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 AbuNajm View Post
    Very good. You found a completely separate Hadith from the ones that talk about the Horn of Shaytan, Fitnah and the East that mentions the word "Najd".

    I'm not sure if you understand the concept, but there is a such thing as the "Najd" of al-Hijaz, and the other "Najd" mentioned in the Ahadith about the Fitnah.

    Again, the scholars explained that there isn't just one "Najd" but many.

    Though in your mind, it's easier to think that I'm accusing the Prophet SAWS of something horrible than to think that you're the one that has the problem.

    Welcome to my "ignore list". You're way too crazy to carry on a conversation with.
    Did you opened google map, where was Iraq, east or north?

    the Hadith i posted recognizes Najd as a specific region , there are other Hadiths as-well ( if you didn't understand why was the Hadith posted, i can't really help) ------ Did you find out if Prophet Muhammad :saw: sent any horsemen to Iraq in his lifetime ?

    If you couldn't understand connections between all this, what can i say.
    "Europe died in Bosnia and was buried in Syria. Bodies of innocent children washing ashore are the
    western civilization's tombstones"


    Rajab Tayyab Erdogan

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by european muslim View Post
      That is a childish explenation
      It is like saying "but the other kids did it too"
      Heh..It's not an explanation or justification of anything just pointing out hypocrisy. Besides, these kids are far worse for their support of kufr so can't even compare them.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Rumaysah~ View Post
        No I don't pull random ideas out of thin air. If you read this thread a few pages back I think it is pretty clear what I follow. Most would probably put me in the salafi category and some salafis would probably say i'm 'off the manhaj' but I don't like labels.
        I don't agree with spicen or those attacking MIAW/salafiyyah in general but i'm open to hearing what they have to say. And if there is some small amount of truth in something they say then I acknowledge that. There are things that happen within the salafi community and a way some salafis carry themselves that I don't like or agree with. That doesn't make mean I've deviated.

        Instead of implying i'm some deviant based on nothing, why don't any of you address the pure racist article posted above where non arabs are compared to faeces all under the cloak of islam.
        Which scholar interpreted any narration about arab lineage to mean you get a free pass to be arrogant and treat people like they are dirt beneath you. I understand why so many have a strong dislike/hate for arabs today (keyword= understand).

        As I said, I try not to make things up, what I said is actually exactly the same as something sheikh albani said. He said there were REASONS why arabs had precedence. Which is what I said. And not once was the word 'superior' used in reference to arabs in his answer that I read except when he was quoting "there is no superiority of an arab over a non arab except by taqwah". See this is the difference between how people who have knowledge explain things and how some of you throw loaded terms around with no wisdom and then claim others are deviant on top of it for opposing your black and white interpretation.

        Assalamu alaykom

        The reason I asked what type of Muslim you are was to ascertain whether or not you have any standards in justifying your views , other than your own personal ,subjective , unscholarly opinion.

        I am not claiming that you have no 'reason' to believe as you believe. Everyone has reasons for what they believe in , or hold to be truth. The question which is important to ask is how can we know with certainty who is speaking the truth and who is using fallacious reasoning.

        As for understanding theology / morality as "Salafi" / "Athari" Muslims we acknowledge the Quran and Sunnah as evidences in both Fiqh and Aqidah. The Sunnah interprets the Quran and the Prophet (saws) has praised the first three generations of Muslims and this is acknowledged by Asharis aswell.

        This standard makes our laymen opinions obsolete. It really doesn't matter what you believe , we need to ask what did the Prophet teach , and what was considered orthodox methodology by the early scholars ( 4 schools ) and what proceeds from that is our submission.

        I think the tern "Superior" is being used by us all incorrectly. The correct word would be preffered / honoured. Allah has honoured ahl al bayt / banu Hasim / the Quraysh and also the Arabs as understood by the ahadith.

        This honour has some legal implications pertaining to islamic law and even morality to some degree.

        Do you disagree with what I have said above , even though this is the position of scholars recognized by ahlus sunnah for their knowledge and holding principles laid down by the Salaf themselves , for their deciphering the Quran / hadith ?

        This does not justify oppression or anything beyond the limits according the standards of orthodox interpretation of scripture - but it establishes a right and an honour which we are expected to respect and love ( Yes you should love and support Allah and His Messenger in their descision making )

        Not to change the topic but my message to you truly stems off what I believe is unislamic in your belief that Men do not excel women or are superior creations based on the Quran / Sunnah ?

        I am a Muslim just like yourself , but rejecting these matters without any sound sunni scholarship in conformity to the methodology and principles of the early Muslims would be the exact definition of a deviant belief as far as us laymen are concerned.

        Men being superior to women in terms of general creation and authority is promoted by the Quran in direct speech and also the Prophet criticised women in direct speech for their lack of religious dedication and intellect.

        ^ I just want to make clear that this doesnt mean women are labelled irrational , but Islam recognizes and general deficency and this is how Allah created us. It should deter women from striving hard and exceling men in both religion and knowledge ( without being extreme / compronosing gender roles unnecessarily )

        Can you demonstrate where I have erred , as we allow the correct standard judge between us?

        ( Wrote this on my phone , im sure you are aware of the fatawa on IslamQA , and regarding Allah favouring some over others has been mentioned here as well )

        Comment


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

          ^ Sorry for the typos , meant to say men excelling women should not deter the women from striving and racing to do good deeds , within our own limits and positions.

          Wa Allah alam

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by european muslim View Post
            That is a childish explenation
            It is like saying "but the other kids did it too"
            well it takes a bit away from the khariji munafiqeen that run over random civilians in their cabs which they drive in off season when the shawermas aren't selling, not to mention that it takes a bit off from the sad life of living beneath the mushrikeen which they despise so much.

            so the 'they did , we did' argument makes it feel so soothing on the heart, almost like how people justified isis khalifa cheezeburger raping women in the name of humiliating the kuffar.



            Comment


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

              Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

              Men being superior to women in terms of general creation and authority is promoted by the Quran in direct speech and also the Prophet criticised women in direct speech for their lack of religious dedication and intellect.

              ^ I just want to make clear that this doesnt mean women are labelled irrational , but Islam recognizes and general deficency and this is how Allah created us. It should deter women from striving hard and exceling men in both religion and knowledge ( without being extreme / compronosing gender roles unnecessarily )

              Can you demonstrate where I have erred , as we allow the correct standard judge between us?

              ( Wrote this on my phone , im sure you are aware of the fatawa on IslamQA , and regarding Allah favouring some over others has been mentioned here as well )
              but the question is , then how are women excelling in studies in every other standard exam compared to men then?

              This is a practical thing , i'm sure others have notices it too , girls in general beat out the guys in O levels and A levels type of papers.



              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Rumaysah~ View Post
                There's a quote in there from al-baani saying that Arabs are not superior and he even praised the ottomans over the arabs.
                Those here claiming salafis all do takfir on the ottoman empire and hate them probably skipped right over this.
                Sheikh Nasir Al Fahd has a small book clarifying this issue
                But as far as I know, Albani doesn't even follow the scholars of najd much, I think I know why but won't mention it because he's dead and it could be slander,
                ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Muslim First View Post
                  Betraying the Ottomans didn't make sense from an Islamic pov. I get it they were "committing shirk" etc, but isn't having some form of Khilafa better than not?.. it seems that where there's smoke there's fire. Ibn Abdul Wahhab shouldn't be put on a pedestal, or made him out to be some infallible person. If his teaching led to takfir and bloodshed then he should be criticized on that. But people seem to get really defensive, obviously you have your usual suspects (sufi Ashari) but not everyone who's interested in this aspect of history is sufi nor ashari. I just have a hard time believing that he was the only one upon the Haqq and everyone else was upon shirk.
                  What is the point of a khilaafah is it can't even establish asludeen, if it can't even establish tawheed and destroy shirk
                  It's like saying we should accept the khilaafah of Iran tommorow if they announce one
                  ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

                  Comment


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

                    Salamun 'alaykum,

                    dear brothers and sisters, please stay on topic. This thread is not about the 'Arab and the 'Ajam, but rather about the unjustified bloodshed and Takfir that was caused by Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and his followers.

                    Note that it is not like Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was balanced and his followers were extreme (as some have claimed here), rather he himself was extreme and he was the cause for his followers to become extreme. This man had been the Mufti of the first Saudi state (a pure Khariji state) and if you see what this first state did during his lifetime and see also that he was issuing Fatawa for this state to slaughter other Muslims, you'll not doubt that the primary cause of all this bloodshed and evilness was Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.

                    I'll give you an example: In the year 1163 AH in the month of Rajab 'Uthman bin Mu'ammar, the Amir of 'Uyayynah, was assasinated by the followers of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab INSIDE THE MASJID AFTER HE HAD PRAYED the friyday prayer. Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab himself had instructed his killing. Go and read what the Wahhabi historians Ibn Ghannam (d. 1225 AH) and Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH) mentioned and see for yourself. Note that both of these historians are praised by the so called "Salafis" and they themselves have printed their books.
                    Ibn Mu'ammar first supported the Najdi movement and participated in fighting other Muslims, but when some scholars warned him against spilling the blood of other Muslims, he stopped supporting the Wahhabiyyah. This was reason enough for Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab to allow his blood to be spilled inside the mosque!!!!
                    This incident and also the warning of the scholars of the region caused the people of Huraymila, who were also supporters of the Wahhabiyyah and had fought for them, to be desillusioned by Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and they stopped participating in killing other Muslims. That was enough for Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab to declare them as "apostates" in the year 1165 AH and thereafter the first Saudi state attacked them for being "apostates". Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab wrote his book Mufid al-Mustafid fi Kufri Tarik al-Tawhid in order to justify his Takfir upon a whole town (he basically says that anyone not agreeing with his Takfir is a disbeliever and that's it).

                    Now my question is: Is this what Islam teaches? That you permit killing a Muslim inside the Masjid, who has just completed his prayer? Or that you permit the spilling of the blood of a whole town, because they disagree with your crazy Takfir?!? We as Allah ta'ala for well-being.
                    This is what Shaytan wants and against the religion of Allah!
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 12-09-17, 03:07 PM.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                      Salamun 'alaykum,
                      Note that it is not like Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was balanced and his followers were extreme (as some have claimed here), rather he himself was extreme and he was the cause for his followers to become extreme. This man had been the Mufti of the first Saudi state (a pure Khariji state) and if you see what this first state did during his lifetime and see also that he was issuing Fatawa for this state to slaughter other Muslims, you'll not doubt that the primary cause of all this bloodshed and evilness was Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.

                      Wa'alaikum As'salam,

                      this is self explanatory -- This is not possible that he was balanced and somehow his followers became extreme.
                      "Europe died in Bosnia and was buried in Syria. Bodies of innocent children washing ashore are the
                      western civilization's tombstones"


                      Rajab Tayyab Erdogan

                      Comment


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

                        The next issue against him is:
                        Why is it that the scholars of his time in general rejected him!?!?! Even the few scholars who were in agreement with some of Ibn Taymiyyah's (d. 728 AH) ideas still rejected his Takfir.


                        Note that the way this religion has reached us is by the way of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - teaching it to his family and companions; they teached it to the next generation and this went on generation after generation. Books are only there to facilitate learning and preserving, but for the correct understanding people of knowledge are needed. And the chain of knowledge must go back to Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - otherwise they will not be regarded as true heirs of the Prophets. This is how classical Sunni scholarship has worked for centuries.

                        Now this Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) came up with his newly invented ideas (bi idhnillah I'll explain why I'm saying that his ideas were new) and admitted with his own tongue that he hadn't taken his understanding from any living scholar (see my first post where I quoted him regarding this*). This is clear-cut misguidance according to classical Sunni understanding and the one who follows such a man has no right to claim to be "upon the way of the companions" (as the "Salafis" claim), because such a person has no connection to the Sahabah, rather his chain of knowledge stops with Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.

                        (*FYI: Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab even went on as far as making Takfir upon the major Hanbali scholars in his region.)
                        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 12-09-17, 03:47 PM.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          Salamun 'alaykum,

                          dear brothers and sisters, please stay on topic. This thread is not about the 'Arab and the 'Ajam, but rather about the unjustified bloodshed and Takfir that was caused by Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and his followers.

                          Note that it is not like Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was balanced and his followers were extreme (as some have claimed here), rather he himself was extreme and he was the cause for his followers to become extreme. This man had been the Mufti of the first Saudi state (a pure Khariji state) and if you see what this first state did during his lifetime and see also that he was issuing Fatawa for this state to slaughter other Muslims, you'll not doubt that the primary cause of all this bloodshed and evilness was Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.

                          I'll give you an example: In the year 1163 AH in the month of Rajab 'Uthman bin Mu'ammar, the Amir of 'Uyayynah, was assasinated by the followers of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab INSIDE THE MASJID AFTER HE HAD PRAYED the friyday prayer. Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab himself had instructed his killing. Go and read what the Wahhabi historians Ibn Ghannam (d. 1225 AH) and Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH) mentioned and see for yourself. Note that both of these historians are praised by the so called "Salafis" and they themselves have printed their books.
                          Ibn Mu'ammar first supported the Najdi movement and participated in fighting other Muslims, but when some scholars warned him against spilling the blood of other Muslims, he stopped supporting the Wahhabiyyah. This was reason enough for Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab to allow his blood to be spilled inside the mosque!!!!
                          This incident and also the warning of the scholars of the region caused the people of Huraymila, who were also supporters of the Wahhabiyyah and had fought for them, to be desillusioned by Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and they stopped participating in killing other Muslims. That was enough for Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab to declare them as "apostates" in the year 1165 AH and thereafter the first Saudi state attacked them for being "apostates". Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab wrote his book Mufid al-Mustafid fi Kufri Tarik al-Tawhid in order to justify his Takfir upon a whole town (he basically says that anyone not agreeing with his Takfir is a disbeliever and that's it).

                          Now my question is: Is this what Islam teaches? That you permit killing a Muslim inside the Masjid, who has just completed his prayer? Or that you permit the spilling of the blood of a whole town, because they disagree with your crazy Takfir?!? We as Allah ta'ala for well-being.
                          This is what Shaytan wants and against the religion of Allah!
                          this thread is a real eye opener :jkk:

                          you got any more examples?

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by noobz View Post
                            but the question is ..
                            aha ! Exactly where the problem lies ..

                            Sunni Muslims are those who take the Quran , Sunnah , and the collective positions of the Salaf as Salih as Divine Proofs.

                            Allah is a divine / infallible source of authority and Knowledge. When He says something , it is automatically true , regardless of what you , your society or anyone's intellect contradicts.

                            I have answers to your question , but I hope to establish Imaan first , and then after that is complete we can deal with the arguments typically raised by atheist / non Muslims.

                            Salamo alaykom wa rahmatullah

                            Comment


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

                              read through most this thread and im yet to see the OP [MENTION=122148]Abu Sulayman[/MENTION] being refuted

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                                aha ! Exactly where the problem lies ..

                                Sunni Muslims are those who take the Quran , Sunnah , and the collective positions of the Salaf as Salih as Divine Proofs.

                                Allah is a divine / infallible source of authority and Knowledge. When He says something , it is automatically true , regardless of what you , your society or anyone's intellect contradicts.

                                I have answers to your question , but I hope to establish Imaan first , and then after that is complete we can deal with the arguments typically raised by atheist / non Muslims.

                                Salamo alaykom wa rahmatullah
                                you mean asking questions is a problem now?

                                that in itself is a problem if you see that as a problem.

                                secondly if something is being proven with practical results , then how are women lower in intellect? ... is it a specific subject? ... or is it that we just like to believe what other scholars work has been passed down to us from 1400 years ago and we just believe thats how its going to be in 2017 also?



                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X