Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than ISIS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

    Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
    No, I done a tl;dr.
    Okay, alhamdulillah. Then what do you say about the one who says the following? (I've already qouted this statement HERE):

    الأمر الثاني: الكفر بما يعبد من دون الله، والمراد بذلك تكفير المشركين، والبراءة منهم، ومما يعبدون مع الله. فمن لم يكفر المشركين من الدولة التركية، وعباد القبور، كأهل مكة وغيرهم، ممن عبد الصالحين، وعدل عن توحيد الله إلى الشرك، وبدّل سنّة رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم بالبدع، فهو كافر مثلهم، وإن كان يكره دينهم، ويبغضهم، ويحب الإسلام والمسلمين ; فإن الذي لا يكفر المشركين، غير مصدق بالقرآن، فإن القرآن قد كفر المشركين، وأمر بتكفيرهم، وعداوتهم وقتالهم

    "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

    Is it okay to regard the people who said this and who made an embargo against Makkah al-mukarramah and Madinah al-munawwarah (it happened in 1220 AH) as criminal Khawarij?
    Or let me ask in a different way: What is the ruling concerning the people who made the above statement? And what is the ruling of the one who tries to turn the people who made such kind of statements as absolute authorities regarding the religion of Allah?
    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 29-11-15, 12:26 AM.

    Comment


    • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

      Originally posted by Linkdeutscher View Post
      Yes they are, this is your misunderstanding.

      The salaf said Allah has hands, and EVERYONE understood this to be literal, until Jahmis and what not came, then Aristotle was born then you guys came into existence who started this bogus 'literal vs metaphorical' debate.

      If I say I have a car it means I have a car, I don't have to say I literally have a car. UNTIL some fool starts to misinterpret my statement by saying "No he doesn't mean actually mean car by car" then to refute such a fool I will say I LITERALLY HAVE A CAR.

      Same exact thing with you Aristotlians.
      Worst example I've ever seen no offence
      Last edited by Ahki Muhammad; 29-11-15, 12:32 AM.

      Comment


      • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
        Okay, alhamdulillah. Then what do you say about the one who says the following? (I've already qouted this statement HERE):

        الأمر الثاني: الكفر بما يعبد من دون الله، والمراد بذلك تكفير المشركين، والبراءة منهم، ومما يعبدون مع الله. فمن لم يكفر المشركين من الدولة التركية، وعباد القبور، كأهل مكة وغيرهم، ممن عبد الصالحين، وعدل عن توحيد الله إلى الشرك، وبدّل سنّة رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم بالبدع، فهو كافر مثلهم، وإن كان يكره دينهم، ويبغضهم، ويحب الإسلام والمسلمين ; فإن الذي لا يكفر المشركين، غير مصدق بالقرآن، فإن القرآن قد كفر المشركين، وأمر بتكفيرهم، وعداوتهم وقتالهم

        "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

        Is it okay to regard the people who said this and who made an embargo against Makkah al-mukarramah and Madinah al-munawwarah (it happened in 1220 AH) as criminal Khawarij?
        Or let me ask in a different way: What is the ruling concerning the people who made the above statement? And what is the ruling of the one who tries to turn the people who made such kind of statements as absolute authorities regarding the religion of Allah?
        If shirk is proven then I don't believe they can be regarded as 'Khawarij'. Rather, declaring takfeer on polytheists and grave worshippers is quite normal. I don't know anyone who regards 'them' as absolute authorities so...

        Comment


        • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

          Originally posted by Ahki Muhammad View Post
          Worst example I've ever seen no offence
          I agree it's stupid, but Aristotlians can't understand more complex examples.
          You think you know more than my scholar's qiyās? He was more learned than you and all other scholars combined. Yeah, the devil was the greatest scholar too and look where his qiyās of fire being better than tīn got him. Sorry.

          You follow your scholar's qiyās, and I will follow the Qur'ān and Sunnah.

          Comment


          • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

            ...
            Last edited by Ajabah; 29-11-15, 10:23 PM. Reason: No point.
            Let not the free disposal (and affluence) of the disbelievers throughout the land deceive you.

            [Surah Aali-'Imraan: V. 196]

            Comment


            • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

              Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
              If shirk is proven then I don't believe they can be regarded as 'Khawarij'.
              I thought that you regard the people of Makkah as Muslims? Or are you trying to tell me that the people of Makkah and the whole Arabian peninsula were upon Shirk akbar during the time of the first Saudi state?

              Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
              Rather, declaring takfeer on polytheists and grave worshippers is quite normal.
              Upon polytheists: Yes. (But this would not make it allowed to kill them, because the reason for fighting is Muqatalah according to the Jumhur of the Fuqaha`.)
              As for the "grave worshippers": What do you intend by that? Let's say a person visits the grave of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and asks him to pray for the forgiveness of his sins. Has he committed Shirk akbar? If you say yes: According to which logic and according to which Shari'ah?

              Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
              I don't know anyone who regards 'them' as absolute authorities so...
              I know such people. They will obviously not admit this with their tongues, but they will blindly accept whatever Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and his so called "students" said.
              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 29-11-15, 01:12 AM.

              Comment


              • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                Salamun 'alaykum,

                I would like to remind the brothers here that this thread is not about the divine attributes, but rather about the unjustified Takfir and bloodshed of the original Wahhabi movement.

                As for the issue of the divine attributes, then I would like to say the following:

                The classical scholars have mentioned that the Ayat [and Ahadith] concerning the divine attributes are from among the Mutashabihat (unclear/ambiguous verses). That which is obligatory regarding these Ayat [and Ahadith] is to believe in them and that's it. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala has not obliged us to know their exact interpretation. The Madhhab of the Salaf al-salih regarding them is to believe in them and to relegate the knowledge of their exact interpretation to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala while being sure that there is nothing unto like Him.

                In the last comments some people have tried to act as if the exact interpretation of these Ayat and Ahadith is known and claimed that Yad definetly means a literal hand when it's used concerning Allah ta'ala.
                It is said to these people:
                The Qur`an was revealed in Arabic and not in English and therefore the English word hand can nowhere be found in the Qur`an. The majority of the scholars did not allow to translate Yad into other languages when it's used concerning Allah ta'ala. The minorty view is that it's allowed, but only if it's not meant as a limb.
                As for your addition of the word literal or real, then this is Bid'ah (innovation). It would have been better for you to stick to the words of Allah ta'ala and not to add anything to it from yourself.
                The interpretation that you've mentioned is definetly not meant, because it goes against Ayat which are Muhkam. When Yad is taken literally it means Jarihah (limb) (look it up in an Arabic dictionary) and to ascribe a limb to Allah ta'ala is Kufr (disbelief).
                If you say "but we do not intend a limb nor do we intend anything with a form and dimensions", then it is said: In that case you shouldn't say a literal hand. The reason why you're using this word is out of Taqlid of the "Salafi" Mashayikh (Taqlid is not allowed in 'Aqidah!) and these "Salafi" Mashayikh do actually intend limbs (Jawarih) or parts (Ajza`/Ab'adh) when they say that "Allah has two real hands" (even thoug they do not use the expression).
                Go and look what Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) said (look for example into his Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah) said (and I'm mentioning him, because "Salafis" love to make Taqlid of all his mistakes) and you'll see that he makes a differentiation between accepting Yad, Wajh, etc. as Ma'ani (which is the Madhhab of a group of scholars from among the Ahl al-Sunnah) and between accepting it as A'yan (which is the Madhhab of Mujassimah (and he is from among them)).

                If you don't unterstand the difference between accepting the Sifat as Ma'ani (معاني) and accepting them as A'yan (أعيان) (and the difference is very huge!), then I would seriously advise you to stop discussing this issue, because it's not allowed to speak about Allah ta'ala without knowledge.

                And now I would like everyone to come back to the real topic. If you want to keep on discussing about the divine attributes, then please do so in another thread (but only if you know what you're saying).
                Are you seriously trying to blame this all on him and are unaware of the history which has existed between the Ash'aris and Hanbalis since long before.
                Watch those eyes

                Comment


                • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                  Originally posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
                  Are you seriously trying to blame this all on him and are unaware of the history which has existed between the Ash'aris and Hanbalis since long before.
                  I'm aware that Asha'irah and Hanabilah usually weren't really good friends, but I hope you're also aware of the fact that the Hanabilah were not a monolithic group and had different beliefs.
                  And by the way: Just because a Hanbali scholar disagrees regarding specific detailed issues with the Asha'irah it does not mean that he is upon the same belief as that of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH).

                  Comment


                  • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                    I thought that you regard the people of Makkah as Muslims? Or are you trying to tell me that the people of Makkah and the whole Arabian peninsula were upon Shirk akbar during the time of the first Saudi state?...
                    I'm not 'trying' to tell you anything. I said that if shirk is proven then the ones declaring takfeer cannot be considered 'Khawarij'.



                    Upon polytheists: Yes. (But this would not make it allowed to kill them, because the reason for fighting is Muqatalah according to the Jumhur of the Fuqaha`.)
                    As for that "grave worshippers": What do you intend by that? Let's say a person visits the grave of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and asks him to pray for the forgiveness of his sins. Has he committed Shirk akbar? If you say yes: According to which logic and according to which Shari'ah?
                    As for that specific example then I believe it is haram but whether it falls under shirk akbar then Allahu 'alam. I do find find it problematic and it may possibly be shirk but I would have to refer it someone more knowledgeable.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                      Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
                      As for that specific example then I believe it is haram but whether it falls under shirk akbar then Allahu 'alam. I do find find it problematic and it may possibly be shirk but I would have to refer it someone more knowledgeable.
                      Okay. Who is the "more knowledgable person" that you want to refer to? Would you accept the ruling that the Jumhur of the Fuqaha` of the 4 Madhahib mentioned?

                      Comment


                      • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        Okay. Who is the "more knowledgable person" that you want to refer to? Would you accept the ruling that the Jumhur of the Fuqaha` of the 4 Madhahib mentioned?
                        Any of the imams at the masajid I go to first and foremost.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                          Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
                          Any of the imams at the masajid I go to first and foremost.
                          Let's just for the sake of argument say that he tells you that it's "Shirk akbar" (as an aditional information: according to Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) it's among the issues that nullifies one's Islam!) and tells you that such people are apostates. Would you accept such a ruling even though the Fuqaha` have said otherwise?
                          (Go and read the chapter regarding the Manasik of Hajj in some known Fiqh books of the 4 Madhahib and read the passage where the visitation of the grave of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is mentioned and see for yourself what the Fuqaha` recommended one to do.)

                          Comment


                          • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                            Let's just for the sake of argument say that he tells you that it's "Shirk akbar" (as an aditional information: according to Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) it's among the issues that nullifies one's Islam!) and tells you that such people are apostates. Would you accept such a ruling even though the Fuqaha` have said otherwise?
                            (Go and read the chapter regarding the Manasik of Hajj in some known Fiqh books of the 4 Madhahib and read the passage where the visitation of the grave of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is mentioned and see for yourself what the Fuqaha` recommended one to do.)
                            I'm sure that whatever ruling they gave, it would be explained with evidence as they normally do.

                            The question has most likely already been answered but either I've missed it or forgotten.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                              I'm aware that Asha'irah and Hanabilah usually weren't really good friends, but I hope you're also aware of the fact that the Hanabilah were not a monolithic group and had different beliefs.
                              And by the way: Just because a Hanbali scholar disagrees regarding specific detailed issues with the Asha'irah it does not mean that he is upon the same belief as that of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH).
                              Nopes I am not. With the exception of Ibn Jawzi I do not know too many others. Guess I have to study harder.
                              Watch those eyes

                              Comment


                              • Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

                                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                                Let's just for the sake of argument say that he tells you that it's "Shirk akbar" (as an aditional information: according to Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) it's among the issues that nullifies one's Islam!) and tells you that such people are apostates. Would you accept such a ruling even though the Fuqaha` have said otherwise?
                                (Go and read the chapter regarding the Manasik of Hajj in some known Fiqh books of the 4 Madhahib and read the passage where the visitation of the grave of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is mentioned and see for yourself what the Fuqaha` recommended one to do.)
                                Are you saying the 4 madhahib advocate while at his grave praying to the Prophet for him to seek Allah's forgiveness for us?
                                Allahumma, aranee al haqqu haqqan wa arzuqnee itiba`ahu, wa aranee al baatilu baatilaan wa arzuqnee ijtinaabahu.Oh Allah! show us the truth as true, and inspire us to follow it. Show us falsehood as falsehood, and inspire us to abstain from it.
                                " Do you know what destroys Islam? A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X