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

  • #61
    Originally posted by AlMaghribi7 View Post
    "Even the large dome over the tomb of Mohammed, at Medinah, was destined to share a similar fate.
    Saoud had given orders that it should be demolished; but its solid structure defied the rude efforts of his soldiers; and after several of them had been killed by falling from the dome, the attempt was given up. This the inhabitants of Medinah declared to have been done through the interposition of Heaven.”

    JOHN LEWIS BURCKHARDT, NOTES ON THE BEDOUINS AND WAHABYS, page 281.
    Note that MIAW (d. 1206 AH) lied in his letter to the people al-Qassim (quoted HERE) and claimed that him intending to demolish the green dome was a "great slander" and this while it's known to everyone that he intended doing this and that his followers even tried but failed!
    In fact till our days the two "Salafis" Ibn Baz and Ibn 'Uthaymin dreamed of demolishing it, but could not do so because of fearing "fitna" (as they claim!)!

    Likewise he (MIAW) burned the book Dala`il al-Khayrat by Imam al-Jazuli (d. 870 AH), because he could not bear it that the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is praised in it! In the letter to the people of al-Qassim - which some hypocrites from among the "Salafis" love to quote in defense of this man - he also denied to have done so, even though he HIMSELF has ADMITTED ELSEWHERE that he had done this and he even gave an idiotic justification for it!

    There seems to be something really wrong in the minds and hearts of these people! It's clear that they don't really regard the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - to be the best of creation nor do they know his status with his Lord nor do they respect the Sha'a`ir of Allah ta'ala, why else would they dare to do such a thing?!

    In fact MIAW had no real respect for the Prophets of Allah - peace be upon them - in general (!) and even accused the father of all mankind - peace be upon him - without any shame of Shirk (!) in his so called Kitab al-Tawhid!

    As for his followers: We have already seen how much Ibn Sahman (d. 1349 AH) - one of their leading scholars (read: callers to hellfire!) - "respects" the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam! Without any shame he accused our Master Muhammad al-Mustafa - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - of ignorance in order to defend the ignorance of his MIAW!
    This is the state of their "leading scholars"!


    The Shaykh Yusuf al-Rifa'i said in his "ADVICE To Our Brothers the Scholars of Najd":

    23. Asking to Demolish The Green Dome
    You allowed a man by the name of Muqbil ibn Hadi al-Wadi'i- known through his books and tapes for his propensity to insult and disparage those of the Ulema who disagree with him, those who call unto Allah, and the pious of this Community of Islam - to produce some research at the end of his studies at the Islamic University of Madina titled "About the Dome Built over the Grave of the Messenger, peace and greetings be upon him" sponsored by Shaykh Hammad al-Ansari. In this paper he demands openly and without shame that the Noble Grave be brought out of the Mosque, deems the presence of the Grave and Noble Dome there major innovation, and asks that they both be destroyed! On top of this you granted him high marks na da passing grade!
    Do you honor those who challenge the Messenger of Islam, the Beloved of Allah, the Mercy to the Universes and His Intimate Friend? Then this man directed hundreds of his followers, imitators, and their kind among those influenced by your School, bearing arms, to destroy and unearth the graves of the pious Muslims in Aden, Yemen, a few years ago 26 . They roamed the land spreading corruption and ruin, digging up the graves of the dead with picks and spades until they brought out the bones of some of the dead and blind dissension. We heard they even used dynamite in some places! All this is a part of the record of your deeds.

    - end of quote -

    And then there are of course all those ignorant "Salafi" laymen, who will rush to the defense of these worthless people quoting Ahadith randomly and not having looked into a single Fiqh book to know the rulings of these actions! This is how the religion works according to them! "Do it yourself!"!

    Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    I recently came across this unrelated video and wanted to share a portion which caught my attention near the end:

    The False Principles in Manhaj of Shaykh Rabee & his Followers | Abdullah al-Farsi



    "The first step is determining whether the saying itself is Kufr/Bid'ah or not. Then, after establishing that, it is determining whether the person who said this is a Kaafir or an innovator. That is another step. This (step #2) cannot be declared without a Fatwa from a scholar; except for things that are known to everyone (Malum min ad-Din bi-Daroorah).

    For example, if someone cusses Allah or his Messenger(as), then I don't need to be scholar to pronounce him as a Kaafir. If someone supplicates to the graves, then he is a Mushrik. And if you don't call those people Kaafirs and Mushriks then you are like them. And if you are in doubt and say "I don't know" then you like them." [1:08:50]

    What is highlighted in bold are the fruits of the Najdi Da'wah. My argument is that no scholar of significance prior to Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1206) ever considered these people to be Mushrikoon. The Muslim who goes to the grave of the Prophet(saws) and requests that the Prophet asks Allah to forgive him is not a polytheist or an idol-worshipper.

    The Najdis cannot argue that this is a new innovation because the practice existed before Ibn Taymiyyah was born. So where were the scholars in between Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab who properly understood Tawhid?
    The catastrophe here is that they literally make Takfir based upon sins and sometimes even on allowed actions and this is clearly from the way of the Khawarij.

    I mean things like slaughtering for a creation, making Tawaf around graves, calling the creation in the manner one calls Allah ta'ala and similar actions are sinful actions, but without a clear Shirki intention none of these actions are real Shirk! And this is explicitly found mentioned in classical Fiqh books, yet they ignore all of this!
    In fact even prostration in front of the Prophetic grave is not real Shirk (but a major sin), so what about other actions?!

    What is worse is to regard the seeking of intercession with our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - unto his Lord as polytheism! This with the knowledge that the ABSOLUTE MAJORITY of the classical scholars regarded this allowed and there is clearly a Shar'i basis for this!

    The worst part in the above quote is that he puts this into the same category like insulting Allah ta'ala or the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - (which obviously directly throws one out of the religion) and doing this pure Najdism / Kharijism!
    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 14-07-20, 08:16 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
      'Allama 'Abdullah bin Dawud al-Hanbali regarded IAW a FALSE PROPHET in his "Lightnings and Thunders in Reponse to the Wretched Ibn Sa'ud"

      ...

      That's why I will only quote a passage taken from the work Misbah al-Anam of the 'Allama al-Haddad, where he quotes the 'Allama 'Abdullah bin Dawud al-Zubayri al-Hanbali (d. 1225 AH) saying (translation taken from here: "This has everything to do with Islam…"):

      So from these issues with them is the claim to prophethood. This was manifested by him not explicitly by speech, but this was done implicitly so that the people would not reject it immediately and bear witness to what the scholars have mentioned.
      What the scholars have mentioned is that Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab, in the beginning of his affair, was shown to have reached the level of a false prophet and a liar of the same capacity as Musailimah, Sajjah the false prophetess, Al-Aswad Al-`Ansi, Tulaihah Al-Asadi and others. As for his father, he was a pious man.

      - end of quote -

      If you're shocked by this statement, then wait and see! This is the opinion of the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) - major Hanbali scholar in al-Sham al-sharif! - regarding the false prophet MIAW too! The 'Allama al-Haddad also supported the above statement!
      'Allama al-Saffarini regarding IAW being a Mujtahid in destroying the divine law!

      The 'Allama Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Saffarini al-Hanbali (d. 1188 AH) - the author of the famous poem regarding Hanbali creed al-Durra al-Mudhiyya (known as al-Saffariniyya) - was asked by Hanbali students from Najd regarding a man who has learned a Madhhab, but then claims that acting upon the books of Fiqh is not allowed, because they're from the new issues and that which is obligatory is to act upon the Ahadith and Tafasir and that's it. ("ما قول علماء المسلمين ، وهداة المرشدين ، في رجل تفقًّه في مذهب إمامه ، ثم زعم بعد ذلك : أن العمل غير جائز بكتب الفقه كلها لأنها مُحدثة ، وإنما الواجب العمل بالحديث والتفاسير ، وترك ماسواهما")
      Note that they obviously intended MIAW (d. 1206 AH) here without naming him and the al-'Allama al-Saffrini is also intending him in his response!

      His answer can be found as a separate work, which is named as Jawab al-'Allama al-Saffarini 'ala man za'am anna al-'Amal ghayr ja`iz bi Kutub al-Fiqh li annaha Muhdatha (or HERE) and as far as I know it can be also found in his al-Awjiba al-Najdiyya 'an al-As`ila al-Najdiyya.

      Regarding the question whether these are the claims of a Mujtahid or not ("وهل دعواه هذه دعوى مجتهد أم لا"), the 'Allama al-Saffarini answered:

      فالجواب: نعم، ولكن مُجتهد في إزالة الشرع وارتكاب غير جادة المسلمين، فمثل هذا الرجل في مثل هذا الزمان دعواه الاجتهاد كدعوى مُسيلمة الكذاب النبوة، وكذا العنسي، وسجاح، وأمثالهم من المتنبئين ...ا
      فقد علمنا: أن هذا الرجل ضال مُضل؛ لعدم معرفته بطُرق الاجتهاد ...ا
      هذا ينبغي أن يؤدب التأديب الرادع له ولأمثاله، سيما في طعنه على سلف الأمة وأعلام الأئمة ...ا
      وينبغي لكل إمام وفقيه ، أن يُنفِّر عن مثل هذا الضال المُضل السفيه


      The answer: YES! But a Mujtahid in destroying the divine law and following other than the way of the Muslims. So the claims of the likes of this man in the likes of this time regarding Ijtihad is [just] like the claim of Musaylima - the liar! - to prophethood and also al-'Ansi, Sajjah and their likes from the claimants of prophethood (or soothsayers)...
      We have already known that this man is a misguided misguider, because of his lack of knowledge regarding the ways of Ijtihad...
      This [man] needs to be disciplined in a deterrent way to him and his likes, especially in his attack against the predecessors of this nation and the great leading scholars...
      It's necessary for every leading scholar and jurist to drive away from the like of this foolish misguided misguider!

      - end of quote -

      Some "Salafis" argue here that "he got wrong informations about the Shaykh, that's why he said the above...", but this is not correct!
      Because their MIAW was making Takfir on issues explicitly allowed in ALL 4 schools - and on issues which the 4 schools regarded as disliked or forbidden only - and was therefore disallowing to follow the books of Fiqh in these issues! That's why he in his vain claimed that most of al-Iqna' and al-Muntaha - two of the most reliable Hanbali Fiqh books! - opposed the explicit statements of Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH)!
      His new positions on issues clearly entail claiming Ijtihad! That's why you'll see that many scholars in Najd and the surrounding areas specifically wrote against MIAW on the issue of Ijtihad!


      And since we've mentioned "Salafis" - who claim that Taqlid of the 4 Madhahib should not be done or that "only in the beginning when one starts learning..." -, then the 'Allama al-Saffarini also said in al-Awjiba al-Najdiyya (p.19) the following:

      بل الآن يجب تقليد أحد أئمة الإسلام الأربع في هذه الأزمنة والصقوع، ومن نهى عن ذلك فمبتدع، بل متزندق

      Rather what is necessary now is to make Taqlid of one of the four leading scholars of Islam [especially] in these times and lands. Whosoever forbids doing so, then [he is] an innovator, no a heretic!
      - end of quote -

      So this is what you "Salafis" were and are in the eyes of the leading Hanbali scholars and authorities!
      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 14-07-20, 10:59 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

        The Najdis cannot argue that this is a new innovation because the practice existed before Ibn Taymiyyah was born. So where were the scholars in between Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab who properly understood Tawhid?
        Not just that period, but also before IT. The 4th, 5th, 6th and most of the 7th centuries after hijra, were not upon the madhab of the sunnah except a hiding few. This is according to Ibn jibrin:

        "ولا شك أن هذا دليل على غربة السنة في تلك القرون؛ القرن الرابع والقرن الخامس وما بعدهما, وبالتتبع لهذه القرون: الرابع والخامس والسادس وأغلب السابع لا تجد فيها من هو على مذهب السنة إلا من هو مستخفٍ، ولو كان حنبليًّا"

        https://www.ibn-jebreen.com/books/6-57--2961-.html

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by AlMaghribi7 View Post

          Not just that period, but also before IT. The 4th, 5th, 6th and most of the 7th centuries after hijra, were not upon the madhab of the sunnah except a hiding few. This is according to Ibn jibrin:

          "ولا شك أن هذا دليل على غربة السنة في تلك القرون؛ القرن الرابع والقرن الخامس وما بعدهما, وبالتتبع لهذه القرون: الرابع والخامس والسادس وأغلب السابع لا تجد فيها من هو على مذهب السنة إلا من هو مستخفٍ، ولو كان حنبليًّا"

          https://www.ibn-jebreen.com/books/6-57--2961-.html
          To make it short: They ("Salafis") are a cultist group, otherwise they would not make such claims!


          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
          In fact MIAW had no real respect for the Prophets of Allah - peace be upon them - in general (!) and even accused the father of all mankind - peace be upon him - without any shame of Shirk (!) in his so called Kitab al-Tawhid!
          MIAW usage of fabricated narrations in his so called Kitab al-Tawhid

          I would to like to correct my above statement, even if Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) had no real respect for the Prophets of Allah - peace be upon them all - anyways as is established from what so many scholars of his time reported from him his ugly statements.
          But unlike "Salafis" the truth is dearer to us than anything else and we don't want to state any wrong information knowingly even if it's against a Dajjal like MIAW!

          I made the above statement - i.e. that MIAW accuses Adam (peace be upon him) of Shirk - based upon a "Salafi" translation of his Kitab al-Tawhid, where the following is stated:

          Allah , says:

          " It is He Who created you from a single being and made from it its mate, in order that he might dwell with her. When he united with her [in intercourse], she bore [i.e. becomes pregnant with] a light burden and she continued to carry it. When she grew heavy, they both prayed to Allah, their Lord: "If You give us a righteous child, good in every respect, we vow we shall be of the grateful ones." But when He gave them a righteous child, they ascribed to others a share in that which He had given them: But Allah is Exalted High above the partners they ascribe to Him" (Qur'an 7:189-190 )

          Allah , Most Glorified, Most High, informs us in these verses that He created mankind from a single human being, Adam (as ) and that He created from him a wife, Hawwa`,1 in order that they might live together in peace and harmony and that He created in them the desire for sexual intercourse and made it permissible to them, in order that they might enjoy complete stability and repose and that their progeny might continue to multiply. And when she became pregnant, they both called upon Allah , asking Him to give them a healthy, strong, righteous child and swearing that if He did so, they would be eternally be grateful to Him. But when Allah answered their supplications and gave them that which they had requested, they named him `Abdul Harith,2 thus ascribing others as partners with Allah ; and Allah is far above that which they attributed to Him.
          When I rechecked the original Arabic statement in Kitab al-Tawhid, I saw that the above ugly explanation - where a Prophet of Allah ta'ala is openly accused of polytheism - is from one of the explantions upon Kitab al-Tawhid.
          It's found in al-Jadid fi Sharh Kitab al-Tawhid (see p. 400) by the "Salafi" Muhammad al-Qar'awi ("فلما استجاب الله دعوتهما وأعطاهما ما سألا سمياه عبد الحارث، فأشركوا مع الله غيره فتعالى الله عما يشركون"). IAW can be indeed proud of himself to have produced such disrespectful followers!

          As for MIAW's own statement: He mentions a weak or fabricated narration (inside a creedal book!!!), where it's said that Adam and Hawwa` - peace be upon them - named their child as 'Abd al-Harith after Hawwa` had several miscarriages and the accursed Iblis told them to name their child as 'Abd al-Harith (Harith is the original name of Iblis!) otherwise their child would be deformed or die again or the like.
          To be fair: MIAW does state that the Shirk here is not intended in reality and is only one in naming - which some of the scholars of Tafsir have mentioned in the context of this story, but they also said that the last part of the Aya (i.e. Allah being exalted above what they ascribe to Him) refers to the polytheists! -, but the problem here is:

          WHY does MIAW use a FABRICATED or WEAK narration in his CREEDAL book?!

          - Note that Imam Ibn Hazm (d. 456 AH) has stated in his al-Fisal that this narration that Adam - peace be upon him - has named his child as 'Abd al-Harith is a superstition and an outright lie and its chain is in no way correct and that those who made it up where shameless and without religion and that the Aya is regarding the polytheists ("وَهَذَا الَّذِي نسبوه إِلَى آدم عَلَيْهِ السَّلَام من أَنه سمى ابْنه عبد الْحَارِث خرافة مَوْضُوعَة مكذوبة من تأليف من لَا دين لَهُ وَلَا حَيَاء لم يَصح سندها قطّ وَإِنَّمَا نزلت فِي الْمُشْركين على ظَاهرهَا")!
          MIAW was able to quote Ibn Hazm in the beginning of the chapter, when he said that one should not name ones child with "servant of the creation so and so" with the exception of 'Abd al-Muttalib, but he was not able to see what Ibn Hazm stated regarding this narration!
          - Imam al-Qurtubi (d. 671 AH) mentions in his Tafsir of the Aya 7:190 that this is from the weak narrations and from the Isra`iliyyat and that the one with a heart will not rely upon such narrations ("ونحو هذا مذكور من ضعيف الحديث، في الترمذِيّ وغيره. وفي الإسرائيليات كثير ليس لها ثبات فلا يعوِّل عليها من له قَلْبٌ").
          But MIAW RELIES upon it IN HIS CREED!
          - Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH) mentions in his Tafsir of the Aya 7:190 that the foundation for this narration seems to be taken from the people of the book (and there are clearly indications that this is the case!) and he mentions that he himself is on the way of Imam Hasan al-Basri (d. 110 AH) in this and that is that this Aya doesn't refer to Adam and Hawwa` - peace be upon them - but rather to the polytheists from among their progeny ("وكأنه - والله أعلم - أصله مأخوذ من أهل الكتاب... وهذه الآثار يظهر عليها - والله أعلم - أنها من آثار أهل الكتاب...وأما نحن، فعلى مذهب الحسن البصري رحمه الله في هذا، وأنه ليس المراد من هذا السياق آدم وحواء، وإنما المراد من ذلك المشركون من ذريته")

          Did the progeny of IAW now admit that this narration is at least subject to discussion such that it should not be included in a creedal book? No, of course not! How dare we even think about this! MIAW is always right!:

          - Sulayman bin 'Abdillah Al al-Shaykh (d. 1233 AH) - a grandson of MIAW! - CRITICIZES in his explanation Taysir al-'Aziz al-Hamid fi Sharh Kitab al-Tawhid (p. 546) those who rejected this story and regards it among "the explanations of the innovators" to say that this portion of the Aya doesn't refer to Adam and Hawwa`, peace be upon them ("والعجب ممن يكذب بهذه القصة، وينسى ما جرى أول مرة ويكابر بالتفاسير المبتدعة")!
          He regarded it more befitting to attribute a mistake to Adam - peace be upon him - than to his evil grandfather MIAW and even attacks anyone saying otherwise!

          - 'Abd al-Rahman bin Hasan Al al-Shaykh (d. 1285 AH) - another grandson of MIAW! - mentioned in his explanation Fath al-Majid Sharh Kitab al-Tawhid (p. 443) the statement of Imam Ibn Kathir that this narration is taken from the Ahl al-Kitab and simply responded by saying "I say: This is very farfetched!" ("قلت: وهذا بعيد جدا") and that's it! He did not bring a single proof!
          He regarded it also more befitting to attribute a mistake to Adam - peace be upon him - than to his evil grandfather MIAW, who includes such a narration in his creedal work!


          Do you note something here: MIAW - who was rejected by ALL of the scholars of his region! - writes a worthless creedal work. His grandchildren explain this creed (it's family business!). The "Salafis" come up and then claim "this is what the Salaf" believed while ignoring whatever was before them.
          Then they don't want to be regarded as the cultists they are!

          One last point: The "Salafis" are known for adding and taking away things when they print books (which is betrayal!). At the same time a lot of IAW's works are not printed. So you can imagine how many Kufriyyat of IAW they are hiding from the public, so that their false prophet IAW is not exposed!

          Comment


          • #65
            Abu Sulayman

            What is Muhammad Abdul Wahhid al-Hanbali's position on Istighatha and seeking intercession at the grave of the Prophet(saws)? Do all of the Hanabila outside of the Najd movement see eye-to-eye on these issues? I'm curious to know if they consider it Shirk, Kufr, Bid'ah/Haram, Mubah or Mustahab.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
              Abu Sulayman

              What is Muhammad Abdul Wahhid al-Hanbali's position on Istighatha and seeking intercession at the grave of the Prophet(saws)? Do all of the Hanabila outside of the Najd movement see eye-to-eye on these issues? I'm curious to know if they consider it Shirk, Kufr, Bid'ah/Haram, Mubah or Mustahab.
              Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali regards asking Allah ta'ala by his Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - as allowed and this is the position of Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) himself and established from him without any doubt and reported from him by his direct student (Imam Abu Bakr al-Marrudhi (d. 275 AH)).

              As for asking for supplication / intercession at the grave of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, then as far as I know he does not see any problem in this. This has been specifically recommended for one to do in the Hanbali Fiqh books (al-Mughni, al-Insaf, etc.) during the visitation of the Prophetic grave.

              As for using the wording of seeking aid (Istighatha), then he disallows this to the laymen, because of the fear of the misunderstandings and excesses (that undeniably do happen!) and I remember that he has even quoted some later Hanbali scholars in support of this position. But he does not criticize the scholars - like for example the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) in his Ghidha` al-Albab -, if Istighatha is found in their words.
              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 15-07-20, 09:18 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                As for using the wording of seeking aid (Istighatha), then he disallows this to the laymen, because of the fear of the misunderstandings and excesses (that undeniably do happen!) and I remember that he has even quoted some later Hanbali scholars in support of this position. But he does not criticize the scholars - like for example the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) in his Ghidha` al-Albab -, if Istighatha is found in their words.
                What exactly are the misunderstandings and excesses according to the Hanabila?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                  What exactly are the misunderstandings and excesses according to the Hanabila?
                  The issue of misunderstandings and excesses are not bound to a specific Madhhab:

                  - From the beliefs point of view: Starting to believe that anyone from among the creation has real influence on the creation alongside or instead of Allah ta'ala. This is disbelief.
                  - From the actions point of view: Starting to call the creation in the manner one calls Allah ta'ala (i.e. as if one is literally supplicating to ones Lord). If it's done with the above belief, then it's disbelief. If the intention is Tawassul, it's abominable and forbidden because the wording used implies disbelief.
                  Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 15-07-20, 10:25 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                    The issue of misunderstandings and excesses are not bound to a specific Madhhab:

                    - From the beliefs point of view: Starting to believe that anyone from among the creation has real influence on the creation alongside or instead of Allah ta'ala. This is disbelief.
                    - From the actions point of view: Starting to call the creation in the manner one calls Allah ta'ala (i.e. as if one is literally supplicating to ones Lord). If it's done with the above belief, then it's disbelief. If the intention is Tawassul, it's abominable and forbidden because the wording used implies disbelief.
                    By "disbelief" do you mean Kufr, Shirk or both?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                      By "disbelief" do you mean Kufr, Shirk or both?
                      Both, because Kufr (disbelief) is more general than Shirk (polytheism).
                      It's polytheism to believe anything can benefit or harm one independently from Allah ta'ala.


                      On a different note:
                      I'm intending to open a thread insha`Allah, where I'll post statements of the classical scholars - from all 4 schools - specifically regarding the issue of seeking intercession, because this is the main issue why Najdis would kill Muslims (as MIAW's own son stated!).

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                        Both, because Kufr (disbelief) is more general than Shirk (polytheism).
                        It's polytheism to believe anything can benefit or harm one independently from Allah ta'ala.


                        On a different note:
                        I'm intending to open a thread insha`Allah, where I'll post statements of the classical scholars - from all 4 schools - specifically regarding the issue of seeking intercession, because this is the main issue why Najdis would kill Muslims (as MIAW's own son stated!).
                        So what is the difference between your position and MIAW on Istiagtha besides Takfir? Both of you consider it Kufr and Shirk to call upon other than Allah.

                        Mind you the Salafis would agree that Istighatha in "wording" is not necessarily Shirk. For example, the Sahabi who said "Ya Muhammad" when his leg fell asleep did not fall into Shirk. It is the intention and belief which matters.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          The difference between Tawasul, Shifa'ah & Istigatha | DUS Dawah



                          "So, asking dead people for Shifa'ah; for example, going to Prophet Muhammad(saws), or Abu Bakr as-Siddique's(ra) grave, or Umar Ibn al-Khattab(ra), or Abdul Qadr al-Jilani(ra), and say "O' so and so, ask Allah on my behalf to do this for me" -- that is Shirk" [2:35]

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                            So what is the difference between your position and MIAW on Istiagtha besides Takfir? Both of you consider it Kufr and Shirk to call upon other than Allah.

                            Mind you the Salafis would agree that Istighatha in "wording" is not necessarily Shirk. For example, the Sahabi who said "Ya Muhammad" when his leg fell asleep did not fall into Shirk. It is the intention and belief which matters.
                            Come on brother, is this all what you understood from me?

                            MIAW (d. 1206 AH) regards the asking for supplication or intercession from our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - as "polytheism that throws one out of the religion" and this while there are Shar'i proofs for doing so and the classical scholars of the 4 Madhahib in general allowed it.
                            To call this as Shirk is like attacking the divine law!
                            MIAW even went as far as to claim that the one not making Takfir upon the one performing this, is also a "disbeliever"!
                            And this is crazy considering the fact that there is not a single logical reason to regard this as polytheism and that it’s even supported by the Shar'!

                            As for the seeking of aid with the deceased: Then this is allowed according to our Shafi'i scholars in general, but you asked me regarding the position of the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali, who diasallows this for the laymen in accordance to the Fatwa of some of the Hanabila.

                            Saying "O Messenger of Allah, [help]!" is not Shirk, nor disallowed, but those who disallowed it did so out of fear of it leading to misunderstandings and excesses.
                            What it means is "O Messenger of Allah, be a mean in the fulfillment of my need by your supplication and intercession".

                            That which is disallowed and implies disbelief is to call a creation in the issues as if one is calling one's Lord, like for example saying "O my Master! O 'Abd al-Qadir! I'm in need of you! Protect me and my people from of every harm and let us be victorious against our enemies!".
                            But even in this case Takfir is not done straight away, because the intention and the beliefs play a role in the ruling upon such a person. One should alert such a person that his words imply disbelief and inform him that the one who harms and benefits in reality and has real influence is Allah ta’ala without any partners and that the statement that he made is not befitting of a Muslim.

                            Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                            The difference between Tawasul, Shifa'ah & Istigatha | DUS Dawah



                            "So, asking dead people for Shifa'ah; for example, going to Prophet Muhammad(saws), or Abu Bakr as-Siddique's(ra) grave, or Umar Ibn al-Khattab(ra), or Abdul Qadr al-Jilani(ra), and say "O' so and so, ask Allah on my behalf to do this for me" -- that is Shirk" [2:35]
                            This is a completely false claim! When you're asking someone to supplicate for you, then this in itself indicates that you don’t regard him to be your Lord!
                            Add to this: Doing this with the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is established in the divine law and this is what the scholars of the 4 Madhahib have explicitly supported!
                            The Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is alive in his grave and is connected to his Umma and prays for them and hears the one in front of his grave! And he - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is informed of the deeds of his followers! All of this is established and no one denies this except the atheist minded people in our time!

                            So did the above guy find out something, that the leading scholars were unaware of? He should be really ashamed of himself!
                            Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 16-07-20, 10:48 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Abu Sulayman

                              What is your position on Istighatha from far with the intention that the one being called out was granted the Qudra from Allah to hear and aid you? For example, you call upon the Messenger(saws) and say "O Prophet! My wife has reached old age. Please enable her to bare children for me".

                              The individual in this specific scenario does not believe that the Prophet(saws) will ask Allah to fulfill the task, but rather the Prophet has been granted capabilities similar to how we are capable of writing these messages without requesting from Allah the ability.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                                Abu Sulayman

                                What is your position on Istighatha from far with the intention that the one being called out was granted the Qudra from Allah to hear and aid you? For example, you call upon the Messenger(saws) and say "O Prophet! My wife has reached old age. Please enable her to bare children for me".

                                The individual in this specific scenario does not believe that the Prophet(saws) will ask Allah to fulfill the task, but rather the Prophet has been granted capabilities similar to how we are capable of writing these messages without requesting from Allah the ability.
                                - It’s from the fundamentals of our creed that no one has real influence (Ta`thir) on the creation except Allah ta’ala and that he has created us AND our actions
                                - It’s also from the established beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunna that the Mu'jizat and Karamat of the Anbiya` and Awliya` are Haqq! And they don’t stop with their death!
                                - The Mujizat and Karamat are extraordinary matters (wonders) that Allah lets happen at the hand of the Anbiya` and Awliya` and the people of Islam all understand that these wonders happen through the will and power of Allah ta'ala.

                                Based upon the above I can not imagine that there are Muslims, who believe that the wonders that happen at the hand of the Anbiya` and Awliya` are not dependent on Allah's will and power.

                                In fact Imam Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 AH) regarded the fulfillment of one's need when seeking intercession with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - or with the Awliya` of his Umma as clear proofs for the prophethood of the best of creation - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, because it’s from the Mujizat that Allah ta’ala has honored him with!
                                So for him it strengthens the Iman in Allah ta'ala and his Messenger, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.

                                This shows to you that the mindset of the Muslims of the past is very much different from many of the Muslims of today, who look at these issues from a completely different angle and assume wrong things about the Muslims before them.
                                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 16-07-20, 11:16 PM.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X