Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Intra-Sunni Divide: A history of the schools of Aqeedah wrt Sifat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post
    I had typed a lengthy reply addressing some of the points you made, but truthfully, it's not deserving. As for the Shaykh, then he's free from what you and the likes of Yasir Qadhi ascribe to him. May Allaah have mercy upon the shaykh! The following will suffice to answer some of the slander that's taking its rounds:

    Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhฤb (may Allahโ€™s mercy be upon him) said in reply to Sulaymฤn Ibn Suhaym who accused the Shaykh of takfฤซr:

    โ€œIndeed Allah knows that this man has fabricated lies against me by ascribing to me what I never said, and most of which have never even occurred to me! From them is his claim that I invalidate the books of the Four Madhhabs, and that I say that the people (i.e. the ummah) has been upon nothing (i.e. no Islam) for 600 years! And that I make takfฤซr of the one who makes Tawassul (seeks nearness to Allah) through the righteous ones [who have passed away]. He claims that I made takfฤซr of Al-Busayriโ€ฆ and that I said that whoever swears by other than Allah is an unbelieverโ€ฆ My answer to all of this is: โ€˜How free you are, O Allah, from all imperfections, the Most Perfect. Indeed this is a great slander.โ€™ And before this, there were those who slandered the Messenger Muhammad (๏ทบ) claiming that he had reviled Jesus the son of Mary (may Allahโ€™s peace be upon them) and that he reviles the righteous. So their hearts resemble one another in their fabrication of lies and bearing false witness.โ€

    Sharhu Aqฤซdat Al-Imฤm Al-Mujaddid Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhฤb, by Shaikh, Dr. Sฤlih Al-Fawzฤn, pp. 142-156.
    Subhanallah, your post number is 114 - the number of chapters in the Quran!

    Let us both agree on one thing my brother:
    A Muslim cannot be a Muslim if he willfully commits Shirk or if he says Shirk is permissible.
    Now if you say, in your love for this man, that he did not accuse the Muslims of Shirk (and thus make takfir of them), or that if he did accuse the Muslims of Shirk, that he only meant Shirk in name e.g. like minor Shirk (praying to be seen of as a man), and if you yourself hold the belief that Tawassul of the dead is not Shirk (but you can say it is Haram etc. that is ikhtilaf), then may Allah bless you, you have not fallen into what I am accusing Ibn Abdul Wahhab of.

    I would still contest you and say that Ibn Abdul Wahhab did hold this belief, but regardless, this need not be a point of contention. If you say you believe he never held such a belief, and that you yourself do not hold such a belief then we are fine. I can agree to disagree.

    May Allah bless you my brother and guide us both to the path of the Prophet Alayhis Salam and the Sahaba Radiyallahu Anhum.

    I request you make dua for me, for insha'Allah you have rank in Allah's eyes, and that you ask Allah to guide both of us to the straight path, the path of the righteous.
    Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
    "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
    Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

    Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
    1/116

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
      ...Tawassul of the dead is not Shirk ....
      Depends on what is meant by tawassul - there are permissible and impermissible forms.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

        Subhanallah, your post number is 114 - the number of chapters in the Quran!

        Let us both agree on one thing my brother:


        Now if you say, in your love for this man, that he did not accuse the Muslims of Shirk (and thus make takfir of them), or that if he did accuse the Muslims of Shirk, that he only meant Shirk in name e.g. like minor Shirk (praying to be seen of as a man), and if you yourself hold the belief that Tawassul of the dead is not Shirk (but you can say it is Haram etc. that is ikhtilaf), then may Allah bless you, you have not fallen into what I am accusing Ibn Abdul Wahhab of.

        I would still contest you and say that Ibn Abdul Wahhab did hold this belief, but regardless, this need not be a point of contention. If you say you believe he never held such a belief, and that you yourself do not hold such a belief then we are fine. I can agree to disagree.

        May Allah bless you my brother and guide us both to the path of the Prophet Alayhis Salam and the Sahaba Radiyallahu Anhum.

        I request you make dua for me, for insha'Allah you have rank in Allah's eyes, and that you ask Allah to guide both of us to the straight path, the path of the righteous.
        Firstly, we Muslims shouldn't have ta3assub towards individuals. I do not appreciate that you're implying I said what I said out of mere love for the Shaykh. Truth should be more dear to a Muslim, whether it's for or against him. I've found what you said to be incorrect and actually slander upon the Shaykh. And when any Muslim is being unjustly slandered, I feel it's a responsibility to say something. Now I see the Shaykh as a scholar of Tawheed and to be upon Sunnah, so naturally the love I have for him for the sake of Allaah is more than just for any Muslim. So I'll not agree to disagree when it comes to his honour.

        Secondly, without going in to a lengthy debate about Tawassul and it's kinds, I hope to make a point to you in shaa Allaah.

        You gave an explanation about 4 individuals and whether you make takfir on them or not. When speaking about Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhaab you start mentioning points you belief are acts of kufr he had fallen in to, yet in the end you refrained from making takfir on him. Now how would you feel if I start spreading around that you made takfir on the Shaykh? You mentioned points you belief are kufr and I use those as arguments against you, saying you applied them on the Shaykh and he's thus a kaafir in your eyes, even though you clearly stated in your comment that in the end you do refrain from making takfir on him. Would you belief that to be fair or would you consider that the spread of misinformation and slander? Because what you're doing to the Shaykh is exactly the same. He clearly states that he doesn't make takfir on people doing Tawassul. He may have spoken in his books about aspects of Tawassul that can constitute shirk. And now you use those points he made about Tawassul in his works to say he's applying them on "most Muslims" and that he makes takfir on them, while he clearly says he doesn't! Takfir is more nuanced than that. And your own personal explanation about the status of the Shaykh in your eyes show that. This is without even delving in to the topics of Tawassul and Takfir, that I'm afraid you're not understanding properly to begin with.

        Lastly, I advise you to stop lending your ears to everyone. The religion is knowledge so you should be very careful where you take that knowledge from. So much that the Salaf wouldn't even listen to the Quran recitation of Ahlul-Bid3ah. These people you freely listen to have corrupted your beliefs on scholars. If you would have protected yourself, you wouldn't have fallen in to the mistakes you're falling now. And I say that with all due respect. And Allaah knows best.

        Allaahumma ameen on your du3a.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post

          Firstly, we Muslims shouldn't have ta3assub towards individuals. I do not appreciate that you're implying I said what I said out of mere love for the Shaykh. Truth should be more dear to a Muslim, whether it's for or against him. I've found what you said to be incorrect and actually slander upon the Shaykh. And when any Muslim is being unjustly slandered, I feel it's a responsibility to say something. Now I see the Shaykh as a scholar of Tawheed and to be upon Sunnah, so naturally the love I have for him for the sake of Allaah is more than just for any Muslim. So I'll not agree to disagree when it comes to his honour.

          Secondly, without going in to a lengthy debate about Tawassul and it's kinds, I hope to make a point to you in shaa Allaah.

          You gave an explanation about 4 individuals and whether you make takfir on them or not. When speaking about Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhaab you start mentioning points you belief are acts of kufr he had fallen in to, yet in the end you refrained from making takfir on him. Now how would you feel if I start spreading around that you made takfir on the Shaykh? You mentioned points you belief are kufr and I use those as arguments against you, saying you applied them on the Shaykh and he's thus a kaafir in your eyes, even though you clearly stated in your comment that in the end you do refrain from making takfir on him. Would you belief that to be fair or would you consider that the spread of misinformation and slander? Because what you're doing to the Shaykh is exactly the same. He clearly states that he doesn't make takfir on people doing Tawassul. He may have spoken in his books about aspects of Tawassul that can constitute shirk. And now you use those points he made about Tawassul in his works to say he's applying them on "most Muslims" and that he makes takfir on them, while he clearly says he doesn't! Takfir is more nuanced than that. And your own personal explanation about the status of the Shaykh in your eyes show that. This is without even delving in to the topics of Tawassul and Takfir, that I'm afraid you're not understanding properly to begin with.

          Lastly, I advise you to stop lending your ears to everyone. The religion is knowledge so you should be very careful where you take that knowledge from. So much that the Salaf wouldn't even listen to the Quran recitation of Ahlul-Bid3ah. These people you freely listen to have corrupted your beliefs on scholars. If you would have protected yourself, you wouldn't have fallen in to the mistakes you're falling now. And I say that with all due respect. And Allaah knows best.

          Allaahumma ameen on your du3a.
          I insha'Allah will say some things and the first point I make will be very dangerous for me to bear to you but it is the truth. I fear you will repulse me if I mention this, but I feel you deserve to know why I didn't accept your quotation. The second thing I will explain to you is why your quotations of the Salaf Rahimullah Alayhum do not constitute evidence for what you understand to be sitting with Ahlul Biddah. Both these things I fear will bring dissension in your heart. May Allah forgive me if I cause anger in my dear brother.

          Point 1, Part A: Reliability of the Isnad

          You quoted a translation of a commentary of a work attributed to Ibn Abdul Wahhab. I do not accept/trust the translator, who is Majhul (unknown) or the commentator, who - may Allah control your anger - is one who wants to hide the faults of the scholar, so I do not know that he stated that.

          If I read a translation from a source I trust, or from authorities I trust I will generally accept it (although sometimes I still check the meaning of the words to be sure). But here you have brought a translation (translator is unknown), of a commentary (the commentator has a desire to hide the faults of his Shaykh and is not trustworthy to me), of what an individual more than two hundred years ago said.

          I do not even know how Salih al-Fawzan knows Ibn Abdul Wahhab said this - there is a gap in the chain. Did he read it in a book? Who transmitted this book? Who wrote it out? Or did he read the original manuscript of Ibn Abdul Wahhab?

          When I read Bukhari I know it is the transmission of Firabri Rahimullah and as it is mutawatir I trust no one will willfully distort the Arabic for this would cause a tirade against them - who even transmitted the work Salih al-Fawzan is commentating on?

          There are too many weaknesses in what you have brought as evidence.

          True, if I trusted/took as authority Salih al-Fawzan then I would trust the quotation you have brought. Yet I do not even trust the translator (who is Majhul - unknown) - subhanallah whenever I quote hadith I generally bring it from a site (sunnah.com) that everyone accepts, but even then I know who translates the hadith (Darussalam e.g. Nasiruddin/Yasir Qadhi/Abu Khalyl etc. in many cases) and who authenticates (Al-Albani/Darussalam i.e. Zubair Ali Zai - but following from what Muhaditheen I trust have said, I do not give much weight if they weaken something as they are known to weaken hadith in Sahihayn and Zubair Ali Zai contradicts Imam at-Tirmidhi Rahimullah's own authentication sometimes - but I do use them as Hujjah for those who accept their overly strict authentication).

          My fear is you have brought what you have brought is from some website set up by someone (who if I knew I likely wouldn't trust) in order to specifically refute the historical understanding that Ibn Abdul Wahhab held problematic views.

          You are probably very angry with what I have stated and I do not wish you to hate me, so I will demonstrate to you the importance of what I am talking about.

          Observe the following:

          Point 1, Part B: Importance of having the Arabic and knowing the Translator

          Let's look at a hadith found in many of the Sihah Sittah, I will quote both the arabic and the translation of two:

          ุนูŽู†ู’ ุณูู‡ูŽูŠู’ู„ูุŒ ู‚ูŽุงู„ูŽ ูƒูŽุงู†ูŽ ุฃูŽุจููˆ ุตูŽุงู„ูุญู ูŠูŽุฃู’ู…ูุฑูู†ูŽุง ุฅูุฐูŽุง ุฃูŽุฑูŽุงุฏูŽ ุฃูŽุญูŽุฏูู†ูŽุง ุฃูŽู†ู’ ูŠูŽู†ูŽุงู…ูŽ ุฃูŽู†ู’ ูŠูŽุถู’ุทูŽุฌูุนูŽ ุนูŽู„ูŽู‰ ุดูู‚ู‘ูู‡ู ุงู„ุฃูŽูŠู’ู…ูŽู†ู ุซูู…ู‘ูŽ ูŠูŽู‚ููˆู„ู โ€

          โ€ "โ€ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ูู…ู‘ูŽ ุฑูŽุจู‘ูŽ ุงู„ุณู‘ูŽู…ูŽูˆูŽุงุชู ูˆูŽุฑูŽุจู‘ูŽ ุงู„ุฃูŽุฑู’ุถู ูˆูŽุฑูŽุจู‘ูŽ ุงู„ู’ุนูŽุฑู’ุดู ุงู„ู’ุนูŽุธููŠู…ู ุฑูŽุจู‘ูŽู†ูŽุง ูˆูŽุฑูŽุจู‘ูŽ ูƒูู„ู‘ู ุดูŽู‰ู’ุกู ููŽุงู„ูู‚ูŽ ุงู„ู’ุญูŽุจู‘ู ูˆูŽุงู„ู†ู‘ูŽูˆูŽู‰ ูˆูŽู…ูู†ู’ุฒูู„ูŽ ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽูˆู’ุฑูŽุงุฉู ูˆูŽุงู„ุฅูู†ู’ุฌููŠู„ู ูˆูŽุงู„ู’ููุฑู’ู‚ูŽุงู†ู ุฃูŽุนููˆุฐู ุจููƒูŽ ู…ูู†ู’ ุดูŽุฑู‘ู ูƒูู„ู‘ู ุดูŽู‰ู’ุกู ุฃูŽู†ู’ุชูŽ ุขุฎูุฐูŒ ุจูู†ูŽุงุตููŠูŽุชูู‡ู ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ูู…ู‘ูŽ ุฃูŽู†ู’ุชูŽ ุงู„ุฃูŽูˆู‘ูŽู„ู ููŽู„ูŽูŠู’ุณูŽ ู‚ูŽุจู’ู„ูŽูƒูŽ ุดูŽู‰ู’ุกูŒ ูˆูŽุฃูŽู†ู’ุชูŽ ุงู„ุขุฎูุฑู ููŽู„ูŽูŠู’ุณูŽ ุจูŽุนู’ุฏูŽูƒูŽ ุดูŽู‰ู’ุกูŒ ูˆูŽุฃูŽู†ู’ุชูŽ ุงู„ุธู‘ูŽุงู‡ูุฑู ููŽู„ูŽูŠู’ุณูŽ ููŽูˆู’ู‚ูŽูƒูŽ ุดูŽู‰ู’ุกูŒ ูˆูŽุฃูŽู†ู’ุชูŽ ุงู„ู’ุจูŽุงุทูู†ู ููŽู„ูŽูŠู’ุณูŽ ุฏููˆู†ูŽูƒูŽ ุดูŽู‰ู’ุกูŒ ุงู‚ู’ุถู ุนูŽู†ู‘ูŽุง ุงู„ุฏู‘ูŽูŠู’ู†ูŽ ูˆูŽุฃูŽุบู’ู†ูู†ูŽุง ู…ูู†ูŽ ุงู„ู’ููŽู‚ู’ุฑู โ€"โ€ โ€.โ€ ูˆูŽูƒูŽุงู†ูŽ ูŠูŽุฑู’ูˆููŠ ุฐูŽู„ููƒูŽ ุนูŽู†ู’ ุฃูŽุจููŠ ู‡ูุฑูŽูŠู’ุฑูŽุฉูŽ ุนูŽู†ู ุงู„ู†ู‘ูŽุจููŠู‘ู ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… โ€.
          โ€

          Suhail reported that Abu Salih used to command us (in these words):

          When any one of you intends to go to sleep, he should lie on the bed on his right side and then say:" O Allah. the Lord of the Heavens and the Lord of the Earth and Lord of the Magnificent Throne, our Lord, and the Lord of evervthina, the Splitter of the grain of corn and the datestone (or fruit kernal), the Revealer of Torah and Injil (Bible) and Criterion (the Holy Qur'an), I seek refuge in Thee from the evil of every- thing Thou art to sieze by the forelock (Thou hast perfect control over it). O Allah, Thou art the First, there is naught before Thee, and Thou art the Last and there is naught after Thee, and Thou art Evident and there is nothing above Thee, and Thou art Innermost and there is nothing beyond Thee. Remove the burden of debt from us and relieve us from want." Abu Salih used to narrate it from Abu Huraira who narrated it from Allah's Apostle (๏ทบ).

          - Sahih Muslim 2713 a
          Let's take a look at the same Hadith in Tirmidhi, that both Imam Tirmidhi Rahimullah authenticates (Hasanun Sahih) and Zubair Ali Zai authenticates (Sahih).

          ุนูŽู†ู’ ุฃูŽุจููŠ ู‡ูุฑูŽูŠู’ุฑูŽุฉูŽุŒ ุฑุถู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ ู‚ูŽุงู„ูŽ ูƒูŽุงู†ูŽ ุฑูŽุณููˆู„ู ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… ูŠูŽุฃู’ู…ูุฑูู†ูŽุง ุฅูุฐูŽุง ุฃูŽุฎูŽุฐูŽ ุฃูŽุญูŽุฏูู†ูŽุง ู…ูŽุถู’ุฌูŽุนูŽู‡ู ุฃูŽู†ู’ ูŠูŽู‚ููˆู„ูŽ

          โ€ "โ€ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ูู…ู‘ูŽ ุฑูŽุจู‘ูŽ ุงู„ุณู‘ูŽู…ูŽูˆูŽุงุชู ูˆูŽุฑูŽุจู‘ูŽ ุงู„ุฃูŽุฑูŽุถููŠู†ูŽ ูˆูŽุฑูŽุจู‘ูŽู†ูŽุง ูˆูŽุฑูŽุจู‘ูŽ ูƒูู„ู‘ู ุดูŽูŠู’ุกู ูˆูŽููŽุงู„ูู‚ูŽ ุงู„ู’ุญูŽุจู‘ู ูˆูŽุงู„ู†ู‘ูŽูˆูŽู‰ ูˆูŽู…ูู†ู’ุฒูู„ูŽ ุงู„ุชู‘ูŽูˆู’ุฑูŽุงุฉู ูˆูŽุงู„ุฅูู†ู’ุฌููŠู„ู ูˆูŽุงู„ู’ู‚ูุฑู’ุขู†ู ุฃูŽุนููˆุฐู ุจููƒูŽ ู…ูู†ู’ ุดูŽุฑู‘ู ูƒูู„ู‘ู ุฐููŠ ุดูŽุฑู‘ู ุฃูŽู†ู’ุชูŽ ุขุฎูุฐูŒ ุจูู†ูŽุงุตููŠูŽุชูู‡ู ุฃูŽู†ู’ุชูŽ ุงู„ุฃูŽูˆู‘ูŽู„ู ููŽู„ูŽูŠู’ุณูŽ ู‚ูŽุจู’ู„ูŽูƒูŽ ุดูŽูŠู’ุกูŒ ูˆูŽุฃูŽู†ู’ุชูŽ ุงู„ุขุฎูุฑู ููŽู„ูŽูŠู’ุณูŽ ุจูŽุนู’ุฏูŽูƒูŽ ุดูŽูŠู’ุกูŒ ูˆูŽุงู„ุธู‘ูŽุงู‡ูุฑู ููŽู„ูŽูŠู’ุณูŽ ููŽูˆู’ู‚ูŽูƒูŽ ุดูŽูŠู’ุกูŒ ูˆูŽุงู„ู’ุจูŽุงุทูู†ู ููŽู„ูŽูŠู’ุณูŽ ุฏููˆู†ูŽูƒูŽ ุดูŽูŠู’ุกูŒ ุงู‚ู’ุถู ุนูŽู†ู‘ููŠ ุงู„ุฏู‘ูŽูŠู’ู†ูŽ ูˆูŽุฃูŽุบู’ู†ูู†ููŠ ู…ูู†ูŽ ุงู„ู’ููŽู‚ู’ุฑู โ€"โ€

          .โ€ ู‚ูŽุงู„ูŽ ุฃูŽุจููˆ ุนููŠุณูŽู‰ ู‡ูŽุฐูŽุง ุญูŽุฏููŠุซูŒ ุญูŽุณูŽู†ูŒ ุตูŽุญููŠุญูŒ โ€.โ€


          Abu Hurairah (ra) said:

          โ€œThe Messenger of Allah (๏ทบ) used to order that when one of us went to sleep, he should say: โ€˜O Allah, Lord of the heavens and Lord of the earths, and our Lord, and the Lord of everything, splitter of the seed-grain and date-stone, and Revealer of the Tawrah and the Injil and the Qurโ€™an. I seek refuge in You from the evil of every evil that You are holding by the forelock. You are the First, there is nothing before You, You are the Last, there is nothing after You, and Az-Zahir, there is nothing above you, and Al-Batin, there is nothing below You. Relieve me of my debt, and enrich me from poverty (Allฤhumma rabbas-samฤwati wa rabbal-arแธฤซna wa rabbanฤ, wa rabba kulli shaiโ€™in, fฤliqal-แธฅabbi wan-nawฤ, wa munzilat-Tawrฤti wal-Injฤซli wal-Qurโ€™ฤn. A`ลซdhu bika sharri kulli dhi sharrin anta ฤkhidhun binฤแนฃiyatihi, antal-Awwalu falaisa qablaka shaiโ€™un, wa antal-ฤ€khiru falaisa ba`daka shaiโ€™un, waแบ“-แบ’ฤhiru falaisa fauqaka shai'un wal-Bฤtinu falaisa dลซnaka shaiโ€™un, iqแธi `annid-daina wa aghninฤซ minal-faqr).โ€™โ€

          - Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3400
          Now we must ask ourselves a question. Why has the same word, in the same phrase, in the same hadith, been translated two ways? In the Sahih Muslim translation it was translated as "Beyond" whilst in the Tirmidhi translation it has been translated as "Below". Which is the correct translation?

          I will let you do this. Find an arabic dictionary you trust. Or use Aratools or Wiktionary. Type the word in. Do not just accept the translation, find the meaning of the arabic root.

          If you do this you will learn the word mean "below". So that part of the dua reads, "There is nothing below you,"

          Why is there a discrepancy between the translations? Let us find out who translated the Muslim hadith and who translated the Tirmidhi Hadith.

          https://www.australianislamiclibrary.org/- Here is a link to an online library where you can find digitised copies of books you do not have. Do not abuse this website - you learn deen from the scholars not the books. It is the scholars who explain the books. Nevertheless, we can use this website to find what we are looking for.

          https://www.australianislamiclibrary...ih-muslim.html - The translation used by Sunnah.com is Abdul Hamid Siddiqui's translation

          https://www.australianislamiclibrary.org/tirmadhi-shareef.html - The Darussalam translation, used by the site, was translated by "Abu Khalyl" and the final review is by the organisation itself.


          So Siddiqui' translates Dunaka as "beyond" and Abu Khalyl translates Dunaka as "below". Abu Khalyl translates accurately here.

          If we believe both translaters were being honest, one can make a mistake (or can have a particular translation style), so it is crucial to know who is translating. In fact, one observes Siddiqui' making more blunders than this - I have a commentary of Sahih Muslim translated by Adil Salahi which translates words in a certain hadith as "lofty building" - checking a dictionary I find the word translated as lofty is taken to mean tall, so Salahi's translation is reliable here, but Siddiqui seems to translate the same two words metaphorically as "exult in buildings"...

          So it is important to know who the translator is and it is even more important to have access to the original arabic.

          But if you told me who the translator is, and if you brought me the arabic I fear we would have another problem.

          Point 1, Part C: The Translator adding words which may not be there in the Arabic

          This is common generally in translation, and is not necessarily done insincerely.

          Let me quote what you have quoted to me:

          โ€œIndeed Allah knows that this man has fabricated lies against me by ascribing to me what I never said, and most of which have never even occurred to me! From them is his claim that I invalidate the books of the Four Madhhabs, and that I say that the people (i.e. the ummah) has been upon nothing (i.e. no Islam) for 600 years! And that I make takfฤซr of the one who makes Tawassul (seeks nearness to Allah) through the righteous ones [who have passed away]. He claims that I made takfฤซr of Al-Busayriโ€ฆ and that I said that whoever swears by other than Allah is an unbelieverโ€ฆ My answer to all of this is: โ€˜How free you are, O Allah, from all imperfections, the Most Perfect. Indeed this is a great slander.โ€™ And before this, there were those who slandered the Messenger Muhammad (๏ทบ) claiming that he had reviled Jesus the son of Mary (may Allahโ€™s peace be upon them) and that he reviles the righteous. So their hearts resemble one another in their fabrication of lies and bearing false witness.โ€
          There are two parts I want you to look at. First is the part in the brackets. The entire point you are bringing the exercept is that you are trying to prove to me the Ibn Abdul Wahhab did not make takfir of the people who do Tawassul of the dead. Why is the part that would affirm that Ibn Abdul Wahhab is not doing takfir of those who specifically do takfir of the dead been put in square brackets? I would like you to bring the original arabic so we can get to the bottom of this matter. It seems likely to me that what the square bracketed part was added in, so maybe this should actually be translated as:

          And that I make takfฤซr of the one who makes Tawassul (seeks nearness to Allah) through the righteous ones.
          I don't contest that Ibn Abdul Wahhab does not make takfir of the one who goes and asks his father to make dua for him, I understand that he makes takfir of those who do Tawassul of the dead. My brother, if what I have put above is what is all there is in the Arabic, then what you have brought is not a Hujjah against me, even if I was to trust the many transmitters in the chain.

          Also note that I highlighted al-Busayri - is this a logical continuation of Ibn Abdul Wahhab's point? It seems made out to be, but if you look him up, al-Busayri Rahimullah is the author of Qaseed al-Burdah, which some scholars have said has shirk in it. This is why Ibn Abdul Wahhab mentions al-Busayri, he is not giving the example of someone who does Tawassul of the dead - al-Busayri lived hundreds of years before.

          Point 1, Summary

          What you brought does not constitute a Hujjah for me.

          Rather than state this to you and cause a problem, I took the good in what you said and tried to say that if you believe Ibn Abdul Wahhab did not make Takfir (accuse of Shirk) of the people who do Tawassul of the dead, or believe he does but does not truly intend Shirk (which necessitates takfir), then I was fine with that but that I would agree to disagree.

          However my brother, as you have persisted on that point and have brought the point of, "what if I did that to you,", I decided to make clear to you why what you brought does not constitute evidence for me.


          Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
          "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
          Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

          Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
          1/116

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post

            Lastly, I advise you to stop lending your ears to everyone. The religion is knowledge so you should be very careful where you take that knowledge from. So much that the Salaf wouldn't even listen to the Quran recitation of Ahlul-Bid3ah. These people you freely listen to have corrupted your beliefs on scholars. If you would have protected yourself, you wouldn't have fallen in to the mistakes you're falling now. And I say that with all due respect. And Allaah knows best.

            Allaahumma ameen on your du3a.
            May Allah bless you my brother and I ask you to be patient with me as I have become quite angry by some news I have read regarding ahlul kitab writing Allah's books with their own hand. Please forgive me if I am unusually harsh.

            Point 2 - Do not dive into hadith without a teacher

            E.g. this is a hadith you frequently quote:

            Sufyaan ath-Thawree (d.164H) โ€“ rahimahullaah โ€“ said, โ€œWhosoever listens to an innovator has left the protection of Allaah and is entrusted to the innovation.โ€
            I have quoted it as you have quoted them.

            Firstly I would like to say I accept the authenticity of this report, nor do I have any reason to suspect that it has been translated falsely. It is from the works of a great Hanbali Muhaddith, Abu Nu'aym in al-Hilyah Rahimullah.

            I have heard similar such narrations from a scholar I trust, but that scholar made the following point:

            We cannot just go into the books of Hadith and extract a Hadith and make an interpretation of it without any context whatsoever. The particular hadiths you quote are all from a particular era, when the fitnah of the Jahmiyyah who held Khalq al-Quran was apparent. Not all innovations are the same, their innovation is one of Kufr, taking you out of Islam - this is why the Salaf state do not sit with Ahlul Biddah - it is not a general statement (otherwise it would even contradict the actions of the Sahabah e.g. Ibn Abbas Radiyallahu An), it is specific to those Ahlul Biddah who are upon Kufr.

            For evidence that my position is not my own, you can listen to the Hanbali scholar Omar Suleiman Rahimullah (who I disagree with only on many political/social issues), explain what I have said:

            https://youtu.be/YRaEqOCzbPA?t=852


            Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
            "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
            Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

            Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
            1/116

            Comment


            • #21
              These people you freely listen to have corrupted your beliefs on scholars. If you would have protected yourself, you wouldn't have fallen in to the mistakes you're falling now.

              Allah bless you, let us take an oath:

              If I am correct, on the Mawqif on the day of judgement I will call out Ibn Abdul Wahhab and the scholars promoting his views and ask them to account for them corrupting the innocents such as yourself.

              If you are correct, then on the Mawqif, call the likes of Ibn Abidin Rahimullah, Abdul Wahhab Rahimullah (Ibn Abdul Wahhab's father), and the many scholars who criticised Ibn Abdul Wahhab, for corrupting an innocent such as myself. Call even the scholars I listen to e.g. Shaykh Shadee el-Masry, Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad, Shaykh Abdur Rahman As Sondalaani, Shaykh Asrar Rashid Rahimullah Alayhum, call them out for misguiding me if you find yourself correct.

              Now let us leave debate and disputing.

              I present you the challenge I presented to you before, to make you realise what may have happened to you:

              The Man of Ahlul Biddah

              Suppose a man is of Ahlul Biddah.

              Like all of Ahlul Biddah, this man and his shuyukh consider themselves to be a part of Ahlus Sunnah, though they are not a part of it. Now his shuyukh in Ahlul Biddah quote the Salaf saying don't sit with Ahlul Biddah etc. So he never decides to go and sit and listen to those on the straight path. Whenever a lecture, or book etc. is recommended to him, he rejects listening to it/reading it because he quotes his scholars which says that such a person/group are Ahlul Biddah. His Shuyukh trick him by showing and distorting the ahadith of the Salaf and Prophet Alayhis Salam in such a way as to only confirm their Biddah views.

              His Shuyukh strawman the positions of the Ahlus Sunnah, deliberately misrepresenting them so as to easily point out how wrong they are. They also quote the previous Ahlul Biddah as the true scholars of Ahlus Sunnah, and claim that some of those of the real Ahlus Sunnah were upon their Manhaj (e.g. as the Mutazilites did with Abu Hanifa Rahimullah).

              My question for you all is how could we bring this man from Ahlul Biddah over to Ahlus Sunnah? Is it possible? Or may this man never discover Ahlus Sunnah due to the clever deception of his Shuyukh?

              Let us leave this issue by both contemplating the Hadith:

              The Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam said,
              "By the One in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, the hour will not begin until... Al-Wa'ooll perish and Al-Tahoot prevail." They said, "Messenger of Allah, what are al-Wa'oolll and al-Tahoot?" He said, "Al-Wa'ooll are the prominent, noble people and Al-Tahoot are those who were under the people's feet and no one knew about them."

              - Recorded by Al-Haakim Rahimullah in Al-Mustadrak ala Sahihayn and Tabarani Rahimullah in Al-Awsat; al-Albani classed it as Sahih.
              May Allah lessen my arrogance and guide us both to the prominent scholars whoever they are.
              Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
              "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
              Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

              Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
              1/116

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                I insha'Allah will say some things and the first point I make will be very dangerous for me to bear to you but it is the truth. I fear you will repulse me if I mention this, but I feel you deserve to know why I didn't accept your quotation. The second thing I will explain to you is why your quotations of the Salaf Rahimullah Alayhum do not constitute evidence for what you understand to be sitting with Ahlul Biddah. Both these things I fear will bring dissension in your heart. May Allah forgive me if I cause anger in my dear brother.

                Point 1, Part A: Reliability of the Isnad

                You quoted a translation of a commentary of a work attributed to Ibn Abdul Wahhab. I do not accept/trust the translator, who is Majhul (unknown) or the commentator, who - may Allah control your anger - is one who wants to hide the faults of the scholar, so I do not know that he stated that.

                If I read a translation from a source I trust, or from authorities I trust I will generally accept it (although sometimes I still check the meaning of the words to be sure). But here you have brought a translation (translator is unknown), of a commentary (the commentator has a desire to hide the faults of his Shaykh and is not trustworthy to me), of what an individual more than two hundred years ago said.

                I do not even know how Salih al-Fawzan knows Ibn Abdul Wahhab said this - there is a gap in the chain. Did he read it in a book? Who transmitted this book? Who wrote it out? Or did he read the original manuscript of Ibn Abdul Wahhab?

                When I read Bukhari I know it is the transmission of Firabri Rahimullah and as it is mutawatir I trust no one will willfully distort the Arabic for this would cause a tirade against them - who even transmitted the work Salih al-Fawzan is commentating on?

                There are too many weaknesses in what you have brought as evidence.

                True, if I trusted/took as authority Salih al-Fawzan then I would trust the quotation you have brought. Yet I do not even trust the translator (who is Majhul - unknown) - subhanallah whenever I quote hadith I generally bring it from a site (sunnah.com) that everyone accepts, but even then I know who translates the hadith (Darussalam e.g. Nasiruddin/Yasir Qadhi/Abu Khalyl etc. in many cases) and who authenticates (Al-Albani/Darussalam i.e. Zubair Ali Zai - but following from what Muhaditheen I trust have said, I do not give much weight if they weaken something as they are known to weaken hadith in Sahihayn and Zubair Ali Zai contradicts Imam at-Tirmidhi Rahimullah's own authentication sometimes - but I do use them as Hujjah for those who accept their overly strict authentication).

                I take back what I said about considering Salih al-Fawzan to be not trustworthy in transmission, I have no evidence for this. We do not criticise a narrator based off their Aqeedah and any biases they may have. Regardless, I maintain the rest of what I have written.
                Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

                Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
                1/116

                Comment


                • #23
                  So you post a video of Yasir Qadhi (someone who you, yourself even belief to have deviated), who didn't even take the time and effort to dress properly and then puts himself in front of a camera. You rejected what I posted because of an (unproven) untrustworthy transmitter, yet you're asking me to listen to a literal refutation/lecture of someone who is in both of our opinions deviant?! Forget about you taking back that you said Shaykh Fawzaan isn't a reliable transmitter. Do you not feel shy that you assumed he's trying to hide the faults of 'his' scholar? You're accusing not only his reliability, but also his sincerity which is a huge part of one's deeds. You dare to say about Shaykh Fawzaan what you just did, yet you come on here spreading slander about a scholar and post a video of Yasir Qadhi to back up what you say. You were correct in your assessment that what you had to say would repulse me, it does. However, I guess building upon assumptions and spreading slander about the scholars becomes easier when you lend your ears to the likes of Yasir Qadhi.

                  Now I don't see anything wrong with not taking from the non trustworthy ones and unknown ones, this is a sound principle. But we don't apply it whenever it fits our desires and leave it whenever it doesn't. That's why I posted from someone I see as trustworthy (and only as transmitter at that). Not a lecture of someone who I think has deviated in matters of Aqeedah nonetheless!

                  Here you have the original Arabic text, which is found in a collection of his (Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhaab) works (ู…ุฌู…ูˆุน ู…ุคู„ูุงุช ุงู„ุดูŠุฎ ู…ุญู…ุฏ ุจู† ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ูˆู‡ุงุจ). The translation I had posted above left out some things that will be fully posted here.

                  ุซู… ู„ุง ูŠุฎูู‰ ุนู„ูŠูƒู…ุŒ ุฃู†ู‡ ุจู„ุบู†ูŠ ุฃู† ุฑุณุงู„ุฉ ุณู„ูŠู…ุงู† ุจู† ุณุญูŠู… ู‚ุฏ ูˆุตู„ุช ุฅู„ูŠูƒู…ุŒ ูˆุฃู†ู‡ ู‚ุจู„ู‡ุง ูˆุตุฏู‚ู‡ุง ุจุนุถ ุงู„ู…ู†ุชู…ูŠู† ู„ู„ุนู„ู… ููŠ ุฌู‡ุชูƒู…ุ› ูˆุงู„ู„ู‡ ูŠุนู„ู… ุฃู† ุงู„ุฑุฌู„ ุงูุชุฑู‰ ุนู„ูŠู‘ูŽ ุฃู…ูˆุฑุงู‹ ู„ู… ุฃู‚ู„ู‡ุงุŒ ูˆู„ู… ูŠุฃุช ุฃูƒุซุฑู‡ุง ุนู„ู‰ ุจุงู„ูŠ. ูู…ู†ู‡ุง: ู‚ูˆู„ู‡: ุฅู†ูŠ ู…ุจุทู„ ูƒุชุจ ุงู„ู…ุฐุงู‡ุจ ุงู„ุฃุฑุจุนุฉุŒ ูˆุฅู†ูŠ ุฃู‚ูˆู„: ุฅู† ุงู„ู†ุงุณ ู…ู† ุณุชู…ุงุฆุฉ ุณู†ุฉ ู„ูŠุณูˆุง ุนู„ู‰ ุดูŠุกุŒ ูˆุฅู†ูŠ ุฃุฏุนูŠ ุงู„ุงุฌุชู‡ุงุฏุŒ ูˆุฅู†ูŠ ุฎุงุฑุฌ ุนู† ุงู„ุชู‚ู„ูŠุฏุŒ ูˆุฅู†ูŠ ุฃู‚ูˆู„: ุฅู† ุงุฎุชู„ุงู ุงู„ุนู„ู…ุงุก ู†ู‚ู…ุฉุŒ ูˆุฅู†ูŠ ุฃูƒูู‘ุฑ ู…ู† ุชูˆุณู„ ุจุงู„ุตุงู„ุญูŠู†ุŒ ูˆุฅู†ูŠ ุฃูƒูู‘ุฑ ุงู„ุจูˆุตูŠุฑูŠ ู„ู‚ูˆู„ู‡: ูŠุง ุฃูƒุฑู… ุงู„ุฎู„ู‚ุŒ ูˆุฅู†ูŠ ุฃู‚ูˆู„: ู„ูˆ ุฃู‚ุฏุฑ ุนู„ู‰ ู‡ุฏู… ู‚ุจุฉ ุฑุณูˆู„ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… ู„ู‡ุฏู…ุชู‡ุงุŒ ูˆู„ูˆ ุฃู‚ุฏุฑ ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ูƒุนุจุฉ ู„ุฃุฎุฐุช ู…ูŠุฒุงุจู‡ุง ูˆุฌุนู„ุช ู„ู‡ุง ู…ูŠุฒุงุจุงู‹ ู…ู† ุฎุดุจุŒ ูˆุฅู†ูŠ ุฃุญุฑู… ุฒูŠุงุฑุฉ ู‚ุจุฑ ุงู„ู†ุจูŠ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู…ุŒ ูˆุฅู†ูŠ ุฃู†ูƒุฑ ุฒูŠุงุฑุฉ ู‚ุจุฑ ุงู„ูˆุงู„ุฏูŠู† ูˆุบูŠุฑู‡ู…ุงุŒ ูˆุฅู†ูŠ ุฃูƒูู‘ุฑ ู…ู† ุญู„ู ุจุบูŠุฑ ุงู„ู„ู‡ุŒ ูˆุฅู†ูŠ ุฃูƒูู‘ุฑ ุงุจู† ุงู„ูุงุฑุถ ูˆุงุจู† ุนุฑุจูŠุŒ ูˆุฅู†ูŠ ุฃุญุฑู‚ ุฏู„ุงุฆู„ ุงู„ุฎูŠุฑุงุช ูˆุฑูˆุถ ุงู„ุฑูŠุงุญูŠู† ูˆุฃุณู…ูŠู‡ ุฑูˆุถ ุงู„ุดูŠุงุทูŠู†. ุฌูˆุงุจูŠ ุนู† ู‡ุฐู‡ ุงู„ู…ุณุงุฆู„ุŒ ุฃู† ุฃู‚ูˆู„: ุณุจุญุงู†ูƒ ู‡ุฐุง ุจู‡ุชุงู† ุนุธูŠู…! ูˆู‚ุจู„ู‡ ู…ู† ุจู‡ุช ู…ุญู…ุฏุงู‹ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… ุฃู†ู‡ ูŠุณุจ ุนูŠุณู‰ ุจู† ู…ุฑูŠู… ูˆูŠุณุจ ุงู„ุตุงู„ุญูŠู†ุŒ ูุชุดุงุจู‡ุช ู‚ู„ูˆุจู‡ู… ุจุงูุชุฑุงุก ุงู„ูƒุฐุจ ูˆู‚ูˆู„ ุงู„ุฒูˆุฑ.

                  Now you see he does only mention the righteous ones, but it's easy to understand he's referring to the death ones since this is what he's being accused of! No one of sound mind would contest he makes takfir on someone requesting his living father to make du3a for him. So the added words in English are unspoken words that you understand from context. Even you understood this by saying:"I don't contest that Ibn Abdul Wahhab does not make takfir of the one who goes and asks his father to make dua for him, I understand that he makes takfir of those who do Tawassul of the dead." Unless of course you'd like to delve in to assumptions once again and say he's playing with words to trick people in to thinking he doesn't make takfir of the ones that make Tawassul of the death, while he actually does. Wa 3iyaadhubillaah! Again, takfir is more nuanced than seeing something as shirk and immediately declaring everyone who falls in it as a kaafir.

                  Now on your second point about not lending your ears to Ahlul-Bid3ah then you're mistaken. For there are examples where Ahlul-Bid3ah came to the Salaf like someone of irjaa that they refused to engage with, or do you view a murji to be a kaafir? So sure have your teacher of Hadeeth with you, but don't build upon the likes of Omar Sulayman who is not even a scholar to begin with. I can't belief you said what you said about Shaykh Fawzaan yet post the likes of Yasir Qadhi and Omar Sulayman. Now tell me, is that Omar's fully outgrown beard or does he trim it? And I should take knowledge from him and leave Shaykh Fawzaan as trustworthy transmitter?! To make things clear, I haven't and will not watch the videos. Yasir Qadhi's antics are clear to me and I hope he repents from the outrageous claims he makes about the Shaykh. And I can't even belief you would send me a lecture of 'scholar' Omar.

                  I've explained and shared on here before about the differences and exceptions of debating with Ahlul-Bid3ah. One even shared on your own thread, which you might have not taken from because.. untrustworthy transmitter. And on a Salafi thread I've spoken about Ibn Abbaas before, your point about him is moot. I'll not go in to it now as I don't have the time. But I can't believe you would compare the layman listening to Ahlul-Bid3ah with the likes of Ibn Abbaas debating the Khawaarij, which is an exception if you have the ability to begin with.

                  Lastly, I know my comments might sound too harsh in contrast with your endearing way of addressing me. And I normally don't care to do this, but I think there might be a maslaha in it, so I'll explain to you why that is.

                  1. I'm a sister not a brother. Which means I have had the intention since posting on this forum to make things as little personal as possible. I reply straightforward and don't make my comments endearing or too soft spoken in public. I also don't use things like "haha, lol" or smileys (which I never use btw) even when speaking to the sisters on here. This is all to preserve myself and others.

                  2. I try not to entertain extra and unnecessary talk. Meaning, when a sentence can be said in one or two words, then it should. This was the way of the Salaf and we should try to emulate them in very way possible, may Allaah make it easy.

                  And Allaah knows best.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                    I seriously struggle to understand how one who virtually makes takfir of all the Muslims, calling them mushrikeen, whilst reinvigorating the mistakes of the previous ulama, how that man can be affirmed to be a Muslim.
                    "What been mentioned to you that I make generalized takfir (of the masses), this is from the slanders of the enemies. Likewise, their saying that I say whoever follows the deen of Allaah and His Messenger whilst resident in his own land, this is not sufficient until he comes (emigrates) to me. This is also from slander. Rather, the intent is for [a person] to follow the deen of Allaah and His Messenger in whichever land it may be." al-Durar al-Saniyyah (10/131)

                    ู…ุง ุฐูƒุฑ ู„ูƒู… ุนู†ูŠ ุฃู†ูŠ ุฃูƒูุฑ ุจุงู„ุนู…ูˆู…ุŒ ูู‡ุฐุง ู…ู† ุจู‡ุชุงู† ุงู„ุฃุนุฏุงุกุŒ ูˆูƒุฐู„ูƒ ู‚ูˆู„ู‡ู…: ุฅู† ุฃู‚ูˆู„: ู…ู† ุชุจุน ุฏูŠู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ูˆุฑุณูˆู„ู‡ ูˆู‡ูˆ ุณุงูƒู† ููŠ ุจู„ุฏู‡ ุฃู†ู‡ ู…ุง ูŠูƒููŠู‡ ุญุชู‰ ูŠุฌูŠุก ุนู†ุฏูŠุŒ ูู‡ุฐุง ุฃูŠุถุงู‹ ู…ู† ุงู„ุจู‡ุชุงู†ุŒ ุฅู†ู…ุง ุงู„ู…ุฑุงุฏ ุงุชุจุงุน ุฏูŠู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ูˆุฑุณูˆู„ู‡ ููŠ ุฃูŠ ุฃุฑุถ
                    ูƒุงู†ุช

                    I don't understand how you defend yourself for not believing the Shaykh's own words even though there are plenty more, one I just posted above. It's really sad how individuals were able to deceive you to such an extent. To the extent that the one slandered can come to you and tell you that he doesn't make general takfir of the Muslims and you still wouldn't belief him because Yasir Qadhi(!) told you otherwise. At the very least, protect yourself and don't go and further that spread of slander against another Muslim. Especially since you didn't even take the effort to read his own statements, yet thought you were eligible enough to spread the lies about him. And even dare to suggest that you don't see how such a person can be Muslim while being unaware of the statements of the scholar himself. It doesn't benefit you to put yourself in the position as you did, by posting schemes and starting threads based on your own understandings. Allaah will ask you about this. You would do yourself a favour by keeping your thoughts to yourself. No one is in need of it and it's a way of protection for yourself before you slip and fall in to grave errors and then going a step further and even spread it. And Allaah knows best.

                    Comment


                    • #26
                      Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post


                      Allah bless you, let us take an oath...
                      Haha. Talk about delusions of grandeur...

                      Comment


                      • #27
                        https://www.australianislamiclibrary...uthaymeen.html

                        From the above link access the arabic versions of Durar al-Saniyyah.

                        Evidences against Ibn Abdul Wahhab:

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBS7wdGtRe8
                        Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                        "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                        Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

                        Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
                        1/116

                        Comment


                        • #28
                          If you will not listen to the video as you regard him as Ahlul Biddah, then fine. Do the following:

                          Read volume 9, page 253 of Durar as-Saniyyah.

                          Now remember the Hadith:



                          Hudhaifa bin al-Yaman Radiyallahu An said that the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam said:

                          Verily, I fear about a man from you who will read the Qur'an so much that his face will become enlightened and he will come to personify Islam. This will continue until Allah desires. Then these things will be taken away from him when he will disregard them by putting them all behind his back and will attack his neighbor with the sword accusing him of Shirk. The Prophet peace be upon him was asked, "which of the two will be deserving of such an accusation? - The attacker or the attacked?" The Prophet replied, "the attacker (the one accusing the other of Shirk)"

                          - Tarikh ul Kabir by al-Bukhari, Volume No. 4, Page No. 301 and Sahih ibn Hibban, Tahqiq Nasir Albani, Volume 001, Page No. 200, Hadith Number 81. al-Albani said: 'this hadith is hasan', c.ref Silsilat al-Ahadith al-sahihah - Albani Volume 007-A, Page No. 605, Hadith Number 3201
                          Find Sahih Ibn Hibban, or al-Albani's Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah (if you do not have physical copies, use this site): https://www.australianislamiclibrary...nd-seerah.html

                          Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                          "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                          Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

                          Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
                          1/116

                          Comment


                          • #29
                            Read also Volume 1, Page 314 of Durar as-Saniyyah:

                            Abu Hashim Rahimullah explains what this is,

                            The following validating letter was signed by a number of Meccan scholars who were not Salafi and did not belong to the SNM. It legalises the shedding of blood of Muslims who engaged in tawassul/istighatha type practices and is an example of extreme blanket takfir. The signatories need further investigation as they may have signed this document under duress, not least when they include figures who were undoubtedly Sufi. A brief search online claims that Saud Abd al-Aziz took control of Mecca in the early 1800s, which if correct would explain why Meccan scholars might have written such a document.

                            - Masud
                            Here is volume one of Durar as-Saniyyah, check it for yourself, do not believe me: https://ia801904.us.archive.org/31/i...4/01_41814.pdf

                            Here is what Abu Hashim Rahimullah has translated it as (do not trust him, read the arabic for yourself - page 314):

                            "All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the Worlds:

                            We -the scholars of Mecca - bear witness by placing our signatures and seals upon this document, that this religion, which has been promoted by Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahab (Allah Most High have mercy on him) and which has been called to by the Imam of the Muslims: Saud bin Abd al-Aziz, relating to the Tawhid of Allah and the negation of Shirk which he has mentioned in this book, is the truth regarding which there is no doubt.

                            Likewise that which took place previously in Mecca, Madinah, Egypt, Shaam and other lands up to this time, from the types of shirk mentioned in this epistle are disbelief (kufr) which makes lawful the shedding [of such a person's] blood and appropriation of personal property. Likewise it necessitates [those who practiced this shirk] entering the hellfire for eternity.

                            He who does not enter in to this religion, nor act upon it, nor provide support to its people, nor show enmity against its opponents, according to us is a disbeliever (kafir) in Allah, and the last day.

                            It is obligatory (wajib) upon the Imam of the Muslims, along with Muslims themselves to fight and kill such a person until he repents to Allah from that which he is upon, and then proceeds to practice this religion."
                            Now again, reflect on the Hadith:

                            Hudhaifa bin al-Yaman Radiyallahu An said that the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam said:

                            Verily, I fear about a man from you who will read the Qur'an so much that his face will become enlightened and he will come to personify Islam. This will continue until Allah desires. Then these things will be taken away from him when he will disregard them by putting them all behind his back and will attack his neighbor with the sword accusing him of Shirk. The Prophet peace be upon him was asked, "which of the two will be deserving of such an accusation? - The attacker or the attacked?" The Prophet replied, "the attacker (the one accusing the other of Shirk)"

                            - Tarikh ul Kabir by al-Bukhari, Volume No. 4, Page No. 301 and Sahih ibn Hibban, Tahqiq Nasir Albani, Volume 001, Page No. 200, Hadith Number 81. al-Albani said: 'this hadith is hasan', c.ref Silsilat al-Ahadith al-sahihah - Albani Volume 007-A, Page No. 605, Hadith Number 3201
                            Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                            "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                            Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

                            Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
                            1/116

                            Comment


                            • #30
                              Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post
                              I don't understand how you defend yourself for not believing the Shaykh's own words even though there are plenty more, one I just posted above.
                              Even though the above words are not directed at me, I would like to answer:

                              It's not like the person that youโ€™re trying to defend - I mean Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) - was known for being a truthful and honest person and a person of knowledge, rather he attacked the scholars of his time in general and he was criticized by literally ALL scholars that were connected to him in some way or form.
                              They clearly regarded him a dishonest, lying and ignorant person, who supports the killing of Muslims!
                              And there are clear proofs that they were right in regarding him so.

                              The above quote you brought is worth nothing, because even the worst Khariji will deny to be a Khariji and will deny that heโ€˜s making Takfir bil 'Umum.

                              Then: Al-Durar al-Saniyya and al-Rasa`il al-Shaykhsiyya is literally filled with Takfir - even against major scholars! - and accusing other Muslims of Shirk akbar (!) and even making Takfir upon the one criticizing this unjustified Takfir.
                              Mufid al-Mustafid is written exclusively in orders to justify Takfir bil 'Umum! (It's a justification for Takfir against a whole township and based upon the batil Fatwa of IAW Huraymila was attacked and many people were killed!)

                              Tarikh Najd and 'Unwan al-Majd - both written by supporters of IAW - are filled with proudly reporting how the followers of IAW attacked other Muslims, took from them their property, oppressed them and KILLED them.

                              Is anyone able to deny any of this? No!

                              I can easily bring you examples from the above books.
                              Just one example where IAW openly lies against other Muslims:
                              He claimed that the majority of the people of Najd and Hijaz (!) rejected the Ba'th [ba'd al-mawt] (resurrection after death).

                              How for Godโ€™s sake can you defend this type of statements? How can you defend all these attacks against other Muslims and their scholars? All the Muslims that were killed because of him, how do you defend all of this?!
                              This man did not even spare major Hanbali scholars (!) of his region like Ibn Fayruz (d. 1216 AH) and Ibn 'Afaliq (d. 1164 AH) from his crazy Takfir, and then youโ€™re defending him?

                              Fear Allah! And again: Fear Allah!
                              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 28-05-20, 03:33 PM.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X