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

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

I understand what your saying about the khariji type opinion, I will have to think about this because scholars in the past have made takfeer on strange things before him aswell, they were mistaken but to call it khawarij takfeer seems incorrect aswell. As for it being extreme and incorrect, yes I agree with that actually and I actually have held this view for a few years now

Besides that, what I'm trying to say that his dawah and war against the mushrikeen as a whole was still correct, even if he was mistaken on this opinion

1) That seems correct, no one called it shirk akbar as far as I know before the scholars of najd,

2) This is completely wrong, a number of scholars said this act is not permissible, il post a few statements in the next post, however as you rightly stated, none of them called it shirk akbar and made takfeer on Muslims over it for doing that alone, they just stated it's not permissible or a bidah

I agree, salafis should reject incorrect views no matter who they are from,

بارك الله فيك

[Salman Al-Farsi]

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

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

The issue here is this ‘Pure Tawheed’ you mentioned, regardless of prevalent practices they were wrong according to IAWN & co’s understanding of ‘pure tawheed’ which they decided to enforce upon masses. For example, I may consider ‘pure Tawheed’ to be Haakamiyah would I then be justified in fighting iwan & co and their aal-saud allies for their shirk in obedience to other than Allah ta’ala? You may not understand or recognise what I am saying because this is not laid down in IAWN’s doctrine of selective pure tawheed.

And if they were so eager to eliminate shirk in all forms replacing it with this newly contructed understanding of ‘pure tawheed’ why stop at the Arabian peninsula why not take it further? Was the world beyond not steeped in these shirky practices! Could it be that their role in the colonialist plan had territorial limitations? But that’s a different discussion altogether.

When I said ‘goodness’ I meant in the years to come, IAWN’s teachings became source of guidance to masses of people who found the shredded refined Islam more attractive than what Islam had become in the hands of traditionalists! Whilst the only thing that came out during IAWN's time and the peak of his movement was consolidation of aal-Saud and Colonialist plan for Arabian peninsula... it served that agenda well. So we have to balance things out!

[abufulaans]

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

The issue here is this ‘Pure Tawheed’ you mentioned, regardless of prevalent practices they were wrong according to IAWN & co’s understanding of ‘pure tawheed’ which they decided to enforce upon masses. For example, I may consider ‘pure Tawheed’ to be Haakamiyah would I then be justified in fighting iwan & co and their aal-saud allies for their shirk in obedience to other than Allah ta’ala? You may not understand or recognise what I am saying because this is not laid down in IAWN’s doctrine of selective pure tawheed.

And if they were so eager to eliminate shirk in all forms replacing it with this newly contructed understanding of ‘pure tawheed’ why stop at the Arabian peninsula why not take it further? Was the world beyond not steeped in these shirky practices! Could it be that their role in the colonialist plan had territorial limitations? But that’s a different discussion altogether.

When I said ‘goodness’ I meant in the years to come, IAWN’s teachings became source of guidance to masses of people who found the shredded refined Islam more attractive than what Islam had become in the hands of traditionalists! Whilst the only thing that came out during IAWN's time and the peak of his movement was consolidation of aal-Saud and Colonialist plan for Arabian peninsula... it served that agenda well. So we have to balance things out!

1) Honestly, if you don't know what tawheed is then it's your problem, a bralwi and Sufi both claim to have tawheed, do we say they are both right? Of course you will say no maybe both are wrong, but then the question arises which sect has the correct aqeedah and understanding of tawheed. It has nothing to do with I think, you think, at the end of the day one of us is right, and no doubt we will all fight eachother over it, only one upon the Haqq and the rest upon batil

2) They tried, as soon as they started expanding, they lost the war against sufis from the ottoman empire I believe, don't know the exact details,

3) I believe the first two Saudi states were built upon tawheed, the third one however used the dawah to attain authority and power alone, it's no surprise they submitted to the British so the saudi state could be established. Bad rulers have always existed, even soon after the rightly guided khulafaa, this doesn't mean the dawah was bad at all.

[AmantuBillahi]

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

2) This is completely wrong, a number of scholars said this act is not permissible, il post a few statements in the next post, however as you rightly stated, none of them called it shirk akbar and made takfeer on Muslims over it for doing that alone, they just stated it's not permissible or a bidah

I agree, salafis should reject incorrect views no matter who they are from,

بارك الله فيك

Assalamu alaykom

I am curious to see what you have in store - not to rush you , you may have been busy.

Sufis usually claim that the tawasul we attack them on has no criticism prior to Ibn Taymiyyah. This claim extends over both asking the dead at the grave site to ask Allah / Istighatha , which is direct dua to the dead from any place.

As for the first tawasul , it appears that there is some basis for this and great scholars even recommended it.

As for Istighatha , then this becomes more problematic , with little to no definitive daleels to prove it - and it is problematic in front of many ayat and also ahaadith.

Wa Allahu alam

[Abu Kamel]

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

There are numerous lies, falsehoods, slanders, distortions, omissions on this thread in regards to shaykh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab (rh) and the "salafi dawah", and even of historical events.
It will take numerous hours to deconstruct this web of deceit and misguidance.

And the worst aspect is knowing WHY.

Why has there been so many lies, distortions, falsehoods projected onto him and the dawah that he led?

The OP Abu Sulayman admits here:

to understand the roots of fanaticism of an organization like ISIS and also in order not to be fooled by the deception, lies and propaganda of the Mashayikh of so called "Salafi" movement, who are exploiting the thirst of young people - especially those living in the West - to learn the religion. The reason why young people in the West are easily fooled by these so called "Salafis" is because of the ignorance regarding the [true] religion (i.e. Islam) that is unfortunately prevelant in the West.

So, according to the OP, the problem is NOT the reality of the situation of the Muslim world, and the world at large, but the problem is the "fanaticism" of Muslims and Islamic groups and "ignorance".

The sincere believer looks at and gathers knowledge and comprehension of the reality. The Prophet did this in Makka prior to the Wahy. He understood the problems from the ideological/religious, doctrinal, to the micro economic and social.

But instead of addressing the reality of the Muslim world, or any given Muslim country, the OP adopts a myopic and apparently prejudiced, slanted viewpoint consistent with American ideological interests.

And he brought up IS aka ISIS. The problem in Iraq is not the invasion, occupation, colonization of Iraq by America and its imperial forces, its massacring of entire cities of Muslims. Nor is the problem of Rawafid, their alliance with America, the empowerment and impunity of Shia death squads ethnic cleansing Baghdad, and subjugating Muslim cities to Shia and American dominance. Nor is the problem the imposition of liberal democratic republicanism.

The only problem that the OP is so obsessed about is "salafi dawah" and how IS is less harsh than the movement of shaykh Muhammad.

First, :insha: I will address the biography of the shaykh, and the distortions, omissions, lies, projected upon him.

[Salman Al-Farsi]

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

1) Honestly, if you don't know what tawheed is then it's your problem, a bralwi and Sufi both claim to have tawheed, do we say they are both right? Of course you will say no maybe both are wrong, but then the question arises which sect has the correct aqeedah and understanding of tawheed. It has nothing to do with I think, you think, at the end of the day one of us is right, and no doubt we will all fight eachother over it, only one upon the Haqq and the rest upon batil

2) They tried, as soon as they started expanding, they lost the war against sufis from the ottoman empire I believe, don't know the exact details,

3) I believe the first two Saudi states were built upon tawheed, the third one however used the dawah to attain authority and power alone, it's no surprise they submitted to the British so the saudi state could be established. Bad rulers have always existed, even soon after the rightly guided khulafaa, this doesn't mean the dawah was bad at all.

^th

[imran1976]

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

1) In my opinion, no sect has truly grasped Tawheed because to understand it you have to understand the teachings of Sayduna Mustafa (saw), his Ashab (ra), the Taba tabayieen and the Salaf as –Saliheen, not some 17^th century cult and definitely not one emerging from Najd or some village in India for that matter. So we will be divided upon our understanding until we acquaint, learn and understand the teachings of the likes of Layth ibn Sad, Ibrahim al-Nakhai, Imam Malik, Sufyan al-Thawri, Hassan al-Basri, Abu Hanifa etc (may Allah ta’ala be pleased with them all), as they were the closest to the truth. So we don’t really have to fight each other we just have to learn the kitab and Sunnah and teachings of the blessed generation and we will find common ground.

2) Perhaps you should find out the exact details because what you are saying that they fought the Ottoman State is not what your scholars are saying from the Islamqa fatwa posted earlier.

Also don’t you find a bit strange that when the entire Muslim world - from east Africa, middle east, Indian sub-continent, North Africa and Central Asia were fighting against the British, French, Italians, Russians, Spanish and other enemies - under the banner of Ottoman khilafah or in co-ordination with it - that followers of najdi sect decided now is good time to wash off the shirk from them by fighting them even if it means paving way for the kuffar.

Did you know how great their timing was? The Russians were at the doorstep of Anatolya, while the bulk of ottoman army was engaged in Balkans and fighting the last of the Crusades, leaving the Caliph helpless. So the Porte had to order the Wali in Egypt to deal with the Najdi situation leaving Egypt vulnerable. So, whilst Egyptian army dealt with the Najdi cult... Nepolean Bonaparte landed on Egyptian shore with an army taking over without a fight!! For the Najdi sect this maybe an act of ‘Pure Tawheed’ but for rest of the Musilm world was nothing short of treachery and the first seed of hate for this new cult spreading over time.

My question would be, from the scholars I mentioned above – the real salaf, and all those who lived in that time… lived under some rulers who made the ottoman look great. Some of these rulers were ruthless killers of pious Muslims, evildoers, Mutazila and so on... but which of those scholars decided to conspire against the rulers? Agitated people against them or lifted arms against them??? No doubt, they were brave and never shy in holding them to account publicly and even went prison for it, but never caused civil war because these were known traits of the khawarij. Even when the Muslim rulers fought each other or the great civil war between Bani Ummayah and Abbasiya none of the great scholars took part, or sided with one party or the other, refraining from it and actively worked to rebuild. This for you my friend is ‘Pure Tawheed and Aqeedah’ Sample 1. Verdict: Najdi sect fail.

Furthermore, none of the scholars of the Salaf allied with the rulers of their time, even the pious ones and refrained from their company and wrote extensively on dangers of relationship between rulers and scholars and scholars who attend the court of rulers. They never made distinction between good rulers and bad rulers, just that a good scholar stays away from the association of rulers. ‘Pure Tahweed and Aqeedah’ Sample 2, verdict: Najdi sect fail by colluding with aal-Saud.


3) Yes of course, when IAWN raised arms to fight shirk was ‘Pure Tawheed’. When he allied with aal-Saud to establish Saudi hegemony was also ‘Pure Tawheed’. When they killed Muslims because they didn’t fit in with their newly invented ‘Pure Tawheed’ was also highly Islamic. When followers of IAWN went against his teachings by rebellion and treachery against Ottoman Khilafa was also ‘Pure Tawheed’. When aal-Saud allied with British against Ottoman state and were gifted Arabian Peninsula in return was also ‘Pure Tawheed’. When Aal-Saud and Wahabbis invited US to establish military bases in Saudi to attack Muslims was also ‘Pure Tawheed’…. and wahabbi scholars subservience to aal-Saud is also ‘Pure Tawheed’.

If that’s you, then please step out of the illusion.. seek ‘Pure Tawheed’ beyond the Najdi cult or the sufi cult for that matter.

Salman sahab,
I don't have words to praise this post-- My exact feelings, I don't think, I could have ever explained this in such a precise and eloquent manner.

ALLAH swt' Aap ko jaza'e khair A'ta farma'ey.

[Abu Sulayman]

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

See the problem is that you have not understood tawheed properly

This is also what Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) claimed against the scholars of his time in general and he even called them explicitly as 'Ulama` al-Mushrikin (scholars of polytheists). But we'll see insha`allah who understood Tawhid and who not.

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,

Believing that Allah ta'ala has a partner or a daughter/son is Shirk. Prostrating for an idol is Kufr.
As for calling the names of the Anbiya` and Awliya` while having correct beliefs, then it's not Shirk. This call is made metaphorically. The real help is expected from Allah ta'ala while Anbiya` and Awliya` are a mean (sabab) in attaining that need. This has been explicitly mentioned by classical Shafi'i scholars (and other than them).
Some people do however use wordings that are not allowed.

Even Allah says the mushrikeen affirmed he is the lord of absolutely everything, do you realise what this means? Hold on a second

This is exactly where all misunderstanding of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab started. If you know what the old greeks, the old egyptians, the hindus and other polyhteists believe, it should be easy for you to know that you're getting something wrong here.
Yes many polytheists accepted the existance of a major divine being, but they still doubtful regarding Him (see the Ayat 44:7-9 and 52:35-36).
And their belief regarding that being was not like that of Muslims (see below) and they still affirmed the existance of other divine beings besides Him (see the Ayah 25:42).

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

This is what Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab claimed in his Kashf al-Shubuhat, when he said that the polytheists used to accept the Rububiyyah (lordship) of Allah ta'ala completely (فإن قال: هؤلاء الآيات نزلت فيمن يعبد الأصنام، كيف تجعلون الصالحين مثل الأصنام أم كيف تجعلون الأنبياء أصنامًا؟ فجاوبه بما تقدم فإنه إذا أقر أن الكفار يشهدون بالربوبية كلها لله، وأنهم ما أرادوا ممن قصدوا إلا الشفاعة).
This is however a claim that is in direct opposition to the Qur`an al-karim.

The polytheists were ready to curse Allah, if one were to curse their idols (see the Ayah 6:108).
They doubted that Allah ta'ala could revive us after our death (see the Ayah 36:78). Thereby they rejected that Allah ta'ala has power over everything.
They did not believe that Allah ta'ala knows everything (see 41:22-23) and hears everything (see Sahih al-Bukhari).
They did not believe that Allah ta'ala alone could preserve and dispose this big creation (see the Ayah 38:4-5) and that he needs help in this. See what scholars like Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) said in the Tafsir regarding the Ayah 38:5. See also what Imam al-Razi (d.606 AH) said in his Tafsir of the same Ayah.
They believed in an intercession without the permission of Allah ta'ala.

Should I keep on? I mean the Qur`an is full of these type of Ayat, but it seems you did not realize that?!
Now tell us for God's sake: What is more truthful: The Qur`an al-karim or Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab? Do you see how he went clearly against the statement of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala?

[Abu Sulayman]

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

This is what Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab claimed in his Kashf al-Shubuhat, when he said that the polytheists used to accept the Rububiyyah (lordship) of Allah ta'ala completely (فإن قال: هؤلاء الآيات نزلت فيمن يعبد الأصنام، كيف تجعلون الصالحين مثل الأصنام أم كيف تجعلون الأنبياء أصنامًا؟ فجاوبه بما تقدم فإنه إذا أقر أن الكفار يشهدون بالربوبية كلها لله، وأنهم ما أرادوا ممن قصدوا إلا الشفاعة).
This is however a claim that is in direct opposition to the Qur`an al-karim.

Please read this article:


According to Wahhābī belief, the Mushrikūn of Quraysh in the time of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) affirmed Tawḥīd al-Rubūbiyya; that is, they believed:The Mushrikūn did not believe Allāh Knows Everything

ظننتم أن الله لا يعلم كثيرا مما تعملون

يقول جلّ ثناؤه: ولكن حسبتم حين ركبتم في الدنيا ما ركبتم من معاصي الله أن الله لا يعلم كثيراً مما تعملون من أعمالكم الخبيثة

Tafsīr al-Ṭabari

وذلكم ظنكم الذي ظننتم بربكم أردكم

يقول تعالى ذكره: وهذا الذي كان منكم فى الدنيا من ظنكم أن الله لا يعلم كثيرا مما تعملون من قبائح أعمالك ومساوئها هو ظنكم الذي ظننتم بربكم فى الدنيا أردكم يعني: أهلككم

Tafsīr al-Ṭabari, Maktaba Hajr, 20:412)

It is clear from this that the Mushrikūn did not believe Allāh is All-Knowing and All-Aware.

The Mushrikūn did not Believe Allāh Hears Everything

اجْتَمَعَ عِنْدَ الْبَيْتِ ثَلَاثَةُ نَفَرٍ، قُرَشِيَّانِ وَثَقَفِيٌّ، أَوْ ثَقَفِيَّانِ وَقُرَشِيٌّ، قَلِيلٌ فِقْهُ قُلُوبِهِمْ، كَثِيرٌ شَحْمُ بُطُونِهِمْ، فَقَالَ أَحَدُهُمْ: أَتُرَوْنَ اللهَ يَسْمَعُ مَا نَقُولُ؟ وَقَالَ الْآخَرُ: يَسْمَعُ، إِنْ جَهَرْنَا، وَلَا يَسْمَعُ، إِنْ أَخْفَيْنَا وَقَالَ الْآخَرُ: إِنْ كَانَ يَسْمَعُ، إِذَا جَهَرْنَا، فَهُوَ يَسْمَعُ إِذَا أَخْفَيْنَا

Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim)

This shows some Mushrikūn did not believe Allāh is All-Hearing, while others expressed doubts about it.

The Mushrikūn did not Believe Allāh has Power Over Everything

وَضَرَبَ لَنَا مَثَلاً وَنَسِيَ خَلْقَهُ قَالَ مَن يُحيِي ٱلْعِظَامَ وَهِيَ رَمِيمٌ

جاء العاص بن وائل إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعظم حائل ففته فقال: يا محمد، أ يبعث الله هذا بعد ما أرى؟ قال: نعم، يبعث الله هذا ثم يميتك ثم يحييك ثم يدخلك نار جهنم

Mustadrak al-ḤākimMustadrak al-ḤākimMustadrak al-ḤākimMustadrak al-Ḥākim

كذبني ابن آدم ولم يكن له ذلك..فأما تكذيبه إياي فقوله: لن يعيدني كما بدأني

Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī)

وقوله: { أجَعَلَ الآلِهَةَ إِلهاً وَاحِداً } يقول: وقال هؤلاء الكافرون الذين قالوا: مـحمد ساحر كذّاب: أجعل مـحمد الـمعبودات كلها واحداً، يسمع دعاءنا جميعنا، ويعلـم عبـادة كل عابد عبدَه منا { إنَّ هَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجابٌ }: أي إن هذا لشيء عجيب، كما:

Tafsīr al-Ṭabari

كُنَّا قَوْمًا نَعْبُدُ الْحِجَارَةَ وَالْأَوْثَانَ، فَإِذَا رَأَيْنَا حَجَرًا أَحْسَنَ مِنْ حَجَرٍ أَلْقَيْنَاهُ وَأَخَذْنَا غَيْرَهُ، وَلَا نَعْرِفُ رَبًّا

Mustadrak al-ḤākimThe Mushrikūn would Ascribe Powers to their False Gods/Stars

Allāh says about the Mushrikūn:

وَٱتَّخَذُواْ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ آلِهَةً لَّعَلَّهُمْ يُنصَرُونَ

so that they may be helped

يقول تعالى، منكرًا على المشركين، في اتخاذهم الأنداد آلهة مع الله، يبتغون بذلك أن تنصرهم تلك الآلهة, و ترزقهم, و تقربهم إلى الله زلفى

by which they desired that those gods will support them, provide them and bring them near to Allāh

وَيُخَوِّفُونَكَ بِٱلَّذِينَ مِن دُونِهِ

يقول تعالى ذكره لنبيه محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم: ويخوّفك هؤلاء المشركون يا محمد بالذين من دون الله من الأوثان والآلهة أن تصيبك بسوء، ببراءتك منها، وعيبك لها، والله كافيك ذلك. وبنحو الذي قلنا في ذلك قال أهل التأويل

These Mushrikūn threaten you, Muḥammad, with those besides Him amongst the idols and (false) gods, that they will afflict you with harm because of your disassociation from them and your criticism of themTafsīr al-Ṭabari

ثم خرج حتى قدم على قومه فاجتمعوا إليه، فكان أول ما تكلم به أن قال: بيست اللات والعزى، قالوا: مه يا ضمام ، اتق البرص والجذام، اتق الجنون. قال: ويلكم إنهما والله لا يضران ولا ينفعان

, 1599) The editors of Musnad Aḥmadal-Iṣāba, Markaz Hajr, 13:413-4)

The Mushrikūn would also believe that the stars bring down rain. They would believe the stars do this independently; hence, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) reported in a ḥadīth qudsī that Allāh says:

أَصْبَحَ مِنْ عِبَادِي مُؤْمِنٌ بِي وَكَافِرٌ، فَأَمَّا مَنْ قَالَ: مُطِرْنَا بِفَضْلِ اللَّهِ وَرَحْمَتِهِ، فَذَلِكَ مُؤْمِنٌ بِي وَكَافِرٌ بِالكَوْكَبِ، وَأَمَّا مَنْ قَالَ: بِنَوْءِ كَذَا وَكَذَا، فَذَلِكَ كَافِرٌ بِي وَمُؤْمِنٌ بِالكَوْكَبِ

Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī)

Al-Khaṭṭābī comments in

كنا فى الجاهلية نعبد حجرا فسمعنا مناديا ينادي: يا أهل الرحال إن ربكم قد هلك، فالتمسوا ربا، فخرجنا على كل صعب وذلول، فبينا نحن كذلك، إذ سمعنا مناديا ينادي: إنا قد وجدنا ربكم

People in the camps, your rabb is ruined, so go search for a rabb, 4:176)

The Mushrikūn Believed Allāh had Children and Relatives

The Mushrikūn would believe Allāh has daughters (16:57) and the jinn were related to Allāh (37:158). This is making partners in rubūbiyya as it is affirming beings similar to, and related to, Allāh.

Weak Confessions of Belief

Some verses say the Mushrikūn would affirm qualities of rubūbiyyah for Allāh. For example:

وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ

لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ رَبُّكُمْ وَرَبُّ آبَائِكُمُ الْأَوَّلِينَ بَلْ هُمْ فِي شَكٍّ يَلْعَبُونَ

But, they are in doubt

بَلْ هُمْ فِي شَكٍّ يَلْعَبُونَ } أي ليسوا على يقين فيما يظهرونه من الإيمان والإقرار في قولهم: إن الله خالقهم؛ وإنما يقولونه لتقليد آبائهم من غير علم فهم في شك

و هذا إنكار عليهم في شركهم بالله, و هم يعلمون أنه الخالق وحده لا شريك له, و لكن عدم إيقانهم هو الذي يحملهم على ذلك

, 13:239)

Imām Abu Ḥayyan al-Andalūsī (d. 745) said in his well-known tafsīr:

إذا سئلوا: من خلقكم وخلق السماوات والأرض؟ قالوا: الله، وهم شاكون

al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭandādshirk

وأخبر أن الملائكة التي فى السماوات من المقربين وغيرهم كلهم عبيد خاضعون لله، لا يشفعون عنده إلا بإذنه، وليسوا عنده كالأمراء عند ملوكهم، يشفعون عندهم بغير إذنهم فيما أحبه الملوك و أبوه، فلا يضربوا لله الأمثال تعالى الله عن ذلك

, 12:112)

Nonetheless, as explained earlier, the shirk of the Mushrikūn was not limited to taking their gods as intercessors with Allāh. They would say the above statement to make their shirk more palatable (See: , 16:445), although their shirk was not limited to only this. Hence, Ibn Kathīr includes other things in their shirk, not just seeking to get closer to Allāh:

يقول تعالى، منكرًا على المشركين، في اتخاذهم الأنداد آلهة مع الله، يبتغون بذلك أن تنصرهم تلك الآلهة, و ترزقهم, و تقربهم إلى الله زلفى

, Maktaba Awlād Shaykh, 11:382)

الأنداد التي اتخذها الأميون ربًّاً

that the unlettered Arabs would regard as rabbsTafsīr al-Ṭabarī, 5:304)

In explaining verse 17:56, he says:

يقول تعالى ذكره لنبيه محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم: قل يا محمد لمشركي قومك، الذين يعبدون من دون الله من خلقه، ادعوا أيها القوم الذين زعمتم أنهم أرباب، وألهة من دونه، عند ضر نزل بكم، فانظروا هل يقدرون على دفع ذلك عنكم أو تحويله عنكم إلى غيركم؟

the Mushrikūn of your people who worship other than Allāh from His creation: O people, call those you regard as rabbsTafsīr al-Ṭabarī, 14:626)

In explanation of verse 12:106, where Allāh describes the Arabs as Mushrikūn, he says:

وهم به مشركون في عبادتهم الأوثان والأصنام واتخاذهم من دون الله أربابا وزعمهم أن له ولد

and adopting them as rabbs besides HimTafsīr al-Ṭabarī, 13:372)

Summary

In summary:


1. The Mushrikūn of Arabia did not believe Allāh is All-Hearing, All-Powerful and All-Knowing

2. They did not have full conviction (yaqīnConclusion: This is not a belief in Tawḥīd al-Rubūbiyyah.

[Abu Sulayman]

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

So, according to the OP, the problem is NOT the reality of the situation of the Muslim world, and the world at large, but the problem is the "fanaticism" of Muslims and Islamic groups and "ignorance".

Could you please spare me your Wahhabi tactics. Hopefully you know that lying is forbidden in Islam?

And he brought up IS aka ISIS. The problem in Iraq is not the invasion, occupation, colonization of Iraq by America and its imperial forces, its massacring of entire cities of Muslims. Nor is the problem of Rawafid, their alliance with America, the empowerment and impunity of Shia death squads ethnic cleansing Baghdad, and subjugating Muslim cities to Shia and American dominance. Nor is the problem the imposition of liberal democratic republicanism.

Please don't get me started. I'm myself from 'Iraq and am living there.
Whether it's America, the Zionist state, the Rafidhah militias or the Wahhabi militias: All of them are criminals and oppressors and enemies of Allah ta'ala!!

[abufulaans]

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

You will see how your understanding fails completely, you have used the typical cherry pick ayaat method, the issue is actually extremely simple
This will take a while to reply to, give me time

[Abu Sulayman]

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

You will see how your understanding fails completely, you have used the typical cherry pick ayaat method, the issue is actually extremely simple
This will take a while to reply to, give me time

Actually I'm sure you'll start cherry picking. Let me guess: You'll post Ayat were the polytheists are asked who created the heavens and earth and they reply Allah. And also about them being in hardship and calling upon Allah alone. This however does not prove the claim of IAW.

Let me repeat: Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab claimed that the polytheists completely affirmed the Rububiyyah of Allah ta'ala. This is not correct with absolute certainity. And this has been already shown.

[AmantuBillahi]

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

As for calling the names of the Anbiya` and Awliya` while having correct beliefs, then it's not Shirk. This call is made metaphorically. The real help is expected from Allah ta'ala while Anbiya` and Awliya` are a mean (sabab) in attaining that need. This has been explicitly mentioned by classical Shafi'i scholars (and other than them).
Some people do however use wordings that are not allowed.

Can you explain this issue in detail or refer us to what you believe the mainstream orthodox position is , in opposition to the doctrine of the Salafis ? ( I have heard deobandi Hanafi scholars say something similar to what you have mentioned )

Is this like calling the Prophets name as a form of tawasul , while actually seeking Allah's aid ? Almost like " O'Allah for the sake of the Prophet , aid me " ?

What is your view on one who calls upon the Prophet from a distance , seeking his aid , believing he has the ability to grant you what you desire himself. ( For example a son , instead of a daughter ) ?

[abufulaans]

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

Actually I'm sure you'll start cherry picking. Let me guess: You'll post Ayat were the polytheists are asked who created the heavens and earth and they reply Allah. And also about them being in hardship and calling upon Allah alone. This however does not prove the claim of IAW.

Let me repeat: Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab claimed that the polytheists completely affirmed the Rububiyyah of Allah ta'ala. This is not correct with absolute certainity. And this has been already shown.

We will take them all and understand them together

[ebubekir01]

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

Salman sahab,
I don't have words to praise this post-- My exact feelings, I don't think, I could have ever explained this in such a precise and eloquent manner.

ALLAH swt' Aap ko jaza'e khair A'ta farma'ey.

i agree with you brother [MENTION=196]imran1976[/MENTION] i couldnt explain better :D but i can give an example / a real story about "makkah amir / emir "Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca" and north cyprus turkish republic former president Rauf DENKTAŞ.

here http://www.star.com.tr/pazar/mekke-e...haber-1025840/

im trying to translate the most important part of it , sorry for my bad english :D

"..........sharif hussain of makkah had to flee to Cyprus, he realized that he was deceived/mocked/cheated by westerners. and his residual life was full of regret for his betrayal to Ottoman State. Sharif hussain died in 1930 during his stay with his son Abdullah in Jordan and buried in Quds.

North Cyprus Turkish Republic 1. president Rauf DENKTAŞ witnessed his family friend Shariff Hussain's regret/regret days and told that "my dad was kissing his hands when we visit him and he was crying all time and saying " what did i do? why we betrayed Ottomans? We are suffering what we did, Raif, (father of president Rauf ) tell me about İstanbul's weather, and was letting me kiss his hands and gave me money" "
[MENTION=5720]Salman Al-Farsi[/MENTION]