Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
View Post
First: Makka al-Mukarrama is a city that lies in the Hijaz region and its inhabitants are the people of Makka. They have converted to Islam since the time of our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and have been upon Islam since then and have not apostated from it. And them being Muslims does not change with their government. So during the time of the 'Uthmani Khilafa they were Muslims and now during the Saudi leadership they're also Muslims no matter how evil the Saudi leadership is.
Claiming them to be disbelievers or polytheists is PURE extremism and from the way of the Khawarij!
Why can't you differentiate between the people and the government?
Then: Just because ONE person [and his followers] makes a claim how for God's sake does that put the Iman of a whole city or a whole region into question? What kind of idiocy is that?
Then: Making Takfir upon the Ottoman Khilafa and upon those who do not make Takfir upon them is clear-cut extremism! Why don't we see a single scholar of their time to make Takfir upon them?
Then: What is grave worship? This issue is purely a Najdi invention!
The things that you people call as "grave worship" is either forbidden, disliked, allowed or in some cases even recommended, but not real Shirk.
These issues usually can only be found in classical Fiqh books and are not issues of Iman and Kufr!
If anyone wants to claim otherwise, then let him present us some classical texts of beliefs where these issues are discussed in the manner of the Najdis!
Please concentrate on the last point, because this thread is actually connected to this issue. It was claimed that the Fatwa of Husam al-Haramayn caused the division in the subcontinent, while the reality is that the division started AFTER Taqwiyatul Iman was published.
Taqwiyatul Iman contains the issue of "grave worship", while we do not see this in classical books regarding beliefs.
I'll give an example: The issue of seeking intercession through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - unto ones Lord:
According to Najdis it's clear Shirk for which one deserves to be killed!
According to classical scholars it's something allowed and during the visitation of his blessed grave it's even recommended! According to the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) it's not allowed, but he does not regard it as real Shirk and does not Takfir because of this issue.
So the question is: How is allowed for you people to make Takfir upon Muslims based upon an issue for which not a single classical scholars made Takfir?
Comment