Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Seeking intercession with the Prophet (s): Its ruling according to classical scholars

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

    When you said study the books did you mean to just read them?
    Yes, AbuNajm has not even read the books. I too used to have this extremely watered down version of the Najdi dawah in my head based on what modern salafis were preaching....until I actually read a few books beyond what is normally taught

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

      Yes, AbuNajm has not even read the books. I too used to have this extremely watered down version of the Najdi dawah in my head based on what modern salafis were preaching....until I actually read a few books beyond what is normally taught
      He has read them, he said so himself.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

        Yea but bro even if you disagree with someone providing facts you shouldn't name call them regardless because they're time has gone they're passed away, what are you going to gain by name calling like dajjal etc?

        I have been guilty of this myself but I've come to the point of what's the real benefit, state the facts and leave the rest to Allah swt, may Allah forgive me and all of us guilty of this Ameen

        Like I said bro every sect sees an individual as a saint or a sinner tbh
        Barakallahu fik for your advice, dear brother.

        There is just one problem here: I have not insulted anyone here personally, rather it was AbuNajm who insulted me.

        As for the "Dajjal and satanic"-issue:
        Not all mistakes are alike and not everything needs to be tolerated or respected.
        Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) was only a superficial student of knowledge, who lacked insight and he had not even mastered some of the basic Islamic sciences like 'Ilm al-Balagha. This man for some reason thought really high of himself and disassociated himself from all of his teachers and when his teachers saw how this man had lost all sense they also disassociated themselves from him. So this man was literally without teachers and literally lacked knowledge in basic sciences.
        He started making up new foundations (as if he's trying to implement a new religion!) and based upon them he declared that the Muslims and their scholars have not understood the religion! He called the people to his new ideas and made Takfir upon anyone not accepting his teachings and did not even shy away from Takfir upon major scholars.
        Since he had allied himself with the power-hungry Ibn Sa'ud (d. 1179 AH), they started to act upon his Takfir in reality and slaughtered those of the people of Najd, who did not accept his new ideas or did not accept Ibn Sa'ud's rule over them. Thereafter they attacked al-Ahsa`, 'Iraq, Hijaz (including the Haramayn al-sharifayn), Yemen, Sham and 'Oman. They mass-killed Muslims, took from their wealth and destroyed their property and land. They even stopped the Hajj!

        The scholars spoke out against this in great numbers and clarified that this man was ignorant and had left the way of the Jama'a and had become a supporter of the accursed satan. Some scholars even explicitly declared him a false prophet, when they saw that there are clear indications that this man is literally trying to set up a new religion and acting as some sort of modern Musaylima!
        โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹
        Note that major scholars had warned him and clarified to him that his accusations against this Umma were wrong and established the prood upon him (remember that our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - had sworn by Allah ta'ala that he did not fear for his Umma to return to Shirk and had even stated that satan had given up hopes to be worshiped again in the land of the Arabs), but he did not stop. He rather accused anyone criticising him of "cursing the religion" and allowed their blood based upon this.

        If you look at the life of this man and what he did and how he set up a group that killed and robbed Muslims nonstop and regarded this as a great act of worship, then the only conclusion you can get to is that he was a satanic and dajjalic person.

        โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹Saying this is a description of the reality of this man and not name calling.

        As Muslims we don't respect such people, nor do we call such people as "scholars of Islam"!

        Note that the evil of this man keeps on through his modern followers, even if they have only a watered-down version of the original satanic call (which was even more evil). In my country even Masajid where blown up and they used the teachings of IAW as a justification. One of the famous incidents was in 2014 where they blew up the Jami' Nabi Younus in Mosul!

        These type of actions are clearly dajjalic and satanic.
        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 27-02-21, 04:29 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

          So you have not read his works, that's the problem ...
          No, the problem is that when Abu Sulayman says something, you take it as "TheHaqq", instead of reading for yourself.

          I have read his texts and the texts of his critics. The way it works for IAW is the same for most scholars targeted by Sufis/Ash'aris- everything is about how the words are understood and interpreted. I've reached my own conclusions and corroborated those conclusions with scholars who have thoroughly studied the history and works of IAW without bias and prejudice.

          "Chain takfeer" is not endemic to IAW or those who follow his methodology nor is "bloodshed against Muslims".

          Also, there is A LOT of bias historically against IAW due to the Ottoman/Arab divide over rulership in al-Hijaz. Anyone who does not factor that into the opinions of scholars who sided with the Ottomans contemporary to IAW, is being dishonest or demonstrating their ignorance.

          Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post
          you will have no trouble in recognising him as an extreme takfeeri
          The only one who has declared anyone to be a Kaafir in all these threads and discussions about Aqidah and Manhaj are the Ash'ari/Sufis here.

          For the Ash'aris and Sufis, to call someone a "Mujassimah" or "Mushaabihah" is akin to making Takfeer- they know it and so should you. On the contrary, Ahl as-Sunnah do not imply Takfeer by referring to someone as an "Ash'ari" or "extremist Sufi". So, who's more worthy of being an "extreme takfeeri"?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post


            The only one who has declared anyone to be a Kaafir in all these threads and discussions about Aqidah and Manhaj are the Ash'ari/Sufis here.

            For the Ash'aris and Sufis, to call someone a "Mujassimah" or "Mushaabihah" is akin to making Takfeer- they know it and so should you. On the contrary, Ahl as-Sunnah do not imply Takfeer by referring to someone as an "Ash'ari" or "extremist Sufi". So, who's more worthy of being an "extreme takfeeri"?
            Right and the one who calls the Ash'ari as Jahmiyyah has not made takfir? So not only are you a Takfeeri, you also either a liar or you have poor memory.


            Speaking of poor memory, you'll have to excuse mine - did you ever answer my question on what your views on ISIS (aka Daesh/ISIL etc.) is?

            I am still waiting.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
              ...Also, there is A LOT of bias historically against IAW due to the Ottoman/Arab divide over rulership in al-Hijaz. Anyone who does not factor that into the opinions of scholars who sided with the Ottomans contemporary to IAW, is being dishonest or demonstrating their ignorance...
              Not many are willing to admit this history is tainted with politics.

              ...For the Ash'aris and Sufis, to call someone a "Mujassimah" or "Mushaabihah" is akin to making Takfeer- they know it and so should you. On the contrary, Ahl as-Sunnah do not imply Takfeer by referring to someone as an "Ash'ari" or "extremist Sufi". So, who's more worthy of being an "extreme takfeeri"?
              That's another thing. They say you can be an anthropomorphist and still be a Muslim - though some do make takfeer openly. The guys here don't make takfeer because I've asked - they still regard someone who they believe likens Allah to creation to be a Muslim! Even more reason to believe these opinions are politically motivated rather than based on text.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                Right and the one who calls the Ash'ari as Jahmiyyah has not made takfir? So not only are you a Takfeeri, you also either a liar or you have poor memory.


                Speaking of poor memory, you'll have to excuse mine - did you ever answer my question on what your views on ISIS (aka Daesh/ISIL etc.) is?

                I am still waiting.
                You still waiting on getting paid that CVE money?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                  He has read them, he said so himself.
                  Yes, I have. That was the first thing I said. But "TheHaqq" apparently only carefully reads what Abu Sulayman writes.

                  This is why I don't bother debating Abu Sulayman:

                  Originally posted by Abu Sulayman

                  1 - Great-grandson of IAW / Dhul Khuwaysira: Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his supporters subdued the majority of the Arabs (whom he regards as "polytheists") from the Levant (Sham) to Oman and from al-Hira (in Iraq) to Yemen!!!
                  (He says this proudly while completely ignoring the fact that this was in the very same time where the Europeans were trying to invade Muslim lands ("lands of polytheism" according to him anyways!). IAW's satanic group did not have a single fight against these Europeans and EXCLUSIVELY faught Muslims!)

                  ูˆู„ุฐู„ูƒ ุตุงุฑ ู„ุดูŠุฎู†ุง ุŒ ุดูŠุฎ ุงู„ุฅุณู„ุงู… ู…ุญู…ุฏ ุจู† ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ูˆู‡ุงุจุŒ ุฑุญู…ู‡ ุงู„ู„ู‡ุŒ ูˆู„ุทุงุฆูุฉ ู…ู† ุฃู†ุตุงุฑู‡ุŒ ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ูู„ูƒ ูˆุงู„ุธู‡ูˆุฑุŒ ูˆุงู„ู†ุตุฑุŒ ุจุญุณุจ ู†ุตูŠุจู‡ู…ุŒ ูˆุญุธู‡ู… ู…ู† ู…ุชุงุจุนุฉ ู†ุจูŠู‡ู… ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… ูˆุงู„ุชู…ุณูƒ ุจุฏูŠู†ู‡ุŒ ูู‚ู‡ุฑูˆุง ุฌู…ู‡ูˆุฑ ุงู„ุนุฑุจุŒ ู…ู† ุงู„ุดุงู… ุฅู„ู‰ ุนู…ุงู†ุŒ ูˆู…ู† ุงู„ุญูŠุฑุฉ ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ูŠู…ู†
                  - end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/465) -
                  First of all, Abu Sulayman loves to conflate historical information with actual facts and rulings in Islam- this is because historical reports will often contain characterizations not supported by fact and instead play upon the sentiments of the average, ignorant reader.

                  In the above quote, the very first in his tirade against IAW, Abu Sulayman allows the parentheses to completely distort the interpretation of the original Arabic text.

                  Where the Arabic says: ูู‚ู‡ุฑูˆุง ุฌู…ู‡ูˆุฑ ุงู„ุนุฑุจ which means: "they subdued the majority of Arabs", Abu Sulayman adds in the parenthesis: "(whom he regards as "polytheists")".

                  The part in parenthesis is not in the Arabic AT ALL.

                  You can't have it both ways Abu Sulayman- you blame IAW for not attacking Europe, but at the same time say nothing of the Ottomans allying with the French. Or are you not aware of the obligation to fight closer enemies before farther ones? Fighting Ottoman Turks is fighting "Europeans", at least according to their own rulers' claims of Byzantine heritage.

                  Don't embellish quotes- it's one thing to make a mistake and admit it; it's another thing to routinely distort or pass along distorted quotes to support an argument.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                    I have read his texts and the texts of his critics. The way it works for IAW is the same for most scholars targeted by Sufis/Ash'aris- everything is about how the words are understood and interpreted. I've reached my own conclusions and corroborated those conclusions with scholars who have thoroughly studied the history and works of IAW without bias and prejudice.

                    "Chain takfeer" is not endemic to IAW or those who follow his methodology nor is "bloodshed against Muslims".
                    If you have read works like al-Durar al-Saniyya, 'Unwan al-Majd (see also the 2nd volume) and you claim the above, then this means that you're openly lying and trying to deceive Muslims.
                    โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹May Allah takes ta'ala protect us from your likes!


                    PS: Be sure that the above person will run away as usual, if one were to confront him with some quotes from the above works! Guess killing a Muslim on a Friday inside a Masjid right after he has completed his prayers (something that happened on the very command of IAW himself, so imagine!) and similar satanic actions "need to be interpreted correctly"!?!

                    โ€‹

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                      ...You can't have it both ways Abu Sulayman- you blame IAW for not attacking Europe, but at the same time say nothing of the Ottomans allying with the French. Or are you not aware of the obligation to fight closer enemies before farther ones? Fighting Ottoman Turks is fighting "Europeans", at least according to their own rulers' claims of Byzantine heritage....
                      Abu Sulayman believes the biggest threat to Muslims in Iraq isn't the US/Coalition or the Shia or secularism etc... he believes it's Wahhabis! He only became concerned about bloodshed in that region when IS became a thing... not a peep before that.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                        Right and the one who calls the Ash'ari as Jahmiyyah has not made takfir? So not only are you a Takfeeri, you also either a liar or you have poor memory.

                        Speaking of poor memory, you'll have to excuse mine - did you ever answer my question on what your views on ISIS (aka Daesh/ISIL etc.) is?

                        I am still waiting.
                        Some Ash'aris are Jahmis. But I've never said all Ash'aris are Jahmis nor have I ever implied it. So, no, I'm not a "Takfeeri", nor have I lied.

                        Your insistence on asking a member's views about ISIS in threads entirely unrelated to that subject are indicative of the double standards on this forum regarding harassment. It is also indicative of just how much of a piece of trash you are.

                        I really hope readers on this forum can see that...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                          You still waiting on getting paid that CVE money?
                          Nah, Shaykh. These chumps do it for free or maybe the pat on the head.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                            If you have read works like al-Durar al-Saniyya, 'Unwan al-Majd (see also the 2nd volume) and you claim the above, then this means that you're openly lying and trying to deceive Muslims.
                            There you go- riling up the base. You're like the Iraqi Donald J. Trump of this forum. Just keep repeating a lie until all the gullible believe it.

                            Why don't you respond to my comments about your addition to the quote about IAW?

                            You've made tens, if not hundreds of distortions like that throughout your threads on these subjects- no one has called you to task for it.

                            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                            PS: Be sure that the above person will run away as usual, if one were to confront him with some quotes from the above works! Guess killing a Muslim on a Friday inside a Masjid right after he has completed his prayers (something that happened on the very command of IAW himself, so imagine!) and similar satanic actions "need to be interpreted correctly"!?!

                            โ€‹
                            I confronted you about your distortion to the quote about IAW and you haven't addressed it yet. Who's running away?

                            Today, Muslims are being killed almost every day inside a Masjid on Friday by Disbelievers- yet you're still going on about what allegedly happened over 200 years ago between Muslims? Are you sure you're not Shi'ah?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                              Barakallahu fik for your advice, dear brother.

                              There is just one problem here: I have not insulted anyone here personally, rather it was AbuNajm who insulted me.

                              As for the "Dajjal and satanic"-issue:
                              Not all mistakes are alike and not everything needs to be tolerated or respected.
                              Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) was only a superficial student of knowledge, who lacked insight and he had not even mastered some of the basic Islamic sciences like 'Ilm al-Balagha. This man for some reason thought really high of himself and disassociated himself from all of his teachers and when his teachers saw how this man had lost all sense they also disassociated themselves from him. So this man was literally without teachers and literally lacked knowledge in basic sciences.
                              He started making up new foundations (as if he's trying to implement a new religion!) and based upon them he declared that the Muslims and their scholars have not understood the religion! He called the people to his new ideas and made Takfir upon anyone not accepting his teachings and did not even shy away from Takfir upon major scholars.
                              Since he had allied himself with the power-hungry Ibn Sa'ud (d. 1179 AH), they started to act upon his Takfir in reality and slaughtered those of the people of Najd, who did not accept his new ideas or did not accept Ibn Sa'ud's rule over them. Thereafter they attacked al-Ahsa`, 'Iraq, Hijaz (including the Haramayn al-sharifayn), Yemen, Sham and 'Oman. They mass-killed Muslims, took from their wealth and destroyed their property and land. They even stopped the Hajj!

                              The scholars spoke out against this in great numbers and clarified that this man was ignorant and had left the way of the Jama'a and had become a supporter of the accursed satan. Some scholars even explicitly declared him a false prophet, when they saw that there are clear indications that this man is literally trying to set up a new religion and acting as some sort of modern Musaylima!
                              โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹
                              Note that major scholars had warned him and clarified to him that his accusations against this Umma were wrong and established the prood upon him (remember that our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - had sworn by Allah ta'ala that he did not fear for his Umma to return to Shirk and had even stated that satan had given up hopes to be worshiped again in the land of the Arabs), but he did not stop. He rather accused anyone criticising him of "cursing the religion" and allowed their blood based upon this.

                              If you look at the life of this man and what he did and how he set up a group that killed and robbed Muslims nonstop and regarded this as a great act of worship, then the only conclusion you can get to is that he was a satanic and dajjalic person.

                              โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹Saying this is a description of the reality of this man and not name calling.

                              As Muslims we don't respect such people, nor do we call such people as "scholars of Islam"!

                              Note that the evil of this man keeps on through his modern followers, even if they have only a watered-down version of the original satanic call (which was even more evil). In my country even Masajid where blown up and they used the teachings of IAW as a justification. One of the famous incidents was in 2014 where they blew up the Jami' Nabi Younus in Mosul!

                              These type of actions are clearly dajjalic and satanic.
                              yea but one thing i wonder about these two individuals imam abdul wahhab and imam ahmad raza khan in particular,
                              is that how much good deeds do you think theyll be getting just by the amount of insults that gets thrown at them?

                              im not on about one group/sect in particular theyre all as bad as each other imo

                              however my point is that when it comes to these too individuals there mostly seems like a love and hate relationship,
                              its like there doesnt seem to be a middle path, like speak to some sufis they bad mouth imam abdul wahhab and speak to some salafis they bad mouth imama ahmad raza khan

                              may Allah swt have mercy on both of them and all those that have passed away

                              p.s dont forget the deobandis, imam ashraf al thanwi also gets spoken badly about from other groups too, just thought i'd mention that too

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

                                Yes, I have. That was the first thing I said. But "TheHaqq" apparently only carefully reads what Abu Sulayman writes.

                                This is why I don't bother debating Abu Sulayman:



                                First of all, Abu Sulayman loves to conflate historical information with actual facts and rulings in Islam- this is because historical reports will often contain characterizations not supported by fact and instead play upon the sentiments of the average, ignorant reader.

                                In the above quote, the very first in his tirade against IAW, Abu Sulayman allows the parentheses to completely distort the interpretation of the original Arabic text.

                                Where the Arabic says: ูู‚ู‡ุฑูˆุง ุฌู…ู‡ูˆุฑ ุงู„ุนุฑุจ which means: "they subdued the majority of Arabs", Abu Sulayman adds in the parenthesis: "(whom he regards as "polytheists")".

                                The part in parenthesis is not in the Arabic AT ALL.

                                You can't have it both ways Abu Sulayman- you blame IAW for not attacking Europe, but at the same time say nothing of the Ottomans allying with the French. Or are you not aware of the obligation to fight closer enemies before farther ones? Fighting Ottoman Turks is fighting "Europeans", at least according to their own rulers' claims of Byzantine heritage.

                                Don't embellish quotes- it's one thing to make a mistake and admit it; it's another thing to routinely distort or pass along distorted quotes to support an argument.

                                AbuNajm, every single time you try to deceive people you end up embarrassing yourself further and further. Wasn't the last embarrassment HERE (where you proved that you've not mastered Hanbali Fiqh quite unlike what you previously claimed!) enough for you?
                                Add to all of this: Why all this dishonesty? What religion are you upon? I mean seriously?! A Muslim does not lie!

                                Let's add another embarrassment to your list:

                                This is what you quoted from me:

                                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                                1 - Great-grandson of IAW / Dhul Khuwaysira: Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his supporters subdued the majority of the Arabs (whom he regards as "polytheists") from the Levant (Sham) to Oman and from al-Hira (in Iraq) to Yemen!!!
                                (He says this proudly while completely ignoring the fact that this was in the very same time where the Europeans were trying to invade Muslim lands ("lands of polyhtheism" according to him anyways!). IAW's satanic group did not have a single fight against these Europeans and EXCLUSIVELY faught Muslims!)


                                ูˆู„ุฐู„ูƒ ุตุงุฑ ู„ุดูŠุฎู†ุง ุŒ ุดูŠุฎ ุงู„ุฅุณู„ุงู… ู…ุญู…ุฏ ุจู† ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ูˆู‡ุงุจุŒ ุฑุญู…ู‡ ุงู„ู„ู‡ุŒ ูˆู„ุทุงุฆูุฉ ู…ู† ุฃู†ุตุงุฑู‡ุŒ ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ูู„ูƒ ูˆุงู„ุธู‡ูˆุฑุŒ ูˆุงู„ู†ุตุฑุŒ ุจุญุณุจ ู†ุตูŠุจู‡ู…ุŒ ูˆุญุธู‡ู… ู…ู† ู…ุชุงุจุนุฉ ู†ุจูŠู‡ู… ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… ูˆุงู„ุชู…ุณูƒ ุจุฏูŠู†ู‡ุŒ ูู‚ู‡ุฑูˆุง ุฌู…ู‡ูˆุฑ ุงู„ุนุฑุจุŒ ู…ู† ุงู„ุดุงู… ุฅู„ู‰ ุนู…ุงู†ุŒ ูˆู…ู† ุงู„ุญูŠุฑุฉ ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ูŠู…ู†
                                - end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/465) -
                                Note how you yourself stated that I put the statement "whom he regards as "polytheists"" into parenthesis! What does that mean? It's my own comment on that which he states! Is this so difficult to understand?
                                Is this comment of mine taken out of nowhere? NO! Because if you wouldn't be blind and wouldn't be dishonest, you would also see that I quoted the very same person above also making these statements:


                                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                                36 - 'Abd al-Latif bin 'Abd al-Rahman (from the progeny of IAW / Dhul Khuwaysira): Majority of the people (Muslims!) have left the greatest foundation of Islam (i.e. Tawhid!)

                                ู…ุน ุฃู†ู‡ ู‚ุฏ ุงุทุฑุฏ ุงู„ู‚ูŠุงุณ ุจูุณุงุฏ ุฃูƒุซุฑ ุงู„ู†ุงุณุŒ ูˆุชุฑูƒู‡ู… ู…ู† ุงู„ุฅุณู„ุงู… ุฃุตู„ู‡ ุงู„ุฃุนุธู… ูˆุงู„ุฃุณุงุณุŒ ูˆูƒุซุฑ ุงู„ุงุดุชุจุงู‡ ููŠ ุฃุจูˆุงุจ ุงู„ุฏูŠู† ูˆุงู„ุงู„ุชุจุงุณุ› ูˆุฌู…ู‡ูˆุฑู‡ู… ุนูƒุณ ุงู„ู‚ุถูŠุฉุŒ ููŠ ู…ุณู…ู‰ ุงู„ู…ู„ุฉ ุงู„ุฅุณู„ุงู…ูŠุฉุŒ ูˆู„ู… ูŠู…ูŠุฒูˆุง ุจูŠู†ู‡ุง ูˆุจูŠู† ุงู„ู…ู„ุฉ ุงู„ู‚ุฑุดูŠุฉุŒ ูˆุงู„ุณู†ุฉ ุงู„ุฌุงู‡ู„ูŠุฉุŒ ูู‡ู… ูƒู…ุง ูˆุตูู‡ู… ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ุŒ ุจู‚ูˆู„ู‡:: {ุฃูŽู…ู’ ุชูŽุญู’ุณูŽุจู ุฃูŽู†ูŽู‘ ุฃูŽูƒู’ุซูŽุฑูŽู‡ูู…ู’ ูŠูŽุณู’ู…ูŽุนููˆู†ูŽ ุฃูŽูˆู’ ูŠูŽุนู’ู‚ูู„ููˆู†ูŽ ุฅูู†ู’ ู‡ูู…ู’ ุฅูู„ุงู‘ ูƒูŽุงู„ุฃูŽู†ู’ุนูŽุงู…ู ุจูŽู„ู’ ู‡ูู…ู’ ุฃูŽุถูŽู„ูู‘ ุณูŽุจููŠู„ุงู‹} [ุณูˆุฑุฉ ุงู„ูุฑู‚ุงู† ุขูŠุฉ: 44]
                                - end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 14/189) -


                                37 - The same Khariji as above: Takfir against Burayda (in al-Qassim), the people of the deserts and the bedouins

                                ูˆุงุนู„ู… ุฃู† ุงู„ุฅู…ุงู… ุณุนูˆุฏุŒ ู‚ุฏ ุนุฒู… ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุบุฒูˆ ูˆุงู„ุฌู‡ุงุฏุŒ ูˆูƒุชุจุช ู„ูƒ ุฎุทุงู‹ุŒ ููŠู‡ ุงู„ุฅู„ุฒุงู… ุจูˆุตูˆู„ ุงู„ูˆุงุฏูŠุŒ ูˆุญุซ ู…ู† ููŠู‡ ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ุณู„ู…ูŠู† ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุฌู‡ุงุฏ ููŠ ุณุจูŠู„ ุงู„ู„ู‡ุŒ ูˆุงุณุชู†ู‚ุงุฐ ุจู„ุงุฏ ุงู„ู…ุณู„ู…ูŠู† ู…ู† ุฃูŠุฏูŠ ุฃุนุฏุงุก ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุงู„ู…ุดุฑูƒูŠู†. ูˆู‚ุฏ ุจู„ุบูƒ ู…ุง ุตุงุฑ ู…ู† ุตุงุญุจ ุจุฑูŠุฏุฉุŒ ูˆุฎุฑูˆุฌู‡ ุนู† ุทุงุนุฉ ุงู„ู…ุณู„ู…ูŠู†ุŒ ูˆุฏุฎูˆู„ู‡ ุชุญุช ุทุงุนุฉ ุฃุนุฏุงุก ุฑุจ ุงู„ุนุงู„ู…ูŠู†ุŒ ูˆู†ุจุฐ ุงู„ุฅุณู„ุงู… ูˆุฑุงุก ุธู‡ุฑู‡; ูƒุฐู„ูƒ ุญุงู„ ุงู„ุจูˆุงุฏูŠ ูˆุงู„ุฃุนุฑุงุจุŒ ุงุณุชุฎูู‡ู… ุงู„ุดูŠุทุงู† ูˆุฃุทุงุนูˆู‡ุŒ ูˆุชุฑูƒูˆุง ู…ุง ูƒุงู†ูˆุง ุนู„ูŠู‡ ู…ู† ุงู„ุงู†ุชุณุงุจ ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ุฅุณู„ุงู…
                                - end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 8/385) -
                                Did you see that? Do you want me to quote more or is this enough?

                                By the way: You claimed that they were not doing Takfir and here we see that you have LIED in front of everyone!

                                Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                                I confronted you about your distortion to the quote about IAW and you haven't addressed it yet. Who's running away?
                                Can you please have a little bit of patience. It's possible that I was writing a response (see above).

                                Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                                Today, Muslims are being killed almost every day inside a Masjid on Friday by Disbelievers- yet you're still going on about what allegedly happened over 200 years ago between Muslims? Are you sure you're not Shi'ah?
                                Aren't you ashamed of yourself? So disbelievers killing us, gives you the right to support our killing even more? Support the killing done by IAW and his followers? Support the killing done by ISIS? Why? Because the Americans do it too?? Great logic! Congratulations!

                                Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                                Abu Sulayman believes the biggest threat to Muslims in Iraq isn't the US/Coalition or the Shia or secularism etc... he believes it's Wahhabis! He only became concerned about bloodshed in that region when IS became a thing... not a peep before that.
                                And he keeps on lying without any shame. What religion are you people on? I mean seriously? Lying is among the worst of traits in Islam, but it seems you don't care about that at ALL!
                                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 27-02-21, 08:11 PM.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X