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

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!

whats even more interesting is that this is the khariji movement and despite all the evidence posted , none of these poster boys who post here have bothered to refute anything.

[imran1976]

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

Mr Abu Abdullah tried ......:rofl1::rofl1:

[AmantuBillahi]

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

I don't know what the OP is truly suggesting.

If he is suggesting that MIAW and the early Wahhabi / Saudi movement was oppressive then maybe it is possible that they were.

No one is denying that there wasn't conquering and bloodshed involved .. But there is a pro Salafi response to his analysis of the events. Not a response which denies bloodshed , but one which libetates the people from the blatant shirk and refusal to acknowledge the truth once it has been established.

If he is suggesting that MIAW held a position that no scholar held with regards to Shafa'a , then personally I am unaware that is even MIAW position. He did not provide any quotes in that regard.

Regarding the 4 imams , he did not explain what tawasul was accepted - once again , a claim with no evidence.

In conclusion , his thread only substantiates the early Wahhabi movement as conquerers and MIAW might be deviant in one of his opinions.

- Also , even if MIAW was slightly extreme in this aspect , so what ? Is he suggesting that we all become Ashari sufis because one individual scholar held and extreme position? I'd like to think my belief in ISLAM and sound theology far exceeds the position of one controversial scholar who held a similar creed.

There is nothing more to say from my personal perspective. Truth is , Abu Sulayman has more to prove , rather than claim.

[Simply_Logical]

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

Mr Abu Abdullah tried ......:rofl1::rofl1:

lol

I don't know what the OP is truly suggesting.

If he is suggesting that MIAW and the early Wahhabi / Saudi movement was oppressive then maybe it is possible that they were.

No one is denying that there wasn't conquering and bloodshed involved .. But there is a pro Salafi response to his analysis of the events. Not a response which denies bloodshed , but one which libetates the people from the blatant shirk and refusal to acknowledge the truth once it has been established.

If he is suggesting that MIAW held a position that no scholar held with regards to Shafa'a , then personally I am unaware that is even MIAW position. He did not provide any quotes in that regard.

Regarding the 4 imams , he did not explain what tawasul was accepted - once again , a claim with no evidence.

In conclusion , his thread only substantiates the early Wahhabi movement as conquerers and MIAW might be deviant in one of his opinions.

- Also , even if MIAW was slightly extreme in this aspect , so what ? Is he suggesting that we all become Ashari sufis because one individual scholar held and extreme position? I'd like to think my belief in ISLAM and sound theology far exceeds the position of one controversial scholar who held a similar creed.

There is nothing more to say from my personal perspective. Truth is , Abu Sulayman has more to prove , rather than claim.

hes proven quite a bit with the posts hes made in this thread by providing evidences, like i said im yet to see him being refuted

[AmantuBillahi]

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

lol



hes proven quite a bit with the posts hes made in this thread by providing evidences, like i said im yet to see him being refuted

Oh ok. To be honest I did not read the entire thread , because I only joined the discussion when the topic changed - but I did respond to your claim of the OP not being refuted.

The OP has nothing to refute because it is not coherently making any claims , other than MIAW being harsh , that is all.

I dont worship him , nor do I even read or follow his books. He doesn't make or break Salafi Aqidah. Is that what he is claiming? Allah is not above the Throne because MIAW was bloodthirsry ? We should make dua to other than Allah because one man killed people in after their Salah?

I wasn't praying to other than Allah even before I ever heard of MIAW.

Perhaps he was strict and fighting vehemently ..

Islam was spread by the sword. -_-

[AmantuBillahi]

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

[MENTION=118642]abufulaans[/MENTION]

Salamo alaykom

I guess you're a Wahhabi so if you don't mind answering a few questions ..

1 ) Did MIAW believe asking the Prophet(as) / Saliheen at the grave site to ask ALLAH to forgive them as Shirk Akbar which expells you from the religion ?

2) Are modern supporters of MIAW aware that Ibn al Uthaymeen (rah) disagree with him on this issue ( assuming it is even true ?

:jkk:

[abufulaans]

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

[MENTION=118642]abufulaans[/MENTION]

Salamo alaykom

I guess you're a Wahhabi so if you don't mind answering a few questions ..

1 ) Did MIAW believe asking the Prophet(as) / Saliheen at the grave site to ask ALLAH to forgive them as Shirk Akbar which expells you from the religion ?

2) Are modern supporters of MIAW aware that Ibn al Uthaymeen (rah) disagree with him on this issue ( assuming it is even true ?

:jkk:

وعليكم السلام ورحمه الله وبركاته
Lol, alright....

1) Yes he saw it as shirk but as far as I know didn't make takfeer on it until he established the hujjah, his students held the same view that it's shirk,

2) I don't think most are aware tbh, but the thing is salafis don't blindly follow MIAW, so some scholars might differ with him in a few issues

[abufulaans]

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!

Ok so let's break this up, is it allowed to kill a murtadd if he's praying salah? Don't bring the hadith of the apostate who disrespected the prophet ﷺ, that has already been explained by the scholars.

I'm surprised at your deception in this post, you even admitted you read the book mufeed al mustafeed, so why now are you lying?

[abufulaans]

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!

[AmantuBillahi]

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

وعليكم السلام ورحمه الله وبركاته
Lol, alright....

1) Yes he saw it as shirk but as far as I know didn't make takfeer on it until he established the hujjah, his students held the same view that it's shirk,

2) I don't think most are aware tbh, but the thing is salafis don't blindly follow MIAW, so some scholars might differ with him in a few issues

:jkk:

1) Can you provide any scholar who held the exact same view prior to him on the specific issue of asking the Prophet / Saliheen at the grave site?

( To ask Allah to forgive them , not for any need from the Prophet Himself )

2) Are you aware what Imam Nawawi says to do when arriving at the Prophet's (saws) Masjid ?

I really don't want to misquote him , maybe I can find the exact du'a / process he taught , as a faqih , which all Shafi'i are upon.

[Abu Sulayman]

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

@abufulaans

Salamo alaykom

I guess you're a Wahhabi so if you don't mind answering a few questions ..

1 ) Did MIAW believe asking the Prophet(as) / Saliheen at the grave site to ask ALLAH to forgive them as Shirk Akbar which expells you from the religion ?

2) Are modern supporters of MIAW aware that Ibn al Uthaymeen (rah) disagree with him on this issue ( assuming it is even true ?

:jkk:

Let me answer the questions instead of abufulaans:

1) Yes he did. Those whom his so called "Da'wah" [to hellfire] hadn't reached were like the people of the Fatrah to him (i.e. people who were guilty of shirk akbar, but not necessary disbelievers in the hereafter) and those whom it had reached, he would simply make Takfir upon them (even if they were major scholars!).

2) Ibn 'Uthaymin regarded asking for Shafa'ah as shirk akbar while asking to do Du'a` as shirk asghar.... and this is quite a contradiction, because asking for supplication and seeking intercession has the same meaning and intent for Muslims and both of it is permitted according to classical scholars. Ibn 'Uthaymin is heavily influenced by Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (but he's not that extreme in comparison) and that's why his statements are not important here.

Ok so let's break this up, is it allowed to kill a murtadd if he's praying salah? Don't bring the hadith of the apostate who disrespected the prophet ﷺ, that has already been explained by the scholars.

Killing someone inside a Masjid is something that only someone who is upon the way of Ibn Muljam - 'alayhi min Allahi ma yasta7iq - would do. I congratulate you for agreeing with the Madhhab of the one who killed Amir al-Mu`minin 'Ali bin Abi Talib - radhiallahu 'anhu.

By the way: 'Uhtman bin Mu'ammar was a Muslim and I dare you to bring us any proofs that he apostated from the Religion of Allah ta'ala.
Look at this guy the moment he knows that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) had legalized the blood of someone, he simply regards that person as an apostate without any proofs whatsoever. Have you taken Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab as your Rabb min dunillah or why is that you accept whatever he says?!?!?!

I'm surprised at your deception in this post, you even admitted you read the book mufeed al mustafeed, so why now are you lying?

Listen don't trying using any Wahhabi tactics upon me. The one lying and using deception here is your Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.
I said that the reason why he wrote the book Mufid al-Mustafid was to justify his Takfir upon the people of Huraymila. Are you trying to deny this fact?

This statement is right from the beginning of the book Mufid al-Mustafid:

مما قال الشيخ الإمام وعلم الهداة الأعلام محمد بن عبد الوهاب رحمه الله تعالى، لما ارتاب بعض من يدعي العلم من أهل العيينة، لما ارتد أهل حريملا، فسئل الشيخ أن يكتب كلاما ينفعه الله بهwhen the people of Al-Huraymila apostatised, the sheikh was asked to write a statement which Allah would make beneficial."

Source: Mufid al-Mustafid fi Kufri Tarik al-Tawhid and translation taken from brother Pluma from IA Forums

Ironically all scholars of the region are regarded as "people who pretend knowledge" while only Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab is regarded as a true 'Alim by the early Wahhabi cultists.

[AmantuBillahi]

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

Let me answer the questions instead of abufulaans:

1) Yes he did. Those whom his so called "Da'wah" [to hellfire] hadn't reached were like the people of the Fatrah to him (i.e. people who were guilty of shirk akbar, but not necessary disbelievers in the hereafter) and those whom it had reached, he would simply make Takfir upon them (even if they were major scholars!).

2) Ibn 'Uthaymin regarded asking for Shafa'ah as shirk akbar while asking to do Du'a` as shirk asghar.... and this is quite a contradiction, because asking for supplication and seeking intercession has the same meaning and intent for Muslims and both of it is permitted according to classical scholars. .

1) Which major scholar of that time did he make takfeer of?

I don't see any Salafis making takfir of Imam Nawawi , and I even witnessed them defend and try to make ta'weel of Ibn Hajr al Haythami on this issue ( Removing istighatha from him )

But do you think MIAW viewed them as Kuffar ? If so , where are the fatawa on their kufr ? ( Mostly concerned with Nawawi due to the high praise of him )

2 ) what exactly do you mean when you use Shaf'a ?

These terms are thrown around and what people intend when using istighatha / tawasul / shaffa'a are intetmingled.

" O Prophet , grant me a child "

" O Prophet , ask Allah to grant me a child "

" O Prophet , I use you to intercede on my behalf so Allah may grant me a child "

Or is there something other than that ?

[abufulaans]

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

1) Yes he did. Those whom his so called "Da'wah" [to hellfire] hadn't reached were like the people of the Fatrah to him (i.e. people who were guilty of shirk akbar, but not necessary disbelievers in the hereafter) and those whom it had reached, he would simply make Takfir upon them (even if they were major scholars!).

I asked this to another Sufi, he ran away and didn't bother replying
If sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul wahhab considered it shirk in asludeen, then as you said correctly, a person would be a mushrik without being a kafir, so my question is why did the sheikh not call Ibn hajr al haytami a mushrik, why instead did he even quote him in his book mufeed al mustafeed whilst it is very well known that Al haitami was a harsh opponent of Ibn Taymiyyah and and disagreed and even tried refuting him on many aqeedah issues including seeking dua from the dead.

[Abu Sulayman]

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

Ok, let's see what Ibn ghannam said about the people of Huraymila and why they apostated .....

It's quite long so I will summarize it with numbers, we will.see how peaceful the grave worshipping Sufis really were

So that's what you call a defense? Qouting something without even knowing the context!?!

First of all: The people of Huraymila were not that which you people refer to as "grave worshippers".
And another thing: You're mocking other Muslims in the same way the disbelievers say "I thought Islam is peace...". So listen very well: Muslims have the right to defend themselves against ANYONE (whether they are Harbi Kuffar or Khawarij) who is trying to oppress them. Did you get that?

Now let's see what the people of Huraymila actually were: Your historian Ibn Ghannam (d. 1225 AH) mentioned that the following happened in the year 1160 AH):

ثم قدم عليهما ومعه وجوه اهل حريملا والعيينة وعهدهما على الجهاد والقيام بنصرة الدين ولو في اي مكان

"He ('Uthman Ibn Muammar, governor of Al-Uyyayna) came to them (IAW and Ibn Saoud) and there were with him the people of Al-Huraymila and Al-Uyayyna, they pledged to do jihad and stand for triumph of the religion no matter where they are"

- end of the qoute -
(Translation taken from brother Pluma)

Suprise Suprise: The people of Huraymila were supporter of the Wahhabiyyah and even fought under their banner.

But when the scholars warned them against spilling Muslim blood and also when they saw that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was crossing all limits, they stopped supporting them and stopped making Takfir upon other Muslims. According to Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab this is apostasy, because being against his Takfir is Kufr!

So let's see what Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) said after he had already declared them as apostates:

فإذا قال هؤلاء بألسنتهم: نشهد أن هذا دين الله ورسوله، ونشهد أن المخالف له باطل، وأنه الشرك بالله، غر هذا الكلام ضعيف البصيرة. وأعظم من هذا وأطم أن أهل حريملا ومن وراءهم يصرحون بمسبة الدين، وأن الحق ما عليه أكثر الناس، يستدلون بالكثرة على حسن ما هم فيه من الدين، ويفعلون ويقولون ما هو من أكبر الردة وأفحشها. فإذا قالوا: التوحيد حق والشرك باطل، وأيضا لم يحدثوا في بلدهم أوثانا، جادل الملحد عنهم. وقال: إنهم يقرون أن هذا شرك، وأن التوحيد هو الحق، ولا يضرهم عنده ما هم عليه من السب لدين الله، وبغي العوج له، ومدح الشرك، وذبهم دونه بالمال واليد واللسان

Source: Mufid al-Mustafid

Here he we see him attacking and lying against the people of Huraymila by claiming that they curse the religion of Allah (i.e. they were against Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab). At the same time he admits that they regarded Tawhid as correct and Shirk as batil and that there were no idols in their town (i.e. what he intends here that there were no erected graves or mausoleums in their town).

This means that even according to IAW the poeple of Huraymila were not that which the "Salafis" would refer to as "Quburis"! Did you get that abufulaans?

So the reason they made takfeer on the people of huraymila was because, they defended slaughtering for the dead, tawaaf around graves, asking the dead in hardship and for attacking real tawheed, if this isn't riddah then I don't know what is

Actually they did none of this! Even the liar Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab did not accuse them of this (except for "attacking real Tawhid")! You should seriously fear Allah! How many times do you want to make Takfir without having a single proof?

By the way: The ruling for slaughtering for other than Allah depends upon the intention and therefore not necessarily Shirk akbar. Making Tawaf aroung graves is disallowed and again not Shirk akbar (please for God's sake look into some classical Fiqh books before making such claims!).
As for asking the dead: If that which the classical scholars referred to as Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighathah is intended, then this is allowed and in no way Shirk. And if the intent is to ask the Anbiya` and Awliya` in the same way one asks Allah ta'ala, then that is of course not allowed, but Takfir is not made, because this issue is again something that is bound to the intention.

As for attacking real Tawhid: Your Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab is guilty of that!

[abufulaans]

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

Let me answer the questions instead of abufulaans:

1) Yes he did. Those whom his so called "Da'wah" [to hellfire] hadn't reached were like the people of the Fatrah to him (i.e. people who were guilty of shirk akbar, but not necessary disbelievers in the hereafter) and those whom it had reached, he would simply make Takfir upon them (even if they were major scholars!).

2) Ibn 'Uthaymin regarded asking for Shafa'ah as shirk akbar while asking to do Du'a` as shirk asghar.... and this is quite a contradiction, because asking for supplication and seeking intercession has the same meaning and intent for Muslims and both of it is permitted according to classical scholars. Ibn 'Uthaymin is heavily influenced by Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (but he's not that extreme in comparison) and that's why his statements are not important here.



Killing someone inside a Masjid is something that only someone who is upon the way of Ibn Muljam - 'alayhi min Allahi ma yasta7iq - would do. I congratulate you for agreeing with the Madhhab of the one who killed Amir al-Mu`minin 'Ali bin Abi Talib - radhiallahu 'anhu.

By the way: 'Uhtman bin Mu'ammar was a Muslim and I dare you to bring us any proofs that he apostated from the Religion of Allah ta'ala.
Look at this guy the moment he knows that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) had legalized the blood of someone, he simply regards that person as an apostate without any proofs whatsoever. Have you taken Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab as your Rabb min dunillah or why is that you accept whatever he says?!?!?!



Listen don't trying using any Wahhabi tactics upon me. The one lying and using deception here is your Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.
I said that the reason why he wrote the book Mufid al-Mustafid was to justify his Takfir upon the people of Huraymila. Are you trying to deny this fact?

This statement is right from the beginning of the book Mufid al-Mustafid:

مما قال الشيخ الإمام وعلم الهداة الأعلام محمد بن عبد الوهاب رحمه الله تعالى، لما ارتاب بعض من يدعي العلم من أهل العيينة، لما ارتد أهل حريملا، فسئل الشيخ أن يكتب كلاما ينفعه الله بهwhen the people of Al-Huraymila apostatised, the sheikh was asked to write a statement which Allah would make beneficial."

Source: Mufid al-Mustafid fi Kufri Tarik al-Tawhid and translation taken from brother Pluma from IA Forums

Ironically all scholars of the region are regarded as "people who pretend knowledge" while only Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab is regarded as a true 'Alim by the early Wahhabi cultists.

http://www.al-moammar.com/pages/history_da3wa_10.htm

What's extremely strange is that you have to bring all these unclear issues with little information regarding them to attack the dawah of the sheikh
I assumed he was one of those who fought tawheed with the people of shirk, but it really isn't clear and I can't comment due to the lack of information on the whole issue altogether