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

[noobz]

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

You just indirectly said that the four imaams used to seek intercession through Rasoolallah :saw:.

Better provide some proof or retract your self-made claims.

There is a shirki type of intercession and another one that is accepted by the Qur`an al-karim. Please learn the difference before making up your own Ahkam.

Seeking the intercession of Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is allowed without any doubt. Before you start any accusations let it be known to you that the classical scholars of the 4 Madhahib did not just see it as permissable, but even recommended doing it while visiting the grave of Rasulallah - 'alayhi afdhal al-salati wa salam.
And the meaning of this intercession is simply asking Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - to supplicate for the forgiveness of ones sins. Whether the sins are forgiven or not is the decision of Allah ta'ala alone. This type of intercession is supported by the divine texts and therefore regarded as permissable by the Fuqaha` of Ahl al-Sunnah throughout the centuries.

If you're trying to make Takfir upon Muslims because of this, then this shows your ignorance regarding the religion.
Let it be known to you and your likes that a person who has said the Shahadatayn does not exit the religion except if he rejects what is necessarily known to be from the religion. So tell us who are you to accuse others of leaving the religion while not having any real proof against the other side (other than the worthless claims of the "Salafi" Mashayikh who in reality are no different from the 12-Shi'ah (Rawafidh) in their lies and deceit and hate against the people of the Sunnah)?!?

just post a summary here if you had it.

we're basically going over and over again on this argument , so if the 4 imams allowed it then maybe the staunch salafi's would stop using the argument of 'mushriks'

i didn't say it , but he says he has proof. So far hes shown more proof than the refutations on this thread about the blood thristy MAW who slaughtered to many.

[noobz]

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

Ah, might look up more about this Wahab guy..
Interesting how some people will defend their sect so vehemently.. be it sunnis, wahabbis or whatever else..

taqlid

[Linkdeutscher]

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

i didn't say it , but he says he has proof. So far hes shown more proof than the refutations on this thread about the blood thristy MAW who slaughtered to many.

Look noobzy, there is no need to dance around.

Just provide the proof that the 4 imaams used to do it. I don't care if 'he has it', you made the claim, so you provide the proof. Man up to your claims. Or do you simply just assume stuff based on hearsay that you like as long as you get to bash them Slafiz?

Or you wait until he provides you the proofs, until then you retract the claim you made. Once you have the proofs, you can make your claim again.

Also, I see nowhere in his posts where he said the '4 imams' did/allowed it. Your awful comprehension doesn't let you differentiate between 'classical scholars of the 4 madhhahib' and the 4 imaams themselves. Big difference.

It couldn't be any more simpler than this, you made a claim, provide proof for it. That's it.

[noobz]

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

Look noobzy, there is no need to dance around.

Just provide the proof that the 4 imaams used to do it. I don't care if 'he has it', you made the claim, so you provide the proof. Man up to your claims. Or do you simply just assume stuff based on hearsay that you like as long as you get to bash them Slafiz?

Or you wait until he provides you the proofs, until then you retract the claim you made. Once you have the proofs, you can make your claim again.

Also, I see nowhere in his posts where he said the '4 imams' did/allowed it. Your awful comprehension doesn't let you differentiate between 'classical scholars of the 4 madhhahib' and the 4 imaams themselves. Big difference.

It couldn't be any more simpler than this, you made a claim, provide proof for it. That's it.

boo hoo , someones sour ... didn't they feed you any barelvi cake today?

classical scholars of the 4 madahib , there , happy now?

[imran1976]

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

Maybe they are not bothering to refute it because it's irrelevant to them. It's not like MIAW is the only figure 'salafis' today take from. This focus on one individual and linking all salafis today back to that one individual is not correct. It depends on what you're definition of 'salafi' is.

There are claims of wrongful killing and i've also heard that those transgressions didn't take place under his direct instructions and that some of his followers were going against him/his orders on how to deal with the people. And those in this thread saying that MIAW and his followers lied about what people were doing at his time and that he exaggerated the issues so that he could wipe them out, haven't brought any evidence for that. Their only argument for this is based on emotions and their own logic, things like "how could everyone be wrong and only he be right". But again the issue will always come back to what we regard as innovation, shirk and disbelieve and what actions are allowed within the shariah to be taken against these. Whoever doesn't agree on these will not agree on anything else. So it's better these topics are dealt with first since this is the source of the problem. However, I can't see muslims agreeing on these for a long time to come.

I'm open to hearing from both sides but everyone who apposes MIAW that i've seen hold ideas and beliefs that make no sense to me, some which have been mentioned in this thread. My point is, those who appose MIAW come from that angle of bitterness just because he had a different view different from the norm at his time and he managed to spread his views. All of their arguments are just attacks on salafis and blanket statements grouping all salafis and saudi as one and even going as far as saying they are responsible for groups like ISIS.

I would rather hear criticism of MIAW's actions and takfir from people who are bit more balanced in their approach.



You did the exact same thing throughout this thread.

The OP has given references from their own historians books, means Najdi historians --- It can't get more clear than this.

[Spicen]

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

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthrea...(SNM)-and-ISIS

Synopsis: Legalising Killing

The following validating letter was signed by a number of Meccan scholars who were not Salafi and did
not belong to the SNM. It legalizes the shedding of blood of Muslims who engaged in tawassul/istighatha
type practices and is an example of extreme blanket takfir. The signatories need further investigation as
they may have signed this document under duress, not least when they include figures who were
undoubtedly Sufi. A brief search online claims that Saud Abd al-Aziz took control of Mecca in the early
1800s, which if correct would explain why Meccan scholars might have written such a document.




الحمد لله رب العالمين :
نشهد - ونحن علماء مكة ، الواضعون خطوطنا ، وأختامنا في هذا الرقيم - أن هذا الدين ، الذي قام به الشيخ : محمد بن عبد الوهاب ، رحمة الله تعالى ، ودعا اليه أمام المسلمين : سعود بن عبد العزيز ، من توحيد الله ، ونفى الشرك ، الذي ذكره في هذا الكتاب ، أنه هو الحق ، الذي لا شك فيه ، ولا رىب ، وأن : ما وقع في مكة ، والمدينة ، سابقاً ، ومصر ، الشام ، وغيرهما ، من البلاد ، إلى الآن ، من أبواع الشرك ، والمذكرة في هذا الكتاب ، انه : الكفر ، المبيح للدم ، والمال / والموخب للخلود في النار ، ومن لم يدخل في هذا الدين ، ويعمل به ، ويوالي أهله ، ويعادي أعداءه ، فهو عندنا كفر بالله , واليوم الآخر ، وواجب على إمام المسلمين ، والمسلمين ، جهادة ، وقتاله ، حتى يتوب إلى الله مما هو عليه ، ويعمل بهذا الدين


Translation

"All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the Worlds:

We -the scholars of Mecca - bear witness by placing our signatures and seals upon this document, that
this religion, which has been promoted by Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahab (Allah Most High have
mercy on him) and which has been called to by the Imam of the Muslims: Saud bin Abd al-Aziz, relating
to the Tawhid of Allah and the negation of Shirk which he has mentioned in this book, is the truth
regarding which there is no doubt.

Likewise that which took place previously in Mecca, Madinah, Egypt, Shaam and other lands up to this
time, from the types of shirk mentioned in this epistle are disbelief (kufr) which makes lawful the shedding
[of such a person's] blood and appropriation of personal property. Likewise it necessitates [those who
practiced this shirk] entering the hellfire for eternity.

He who does not enter in to this religion, nor act upon it, nor provide support to its people, nor show
enmity against its opponents, according to us is a disbeliever (kafir) in Allah, and the last day.

It is obligatory (wajib) upon the Imam of the Muslims, along with Muslims themselves to fight and kill
such a person until he repents to Allah from that which he is upon, and then proceeds to practice this
religion."




أشهد بذلك ، وكتبه الفقير إلى الله تعالى عبد المالك بن عبد المنعم ، القعلي ، الحنفي ، مفتي مكة المكرمة ، عفى عنه ، وغفر اله


"I bear witness to this, written by the one needy of his Lord Most High: Abd al-Malik bin Abd al-Munim
al-Qali' al-Hanafi. Mufti of Makkah al-Mukarramah, may Allah pardon him and forgive him."

Other signatories:

Muhammad Salih bin Ibrahim, the Mufti of the Shafi'is in Mecca

Muhammad bin Muhammad Arabi al-Banani, the Mufti of the Malikis in Mecca.

Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Maliki

Muhammad bin Yahya, the Mufti of the Hanbalis in Mecca
Abd al-Hafiz bin Darwesh al-Ujaymi

Zayn al-Abidin Jamal al-Layl

All bin Muhammad al-Bayti

Abd al-Rahman Jamal

Bishr bin Hashim al-Shafi'i

https://ivcourses.files.wordpress.co...radictions.pdf

[imran1976]

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

Not every salafi agrees with the actions of saudi or the saudi government today
surely you know that so why make such a blanket statement?
I would say it's a minority of salafis that believe saudi is actually 'the land of tawheed'.

I disagree, majority of salafis/wahabis have faith in Saudi Arabia --- I can confidently say this for Pakistani salafis.
and I also see viewpoint in this forum.

They do criticize Saudi Arabia in one breath and in second breath they will tell us how they freed this land from shirk.

See what's happening in the Arab world right now, Arab nationalists, Sauds and their religious partner Wahabs are directly responsible for this.

Sauds wanted political control and Wahabs wanted religious control, both got what they wished for at the cost of destruction of Khilafat, blood of Muslims & Muslim world divided into pieces.

[Linkdeutscher]

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

boo hoo , someones sour ... didn't they feed you any barelvi cake today?

classical scholars of the 4 madahib , there , happy now?

At least you admitted you were wrong. That's gotta count for something, right?

Keep it up.

[noobz]

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

At least you admitted you were wrong. That's gotta count for something, right?

Keep it up.

i don't see any of the salafi's admitting what MAW did or how he casually did takfir of masses was wrong.

why don't you be the first one unless taqlid is the path you've also chosen which i see the salafi's doing right now.

[Linkdeutscher]

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

i don't see any of the salafi's admitting what MAW did or how he casually did takfir of masses was wrong.

why don't you be the first one unless taqlid is the path you've also chosen which i see the salafi's doing right now.

Yada yada, I got proven wrong so I am gonna post some totally irrelevant crap to what was said to gain some internet points.

-noobz

And FYI I don't give two damns about MIAW, so I couldn't care less. I am not bound to anyone. I never claimed him to be my messiah or imaam or whatever nonsense.

[noobz]

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

Yada yada, I got proven wrong so I am gonna post some totally irrelevant crap to what was said to gain some internet points.

-noobz

And FYI I don't give two damns about MIAW, so I couldn't care less. I am not bound to anyone. I never claimed him to be my messiah or imaam or whatever nonsense.

i didn;t hear you say he was wrong for what he did , taqlid getting the better of salafis.

yada yada yada , i'm stuck between taqlid and some totally irrelevant crap to which i don't want to answer.

[Linkdeutscher]

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

i didn;t hear you say he was wrong for what he did , taqlid getting the better of salafis.

yada yada yada , i'm stuck between taqlid and some totally irrelevant crap to which i don't want to answer.

Lol, so that means I support all he did? How amazing.

If you don't condemn what some random guy did, that means you are his muqallid. Amazing logic.

For me MIAW isn't worth my time to even comment on him.

[noobz]

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

Lol, so that means I support all he did? How amazing.

If you don't condemn what some random guy did, that means you are his muqallid. Amazing logic.

For me MIAW isn't worth my time to even comment on him.

someones on the edge

well yes , you turning a blind eye to the number of people he killed and the mass takfir he was involved in and not bothering with a condemnation, maybe show the same respect for your barelvi and sufi brethren who you come out with so much zeal to fight , wouldn't this type of stance make you a hypocrite?

i didn't ask you if he was worth your time , you wouldn't be in this thread if he wasn't worth your time.

at least be like the salafis above you who proudly agree with what MAW did ...... salafi taqlid

[Poster]

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

someones on the edge

well yes , you turning a blind eye to the number of people he killed and the mass takfir he was involved in and not bothering with a condemnation, maybe show the same respect for your barelvi and sufi brethren who you come out with so much zeal to fight , wouldn't this type of stance make you a hypocrite?

i didn't ask you if he was worth your time , you wouldn't be in this thread if he wasn't worth your time.

at least be like the salafis above you who proudly agree with what MAW did ...... salafi taqlid

It's really easy to just pluck a statement and make a claim off of it but surely it's unjust to base your opinion of a man on a few quotes? For example, I can quote a number of his statements which show that he doesn't make mass takfeer.

Here for example Shaykh Ibn Abd al-Wahhaab said (in the section, Fataawaa wa Masaa'il, 4/11):

وأما الكذب والبهتان، فمثل قولهم: إنا نكفر بالعموم، ونوجب الهجرة إلينا على من قدر على إظهار دينه، وأنا نكفّر من لم يكفّر ومن لم يقاتل، ومثل هذا وأضعاف أضعافه. فكل هذا من الكذب والبهتان الذي يصدون به الناس عن دين الله ورسوله. وإذا كنا لا نكفّر مَن عبد الصنم الذي على قبر عبد القادر، والصنم الذي على قبر أحمد البدوي، وأمثالهما، لأجل جهلهم وعدم من ينبههم، فكيف نكفر من لم يشرك بالله إذا لم يهاجر إلينا، ولم يكفّر ويقاتل؟ سُبْحَانَكَ هَذَا بُهْتَانٌ عَظِيمٌ

And as for the lie and slander, then it is like their saying that we make generalized takfir (of the masses), and that we make emigration (hijrah) obligatory towards us for the one who is able to manifest his religion, and that we make takfir of the one who does not make takfir and who does not fight, and multiple times the likes of this (type of lying and slander). All of this is from lying and slander by which they hinder the people from the deen of Allaah and His Messenger. And when it is the case that we do not make takfir of the one who worships the idol (i.e. tomb) which is on the grave of Abd al-Qadir, and the idol which is on the grave of Ahmad al-Badawi and their likes, due to their ignorance, and the absence of the one to notify them (of their opposition), then how could we make takfir of the one who does not associate partners with Allaah, when he does not emigrate to us and who does not make takfir and does not fight? "Glory be to you (O Lord), this is a mighty slander." (24:16)

Or here (Al-Durar al-Saniyyah (3/20-21). where he says :

Shaykh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb said: We do not make takfīr of [anyone] except a man who came to know the truth and rejected it after the proof had been established upon him, who is invited to it but does not accept it, shows stubborn resistance and obstinacy. What has been mentioned about us—that we make takfīr of the one who condition is other than this—is a lie against us.”

[noobz]

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

It's really easy to just pluck a statement and make a claim off of it but surely it's unjust to base your opinion of a man on a few quotes? For example, I can quote a number of his statements which show that he doesn't make mass takfeer.

Here for example Shaykh Ibn Abd al-Wahhaab said (in the section, Fataawaa wa Masaa'il, 4/11):

وأما الكذب والبهتان، فمثل قولهم: إنا نكفر بالعموم، ونوجب الهجرة إلينا على من قدر على إظهار دينه، وأنا نكفّر من لم يكفّر ومن لم يقاتل، ومثل هذا وأضعاف أضعافه. فكل هذا من الكذب والبهتان الذي يصدون به الناس عن دين الله ورسوله. وإذا كنا لا نكفّر مَن عبد الصنم الذي على قبر عبد القادر، والصنم الذي على قبر أحمد البدوي، وأمثالهما، لأجل جهلهم وعدم من ينبههم، فكيف نكفر من لم يشرك بالله إذا لم يهاجر إلينا، ولم يكفّر ويقاتل؟ سُبْحَانَكَ هَذَا بُهْتَانٌ عَظِيمٌ

And as for the lie and slander, then it is like their saying that we make generalized takfir (of the masses), and that we make emigration (hijrah) obligatory towards us for the one who is able to manifest his religion, and that we make takfir of the one who does not make takfir and who does not fight, and multiple times the likes of this (type of lying and slander). All of this is from lying and slander by which they hinder the people from the deen of Allaah and His Messenger. And when it is the case that we do not make takfir of the one who worships the idol (i.e. tomb) which is on the grave of Abd al-Qadir, and the idol which is on the grave of Ahmad al-Badawi and their likes, due to their ignorance, and the absence of the one to notify them (of their opposition), then how could we make takfir of the one who does not associate partners with Allaah, when he does not emigrate to us and who does not make takfir and does not fight? "Glory be to you (O Lord), this is a mighty slander." (24:16)

Or here (Al-Durar al-Saniyyah (3/20-21). where he says :

Shaykh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb said: We do not make takfīr of [anyone] except a man who came to know the truth and rejected it after the proof had been established upon him, who is invited to it but does not accept it, shows stubborn resistance and obstinacy. What has been mentioned about us—that we make takfīr of the one who condition is other than this—is a lie against us.”

when you say 'pluck a statement' , does this mean all his supporters like ibn bishr and other scholars of his time were all 'plucking a statement' when they showed he did things like those?

when you say 'pluck a statement', have you even read the thread from the previous pages and seen the enormous amount of evidence on here from books of his own supporters and letters written by himself?