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 Predatorian View Post

    wow you went from A to Z.That case was when the prophet saws was present and he told him to do that.
    Anyway,why do you say that he was calling Mecca the land of shirk?
    Read this quote from Abu Sulayman

    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    The orginal Wahhabi movement: "Whoever does not make Takfir upon the people of Makkah is a disbeliever!"

    Let us see what the Najdis said:

    ุงู„ุฃู…ุฑ ุงู„ุซุงู†ูŠ: ุงู„ูƒูุฑ ุจู…ุง ูŠุนุจุฏ ู…ู† ุฏูˆู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ุŒ ูˆุงู„ู…ุฑุงุฏ ุจุฐู„ูƒ ุชูƒููŠุฑ ุงู„ู…ุดุฑูƒูŠู†ุŒ ูˆุงู„ุจุฑุงุกุฉ ู…ู†ู‡ู…ุŒ ูˆู…ู…ุง ูŠุนุจุฏูˆู† ู…ุน ุงู„ู„ู‡. ูู…ู† ู„ู… ูŠูƒูุฑ ุงู„ู…ุดุฑูƒูŠู† ู…ู† ุงู„ุฏูˆู„ุฉ ุงู„ุชุฑูƒูŠุฉุŒ ูˆุนุจุงุฏ ุงู„ู‚ุจูˆุฑุŒ ูƒุฃู‡ู„ ู…ูƒุฉ ูˆุบูŠุฑู‡ู…ุŒ ู…ู…ู† ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ุตุงู„ุญูŠู†ุŒ ูˆุนุฏู„ ุนู† ุชูˆุญูŠุฏ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ุดุฑูƒุŒ ูˆุจุฏู‘ู„ ุณู†ู‘ุฉ ุฑุณูˆู„ู‡ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… ุจุงู„ุจุฏุนุŒ ูู‡ูˆ ูƒุงูุฑ ู…ุซู„ู‡ู…ุŒ ูˆุฅู† ูƒุงู† ูŠูƒุฑู‡ ุฏูŠู†ู‡ู…ุŒ ูˆูŠุจุบุถู‡ู…ุŒ ูˆูŠุญุจ ุงู„ุฅุณู„ุงู… ูˆุงู„ู…ุณู„ู…ูŠู† ; ูุฅู† ุงู„ุฐูŠ ู„ุง ูŠูƒูุฑ ุงู„ู…ุดุฑูƒูŠู†ุŒ ุบูŠุฑ ู…ุตุฏู‚ ุจุงู„ู‚ุฑุขู†ุŒ ูุฅู† ุงู„ู‚ุฑุขู† ู‚ุฏ ูƒูุฑ ุงู„ู…ุดุฑูƒูŠู†ุŒ ูˆุฃู…ุฑ ุจุชูƒููŠุฑู‡ู…ุŒ ูˆุนุฏุงูˆุชู‡ู… ูˆู‚ุชุงู„ู‡ู…

    "The second issue: To disbelieve in that which is worshipped instead of Allah, and this means to make Takfir (declare as disbelievers) upon the polytheists (Mushrikin) and the disavowal from them and that which they worship alongside Allah.
    So whoever does not make Takfir upon the polytheists of the turkish state (i.e. the Ottomans!) and the grave-worshippers like the people of Makkah (!!!) and [upon] others from those who worship the righteous (Salihin) and left the Tawhid (monotheism) of Allah for Shirk (polytheism) and exchanged the Sunnah of his Messenger - sallalalhu 'alayhi wa sallam - with innovations, then he is a disbeliever like them even if dislikes their religion und hates them and loves Islam and its people.
    This is so because the one who does not declare the polytheists to be disbelievers has not accepted the Qur`an. The Qur`an declares the polytheists as disbelievers, and commands to declare them as such and to show enmity towards them and to fight them."

    Source: al-Durar al-Saniyya 9/291

    Look what a great lie they made against the people of Makkah, who were from the people of Tawhid and Tanzih! (And do you see the Takfir against the Ottomans?)
    And look how they make Takfir even upon the one who does not make Takfir upon them. If this is not Ghuluww (extremism), then I don't know what is!

    Now look at this letter of Sa'ud I. bin 'Abd al-'Aziz [bin Muhammad bin Sa'ud] (d. 1229 AH) addressing the people of Makkah:

    ู…ู† ุณุนูˆุฏ ุจู† ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ุนุฒูŠุฒ , ุฅู„ู‰ ูƒุงูุฉ ุงู‡ู„ ู…ูƒุฉ ูˆุงู„ุนู„ู…ุงุก ูˆุงู„ุขุบูˆุงุช ูˆู‚ุงุถูŠ ุงู„ุณู„ุทุงู† , ุงู„ุณู„ุงู… ุนู„ู‰ ู…ู† ุงุชุจุน ุงู„ู‡ุฏู‰
    ุฃู…ุง ุจุนุฏ: ูุฃู†ุชู… ุฌูŠุฑุงู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ูˆุณูƒุงู† ุญุฑู…ู‡ ุขู…ู†ูˆู† ุจุฃู…ู†ู‡.
    ุฅู†ู…ุง ู†ุฏุนูˆูƒู… ู„ุฏูŠู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ูˆุฑุณูˆู„ู‡ , ( ู‚ู„ ูŠุง ุงู‡ู„ ุงู„ูƒุชุงุจ ุชุนุงู„ูˆุง ุงู„ู‰ ูƒู„ู…ุฉ ุณูˆุงุก ุจูŠู†ู†ุง ูˆุจูŠู†ูƒู… ุงู† ู„ุง ู†ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ุงู‘ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ูˆู„ุง ู†ุดุฑูƒ ุจู‡ ุดูŠุฆุงู‹ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุชุฎุฐ ุจุนุถู†ุง ุจุนุถุงู‹ ุฃุฑุจุงุจุงู‹ ู…ู† ุฏูˆู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุŒ ูุงู† ุชูˆู„ูˆุง ูู‚ูˆู„ูˆุง: ุงุดู‡ุฏูˆุง ุจุงู†ู†ุง ู…ุณู„ู…ูˆู† ) , ูุฃู†ุชู… ููŠ ุฃู…ุงู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุซู… ููŠ ุฃู…ุงู† ุฃู…ูŠุฑ ุงู„ู…ุณู„ู…ูŠู† ุณุนูˆุฏ ุจู† ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ุนุฒูŠุฒ , ูˆุฃู…ูŠุฑูƒู… ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ู…ุนูŠู† ุจู† ู…ุณุงุนุฏ ุŒ ูุงุณู…ุนูˆุง ู„ู‡ ูˆุฃุทูŠุนูˆุง ู…ุง ุฃุทุงุน ุงู„ู„ู‡ ูˆุงู„ุณู„ุงู…


    "From Sa'ud bin 'Abd al-'Aziz to all of the people of Makkah, the scholars, the chiefs and the judge of the Sultan: Peace be upon the one who follows guidance.
    To proceed: You're are the neighbours of Allah and the inhabitants of his sanctity and secure by his safety. We are calling you to the religion of Allah and that of his Messenger (!!!), { Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). } [3:64].
    You're in the safety of Allah and then in the safety of the leader of the Muslims (!) Sa'ud bin 'Abd al-'Aziz, and your leader 'Abd al-Mu'in bin Musa'ad. So listen to him and obey him as long as he obeys Allah. Peace."

    Source: Hashiyyah of 'Unwan al-Majd 1/261 by Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH)

    Look how he greets them with "Peace be upon the one who follows guidance" instead of "Peace be upon you". (It should be obvious by now why he's doing that!)
    Then he's calling them "to the religion of Allah and that of his Messenger"?!?! Why?? Are the People of Makkah not already upon the religion of Allah?
    And then look at the Ayah he qoutes and how we declares himself to be the leader of Muslims!

    There are two important things that you need to know about this Sa'ud I. bin 'Abd al-'Aziz (d. 1229 AH):

    - He was not just the third leader/ruler of the first Saudi state, but also a direct student of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) himself
    - The one who commanded all of the people of Najd to make Bay'ah to him after 'Abd al-'Aziz bin Muhammad bin Sa'ud (d. 1218 AH) was none other than Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab as Ibn Bishr mentioned in his 'Unwan al-Majd 1/162: "ุฃู…ุฑ ุงู„ุดูŠุฎ ู…ุญู…ุฏ ุจู† ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ูˆู‡ุงุจ ุฌู…ูŠุน ุฃู‡ู„ ู†ุฌุฏ ุฃู† ูŠุจุงูŠุนูˆุง ุณุนูˆุฏ ุจู† ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ุนุฒูŠุฒ , ูˆุฃู† ูŠูƒูˆู† ูˆู„ูŠ ุงู„ุนู‡ุฏ ุจุนุฏ ุฃุจูŠู‡ , ูˆุฐู„ูƒ ุจุฅุฐู† ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ุนุฒูŠุฒ , ูุจุงูŠุนูˆู‡" - end of the qoute -

    Know that he's still trying to sound nice in the above letter, because he said that after being able to control the city.
    But let's see how this "safety" that he claimed to give to the people of Makkah looked like when he lost the control over the city.


    The Wahhabiyyah made an embargo against Makkah al-mukarramah, which caused the death of many of its people

    Ibn Bishr said while speaking about the incidents of the year 1220 AH:

    ูˆููŠ ู‡ุฐู‡ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉ ุงุดุชุฏ ุงู„ุบู„ุงุก ูˆุงู„ู‚ุญุท ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ู†ุงุณ ... ูˆุฃู…ุง ู…ูƒุฉ ูุงู„ุฃู…ุฑ ููŠู‡ุง ุฃุนุธู… ู…ู…ุง ุฐูƒุฑู†ุง ุจุณุจุจ ุงู„ุญุฑุจ ูˆุงู„ุญุตุงุฑ ูˆู‚ุทุน ุงู„ู…ูŠุฑุฉ ูˆุงู„ุณุงุจู„ุฉ , ูˆุฐู„ูƒ ุญูŠุซ ุงู†ุชู‚ุถ ุงู„ุตู„ุญ ุจูŠู† ุบุงู„ุจ ูˆุจูŠู† ุณุนูˆุฏ , ูุณุฏู‘ุช ุงู„ุทุฑู‚ ูƒู„ู‘ู‡ุง ุนู† ู…ูƒุฉ ู…ู† ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ูŠู…ู† ูˆุชู‡ุงู…ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุญุฌุงุฒ ูˆู†ุฌุฏ , ู„ุฃู†ู‡ู… ูƒู„ู‡ู… ุฑุนูŠุฉ ุณุนูˆุฏ ูˆุชุญุช ุฃู…ุฑู‡ , ูุซุจุช ุนู†ุฏู†ุง ูˆุชูˆุงุชุฑ ุฃู† ูƒูŠู„ุฉ ุงู„ุฃุฑุฒ ูˆุงู„ุญุจ ุจู„ุบุช ููŠ ู…ูƒุฉ ุณุชุฉ ุฃุฑูŠู„ , ูˆูƒูŠู„ุชู‡ู… ุฃู†ู‚ุต ู…ู† ุตุงุน ู†ุฌุฏ , ูˆุจูŠุน ููŠู‡ุง ู„ุญูˆู… ุงู„ุญู…ูŠุฑ ูˆุงู„ุฌูŠู ุจูŠุนุช ููŠู‡ุง ุจุฃุบู„ู‰ ุงู„ุฃุซู…ุงู† ุŒ ูˆุฃูƒู„ุช ุงู„ูƒู„ุงุจ ุŒ ูˆุจู„ุบ ุฑุทู„ ุงู„ุฏู‡ู† ุฑูŠุงู„ูŠู† , ูˆู…ุงุช ุฎู„ู‚ ูƒุซูŠุฑ ู…ู†ู‡ู… ุฌูˆุนุงู‹

    Source: 'Unwan al-Majd 1/284-258

    It's mentioned that there was a drought in that year. What did the Wahhabiyyah do in this situation against the people of Makkah?
    They made an embargo against them so that nothing could enter the city from the direction of Yemen, Tihamah, Hijaz and Najd (because all of these regions were already under Wahhabi occupation), which made the situation in Makkah even more serious. The people had even started eating the meat of dogs and Ibn Bishr says that many people [in Makkah] died from hunger.

    Know that they treated Madinah al-munawwarah in the same way (and this was in the same year and Ibn Bishr mentioned that some pages after the above qoute), even though Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has explicitly warned from harming al-Madinah!

    It doesn't seem like Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab considered Makkah (Mecca) to be the land of Islam during his time.

    Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 15-03-21, 01:32 PM.
    My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

    Comment


    • Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post

      Read this quote from Abu Sulayman




      It doesn't seem like Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab considered Makkah (Mecca) to be the land of Islam during his time.
      well just because someone lives in mecca doesnt mean they are rightly guided.At that time ottomans had destroyed islam.They brought so many innovations and may Allah reward him for that movement and forgive his sins and mistakes.
      Anyway this topic is about seeking intercession with the prophet.I shared my opinion that it is very dangerous and if you want the intercession you can get it through other ways that the prophet told to everybody and not to an individual case but ok if you guys wanna go ahead with that then sure its up to you.But beware that shirk is as small as the footstep of an ant

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Predatorian View Post

        well just because someone lives in mecca doesnt mean they are rightly guided.At that time ottomans had destroyed islam.They brought so many innovations and may Allah reward him for that movement and forgive his sins and mistakes.
        Anyway this topic is about seeking intercession with the prophet.I shared my opinion that it is very dangerous and if you want the intercession you can get it through other ways that the prophet told to everybody and not to an individual case but ok if you guys wanna go ahead with that then sure its up to you.But beware that shirk is as small as the footstep of an ant
        aMuslimForLife, I don't see the use in arguing with this brother. We know this mindset, we've seen it before. Better for him to learn the truth on his own.

        I ask you brother a simple question. I am not going to make any arguments in favour of X or Y, I am just going to highlight that maybe you have not thought these issues through hard enough and you might think they are black and white, when in reality they are grey.

        A man's parents make Sajdah to him in front of you. Before doing this they all said they were Muslims. After doing this they insist that what they have done is correct and Islamic - and they insist they only worship one God (not the man of course). I make you the judge, the executioner is ready with his sword sharpened at your side. If the Muslim commits Shirk, that is apostasy - if he defends it and does not relent, then he justifies his apostasy as faith.

        What is your judgement on the man's parents?



        Edit: These people are not ignorant by the way.
        Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 15-03-21, 06:41 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

          aMuslimForLife, I don't see the use in arguing with this brother. We know this mindset, we've seen it before. Better for him to learn the truth on his own.

          I ask you brother a simple question. I am not going to make any arguments in favour of X or Y, I am just going to highlight that maybe you have not thought these issues through hard enough and you might think they are black and white, when in reality they are grey.

          A man's parents make Sajdah to him in front of you. Before doing this they all said they were Muslims. After doing this they insist that what they have done is correct and Islamic - and they insist they only worship one God (not the man of course). I make you the judge, the executioner is ready with his sword sharpened at your side. If the Muslim commits Shirk, that is apostasy - if he defends it and does not relent, then he justifies his apostasy as faith.

          What is your judgement on the man's parents?



          Edit: These people are not ignorant by the way.
          brother i am not arguing with anybody.If anyone here wants to argue i am the wrong person,and we are already starting with the wrong foot if we are going to argue.I only shared my opinion
          There are many other grey issues which directly affect our lives like bitcoin,stocks,islamic banking,credit cards,marriages,corona etc.If we were so passionate and persistant about those it would be much better.But again okay,do whatever you want to do.

          Lol how im i supposed to judge that.I am a layman and elhamdulillah for that.But okay if i was really the judge and i had no choice then i would ask them why they make sajdah in front of him and explain them why it is shirk and they shouldnt do it.If they keep doing it then i guess they are kafirs but idk if they should be killed or not as they might not be apostates.Allahu Alem.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Predatorian View Post

            But okay if i was really the judge and i had no choice then i would ask them why they make sajdah in front of him and explain them why it is shirk and they shouldnt do it.If they keep doing it then i guess they are kafirs but idk if they should be killed or not as they might not be apostates.Allahu Alem.

            You made takfir of a Prophet.


            Then he raised his parents to the throne, and they all fell down in prostration to Joseph, who then said, โ€œO my dear father! This is the interpretation of my old dream. My Lord has made it come true. He was truly kind to me when He freed me from prison, and brought you all from the desert after Satan had ignited rivalry between me and my siblings. Indeed my Lord is subtle in fulfilling what He wills. Surely He หนaloneหบ is the All-Knowing, All-Wise.โ€

            (Sahih International's Interpretation of al-Qur'an, Surah Yusuf, Ayah 100)

            What you missed: Actions have intentions, there is no action of worship, worship can only be by intention.

            The Sajdah as-Sawh (Prostration of Respect) was in the Shariah of the past, permitted (Halal) and even an act of the Sunnah of the prior Prophets Alayhim Salam. Now in the Shariah of Khatim an-Nabiyyin Muhammad Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam it is Haram, but not Shirk.

            The Sajdah al-Ibadah (Prostration of Worship) was, is and always will be not only Haram, but also clear Shirk and disbelief.

            You do not understand these issues because of this - you do not understand Niyyah (intention): You judge actions to be actions of disbelief not considering intention. If you contemplate that deeply, you will realise why someone going to a grave and asking the person of that grave to make dua to Allah or even asking them for help (iff they understand only Allah is their lord, only He is worshipped, only He has power over all things, the creations have no power to do or cause anything themselves), is not Kufr/Shirk, nor can ever be.

            brother i am not arguing with anybody.If anyone here wants to argue i am the wrong person,and we are already starting with the wrong foot if we are going to argue.I only shared my opinion
            There are many other grey issues which directly affect our lives like bitcoin,stocks,islamic banking,credit cards,marriages,corona etc.If we were so passionate and persistant about those it would be much better.But again okay,do whatever you want to do.

            Lol how im i supposed to judge that.I am a layman and elhamdulillah for that.
            And this is another issue. You are a Muqallid in Aqeedah. But I would conjecture that you're a Mujtahid in Fiqh. You must reverse the situation dear brother, be a Muqallid in Fiqh and Mujtahid in Aqeedah.

            Anyway, there are more important issues to discuss. I personally think it is not as beneficial discussing these issues with a minority of brothers who insha'Allah will eventually find their way to the truth, when we have more pressing problems in the Ummah. As much as I respect the brothers above arguing and defending the Sunni position on these issues, I think the bulk of our effort and energy is best spent elsewhere.

            Allahu Alam.
            Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 15-03-21, 11:11 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

              Okay, very good. May Allah ta'ala guide us both to that which He is pleased with.

              Before going on I want just to reiterate that I don't believe in this "Salafi vs Sufi"-dichotomy, because it's a modern innovation.
              Rather on one side there is classical Islam represented by the 4 Madhahib in jurisprudence, the Asha'ris and Maturdis and Hanabila in creed and real Tasawwuf (as teached by Imam al-Junayd) in the purification of the soul.
              On the other side there are those who have deviated from the correct way like the modernists, fake "Sufis", modern "Salafis", Shi'a and so on.

              I would say that this view is much more in line with the thinking of the classical scholars, then this innovated modern dichotomy.
              Ameen.

              There may not have been a historical dichotomy between "Salafi" and "Sufi", but there definitely is one today. No point in trying to wish it away.

              Classically there has existed Ahl as-Sunnah and Ahl al-Kalaam and Sufis tended to belong to the latter along with Ash'aris and Maturidis. Ahl al-Kalaam do not belong to Ahl as-Sunnah when comparing apples to apples. However, compared to Shi'ah, Mu'tazilah, the Qaramitah, and others, then Ahl al-Kalaam are closer to Ahl as-Sunnah than them.

              Just because many of the individual Fuqahaa' who adhered to a Madh'hab inclined towards Kalaam and the Ash'ari creed, does not require that their Aqidah and philosophical inclinations come to define "Ahl as-Sunnah" in Aqidah, Manhaj, and Mantiq.

              Ahl as-Sunnah are defined not only by their following the Fiqh of the four schools, but the Aqidah of the A'immat al-Arba'ah as well. None of the four Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah were Ash'ari or Maturidi. So, to say that either of those two scholars constitute a part of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqidah is simply not possible.

              Any attempts at making the Ash'ari or Maturidi creeds representative of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqidah is destined to fail because what makes them separate creeds is precisely their difference with the four Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah. If Ash'aris and Maturidis did not differ with the four Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah, there would have been no need to create a separate creed in the first place.

              Yes, a Sufi can be Hanbali and Ash'ari or even Athari. That doesn't mean Sufism can then be considered a part of Hanbalism or Atharism.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              Now let's get to the position of the two persons mentioned by you regarding the issues mentioned in this thread:

              As for Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH):
              - He regarding supplicating to Allah ta'ala while using our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) as a means to him (meaning: Tawassul) as disallowed, but he acknowledged that other scholars regarded it as allowed.
              I don't think this is the whole story. Ibn Taymiyyah divided Tawassul into at least 3 categories- legislated, differed over, and Shirk.

              The legislated form of Tawassul was done during the life of the Prophet SAWS when Companions RA would come to him and ask for Du'a.

              The differed over form of Tawassul is that which is done after the death of the Prophet SAWS, is restricted to him SAWS, and does not contain any words of Istighaathah or directly addressing the Prophet SAWS.

              The Shirk in Tawassul are those forms of Du'a which directly address the Prophet SAWS and his person and which contain words of Istighaathah accompanied by the belief that the Prophet SAWS can hear and respond to the requests and needs.

              Ibn Taymiyyah is not proven to have ever left categorizing Tawassul into these 3 categories.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              - As for asking the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) for intercession or praying for you (which is the same) during the visitation of his blessed grave, then this is an innovation according to him and something that leads to polytheism.
              - He also disallowed intending the visitation of the blessed grave.
              What Ibn Taymiyyah said about this is very clear:

              ูˆู…ุง ุฐูƒุฑู‡ ุงู„ุณุงุฆู„ ู…ู† ุงู„ุฃุญุงุฏูŠุซ ููŠ ุฒูŠุงุฑุฉ ู‚ุจุฑ ุงู„ู†ุจูŠ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู… ููƒู„ู‡ุง ุถุนูŠูุฉ ุจุงุชูุงู‚ ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุนู„ู… ุจุงู„ุญุฏูŠุซุŒ ุจู„ ู‡ูŠ ู…ูˆุถูˆุนุฉ ู„ู… ูŠุฎุฑุฌ ุฃุญุฏ ู…ู† ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุณู†ู† ุงู„ู…ุนุชู…ุฏุฉ ุดูŠุฆุง ู…ู†ู‡ุงุŒ ูˆู„ู… ูŠุญุชุฌ ุฃุญุฏ ู…ู† ุงู„ุฃุฆู…ุฉ ุจุดูŠุก ู…ู†ู‡ุงุŒ ุจู„ ู…ุงู„ูƒ ุฅู…ุงู… ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ู…ุฏูŠู†ุฉ ุงู„ู†ุจูˆูŠุฉ ุงู„ุฐูŠู† ู‡ู… ุฃุนู„ู… ุงู„ู†ุงุณ ุจุญูƒู… ู‡ุฐู‡ ุงู„ู…ุณุฃู„ุฉ ูƒุฑู‡ ุฃู† ูŠู‚ูˆู„ ุงู„ุฑุฌู„ ุฒุฑุช ู‚ุจุฑ ุงู„ู†ุจูŠ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…. ูˆู„ูˆ ูƒุงู† ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ู„ูุธ ู…ุนุฑูˆูุง ุนู†ุฏู‡ู… ุฃูˆ ู…ุดุฑูˆุนุง ุฃูˆ ู…ุฃุซูˆุฑุง ุนู† ุงู„ู†ุจูŠ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู… ู„ู… ูŠูƒุฑู‡ู‡ ุนุงู„ู… ุงู„ู…ุฏูŠู†ุฉ.
              ูˆุงู„ุฅู…ุงู… ุฃุญู…ุฏ ุฃุนู„ู… ุงู„ู†ุงุณ ููŠ ุฒู…ุงู†ู‡ ุจุงู„ุณู†ุฉ ู„ู…ุง ุณุฆู„ ุนู† ุฐู„ูƒ ู„ู… ูŠูƒู† ุนู†ุฏู‡ ู…ุง ูŠุนุชู…ุฏ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ููŠ ุฐู„ูƒ ู…ู† ุงู„ุฃุญุงุฏูŠุซ ุฅู„ุง ุญุฏูŠุซ ุฃุจูŠ ู‡ุฑูŠุฑุฉ ุฃู† ุงู„ู†ุจูŠ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู… ู‚ุงู„: ยซู…ุง ู…ู† ุฑุฌู„ ูŠุณู„ู… ุนู„ูŠู‘ ุฅู„ุง ุฑุฏู‘ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‘ ุฑูˆุญูŠ ุญุชู‰ ุฃุฑุฏู‘ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ุงู„ุณู„ุงู…ยป ยซ1ยป. ูˆุนู„ู‰ ู‡ุฐุง ุงุนุชู…ุฏ ุฃุจูˆ ุฏุงูˆุฏ ููŠ ุณู†ู†ู‡.
              ูˆูƒุฐู„ูƒ ู…ุงู„ูƒ ููŠ ุงู„ู…ูˆุทุฃ ุฑูˆู‰ ุนู† ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุจู† ุนู…ุฑ ุฃู†ู‡ ูƒุงู† ุฅุฐุง ุฏุฎู„ ุงู„ู…ุณุฌุฏ ู‚ุงู„:
              ยซุงู„ุณู„ุงู… ุนู„ูŠูƒ ูŠุง ุฑุณูˆู„ ุงู„ู„ู‡ุŒ ุงู„ุณู„ุงู… ุนู„ูŠูƒ ูŠุง ุฃุจุง ุจูƒุฑุŒ ุงู„ุณู„ุงู… ุนู„ูŠูƒ ูŠุง ุฃุจุชยป ุซู… ูŠู†ุตุฑู ยซ2

              All the Ahadith about visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS are weak and fabricated by agreement of Ahl al-Ilm bil-Hadith. None of Ahl as-Sunan related any of those narrations and none of the Imams relied on any of them. Imam Malik, the Imam of Ahl al-Madinah, who were the most knowledgeable of people about the ruling on this issue, disliked that a person say "I will visit the grave of the Prophet SAWS". If this pronouncement had been known to them, legislated, or transmitted from the Prophet SAWS, the scholar of al-Madinah would not have disapproved of it.

              And then Imam Ahmad, the most knowledgeable of people of the Sunnah in his time, when asked about that, there were no reliable Ahadith about that according to him except the Hadith of Abu Hurayrah RA that the Prophet SAWS said: "There is no man that sends Salaam to me except that Allah returns my soul to me so that I may return to him the Salaam". Abu Dawud also relied on this in his Sunan.

              Likewise Imam Malik in his al-Muwata' transmitted from Abd Allah bin Umar, that when he would enter the Masjid he would say: "as-Salam Alayka, Oh Messenger of Allah; as-Salam Alayka, Oh Aba Bakr; as-Salam Alayka Oh father", then he would turn away.

              These are facts and not opinions. No one has had a response to the above for over 700 years except to say- "well, so-and-so has a different opinion".

              Without authentic proof, opinions don't matter when it comes to worship and Tawheed.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              His Hanbali colleagues (other than his direct followers) disagreed with him on all three points mentioned, which is why I stated that these are abnormal positions.
              Ibn Taymiyyah was a Mujtahid Mutlaq. To say that "his Hanbali colleagues disagreed with him" is not saying much. Yes, Ibn Taymiyyah had isolated views in which he differed with the Hanbali school. However, that was not simply due to whims, that was because of his Ijtihaad that he was entitled to due to his high rank in knowledge and mastery of the sciences.

              It may be that he was correct in an isolated view while the relied-upon position in the school, although a valid view, is not correct.

              It is not necessarily true that a Mujtahid's isolated view is "abnormal" or that it is incorrect.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              But at least two of his leading students have reported an incident with other scholars where he retracted his position on Tawassul and Tashaffu' and only remained on his position regarding Istighatha and he has even a statement stating exactly this found in Majmu' al-Fatawa, which is why I stated that he seems to have returned to the truth on this.
              Let's have a look at the statement and the accounts you mentioned above.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              Now as for his position on Istighatha, then he indeed called it as Shirk and was harsh on it, but he regarded it mostly as lesser polytheism and only regarded some rare cases as real and greater polytheism, which then indeed justifies Takfir.
              Note that here he had an acceptable point, but since he had combined this with his rejection of the visitation and the rejection of Tawassul and Tashaffu' and also the claim that "the Prophet's aid is not sought", the scholars criticized him.
              Which scholars criticized Ibn Taymiyyah for the above views? The Subkis? Other Ash'ari or Sufi scholars?

              If you can bring forward quotes from scholars who are Athari and not from the Mutakallimeen, that criticized Ibn Taymiyyah, then that would indeed be something to consider.

              The same old rivalries and your bringing quotes from scholars who were Ash'ari or from the Mutakallimeen is not going to make a difference.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              As for taking away assistance from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), then this is unacceptable and one should not even make such statements out of respect and also because it goes against the reality!
              The Messenger of Allah SAWS cannot assist anyone after his death. To believe that he can is Shirk, however it may be excused for the ignorant person.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              Remember that on the day of judgement the people will ask our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) for intercession and this is the greatest type of help that any creation can be asked! And also during the visitation the asking for intercession regarding the forgiveness of one's sins is again a very great type of aid!
              The above conclusions are precisely why Ibn Taymiyyah was so harsh against the practice- instead of following the report of al-Utbi or the Hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf in a Tawfeeqi manner, people will draw erroneous conclusions from them and derive false Aqaa'id and beliefs from them resulting in Shirk.

              The Day of Judgment is indeed a time when the intercession of the Prophet SAWS will be sought and granted and nothing stops Muslims from asking Allah to grant the Prophet SAWS the position of intercession for them on that day.

              There is a world of difference between the intercession asked to Allah and directing the requests for intercession to the Prophet SAWS after his death and from anywhere in the world.

              Not a single issue in Fiqh is ever treated this way where such large leaps are made in making analogies like this. It's not allowed in Fiqh and certainly not in Aqidah.

              All Ash'aris- so no surprise.

              And don't think that just because you can add the label "Hanbali" to a person's name, that it makes them more credible when it comes to Aqidah. There were Hanbalis who inclined towards the Mutakallimeen and Ashaa'irah.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              But if one calls upon a creation in the manner one calls upon one's Lord jalla jalaluhu, then this is indeed abominable and prohibited (this is something that was mentioned in the very opening post) and it is also acceptable to call this as [lesser] Shirk.
              So here Imam Ibn Taymiyya's position is correct.
              Those words ring hollow when not accompanied by the correct understanding and explanation.

              We can agree that Ibn Qudamah recommended the Du'a found in the Hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf, but we will never agree that he intended what you are saying is permissible- that a person make that Du'a, say the words "Yaa Muhammad", and actually believe they are addressing the Prophet SAWS and directing a request towards his blessed person.

              That was not the view of Ibn Qudamah nor any of the Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqidah.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              As for Takfir, then the beliefs and the intention is taken into consideration, which is why is why only in very rare cases Takfir is done.
              This is also the position of Imam Ibn Taymiyya, so he was in no way a Takfiri and the Najdis misunderstood him heavily!
              The Najdis didn't completely misunderstand Ibn Taymiyyah. They simply applied his reasoning to their times. Ibn Taymiyyah did not commit to Takfeer because of the circumstances of his times and the external threats to Muslims. I have no doubt that Ibn Taymiyyah would have responded differently in different times and places.

              I also have no doubt that the Ashaa'irah and Mutakallimeen would have hated him in every time and place as well.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              The Hanabila in the time of the Najdis explained this very issue to them (with someone like the 'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH) explicitly agreeing on Istighatha with Imam Ibn Taymiyya), but the Najdis didn't want to understand this and even justified chain-Takfir based upon this issue.
              You guys rely way too much on Sulayman bin Abd al-Wahhab. It's as if he's your only reference for most of the "proofs" you guys have against MiAW, aside from his rivals who supported the Ottoman Empire.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              As for Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) (or to make it short MiAW or shorter IAW):

              - He regarded supplicating to Allah ta'ala while using our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) as a means to him (meaning: Tawassul) as disallowed, but not as greater polytheism. But he would regard some wordings as "Shirk", even if Tawassul was intended.


              This is no different from Ibn Taymiyyah.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              - But as for the issue of seeking intercession (Tashaffu') during the visitation, then he regarded it as "greater polytheism" no matter what!
              I need to see proof of that.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              - As for the issue of Istighatha, then he regarded it again as "greater polytheism" without making any of the differentiations mentioned above.
              How is this different from Ibn Taymiyyah?

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              He added to this then chain-Takfir as is proven from his Mufid al-Mustafid.
              So he basically argued that anyone doubting the "Shirk" (greater one!) of the aforementioned has disbelieved and it was through this wrong reasoning that he made chain-Takfir upon major scholars and even whole regions.
              You haven't proven this at all. You can point to MiAW making Takfeer of a few individual scholars and that's it. Chain Takfeer and its application to masses of specific individuals has not been proven.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              Among those whom he made Takfir of was the 'Allama Ibn Fayruz (d. 1216 AH), who was the major scholar of the Hanabila of the whole region and who gave special importance to the words of Imam Ibn Taymiyya! So if an admirer of Imam Ibn Taymiyya is not safe from his Takfir, then imagine who would be safe from it!?
              There are many people who claim to "admire" Ibn Taymiyyah although they try to rewrite his views and reinvent him. They are crypto-Ash'aris and Sufis.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              This great scholar, then had to flee from Ahsa` to Basra, because IAW's followers were trying to slaughter him based on the Takfir of IAW upon him.
              The reaon why I'm mentioning you all of this, is that you realize that IAW was more something like a warlord than a scholar. If you go through the Islamic history, you won't find a single scholar acting in this manner.
              That's where we disagree. You need to stop with the characterizations based on one or two unverified "historical" references.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              Imam Ibn Taymiyya wrote a book on Istighatha against a person and in this book he doesn't make Takfir upon the person at all! He even helped the very person in real life in a very difficult situation! So there is a huge difference between Imam Ibn Taymiyya and IAW!
              Different circumstances call for different Ahkam, especially regarding Istighaathah and Tawassul.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              And here the great surprise: In real life Imam Ibn Taymiyya would sit in gatherings were poetry was said regarding the Best of Creation (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and would even cry. His foremost student reported one of these instances and that when it reached a passage which contained seeking aid (these type of poetry almost always contains such passages), he started to cry even more, which shows that he actually loved the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu' alayhi wa sallam) and longed for his meeting!
              Imagine what IAW would have done to him, if he would have been present!
              Maybe Ibn Taymiyyah was crying out of pity for those reciting the poetry.

              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              So what do you say?
              Take into consideration that none of the major Hanabila (and the major scholars of the other 3 Madhahib) agreed with IAW's Takfir and you can't accuse them all of following their desires, right? Especially when these people were all his seniors when it comes to knowledge of the Islamic sciences.
              โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹There are also no examples of any scholar throughout our history to make so much Takfir as IAW did. This is simply something unheard of.
              We disagree about the Takfeer, its application, its targets, and its historical accuracy. We also differ on understanding the point of view of the "major Hanabilah" who lived in the Arabian peninsula at the time of MiAW.

              Nothing about that has changed in our discussion.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post


                You made takfir of a Prophet.





                What you missed: Actions have intentions, there is no action of worship, worship can only be by intention.

                You do not understand these issues because of this - you do not understand Niyyah (intention): You judge actions to be actions of disbelief not considering intention. If you contemplate that deeply, you will realise why someone going to a grave and asking the person of that grave to make dua to Allah or even asking them for help (iff they understand only Allah is their lord, only He is worshipped, only He has power over all things, the creations have no power to do or cause anything themselves), is not Kufr/Shirk, nor can ever be.

                And this is another issue. You are a Muqallid in Aqeedah. But I would conjecture that you're a Mujtahid in Fiqh. You must reverse the situation dear brother, be a Muqallid in Fiqh and Mujtahid in Aqeedah.

                Anyway, there are more important issues to discuss. I personally think it is not as beneficial discussing these issues with a minority of brothers who insha'Allah will eventually find their way to the truth, when we have more pressing problems in the Ummah. As much as I respect the brothers above arguing and defending the Sunni position on these issues, I think the bulk of our effort and energy is best spent elsewhere.

                Allahu Alam.
                what going to the grave and asking that person to make dua to Allah is not kufr? So with this logic i should go and hug the grave ''worshipers'' tomorrow as they are my brothers in islam.All they do is make sadjah to the grave in respect and ask them to ask Allah to help them.
                You clearly have knowledge.But you are wasting this knowledge on the wrong way.I saw a lot of red flags but i wont bother with it.You can go and ask the people in the grave to help you brother dont worry,its not shirk at all.Dont be angry for not agreeing.You go your way,i go my way.No hard feelings at all.May Allah guide all who wants to be guided.

                Comment


                • AN, thanks for the reply. I'll answer insha`Allah when I get time.
                  โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹I would really like you to look at the whole issue from a classical perspective and not from a modern one.

                  Just a little question until then: Would you have time for several hours to listen some of the explanations by the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali regarding the very issue in question. I think you could really benefit from them.
                  I'll search for the videos that I'm intending and post them insha`Allah, so that you can listen to them when you get time.

                  Originally posted by Predatorian View Post

                  what going to the grave and asking that person to make dua to Allah is not kufr? So with this logic i should go and hug the grave ''worshipers'' tomorrow as they are my brothers in islam.All they do is make sadjah to the grave in respect and ask them to ask Allah to help them.
                  You clearly have knowledge.But you are wasting this knowledge on the wrong way.I saw a lot of red flags but i wont bother with it.You can go and ask the people in the grave to help you brother dont worry,its not shirk at all.Dont be angry for not agreeing.You go your way,i go my way.No hard feelings at all.May Allah guide all who wants to be guided.
                  We shouldn't mix up the issues here please. Prostration in front of created beings is disallowed in our law (unlike in the previous laws) and a major sin, while some of its forms are disbelief (in this in all laws) like the prostration for an idol or the sun.
                  โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹Thus prostration for one's parents or the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) out of respect is not disbelief, but it's definetely disallowed and clearly prohibited.
                  โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹
                  โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹
                  As for visiting the grave of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and asking him to supplicate for you for the forgiveness of yours sins, then there is nothing wrong with this and the Muslims have always done so. To claim this to be disbelief is a major mistake and indicates ignorance regarding the difference between real Tawhid and Shirk.

                  As for claiming that the people of the Haramayn al-sharifayn were upon "polytheism" for centuries upon centuries, then this implies disbelief in itself, because according to the statements of the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - it's impossible for them to become polytheists again and idols will only be worshiped again in the land of the Arabs in the end of times just before the hour when there is not a single believer on the face of earth anymore.
                  Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 16-03-21, 12:54 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
                    The messenger of Allah said he would supplicate but you said he didn't supplicate.

                    You can't brush this off like it's some minor detail.
                    Anyway, so back on topic...

                    Comment


                    • I think everyone is done with engaging with you. Your argument is not only flawed but literally pointless unless you point to a ruling at the end of it, which you don't want to do for obvious reasons.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Predatorian
                        Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post

                        Read this quote from Abu Sulayman




                        It doesn't seem like Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab considered Makkah (Mecca) to be the land of Islam during his time.
                        well just because someone lives in mecca doesnt mean they are rightly guided.At that time ottomans had destroyed islam.They brought so many innovations and may Allah reward him for that movement and forgive his sins and mistakes.
                        Anyway this topic is about seeking intercession with the prophet.I shared my opinion that it is very dangerous and if you want the intercession you can get it through other ways that the prophet told to everybody and not to an individual case but ok if you guys wanna go ahead with that then sure its up to you.But beware that shirk is as small as the footstep of an ant
                        Bro if a modern movement went around killing muslims because they thought they were taking part in shirk and bidah, we would oppose them and try to educate them (the ignorant muslims) and condemn the oppressive muslims, so why is any different for someone who's done this in the past?

                        What I find amazing is that the islamic awakening forum was a hardcore salafi forum yet they were deep complex threads with well known knowledgeable members openly criticizing and condemning the acts of IAW, so it's suprising to see some members on the forum (just generally saying not aimed at you bro) brushing it off like nothing

                        @abu mubarak would probably be aware of these discussions on islamic awakening because remember seeing him post there years ago I'm talking...

                        If ahmad raza khan or ashraf ali thanvi shared identical history as IAW would it be brushed off the way it is by some people on the forum and in real life? Sorry but I don't think so, if anything it would be held against them, so why should it be any different just because it's IAW?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          AN, thanks for the reply. I'll answer insha`Allah when I get time.
                          โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹โ€‹I would really like you to look at the whole issue from a classical perspective and not from a modern one.
                          In Sha' Allah.

                          I have done nothing but look at this issue from a classical perspective.

                          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          Just a little question until then: Would you have time for several hours to listen some of the explanations by the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali regarding the very issue in question. I think you could really benefit from them.
                          I'll search for the videos that I'm intending and post them insha`Allah, so that you can listen to them when you get time.
                          I don't do videos.

                          Besides, there is a Shaykh from Kuwait who addressed that brother's strange views and his giving himself the 'Alqab of "Azhari" and "Hanbali".

                          http://www.al-jasem.com/archives/2013

                          I don't agree with all the criticisms in that link, however, some of them are valid.

                          Muhammad Abd ul-Wahid is only 30-something years old. He's not old enough to have the title "Shaykh", and he clearly wasn't given that title from scholars.

                          I don't understand why people insist on giving themselves titles like this. It's a bad look and only ignorant individuals would be accepting and lured in by them.

                          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          As for visiting the grave of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and asking him to supplicate for you for the forgiveness of yours sins, then there is nothing wrong with this and the Muslims have always done so. To claim this to be disbelief is a major mistake and indicates ignorance regarding the difference between real Tawhid and Shirk.
                          Asking the Prophet SAWS to supplicate for us after his death is a violation of Tawheed and an innovation. The legislation of the Madhaahib for reciting specific Ad'iyyah at the grave of the Prophet SAWS containing wordings which may outwardly indicate addressing the Prophet SAWS are not a proof for the belief that these wordings are indicative of actually addressing the Prophet SAWS directly.

                          The real ignorance between Tawheed and Shirk emanates from blurring the lines between the two, which is clearly done in the case of those who promote addressing the dead with their Du'a and asking them instead of Allah AWJ.

                          It's one thing to prove that scholars approved of certain Du'a based on reports from the Salaf. It's another thing entirely to prove, based on those reports, few of which have been proven to be authentic and established, that these Ad'iyyah indicate a specific belief. That hasn't been done in this or any thread.

                          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          As for claiming that the people of the Haramayn al-sharifayn were upon "polytheism" for centuries upon centuries, then this implies disbelief in itself, because according to the statements of the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - it's impossible for them to become polytheists again and idols will only be worshiped again in the land of the Arabs in the end of times just before the hour when there is not a single believer on the face of earth anymore.
                          I think you may want to review the authoritative Shuruuh regarding those statements of the Prophet SAWS. Some of them don't make those statements absolutely prohibitive of apostasy and Shirk in Jazirat ul-Arab, especially the Sharh of al-Muzhiri, Mulla Ali al-Qari, and others.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

                            Bro if a modern movement went around killing muslims because they thought they were taking part in shirk and bidah, we would oppose them and try to educate them (the ignorant muslims) and condemn the oppressive muslims, so why is any different for someone who's done this in the past?

                            What I find amazing is that the islamic awakening forum was a hardcore salafi forum yet they were deep complex threads with well known knowledgeable members openly criticizing and condemning the acts of IAW, so it's suprising to see some members on the forum (just generally saying not aimed at you bro) brushing it off like nothing

                            @abu mubarak would probably be aware of these discussions on islamic awakening because remember seeing him post there years ago I'm talking...

                            If ahmad raza khan or ashraf ali thanvi shared identical history as IAW would it be brushed off the way it is by some people on the forum and in real life? Sorry but I don't think so, if anything it would be held against them, so why should it be any different just because it's IAW?
                            Islamic Awakening Forum became "ex-Salafi" in its later years.

                            "Hardcore Salafi"? Yeah, right....

                            There is a "modern movement" that "goes around killing muslims because they think they are taking part in shirk and bidah". They're called "secularists" and "westernized Muslims". They are the people who claim to be Muslim, yet ally with and aid the Disbelievers in drone strikes, razing Muslim cities, and assassination of any Sunni Muslims who are engaged in fighting to establish the Shari'ah.

                            Strange thing is these secularists and allies of the Disbelievers today are guilty of killing more Muslims by factors of hundreds than Shaykh ul-Islam Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab is accused of. They assassinate Muslims in Masaajid and while in Sajdah.

                            They accuse Sunni Muslim fighters of not even being Muslim; instead referring to them as "Zionist puppets" and "ex-Baathist opportunists" and mostly "Khawarij", but with the suggestion by all that that they are not Muslims at all.

                            Not a peep out of you guys about this ongoing carnage.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

                              Islamic Awakening Forum became "ex-Salafi" in its later years...
                              One or two of the prominent members from there now encourage people to vote for left parties in the west. They downplay and mock anyone who even suggests that this may be problematic.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

                                Islamic Awakening Forum became "ex-Salafi" in its later years.

                                "Hardcore Salafi"? Yeah, right....

                                There is a "modern movement" that "goes around killing muslims because they think they are taking part in shirk and bidah". They're called "secularists" and "westernized Muslims". They are the people who claim to be Muslim, yet ally with and aid the Disbelievers in drone strikes, razing Muslim cities, and assassination of any Sunni Muslims who are engaged in fighting to establish the Shari'ah.

                                Strange thing is these secularists and allies of the Disbelievers today are guilty of killing more Muslims by factors of hundreds than Shaykh ul-Islam Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab is accused of. They assassinate Muslims in Masaajid and while in Sajdah.

                                They accuse Sunni Muslim fighters of not even being Muslim; instead referring to them as "Zionist puppets" and "ex-Baathist opportunists" and mostly "Khawarij", but with the suggestion by all that that they are not Muslims at all.

                                Not a peep out of you guys about this ongoing carnage.
                                for a start dont make generalisations brother...

                                well if you dont consider that hardcore enough i dont know what you'd deem as 'hardcore'

                                yea but bro two wrongs dont make a right does it? i havent seen anyone condoning those as you say 'secularists' and 'westernized muslims' tbh

                                look at the end of the day whether it be IAW, ahmad raza khan barelvi or ashraf ali thanvi, these individuals are not infallible,
                                if someone provides factual evidences to their wrong doings without insulting or slandering them then why is it such a bitter pill to swallow?

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X