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

    How can you determine what is truth and what isn't? You shouldn't even be on here so never you mind about mods and balance.
    well for a start gather the facts and ascertain the trtuh from there in sha Allah

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fais View Post

      So it's not just me who's noticed this ...
      are you a sufi/ barelvi?

      i always thought you were a sufi throughout the years ive been on here

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

        well for a start gather the facts and ascertain the trtuh from there in sha Allah
        Are you trying to sound intelligent? It's not working.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

          are you a sufi/ barelvi?

          i always thought you were a sufi throughout the years ive been on here
          I'm not barelwi,

          Sufism is a convoluted term. Every major scholar wrote about it as it's part of deen. Like any other science. It's just purification of the soul. if that's what you mean then yeah I believe in it, but so does everyone else. If you mean like the extreme sufis then no, I'm not.

          Reason you think that is because I held many fiqh positions that were ascribed to sufis, like the mawlid for example. But the Mawlid is a legitimate fiqh position held by many great scholars. But people think Mawlid is a sufi thing, it isn't. And like that I held many positions that were deemed "Sufi" ..

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fais View Post
            Listen, If you ever get arrested about anything, don't say a word and ask for a lawyer. Trust me on this, it works, I saw it on a TV show once.
            I've been detained for more than 1,000 hours by the United States government. What are you on about?

            Originally posted by Fais View Post
            As for Salahudeen. Well, he's been called deviant and plenty of other names too, plenty of times ... because he was of Ashari.

            As for calling out the many that died due to his rule. I think that's got more to do with psychology and time then anything else. It happened so long ago and the ramifications of his rule doesn't extend till today. We don't see remnants of his dynasty around today.
            Now I know you're just acting like a muppet.

            You said:

            "the ramifications of his [Salah ad-Deen's] rule doesn't extend till today"

            Are you serious?

            So, the fact that al-Quds is still, at least nominally, managed by Jordan and Muslims [in the widest meaning of that word], has nothing to do with Salah ad-Deen killing tens of thousands of Shi'ah Muslims in Egypt, and during his conquest to bring under his command Muslims from Yemen, Syria, and Iraq?!

            Like I said before- you guys are really on something strange to make the claims you do and expect readers here to just accept it and not say anything in response.

            The ridiculousness of some of your statements should be obvious, but I feel the need to point them out because it appears you're not joking. Maybe some readers think you are.

            Originally posted by Fais View Post
            However, MIAW of the other hand, you can easily find parallels to certain movements that sprung up recently and not to mention teachings that enabled it still being taught. Declaring groups of muslims mushrik whilst having power and authority, did and has led to mass bloodshed. You've still going people running around exclaiming those very same teachings.
            Ok. Let's have those statistics then? What groups have done this and give me the stats on this alleged "mass bloodshed".

            Like say the "mass bloodshed" caused by government intelligence services feeding information about Muslims and their locations to Disbelievers who then drone strike them and their entire wedding or funeral party?

            Or maybe the "mass bloodshed" spilled by dictators and tyrants like Hafiz Assad and his son;
            or the French and their Algerian allies in Algeria;
            or Egypt and its Israeli and American financiers and partners;
            or Qaddafi and his British and American collaborators;
            or Pakistan and its American and British partners;
            or Turkey and its Israeli and Russian partners...
            or the Philippines and its western allies...

            The list goes on of majority-Muslim land governments collaborating with western powers to drone strike, bomb, rendition, torture, exile and disappear MUSLIMS for the mere fact that they whispered a criticism about the government's corruption and un-Islamic nature or whispered their hopes for an Islamic government and establishment of the Shari'ah of Islam.

            Just that short list alone contains the murder and forced disappearance, which we can only assume resulted in death after so many decades, of MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS.

            Yet, you want to talk about a few small groups caught in a multi-national, multi-sectarian, multi-interest war that killed a few thousand at most, confirmed. You want to name and shame them only and persist in justifying the greatness of their evil and impact, while ignoring the greatest killers and usurpers of blood and authority amongst Muslims to this day!?

            You are either extremely ignorant and irreverent towards actual history and current events, or you have a seriously flawed, obvious, and age-old agenda.

            Originally posted by Fais View Post
            Saying that, I doubt hardly any muslim ruler of the past would pass the litmus test we set them from all the new paradigms we operate from.
            Don't you mean the "litmus test" and "new paradigms" that you are promoting here?

            You're the one calling out minor offenders while ignoring major ones. You are the one giving a pass to the real mass-murderers of Muslims while comparing thousands to millions.

            You are the one appearing to support the slander of long-dead Muslim fighters and scholars and recklessly linking them to modern-day groups while ignoring and saying nothing about the forces they are opposing and fighting while NO ONE ELSE IS!

            Your "litmus test" and "new paradigms" are in fact the same old ones that past and present tyrants and dictators among Muslims have put in place- "say nothing of my major crimes and mass murdering but attack those who attack my rule and the wall of silence surrounding my crimes."

            Congratulations...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fais View Post

              Listen, If you ever get arrested about anything, don't say a word and ask for a lawyer. Trust me on this, it works, I saw it on a TV show once.


              I'm not going to get into specifics with you as this isn't something I want to actually discuss, I hardly post anymore.

              Also, what I'm pointing out isn't whataboutism. I'm just surprised that this is what upsets people when this was the standard for so many years. I don't object to it being used against Sufis. I genuinely, don't even care. What I do care about is the blatant double standard being used and with the threats of bans and then acting as if this was always the bar.

              The only people who were threatened with bans were trolls. Now, after nearly 20 years when the forum is quiet we've finally set a new standard "thou shall not insult the scholars (but only my scholars though)"?


              As for Salahudeen. Well, he's been called deviant and plenty of other names too, plenty of times ... because he was of Ashari.

              As for calling out the many that died due to his rule. I think that's got more to do with psychology and time then anything else. It happened so long ago and the ramifications of his rule doesn't extend till today. We don't see remnants of his dynasty around today. However, MIAW of the other hand, you can easily find parallels to certain movements that sprung up recently and not to mention teachings that enabled it still being taught. Declaring groups of muslims mushrik whilst having power and authority, did and has led to mass bloodshed. You've still going people running around exclaiming those very same teachings.

              Saying that, I doubt hardly any muslim ruler of the past would pass the litmus test we set them from all the new paradigms we operate from.
              So jog my memory, how many Muslim civilians did Sultan Salahuddin Ayyubi kill? In fact his treatment of even the civilians of the Kuffar is so legendary that they praise him even to this day for this - he was no bloodthirsty tyrant - he was a just general and ruler.

              Now compare that to the amount of civilian Muslims Ibn Abdul Wahhab's posse killed. In fact a better question for the Najdiyyah, is how many of the people they killed were not civilians(!) See there's a difference - do I accuse the Ottomans in the first world war of "Killing Muslims", no fighting rebels and the Muslims who betray and oppose you is permitted. We are accusing Ibn Abdul Wahhab of slaughtering innocent, unarmed civilians for breaking their so-called treaties and spontaneously "apostasising". And they would accept them back into Islam if they payed a fee... Da'esh today continues their methodology of bloodshed.

              Tawassul/Istigatha

              Anyway, I share the sentiment that this thread is getting way off topic. The original topic was the permissibility of Tawassul, which according to the vast majority is recommended let alone permitted. But there are always people confusing Istigatha and Tawassul in these kinds of topics, and Istigatha is more controversial, though it can never be Shirk with the correct Aqeedah.

              My problem with the ps.Salafis is not them prohibiting either Tawassul or Istigatha - its their claims that these are Shirk. They need to differentiate between what is merely Haram and what is also Kufr/Shirk.

              I ask them a question:

              A man goes and makes Sajdah before his father. What is the ruling on him?
              Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
              "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
              Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

              Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
              1/116

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fais
                Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

                are you a sufi/ barelvi?

                i always thought you were a sufi throughout the years ive been on here
                I'm not barelwi,

                Sufism is a convoluted term. Every major scholar wrote about it as it's part of deen. Like any other science. It's just purification of the soul. if that's what you mean then yeah I believe in it, but so does everyone else. If you mean like the extreme sufis then no, I'm not.

                Reason you think that is because I held many fiqh positions that were ascribed to sufis, like the mawlid for example. But the Mawlid is a legitimate fiqh position held by many great scholars. But people think Mawlid is a sufi thing, it isn't. And like that I held many positions that were deemed "Sufi" ..
                Yea tazkiyan in nafs and self reflection

                Yea maybe it's because you're pro mawlid,
                Tbh a talk on.youtube called mawlid fact or fiction by shaykh asrar rashid really was an eye opener for, not sure if I'd celebrate it though if I'm being honest, I'm a bit 50/50 at the moment but before I was totally against it if I'm being honest

                Do you ascribe to any tariqahs?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

                  I've been detained for more than 1,000 hours by the United States government. What are you on about?
                  Let me translate this: You were detained for one month and eleven to twelve days.

                  Hmmm doesn't sound as dramatic as 1,000 hours...
                  Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                  "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                  Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

                  Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
                  1/116

                  Comment


                  • Assalamu alaykum,

                    This is really saddening.. may Allah guide us all.

                    I personally would threaten to ban someone for calling their Muslim brothers Shayateen on here - if they don't repent and publicly retract and apologise. It has happened before, but no one responded when such words were used against some brothers (Abu Sulayman included) on here, so why all the fuss now? Besides, the issue with IAW is a bit more nuanced than that - just like when it comes to some Sufi scholars etc. People will obviously disagree on such individuals and their presumed Kufr.

                    If anyone wishes to implement such rulings (banning words like Shayateen and Dajjal to describe other Muslims or disputed individuals) starting from now, then please go ahead. But Abu Sulayman is not deserving to be banned as others have not been banned because of this.

                    I would also ban the brother for mentioning the mother of his brother in such a manner too. This was very hurtful to read even though it is not my mother. And I ask Allah to compensate her tremendously! May Allah bless her with the best of His blessings and grant her the best of endings. Of course, the same people wanting Abu Sulayman banned for his words on IAW stayed quiet on that one. Wa iyyadhubillah. Unbelievable.
                    Last edited by BintFulaan; 01-03-21, 09:27 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fais View Post

                      Sufism is a convoluted term. Every major scholar wrote about it as it's part of deen. Like any other science. It's just purification of the soul. if that's what you mean then yeah I believe in it, but so does everyone else. If you mean like the extreme sufis then no, I'm not.
                      Really?! So, then I should find a book or chapter within a book recommending and describing "Sufism" by say 'Ibn Qudamah, 'Ibn Abd al-Barr, adh-Dhahabi, as-Sarkhasi, al-Qaraafi, 'Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, Sahnun, az-Zarkashi, at-Tahawi, 'Ibn Muflih, al-Mardawi, al-Mawardi, 'Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Qurtubi, at-Tabari, etc?

                      Please direct me to where in their major works of Tafsir, Fiqh, Usul, commentaries on Hadith, or treatises dealing with Aqa'id, do I find their writings dealing with the "science of Sufism"?

                      Originally posted by Fais View Post
                      Reason you think that is because I held many fiqh positions that were ascribed to sufis, like the mawlid for example. But the Mawlid is a legitimate fiqh position held by many great scholars. But people think Mawlid is a sufi thing, it isn't. And like that I held many positions that were deemed "Sufi" ..
                      "Mawlid" is not a "Fiqh position". It is an innovation that began in the 13th century. If it was a true "Fiqh position", then it would be mentioned in the books of Fiqh either under its own "kitab" or "bab". It's not found in most major, relied-upon books of Fiqh, except those authored by Ash'aris and Sufis after the 13th century.

                      Nice try. Normalizing deviation- seems to be a trend with you. That and ignoring reality.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BintFulaan View Post

                        I personally would threaten to ban someone for calling their Muslim brothers Shayateen on here - if they don't repent and publicly retract and apologise.

                        I would also ban the brother for mentioning the mother of his brother in such a manner too.
                        Funny. I never liked you and you never liked me. You're such an opportunist. I don't blame you though. Childish, but I don't blame you.

                        You must have the same comprehension issues as your friend Abu Sulayman. I never mentioned his mother, rather I said:

                        Originally posted by AbuNajm
                        Al-Baghdadi is no more wretched than the mother who gives birth to a Shaytan among mankind who refers to the leaders and scholars of Sunni Muslim groups as "Dajjal" and "wretched".
                        So, if al-Baghdadi is "wretched" and IAW is "a Dajjal" as Abu Sulayman says, then so is the mother "gives birth to a Shaytan among mankind who refers to the leaders and scholars of Sunni Muslim groups as "Dajjal" and "wretched"- if that description matches Abu Sulayman, then so be it.

                        If IAW is not "a leader and scholar of a Sunni Muslim group" nor is al-Baghdadi, then where is the insult to Abu Sulayman?

                        If IAW and al-Baghdadi were at the very least "leaders and scholars of Sunni Muslim groups", then which is worse: calling them "wretched" and "Dajjal" or saying the same of the mother of the person who said they were?

                        I think most people here understood the nuance above within having to have it explained. I get the feeling due to our history over the years, you don't care about that and are only looking for a chance to speak ill of me.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BintFulaan View Post
                          Assalamu alaykum,

                          This is really saddening.. may Allah guide us all.

                          I personally would threaten to ban someone for calling their Muslim brothers Shayateen on here - if they don't repent and publicly retract and apologise. It has happened before, but no one responded when such words were used against some brothers (Abu Sulayman included) on here, so why all the fuss now? Besides, the issue with IAW is a bit more nuanced than that - just like when it comes to some Sufi scholars etc. People will obviously disagree on such individuals and their presumed Kufr.

                          If anyone wishes to implement such rulings (banning words like Shayateen and Dajjal to describe other Muslims or disputed individuals) starting from now, then please go ahead. But Abu Sulayman is not deserving to be banned as others have not been banned because of this.

                          I would also ban the brother for mentioning the mother of his brother in such a manner too. This was very hurtful to read even though it is not my mother. And I ask Allah to compensate her tremendously! May Allah bless her with the best of His blessings and grant her the best of endings. Of course, the same people wanting Abu Sulayman banned for his words on IAW stayed quiet on that one. Wa iyyadhubillah. Unbelievable.
                          walaykum salaam

                          thats the thing sis i think its good to read and hear Abu Sulayman points of view, whether you agree with him or not so you can understand the reasoning for his thoughts and beliefs

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                            Let me translate this: You were detained for one month and eleven to twelve days.

                            Hmmm doesn't sound as dramatic as 1,000 hours...
                            The mask has been fully stripped away. It's not that big of a deal when Muslims get locked up... even better when you get paid to help put them there.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fordham Unviersity source

                              After the exodus of all those Latins who could leave [Jerusalem], 15,000 individuals remained in the city. According to Imad al-Din, 7,000 of them were men and 8,000 were women and children. All were enslaved.
                              Imagine if any Sunni Muslim fighting group took a fraction of that many Disbelievers as slaves today- they would be lambasted by every government-appointed Muslim speaker, preacher, scholar, and authority. Wait, a Sunni Muslim group did take slaves over the past several years, far less than that in fact, and they were lambasted for this "un-Islamic act".

                              But there it is in black and white that Salah ad-Deen took 15,000 slaves from the Christians who could not afford to pay their ransom after the conquest of Jerusalem.

                              Still a hero with no one pointing out this fact and condemning it and focusing solely on that act alone.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                                The mask has been fully stripped away. It's not that big of a deal when Muslims get locked up... even better when you get paid to help put them there.
                                Completely wrong. I've never been detained for a month at a time, or even a full week or full day. I've never been arrested in my adult life. Not that it should matter...

                                But what does the truth matter to people who will make up things about fellow Muslims and proceed on that basis even after being corrected? If they do it to the likes of IAW, then who am I to them that would prevent their lying and slandering me?

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X