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 BintFulaan View Post

    Good question that always comes to my mind as well.

    Sorry for bumping an old thread, I've been re-reading some of them.
    Ibn taymiyaa books
    ibn qudaama
    Layla kaaee
    Raziayn
    ahmad bin hanbal
    Qasim Abdul salaam
    imam al bukhari

    Akk the above have books that are and were commonly referred to

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abu julaybeeb View Post

      Ibn taymiyaa books
      ibn qudaama
      Layla kaaee
      Raziayn
      ahmad bin hanbal
      Qasim Abdul salaam
      imam al bukhari

      Akk the above have books that are and were commonly referred to
      I'm not sure I agree brother.

      Having lived and studied at a staunch Salafi community/Markaz, my question was not because I was oblivious to what books they teach from, nor what other books there are before the rise of the Najdi Da'wah. But more so how they defend basing their foundations purely/mostly upon the understanding of Ibn Abdul-Wahhab. I haven't found a good answer for that yet, but admittedly also don't go around and ask them about it.

      This btw doesn't mean they leave the books of scholars closer to the times of the Salaf completely. But when they do take such books, they treat them with the explanations of scholars who are affected by the Najdi Da'wah, and revise those books based upon these foundations. You see them for instance criticising Ibn Qudamah for being Muwwafid in the Sharh of his own book! And they do this with quite some works. So even when they take from books before the time of the Najdi Da'wah, they take them through the lense of their Najdi fundaments and principles. Everything is based upon the understanding of these core works of Ibn Abdul-Wahhab. You can't progress in any Salafi Markaz if you haven't taken those books first. So everything that comes after it, is tainted by it. Wa Allahu a'lam.
      Last edited by BintFulaan; 10-05-22, 01:19 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

        I agree. It appears that Bro Hajji's disagreement with MIAW is only with regards to Takfir and not necessarily his understanding of Tawhid & Shirk. This conflicts with the view of Yasir Qadhi who I quoted on page #2 stating that Istighatha and the likes are only Bid'ah/Haram.
        Istighathah is of types- some types amount to Bid'ah/Haram while others amount to Shirk. Only Sufis/Ash'aris play games with this distinction, select quoting of "Hanbali/Athari" scholars, and misinterpreting texts in order to make it seem like the Shirk-types of Istighathah have the same ruling as the Bid'ah/Haram types. This is an old "shell game" trick that has been going on for centuries in debates between Ahl as-Sunnah and Ahl al-Kalaam.

        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?
        Al-Kashf, Usul ath-Thalathah, Qawa'id al-Arba'ah, and al-Nawaqid are extremely concise works never intended to serve as the be all/end all of Aqidah and much less intended as detailed works spelling out matters of Takfir and Tawheed.

        Kitab at-Tawheed is much longer than the aforementioned and relies entirely on Hadith with very basic commentary by MIAW. Most, if not all of his comments in Kitab at-Tawheed are consistent with the prevailing understanding of the meaning and significance of the related Ahadith up to that point in time.

        As for theology at the time of MIAW, before and after, then the books of Tawheed were numerous and stretch back to the time of the early Hadith compilers. There is Kitab at-Tawheed of Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Mandah in the 4th century. Then, there was the Kitab at-Tawheed of Ibn Abd al-Ghani and Ibn Rajab in the 7th and 8th centuries.

        There were the books of Sunnah and the Rudud of the Jahmiyyah by Imam Ahmad and ad-Darimi in the 3rd century. Al-Barbahari and Ibn Battah wrote their books on Aqidah in the 4th century. Al-Qadi Abi Ya'laa wrote his books on Aqidah in the 5th century.

        All of these works contain confirmation of the perspectives on Aqidah that MIAW maintained in the 12th-13th century. That is why Sufis/Ash'aris attack the above works as well and they certainly don't quote them when crafting their distortions about the Aqidah of "Hanbalis/Atharis".

        Deviant groups need the Aqidah of MIAW to be anomalous in order to focus their attack on him alone. When convenient they point to Ibn Taymiyyah and some of his students for "proof" against MIAW and at other times they attempt to make the views of Ibn Taymiyyah in Aqidah anomalous as well.

        The Sufi/Ash'ari decoys within the "Hanbali/Athari" schools will always point to Ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn Aqeel, or as-Safaarini in order to sow confusion about the real credal positions of the Hanaabilah and Atharis. Every true Hanbali knows that Ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn Aqeel, and as-Safaarini were not legit reference points for Athari creed despite their great scholarship and influence.

        These tactics on this forum have been played out by Ash'aris and Sufis over and over again on other forums, especially in Arabic language forums. They have been completely annihilated on the Arabic forums and so they have resorted to rehashing tired and already refuted distortions in English. Just because many English speaking Muslims haven't seen these "proofs" before, they are simply being translated from Ash'ari/Sufi forums in Arabic. No serious students or scholars who are Athari or Hanbali entertain these old tricks on the Arabic side of the internet. They are only "new" tricks on the English side of the internet.

        Abu Sulayman knows this. He hasn't said anything original in the hundreds of pages he has started on this forum about MIAW, Atharis, Ibn Taymiyyah, or the Hanbalis. He is simply translating, sometimes poorly at that, typical Ash'ari/Sufi Arabic forum propaganda. He's never provided any proof that he has a single original thought or comment on any of these subjects. He won't even provide his qualifications after demanding them from others. Read his second-hand material at your own risk- especially the risk of wasting your time.

        Comment


        • It's sad how stubborn some people will defend falsehood thinking that they are doing something good, while in reality they are just ruining their own Akhira.

          The point of this thread is very clear:
          That Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was lacking in Islamic qualifications and despite this acted as some sort of Mujtahid and this lead to all kinds of disasters on a theoretical and practical level.
          This has been proven with a lot of texts from the books of his own followers and also from statements of the scholars of his time. There is no way to deny this after the proof has been established.

          Note that from the beginning of the rise of this Najdi heretic the scholars of all four Madhahib rejected his extreme and deficient way and declared him and his followers as the deviants and heretics that they were.
          Anyone who tries to paint this issue as some sort of Ash'ari-Hanbali-dispute has literally no idea what he's talking about.



          Allah jalla jalaluhu has chosen our noble Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) as the seal of Prophets and Messengers and has sent him to all mankind. It's absolutely necessary upon every human being whom his call has reached to follow his teachings.
          That which he (peace be upon him) emphasized and stressed upon in terms of beliefs and actions is that which we need to follow and emphasize.


          If someone now comes emphasizing something that he did not emphasize and trying to throw people out from the Umma, despite them fulfilling the qualifications for being a Muslim, then this is absolutely unacceptable.
          What makes it worse is if someone tries to bring ideas that are in opposition to the Prophetic teachings and then obliges one to obey these ideas with a obedience that is only due to Prophets of God and thereafter wages war upon the one who rejects to show this type of obedience to non-Prophets. This entails claiming Prophethood for oneself and therefore indicates disbelief.
          Note that especially those scholars, who had very close contact with IAW and his early followers, stated that this man was literally a false prophet, even if he was not openly stating "I am a Prophet of God" (because then his disbelief would be too obvious).
          There are indications from the statements of his followers that they put him on the station of a Prophet (!!!) among themselves (like the statement of leading Najdis in al-Durar al-Saniyya that whosoever follows a way different than his, will be from the people of hellfire) and even one of the so called "Salafi" Mashayikh in our time claimed something along the lines like "Allah put this Imam among the people of Najd in the station of a Prophet" (!!!).


          We therefore say to those, who are trying to defend this man and calling to his way:
          If you want to oblige us to show obedience to the ideas of this Najdi heretic, then this is completely unacceptable, because Allah ta'ala has obliged us to follow the religion that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was sent with - which is the religion of all Prophets and Messengers (peace be upon them all) - and not the religion of false prophets like Ezra, Paulus or Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.
          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 19-05-22, 07:49 PM.

          Comment


          • Regarding the Ash'ari-Hanbali-dispute:
            It's not connected to this thread, because Ash'aris and Hanbalis both stood against the Najdis and many Hanbalis got martyred in this process.
            IAW hated the Hanabila and commanded his followers to kill them, which they actively did.

            ​​​​​​
            The difference between Ash'aris and Hanbalis is only on some very detailed issues of creed and mostly in wording with some issues being real differences. Through much of the Islamic history they were one hand, but during times of Fitna they would show some enmity towards each other.
            The enemies of this Umma however - in their aim to disunite the Muslims - will not give you the whole picture and will try to turn Muslims into enemies of each other and therefore exaggerate the times of enmity and emphasize them.



            Allah ta'ala has not obliged us to follow the Ash'aris or the Hanbalis in creed, but rather obliged us to follow the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).
            But it should also be taken into consideration that the religion that our noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was sent with was preserved by the scholars, who developed the Islamic sciences and authored great works in the service of this religion, and Allah ta'ala preserved the Shari'a and the Prophetic teachings through them.

            ​​​​​​
            Since both the Ash'aris and the Hanbalis were involved in preserving the Shari'a, we as Muslims respect both of them and try to benefit from both of them.
            It should however be noted that the Ash'aris contributed to the the Islamic sciences and their preservation to a much greater degree (such that even Hanabila are dependent on them!) - which is why it's difficult to find chains of knowledge for any greater Islamic science except that Ash'aris are in these chains - and that's why in our day and age no one attacks the Asha'ira except ignorants, deviants or disbelieving heretics.

            Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 19-05-22, 09:15 PM.

            Comment


            • Now as for the claim of IAW following the same understanding as the Hanabila before him:

              ​​​​​​Only an ignorant person would make such a claim. IAW ideas were a combination of the ideas of the anthropomorphists with the bloodthirstiness of the worst from among the Khawarij and the lack of proper learning and systematic approach.
              In addition to these IAW lacked real love and respect for our noble Prophet (may endless peace and blessings be upon him), which is why he tried to act as if anything connected to his love and respect is somehow "polytheism".


              The Hanabila in contrast were neither bloodthirsty Khawarij, nor did they lack proper learning and systematic approach when looking at the Shari'a and they clearly loved the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).
              As for anthropomorphism, then only a group among them were anthropomorphists or at least tended towards it (like Ibn Hamid and Ibn Taymiyya), but the majority of them were people of Tafwid and Tanzih (in line with the way of Imam Ahmad).

              (Mentioning the 'Allama al-Saffarini together with Imam Ibn al-Jawzi and Imam Ibn 'Aqil is not correct, because al-Saffarini is from among the mainstream Hanabila and in-line with al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la's way, while Imam Ibn al-Jawzi and Ibn 'Aqil both tended towards Ta`wil and the mainstream Hanabila do not agree with Ibn al-Jawzi's criticism of Abu Ya'la.)

              The Hanabila did not make Takfir upon whole regions and they did not show enmity towards the people of the Haramayn al-sharifayn or the the people of Yemen or the people of the Levant, while IAW and his followers showed extreme hate towards these very regions and accused its people of being upon "polytheism" and this despite all these places being explicitly praised and prayed for by the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him.



              The Najdi understanding of "Tawhid" is that you worship a being that has a real face, two real hands with real fingers, two real eyes that are tools of seeing, real shin, real feet, real ascent and real descent, real laughing and so on.
              ​​​​​​This is the result of taking some descriptions from the religious texts out of their proper context and then present it in a false way thereby lying against Allah ta'ala and following the way of the Jews and the Christians in this.


              When asked about where they get these beliefs from, they will answer by saying "the Salaf believed this". And when investigating further, they will come up with books like "al-Naqd 'ala Bishr al-Marisi", which contains several unknown persons in its chain of transmission and is filled with pagan ideas regarding the Creator subhanahu wa ta'ala.
              (Note: There is no obligation upon any Muslim to follow any of the pagan ideas found in this worthless book, rather it's obligatoty to reject the unislamic ideas found in it.)
              Then they will tell you "and al-Sunna, [which is claimed to be authored] by the son of Imam Ahmad" and this with the knowledge that the one believing everything in that book can go and change his religion to that of the Jews or the Christians, because he has no difference to them if he believes the huge amount of utterly weak and outright fabricated narrations with obvious anthropomorphist content.


              Their likeness is that of the Rafidha, who will come up with all kinds of heresies and tell you "the Ahl al-Bayt believed this" and things like "but we have narrations where Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq and so and so stated it".


              We tell to the Najdi and the Rafidhi Mubtadi'a and Zanadiqa:
              There is NO place for your utterly weak and outright fabricated "narrations" in the religion of Islam. We are neither Jews, nor Christians in order to accept such non-established texts, which clearly contain falsehood and are in opposition to the authentic texts.
              The foundation of this religion is based upon that which is established in authenticity and meaning and NOT upon what some Najdi or Rafidhi claims.


              ​​
              And as for the understanding of "Shirk" of the Najdis:
              Anything which entails showing too much love for the Prophets (peace be upon him) and the Righteous is "polytheism" in their mind and this despite the fact that we should love our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) more than our own selves. In their mindless state they even include lawful things as being "polytheism" and do not stop at what maybe disliked or forbidden only.




              ​​​​​
              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 19-05-22, 11:01 PM.

              Comment


              • Due to the teachings of this IAW a lot of people do not know the priorities of the religion anymore.
                ​​​​​


                For them defending this Najdi heretic (meaning: IAW) and / or his ideas and calling towards extremist ideas directly makes one a hero and worthy of praise.

                Let me give an example:
                There was a so called "Islamic Da'i" with the name Musa Cerantonio. This being claimed that he had accepted Islam, but there was clearly something fishy about him. He lacked real knowledge and was a caller towards the ideas of ISIS (which are taken from IAW's ideas).

                At one point this scroundel called our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) a "terrorist" and even claimed something along the lines "if the Prophet would be alive today he would join the so and so group", but some people - due to Najdi influence - kept on defending that being.
                This shows how much these people lack proper knowledge, because the words of this scroundel were in fact words of disbelief and apostasy and this irrespective of whatever excuse they might bring up (risking their own Iman in this process).

                Many years later this very person openly proclaimed his apostasy from Islam and gave an utterly ridiculous and weak reasoning for it.

                We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being and protection.


                ​​​​​​
                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 19-05-22, 11:03 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                  Due to the teachings of this IAW a lot of people do not know the priorities of the religion anymore.
                  ​​​​​

                  .


                  ​​​​​​
                  No he never claimed apostasy

                  People are saying he apostated

                  there is no proof he himself said he is an apostate

                  he didnt say the prophet is a irhabi he said people would call him an irhabi meaning the kuffar, secularists and murjia would say he is a irhabi for promoting jihad and qital he was not mocking the prophet in any way

                  He is not the first to say something like this other ulama have said similar things and not in a derogatory manner

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abu julaybeeb View Post
                    No he never claimed apostasy

                    People are saying he apostated

                    there is no proof he himself said he is an apostate
                    he didnt say the prophet is a irhabi he said people would call him an irhabi meaning the kuffar, secularists and murjia would say he is a irhabi for promoting jihad and qital he was not mocking the prophet in any way

                    He is not the first to say something like this other ulama have said similar things and not in a derogatory manner
                    We should really get our priorities right. There is NO Iman without respecting and loving our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).
                    Whosoever disrespects our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) in any way or form - be it intentionally or unintentionally - has disbelieved.

                    I remember that some brothers on the old IA Forums mentioned an incident where this creature suggested that the Prophet (upon whom be peace) would have joined ISIS, if he were among us.
                    Note that this is clear disbelief, because our noble Prophet (peace be upon him) is the seal of Messengers and Prophets and he is to be followed and not the other way around. It's of no importance whether he stated this due to not properly thinking before speaking or due to recklessness or whatever reason. The ruling in all these cases is the same.

                    I would recommed reading this thread:

                    Qadhi 'Iyadh: Ruling upon seven cases which contain disrepect towards the Prophet ﷺ
                    ​​​​​

                    Here some relevant quotes:

                    __________

                    The ruling upon those who disrespect the Prophet ﷺ in a clear manner whether intentionally or not

                    ​​
                    Al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH) stated regarding intentional disrespect:

                    تقدم الْكَلَام فِي قَتْل القاصِد لِسَبّه وَالإزْرَاء بِه وَغَمْصِه بأيّ وَجْه كَان من مُمْكِن أَو مُحَال فَهَذَا وَجْه بَيْن لَا إشْكَال فِيه

                    [The First Case:] We have mentioned earlier that whosoever intentionally disrespects or disparages him in whatever manner – regardless of whether such description is possible or impossible755 – such a person is executed. This is a clear-cut case and there is no reason for confusion nor anything problematic about it.
                    - end of quote (from Al-Shifa bi Ta'rif Huquq al-Mustafa 2/231) -


                    He thereafter stated regarding unintentional disrespect:

                    الْوَجْه الثاني لَا حَقّ بِه فِي الْبَيَان وَالْجَلَاء وَهُو أن يَكُون الْقَائِل لَمّا قَال فِي جِهَتِه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم غَيْر قَاصِد لِلسّبّ وَالْإزْرَاء وَلَا مُعْتِقَد لَه ولكنه تَكَلّم فِي جِهَتِه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم بِكَلِمَة الْكُفْر من لَعْنِه أَو سَبَّه أَو تَكذيبِه أَو إضَافَة مَا لَا يَجُوز عَلَيْه أَو نَفْي مَا يجيب لَه مِمَّا هُو فِي حَقّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم نَقِيصَة مِثْل أَنّ يَنْسِب إليْه إتْيَان كَبِيرَة أَو مُداهَنَة فِي تبليغ الرّسَالة أَو فِي حُكْم بَيْن النَّاس أَو يَغُضّ من مَرْتبته أَو شَرَف نَسَبَه أَو وُفُور عِلْمِه أَو زُهْدِه أَو يُكَذّب بِمَا اشْتَهَر من أُمُور أخْبَر بِهَا صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم وتَوَاتَر الْخَبَر بِهَا عَن قصْد لِرَد خَبَرِه أَو يَأْتِي بِسَفَه مِن الْقَوْل أَو قَبِيح مِن الْكَلَام ونوع مِن السَّبّ فِي جِهَتِه وإن ظَهَر بِدَلِيل حَالِه أنَّه لَم يَعْتَمِد ذَمّه وَلَم يَقْصِد سَبَّه إِمَّا لِجَهَالَة حملته عَلَى مَا قاله أَو لِضَجِر أَو سُكْر أضْطَرّه إليْه أَو قِلّة مُرَاقَبَة وَضَبْط لِلسَانِه.
                    وعَجْرَفَة وَتَهَوُّر فِي كَلَامِه
                    فَحُكْم هَذَا الْوَجْه حُكْم الْوَجْه الأوّل الْقَتْل دون تَلَعْثُم إِذ لَا يُعْذَر أَحَد فِي الْكُفْر بِالْجَهَالَة وَلَا بدعوى زلل اللسان ولا بشئ مِمَّا ذكرناه إذَا كَان عقله فِي فطرته سليمًا إلَّا من أكره وقلبه مطمئن بالإيمان

                    The Second Case: is similar to the previous one in its wording and explicitness; however, the utterer does not say it with the intention of insulting or disparaging the Prophet , nor does he believe in such things. But he has [nevertheless] uttered blasphemies – words of kufr:

                    that criticise him or insult him or belie him;

                    or attribute things to him which are forbidden to say about him or negate something which is obligatory for him;

                    or attributes a flaw or fault to him – such as accusing him of commiting a major sin or flattery or cajolery when he preached to others or [when he] delivered the message, or in his adjudication between disputing parties;

                    or says things that diminish the lofty rank Allāh táālā has bestowed upon him, or [disparages] his noble lineage or [degrades] the extensiveness of his knowledge or his austerity;

                    or if a person denies things informed by him, when such reports are well-known and have reached the level of tawātur, [if such denial is in the form of] seeking to reject his opinion;

                    or if a person talks about him in a rude and brusque manner, or speaks about him in vulgar and uncouth words or any other form of abusive speech;

                    Even if the person proves that he has not deliberately said any of this to deride him ; or intended to insult or disparage him – whether it was ignorance that made him say such things or because he was discontented or disgruntled, or he was inebriated, or he blurted it out without thinking or it slipped from his tongue, or because of haughtiness or impudence, or impetuousity and recklessness; in all such cases, the ruling is the same as in the first case – that is, execution without further deliberation or any hesitation, because the excuse of ignorance [in such cases] which cause apostasy is inadmissible, nor the excuse of slip of the tongue, nor any other excuse which I have mentioned above as long as the person is sane and has not lost his reason. Except a person in duress, who utters such things due to coercion – as long as faith is undisturbed in his heart.
                    - end of quote (from Al-Shifa bi Ta'rif Huquq al-Mustafa 2/231) -

                    __________

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                      We should really get our priorities right. There is NO Iman without respecting and loving our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).
                      Whosoever disrespects our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) in any way or form - be it intentionally or unintentionally - has disbelieved.

                      I remember that some brothers on the old IA Forums mentioned an incident where this creature suggested that the Prophet (upon whom be peace) would have joined ISIS, if he were among us.
                      Note that this is clear disbelief, because our noble Prophet (peace be upon him) is the seal of Messengers and Prophets and he is to be followed and not the other way around. It's of no importance whether he stated this due to not properly thinking before speaking or due to recklessness or whatever reason. The ruling in all these cases is the same.

                      I would recommed reading this thread:

                      Qadhi 'Iyadh: Ruling upon seven cases which contain disrepect towards the Prophet ﷺ
                      ​​​​​

                      Here some relevant quotes:

                      __________

                      The ruling upon those who disrespect the Prophet ﷺ in a clear manner whether intentionally or not

                      ​​
                      Al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH) stated regarding intentional disrespect:

                      تقدم الْكَلَام فِي قَتْل القاصِد لِسَبّه وَالإزْرَاء بِه وَغَمْصِه بأيّ وَجْه كَان من مُمْكِن أَو مُحَال فَهَذَا وَجْه بَيْن لَا إشْكَال فِيه

                      [The First Case:] We have mentioned earlier that whosoever intentionally disrespects or disparages him in whatever manner – regardless of whether such description is possible or impossible755 – such a person is executed. This is a clear-cut case and there is no reason for confusion nor anything problematic about it.
                      - end of quote (from Al-Shifa bi Ta'rif Huquq al-Mustafa 2/231) -


                      He thereafter stated regarding unintentional disrespect:

                      الْوَجْه الثاني لَا حَقّ بِه فِي الْبَيَان وَالْجَلَاء وَهُو أن يَكُون الْقَائِل لَمّا قَال فِي جِهَتِه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم غَيْر قَاصِد لِلسّبّ وَالْإزْرَاء وَلَا مُعْتِقَد لَه ولكنه تَكَلّم فِي جِهَتِه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم بِكَلِمَة الْكُفْر من لَعْنِه أَو سَبَّه أَو تَكذيبِه أَو إضَافَة مَا لَا يَجُوز عَلَيْه أَو نَفْي مَا يجيب لَه مِمَّا هُو فِي حَقّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم نَقِيصَة مِثْل أَنّ يَنْسِب إليْه إتْيَان كَبِيرَة أَو مُداهَنَة فِي تبليغ الرّسَالة أَو فِي حُكْم بَيْن النَّاس أَو يَغُضّ من مَرْتبته أَو شَرَف نَسَبَه أَو وُفُور عِلْمِه أَو زُهْدِه أَو يُكَذّب بِمَا اشْتَهَر من أُمُور أخْبَر بِهَا صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم وتَوَاتَر الْخَبَر بِهَا عَن قصْد لِرَد خَبَرِه أَو يَأْتِي بِسَفَه مِن الْقَوْل أَو قَبِيح مِن الْكَلَام ونوع مِن السَّبّ فِي جِهَتِه وإن ظَهَر بِدَلِيل حَالِه أنَّه لَم يَعْتَمِد ذَمّه وَلَم يَقْصِد سَبَّه إِمَّا لِجَهَالَة حملته عَلَى مَا قاله أَو لِضَجِر أَو سُكْر أضْطَرّه إليْه أَو قِلّة مُرَاقَبَة وَضَبْط لِلسَانِه.
                      وعَجْرَفَة وَتَهَوُّر فِي كَلَامِه
                      فَحُكْم هَذَا الْوَجْه حُكْم الْوَجْه الأوّل الْقَتْل دون تَلَعْثُم إِذ لَا يُعْذَر أَحَد فِي الْكُفْر بِالْجَهَالَة وَلَا بدعوى زلل اللسان ولا بشئ مِمَّا ذكرناه إذَا كَان عقله فِي فطرته سليمًا إلَّا من أكره وقلبه مطمئن بالإيمان

                      The Second Case: is similar to the previous one in its wording and explicitness; however, the utterer does not say it with the intention of insulting or disparaging the Prophet , nor does he believe in such things. But he has [nevertheless] uttered blasphemies – words of kufr:

                      that criticise him or insult him or belie him;

                      or attribute things to him which are forbidden to say about him or negate something which is obligatory for him;

                      or attributes a flaw or fault to him – such as accusing him of commiting a major sin or flattery or cajolery when he preached to others or [when he] delivered the message, or in his adjudication between disputing parties;

                      or says things that diminish the lofty rank Allāh táālā has bestowed upon him, or [disparages] his noble lineage or [degrades] the extensiveness of his knowledge or his austerity;

                      or if a person denies things informed by him, when such reports are well-known and have reached the level of tawātur, [if such denial is in the form of] seeking to reject his opinion;

                      or if a person talks about him in a rude and brusque manner, or speaks about him in vulgar and uncouth words or any other form of abusive speech;

                      Even if the person proves that he has not deliberately said any of this to deride him ; or intended to insult or disparage him – whether it was ignorance that made him say such things or because he was discontented or disgruntled, or he was inebriated, or he blurted it out without thinking or it slipped from his tongue, or because of haughtiness or impudence, or impetuousity and recklessness; in all such cases, the ruling is the same as in the first case – that is, execution without further deliberation or any hesitation, because the excuse of ignorance [in such cases] which cause apostasy is inadmissible, nor the excuse of slip of the tongue, nor any other excuse which I have mentioned above as long as the person is sane and has not lost his reason. Except a person in duress, who utters such things due to coercion – as long as faith is undisturbed in his heart.
                      - end of quote (from Al-Shifa bi Ta'rif Huquq al-Mustafa 2/231) -

                      __________

                      So what if bad things are said about me, people have said bad things about the Prophet ﷺ

                      • What is [unusual] if I am belied; even prophets have been belied;

                      • What is [unusual] if I commit a sin? Even prophets have sinned;

                      • How can I be safe from the tongues of men when prophets and messengers were not safe from them;

                      • I have been patient similar to the patience of the Prominent Messengers;784 or as patient as Ayyūb;

                      • The Prophet ﷺ was more patient and forbearing with his enemies more than I had to bear;



                      So your saying the above is haram to say but not kufr?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abu julaybeeb View Post


                        So what if bad things are said about me, people have said bad things about the Prophet ﷺ

                        • What is [unusual] if I am belied; even prophets have been belied;

                        • What is [unusual] if I commit a sin? Even prophets have sinned;

                        • How can I be safe from the tongues of men when prophets and messengers were not safe from them;

                        • I have been patient similar to the patience of the Prominent Messengers;784 or as patient as Ayyūb;

                        • The Prophet ﷺ was more patient and forbearing with his enemies more than I had to bear;



                        So your saying the above is haram to say but not kufr?
                        These are borderline statements and the one stating them needs to be punished.
                        In some cases it may reach disbelief, but this is for the judge to decide in accordance to the specific case and the severity of the statement.


                        As for suggesting that our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) would follow any group today (or of the past), then it entails diminishing his lofty rank, because he's not a follower, but rather to be followed as he is the greatest of all Messengers and the seal of them.
                        Diminishing his lofty rank is disbelief by agreement.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post


                          21 - Takfir against Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606 AH) based upon a work that he hasn't even read (if he would have only read the introduction of the work!)

                          ثم تجد كثيرا من رؤوسهم وقعوا في هذه الأنواع، فكانوا مرتدين؛ وكثير منهم، تارة يرتد عن الإسلام ردة صريحة، وتارة يعود إليه مع مرض في قلبه ونفاق، والحكاية عنهم في ذلك مشهورة. وقد ذكر ابن قتيبة من ذلك طرفا في أول مختلف الحديث؛ وأبلغ من ذلك: أن منهم من صنف في الردة، كما صنف الرازي في عبادة الكواكب، وهذه ردة عن الإسلام باتفاق المسلمين. هذا لفظه بحروفه
                          - end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 10/72) -

                          إلى أن قال –أي ابن تيمية-: وأبلغ من ذلك: أن منهم من يصنف في دين المشركين، والردة عن الإسلام، كما صنف الرازي كتابه في عبادة الكواكب، وأقام الأدلة على حسن ذلك، ومنفعته، ورغب فيه؛ وهذه ردة عن الإسلام باتفاق المسلمين، وإن كان قد يكون عاد إلى الإسلام، انتهى
                          - end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 10/355) -

                          ​​​​​​Whats this book about? I read somewhere that al-Razi wrote some books on spells. Something like the Shams al Maarif of al-Buni.

                          Comment


                          • About this quote:


                            “So, if we do not make takfīr upon the one who worships the shrine over the grave of Abdul-Qādir [Al-Jilāni], or the shrine over the grave of Ahmad Al-Badawi and their likes due to their ignorance, and in the absence of someone who can inform them [of their error], then how could we possibly make takfīr upon the one who does not associate partners in worship with Allah or upon the one who does not migrate to us… How free you are, O Allah, from all imperfections, the Most Perfect. Indeed this is a great slander.”

                            I read on forum that this piece is made tahrif of:


                            وأما الكذب والبهتان، فمثل قولهم: إنا نكفر بالعموم، ونوجب الهجرة إلينا على من قدر على إظهار دينه، وأنا نكفّر من لم يكفّر ومن لم يقاتل، ومثل هذا وأضعاف أضعافه. فكل هذا من الكذب والبهتان الذي يصدون به الناس عن دين الله ورسوله. وإذا كنا لا نكفّر مَن عبد الصنم الذي على قبر عبد القادر، والصنم الذي على قبر أحمد البدوي، وأمثالهما، لأجل جهلهم وعدم من ينبههم ، فكيف نكفر من لم يشرك بالله إذا لم يهاجر إلينا، ولم يكفّر ويقاتل؟ {سُبْحَانَكَ هَذَا بُهْتَانٌ عَظِيمٌ}(موسوعة مؤلفات الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب – فتاوى ومسائل / الدرر السنية في الأجوبة النجدية ج1 ص92.).

                            And that quote without tahrif is as follows:


                            وأما الكذب والبهتان: أنّا نكفر بالعموم، ونوجب الهجرة إلينا على من قدر على إظهار دينه، وأنّا نكفر من لم يكفر ولم يقاتل، ومثل هذا وأضعاف أضعافه. فكل هذا من الكذب والبهتان الذي يصدّ به ورثة أبي جهل من سدنة الأصنام وأئمّة الكفر: الناس عن دين الله ورسوله؛ وإنّا لا نكفر إلاّ من كفّره الله ورسوله، من المشركين عباد الأصنام كالذين يعبدون الصنم الذي على قبر عبد القادر والصنم الذي على قبر أحمد البدوي وأمثالهما.
                            أما الذين آمنوا بالله وكتبه ورسله واليوم الآخر وجاهدوا في الله حق جهاده فهم إخواننا في الدين وإن لم يهاجروا إلينا. فكيف نكفر هؤلاء؟ سبحانك هذا بهتان عظيم(منهاج التأسيس والتقديس في كشف شبهات داود بن جرجيس للشيخ عبد اللطيف بن عبد الرحمن بن حسن ج1 ص87).

                            Comment

                            Collapse

                            Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                            Working...
                            X