta'ala by the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - or his high rank and status. Example: "O Allah help me for the sake of your Prophet!"

    Tashaffu' is to seek intercession through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - unto one's Lord. Example: " Ya Rasulallah, supplicate for the forgiveness of my sins." or "Intercede for me, o Messenger of Allah!".

    Istighathah is the seeking of aid. While one mentions the name of Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - what one intends here is that he becomes a mean (sabab) in the fullfillment of one's need, while the real help is expected from Allah ta'ala. And the usage of seeking of aid regarding the one who's a sabab (mean) in the fullfillment of one's need is correct shar'an and 'urfan (for example: going to the doctor, while knowing that healing comes from Allah ta'ala alone). Example: "Ya Rasulallah, [help]!"

    The Wahhabiyyah say now that the polytheists (read: some of them) would call upon Allah ta'ala alone when in great hardship and that therefore the Muslim who says "Ya Rasulallah!" during hardship is worse than those polytheists.
    The mistake in this line of thinking is that there is a huge difference in the beliefs of the Muslims and polytheists.
    The Muslim believes that Allah ta'ala alone is divine and that He alone is the creator and sustainer of the Universe and that nothing happens except by his permission and by his power.
    The polytheist however may accept a major divine being, who has created the world, but it the same time he believes that there are other divine beings besides him, who also may bring harm and benefit independently [in specific matters]. This is not the belief of Muslims regarding the Prophets and the Righteous.
    As for some of the polytheists calling upon Allah during great hardship: This is simply, because they may realize at that moment that real help can only be expected from Allah and that is similar to the case of the atheists, who also may call upon God in such situations.
    As for the Muslim who mentions the name of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - then he's doing that while believing that the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - can be a mean (sabab) for Allah's help to come. He knows that Everything is under the control of Allah ta'ala whether it's before, during or after the hardship.

    What is however indeed not allowed is to ask in the same way like one asks Allah ta'ala and that is for example by saying "O so and so, grant me children / forgive my sins / etc.".
    If a person believes that anyone other than Allah ta'ala can harm or benefit him independently, then this clear-cut Shirk (no matter whether one calls upon that person or not). A Muslim however usually does not believe this, that's why Takfir is not made. Even if the intention of that Muslim is that the one whom he mentioned becomes a mean in the fullfillment of his need, his action/call is still ugly. One should therefore correct him and remind him that Allah ta'ala alone benefits and harms independently.

    I'll post some links inshallah where classical scholars are qouted regarding the issue of Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighathah, which should leave no doubt that the above mentioned is the classical position.

  38. #637
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    128
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    103 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    I'll post some links inshallah where classical scholars are qouted regarding the issue of Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighathah, which should leave no doubt that the above mentioned is the classical position.
    I had an thread regarding this issue on IA Forums, but IA Forums doesn't work anymore unfortunately. But one can still find many of the qoutes on different websites.

    Here is the statement of Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH), who discusses the issue quite in detail:

    Imam Taqi Al-Din Al-Subki on Tawassul, Istighatha and Tashaffu’


    Note that the above qoutes are all from his book Shifa` al-Saqam and the book has been praised by scholars like the Shaykh Salah al-Din al-Safadi (d. 764 AH) (who was a student of both Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Subki), the Hafidh Wali al-Din Abu Zur'ah al-'Iraqi (d. 826 AH), the Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH), the Imam Ibn Hajar al-Hayatami (d. 974 AH) and other than them.

    Then you can read this link, which contains the qoutes of classical Shafi'i scholars like Imam al-Mawardi (d. 448 AH), Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH), Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH), Imam al-Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH), Imam al-Samhudi (d. 911 AH), Imam al-Qastallani (d. 923 AH), Imam Zakariyyah al-Ansari (d. 926 AH), Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH), Imam Shihab al-Din al-Ramli (d. 957 AH) and Imam Shams al-Din al-Ramli (d. 1004 AH):

    The ruling of seeking aid with the Prophet (s) according to the scholars of the Shafi’i Madhhab


    Note that many of the qoutes are regarding the seeking of intercession, but there are also qoutes which are regarding the permissibility of seeking aid like those of A`immah like al-Subki, al-Qastallani, al-Haytami and al-Ramli.
    My original thread also contained a qoute from Imam al-Samhudi where he called the Prophet's name while being in Makkah (i.e. Istighathah from afar) and got healed from an illness and also the statement of Imam Taqi al-Din al-Hisni (d.829 AH) (who also specifically mentions Istighathah from afar).

    The above link also contains the statements of non-Shafi'i scholars
    like Imam al-Kirmani (d. 597 AH), Imam Ibn Qudamah (d. 620 AH), the Adib Ibn al-Jannan al-Ansari al-Andalusi (d. 646 AH), Imam Yahya bin Yusuf al-Sarsari (d. 656 AH), Imam ‘Abdullah bin Mahmud bin Mawdud al-Mawsili (d. 683 AH), Imam Ibn al-Hajj al-‘Abdari (d. 737 AH), Imam al-Taftazani (d. 793 AH) and the 'Allamah Mansur bin Yunus al-Bahuti (d. 1051 AH).
    The book Misbah al-Dhalam fil Mustaghithin bi Khayr al-Anam by Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad bin Musa bin al-Nu’man al-Marakashi (d. 683 AH) is also menitioned, which is a book filled with Ahadith and Athar containing Tawassul, Tashaffu’ and Istighathah with the Prophet, sallallahu 'alazhi wa sallam.

    And this a link to the response of Imam Shams al-Din al-Jazari (d. 711 AH) against Ibn Taymiyyah concening Istighathah (where he qoutes the Imam Najm al-Din al-Tufi al-Hanbali (d. 716 AH)):

    Imam Shams al-Din al-Jazari (d. 711 AH) refuting Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) on seeking aid with the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam

    You can basically look into any major classical Fiqh book and you'll see that all of them have allowed seeking intercession: Whether it's al-Mughni of Imam Ibn Qudamah (d. 620 AH), Sharh Fath al-Qadir of Imam Ibn Humam (d. 861 AH), the al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah of Imam Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi (d. 741 AH) or the Fatawa al-Hindiyyah.


    To make it short: According to the understanding of IAW (d. 1206 AH) the scholars of this Ummah have pretty much always been upon Shirk akbar and he would have fought against any classical scholar, if he would have lived in his time. In fact he would have even fought against Ibn Taymiyyah, because he would never ever have agreed to his crazy Takfir.


  39. #638
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    128
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    103 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    Ok lets see what sheikh MIAW says just before that:

    فبعث الله إليهم محمدًا يجدد لهم دين أبيهم إبراهيم عليه السلام، ويخبرهم أن هذا التقرب والاعتقاد محض حق الله لا يصلح منه شئ لغير الله لا لملك مقرب، ولا لنبي مرسل فضلًا عن غيرهما، وإلا فهؤلاء المشركون مقرون ويشهدون أن الله هو الخالق وحده لا شريك له وأنه لا يرزق إلا هو، ولا يحيي إلا هو، ولا يميت إلا هو، ولا يدبر الأمر إلا هو، وأن جميع السماوات السبع ومن فيهن والأراضين السبع ومن فيها كلهم عبيده وتحت تصرفه وقهره.

    He says the mushrikeen belived in the following things:

    1) That he is the creator of everything alone
    2) That he provides for everthing alone
    3) That he gives and takes life alone
    4) That he controls all affairs
    5) That everything in the heavens and earth is under his control

    No where does he make a mention of the things you said below, why is this? Its because he means the mushrikeen believed in all of the usool of Rububiyyah, if he meant that they believed exactly in Tawheed like a muslim, then he would have even mentioned that they believe fully in the ressurection and that they believe he hears and sees absolutely everthing, but he didn't because

    1) He didn't mean that
    2) His point was that just tawheed of Rububiyyah wont save somone from shirk alone, and the question is, what exactly is shirk in worship? We will discuss this later aswell

    Brother did you actually read what I had posted?
    Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab said that the polytheists completely accepted the lordship of Allah ta'ala and before that he mentioned what you posted above. But what does this change? It's still completely wrong!

    The polytheists did not even believe that one God alone could preserve and control this universe?!!? Do you understand what that means? This alone destroys IAW's view.

    That's one of the proofs:

    { وَعَجِبُوۤاْ أَن جَآءَهُم مٌّنذِرٌ مِّنْهُمْ وَقَالَ ٱلْكَافِرُونَ هَـٰذَا سَاحِرٌ كَذَّابٌ }
    { أَجَعَلَ ٱلآلِهَةَ إِلَـٰهاً وَاحِداً إِنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجَابٌ }

    { They (the pagans) wonder that a warner has come to them from among themselves. And the disbelievers say, “This is a magician, a sheer liar. }
    { Has he (not) turned all the gods into a single God? It is a very strange thing indeed.” } [38:4-5]

    We know that polytheists from different regions of the world believed in things like a "river god" or a "rain god" and so on. And from the above statement that Allah ta'ala narrates from the Arab polytheists, we see that they were not much different in their way of thinking than the rest of the polytheists.

    Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) mentioned in the Tafsir of the above Ayah that they did not regard it as possible that one god alone could listen and know the prayers of all of his worshippers:

    وقوله: { أجَعَلَ الآلِهَةَ إِلهاً وَاحِداً } يقول: وقال هؤلاء الكافرون الذين قالوا: مـحمد ساحر كذّاب: أجعل مـحمد الـمعبودات كلها واحداً، يسمع دعاءنا جميعنا، ويعلـم عبـادة كل عابد عبدَه منا { إنَّ هَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجابٌ
    - end of the qoute -

    And Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606 AH) mentioned in the Tafsir of the same Ayah that they believed that the existance of many gods is necessary for the preservation of such a diverse world:

    وقالوا: { أَجَعَلَ ٱلآلِهَةَ إِلَـٰهاً وٰحِداً وَأَنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَيْء عُجَابٌ } أي بليغ في التعجب وأقول منشأ التعجب من وجهين الأول: هو أن القوم ما كانوا من أصحاب النظر والاستدلال بل كانت أوهامهم تابعة للمحسوسات فلما وجدوا في الشاهد أن الفاعل الواحد لا تفي قدرته وعلمه بحفظ الخلق العظيم قاسوا الغائب على الشاهد، فقالوا: لا بد في حفظ هذا العالم الكثير من آلهة كثيرة يتكفل كل واحد منهم بحفظ نوع آخر
    - end of the qoute -

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    There are other verses about this aswell, their belief of Rububiyyah was hujjah against them, all of this shows that shirk of worship is generally seperate to shirk in the lordship of Allah.
    Listen the Qur`an al-karim uses Rabb and Ilah as synonms and your attempt to act as if Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah are two completely different things is simply wrong. The polytheists would worship other than Allah ta'ala, because they believed that their so called "gods" have actually attributes of lordship (i.e. that they may harm and benefit independently). And it has been already shown to you how they believed that many gods are necessary for the preservation of this big creation.

  40. #639
    al-Ash'ari Abu Sulayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    128
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    103 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Kamel View Post
    In response to the accusation that shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh) adopted positions on tawassul that no one adopted before him:
    Your qoute is not even correct, but okay "Salafis" are not good at qouting things correctly.

    The issue of this thread is the unjustified Takfir and bloodshed of IAW and his followers against other Muslims. You can have other views reagrding seeking intercession and seeking intercession, but this does not give you the right to support the mass-killing of Muslims!

    The ironic thing is that the brother of IAW the Shaykh Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1208/1210) (he was the Qadhi of Huraymila) actually agreed with Ibn Taymiyyah and called Istighathah as Shirk (but he regarded it as minor Shirk and not major one) unlike other classical scholars who permitted it (see my above posts), but Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) still regarded him among the Mulhidin (atheists!!!) in his Mufid al-Mustafid for calling it only minor shirk and for disagreeing with his Takfir.


    This is the statement of Shaykh Sulayman in his al-Sawa`iq al-Ilahiyyah (originally it was just a letter and had another name):

    فنقول نعم كل هذا حق يجب الايمان به ولكن من اين لكم ان المسلم الذي يشهد ان لا اله الا الله وان محمدا عبده ورسوله اذا دعى غائباً او ميتاً او نذر له او ذبح لغير الله او تمسح بقبر او اخذ من ترابه ان هذا هو الشرك الاكبر الذي من فعله حبط عمله وحل ماله ودمه وانه الذي اراد الله سبحانه من هذه الاية وغيرها في القرآن فان قلتم فهمنا ذلك من الكتاب والسنة قلنا لا عبرة بمفهومكم ولا يجوزلكم ولا لمسلم الاخذ بمفهومكم فان الامة مجمعة كما تقدم ان الاستنباط مرتبة اهل الاجتهاد المطلق ومع هذا لو اجتمعت شروط الاجتهاد في رجل لم يجب على احد الاخذ بقوله دون نظر

    "So we say yes this true and we have to accept it and have faith in it but where did you get that the Muslim, who testifies that there is no divinity but Allah and that Muhammad is his slave, when he calls an absent or a dead, or vows to him, or makes a sacrifice to other than Allah or takes some of his soil that this is the great shirk for which the perpretrator loses his deeds and his wealth and blood becomes permissible, and that this is what Allah meant by these verses and others in the quran. If you say that this from your understanding of the quran and sunna, we say there is nothing to be taken in account from your understanding and it is not permissible for you or for a Muslim to take this understanding because the ummat has agreed as we have explained that drawing rules is one of the degrees of the mujtahid mutlaq, and even if you reached the level of ijtihad it is not obligatory for anyone to follow your position without verifiying it."

    قال الشيخ تقي الدين من اوجب تقليد الامام بعينه دون نظر انه يستتاب فان تاب والا قتل انتهى وان قلتم اخذنا ذلك من كلام بعض اهل العلم كابن تيمية وابن القيم لانهم سموا ذلك شركاً (قلنا) هذا حق ونوافقكم على تقليد الشيخين ان هذا شرك ولكن هم لم يقولوا كما قلتم ان هذا شرك اكبر يخرج من الاسلام وتجري على كل بلد هذا فيها احكام اهل الردة بل من لم يكفرهم عندكم فهو كافر تجري عليه احكام اهل الردة ولكنهم رحمهم الله ذكروا ان هذا شرك وشددوا فيه ونهوا عنه ولكن ما قالوا كما قلتم ولا عشر معشاره ولكنكم اخذتم من قولهم ماجاز لكم دون غيره بل في كلامهم رحمهم الله مايدل على ان هذا الافاعيل شرك اصغر وعلى تقدير ان في بعض افراده ماهو شرك اكبر على حسب حال قائله ونيته فهم ذكروا في بعض مواضع من كلامهم ان هذا لا يكفر حتى تقوم عليه الحجة الذي يكفر تاركها كما يأتي في كلامهم ان شاء الله مفصلا ولكن المطلوب منكم هو الرجوع الى كلام اهل العلم

    "Sheikh Taqi Al-Din ( Ibn Taymiyya) said: Whoever renders obligatory the following of an Imam in particular without verification then he is asked to repent or else he is killed, end of his words. If you say that you took this from the speech of some people of knowledge like Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Al-Qayyim because they called this shirk, we say it is the truth and we agree with you in doing taqlîd of the two sheikhs and that this is shirk but they did not say as you did that is shirk akbar which expells from the religion of islam and for which a region is declared a region of apostasy when that sort of act takes place in their region. In fact, whoever doesn't make takfir of them, then he is a kafir for you and the rulings of apostasy apply to him! But they said this is shirk and they were hard on it, they forbade it but they did not say what you said nor one tenth of what you said. Rather there is in their speech what indicates that these actions are shirk asghar. Let's suppose that, among some individuals, it is shirk akbar then it depends on the situation and intention of the individual because they mentionned in some places of their statements that takfir is not made until the proof is established which expels the one who abandons the proof as will be shown, insha Allah, with details.

    What is requested from you is that you return to the statements of the scholars."
    - end of the qoutes -
    (Translation taken from brother Pluma)


    I ask now: Is it now allowed to accuse other Muslims of being polytheists left and right just because of the false opinion of one individual (i.e. IAW), who was literally rejected by all scholars of his time and not even regarded as a scholar!?! What is even worse is to build a whole movement upon his views (i.e. the "Salafi" movement)!
    Blindly following a guy who came more than thousand years after the Hijrah and who rejected all living scholars (as has been shown in the very first post) is nothing but misguidance and leaving the way of the Ahl al-Sunnah.

  41. #640
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,033
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3476 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    @Abu Sulayman

    Please show us the earliest scholars that allowed or recommended the tawassul of the prophet ﷺ, don't bring the narration of imam Malik, I will refute that later with a number of points InshaAllah

    You say the classical scholars permitted it, I agree if you mean 500/600 AH, but what about before that and more importantly the salaf, the truth is as Ibn Taymiyyah says, that none of the classical imams around the time of the 4 imams allowed it, nor did their students, it's only later this issue came about.

    Before I give a longer reply, I would like to say very clearly that if MIAW meant that the mushrikeen had complete tawheed of Rububiyyah, then he was wrong.....but I honestly don't think it's clear, it's very possible that he meant they had the usool of Rububiyyah as part of their aqeedah for the reasons I mentioned

    And please stop your deception of switching the terms istighatha and tawassul around, tawassul is a much more broad term, there are many types ranging from shirk to bidah to mustahabb
    Last edited by abufulaans; 17-09-17 at 04:55 PM.
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.2.7 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com

MPADC.com Islamic Web Hosting | Muslim Ad Network | Islamic Nasheeds | Islamic Mobile App Developement Android & iPhone | Islamic Web Hosting : Muslim Designers : Labbayk Nasheeds : silk route jilbab: Hijab: : Web Islamic Newsletter: Islamic Web Hosting

Students of Arabic Forum | Hijab Shop