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

[Muhammad Hasan]

I read your book. Pretty much the same as this thread

Let me be clear

ALL scholars, students, preachers will say some good
Sometimes they may waiver, some more than others

I am not even a student of a student of a student of knowledge

But I am a grown man, father and grandfather and great grandfather.... So guidance/misguidance is imperative for me to pass on to my progeny

If they read the "Three Fundamentals" and nothing else in life, I will die a content death
So for you or anyone else to condemn Abdul-Wahhab as a shaytan or dajjal is defying the message of his book

Did he do wrong? I hear yes, I hear no. As with ibn Taymiyyah and others

however, the message of tawheed is what I focus on. I urge you the same and stop this defamation that you may be held accountable in the grave & judgment day

To be clear it is also in distortion of Tawhid we also have problems with him.

As for your age, ya shaykh, let me apologise for my rudeness.

May Allah bless you children, their children and their children, and give you a share of all good deeds they have learnt from you. I am sure as an elderly member of the forum you have much advise and wisdom to impart to us younger members. Whilst I share some grey hairs, I am of course much, much younger than you. Of course I am not sure how we follow the Sunnah with regards to you on the forum - do we allow you to post first in substitute for speaking first or how does that work?

As for defamation, I have mentioned that what you are doing is defending a (no offence) mass murderer and distorter of the Sunnah, who evidently may have been declared a disbeliever by RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam. You did not answer my question regarding the Shi'ah Shaykh: Tell me, if someone called the Usuli Twelver Shi'a ulama who supported the Safavid purge of Sunni Muslims from Iran, Dajjalun or Shayatin, would you oppose that?


Forum Policy

If Shaykh you are saying that it is against forum policy to give the view that Ibn Abdul Wahhab is a disbeliever (not a view I personally hold), then this is problematic, as I am sure many-a-people have made takfir on here on the likes of Ibn 'Arabi etc. in the past. Also I and others have made takfir of multiple groups and even individual scholars/personalities on this forum before, and no one has batted an eyelid so far...

If however you are saying it is against forum policy to call (e.g.) Ibn Abdul Wahhab a "Shaytan" or "Dajjal", as it might hurt the sentiments of some Muslims, then I think Abu Sulayman should respect that and refrain from making such comments on the forum, although personally I was not aware of such a rule, nor I'm guessing was Abu Sulayman. But this rule should of course be consistantly observed.


I mean I am trying to be diplomatic here, but Shaykh you can understand how difficult it is to continue like this given the circumstances. As I have stated I do not call him a shaytan myself, though could not condemn someone who (for instance) believes he is a disbeliever and appropriately applies that label. Nor do I ever recall calling him a Dajjal myself, but I said it would be appropriate to call him that as he deceived many, and the one mentioned in that Hadith is certainly a deceiver, whoever he is.

On that subject, I see you are indeed taking your time in pondering your answer to the question I asked you connected to that Hadith. This is what I hoped - my Shaykh you should feel no hurry in answering. I hope you will agree that it is good for us to take our time time and contemplate such things.

[AbuNajm]

Maybe, but I think the sentiment is clear enough for anyone to comprehend. A person is being threatened with a ban because he's speaking out against a movement that you also align with or at least are sympathetic to (the Salafi movement). When the same or worse was said about certain Sufi scholars, nobody cared. In fact, we had mods who piled on.

Don't pretend to be impartial ... at least have the decency to see it within yourself.

Again, for the last time- that is not why anyone is objecting to his posts. I have also spoken against "Salafis" here and elsewhere- that's nothing new.

The problem is baiting people into saying something illegal in most countries in the world today and slandering scholars of Islam.

If there are posts which you feel slander "Sufi scholars", then by all means- point them out and report them.

By the way, saying about a well-known scholar "so-and-so allows Shirk", is not slander. It may be true from a certain perspective. Saying about a well-known scholar "so-and-so is a Dajjal" and "satanic" is slander. Saying that over and over again should be banned in a Muslim forum- whether the slander is about a Sufi or "Salafi" scholar.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

By the way- saying Shaykh AbuMubarak is "aligned" with or "sympathetic" to the "the Salafi movement" is a ridiculous statement if you actually knew anything about him.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Muhammad Hasan, are you shia?

I am a Sunni Alhamdullillah.

Shaykh, what you made you ask that?

[Abu Sulayman]

Abu Sulayman,

Regarding ISIS and supporting them. Most of the Muslims in the West only know ISIS from news reports. News reports from the enemies of Allah and as such

However, there were Islamic sources also condemning them

But there were also many Muslim sources supporting them. Why? because the IDEA of an Islamic state is something EVERY muslim should strive for.

so whether the group "ISIS" was correct 100% or 100% wrong is immaterial. There were clearly brothers and sisters within ISIS that wanted an Islamic state. They left their homes, countries and traveled to live a life of Islam. NO ONE can fault them for that

IF, when they got there, they found out ISIS was bloodthirsty killers or it was all a bug-light operation is after the fact

So for you to say Abu Najm supported a sister who was in ISIS is really grasping straws. We all support Muslims who want an Islamic state. The kuffar and munafiqoon will work every angle in their power to make sure there will never be an Islamic state

We had brother Umar here, who was killed there. He was no bloodthirsty murderer, he sincerely wanted to live in an Islamic state. So because we all loved him does not mean we support any evil any Muslim has done

You are very loose with your condemnations of Muslims, typical of cultish or childish. Referring to Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab in that fashion is reserved for clear deviants (ghulam ahmad, mustafa attaturk, etc) not for someone who was trying to remind the Muslims of tawheed, even if he went "too far"

I would ban you but i am not as active as I once was so I leave that decision to other mods, but you are truly a fitna

First of all: The religion of Islam is a complete way of life. Acting as if it's all about "building an Islamic state" or the other extreme that it's all about "what you do as private worship" is both wrong and both these extremes are unfortunately quite widespread in the mindset of the Muslims of today. Your mindset seems to be near to the former.

Then: Since we don't want our younger brothers in the West (who are lacking in religious knowledge and are easily fooled by superficial slogans) to fall into the situation you mentioned above (i.e. traveling to a land to join ISIS and then being surprised that they're a completely evil group), we warn them from joining criminal groups like this BEFORE this happens.

Note that the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has been informed by Allah ta'ala regarding what will happen to his Umma and from his Umma until the day of judgement and he did not warn against any group more than against the Khawarij (this name is not found in the Ahadith, but their descriptions are). The reason behind this maybe from one side that they will allow the blood that Allah ta'ala has disallowed to be spilled - which is a major crime in itself - and from the other side that this will cause many people to have a wrong idea of the religion so that they either leave the correct understanding (as we see here on this forum and elsewhere) or become full-fledged apostates. We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being and protection.

It's also established from authentic narrations that the first issue that this Umma will have is that of ruling (according to the divine law) and then other issues will follow until it reaches the prayers. So the problem of ruling is not something new, rather it has started very early in the time of the Umawi state when they abounded the Shura system and replaced it with kingship. They additionally also took Jizya from non-Arab Muslims, which lead to mass-apostasy among the people.
The Abbasis, Salajiqa and Ottoman state were better than the Umawis, but they still did not adhere to the Shura system. Towards the end of the Ottoman state secular and nationalist forces were becoming dominant in the society until the Ottoman Khilafa fell altogether.
The states thereafter retained some Shar'i laws and mixed it with other unislamic laws and it's very unlikely that this will change in our lifetime (except if we see Imam al-Mahdi - radhiallahu 'anhu - in our lifetime or some other major event happens).
Note that this does not mean that we shouldn't strive for more just societies/ states (which are built upon achieving the principles of the divine law), but this is done as Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) did by reviving the religion once again in the hearts of the people. The solution is not widespread bloodshed and civil wars in our countries.

Just some generations after Imam al-Ghazali those who whose heart has been revived freed al-Quds al-sharif under the leadership of Sultan Salah al-Din (d. 589 AH). So why not learn from this?

Instead today many people regarding the very people who revived the religion back then and freed al-Quds al-sharif as "deviants" and maybe even "Quburis", wallahul musta'an!


Note that a lot of Muslims in our times have problems with things legislated in Shari'a and here we see one example in front our eyes: Visiting the grave of our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and asking him to pray for your forgiveness in this context is something LEGISLATED in the Shari'a. This is supported by an Aya in the Qur`an al-karim and has been understood as such by the classical scholars in general. But in our day and age somehow this is regarded as "Shirk akbar" by some people due to their ignorance concerning the religion.

This is just one example. We could also mention some widespread modernist positions and so on. This is why we need a revival of the religion in the hearts of the people and without it we will not see any change.

Regarding your statement regarding IAW and you even intending to ban me (which is quite telling!), then let's answer this in a new comment insha`Allah together with answering the rest of the people who want to ban me for no good reason at all.

[notEVOLVED]

Regarding your statement regarding IAW and you even intending to ban me (which is quite telling!), then let's answer this in a new comment insha`Allah together with answering the rest of the people who want to ban me for no good reason at all.

Maybe you should sit back and do some restrospection. Collect the facts and see what proportion of the people that wish for you to get banned or be more reserved with your name-calling are hardcore sympathizers of MiAW, and contrast it with what proportion of those that defend you are hardcore sympathizers of anti-MiAW sentiments. That might give you some idea which side is being biased and which is not, whether it is the side that is supporting your ban or is it the side that is defending you.

[Abu Sulayman]

You are very loose with your condemnations of Muslims, typical of cultish or childish. Referring to Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab in that fashion is reserved for clear deviants (ghulam ahmad, mustafa attaturk, etc) not for someone who was trying to remind the Muslims of tawheed, even if he went "too far"

I would ban you but i am not as active as I once was so I leave that decision to other mods, but you are truly a fitna

This part ..You can disagree with whatever scholar you want to.

It's not like everyone here has the same opinion on everything. We don't all follow the same understanding of Islam.

But to call a scholar and even if you or others don't consider him a scholar he is at least a muslim, for dajjal and satan and God knows what..what is the point of that?

Answer this question, if you are sincere Muhammad Hasan

Let me answer it through two ways:

The first way to answer this is by giving an example:

Imagine there is a man, who has some followers among the laity. This man is extreme and evil to such a degree that he commands his followers to kill a Muslim inside a mosque and this on a friday while this Muslim is praying there. Now imagine his followers then act on this command and assassinate a Muslim in the very same manner mentioned!
What is the ISLAMIC ruling upon such an action and such a group? It's obviously a satanic and dajjalic action due to it being evil on so many different levels.

Does any Muslim in his sane mind doubt the above being a satanic action? Would you ban someone who calls this satanic? Obviously no, right?!

Now guess who did EXACTLY the above mentioned thing! Yes, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and his followers! They mentioned this THEMSELVES in at least two of their own history books (with one author being the direct student of IAW himself, so imagine!):

11 - The Wahhabis killed 'Uthman bin Mu'ammar - the Amir of 'Uyayyna - after the friday prayer WHILE HE WAS STILL IN THE MASJID (in the year 1163 AH)!!!!

تعاهدوا على قتله بعد انتهائه من صلاة الجمعة ، وقتلناه وهو �ي مصلاه بالمسجد , �ي رجب 1163 هـ
- end of quote (from Tarikh Najd p. 103) -

�لما �رغت صلاة الجمعة وخرج سرعان الناس , قتل �ي المسجد
- end of quote (from 'Unwan al-Majd 1/60) -

If you read the context of these quotes, you'll see that IAW himself ordered his killing! So what the 'Ulama` said regarding him that he would send his followers to kill people he didn't like (he would do this even with scholars!) was true! This is the Akhlaq of the IAW's group! They killed even inside the Masajid of Allah ta'ala!
O slaves of Allah, are these the people one should follow?

Note that the above is just ONE example out of MANY! I want you to explain to me how for God's sake the above is not a satanic action?! Upon which religion is the above not satanic? Surely not the religion of Islam.


The second way to answer this is by referring to the major scholars of that time:

The scholars of the 4 Madhahib in the time of IAW saw his evilness and that of his early followers with their own eyes and mentioned the Islamic ruling regarding them. They were basically agreed upon this man being a VERY DEVIANT person and some of them even stated that this man was a FALSE PROPHET (and therefore a disbelieving heretic!).
They also mentioned that this man was not proficient in the Islamic sciences and one of them even PROVED this by asking specific questions regarding 'Ilm al-Balagha (a basic science of language!) and IAW being unable to answer these questions. The evil Najdi Ibn Sahman (d. 1349 AH) even ACKNOWLEDGED that his beloved IAW was lacking in this science, but still boldly claimed "Not being able to answer these questions (!) does not indicate his lack of proficiency in the religious sciences like Hadith, Tafsir and Fiqh." and then went to state something very very evil.

I've already quoted some scholars in the other thread. See these posts:

- 'Allama Ibn Suhaym al-Hanbali (d. 1181 AH) regarding the extremism of IAW
- 'Allama al-Saffarini al-Hanbali (d. 1188 AH) regarding IAW being a Mujtahid in destroying the divine law!
- 'Allama Muhammad bin Sulayman al-Kurdi al-Shafi'i (d. 1194 AH) advising his student IAW to stop his Takfir against the Umma of Islam
- Shaykh Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH): Some of his statements in response to the ignorance of his brother IAW
- 'Allama 'Abdullah bin Dawud al-Hanbali (d. 1225 AH) regarded IAW a FALSE PROPHET in his "Lightnings and Thunders in Response to the Wretched Ibn Sa'ud"
- 'Allama Ibn Humayd al-Hanbali (d. 1295 AH): Praising the father and brother of IAW and criticizing IAW as "the founder of the mission whose evil had spread across the horizon" and mentioning his attempt to assassinate his brother
- Shaykh Mustafa bin Ahmad al-Shatti al-Hanbali (d. 1348 AH): Idolatry and its forms (contains criticism of MIAW by the 'Allama Hassan al-Shatti (d. 1274 AH))

I would like to add to the above the fact the 'Allama Ibn 'Abidin [al-Hanafi] (d. 1252 AH) (yes, he's the very author of Radd al-Muhtar, so imagine the high level of his knowledge!) EXPLICITLY referred to IAW's group as KHAWARIJ (!) and the 'Allama al-Sawi [al-Maliki] (d. 1241 AH) EXPLICITLY stated that the group of this IAW is the GROUP OF SATAN!
The 'Allama Ibn 'Afaliq [al-Hanbali] (d. 1164 AH) even explicitly called this man a FALSE PROPHET and he's also the one who exposed the ignorance of IAW. (Note that there are indications that this man did in reality regard himself a prophet, so it's not just a claim! His followers even OBLIGED the people to follow his new creed and stated that anyone following other than his way will be from the people of hellfire (this is EXPLICITY stated by them, you would be surprised to see the whole statement and who the people were who made this statement).)

Note that these descriptions were not insults, but rather the ISLAMIC ruling upon this man! So understand!

The 'Allama 'Alawi al-Haddad [al-Shafi'i] (d. 1232 AH) even showed that this man used to make DISRESPECTFUL REMARKS regarding the Best of Creation - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - in his daily life and it's no secret that this justifies Takfir upon IAW and calling him more than just satanic!

So what do you want us to call him?

Would you want to BAN these MAJOR SCHOLARS (if they lived today) from this forum just because they mentioned the ISLAMIC RULING regarding this man? It seems the answer is unfortunately "yes".
(Imagine that you people would like to ban the 'Allama Ibn 'Abidin!)

This is why I repeat the importance of reviving the religion.

There are obviously other ways to answer, but I think the above two are enough.

[Fais]

Again, for the last time- that is not why anyone is objecting to his posts. I have also spoken against "Salafis" here and elsewhere- that's nothing new.

The problem is baiting people into saying something illegal in most countries in the world today and slandering scholars of Islam.

If there are posts which you feel slander "Sufi scholars", then by all means- point them out and report them.

By the way, saying about a well-known scholar "so-and-so allows Shirk", is not slander. It may be true from a certain perspective. Saying about a well-known scholar "so-and-so is a Dajjal" and "satanic" is slander. Saying that over and over again should be banned in a Muslim forum- whether the slander is about a Sufi or "Salafi" scholar.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

By the way- saying Shaykh AbuMubarak is "aligned" with or "sympathetic" to the "the Salafi movement" is a ridiculous statement if you actually knew anything about him.

It may not be the only reason, but it's definitely a big part.

He's hardly baiting you, when you've made public posts on your facebook. The worst type of snitch is a person who snitches on himself. And as for baiting you, what are you 5? Are you being compelled to answer? Baiting anyone is such a manner is a scummy move IMO, but you hardly help your own cause when you post about it on facebook.

On a side note, why post something so pointless on facebook?

As for "slandering scholars of Islam", please. You may have joined this forum before me, but I've been active on this forum longer than you. Calling Sufi scholars Mushrik and kafir was an everyday occurrence, including all of the prominent ones. Nobody cared. Now you've got people calling out IAW for his slaughter of muslims, it's an issue?

I don't need to or even want to report any posts and I am not active on this forum anymore.


What about saying so-on-so scholar is a mushrik? Is that slander? Calling Ghazali a deviant? Calling Ashari & Maturidi scholars heretics and deviants .. calling people who follow the Madhabs deviants who follow other than Allah (SWT) and His messenger (SAW) LOL! Are you kidding me?

You may have spend time on another forum, but this is what Ummah forum was ... it was a free-for-all. Had it's downsides but had it's upsides too. You learnt a lot.

But these very same people took part in that process, and now complain that someone is calling a scholar satanic? Also, isn't he just saying what other scholars of his time said?

I've known AM for a long time, he may have his disagreements in certain minor things, but he's most certainly a salafi. He just doesn't like groups and names. But if a man attends group dhikr, along with a group dance, along with following all of the other common sufi rituals, you going to say he's not a sufi because he doesn't liked to be called one?

[AbuNajm]

First of all: The religion of Islam is a complete way of life. Acting as if it's all about "building an Islamic state" or the other extreme that it's all about "what you do as private worship" is both wrong and both these extremes are unfortunately quite widespread in the mindset of the Muslims of today. Your mindset seems to be near to the former.

Then: Since we don't want our younger brothers in the West (who are lacking in religious knowledge and are easily fooled by superficial slogans) to fall into the situation you mentioned above (i.e. traveling to a land to join ISIS and then being surprised that they're a completely evil group), we warn them from joining criminal groups like this BEFORE this happens.

Why do you presume that every person who travels to "a land" does so in order to join ISIS? This is more exaggeration on your part and anti-type of propaganda.

Many of the brothers and sisters who traveled to Syria or Iraq, did so in order to live under the Shari'ah- pure and simple.

And most people who did that only lived to regret it after the US and its allies destroyed entire Muslim cities with airstrikes.

Now you want to rewrite history with your nonsense, both about the Muslims who traveled to live under the Shari'ah and what drove them away in droves? It wasn't ISIS that drove them away, it was indiscriminate bombing, day and night.

Note that the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has been informed by Allah ta'ala regarding what will happen to his Umma and from his Umma until the day of judgement and he did not warn against any group more than against the Khawarij (this name is not found in the Ahadith, but their descriptions are). The reason behind this maybe from one side that they will allow the blood that Allah ta'ala has disallowed to be spilled - which is a major crime in itself - and from the other side that this will cause many people to have a wrong idea of the religion so that they either leave the correct understanding (as we see here on this forum and elsewhere) or become full-fledged apostates. We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being and protection.

That description is more befitting to the Shi'ah Assad regime and his Iranian allies. They have murdered 100's of times more Muslims than ISIS and all Sunni Muslim groups put together globally.

You have still failed to provide us with the following:

Which Sunni Muslim group do or did you side with in Iraq and Syria over the past decade of wars there?

It's also established from authentic narrations that the first issue that this Umma will have is that of ruling (according to the divine law) and then other issues will follow until it reaches the prayers. So the problem of ruling is not something new, rather it has started very early in the time of the Umawi state when they abounded the Shura system and replaced it with kingship. They additionally also took Jizya from non-Arab Muslims, which lead to mass-apostasy among the people.
The Abbasis, Salajiqa and Ottoman state were better than the Umawis, but they still did not adhere to the Shura system. Towards the end of the Ottoman state secular and nationalist forces were becoming dominant in the society until the Ottoman Khilafa fell altogether.
The states thereafter retained some Shar'i laws and mixed it with other unislamic laws and it's very unlikely that this will change in our lifetime (except if we see Imam al-Mahdi - radhiallahu 'anhu - in our lifetime or some other major event happens).
Note that this does not mean that we shouldn't strive for more just societies/ states (which are built upon achieving the principles of the divine law), but this is done as Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) did by reviving the religion once again in the hearts of the people. The solution is not widespread bloodshed and civil wars in our countries.

You're so full of nonsense and contradictions.

First off- the Ottoman's could never be a "Khalifah" since they never fulfilled the basic requirement of lineage to the Quraysh. There is no dispute about this, regardless of Ash'ari or "Salafi".

Secondly, how do you think Salah ad-Deen conquered Jerusalem? With ignoring the Disbelievers and their Shi'ah allies while condemning and slandering Sunni Muslim scholars and movements? Did he follow your methodology and approach to the differences between Sunni Muslims?

Or did Salah ad-Deen bring together Muslims from across the Sunni spectrum under the banner of Jihad?

That is the exact opposite of what you're promoting on this forum.

Just some generations after Imam al-Ghazali those who whose heart has been revived freed al-Quds al-sharif under the leadership of Sultan Salah al-Din (d. 589 AH). So why not learn from this?

Instead today many people regarding the very people who revived the religion back then and freed al-Quds al-sharif as "deviants" and maybe even "Quburis", wallahul musta'an!

Suuurreee. It was "revived hearts" and not catapults, arrows, and the blood of martyrs that freed al-Quds.

Tell you what- show me groups of Quburis and "deviant Sufis" fighting to liberate Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, or any other Muslim country and I will show you groups that I'm willing to overlook their mistakes in order to support their sincerity and conviction to defend Muslims and establish Islamic governance.

Have you ever tried to "revive a heart" when it's surrounded by people flogging themselves in the streets, drinking alcohol, legalizing prostitution, and worshiping their religious leaders as divine law-givers?

Note that a lot of Muslims in our times have problems with things legislated in Shari'a and here we see one example in front our eyes: Visiting the grave of our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and asking him to pray for your forgiveness in this context is something LEGISLATED in the Shari'a. This is supported by an Aya in the Qur`an al-karim and has been understood as such by the classical scholars in general. But in our day and age somehow this is regarded as "Shirk akbar" by some people due to their ignorance concerning the religion.

Please link a single member saying that merely "visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS" is "Shirk Akbar". Even link a single member here saying that reciting the Ayah of the Quran containing the Du'a asking the Prophet SAWS to intercede with Allah on behalf of the supplicant AT THE GRAVE OF THE PROPHET SAWS is "Shirk Akbar".

No one here has done that, nor has IAW, nor has any "Salafi" scholar that I'm aware of.

You have invented so many red-herring and straw-man arguments in this behemoth thread of yours that you have begun to accuse your imaginary opponents of things that have not happened.

Visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS and sending him SAWS, Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA "Salaam", directly addressing all of them, and then making Du'a is absolutely legislated as permissible and recommended by many scholars. I have not come across a single scholar saying any of that is "Shirk Akbar".

Where are you getting that from?

This is just one example. We could also mention some widespread modernist positions and so on. This is why we need a revival of the religion in the hearts of the people and without it we will not see any change.

Regarding your statement regarding IAW and you even intending to ban me (which is quite telling!), then let's answer this in a new comment insha`Allah together with answering the rest of the people who want to ban me for no good reason at all.

You aren't reading the replies or you aren't understanding them properly. That's why you and your few followers here don't understand what is so offensive about your statements and what is against the rules of the forum and common decency.

I don't follow IAW. I don't support or sympathize with ISIS- never have. However, as a Muslim, I find it objectionable and indecent, that anyone be allowed to slander Sunni Muslim scholars and fighters and accuse others of "blind-following" or "support" for everything attributed to that scholar or group purely on the basis of that objection.

You cannot come here and goad, bait, and badger members into "confessing support" for outlawed groups under the threat of your baseless assumption that refusing to condemn or praise is tantamount to "support" or "sympathy".

That is your issue here, in addition to your slander of IAW.

[Abu Sulayman]

I would agree with this and everyone else saying it above, he's a cut and paste guy, he doesn't engage. You could literally write a bot with standard template answers and get as much out of engaging with it as you do with him.

I've had Sufi / modernist / secularist / shi'a acquaintances in the past and got stuff out of my conversations with thems, I'll even engage with the local head of the EDL because I get something out of that conversation but I'll not even give that credit I would to the EDL guy to Abu Sulayman.

This just proves that you haven't read any of my posts in this thread or the other threads that I've opened. Many of the quotes that have been mentioned are not found in English and many of them have been translated by me. Even when I copy something I mention a source.

Be just and don't let your opposition to my understanding blind you and claim things that are obviously not true. Most of you people who are now coming out of nowhere to respond here (after AbuNajm entered the thread and made it into a fitna!) have not read anything that was posted before in this thread or the other ones.

just in case you missed it

Just in case you missed it (please read my posts for once before making any further comments, because most of your objections have been already answered):


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


Here you can find the most relevant posts from the above thread (until now):

Table of contents (25-2-2021):

- OP (includes examples of IAW's shocking level of ignorance): Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's (d.1206 AH) lack of qualifications and the disasters that resulted from it!
- The results of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's ignorance and extreme ideas on a theoretical level (includes Takfir against scholars, cities, whole regions and basically the whole Umma!):
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
- The results of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's ignorance and extreme ideas on a practical level (includes terrorizing, robbing, burning down fields, cutting trees and mass-killing the Muslims of the Arabian peninsula and surrounding regions; Part 12 is specifically regarding what they did to the people of the Haramayn al-Sharifayn and their stopping of the Hajj!):
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13
- Different examples of stealing, killing and destruction caused by Wahhabis according to 'Unwan al-Majd
- Translations of some of the examples given on the theoretical and practical results of MIAW's extremism and ignorance


- Proving that the scholars were truthful regarding Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and that IAW himself was the liar!
- Proving that "islamqa(.)info" are liars like their leader MIAW!
- Proving that the "Salafi" Mashayikh are liars just like their leader MIAW!


- The knowledge of the people of Washm regarding their Creator and the ignorance of IAW's followers regarding Him!
- MIAW usage of fabricated narrations in his so called Kitab al-Tawhid
- MIAW's ignorance regarding al-Iqna' (one of the most widespread Fiqh books in Najd!)

- 'Allama Ibn Suhaym al-Hanbali (d. 1181 AH) regarding the extremism of IAW
- 'Allama al-Saffarini al-Hanbali (d. 1188 AH) regarding IAW being a Mujtahid in destroying the divine law!
- 'Allama Muhammad bin Sulayman al-Kurdi al-Shafi'i (d. 1194 AH) advising his student IAW to stop his Takfir against the Umma of Islam
- 'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH): Some of his statements in response to the ignorance of his brother IAW
- 'Allama 'Abdullah bin Dawud al-Hanbali (d. 1225 AH) regarded IAW a FALSE PROPHET in his "Lightnings and Thunders in Response to the Wretched Ibn Sa'ud"
- 'Allama Ibn Humayd al-Hanbali (d. 1295 AH): Praising the father and brother of IAW and criticizing IAW as "the founder of the mission whose evil had spread across the horizon" and mentioning his attempt to assassinate his brother
- Shaykh Mustafa bin Ahmad al-Shatti al-Hanbali (d. 1348 AH): Idolatry and its forms (contains criticism of MIAW by the 'Allama Hassan al-Shatti (d. 1274 AH))


- Regarding the Hadith of Najd and the tribulations that will appear from the East and its connection to MIAW's "Najdi call":
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
- Al-Lajna al-Da`ima admitting that Najd is included in the narrations regarding the tribulations and the horn of satan that would appear and emerge from the east!!!
- Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH) - the Najdi Khariji! - AFFIRMS that Najd has always been a place for tribulations!


- The Prophet ï·º was not afraid that his nation will fall into [greater] polytheism and swore by Allah regarding this!
- The only polytheism that can be found in his nation is the lesser one!
- The Prophet ï·º informed his nation that satan has despaired to be EVER worshiped on the Arabian peninsula again!
- When will idols be worshiped again in the lands of the Arabs?: When ALL believers die (just before the end of times)!


To be continued insha`Allah...

[AbuNajm]

It may not be the only reason, but it's definitely a big part.

He's hardly baiting you, when you've made public posts on your facebook. The worst type of snitch is a person who snitches on himself. And as for baiting you, what are you 5? Are you being compelled to answer? Baiting anyone is such a manner is a scummy move IMO, but you hardly help your own cause when you post about it on facebook.

On a side note, why post something so pointless on facebook?

What exactly did I post about on Facebook? ISIS? Where did I mention them by name, link to any of their news stories, videos, articles or public releases?

How exactly did I "snitch" on myself or anyone else?

When two members of this forum follow me to every thread I participate in and demand that I answer questions about ISIS- that is attempting to compel an answer from someone and harassment.

I don't discuss ISIS on Facebook, nor have I ever done so on this forum or any existing forum. In fact, my rule is not to discuss them or any other fighting group anywhere, online or offline.

As for "slandering scholars of Islam", please. You may have joined this forum before me, but I've been active on this forum longer than you. Calling Sufi scholars Mushrik and kafir was an everyday occurrence, including all of the prominent ones. Nobody cared. Now you've got people calling out IAW for his slaughter of muslims, it's an issue?

Exactly how many Muslims did IAW "slaughter"? Let's have a count, even an estimate.

Why haven't his detractors mentioned a number or estimate while referencing historical reports and data? Because it doesn't exist.

How is it that a somewhat reasonable, sane person can begin to talk about a prominent, historical Muslim figure, not more than a few hundred years deceased, and refer to him as having "slaughtered Muslims", but not provide any real evidence of such "slaughter"?

Isn't that exactly what is being done with Sunni Muslim fighting groups today?

If Disbelievers, secularists, or Shi'ah installed by Disbelievers, come across a grave in a war zone, they automatically accuse a Sunni Muslim fighting group of having "executed" the deceased.

Even tallying all of those "discoveries" and placing them at the feet of a single Sunni Muslim fighting group, whether ISIS or al-Qaeda, or whoever the "most wanted" of the day is at the time- it still does not come close to the number of murdered Muslims at the feet of the Shi'ah/secularist invaders and occupiers.

Isn't that the same with 100, 200, 300 .... and 1,000 years ago?

How many Muslims did Salah ad-Deen kill in his conquests of Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, etc.? Do you even care about that number? Because I'm sure it is far greater than the number that IAW killed in his campaigns in the Najd and Arabia.

Why would anyone here allow the slander of Salah ad-Deen as a "slaughterer of Muslims" but allow it for 'Ibn Abd al-Wahhab who obviously killed far fewer?

The only answer is because the slanderers of IAW object to his Aqidah and legacy of opposing Sufism and Ash'arism NOT his killing of Muslims and they approve of Salah ad-Deen's attribution by some Muslim historians as an Ash'ari and NOT his killing of Muslims. But they are willing to brush over Salah ad-Deen's killing of Muslims because of his Aqidah.

What is more hypocritical than that?

What about saying so-on-so scholar is a mushrik? Is that slander? Calling Ghazali a deviant? Calling Ashari & Maturidi scholars heretics and deviants .. calling people who follow the Madhabs deviants who follow other than Allah (SWT) and His messenger (SAW) LOL! Are you kidding me?

Don't point to objectionable behavior and say "Look, there is other objectionable behavior. So, this behavior over here should not be pointed out or criticized".

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You may have spend time on another forum, but this is what Ummah forum was ... it was a free-for-all. Had it's downsides but had it's upsides too. You learnt a lot.

But these very same people took part in that process, and now complain that someone is calling a scholar satanic?

How about let's make every place where we participate a better place than how we found it?

We all should be learning and growing as a result of exposure to other views and opinions online and in person. If we're not, then we should reconsider whether our participation is healthy for us or not.

This forum, like all others, thrives on participating and activity. When that turns negative, which is inevitable, is the answer to ban everyone guilty of some offense? No.

But to complain and use pressure to force members to tone down their rhetoric is warranted and good for the forum and its members. A threat of a ban can serve that purpose.

Designating as "satanic" any Muslim scholar, whose scholarship is acknowledged by a vast majority of Muslims, both opponents and followers, should be discouraged in any Muslim environment.

Is that what you're objecting to? Why? If you objected to it being used against Sufis, then why not object to it being used against "Salafis"? Do you prefer this forum be a "free-for-all"?

I've known AM for a long time, he may have his disagreements in certain minor things, but he's most certainly a salafi. He just doesn't like groups and names. But if a man attends group dhikr, along with a group dance, along with following all of the other common sufi rituals, you going to say he's not a sufi because he doesn't liked to be called one?

So, being that he is an elder and a moderator, why not respect his wishes for designating and referring to his own attribution or lack of it to certain groups?

Why be disrespectful and call him something that he does not refer to himself as?

The same disrespect is being shown towards me as well, but with far worse consequences- why attribute me to an outlawed group whom I don't belong to or even discuss?

You seem like you're defending this behavior towards two specific people who did not have a hand in the behavior that you're upset about from before. Is that the right thing? Am I misunderstanding you here?

[Muhammad Hasan]

First off- the Ottoman's could never be a "Khalifah" since they never fulfilled the basic requirement of lineage to the Quraysh. There is no dispute about this, regardless of Ash'ari or "Salafi".

Actually there is, I am surprised you are ignorant of this. I am even more suprised as you are meant to be a Taymiyyan, and Ibn Taymiyyah is especially skeptical of many "Ijma" (for good or worse). By the way I am not negating that major Ulama like Imam an-Nawawi claimed Ijma, just saying that is one of those "Ijma" that is not much of an Ijma.

Read what Imam Ibn Hajar states on it and Ibn Khaldun too. There's no Ijma on that.

Also, they were de-facto leaders of the Muslims, if you go by the definition mentioned by e.g. Imam Ibn Qudamah in his Lum'ah*. If you consider what had happened to the instution of Khilafah in the late-Abbassid period, the Ottomans renewed it and restored it to its rightful status, instead of the strange practice of ceremonial but Qurashite Khulafah who had no real power**. In fact one of the Ulama I think even permitted non-Qurayshi Imams for that precise reason.

Finally I would cite some weak Hadith (suitable to quote in issues of signs of the end times etc.) where they fulfil a prophecy and so were essentially recognised by RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi as one of the dynasties of Khalifah. I would also cite something that one of the Khulafah ar-Rashidun said (he wanted to assign non-Qurayshis the Khilafah showing it is permitted), but I'll have to dig up the reference.

With all that said, I certainly agree with Ibn Khaldun that it was wise to pick the Khalifa from the Qur'aysh as united the Muslims and especially the Arab tribes of the time. In this era, the Muslims having lost reverence for Qur'aysh, I think the next Imam should be of Banu Hashim if possible (for the love of the Ahlul Bayt is still intact in the hearts of the Muslims), following the principle of Ibn Khaldun. And the pool of suitable and more qualified candidates is now much larger than in previous era. But Allahu Alam.

---

*No your beloved Da'esh does not fulfil that, for the same reason we would not say Hussein bin Ali was a valid Amir either.
**Though that is still better than having no Khilafah.

[AbuMubarak]

Maybe, but I think the sentiment is clear enough for anyone to comprehend. A person is being threatened with a ban because he's speaking out against a movement that you also align with or at least are sympathetic to (the Salafi movement). When the same or worse was said about certain Sufi scholars, nobody cared. In fact, we had mods who piled on.

Don't pretend to be impartial ... at least have the decency to see it within yourself.

akhi
i haven't been active in a while. Most of which had to do with being tired of the same old conversations

however, make no mistake, Ummah.com has some outstanding virtues, most of which is not leaning to any one ideology

however, we do try to keep focus on a Qur'an & Hadith basis. If that translates I to us being wahhabi, salafi, then that is not our intent, but that's where the chips land

If other groups deviate from that basis, that is their choice

i have never met anyone who calls themself a wahhabi. But that name is used by others when you call them back to the basics

i adhere to no movement except Quran & sunnah and I don't believe it takes years of scholarly study or volumes of text to explain (to make legal judgements, of course)

[AbuMubarak]

I am a Sunni Alhamdullillah.

Shaykh, what you made you ask that?

just the tones of your posts

[Abu Sulayman]

Abu Sulayman has first hand experience when it comes to the atrocities of daesh since he's currently in Iraq. And why are some of you scared to openly declare your support for these groups? what happened to not fearing the kuffar and being upon the haqq?.. easy to support these people when you don't have to deal with the aftermath of their actions. Also, I'm surprised people still follow iaw, he wasn't a learned individual and the more you delve into his movement the more you realize how stupid it is tbh.

The ironic and sad thing is that it was AQI / ISI, which destroyed the fight against the American invaders in 'Iraq and started to kill everyone else instead. Before this the 'Iraqi resistance was literally destroying these invaders. But somehow for some people AQI / ISI (and later ISIS) are the "heroes" (this with all the atrocities they have committed... just ask anyone living in 'Iraq!), while they have not heard a word about all those martyred fighting the invading disbelievers while not having killed a single Muslim without due right.

Note that these youngsters coming from other countries (who according to our uncle AM have all "soo good intentions") were the ones, who later on went on to kill Sunni Mashayikh left and right for criticizing them!
Without AQI / ISI / ISIS Sunnis (I mean proper Sunnis here and not the traitors and puppets of the zionists!) would be in a much stronger position in 'Iraq today.

Something similar basically also happened in Syria. That worthless Assad would have been defeated very quickly, if these Da'ishi Khawarij would not have entered into Syria and destroyed everything as usual!


As for people like AbuNajm: I would really ignore him. He is really very dishonest and doesn't even shy away from mentioning the mother of his opponents. This is quite telling.



(PS: A non-Qurayshi can be a Khalifa under certain circumstances and this is MENTIONED by the classical scholars. Claiming otherwise just shows the ignorance of this person even more.)

[AbuNajm]

Most of you people who are now coming out of nowhere to respond here (after AbuNajm entered the thread and made it into a fitna!) have not read anything that was posted before in this thread or the other ones.

To be continued insha`Allah...

What Sunni Muslim fighting groups do or did you support in Iraq and Syria?

You brought up my qualifications, which I responded to, and my opinion of ISIS, which I also responded to. Where are your responses?