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

[abufulaans]

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

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?



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!

Firstly بارك الله فيك for correcting me and will avoid mixing issues up unintentionally InshaAllah

I still see the takfeer as valid, in other words, they had a good understanding of what shirk and kufr was, yet still defended grave worshippers and attacked the people of tawheed, this too is riddah

[Abu Sulayman]

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

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

Abufulaans you're not realising it, but you're a cultist. For you everything Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab said is somehow "Tawhid' and anyone being against him is automatically "against Tawhid".
FYI: Tawhid existed before Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab! The classical scholars had a 1000 times better understanding of Tawhid and Shirk than him.

Your Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was actually that idiotic to act as if polytheists of Makkah had pretty much the same beliefs regarding Allah ta'ala as Muslims, while according to the Qur`an al-karim the Arab polytheists believed that angels were daughters of God and other shirki things.
This and other than this just shows that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had no understanding of the Qur`an and the Sunnah at all.

I still see the takfeer as valid, in other words, they had a good understanding of what shirk and kufr was, yet still defended grave worshippers and attacked the people of tawheed, this too is riddah

If you say so. You're basically just affirming what I said: Being against Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's (d. 1206 AH) Takfir is Riddah according to the original Najdis!
Seems like the scholars of his time were pretty much all "apostates' for disagreeing with IAW. This is how easy it is according to original Najdis.
"What you're saying that Tawaf around graves is just not allowed, but not necassarily Shirk akbar? You worthless Quburi, we'll slaughter you and your town for repeating something that is in accordance with classical Fiqh books!'... that's Najdi logic for you.

[abufulaans]

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

Abufulaans you're not realising it, but you're a cultist. For you everything Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab said is somehow "Tawhid' and anyone being against him is automatically "against Tawhid".
FYI: Tawhid existed before Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab! The classical scholars had a 1000 times better understanding of Tawhid and Shirk than him.

Your Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was actually that idiotic to act as if polytheists of Makkah had pretty much the same beliefs regarding Allah ta'ala as Muslims, while according to the Qur`an al-karim the Arab polytheists believed that angels were daughters of God and other shirki things.
This and other than this just shows that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had no understanding of the Qur`an and the Sunnah at all.



If you say so. You're basically just affirming what I said: Being against Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's (d. 1206 AH) Takfir is Riddah according to the original Najdis!
Seems like the scholars of his time were pretty much all "apostates' for disagreeing with IAW. This is how easy it is according to original Najdis.
"What you're saying that Tawaf around graves is just not allowed, but not necassarily Shirk akbar? You worthless Quburi, we'll slaughter you and your town for repeating something that is in accordance with classical Fiqh books!'... that's Najdi logic for you.

Really? The mushrikeen in hardship would turn to Allah alone, mushriks of today even call upon their wali in hardship, why the sheikh made the comparison is completely correct, this is something I have no doubt about

2) wait are you saying even tawaaf around graves isn't shirk, what about slaughtering to get closer to a dead person?

3) Akhi I don't get your problem, this is the exact dawah of the prophet ﷺ, to call people to tawheed and to make takfeer on those who remain upon batil, and if they persist then they are fought until the deen is for Allah alone, just because prove say the shahadah doesn't mean anything if they openly nullify it

[Abu Sulayman]

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

Really? The mushrikeen in hardship would turn to Allah alone, mushriks of today even call upon their wali in hardship, why the sheikh made the comparison is completely correct, this is something I have no doubt about

The comparison is actually completely wrong because the belief of Muslims regarding Allah ta'ala is not the same like that of polytheists... likewise the belief of Muslims regarding Anbiya` and Awliya` is not the same as that of polytheists regarding their idols [and that which these idols represent]. I've already mentioned one example which is proven by the Qur`an and that is the belief of Arab polytheists that angels are the daughters of god (and they worshipped them based upon this belief).
It's true that some of these calls upon the Awliya` by some Muslims are wrong, but Takfir is not made that easily (even scholars, who were in agreement with Ibn Taymiyyah's position regarding this issue said that to IAW). And some of these calls are not even wrong according to classical scholars.

As for the rest of the questions and statements... I'll answer insha`allah when I get time.

[Salman Al-Farsi]

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

Great discussion but why in the void? Should be in the lounge or history section! I guess the forum has reached the kind of decline where such discussions are either being curtailed or not of interest!!

Abu Sulayman, bit late to this discussion, I have to say as much as I agree with the message of your argument there is something unsettling about the logic and the manner!

Firstly, we have to evaluate individuals, doctrines and socio-political ideas separately, so.. doctrines are the driving force behind actions, actions are carried out by individuals, individuals make bad decisions, doctrines are only as good as the individual following or propagating it.

So IAWN invented a new doctrine of tawheed, considered his opponents apostates and either him or his movement were involved in mass killing, rebellion, treachery and became knowing or unknowingly tools of colonialists. Did this encompass his worldview of tawheed? I very much doubt it, he made grave mistakes but so did everyone else.. why single him out like this? It does show to his followers who often indulge in bashing others to check out your own dude.. but I think this point is wasted here.

He deserves to be refuted on doctrinal and fiqhi issues just as almost every single scholar in the entire history has been, people who think he’s above that are deluded.

But the political issues need to be viewed from a different lense when those making the moves do so based on a scholarly understanding. Whether you accept or not, I understand that IAWN was a mujtahid who made mistakes which should be exposed as they caused irreparable damage but courtesy needs to extended for the goodness which came out of it and the fact that he was a scholar of Islam. You have to acknowledge there is goodness which came out of IAWN and co as a basic truth which will define the contention points and make your research productive otherwise it’s just another sufi vs salafi debate!

[AmantuBillahi]

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

The position of Imam an Nawawi

Source http://www.sunnah.org/ibadaat/ziyara.htm#Shaykh al-Islam al-Hafiz al-Imam Nawawi


"As for him who cannot memorize all of this or who does not have the time to recite it, it is enough to recite a part of it, as a minimum the words al-Salamu `alayka ya Rasul Allah
Then, if someone has asked him to convey Salams to Allah's Messenger, let him say al-Salamu `alayka ya Rasul Allah min Fulan ibn Fulan (Greetings to you, O Messenger of Allah, from So-and-so, the son of So-and-so), or some such greeting, after which he steps an arm's length to the right and sends Salams to Abu Bakr because he stands at the shoulder of Allah's Messenger; then he says al-Salamu `alayka ya Aba Bakrin safiyya rasulillahi wa thaniyahu fi al-ghari, jazakallahu `an ummat al-nabiyyi khayran, (Greetings to you, O Abu Bakr, the Intimate Friend of Allah's Messenger and his second in the Cave! May Allah grant you the best reward on behalf of the Prophet's Community). Then he steps an arm's length to the left of his original position, to the space before Umar, saying: al-salamu `alayka ya `umara a`azz allahu bika al-islam, jazak allahu `an ummati muhammadin khayran (Greetings to you O `Umar, Allah has strengthened Islam through you, may Allah reward you well on behalf of the nation of Muhammad).
Then he returns to his original position, directly in front of Allah's Messenger, and he uses the prophet as his means in his innermost (fa yatawassalu bihi fi haqqi nafsihi), and seeks his intercession before his exalted and mighty Lord (wa yatashaffa`u bihi ila rabbihi subhanahu wa ta`ala), and one of the best things that he can say is what has been narrated by our colleagues on al-`Utbi's authority, and they admired what he said:
As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Beduin Arab came and said: "Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: "If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful" (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord." Then he began to recite poetry:
O best of those whose bones are buried in the deep earth,
And from whose fragrance the depth
and the height have become sweet,
May I be the ransom for a grave which thou inhabit,
And in which are found purity, bounty and munificence!
Then he left, and I dozed and saw the Prophet in my sleep. He said to me: "O `Utbi, run after the Beduin and give him glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him."

The pilgrim should next advance to the head of the grave and stand between the grave and the pillar that is there, facing the Qibla [without turning his back on the grave]. Let him praise and glorify Allah and supplicate for himself regarding what concerns him and what he loves, for his parents, and for whomever he likes among his relatives, revered teachers, brothers, and Muslims in general; then he comes to the Rawda and increases his supplication and prayer. It established in the two Sahihs in a narration from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet said: "Between my grave and my Minbar lies one of the Gardens of Paradise, and my Minbar overlooks my Pool (hawd). Let him stand by the Minbar to make supplication.
Eighth: It is impermissible (la yajuz) to circumambulate the grave of the Prophet, and it is reprehensible (makruh) to stand so close to the grave that one's entire front or back is in direct contact with it. This is according to the opinion of al-Halimi and others. Also reprehensible is rubbing the grave with one's hand or kissing it. The good etiquette is to stay a distance from it, as one would from a living person. This is what the `ulama have said, and we should not be misled by such actions of common people that are in violation of these good manners; we should only follow the prescriptions of the scholars, without paying attention to the behavior of the common people."


[MENTION=122148]Abu Sulayman[/MENTION] [MENTION=118642]abufulaans[/MENTION]

1) According to the Aqidah / Dawah of MIAW , what is an Nawawi?

2) According to Ibn Uthaymeen what is an Nawawi

3) If he is a Kaafir or a Mushrik , why do Salafis praise and promote him in fiqhi matters.

( There is a video online of someone questioning Shaykh Saalih al Fawzaan , asking " What is your opinion on the one who calls Imam Nawawi an innovator ?

His response was , " The one who calls him an innovator is himself an innovator. " )

Please address this.

:jkk:

[.Hajar.]

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

Great discussion but why in the void? Should be in the lounge or history section! I guess the forum has reached the kind of decline where such discussions are either being curtailed or not of interest!!

....

It IS in the History section, akh. I moved it from the Lounge weeks ago, topics like these (of historical significance/ discussion) belong in this section.

[abufulaans]

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

The comparison is actually completely wrong because the belief of Muslims regarding Allah ta'ala is not the same like that of polytheists... likewise the belief of Muslims regarding Anbiya` and Awliya` is not the same as that of polytheists regarding their idols [and that which these idols represent]. I've already mentioned one example which is proven by the Qur`an and that is the belief of Arab polytheists that angels are the daughters of god (and they worshipped them based upon this belief).
It's true that some of these calls upon the Awliya` by some Muslims are wrong, but Takfir is not made that easily (even scholars, who were in agreement with Ibn Taymiyyah's position regarding this issue said that to IAW). And some of these calls are not even wrong according to classical scholars.

As for the rest of the questions and statements... I'll answer insha`allah when I get time.

See the problem is that you have not understood tawheed properly

Allah in the Quran mentions various types of shirk that the mushrikeen commited, there is a reason for this, saying Allah has a partner is different to calling upon other then Allah in hardship, saying Allah has sons/daughters is different to doing sujood to idols
How you lump all these various types of shirks together is completely against the Quran,

Even Allah says the mushrikeen affirmed he is the lord of absolutely everything, do you realise what this means? Hold on a second
It means they believed Allah was the first
It means they believed Allah controlleled everything
It means they believed nothing they called upon could do anything was it not for Allah allowing it
It means they believed Allah created the heavens and earth and everything in it

Yet none of this prevented them from falling into shirk

It's very similar to the case of the Jews, they did not realize they were doing shirk until the prophet ﷺ told them, mushrikeen grave worshippers today too think they are not doing shirk,

[abufulaans]

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

Great discussion but why in the void? Should be in the lounge or history section! I guess the forum has reached the kind of decline where such discussions are either being curtailed or not of interest!!

Abu Sulayman, bit late to this discussion, I have to say as much as I agree with the message of your argument there is something unsettling about the logic and the manner!

Firstly, we have to evaluate individuals, doctrines and socio-political ideas separately, so.. doctrines are the driving force behind actions, actions are carried out by individuals, individuals make bad decisions, doctrines are only as good as the individual following or propagating it.

So IAWN invented a new doctrine of tawheed, considered his opponents apostates and either him or his movement were involved in mass killing, rebellion, treachery and became knowing or unknowingly tools of colonialists. Did this encompass his worldview of tawheed? I very much doubt it, he made grave mistakes but so did everyone else.. why single him out like this? It does show to his followers who often indulge in bashing others to check out your own dude.. but I think this point is wasted here.

He deserves to be refuted on doctrinal and fiqhi issues just as almost every single scholar in the entire history has been, people who think he’s above that are deluded.

But the political issues need to be viewed from a different lense when those making the moves do so based on a scholarly understanding. Whether you accept or not, I understand that IAWN was a mujtahid who made mistakes which should be exposed as they caused irreparable damage but courtesy needs to extended for the goodness which came out of it and the fact that he was a scholar of Islam. You have to acknowledge there is goodness which came out of IAWN and co as a basic truth which will define the contention points and make your research productive otherwise it’s just another sufi vs salafi debate!

Yes this is true, infact I lean the view that they were infact wrong for making takfeer on those who solely go to graves to ask them to ask Allah,
HOWEVER
This in reality would change nothing, because many other forms of shirk were prevalent in the lands at the time, so they still deserved to be fought as they persisted upon shirk of various forms and insulted and hated pure tawheed

[abufulaans]

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

The position of Imam an Nawawi

Source http://www.sunnah.org/ibadaat/ziyara.htm#Shaykh al-Islam al-Hafiz al-Imam Nawawi


"As for him who cannot memorize all of this or who does not have the time to recite it, it is enough to recite a part of it, as a minimum the words al-Salamu `alayka ya Rasul Allah
Then, if someone has asked him to convey Salams to Allah's Messenger, let him say al-Salamu `alayka ya Rasul Allah min Fulan ibn Fulan (Greetings to you, O Messenger of Allah, from So-and-so, the son of So-and-so), or some such greeting, after which he steps an arm's length to the right and sends Salams to Abu Bakr because he stands at the shoulder of Allah's Messenger; then he says al-Salamu `alayka ya Aba Bakrin safiyya rasulillahi wa thaniyahu fi al-ghari, jazakallahu `an ummat al-nabiyyi khayran, (Greetings to you, O Abu Bakr, the Intimate Friend of Allah's Messenger and his second in the Cave! May Allah grant you the best reward on behalf of the Prophet's Community). Then he steps an arm's length to the left of his original position, to the space before Umar, saying: al-salamu `alayka ya `umara a`azz allahu bika al-islam, jazak allahu `an ummati muhammadin khayran (Greetings to you O `Umar, Allah has strengthened Islam through you, may Allah reward you well on behalf of the nation of Muhammad).
Then he returns to his original position, directly in front of Allah's Messenger, and he uses the prophet as his means in his innermost (fa yatawassalu bihi fi haqqi nafsihi), and seeks his intercession before his exalted and mighty Lord (wa yatashaffa`u bihi ila rabbihi subhanahu wa ta`ala), and one of the best things that he can say is what has been narrated by our colleagues on al-`Utbi's authority, and they admired what he said:
As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Beduin Arab came and said: "Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: "If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful" (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord." Then he began to recite poetry:
O best of those whose bones are buried in the deep earth,
And from whose fragrance the depth
and the height have become sweet,
May I be the ransom for a grave which thou inhabit,
And in which are found purity, bounty and munificence!
Then he left, and I dozed and saw the Prophet in my sleep. He said to me: "O `Utbi, run after the Beduin and give him glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him."

The pilgrim should next advance to the head of the grave and stand between the grave and the pillar that is there, facing the Qibla [without turning his back on the grave]. Let him praise and glorify Allah and supplicate for himself regarding what concerns him and what he loves, for his parents, and for whomever he likes among his relatives, revered teachers, brothers, and Muslims in general; then he comes to the Rawda and increases his supplication and prayer. It established in the two Sahihs in a narration from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet said: "Between my grave and my Minbar lies one of the Gardens of Paradise, and my Minbar overlooks my Pool (hawd). Let him stand by the Minbar to make supplication.
Eighth: It is impermissible (la yajuz) to circumambulate the grave of the Prophet, and it is reprehensible (makruh) to stand so close to the grave that one's entire front or back is in direct contact with it. This is according to the opinion of al-Halimi and others. Also reprehensible is rubbing the grave with one's hand or kissing it. The good etiquette is to stay a distance from it, as one would from a living person. This is what the `ulama have said, and we should not be misled by such actions of common people that are in violation of these good manners; we should only follow the prescriptions of the scholars, without paying attention to the behavior of the common people."


[MENTION=122148]Abu Sulayman[/MENTION] [MENTION=118642]abufulaans[/MENTION]

1) According to the Aqidah / Dawah of MIAW , what is an Nawawi?

2) According to Ibn Uthaymeen what is an Nawawi

3) If he is a Kaafir or a Mushrik , why do Salafis praise and promote him in fiqhi matters.

( There is a video online of someone questioning Shaykh Saalih al Fawzaan , asking " What is your opinion on the one who calls Imam Nawawi an innovator ?

His response was , " The one who calls him an innovator is himself an innovator. " )

Please address this.

:jkk:

Ok il do my best InshaAllah

1) I will bring the kalaam of sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul wahhab where he says that although these scholars had deviant views, they were still great scholars of Islam, he specifically mentioned Al haitami at the end of the message and I'm sure he meant others like Al nawawi first and foremost, in other words, he saw what's posted above as shirk, but excused them and considered them muslims

As for his students, I don't know their view regarding him

2) A great Muslim scholar with mistakes

3) We don't say he is kafir and take alot of knowledge from him, but we say he unintentionally had partly corrupt aqeedah due to his place and time, we don't even say he was misguided because he didn't openly and intentionally call to misguidance unlike some other scholars before and after him,

[AmantuBillahi]

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

Ok il do my best InshaAllah

1) I will bring the kalaam of sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul wahhab where he says that although these scholars had deviant views, they were still great scholars of Islam, he specifically mentioned Al haitami at the end of the message and I'm sure he meant others like Al nawawi first and foremost, in other words, he saw what's posted above as shirk, but excused them and considered them muslims

As for his students, I don't know their view regarding him

2) A great Muslim scholar with mistakes

3) We don't say he is kafir and take alot of knowledge from him, but we say he unintentionally had partly corrupt aqeedah due to his place and time, we don't even say he was misguided because he didn't openly and intentionally call to misguidance unlike some other scholars before and after him,

:jkk:

1) but this is not shirk asghar like riyaah. This is the exact thing this scholar is fighting ( literally ) against , and making takfir of individuals based upon. Mind you , no one in his time is greater in knowledge than Imam Nawawi.

It seems that the idea that this being shirk , is bid'ah.

Can you provide anyone other than him who says it is shirk akbar? And also why would any scholar get a pass. Excuse of ignorance can apply to a primarmu mujtahid of a madhab?

2) Thought Ibn Uthaymeen viewed tashaffa'a as major shirk - do you disagree with Abu Sulaymans analysis on his creed ?

Thank you

[abufulaans]

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

:jkk:

1) but this is not shirk asghar like riyaah. This is the exact thing this scholar is fighting ( literally ) against , and making takfir of individuals based upon. Mind you , no one in his time is greater in knowledge than Imam Nawawi.

It seems that the idea that this being shirk , is bid'ah.

Can you provide anyone other than him who says it is shirk akbar? And also why would any scholar get a pass. Excuse of ignorance can apply to a primarmu mujtahid of a madhab?

2) Thought Ibn Uthaymeen viewed tashaffa'a as major shirk - do you disagree with Abu Sulaymans analysis on his creed ?

Thank you

1) But that's the thing, this wasn't the only shirk he saw prevalent among the people at all, I would agree with you that if he made takfeer on this issue alone then he would have been wrong, but that wasn't the case
As for imam al nawawi, of course he had alot of knowledge in 1000s of issues, but that doesn't mean he wasn't mistaken in a few of them, especially considering that this belief was very widespread in his time, he also said Allah is not really above the throne and other things regarding sifaat,

See the state that sheikh MIAW saw would be similar to a mix of asharis, bralwis and pure jahil grave lovers today, it was a lot worse then you think, read the opening pages of the book tareekh najd to read a short description (although I think it's somewhere in the first few pages of this thread too)

2) I will need to check this up, it might be correct because this is a common view among many Salafi scholars, all I read it that Ibn uthaymeen saw it as a bad bidah leading to shirk

3) Other then Ibn Taymiyyah who may have said it's shirk (if not bidah definitely), no I don't know another who said it's shirk akbar, really it all comes down to the two hadiths that are used to prove its permissibility, but anyway it was for this reason I see it as bidah that can lead to shirk (and as we see in history and many sects, it clearly led to shirk, there's a reason why there are people today who ask the dead for things)

[AmantuBillahi]

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

1) But that's the thing, this wasn't the only shirk he saw prevalent among the people at all, I would agree with you that if he made takfeer on this issue alone then he would have been wrong, but that wasn't the case
As for imam al nawawi, of course he had alot of knowledge in 1000s of issues, but that doesn't mean he wasn't mistaken in a few of them, especially considering that this belief was very widespread in his time, he also said Allah is not really above the throne and other things regarding sifaat,

See the state that sheikh MIAW saw would be similar to a mix of asharis, bralwis and pure jahil grave lovers today, it was a lot worse then you think, read the opening pages of the book tareekh najd to read a short description (although I think it's somewhere in the first few pages of this thread too)

2) I will need to check this up, it might be correct because this is a common view among many Salafi scholars, all I read it that Ibn uthaymeen saw it as a bad bidah leading to shirk

3) Other then Ibn Taymiyyah who may have said it's shirk (if not bidah definitely), no I don't know another who said it's shirk akbar, really it all comes down to the two hadiths that are used to prove its permissibility, but anyway it was for this reason I see it as bidah that can lead to shirk (and as we see in history and many sects, it clearly led to shirk, there's a reason why there are people today who ask the dead for things)

:jkk:

1) Yes , there were other things , but this specific one appears to be a kharijite position - held by none before him - and needs to be refuted today as a bid'ah and extremism.

If we see someone at the grave site asking the Prophet to ask Allah to forgive them - following the ayah which calls the people to do so , we shouldnt call them kuffar.

Perhaps one could say it is bid'ah / haram / misinterpretation ( even though Nawawi brings forth hadith for it )

If one says those in the grave are incompetent of such tasks , well we do know

1) They are alive in barzarkh
2) They make dua / pray in barzarkh
3) There are hadith with says the Prophet prays for his Ummah when he see's good ( every friday I believe )
4) Majority scholars , including ibn taymiyyah / ibn al qayyim believed the dead can hear
5) Hadith of the Sahabi / Bedouin

Im not telling anyone what to do / believe , just expressing what I see , in hopes to learn and not blindly follow personalities in such critical matters.

Hope to also hear from [MENTION=122148]Abu Sulayman[/MENTION]

[abufulaans]

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

:jkk:

1) Yes , there were other things , but this specific one appears to be a kharijite position - held by none before him - and needs to be refuted today as a bid'ah and extremism.

If we see someone at the grave site asking the Prophet to ask Allah to forgive them - following the ayah which calls the people to do so , we shouldnt call them kuffar.

Perhaps one could say it is bid'ah / haram / misinterpretation ( even though Nawawi brings forth hadith for it )

If one says those in the grave are incompetent of such tasks , well we do know

1) They are alive in barzarkh
2) They make dua / pray in barzarkh
3) There are hadith with says the Prophet prays for his Ummah when he see's good ( every friday I believe )
4) Majority scholars , including ibn taymiyyah / ibn al qayyim believed the dead can hear
5) Hadith of the Sahabi / Bedouin

Im not telling anyone what to do / believe , just expressing what I see , in hopes to learn and not blindly follow personalities in such critical matters.

Hope to also hear from [MENTION=122148]Abu Sulayman[/MENTION]

1) Kharijite opinion, interesting, I still think the issue is more complicated, they based it upon what they knew and what they seriously thought the scholars of Islam said, the way the khawarij made takfeer was a bit different but I see where your coming from,

Oh the ayah doesn't call them to do so, there's just two weak hadiths on the issue, if the ayah called for that then we would have 10s, if not 100s of sahih hadith showing that the sahabah called the prophet ﷺ after he passed away, but we don't, because the ayah doesn't call for that simply put

2) True, but it just gets alot worse from there, people then start putting their trust in the dead saint, start thinking you have to ask the dead saint to ask Allah all the time ect...and eventually it leads to asking the dead saint directly at the grave, and then even worse, asking the dead saint in hardship far away from the grave

Therefore its a bidah that leads to shirk

[AmantuBillahi]

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

1) Kharijite opinion, interesting, I still think the issue is more complicated, they based it upon what they knew and what they seriously thought the scholars of Islam said, the way the khawarij made takfeer was a bit different but I see where your coming from,

Oh the ayah doesn't call them to do so, there's just two weak hadiths on the issue, if the ayah called for that then we would have 10s, if not 100s of sahih hadith showing that the sahabah called the prophet ﷺ after he passed away, but we don't, because the ayah doesn't call for that simply put

2) True, but it just gets alot worse from there, people then start putting their trust in the dead saint, start thinking you have to ask the dead saint to ask Allah all the time ect...and eventually it leads to asking the dead saint directly at the grave, and then even worse, asking the dead saint in hardship far away from the grave

Therefore its a bidah that leads to shirk

Well the reason why the term "kharijite" is proposed is due to the fact that something which was an accepted practice by some Ulama , which they justifty from some ahadith from the time of the Salaf ..

Or a practice which was not accepted by a faction of scholars on the basis that it is a misrepresentation of the ayah [ 4 : 64 ] - which ceases to apply after the death of the Prophet (saws) - and was not the practice of the khula ar rashideen ..

But to claim it is shirk akbar , how is that not a kharijite position , making something which is at most haram , in to something which takes you out the deen ?

Regardless , it is not so important to call him a khariji. But it is absolutely important to recognize that this positon is extreme , it is bid'ah , and falsehood to spread.

1) No Muslim prior to him has ever said this. ( Don't Salafis argue against sufis using similar reasoning? Apply that reasoning in this situation)

2) There are texts from the Salaf ( A bedouin / Sahabi ) being apart of this act while no scholar from that era until Ibn Taymiyyah ever criticised it.

The lack of criticism of the well known ahadith is a proof in and of itself for it's acceptability to some degree.

I guess you can argue that the lack of quality Sahabah / quantity in proofs can not validate a practice not ordered by the Prophet (saws) and would result in a clear bid'ah which can lead to shirk.

^ I would agree that it is fair and principled , and I can imagine a faqeeh using such reasoning , and requiring something more decisive , in order to stamp validity in to a practice. But to suggest that the act is shirk akbar in and of itself , is farfetched , not historical , and thus against true 'Salafiyyah' ( In it's linguistic and sound meaning , not hizbiyyah )

What do you think of this analysis ?

Barak Allah feekum