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
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    Just look at the thread before AbuNajm appeared and what happened to it after he appeared!
    [/B]
    funny you should mention that

    i have been watching the MANY MANY MANY MANY posts of Abu Sulayman for a long time. Never commented on them. Figured let him have his own thread. Too much nonsense to read

    i can't say whether it was Abu Najm or someone else who reported "calling a scholar a dajjal" that caught my eye
    also, the justifications tawassul
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية





    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?



      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.



      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.



      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...
      If I knew you were autistic, I wouldn't have bothered. Well since I now know. I won't.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

        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"?



        "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.
        Lol, are you on that snow white?

        Dude ... I don't care. Genuinely. I honestly couldn't care less ... lol. You taking this way to personally.

        PS. What were you saying about being respectful or something regarding scholars ...?
        Last edited by Fais; 02-03-21, 12:08 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by AbuMubarak View Post

          Fais is a mod?

          Nor did I think we were arguing, he said I'm salafi in spite of me saying I am not. I told him call me whatever you want. No skin off my nose
          I've been a mod a lot longer than AA.

          I won't calling you Salafi If you don't want to be called one. No problem.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

            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?
            Bro, relax. I'm a fan of Salahuddin.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by AbuMubarak View Post

              funny you should mention that

              i have been watching the MANY MANY MANY MANY posts of Abu Sulayman for a long time. Never commented on them. Figured let him have his own thread. Too much nonsense to read

              i can't say whether it was Abu Najm or someone else who reported "calling a scholar a dajjal" that caught my eye
              also, the justifications tawassul
              I almost exclusively quoted classical scholars in the beginning of this thread and you obviously have not read anything! If their statements are "nonsense" to you, then this shows how far away you're from the divine law that you claim to follow.

              ​​​​​​Then: While you and some others were threatening me with a ban (because I called an evil man who believed in the permissibility of killing people inside the Masajid of Allah ta'ala as satanic!), you completely ignored the fact that this dishonest creature AbuNajm insulted the mother of his opponent and acted as if his insult is very "nuanced". He additionally also stated to a female member "your friend" while intending a male member and this is yet another shameless behavior!

              Do you remember our last discussion about rebelling against current day rulers (whom we agreed upon not being legitimate)? Isn't it ironic that you can't even manage a forum according to Islam and then talking big about it on a state level!?
              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 02-03-21, 08:38 AM.

              Comment


              • You are obsessed

                You need professional help

                In case you haven't noticed, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab is dead. Been dead for a good while. His followers are dead

                People who read his books admire his stance on tawheed. I am one of those people

                I have never claimed to be a follower of his. Nor anyone else I know.

                You cut & paste threads upon threads on the same issue, essentially spamming the forum

                We get it. You don't like him

                All of that could have been said in one thread, one post

                Let it go

                I dont run this forum
                .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
                نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
                دولة الإسلامية باقية





                Comment


                • You ignored what I stated in my last post and are speaking about something else. You think no one will get this, right?

                  My last post was about you not implementing Islam in this forum! From one side you're threatening me with a ban (without having a good reason) and from the other side you don't say a single word regarding a person who insults the mother of his opponent.

                  If you would be a head of state, you would be no better than today's rulers. So next time don't act as if you're so concerned about the divine law!


                  As for Tawhid: Our Tawhid is based upon Surat al-Ikhlas! And if we want to read more about Tawhid, then we will read classical works (like al-Tahawiyya, Lum'at al-I'tiqad, al-Sanusiyya, etc.) and not the works of a proven liar and criminal, who lived more than 1000 years after the Hijra!

                  As for the so called "Tawhid" of that IAW (d. 1206 AH):
                  It's similar to the "Tawhid" of the accursed satan, for the worthless satan knew about the oneness of Allah ta'ala, but he was arrogant and did not show due respect to those whom Allah ta'ala has honored and became therefore from among the disbelievers! IAW's "Tawhid" maybe even worse, because he didn't even know what he worships and whether that which he worships is transcendent from corporeality or not and this additionally to his lack of respect for our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).

                  Till this day there are people who fall into disrespecting the Best of Creation - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - (which is clear disbelief) because of his fake "Tawhid". We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being and protection.
                  Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 02-03-21, 02:34 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by AbuMubarak View Post
                    His followers are dead
                    That's not true. His followers are very much alive.

                    Comment


                    • Seeking intercession with the Prophet (s): Its ruling according to classical scholars
                      The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than ISIS
                      Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's lack of qualifications and the disasters that resulted from it!

                      Three current threads on Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, all saying the same thing

                      That is an abnormal obsession

                      If you dont like yasir qadhi, albani, fawzan, hamza yusuf, imran hussein, anyone else, WE GET IT

                      But no one should be that obsessed over anyone who is dead, much less someone who is alive
                      .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
                      نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
                      دولة الإسلامية باقية





                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fais View Post

                        That's not true. His followers are very much alive.
                        Your perspective is a bit skewed, I have come to realize, but lets play

                        Who are his followers today? Who takes commands from him today? Who worships at his grave?

                        I mentioned my respect for him was from the Three Fundamentals. Can you refute anything he said?

                        As far as warring amongst Muslims, I will let Abu Najm deal with that aspect

                        Its like the shia going on and on and on and on about how Ali should have been the successor, its tiring and meaningless today

                        but you guys go on, i am sure there is someone who is remotely interested
                        .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
                        نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
                        دولة الإسلامية باقية





                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          You ignored what I stated in my last post and are speaking about something else. You think no one will get this, right?

                          My last post was about you not implementing Islam in this forum! From one side you're threatening me with a ban (without having a good reason) and from the other side you don't say a single word regarding a person who insults the mother of his opponent.

                          If you would be a head of state, you would be no better than today's rulers. So next time don't act as if you're so concerned about the divine law!


                          As for Tawhid: Our Tawhid is based upon Surat al-Ikhlas! And if we want to read more about Tawhid, then we will read classical works (like al-Tahawiyya, Lum'at al-I'tiqad, al-Sanusiyya, etc.) and not the works of a proven liar and criminal, who lived more than 1000 years after the Hijra!

                          As for the so called "Tawhid" of that IAW (d. 1206 AH):
                          It's similar to the "Tawhid" of the accursed satan, for the worthless satan knew about the oneness of Allah ta'ala, but he was arrogant and did not show due respect to those whom Allah ta'ala has honored and became therefore from among the disbelievers! IAW's "Tawhid" maybe even worse, because he didn't even know what he worships and whether that which he worships is transcendent from corporeality or not and this additionally to his lack of respect for our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).

                          Till this day there are people who fall into disrespecting the Best of Creation - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - (which is clear disbelief) because of his fake "Tawhid". We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being and protection.
                          i told you i dont run this forum. I said IF i was an active mod, i would ban you for spamming the forum and slandering a dead Muslim
                          .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
                          نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
                          دولة الإسلامية باقية





                          Comment


                          • Whoops made Sultan Salahuddin sound like a Hanafi... My apologies to the Shafi'is on this thread!


                            Originally posted by AbuMubarak View Post
                            You are obsessed

                            You need professional help

                            In case you haven't noticed, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab is dead. Been dead for a good while. His followers are dead

                            People who read his books admire his stance on tawheed. I am one of those people

                            I have never claimed to be a follower of his. Nor anyone else I know.

                            You cut & paste threads upon threads on the same issue, essentially spamming the forum

                            We get it. You don't like him

                            All of that could have been said in one thread, one post

                            Let it go

                            I dont run this forum
                            Some Questions

                            1. Apart from Thalathatul-Usul (The three principles), what works of Ibn Abdul Wahhab has Shaykh read? I note that this work you constantly refer to is a very basic booklet of his which contains nothing objectionable, except one statement, and seems to just teach the basics of Islam. Some good features of it is that the author tries to evidence fundamental doctrine from the Qur'an and Sunnah, that the booklet is structured around the three questions of the grave, and for most of the book, the author has kept things quite simple.

                            Some negatives: He does at one point at the end quote a certain scholar, who states something that isn't true and contradicts the Qur'an (quoting Ibnul Qayyim that an aspect of Taghut is to claim knowledge of the unseen, which apart from going against what Allah has said, is also commonly known to be not true as many prophets and messengers including our Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam we know have limited knowledge of the unseen, which he taught to us. Dependent on the definition of 'unseen' even non-prophets and people who we are not sure are prophets had this.)

                            Also its strength is also its weakness - it is quite brief: a book I read as a child on the basics of Islam, Taleemul'Haqq, is I feel more in depth, whilst sticking to the basics of what a Muslim should know. It also includes basic fiqh which would be another criticism I'd have of that book, although it is clear that Ibn Abdul Wahhab just intended for it to be a basic text on Aqeedah. Of course that book also has issues, a parent should not rely solely on any one of these "Islam for kids" books - above all that's lazy.

                            2. Please describe to me, in your own words, what about his stance on the core doctrine of Tawhid, as you see it, makes him unique amongst the Muslims, especially in relation to the Sunni Muslim scholars? I am sure Shaykh realises Tawhid is the first and most fundamental teaching of the Din, even for non-Wahhabis. So please outline how his "stance on Tawhid" differs from the rest of the Muslims.

                            See my problems with him aren't him emphasising the word Tawhid, its that he practically edges his followers to subtle forms of Shirk behind this guise. On top of that he seems to think practices (not beliefs), but certain Islamic practices found even amongst the Salaf, are condusive of Shirk.

                            To bring the topic back onto Tawassul, Shaykh could you please also answer my next question:

                            3. A man goes and makes Sajdah before his father. What is the ruling on him?

                            I look forward to three answers from you Shaykh, insha'Allah.


                            Also I PM'd you a query Shaykh regarding something you must have written mistakenly, could at least you confirm to me by PM that you don't intend that?
                            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


                            • What about me not wanting to endorse this rabbit hole you guys have created are you not understanding?

                              Qadianis are kafir, clearly

                              You need to find a hobby
                              .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
                              نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
                              دولة الإسلامية باقية





                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by AbuMubarak View Post
                                Seeking intercession with the Prophet (s): Its ruling according to classical scholars
                                The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than ISIS
                                Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's lack of qualifications and the disasters that resulted from it!

                                Three current threads on Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, all saying the same thing

                                That is an abnormal obsession

                                If you dont like yasir qadhi, albani, fawzan, hamza yusuf, imran hussein, anyone else, WE GET IT

                                But no one should be that obsessed over anyone who is dead, much less someone who is alive
                                The first thread (meaning this one here) is NOT about IAW (d. 1206 AH), rather you people have turned it into one!

                                ​​​​​​As for the other two threads, then one is old and is filled with off-topic posts by your likes and without structure.
                                So I made a new thread (the last one) and brought much more sources and made it more structured.

                                Then: Yes the disbelieving heretic is dead, but many people here have some of his ideas (including yourself) without even realizing, because the Saudi state was successful in spreading his fake "Tawhid" among the people through their petro-dollars.

                                Originally posted by AbuMubarak View Post

                                i told you i dont run this forum. I said IF i was an active mod, i would ban you for spamming the forum and slandering a dead Muslim
                                Great! But insulting the mother of another member seems to be allowed! Allahul musta'an!
                                ​​​
                                ​​​​​Peace.
                                ​​​​​

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X