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


Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 721 to 729 of 729
  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. #721
    90279-054
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    1,454
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Quoted
    305 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    66

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    Also

    1) Sajdah for other than Allah does not always necessitate major Kufr or Shirk.
    Yes, it does. The question between the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah is whether it is excused or not; not whether it is Shirk Akbar or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    A) Ya'qoub(as) did Sajdah to Yusuf(as) to fulfill the dream , in al Quran.
    Sajdah may or may not have been permissible in earlier Umam; however, Islamic Shari'ah clearly forbids Sajdah to anyone and thus any previous legislation is abrogated and cannot be used as proof for permissibility or lack of prohibition.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    B) Instances of people doing Sajdah to Rasulullah ( Salman al Farsi comes to mind ) , though he admonished them.
    Islam at the time was still being revealed and rulings had not yet been made clear to even some Companions RA. To compare this period of Islam with the periods following, when Islamic knowledge and laws spread far and wide, is not an acceptable comparison in general.

    However, scholars have argued that it is possible for this early period of Islam to be representative of isolated populations at any time and place. At this point several issues become paramount: 1) what is considered 'Iqamat al-Hujjah'; 2) who is considered Mushrik/Kaafir Asli based on a lack knowing what is 'al-Ma'lum min ad-Deen bidh-Dharurah'; 3) are the actions still defined as Shirk/Kufr Akbar however the individual granted exception due to qualified ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    But I am curious as to what Shirk the Quburiyoon commit , and do you charge them correctly?

    1) Tawasul as defined by Subki is not Shirk akbar , though the early Najdi's may have believed so.
    As-Subki, may Allah have mercy on him, is not an Imam of Aqeedah with respect to Tawassul. Rather he is an Imam of innovation in Tawassul. Also, there is no fairness in citing "Najdis" when discussing the mistakes of Imam as-Subki as they are separated by hundreds of years and there were contemporary Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah who refuted as-Subki in these matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    2) Shaffa'a is not shirk akbar , though early najdi's may have believed so - and perhaps modern Salafi's make takfeer as well? If so , they would be opposing so many scholars who made it part of their custom at the grave-sight of Rasulullah (saws). It is probably Halal / Mustahab , but I could understand why others would oppose it , but to claim that it is Shirk Akbar , makes the Sunni tradition inconsistent. How could a movement 12 Centuries later claim that previous scholars were calling people to Shirk Akbar , but we excuse them out of ignorance. So everyone was upon baa'til until you came along? That is simply irrational.
    This is one of the weakest argument that a person could make for saying a prohibited form of Shafaa'ah is "probably Halal/Mustahab".

    First, define exactly what form of Shafaa'ah is being referred to for a ruling.
    Second, provide a list of names of scholars who performed this exact type of Shafaa'ah or declared it permissible/recommended.
    Third, stating the lack of something. i.e. not knowing of scholars who declared prohibited forms of Shafaa'ah to be Shirk Akbar before the 1800's, is not a proof in and of itself in favor of the opposite.

    Not doing any of the above and still opining on the matter is "simply irrational".

    Istishfaa' through the Prophet SAWS, whether at his SAWS grave or as a Gha'ib, is not a matter of "Najdis vs. Sunni tradition". It is a matter of Ahl as-Sunnah vs Ahl al-Bid'ah.

    No type of Istishfaa', after the death of the Prophet SAWS and before the Resurrection, has been permitted by the Imams of Aqeedah of Ahl as-Sunnah, and definitely not "recommended".

    As for the "customs of scholars" at the grave of the Prophet SAWS, then this is not a valid proof in the Shari'ah and not a means of amending what is legislated in Ibaadah. Again, none of the Imams of Aqeedah of Ahl as-Sunnah ever promoted any kind of Istishfaa' through the Prophet SAWS after his death or at his grave, neither by calling on him SAWS or appealing to Allah through his SAWS "honor" or "rank" with Allah.

    It is most definitely Shirk to call upon the Prophet SAWS. Whether it takes one out of the Deen or not depends on factors. So saying it is not Shirk Akbar as a general statement is only true if we assume that the person making Istishfaa' does not call on the Prophet SAWS. If they call upon Allah and appeal to Allah through the "honor" or "rank" of the Prophet SAWS, then this is misguidance and innovation, though not Shirk Akbar.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    3) Tabbarruk ( Seeking blessings ) To what extent do you allow it? Why do you even find it problematic if the people are not intending to worship the grave / individuals. Here's an article by GF HADDAD
    Anyone who refers to the deviant and misguided "GF Haddad" for anything concerning Aqeedah is seriously confused and in danger of ruining their Aqeedah. He is one of the biggest promoters of deviation with regards to Tawassul and Quburiyyah today.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    4) Tawaf .. I have no idea what could possibly be the intention of those who partake in this? Does it make your dua's come true or something? Does anyone know , what is the point?
    The common trope that many rely on to justify their sin and deviancy is "you don't know the intention", so what is the point of asking about the intention of the millions of people who make Tawaf around graves and other structures?

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    Even for Tawaf though , only an extremely deviant person would intend to worship the grave. As for the act , we make tawaf around the Kaa'ba , but we don't worship the Kaa'ba. Similarly , those performing tawaf are , inshaAllah , are not intending to worship the grave .. al Nawawi says " la ya'juz " .
    This sounds like a very flimsy defense of those who make Tawaf around graves and other objects.

    If the Tawaf is considered to be legislated [due to ignorance] and the intention is for the sake of Allah and not someone/something else, then it is an abominable Bid'ah. If the Tawaf is for the sake of someone/something other than Allah, then it is Shirk Akbar.

    https://islamqa.info/ar/112867

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    5) Istighatha ( As defined by Salafis ) Could possibly be shirk , but this is not done at the grave site. If it's done at the grave sight , then it is either tawasul or Shaffa'a. What separates Istighatha from the others are , the absence and abilities. So istighatha is irrelevant in this instance , if that is even what you meant.
    What is your obsession with defining things in such a restricted manner, i.e. "Salafi definition" vs. "xyz"?

    Istighaathah is done by people at grave sites. Many people visit graves and pay money, bring offerings, make Tawaf, make sacrifices, or swear oathes to the dead in exchange for relief from their suffering, which entails Shirk.

    The difference between Istighaathah, Tawassul and Shafaa'ah has nothing to do with location, presence or absence. In fact, each one can involve a absent or present being, although Tawassul does not involve ability.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    6) Slaughtering for Other than Allah - Is this an issue of Ijma from the scholars who preceded the Najdi movement?

    Question : What do the people themselves intend when doing this , on average? Do they say " In the name of Abdul Qadir " upon slaughter? Or do they slaughter for Allah , but at the grave site?
    The problem with people who deal with these topics is that they become obsessed with determining whether this or that act is Shirk Akbar, Shirk Asghar or "just Haraam" or "just an innovation".

    Also, the people who really want to justify these sins are always looking for the gap in the armor which would be some dissent among the scholars regarding the ruling. So they ask "is there Ijmaa' on the ruling for this issue?" As if the answer to that will settle their heart regarding whether the argument in defense of the act is righteous or sinful.

    "Slaughtering for other than Allah" regardless of the method, intention or any dissent on its ruling, is an abomination. With so many people who spend countless pages and threads demanding "proof" for rulings in Islam, it's strange that here we have something which is clearly prohibited and contrary to Islam itself, and yet people are wondering whether it is possible to declare this act of Shirk to be Akbar or Asghar in general.

    If you don't already know that there is Tafseel in most issues of Fiqh in which the ultimate ruling on an individual depends on several factors, then it would be better for you to ask questions about Usuul and to learn that science. Otherwise you're going to have the same confusion and difficulty with every issue that has Tafseel in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    7) Venerating the dead - How do you understand this term venerating? Isn't that just the general word for all of this ( Those who engage in it , exclude the haram forms )
    It's more important to understand how the scholars define "veneration" and what types are Haraam. If a person stays away from what is Haraam in acts of Ibaadah, then what worry do they have for falling into innovations or Shirk?

  3. #722
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,047
    Mentioned
    111 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3488 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
    Jazak Allah khair

    1) Why is asking the dead to fulfill a need shirk akbar?

    1) You are at the grave site
    2) You believe they can hear you
    3)You assume Allah has granted them certain abilities after death.

    Your proof is the answering of dua / " Are you belittling sayiduna Rasulullah !?!?!?!? " salla Allaho alayhi wa salam

    What makes it Shirk or Kufr ? Why not bid'ah / pointless ?
    1) Because Allah tells the mushrikeen to stop calling upon other than Allah, Allah does not tell them to simply believe what they call upon does not harm/benifit them without the permission of Allah only, rather in numerous ayaat he links calling upon other than Allah, (yes the mere act of calling) to shirk, this means calling upon other than Allah is ALWAYS shirk EXCEPT where there are clear exceptions

    Once the exceptions have been gathered together, we can see it's only allowed to ask for help from someone with the 3 qualities

    1) Alive in the dunya (not in barzakh)
    2) Present in the situation
    3) Able to help

    Regarding your three points

    1) Ok at the grave site
    2) They can hear ok but help is a different issue,
    3) Assume just isn't enough, how about I assume Allah has given me the ability to give life to the dead like ISA AS, I need a clear authority from Allah to claim this, and if I was to claim such a thing I would be a mushrik since it's just not true and giving and taking life is only in the hands of Allah

    Likewise if I claimed to be a wali and claimed I can help people on the other side of the world and hear them, I would be a mushrik because Allah gave me no such ability

    Likewise if I claimed I could create the heavens and the earth because Allah gave me the ability to do so, I would be a mushrik

    I can go on and on with examples, the point is claiming Allah gave such and such special powers that are not found in his creation to someone
    is shirk akbar, unless we have a clear evidence from Allah, claims and assumptions are not enough

    Infact why don't we go further than that and claim Allah gave this idol the power to increase my rizq so I will go call upon it (just like the mushrikeen believed for most of their idols, not all), would I be doing shirk akbar or not just because I CLAIM Allah gave it this power?

    The main point I want to make is 1) as said above, Allah says the calling upon other than him is shirk, believing that such and such has certain abilities that Allah has (even if we claim Allah gave it to them) is a sperate shirk altogether
    ''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

  4. #723
    An-Najdi abufulaans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    6,047
    Mentioned
    111 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3488 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    102

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

    @AbuNajm

    My understanding is that As-Subki equated asking the prophet ﷺ to ask Allah and asking him directly, meaning even when he said you can call the prophet ﷺ he meant you call him to ask Allah and that he cannot help you directly (even with the permission of Allah), to put it simply he just saw it as a different way of asking

    Is this correct....

    And if it's not, it means he called to shirk akbar, why is he excused?
    ''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. #724
    90279-054
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    1,454
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Quoted
    305 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    66

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

    Quote Originally Posted by abufulaans View Post
    @AbuNajm

    My understanding is that As-Subki equated asking the prophet ﷺ to ask Allah and asking him directly, meaning even when he said you can call the prophet ﷺ he meant you call him to ask Allah and that he cannot help you directly (even with the permission of Allah), to put it simply he just saw it as a different way of asking

    Is this correct....

    And if it's not, it means he called to shirk akbar, why is he excused?
    Your understanding is not confirmed by the following:

    والسبكي لا يقصد هاذين، وإنما يقصد في هذا الموطن قول الشخص في دعائه: (أسألك بنبيك، أو بحق نبيك) كما ذكر ذلك في كتابه هذا، وهذه مسألة سهلة، وهي مسألة اجتهاد

    http://www.alukah.net/sharia/0/30524/

    As-Subki differed with Ibn Taymiyyah on whether it was allowed to make Istighaathah and Tawassul through the Prophet SAWS by saying: "I ask You [Allah] through Your Prophet," or "...by the right of Your Prophet..."

    There are weak Hadith/evidences which support this wording and due to the differing over the weakness/strength of that evidence, the matter is considered related to Ijtihaad.

    I have not seen any scholars, not even Ibn Taymiyyah, claim that the wording mentioned entail Shirk or Kufr, rather he conveyed the Karaahah and prohibition of that and the difference of opinion about it.

  6. #725
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,231
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1582 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    118

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AbuNajm View Post
    Yes, it does. The question between the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah is whether it is excused or not; not whether it is Shirk Akbar or not.



    Sajdah may or may not have been permissible in earlier Umam; however, Islamic Shari'ah clearly forbids Sajdah to anyone and thus any previous legislation is abrogated and cannot be used as proof for permissibility or lack of prohibition.



    Islam at the time was still being revealed and rulings had not yet been made clear to even some Companions RA. To compare this period of Islam with the periods following, when Islamic knowledge and laws spread far and wide, is not an acceptable comparison in general.

    However, scholars have argued that it is possible for this early period of Islam to be representative of isolated populations at any time and place. At this point several issues become paramount: 1) what is considered 'Iqamat al-Hujjah'; 2) who is considered Mushrik/Kaafir Asli based on a lack knowing what is 'al-Ma'lum min ad-Deen bidh-Dharurah'; 3) are the actions still defined as Shirk/Kufr Akbar however the individual granted exception due to qualified ignorance.



    As-Subki, may Allah have mercy on him, is not an Imam of Aqeedah with respect to Tawassul. Rather he is an Imam of innovation in Tawassul. Also, there is no fairness in citing "Najdis" when discussing the mistakes of Imam as-Subki as they are separated by hundreds of years and there were contemporary Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah who refuted as-Subki in these matters.



    This is one of the weakest argument that a person could make for saying a prohibited form of Shafaa'ah is "probably Halal/Mustahab".

    First, define exactly what form of Shafaa'ah is being referred to for a ruling.
    Second, provide a list of names of scholars who performed this exact type of Shafaa'ah or declared it permissible/recommended.
    Third, stating the lack of something. i.e. not knowing of scholars who declared prohibited forms of Shafaa'ah to be Shirk Akbar before the 1800's, is not a proof in and of itself in favor of the opposite.

    Not doing any of the above and still opining on the matter is "simply irrational".

    Istishfaa' through the Prophet SAWS, whether at his SAWS grave or as a Gha'ib, is not a matter of "Najdis vs. Sunni tradition". It is a matter of Ahl as-Sunnah vs Ahl al-Bid'ah.

    No type of Istishfaa', after the death of the Prophet SAWS and before the Resurrection, has been permitted by the Imams of Aqeedah of Ahl as-Sunnah, and definitely not "recommended".

    As for the "customs of scholars" at the grave of the Prophet SAWS, then this is not a valid proof in the Shari'ah and not a means of amending what is legislated in Ibaadah. Again, none of the Imams of Aqeedah of Ahl as-Sunnah ever promoted any kind of Istishfaa' through the Prophet SAWS after his death or at his grave, neither by calling on him SAWS or appealing to Allah through his SAWS "honor" or "rank" with Allah.

    It is most definitely Shirk to call upon the Prophet SAWS. Whether it takes one out of the Deen or not depends on factors. So saying it is not Shirk Akbar as a general statement is only true if we assume that the person making Istishfaa' does not call on the Prophet SAWS. If they call upon Allah and appeal to Allah through the "honor" or "rank" of the Prophet SAWS, then this is misguidance and innovation, though not Shirk Akbar.



    Anyone who refers to the deviant and misguided "GF Haddad" for anything concerning Aqeedah is seriously confused and in danger of ruining their Aqeedah. He is one of the biggest promoters of deviation with regards to Tawassul and Quburiyyah today.



    The common trope that many rely on to justify their sin and deviancy is "you don't know the intention", so what is the point of asking about the intention of the millions of people who make Tawaf around graves and other structures?



    This sounds like a very flimsy defense of those who make Tawaf around graves and other objects.

    If the Tawaf is considered to be legislated [due to ignorance] and the intention is for the sake of Allah and not someone/something else, then it is an abominable Bid'ah. If the Tawaf is for the sake of someone/something other than Allah, then it is Shirk Akbar.

    https://islamqa.info/ar/112867



    What is your obsession with defining things in such a restricted manner, i.e. "Salafi definition" vs. "xyz"?

    Istighaathah is done by people at grave sites. Many people visit graves and pay money, bring offerings, make Tawaf, make sacrifices, or swear oathes to the dead in exchange for relief from their suffering, which entails Shirk.

    The difference between Istighaathah, Tawassul and Shafaa'ah has nothing to do with location, presence or absence. In fact, each one can involve a absent or present being, although Tawassul does not involve ability.



    The problem with people who deal with these topics is that they become obsessed with determining whether this or that act is Shirk Akbar, Shirk Asghar or "just Haraam" or "just an innovation".

    Also, the people who really want to justify these sins are always looking for the gap in the armor which would be some dissent among the scholars regarding the ruling. So they ask "is there Ijmaa' on the ruling for this issue?" As if the answer to that will settle their heart regarding whether the argument in defense of the act is righteous or sinful.

    "Slaughtering for other than Allah" regardless of the method, intention or any dissent on its ruling, is an abomination. With so many people who spend countless pages and threads demanding "proof" for rulings in Islam, it's strange that here we have something which is clearly prohibited and contrary to Islam itself, and yet people are wondering whether it is possible to declare this act of Shirk to be Akbar or Asghar in general.

    If you don't already know that there is Tafseel in most issues of Fiqh in which the ultimate ruling on an individual depends on several factors, then it would be better for you to ask questions about Usuul and to learn that science. Otherwise you're going to have the same confusion and difficulty with every issue that has Tafseel in it.



    It's more important to understand how the scholars define "veneration" and what types are Haraam. If a person stays away from what is Haraam in acts of Ibaadah, then what worry do they have for falling into innovations or Shirk?
    Jazak Allah khair for your response. I can not re-quote you conviniantly , so please excuse that.

    Firstly , I am not promoting or staunchly defend any side. The questions I asked were for my own knowledge while attempting to briefly understand what each party is saying. Ultimately I avoid any doubtful and unnecessary practices and surely that is the safest route regardless of it's hukm.

    I should not have said , " it is probably halal/mustahab " regarding tawasul in the manner I said it. Obviously that is not a shar'ee proof and I was not attempting to make a definitive case.

    Before proceeding akhi , it is obvious that you do not recognize the positions of the 'deviant' scholars of madhahib in this circumstance.

    1) The main purpose of my quote / participation within this thread was to get a perspective as to whether or not MIAW had unprecedented views in his a classification of shirk.

    Question : Would you say asking the Prophet(saws) to ask Allah to forgive us / having the Prophet intercede is a majority opinion amongst fuqaha? I am not refering to a limited number of Hanabalee's / Salaf , but rather , all scholars of ahlus Sunnah ? I am currently under the impression that the majority either consider it halal or Mustahib , is that wrong ?

    2) tawasul / Shafa'a / istighatha are not words with only one meaning. Depending on who is using them and in what context , is how we know what is being referred to , as you even requested for me to propose an understanding of Shaffa'a. Unless I have misunderstood the Ashari's , their understanding of Istighatha differs from the understanding of Salafis. It is either that or they do not expose their beliefs with clarity. Istighatha , as I use it , is to refer to seeking a request from an 'absent'.

    From what this brother mentioned / others have mentioned , their istighatha resembles more of a tawasul ( Calling on Allah , seeking His aid for the sake of the one being mentioned )

    3) I shouldnt have mentioned GF Haddads name , the purpose was to promote the article for the sake of the ahadith / scholarly positions he quotes. The question I am still curious of is how do these people acquire the 'barakah' and what makes it shirk?

    4) It is irrational to suggest an act as Shirk akbar if no one has concluded the same in 1200 years.

    My sources are truly limited and hence , I do keep an open mind - neither am I heavily sectarian. Would you agree that no scholar prior to MIAW classified tawasul / shaffa'a at the grave of the Prophet as shirk akbar?

    Sure , this is not a decisive method of "seeking truth" , but it is incoherent to suggest, as per the views I hold , that every single person was wrong except for an individual 12 centuries after the fact. Call it fraudulent , to me that is sound reasoning.

    I don't conform to what all scholars say myself , especially on these theological issues - but unprecedented views are to be shunned based on common sense. That is not to say that the fuqaha do not provide daleels in substantiating their practices. Whether you want to accept those is a different story and indeed , I am internally sympathetic towards shunning these practices , in spite of how much support they have ..

    You said ..

    The problem with people who deal with these topics is that they become obsessed with determining whether this or that act is Shirk Akbar, Shirk Asghar or "just Haraam" or "just an innovation".

    "Also, the people who really want to justify these sins are always looking for the gap in the armor which would be some dissent among the scholars regarding the ruling. So they ask "is there Ijmaa' on the ruling for this issue?" As if the answer to that will settle their heart regarding whether the argument in defense of the act is righteous or sinful."

    As far as this thread is concerned , this is actually the core of the discussion.

    Did MIAW incorrectly charge 'Muslims' with extreme classifications of Tawhid and Shirk , or was his theology completely coherent with the ongoing Islamic tradition?

    Hope to get back at you in a few.

    Salamo alaykom

  7. #726
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,231
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1582 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) Because Allah tells the mushrikeen to stop calling upon other than Allah, Allah does not tell them to simply believe what they call upon does not harm/benifit them without the permission of Allah only, rather in numerous ayaat he links calling upon other than Allah, (yes the mere act of calling) to shirk, this means calling upon other than Allah is ALWAYS shirk EXCEPT where there are clear exceptions

    Once the exceptions have been gathered together, we can see it's only allowed to ask for help from someone with the 3 qualities

    1) Alive in the dunya (not in barzakh)
    2) Present in the situation
    3) Able to help

    Regarding your three points

    1) Ok at the grave site
    2) They can hear ok but help is a different issue,
    3) Assume just isn't enough, how about I assume Allah has given me the ability to give life to the dead like ISA AS, I need a clear authority from Allah to claim this, and if I was to claim such a thing I would be a mushrik since it's just not true and giving and taking life is only in the hands of Allah

    Likewise if I claimed to be a wali and claimed I can help people on the other side of the world and hear them, I would be a mushrik because Allah gave me no such ability

    Likewise if I claimed I could create the heavens and the earth because Allah gave me the ability to do so, I would be a mushrik

    I can go on and on with examples, the point is claiming Allah gave such and such special powers that are not found in his creation to someone
    is shirk akbar, unless we have a clear evidence from Allah, claims and assumptions are not enough

    Infact why don't we go further than that and claim Allah gave this idol the power to increase my rizq so I will go call upon it (just like the mushrikeen believed for most of their idols, not all), would I be doing shirk akbar or not just because I CLAIM Allah gave it this power?

    The main point I want to make is 1) as said above, Allah says the calling upon other than him is shirk, believing that such and such has certain abilities that Allah has (even if we claim Allah gave it to them) is a sperate shirk altogether
    Walahi it takes too much effort to quote you at the moment.

    1) Claiming to be a wali who is helping people on other side of the world is shirk ? Are you 100% sure ?

    I don't intend to misrepresent the opposition within Sunni Islam , but I don't believe they entirely agree with your understanding of abilities and shirk.

    Yes , certain abilities belong to Allah , and to claim them is claiming to be Allah / having his power ( The reality / perfection of His sifat , forgiveness , etc )

    There two issues which I believe are key and Allah knows best.

    1) It is possible for a Wali to perform miracles , by Allahs leave , i.e help others on different parts of Earth.

    2) To claim this ability incorrectly would only imply two possibilities

    - Deceit
    - Misunderstanding

    Why would it be shirk to be wrong on something which is possible ?

    What is your daleel for this , has anyone prior to Ibn Taymiyyah suggested this ?
    Last edited by AmantuBillahi; Today at 12:32 PM.

  8. #727
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,231
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1582 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) Because Allah tells the mushrikeen to stop calling upon other than Allah, Allah does not tell them to simply believe what they call upon does not harm/benifit them without the permission of Allah only, rather in numerous ayaat he links calling upon other than Allah, (yes the mere act of calling) to shirk, this means calling upon other than Allah is ALWAYS shirk EXCEPT where there are clear exceptions

    Once the exceptions have been gathered together, we can see it's only allowed to ask for help from someone with the 3 qualities

    1) Alive in the dunya (not in barzakh)
    2) Present in the situation
    3) Able to help

    Regarding your three points

    1) Ok at the grave site
    2) They can hear ok but help is a different issue,
    3) Assume just isn't enough, how about I assume Allah has given me the ability to give life to the dead like ISA AS, I need a clear authority from Allah to claim this, and if I was to claim such a thing I would be a mushrik since it's just not true and giving and taking life is only in the hands of Allah

    Likewise if I claimed to be a wali and claimed I can help people on the other side of the world and hear them, I would be a mushrik because Allah gave me no such ability

    Likewise if I claimed I could create the heavens and the earth because Allah gave me the ability to do so, I would be a mushrik

    I can go on and on with examples, the point is claiming Allah gave such and such special powers that are not found in his creation to someone
    is shirk akbar, unless we have a clear evidence from Allah, claims and assumptions are not eenough
    You said ..

    1) Allah said do not call upon other than Allah .. ( to prove its shirk )

    2) The one you are calling upon could possibly hear you at grave site.

    3) Du'a means to call. The Quran says " Do not make your dua of the Messenger like yourselves " ( Regarding adab )

    4) The one at the grave site is not calling a 'God' , nor are they intending worship in their call.

    5) This understanding contradicts asking the Prophet to ask Allah for forgiveness ( unless you say that the 'call' is only minor Shirk)



    "
    1) Alive in the dunya (not in barzakh)
    2) Present in the situation
    3) Able to help
    "

    Where do you get this definition from? Did anyone preceed ibn Taymiyyah in this ?

    Don't mean to trouble you by the way , just curious to see how you deal with these responses.
    Last edited by AmantuBillahi; Today at 12:54 PM.

  9. #728
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,231
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1582 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    118

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    You said ..

    1) Allah said do not call upon other than Allah .. ( to prove its shirk )

    2) The one you are calling upon could possibly hear you at grave site.

    3) Du'a means to call. The Quran says " Do not make your dua of the Messenger like yourselves " ( Regarding adab )

    4) The one at the grave site is not calling a 'God' , nor are they intending worship in their call.

    5) This understanding contradicts asking the Prophet to ask Allah for forgiveness ( unless you say that the 'call' is only minor Shirk)



    "
    1) Alive in the dunya (not in barzakh)
    2) Present in the situation
    3) Able to help
    "

    Where do you get this definition from? Did anyone preceed ibn Taymiyyah in this ?

    Don't mean to trouble you by the way , just curious to see how you deal with these responses.
    @abufulaans actually regret sending this. Better not to even entertain hypotheticals. Jazak Allah khair

  10. #729
    90279-054
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    1,454
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Quoted
    305 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    66

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

    I should not have said , " it is probably halal/mustahab " regarding tawasul in the manner I said it. Obviously that is not a shar'ee proof and I was not attempting to make a definitive case.
    We should never reduce ourselves to speaking about Islam without 100% certainty and the ability to provide a reference at any time. May Allah reward you for acknowledging the deficiency in your statement. Ameen.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    Before proceeding akhi , it is obvious that you do not recognize the positions of the 'deviant' scholars of madhahib in this circumstance.
    When it comes to Aqeedah, it is required to refer to the Imams of that science and not any other science. Referring to Fuqahaa' as authorities in Aqeedah is like relying on an engineer as an authority in medicine. There are some Imams of Aqeedah who were also Fuqahaa', Mufassireen, Muhadditheen, Nahwiyeen, etc. However there were several Fuqahaa' who were deviant in Aqeedah.

    The reason for this is because it became common for individual scholars in Fiqh to adopt sectarian views in Aqeedah and Usuul such that they say "I am Hanafi in Furuu' and Maturidi in Usuul," or "I am Maliki in Fiqh and Ash'ari in Usuul."

    If we know that a Faqeeh is Maturidi, Ash'ari, Mu'tazili, Shi'i, or any other sect in their approach to Usuul and Aqeedah, then it is not allowed to use them as authorities in Aqeedah or Usuul except where they confirm what the Imams of Aqeedah and Usuul of Ahl as-Sunnah establish.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    1) The main purpose of my quote / participation within this thread was to get a perspective as to whether or not MIAW had unprecedented views in his a classification of shirk.
    This is the wrong question to ask. Rather people should be asking "Did al-Hijaz and the rest of the Ummah have unprecedented levels and practices of Shirk during the time of MIAW?"

    Why focus on the response of one man to what was/is clearly a problem in the entire Ummah? The focus on MIAW is because it is far easier to find fault with and mistakes in an individual as a deterrence and distraction from addressing the problem of Shirk in our Ummah. This way, if it is proven that MIAW was wrong about anything, then it allows the Mushrikeen hiding in our Ummah to remain unchallenged and unnamed.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    Question : Would you say asking the Prophet(saws) to ask Allah to forgive us / having the Prophet intercede is a majority opinion amongst fuqaha? I am not refering to a limited number of Hanabalee's / Salaf , but rather , all scholars of ahlus Sunnah ? I am currently under the impression that the majority either consider it halal or Mustahib , is that wrong ?
    You have to refer to Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah as I mentioned above. The Fuqahaa' are not necessarily authorities in Aqeedah. Fiqh and Aqeedah are two separate sciences whose experts are not necessarily cross-trained. When you discount the unqualified views of Fuqahaa' who were members of various sects outside of Ahl as-Sunnah and who were not authorities in matters of Aqeedah for Ahl as-Sunnah, then there is unanimity in declaring Nidaa' to anyone/anything other than Allah is Shirk.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    2) tawasul / Shafa'a / istighatha are not words with only one meaning. Depending on who is using them and in what context , is how we know what is being referred to , as you even requested for me to propose an understanding of Shaffa'a. Unless I have misunderstood the Ashari's , their understanding of Istighatha differs from the understanding of Salafis. It is either that or they do not expose their beliefs with clarity. Istighatha , as I use it , is to refer to seeking a request from an 'absent'.

    From what this brother mentioned / others have mentioned , their istighatha resembles more of a tawasul ( Calling on Allah , seeking His aid for the sake of the one being mentioned )
    There's no reason to get stuck on terms or definitions.

    Tawassul = seeking a means to something through someone.

    Legal: "Brother, can you hand me that hammer." There is a brother nearby who can hear you and you request his assistance in acquiring something needed/wanted.
    Illegal: "Oh Shaykh Abd ul-Qadir, ask Allah to grant me guidance!" Abd ul-Qadir has been dead for hundreds of years and he can neither hear you nor help you in any way.
    Ikhtilaf: "Oh Allah! Grant me guidance through the honor of Shaykh Abd ul-Qadir."

    Tashfa'a = seeking intercession through someone for something.

    Legal = "Oh Messenger of Allah! Intercede for me with Allah from the Hell-Fire." This supplication will be made on the Day of Resurrection as mentioned in authentic Ahadith.
    Illegal = "Oh Messenger of Allah! Intercede for me with Allah to grant me children." This supplication is made in a way that has no proof from the Quran, Sunnah or Salaf.

    Istighaathah = seeking relief from a hardship.

    Legal = "Oh Allah! Help me find my way. I am lost and in danger."
    Illegal = "Oh Ali! Help me find my way. I am lost and in danger."

    As you can see, the only forms which "Najdis/Salafis" object to, in each matter, are those in which someone other than Allah is called upon. This is not because the "Najdis/Salafis" are the first in history to object to calling upon other than Allah, but rather the amount of Shirk in the Ummah and courage to oppose it is unprecedented [at least for a long time].

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    3) I shouldnt have mentioned GF Haddads name , the purpose was to promote the article for the sake of the ahadith / scholarly positions he quotes.
    There is no value to the "scholarly positions" or Ahadith that GF Haddad quotes in his articles. He is a liar and a very dishonest person. He is well-known for distorting translations of references and selectively quoting scholars to give false impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    The question I am still curious of is how do these people acquire the 'barakah' and what makes it shirk?
    Not sure what you're referring to.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    4) It is irrational to suggest an act as Shirk akbar if no one has concluded the same in 1200 years.
    You're assessment that "no one has concluded the same in 1200 years" is wrong. Just because you haven't been exposed to the previous conclusions doesn't mean they don't exist. And when those conclusions are reported to you through contemporary scholars, it doesn't make them "irrational".

    What is "irrational" is to disregard the wide-spread opinion of contemporary scholars of Aqeedah simply because Ahl al-Bid'ah have labeled them "Najdi" or "Salafi".

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    My sources are truly limited and hence , I do keep an open mind - neither am I heavily sectarian. Would you agree that no scholar prior to MIAW classified tawasul / shaffa'a at the grave of the Prophet as shirk akbar?
    First define "Shaffa'a at the grave of the Prophet".

    1) If by Shafaa'ah you mean: "Oh Messenger of Allah! Ask Allah to grant rain." Then there is no doubt this is Shirk and the scholars of Aqeedah have never ceased saying this. There is a disagreement over whether the ignorant person who does this is excused or not.

    2) If by Shafaa'ah you mean: "Oh Allah! Through the honor of Your Prophet, grant us rain." I have never read that a scholar of Aqeedah has ever said this is Shirk Akbar, not MIAW, Ibn Taymiyyah, or anyone else. They simply disagreed over whether it was an innovation or not.

    Ahl al-Bid'ah love confusing this matter so that it appears like MIAW or Ibn Taymiyyah declared #2 to be Shirk Akbar, when that is not the case.

    Ahl al-Bid'ah also love pointing out the fact that several Fuqahaa' have falsely declared #1 to be permissible or recommended without an Ayah or Hadith as proof while at the same time they hypocritically declare scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah to be "Mujassimah" or "Hashawi" for using statements of the Companions and Tabi'een as proof in the Names and Attributes.

    Unfortunately, many Muslims who are like you in being "limited in sources" with "open minds" fall prey to Ahl al-Bid'ah on this and many other issues in Aqeedah.

    [Side note: the transliteration of the term شفاعة is Shafaa'ah or Shafa'ah, not "Shaffa'a".]

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    Sure , this is not a decisive method of "seeking truth" , but it is incoherent to suggest, as per the views I hold , that every single person was wrong except for an individual 12 centuries after the fact. Call it fraudulent , to me that is sound reasoning.
    You are under a false impression about the views on this issue of a majority of scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah. You've been led to believe that MIAW or Ibn Taymiyyah were alone in what they ruled about Tawassul, Istighaathah and Shafaa'ah. This is a false impression and thus the "reasoning" is false as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    I don't conform to what all scholars say myself , especially on these theological issues - but unprecedented views are to be shunned based on common sense. That is not to say that the fuqaha do not provide daleels in substantiating their practices. Whether you want to accept those is a different story and indeed , I am internally sympathetic towards shunning these practices , in spite of how much support they have ..
    1) "Unprecedented" views are not shunned as an Islamic principle.

    Rather, unprecedented actions and statements are subjected to rigorous analysis by qualified scholars of the respective science and then a ruling is derived based on principles established by the Quran, Sunnah and Ijmaa'.

    Of course an "unprecedented act/statement" will result in an "unprecedented view". As long as the scholars of the respective science agree on the ruling, then this establishes a consensus that must be followed by Muslims.

    2) "Daleels" do not hold weight in Islam unless those proofs are based on the agreed upon Usuul ad-Deen: Quran, Sunnah, Ijmaa' and Qiyaas Saheeh. You will never find a single scholar of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah putting forward a single evidence from the agreed upon Usuul ad-Deen supporting Nidaa'/Calling upon other than Allah.

    This being the case, it is not a matter of choice whether to accept "Daleels" that are not from Usuul ad-Deen that promote calling on other than Allah. Rather rejecting these so-called "Daleels" is a part of "common sense" in Islam.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    As far as this thread is concerned , this is actually the core of the discussion.

    Did MIAW incorrectly charge 'Muslims' with extreme classifications of Tawhid and Shirk , or was his theology completely coherent with the ongoing Islamic tradition?

    Hope to get back at you in a few.

    Salamo alaykom
    Can you provide any evidence of MIAW taking an individual Muslim and declaring him a Kaafir and executing him based solely on that Muslim making Istishfaa', Tawassul or Istighaathah, EVEN if they did so in one of the ways agreed upon to be Haraam/Shirk?

    Or is the matter more correctly couched in a historical perspective where MIAW spoke against the polytheistic forms of Istishfaa', Tawassul and Istighaathah. When he acquired enough power and strength, then he used that to force people to abandon such acts by destroying shrines and removing leaders who promoted them. When he made those moves, both the promoters of Shirk and those who felt politically threatened by the strength and influence of MIAW fought against him and mobilized people by making false accusations, not dissimilar to accusations of "terrorism" today. This led to wide-spread fighting and deaths/executions on both sides.

    Rather, the situation with MIAW in Najd during the 1800's is similar to IS in Syria and Iraq in the sense that there are clear examples of Shirk/Kufr happening at the state level in both. An unpopular group arises from within the states involved and their fight to eliminate that Shirk/Kufr is what makes them unpopular.

    Just imagine how different Ahl al-Bid'ah would remember MIAW if he had supported their Shirk and their authority in the land. Also imagine how differently IS would be discussed today if they were calling for "democracy" and protecting the interests of Turkey or the West.

    Is this discussion really about the personal beliefs of MIAW and how he implemented that in his fight in Najd and the surrounding areas?

    If that's the case, then why does the discussion always lead to whether or not calling upon other than Allah is Shirk Akbar and the flimsy, invalid "Daleels" used to excuse those members of Ahl al-Bid'ah among the Fuqahaa' who opposed Ahl as-Sunnah?

    I already listed above the "Legal vs Illegal" routes of Tawassul, Istighaathah and Shafaa'ah. These things did not exist among the Salaf or early scholars, thus the lack of a need to address those forms of worship that were innovated much later on. When they were innovated, the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah at the time refuted them despite the deviant rulers' and their appointed leaders' attempts to oppress the Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah.

    It's like saying, "No scholar before the end of the 20th century ever said that using stem cells from intentionally aborted foetuses is prohibited."

    Scholars of Islam did not rule one way or another on the use of foetal tissues, despite the existence of spontaneous miscarriages throughout history, for the simple fact that the practice did not exist before the end of the 20th century. The silence of the scholars on any issue before its wide-spread practice is not an evidence of permissibility or recommendation.

    Fuqahaa' did not begin claiming "permission" or "recommendation" of calling on the Prophet SAWS or righteous, whether at their graves or in their absence, until long after the time of the Salaf. However, when the practice became wide-spread or known, the Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah clearly and definitively rejected the acts.

    In order to prove that MIAW or Ibn Taymiyyah were "unprecedented" in rejecting Shirk in Istighaathah, Tawassul and Shafaa'ah, proof is required that there was ever a time when that was permitted and no scholars objected to it.

 

 

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 07:28 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