Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's lack of qualifications and the disasters that resulted from it!

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

  • Originally posted by Fais View Post

    Why is it nonsense? Because you don't like it or because it goes against what you want to believe about the man?
    I would have to read it all to actually not like it

    As a mod, do you see he is spamming the forum?
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية





    Comment


    • Originally posted by AbuMubarak View Post

      I would have to read it all to actually not like it

      As a mod, do you see he is spamming the forum?
      So have a read. A bit at a time. Don't have to consume it all in one sitting.

      And I don't see him spamming the forum. He posting different accounts of different incident revolving around a persons life. There have been plenty of spammers on the forum previous, who'd just literally copy and paste the same thing in different threads. He isn't doing that.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fais View Post

        So have a read. A bit at a time. Don't have to consume it all in one sitting.

        And I don't see him spamming the forum. He posting different accounts of different incident revolving around a persons life. There have been plenty of spammers on the forum previous, who'd just literally copy and paste the same thing in different threads. He isn't doing that.
        I find this "copy and paste"-accusation a little bit weird and a sign of desperation to be honest.

        Many if not most of the things translated on this thread here are translated by myself and if I've indeed copied something I made sure to mention the source.

        Add to this: How can one make a judgement on something without even reading it?

        What I also find weird is how he wants to act as if criticizing IAW means that one is against Islam. I mean seriously!? So the scholars of his time were all against Islam!?
        ​​​​​​

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

          I find this "copy and paste"-accusation a little bit weird and a sign of desperation to be honest.

          Many if not most of the things translated on this thread here are translated by myself and if I've indeed copied something I made sure to mention the source.

          Add to this: How can one make a judgement on something without even reading it?

          What I also find weird is how he wants to act as if criticizing IAW means that one is against Islam. I mean seriously!? So the scholars of his time were all against Islam!?
          ​​​​​​
          Reason he is saying copy and paste, is because similar things have been posted on this forum before in bits and pieces. But never in this much detail. And if you are translating this yourself then this is your work. No one can accuse you of copy and pasting.

          Comment


          • Sheikh albani on sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul wahab الألباني: محمد بن عبدالوهاب فيه غلو وشده
            Albani considered Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahab a reformer and praised his Da’wah, but he also criticized him for their excessive Takfir.
            Albani says about Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahab:
            – He had exaggeration and harshness
            – His followers inherited that from his teachings
            – He could not differentiate between authentic [صحيح] and weak [ضعيف] Ahadith
            – He had no high level of care in following Salafi Fiqh
            – I am one of the harshest critics of the Wahabiyah
            1- Albani said (“Silsilah huda wa Noor”, 297):
            الحقيقة محمد بن عبدالوهاب فضله كبير على الأمة الإسلامية ؛ لكن فيه شيء من الغلو والشدة
            الجماعة كان عندهم شيء من الشدة؛ أخذوها طبعاً من بعض نصوص محمد بن عبدالوهاب رحمه الله، واستمر الأتباع إلى هذا العهد موصومون بهذه الشدة، وكنا نسمع نحن قديماً أن هؤلاء النجديين يكفرون عامة المسلمين، أو يقولون عنهم خوارج
            “The truth regarding Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab is that he has done a great favour upon the Islamic nation, but he had some level of exaggeration and harshness.
            … This group has inherited some of this harshness, which they of course took from the writings of Mohammad Ibn Abdul-Wahab, may God be merciful to him. They are stigmatised with this harshness.
            And we used to hear from long time ago that these Najdis make Takfir on the general masses of the Muslims, and they used to be accused of being Khawarij.”
            2- Albani said after he mentioned some good qualities of Ibn Taymiyah:
            , بخلاف الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب, فلم تكن له هذه العناية, لا في الحديث ولا في الفقه السلفي, فهو من الناحية المذهبية حنبلي, ومن الناحية الحديثية كغيره, فليس له آثار في الفقه تدلنا على أنه كابن تيمية سلفي المنهج في التفقه في الدين, لعل له في ذلك عذرا كما ألمحنا إليه آنفا.وكذلك في الأحاديث فهو كغيره مع الأسف الشديد, لا معرفة عنده بالحديث الصحيح والضعيف
            “Contrary to Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab – who did not have this level of care in hadith nor in Salafi fiqh. He is a Hanbali from the side of the madhhab and in Hadith, he is like others.
            He has left no traces in Fiqh which would indicate to us that he was like Ibn Taymiyah a Salafi in manhaj in terms of his understanding of religion. Perhaps he has an excuse in this which we have already hinted at.
            And also in the hadith, he, like the others, unfortunately, has no knowledge of authentic or weak hadiths.”
            3- Albani also said (“Silsilah huda wa Noor”, 713):
            أما الوهابية: فما لي ولها ؛ فأنا أنقضها ؛ ربما أشد من غيري ، وربما الحاضرون يعلمون ذلك
            “As for al-Wahabiyah – what have I got to do with it?!
            I criticise it – sometimes even more than others!
            Those who are present know this.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

              The whole problem is that people nowadays don't want to read. If they would simply read these sources - while being a normal Muslim - they would NOT try to defend a man whose followers STOPPED the Hajj and who would OPENLY make Takfir upon the people of Makka al-mukarrama and upon whosoever does not make Takfir upon them and made other such crazy Khariji statements and were actively involved in mass-killing Muslims.
              That's true, can I ask what are the real definition of Polytheism/monotheism and the difference between our and MIAW's definition? Jazakumu allah Khaira.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AbuMubarak View Post

                I would have to read it all to actually not like it

                As a mod, do you see he is spamming the forum?
                I don't see it as spamming the forum, but I've wondered why Abu Sulayman keeps posting about the same topics. We all know his understanding of Islam is different to the vast majority here, so I wonder why he shares his views here. If I was a mod I wouldn't allow it. You speak ill of a scholar who has written books that we still benefit from today. That is unacceptable. I think I've stated something similar before. This will be the last time though. To each their own.
                Last edited by Umm Uthmaan; 28-10-21, 05:43 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Zouhair al-'arabi View Post
                  That's true, can I ask what are the real definition of Polytheism/monotheism and the difference between our and MIAW's definition? Jazakumu allah Khaira.
                  Shirk (polytheism) is to ascribe partners to Allah jalla jalaluhu in His Self (Dhat), His Attributes (Sifat) or His Actions (Af'al).
                  ​​​​​​

                  As for Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab's redefinition, then it's that Shirk is almost every type of veneration / showing of respect for a deceased person or asking for help or intercession from a deceased person and this even if not a single characteristic of divine Lordship is ascribed to that person.


                  While the former definition is based upon the understanding of the classical scholars in general, the latter is simply baseless and lacks any real evidence.


                  Originally posted by Umm Uthmaan View Post

                  I don't see it as spamming the forum, but I've wondered why Abu Sulayman keeps posting about the same topics. We all know his understanding of Islam is different to the vast majority here, so I wonder why he shares his views here. If I was a mod I wouldn't allow it. You speak ill of a scholar who has written books that we still benefit from today. That is unacceptable. I think I've stated something similar before. This will be the last time though. To each their own.
                  ​​​​​​Several points:
                  - MIAW had not even mastered a basic science of the Arabic language like 'Ilm al Balagha as shown in the OP.
                  Anyone who has not mastered the Islamic sciences can NEVER be regarded a scholar and this is not up to discussion.
                  - MIAW was a liar and this is established from his own very letters and works.
                  He claimed that the majority of the people of Hijaz rejected the resurrection and this is an open lie and he also claimed that he never burned the work Dala`il al-Khayrat and then in another letter admitted having done so and his progeny also admitted to this. These are just two examples out of many of his established lies.
                  The people of the Sunna do not take their religion from established liars.
                  - MIAW revived the pagan creed of the Mujassima and the bloodthirsty mindset of the Khawarij, so which "benefit" are you talking about?
                  Many of the Najdi Mashayikh today openly describe that which they worship as having a weight (!!!) and other characteristics of the creation. This pagan creed has been spread among the people to such a degree that was completely unknown during the whole of the Islamic history.
                  In addition to this every now and then groups emerge killing Muslims based upon the ideas of MIAW as is currently happening in Afghanistan at the hands of the ISIS dogs.


                  I don't know if you're aware of this, but in the Arab countries - especially on the Arabic peninsula - a lot of people have made Tawba in the last years and returned to the Sunna after finding out how these Al al-Shaykhs were fooling them with wrong informations for decades. Even this forum here is much less Najdi than it used to be.
                  ​​​​​

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Umm Uthmaan View Post

                    I don't see it as spamming the forum, but I've wondered why Abu Sulayman keeps posting about the same topics. We all know his understanding of Islam is different to the vast majority here, so I wonder why he shares his views here. If I was a mod I wouldn't allow it. You speak ill of a scholar who has written books that we still benefit from today. That is unacceptable. I think I've stated something similar before. This will be the last time though. To each their own.
                    Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab & The Hanbali Madhab - The Hanbali Halaqah - Shaykh Yusuf bin Sadiq



                    Mufti Makkah Ibn Humayd al Hanbali on Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab by Shaykh Yusuf bin Sadiq al Hanbali

                    Mufti Makkah Ibn Humayd al Hanbali on Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab | Shaykh Yusuf al Sadiq al Hanbali:


                    Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 28-10-21, 11:32 AM.
                    My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                      Shirk (polytheism) is to ascribe partners to Allah jalla jalaluhu in His Self (Dhat), His Attributes (Sifat) or His Actions (Af'al).
                      ​​​​​​

                      As for Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab's redefinition, then it's that Shirk is almost every type of veneration / showing of respect for a deceased person or asking for help or intercession from a deceased person and this even if not a single characteristic of divine Lordship is ascribed to that person.


                      While the former definition is based upon the understanding of the classical scholars in general, the latter is simply baseless and lacks any real evidence.
                      ​​​​​
                      As for Tawhid (monotheism):

                      Imam al-Junayd (d. 298 AH) stated that “Al-tawhīd (monotheism) consists in maintaining the uniqueness of the Unoriginated (qadīm) with respect to the originated (hādith).

                      ​​​​​​Our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) highlited the importance of a specific Sura and even regarded it as equal to one-third of the Qur`an al-karim (despite it being very short) due its importance in knowing Allah ta'ala. The intended Sura is Surat al-Ikhlas. Whosoever believes in it wholeheartedly is a monotheist.


                      As for MIAW's redefinition, then it is that [almost] all types of veneration should be for the being* that he regards as the creator alone. And help should only be asked from this being or from non-deceased persons.
                      ​​​​​​

                      * The reason why I'm stating "the being that he regards as the creator" is that despite him calling this being as "Allah" he does not intend Allah ta'ala in reality, because he does not know Him jalla jalaluhu.
                      The proof for this is that he thinks that this being has not just characteristics of divine Lordship, but also characteristics of the creation such as SITTING on a throne and other than this such that he has not maintained the uniqueness of the Creator in respect to the creation. The Najdi Ibn Sahman (a huge fan of MIAW and from among the so called "A`imma of Najd") mentioned the issue with the sitting and affirmed it as the belief of MIAW and even supported it himself.


                      To make it short: The Tawhid of MIAW is not Tawhid in reality and his understanding of Shirk is not real Shirk in reality.
                      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 28-10-21, 01:21 PM.

                      Comment


                      • I wonder what Abdul-Wahhab would do with this current flock of Saudi's and their antics at the haramain

                        Nikki Minaj? i mean can you get any worse?
                        .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
                        نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
                        دولة الإسلامية باقية





                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          As for Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab's redefinition, then it's that Shirk is almost every type of veneration / showing of respect for a deceased person or asking for help or intercession from a deceased person and this even if not a single characteristic of divine Lordship is ascribed to that person.
                          ​​​​​
                          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          As for MIAW's redefinition, then it is that [almost] all types of veneration should be for the being* that he regards as the creator alone. And help should only be asked from this being or from non-deceased persons.
                          ​​​​​​
                          ​​​​​​There are different types of veneration and veneration is not the same as worship, but it can become worship when it's coupled with a specific belief regarding the being that the veneration is directed towards.

                          Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab did not make this differentiation and therefore started accusing Muslims of "Shirk akbar" left and right and this with the knowledge that this man himself did not even know Allah 'azza wa jall.


                          Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala states:

                          { إِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ شَاهِدًا وَمُبَشِّرًا وَنَذِيرًا }
                          { لِّتُؤْمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَتُعَزِّرُوهُ وَتُوَقِّرُوهُ وَتُسَبِّحُوهُ بُكْرَةً وَأَصِيلًا }

                          { [O Messenger!] Verily, We have sent you as a witness, a bringer of glad tidings and a warner [of punishment]. }
                          { So that, [O people] you may believe in Allāh and His messenger; and that you revere him and respect him, and that you sanctify your Lord in the morning and evening. }

                          [Al-Qur`an al-karim 48:8-9 with English interpretation]

                          So if veneration in itself would be Shirk, Allah ta'ala would not have made the above mentioned command in His Book.

                          The above type of veneration is absolutely obligatory and whosoever rejects respecting and loving the Messengers and Prophets of Allah ta'ala (peace and blessings be upon them all) has disbelieved.
                          In fact Allah ta'ala commanded us to love His Messenger (may endless peace and blessings be upon him) even more than ourselves, so consider this and do not let the Najdi misguide you.


                          As for the forbidden types of veneration, then one can divide them further into two types:
                          1) One type which is forbidden, but does not reach the level of Shirk or Kufr. An example would be prostration in front of one's parents, which was allowed in previous laws, but disallowed in our law.
                          2) The other type falls under worship and is therefore clear Shirk and that is the type of veneration which is coupled with the belief that the being venerated has characteristics of divine Lordship. An example would be prostration for an idol or the sun, because this is only done by people who ascribe characteristics of Lordship to the sun or the being that the idols represent in their claim.
                          ​​​​​
                          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 28-10-21, 03:19 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                            As for Tawhid (monotheism):
                            .
                            ​​​​
                            * The reason why I'm stating "the being that he regards as the creator" is that despite him calling this being as "Allah" he does not intend Allah ta'ala in reality, because he does not know Him jalla jalaluhu.
                            The proof for this is that he thinks that this being has not just characteristics of divine Lordship, but also characteristics of the creation such as SITTING on a throne and other than this such that he has not maintained the uniqueness of the Creator in respect to the creation. The Najdi Ibn Sahman (a huge fan of MIAW and from among the so called "A`imma of Najd") mentioned the issue with the sitting and affirmed it as the belief of MIAW and even supported it himself.


                            To make it short: The Tawhid of MIAW is not Tawhid in reality and his understanding of Shirk is not real Shirk in reality.
                            I understand regarding this, Ibn Al-'Arabi al-Maliki said something similar that anthromorphicists do not worship Allāh but an image they called 'allah', salafis also believe in the same creed as muqatil who said that Allāh mustaqir upon the throne, only Al-albani rebuked Ibn uthaymeen for stating this but even his rebuking him was about the word istiqrar and not the meaning.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Zouhair al-'arabi View Post
                              I understand regarding this, Ibn Al-'Arabi al-Maliki said something similar that anthromorphicists do not worship Allāh but an image they called 'allah',
                              Yes brother, you're right. In addition to al-Qadhi Abu Bakr bin al-'Arabi (d. 543 AH) other major and leading scholars stated similar to this (meaning that the anthropomorphists do not know Allah ta'ala even if they call that which they worship as "Allah") and among those who stated this was al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH), Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH), al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani (d. 852 AH) and other than them.

                              You can find their statement HERE.

                              As you see they regarded them as similar to Christians and their likes.

                              Imam al-Qurtubi (d. 671 AH) even stated regarding the forefathers of the Najdis in anthropomorphism that "The most sound (opinion) is to make takfīr on them (to consider them to be kāfirs), since there is no difference between them and worshippers of idols and images. And they should be asked to repent. Thereafter, either they’ll repent, or if not, they should be executed as is done to an apostate (murtad)​​​​​".

                              The full statement can be found in the following thread:
                              ​​​​​​"Imam al-Qurtubi's Takfir upon those affirming the literal meaning of the Mutashabihat"

                              So MIAW was trying to teach "Tawhid" to the Muslims and their scholars (who were already upon real Tawhid), while according to some classical scholars he himself would not be even classified a monotheist let alone a Muslim!


                              Originally posted by Zouhair al-'arabi View Post
                              salafis also believe in the same creed as muqatil who said that Allāh mustaqir upon the throne, only Al-albani rebuked Ibn uthaymeen for stating this but even his rebuking him was about the word istiqrar and not the meaning.
                              To be more precise: What you stated is the belief of their so called "scholars", but the majority of their laymen are actually upon Tafwidh (which is good) without realizing.

                              You mentioned a very important point and that is the issue of wording and meaning. The Mashayikh of these people think that them affirming Kufr and Tashbih in meaning without using the wording saves them from Kufr, but they're mistaken and what they do is from the way of the Zanadiqa.

                              That which establishes disbelief upon a person in this context is the meaning.


                              Imam al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH) stated in his famous 'Aqida, which is representative of the 'Aqida of Imam Abu Hanifa (d.150 AH), Imam Abu Yusuf (d. 181 AH) and Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani (d. 189 AH) and other early scholars, the following:

                              ومن وصف الله بمعنى من معاني البشر فقد كفر

                              Whosoever describes Allah [subhanahu wa ta'ala] with a meaning from among the meanings (Ma'na min Ma'ani) [that applies] to humans has disbelieved.
                              - end of quote -

                              Note how he states Ma'na, so the 'Ibra here is in the meaning and the ruling is built upon the meaning that one intends.


                              From among the things that their Mashayikh in general affirm in wording and meaning are the following: A real face, two real eyes, two real hands with real fingers, a real shin and real foot, a real ascent and real descent, a real coming and a real form or shape.
                              And this is more than enough paganism.

                              In addition you will also find them every now and then affirming things like a weight, limits, a shadow, a chest, getting bored, jogging and even getting literally harmed or hurt.

                              As if all of the above is not enough Ibn 'Uthaymin adds to this a real cloak and real lower garment, which is pure paganism.

                              Then there are things that they usually affirm only in meaning while not using the wording and from among that is movement and stillness, being spatially confined and being spread out in the directions (meaning: being a 3 dimensional being!), having eternal inseparable parts and having a size. But some of them even affirm these when they are among themselves.

                              And then they have the nerves to tell to the people that they are not anthropomorphists and that they are calling to "Tawhid".

                              These people have not left out a single characteristic of the creation except that they affirmed it at least in meaning for that which they worship.
                              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 28-10-21, 09:59 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                                It's actually been years since I've read or encouraged anyone to study the books of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. My question to the objective Salafis is what books of Aqeedah were the Muslims (Atharis/Hanbalis) studying before MIAW published Kitab at-Tawhid, Kashf ash-Shubuhat, Usool ath-Thalatha, Qawaid al-Arba, Nawaqid al-Islam, etc? Haven't you noticed that every Salafi ciriculum/program relies on these books as the foundations of what they teach as theology? What were the Muslims upon before Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab wrote those books, and how do you feel comfortable depending your religion on a contraversial late 12th century figure?
                                Good question that always comes to my mind as well.

                                Sorry for bumping an old thread, I've been re-reading some of them.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X