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

[imran1976]

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

i agree with you brother @imran1976 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" "
@Salman Al-Farsi

much appreciated.

Yeah the realization came only after the Brits ditched him -- he shouldn't have cried that crocodile tears.

[abufulaans]

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

Well this is great, wrote a 30 mins reply and I pressed a icon which deleted it
Il be back in the evening or tomorrow

[abufulaans]

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

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.

Well considering they defended those who fell into shirk and considered those who say the shahadah muslim even if they fall into nullifiers of Islam, its no suprise he said that.

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.

This seems to be what Subki the innovator said regarding tawwasul, something that is close to shirk and can easily lead he masses to shirk, and I hope your not reffering to something similar to what Ibn 'Aqeel said:

قال الإمام أبو الوفاء علي بن عقيل الحنبلي رحمه الله : إن من يعظم القبور ويخاطب الموتى بقضاء الحوائج ، ويقول : يا مولاي ويا سيدي عبد القادر : (إفعل لي كذا) ؛ هو كافر بهذه الأوضاع ، ومن دعا ميتا وطلب قضاء الحوائج فهو كافر

''Indeed the one who venerates the graves and adresses the dead asking them to fulfill his needs by saying ''O sayyid Abdul Qadir do this for me'' he is a kafir....''

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).

The verse could mean that some of them did doubt the existance of Allah or it could mean they doubted the message that came to them, ok

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).

They indeed belived in other divine beings, not sure what this verse specifially has to do with Rububiyyah because it could just mean they worship and venerate them.

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.

Ok lets see what sheikh MIAW says just before that:

فبعث الله إليهم محمدًا يجدد لهم دين أبيهم إبراهيم عليه السلام، ويخبرهم أن هذا التقرب والاعتقاد محض حق الله لا يصلح منه شئ لغير الله لا لملك مقرب، ولا لنبي مرسل فضلًا عن غيرهما، وإلا فهؤلاء المشركون مقرون ويشهدون أن الله هو الخالق وحده لا شريك له وأنه لا يرزق إلا هو، ولا يحيي إلا هو، ولا يميت إلا هو، ولا يدبر الأمر إلا هو، وأن جميع السماوات السبع ومن فيهن والأراضين السبع ومن فيها كلهم عبيده وتحت تصرفه وقهره.

He says the mushrikeen belived in the following things:

1) That he is the creator of everything alone
2) That he provides for everthing alone
3) That he gives and takes life alone
4) That he controls all affairs
5) That everything in the heavens and earth is under his control

No where does he make a mention of the things you said below, why is this? Its because he means the mushrikeen believed in all of the usool of Rububiyyah, if he meant that they believed exactly in Tawheed like a muslim, then he would have even mentioned that they believe fully in the ressurection and that they believe he hears and sees absolutely everthing, but he didn't because

1) He didn't mean that
2) His point was that just tawheed of Rububiyyah wont save somone from shirk alone, and the question is, what exactly is shirk in worship? We will discuss this later aswell

The polytheists were ready to curse Allah, if one were to curse their idols (see the Ayah 6:108).

Insulting Allah is kufr, not sure why you meantioned it here

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.

Indeed they did, but at the same time they belived Allah gives and takes life, so the asl of Rububiyyah is there while they contradicted themselves,

They did not believe that Allah ta'ala knows everything (see 41:22-23) and hears everything (see Sahih al-Bukhari).

Yet they believed Allah could hear them in the ocean and created their hearing and seeing, again it was part of their corrupt aqeedah

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.

Indeed, and sheikh MIAW makes no mention of this in his book, meaning he didn't say they they believe in this. But again, the asl of Rububiyyah was present in them, did they believe the idols created themselves and then gave themselves this authority, in that case who created Allah according to them, the idols aswell? The answer is that Allah created them and they and whatever power they have, but this again is a contradiction in their belief and againnst the tawheed of Allah.

A similar example would be to believe that Allah created everything and has control over everthing, and then saying that he has a son that he controls, this too is shirk in Rububiyyah but the asl belief is still correct, that Allah creates everthing and controls everthing.

Another example would be a mushrik saying that Allah has given this idol such and such power, is this shirk? Of couse it is, but at the same time the asl of Rububiyyah is there, that Allah alone gives power.

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?

Here I will explain why the shiekh said all of this, lets look at this ayah


''And if you asked them, "Who created the heavens and the earth?" they would surely say, " Allah ." Say, "Then have you considered what you invoke besides Allah ? If Allah intended me harm, are they removers of His harm; or if He intended me mercy, are they withholders of His mercy?" Say, "Sufficient for me is Allah ; upon Him [alone] rely the [wise] reliers."
The prophet (SAW) asked the mushrikeen this question (about the idols harming and benifiting) and they were silent. They were silent because they know in reality that Allah created and controls everthing yet they still held beliefs that contradicted their own beliefs, how foolish they were. Also:


''And if you asked them who created them, they would surely say, " Allah ." So how are they deluded?''
What is Allah saying here is that their acceptance of Rububiyyah necessistates that they worship him alone, now I'm going to say this for the sake of argument. It makes sense to worship others with Allah if there are other lords beside Allah that can bring harm and benifit, what doesnt make sense is to accept that Allah is the true Lord yet worship others beside him. This is why Allah asks ''So how are they deluded''. The point being that even if the mushrikeen had a perfect belief in Rububiyyah like a muslim, they would still fall into shirk by calling upon others beside Allah, this is how they are deluded and contradict themselves. Ibn Kathis says about the verse:

وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ ٱللَّهُ فَأَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ } أي ولئن سألت هؤلاء المشركين بالله العابدين معه غيره { مَّنْ خَلَقَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ ٱللَّهُ } أي هم يعترفون أنه الخالق للأشياء جميعها وحده، لا شريك له في ذلك، ومع هذا يعبدون معه غيره ممن لا يملك شيئاً، ولا يقدر على شيء، فهم في ذلك في غاية الجهل والسفاهة وسخافة العقل، ولهذا قال تعالى { فَأَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ }؟ وقوله جل وعلا { وَقِيلِهِ يٰرَبِّ إِنَّ هَـٰؤُلاَءِ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يُؤْمِنُونَ } أي وقال محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم قيله، أي شكا إلى ربه شكواه من قومه الذين كذبوه، فقال يا رب إن هؤلاء قوم لا يؤمنون كما أخبر تعالى في الآية

''Meaning, if you asked these mushrikeen that worship other with Allah [who created them, they will say Allah], meaning they admit that he alone is the creator of absolutely everything (I say, including their idols!!!), yet they still worship others with him that neither own anything nor have control over anything, so they are in the furthest level of ignorance and and foolishness, this is why Allah says ''So how then are the deluded''''.

There are other verses about this aswell, their belief of Rububiyyah was hujjah against them, all of this shows that shirk of worship is generally seperate to shirk in the lordship of Allah.

[abufulaans]

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

The statements of the shaykh himself refute the fact he makes mass takfeer. Follower or not, to make a judgement on an individual from a small number of quotes is unjust, especially when there is counter evidence to dispel the points made.



I'm aware of the incidents but they all happened after the death of the shaykh, unless I'm mistaken?



What is in between tawhid and kufr?

As for the bit in bold the shaykh himself rejects that in his statements.

The issue has been clarified by sheikh Ali Al-Khudir
Refer to his book:
المُتممة لكلام أئمة الدعوة في مسألة الجهل في الشرك الأكبر
Easy pdf download if your interested

[Abu Kamel]

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

In response to the accusation that shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh) adopted positions on tawassul that no one adopted before him:

https://islamqa.info/en/114142https://islamqa.info/en/979

[Abu Sulayman]

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

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 )

The Jumhur of the classical scholars regarded Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istaghathah with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa Allan - as permitted. The first one to actually disagree was Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH), who regarded Tawassul as an innovation (bid'ah), Tashaffu' as some thing that leads to polytheism (dhari'ah ila al-shirk). As for Istighathah: He called it as shirk, but he refrained from doing Takfir.
During his times and after him major scholars responded to his view and clarified the issue.

There are different proofs for its permissibility and among that is the Ayah 4:64, the Hadith of the man in need and the Hadith of the blind man, the Athar of Malik al-Dar, the Tawassul of Adam - peace be upon him, the statement of Imam Malik (d. 158 AH) to Abu Ja'far al-Mansur (d. 179 AH) to seek intercession (which the Malikiyyah had accepted and acted upon) and also the practise of the Salaf to say "O slaves Allah, I've lost my way. Help!" or what is similar to that when they would get lost and other than that.
The Salafis act as if all these proofs are not authentic, but let them face the reality that the classical scholars did actually regard these proofs as authentic and acted upon them.
And even the Tawassul of 'Umar through al-Abbas - may Allah be pleased with both of them - is another proof [against them and not for them], because the Tawassul of 'Umar goes back to the high rank and status of Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - which is why he does not simply say "through al-'Abbas", but rather "through the uncle of your Prophet"

In Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighathah differrent wordings are used, but it goes basically all back to the same meaning and that is to get help from Allah ta'ala by the means of our Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.


Tawassul is to ask Allah ta'ala by the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - or his high rank and status. Example: "O Allah help me for the sake of your Prophet!"

Tashaffu' is to seek intercession through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - unto one's Lord. Example: " Ya Rasulallah, supplicate for the forgiveness of my sins." or "Intercede for me, o Messenger of Allah!".

Istighathah is the seeking of aid. While one mentions the name of Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - what one intends here is that he becomes a mean (sabab) in the fullfillment of one's need, while the real help is expected from Allah ta'ala. And the usage of seeking of aid regarding the one who's a sabab (mean) in the fullfillment of one's need is correct shar'an and 'urfan (for example: going to the doctor, while knowing that healing comes from Allah ta'ala alone). Example: "Ya Rasulallah, [help]!"

The Wahhabiyyah say now that the polytheists (read: some of them) would call upon Allah ta'ala alone when in great hardship and that therefore the Muslim who says "Ya Rasulallah!" during hardship is worse than those polytheists.
The mistake in this line of thinking is that there is a huge difference in the beliefs of the Muslims and polytheists.
The Muslim believes that Allah ta'ala alone is divine and that He alone is the creator and sustainer of the Universe and that nothing happens except by his permission and by his power.
The polytheist however may accept a major divine being, who has created the world, but it the same time he believes that there are other divine beings besides him, who also may bring harm and benefit independently [in specific matters]. This is not the belief of Muslims regarding the Prophets and the Righteous.
As for some of the polytheists calling upon Allah during great hardship: This is simply, because they may realize at that moment that real help can only be expected from Allah and that is similar to the case of the atheists, who also may call upon God in such situations.
As for the Muslim who mentions the name of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - then he's doing that while believing that the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - can be a mean (sabab) for Allah's help to come. He knows that Everything is under the control of Allah ta'ala whether it's before, during or after the hardship.

What is however indeed not allowed is to ask in the same way like one asks Allah ta'ala and that is for example by saying "O so and so, grant me children / forgive my sins / etc.".
If a person believes that anyone other than Allah ta'ala can harm or benefit him independently, then this clear-cut Shirk (no matter whether one calls upon that person or not). A Muslim however usually does not believe this, that's why Takfir is not made. Even if the intention of that Muslim is that the one whom he mentioned becomes a mean in the fullfillment of his need, his action/call is still ugly. One should therefore correct him and remind him that Allah ta'ala alone benefits and harms independently.

I'll post some links inshallah where classical scholars are qouted regarding the issue of Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighathah, which should leave no doubt that the above mentioned is the classical position.

[Abu Sulayman]

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

I'll post some links inshallah where classical scholars are qouted regarding the issue of Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighathah, which should leave no doubt that the above mentioned is the classical position.

I had an thread regarding this issue on IA Forums, but IA Forums doesn't work anymore unfortunately. But one can still find many of the qoutes on different websites.

Here is the statement of Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH), who discusses the issue quite in detail:

Imam Taqi Al-Din Al-Subki on Tawassul, Istighatha and Tashaffu’

Note that the above qoutes are all from his book Shifa` al-Saqam and the book has been praised by scholars like the Shaykh Salah al-Din al-Safadi (d. 764 AH) (who was a student of both Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Subki), the Hafidh Wali al-Din Abu Zur'ah al-'Iraqi (d. 826 AH), the Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH), the Imam Ibn Hajar al-Hayatami (d. 974 AH) and other than them.

Then you can read this link, which contains the qoutes of classical Shafi'i scholars like Imam al-Mawardi (d. 448 AH), Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH), Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH), Imam al-Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH), Imam al-Samhudi (d. 911 AH), Imam al-Qastallani (d. 923 AH), Imam Zakariyyah al-Ansari (d. 926 AH), Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH), Imam Shihab al-Din al-Ramli (d. 957 AH) and Imam Shams al-Din al-Ramli (d. 1004 AH):

The ruling of seeking aid with the Prophet (s) according to the scholars of the Shafi’i Madhhab

Note that many of the qoutes are regarding the seeking of intercession, but there are also qoutes which are regarding the permissibility of seeking aid like those of A`immah like al-Subki, al-Qastallani, al-Haytami and al-Ramli.
My original thread also contained a qoute from Imam al-Samhudi where he called the Prophet's name while being in Makkah (i.e. Istighathah from afar) and got healed from an illness and also the statement of Imam Taqi al-Din al-Hisni (d.829 AH) (who also specifically mentions Istighathah from afar).

The above link also contains the statements of non-Shafi'i scholars like Imam al-Kirmani (d. 597 AH), Imam Ibn Qudamah (d. 620 AH), the Adib Ibn al-Jannan al-Ansari al-Andalusi (d. 646 AH), Imam Yahya bin Yusuf al-Sarsari (d. 656 AH), Imam ‘Abdullah bin Mahmud bin Mawdud al-Mawsili (d. 683 AH), Imam Ibn al-Hajj al-‘Abdari (d. 737 AH), Imam al-Taftazani (d. 793 AH) and the 'Allamah Mansur bin Yunus al-Bahuti (d. 1051 AH).
The book Misbah al-Dhalam fil Mustaghithin bi Khayr al-Anam by Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad bin Musa bin al-Nu’man al-Marakashi (d. 683 AH) is also menitioned, which is a book filled with Ahadith and Athar containing Tawassul, Tashaffu’ and Istighathah with the Prophet, sallallahu 'alazhi wa sallam.

And this a link to the response of Imam Shams al-Din al-Jazari (d. 711 AH) against Ibn Taymiyyah concening Istighathah (where he qoutes the Imam Najm al-Din al-Tufi al-Hanbali (d. 716 AH)):

Imam Shams al-Din al-Jazari (d. 711 AH) refuting Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) on seeking aid with the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam

You can basically look into any major classical Fiqh book and you'll see that all of them have allowed seeking intercession: Whether it's al-Mughni of Imam Ibn Qudamah (d. 620 AH), Sharh Fath al-Qadir of Imam Ibn Humam (d. 861 AH), the al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah of Imam Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi (d. 741 AH) or the Fatawa al-Hindiyyah.


To make it short: According to the understanding of IAW (d. 1206 AH) the scholars of this Ummah have pretty much always been upon Shirk akbar and he would have fought against any classical scholar, if he would have lived in his time. In fact he would have even fought against Ibn Taymiyyah, because he would never ever have agreed to his crazy Takfir.

[Abu Sulayman]

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

Ok lets see what sheikh MIAW says just before that:

فبعث الله إليهم محمدًا يجدد لهم دين أبيهم إبراهيم عليه السلام، ويخبرهم أن هذا التقرب والاعتقاد محض حق الله لا يصلح منه شئ لغير الله لا لملك مقرب، ولا لنبي مرسل فضلًا عن غيرهما، وإلا فهؤلاء المشركون مقرون ويشهدون أن الله هو الخالق وحده لا شريك له وأنه لا يرزق إلا هو، ولا يحيي إلا هو، ولا يميت إلا هو، ولا يدبر الأمر إلا هو، وأن جميع السماوات السبع ومن فيهن والأراضين السبع ومن فيها كلهم عبيده وتحت تصرفه وقهره.

He says the mushrikeen belived in the following things:

1) That he is the creator of everything alone
2) That he provides for everthing alone
3) That he gives and takes life alone
4) That he controls all affairs
5) That everything in the heavens and earth is under his control

No where does he make a mention of the things you said below, why is this? Its because he means the mushrikeen believed in all of the usool of Rububiyyah, if he meant that they believed exactly in Tawheed like a muslim, then he would have even mentioned that they believe fully in the ressurection and that they believe he hears and sees absolutely everthing, but he didn't because

1) He didn't mean that
2) His point was that just tawheed of Rububiyyah wont save somone from shirk alone, and the question is, what exactly is shirk in worship? We will discuss this later aswell

Brother did you actually read what I had posted? Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab said that the polytheists completely accepted the lordship of Allah ta'ala and before that he mentioned what you posted above. But what does this change? It's still completely wrong!

The polytheists did not even believe that one God alone could preserve and control this universe?!!? Do you understand what that means? This alone destroys IAW's view.

That's one of the proofs:

{ وَعَجِبُوۤاْ أَن جَآءَهُم مٌّنذِرٌ مِّنْهُمْ وَقَالَ ٱلْكَافِرُونَ هَـٰذَا سَاحِرٌ كَذَّابٌ }
{ أَجَعَلَ ٱلآلِهَةَ إِلَـٰهاً وَاحِداً إِنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجَابٌ }

{ They (the pagans) wonder that a warner has come to them from among themselves. And the disbelievers say, “This is a magician, a sheer liar. }
{ Has he (not) turned all the gods into a single God? It is a very strange thing indeed.” } [38:4-5]

We know that polytheists from different regions of the world believed in things like a "river god" or a "rain god" and so on. And from the above statement that Allah ta'ala narrates from the Arab polytheists, we see that they were not much different in their way of thinking than the rest of the polytheists.

Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) mentioned in the Tafsir of the above Ayah that they did not regard it as possible that one god alone could listen and know the prayers of all of his worshippers:

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
- end of the qoute -

And Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606 AH) mentioned in the Tafsir of the same Ayah that they believed that the existance of many gods is necessary for the preservation of such a diverse world:

وقالوا: { أَجَعَلَ ٱلآلِهَةَ إِلَـٰهاً وٰحِداً وَأَنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَيْء عُجَابٌ } أي بليغ في التعجب وأقول منشأ التعجب من وجهين الأول: هو أن القوم ما كانوا من أصحاب النظر والاستدلال بل كانت أوهامهم تابعة للمحسوسات فلما وجدوا في الشاهد أن الفاعل الواحد لا تفي قدرته وعلمه بحفظ الخلق العظيم قاسوا الغائب على الشاهد، فقالوا: لا بد في حفظ هذا العالم الكثير من آلهة كثيرة يتكفل كل واحد منهم بحفظ نوع آخر
- end of the qoute -

There are other verses about this aswell, their belief of Rububiyyah was hujjah against them, all of this shows that shirk of worship is generally seperate to shirk in the lordship of Allah.

Listen the Qur`an al-karim uses Rabb and Ilah as synonms and your attempt to act as if Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah are two completely different things is simply wrong. The polytheists would worship other than Allah ta'ala, because they believed that their so called "gods" have actually attributes of lordship (i.e. that they may harm and benefit independently). And it has been already shown to you how they believed that many gods are necessary for the preservation of this big creation.

[Abu Sulayman]

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

In response to the accusation that shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh) adopted positions on tawassul that no one adopted before him:

Your qoute is not even correct, but okay "Salafis" are not good at qouting things correctly.

The issue of this thread is the unjustified Takfir and bloodshed of IAW and his followers against other Muslims. You can have other views reagrding seeking intercession and seeking intercession, but this does not give you the right to support the mass-killing of Muslims!

The ironic thing is that the brother of IAW the Shaykh Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1208/1210) (he was the Qadhi of Huraymila) actually agreed with Ibn Taymiyyah and called Istighathah as Shirk (but he regarded it as minor Shirk and not major one) unlike other classical scholars who permitted it (see my above posts), but Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) still regarded him among the Mulhidin (atheists!!!) in his Mufid al-Mustafid for calling it only minor shirk and for disagreeing with his Takfir.

This is the statement of Shaykh Sulayman in his al-Sawa`iq al-Ilahiyyah (originally it was just a letter and had another name):

فنقول نعم كل هذا حق يجب الايمان به ولكن من اين لكم ان المسلم الذي يشهد ان لا اله الا الله وان محمدا عبده ورسوله اذا دعى غائباً او ميتاً او نذر له او ذبح لغير الله او تمسح بقبر او اخذ من ترابه ان هذا هو الشرك الاكبر الذي من فعله حبط عمله وحل ماله ودمه وانه الذي اراد الله سبحانه من هذه الاية وغيرها في القرآن فان قلتم فهمنا ذلك من الكتاب والسنة قلنا لا عبرة بمفهومكم ولا يجوزلكم ولا لمسلم الاخذ بمفهومكم فان الامة مجمعة كما تقدم ان الاستنباط مرتبة اهل الاجتهاد المطلق ومع هذا لو اجتمعت شروط الاجتهاد في رجل لم يجب على احد الاخذ بقوله دون نظر

"So we say yes this true and we have to accept it and have faith in it but where did you get that the Muslim, who testifies that there is no divinity but Allah and that Muhammad is his slave, when he calls an absent or a dead, or vows to him, or makes a sacrifice to other than Allah or takes some of his soil that this is the great shirk for which the perpretrator loses his deeds and his wealth and blood becomes permissible, and that this is what Allah meant by these verses and others in the quran. If you say that this from your understanding of the quran and sunna, we say there is nothing to be taken in account from your understanding and it is not permissible for you or for a Muslim to take this understanding because the ummat has agreed as we have explained that drawing rules is one of the degrees of the mujtahid mutlaq, and even if you reached the level of ijtihad it is not obligatory for anyone to follow your position without verifiying it."

قال الشيخ تقي الدين من اوجب تقليد الامام بعينه دون نظر انه يستتاب فان تاب والا قتل انتهى وان قلتم اخذنا ذلك من كلام بعض اهل العلم كابن تيمية وابن القيم لانهم سموا ذلك شركاً (قلنا) هذا حق ونوافقكم على تقليد الشيخين ان هذا شرك ولكن هم لم يقولوا كما قلتم ان هذا شرك اكبر يخرج من الاسلام وتجري على كل بلد هذا فيها احكام اهل الردة بل من لم يكفرهم عندكم فهو كافر تجري عليه احكام اهل الردة ولكنهم رحمهم الله ذكروا ان هذا شرك وشددوا فيه ونهوا عنه ولكن ما قالوا كما قلتم ولا عشر معشاره ولكنكم اخذتم من قولهم ماجاز لكم دون غيره بل في كلامهم رحمهم الله مايدل على ان هذا الافاعيل شرك اصغر وعلى تقدير ان في بعض افراده ماهو شرك اكبر على حسب حال قائله ونيته فهم ذكروا في بعض مواضع من كلامهم ان هذا لا يكفر حتى تقوم عليه الحجة الذي يكفر تاركها كما يأتي في كلامهم ان شاء الله مفصلا ولكن المطلوب منكم هو الرجوع الى كلام اهل العلم

"Sheikh Taqi Al-Din ( Ibn Taymiyya) said: Whoever renders obligatory the following of an Imam in particular without verification then he is asked to repent or else he is killed, end of his words. If you say that you took this from the speech of some people of knowledge like Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Al-Qayyim because they called this shirk, but they did not say as you did that is shirk akbar which expells from the religion of islam and for which a region is declared a region of apostasy when that sort of act takes place in their region. In fact, whoever doesn't make takfir of them, then he is a kafir for you and the rulings of apostasy apply to him! But they said this is shirk and they were hard on it, they forbade it but they did not say what you said nor one tenth of what you said. Rather there is in their speech what indicates that these actions are shirk asghar. Let's suppose that, among some individuals, it is shirk akbar then it depends on the situation and intention of the individual because they mentionned in some places of their statements that takfir is not made until the proof is established which expels the one who abandons the proof as will be shown, insha Allah, with details.

What is requested from you is that you return to the statements of the scholars."
- end of the qoutes -
(Translation taken from brother Pluma)


I ask now: Is it now allowed to accuse other Muslims of being polytheists left and right just because of the false opinion of one individual (i.e. IAW), who was literally rejected by all scholars of his time and not even regarded as a scholar!?! What is even worse is to build a whole movement upon his views (i.e. the "Salafi" movement)!
Blindly following a guy who came more than thousand years after the Hijrah and who rejected all living scholars (as has been shown in the very first post) is nothing but misguidance and leaving the way of the Ahl al-Sunnah.

[abufulaans]

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

[MENTION=122148]Abu Sulayman[/MENTION]

Please show us the earliest scholars that allowed or recommended the tawassul of the prophet ﷺ, don't bring the narration of imam Malik, I will refute that later with a number of points InshaAllah

You say the classical scholars permitted it, I agree if you mean 500/600 AH, but what about before that and more importantly the salaf, the truth is as Ibn Taymiyyah says, that none of the classical imams around the time of the 4 imams allowed it, nor did their students, it's only later this issue came about.

Before I give a longer reply, I would like to say very clearly that if MIAW meant that the mushrikeen had complete tawheed of Rububiyyah, then he was wrong.....but I honestly don't think it's clear, it's very possible that he meant they had the usool of Rububiyyah as part of their aqeedah for the reasons I mentioned

And please stop your deception of switching the terms istighatha and tawassul around, tawassul is a much more broad term, there are many types ranging from shirk to bidah to mustahabb

[AmantuBillahi]

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

Assalamu alaykom , and :jkk:

I am really only concerned with Istighatha to be honest. I believe the Tawasul you have mentioned / intercession are not as problematic , and there are scholars who endorse this.

Istighathah is the seeking of aid. While one mentions the name of Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - what one intends here is that he becomes a mean (sabab) in the fullfillment of one's need, while the real help is expected from Allah ta'ala. And the usage of seeking of aid regarding the one who's a sabab (mean) in the fullfillment of one's need is correct shar'an and 'urfan (for example: going to the doctor, while knowing that healing comes from Allah ta'ala alone). Example: "Ya Rasulallah, [help]!"

I don't believe Salafi's truly have a problem with this definition of Istigatha. What you are suggesting , based on this quote , is really no different than the first form of tawasul. The only difference is the usage of words. Don't get me wrong , I am sure it would still be considered Bid'ah / Haram , but maybe not Shirk Akbar.

But I think it is problematic for reasons you have not mentioned. The majority of people , when they call on other than Allah assume that whoever they are calling upon can hear them from anywhere on earth. So it is not a metaphoric call , as you have suggested. Maybe the scholars who affirmed it , affirmed it only metaphorically , without believing that the ones being called can hear / help. If that is true , then there is only a minor difference between both groups in this regard. Merely saying " Ya Rasulullah" is not shirk. It is halal to use to the words if your intention / beliefs are sound.

What is however indeed not allowed is to ask in the same way like one asks Allah ta'ala and that is for example by saying "O so and so, grant me children / forgive my sins / etc.".
If a person believes that anyone other than Allah ta'ala can harm or benefit him independently, then this clear-cut Shirk (no matter whether one calls upon that person or not). A Muslim however usually does not believe this, that's why Takfir is not made. Even if the intention of that Muslim is that the one whom he mentioned becomes a mean in the fullfillment of his need, his action/call is still ugly. One should therefore correct him and remind him that Allah ta'ala alone benefits and harms independently.

I do not disagree with your quote but I believe it is irrelevant in this situation. It is necessary to substantiate your beliefs with proofs which outweigh what opposes it. Sure , Allah is ultimately behind all things , but what evidence do we have to suggest that those in the graves can hear us / help us at all?

Allah granted me the ability to type this message. Ultimately it is by the Will of Allah , and it is not possible without His Will. But this ability was granted to me through several means , and it is not possible without those means. The question is , what abilities do you ascribe to the Prophet(saws) , and what definitive evidence do you have?

The reason this issue is more troublesome than the other two is due to the censure of calling upon other than Allah within the Qur'an. It is not a light matter , and I believe it is wisdom to avoid highly doubtful practices. Allah has even called it shirk in certain place(s). Obviously you will interpret those ayat differently , and claim they are speaking only about idols - but sincerity and wisdom dictates that we should fear the possibility of Shirk , especially as we consider that this was not the common practice of the Prophet / Companions / Salaf.

" If you invoke them, they do not hear your supplication; and if they heard, they would not respond to you. And on the Day of Resurrection they will deny your association (Shirk). And none can inform you like [one] Acquainted [with all matters]" [35:14]

“And who is more astray than one who calls on (invokes) besides Allaah, such as will not answer him till the Day of Resurrection, and who are (even) unaware of their calls (invocations) to them? " [46:6]

With regards to the Hadith of the Blind man Uthman ibn hunayf / " O ' Servants of Allah! " ( Camel Hadith ) , Salafi's make sense of these few ahadith while contextualizing the entirety of scripture / practice of the Salaf.

Also none of those Shafi'i scholars were from the time of the Salaf. I understand you are only attempting to prove that Istighaatha is not shirk akbar , but nevertheless , their beliefs on theology is not binding on us , and this is assuming we even differ with each other in the first place , once all the semantics are set straight.

The Jumhur of the classical scholars regarded Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istaghathah with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa Allan - as permitted. The first one to actually disagree was Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH), who regarded Tawassul as an innovation (bid'ah), Tashaffu' as some thing that leads to polytheism (dhari'ah ila al-shirk). As for Istighathah: He called it as shirk, but he refrained from doing Takfir.
During his times and after him major scholars responded to his view and clarified the issue.

I just wanted to mention the reason why Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) was the first to oppose Istighatha was because it was not something the Salaf came across. This bid'ah , started with the Shi'ah and then many Sufi's / Sufi orders made it part and parcel of their customs.

We also do not have the Salaf promoting 'calling on Saints , believing they can hear you at all times' and as far as my knowledge is concerned , there are
no definitive proofs to substantiate the belief.

Blind man hadith which can be interpreted or may have issues with authenticity / Permitting the calling of the Slaves of Allah in a certain situation can not override the entire the Quran. The evidence needs to be absolutely clear and direct.

Jazak Allah khair.

[abufulaans]

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

Assalamu alaykom

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

Not too busy but gathering the relevent evidence and quotes does take a long time. No rush Insha'Allah, this this be a long discussion.

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.

To my suprise you are actually correct (and wrong), indeed Ibn Taymiyyah was one of the first to criticise the bidah tawassul of asking the prophet (SA) to ask Allah after his death, however this is not exactly an evidence against us, and I will explain why.

So they argument is that scholars before Ibn Taymiyyah allowed or recommended tawassul, well the first question that arises is which scholars are you talking about, who were the first scholars to allow it?

None of the four imans and imams or their time, nor their students said this tawassul is permissible or even par of Islaam, they never mentioned it in their books or said it, because it infact is a bidah. It's only later that some scholars starting allowing it, I have yet to find an ashari showing the first scholar to allow it, the furthest back I have seen so far is around 500 or 600 Hijri, this is well after the salaf.

Now if you bring the narration of Imam Malik telling the khlifah Mansoor (?) to do this type of tawassul, then it has been refuted in numerous ways, and I will soon mention them, so don't bring this.

As for the evidences that are used, the main two being the narration of the bedoin and another of a man who had a dream and was told to go to Umar RA, then these too have been refuted and mention the refutaions later aswell so don't bring these either.

So my request is for you to bring a scholar of the early salaf that clearly allowed this act, if you can't then know that it is nothing short of a bidah as Ibn Taymiyyah rightly said. Surely if it was an act legislated in Islam you would have 10s if not 100s of ahadith of the sahabah doing this tawassul, and on top of that it would have been a very well known act among the imams including the four imams and their students, yet all you can bring is a (just one that is or 2) weak/fabricated narration of Umar telling the khalifah to do tawassul (seriously?), and then on the other hand we even have this narration:


Whenever drought threatened them, 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, used to ask Al-Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib to invoke Allah for rain. He used to say, "O Allah! We used to ask our Prophet to invoke You for rain, and You would bless us with rain, and now we ask his uncle to invoke You for rain. O Allah ! Bless us with rain."(1) And so it would rain.

Im aware this can have two meanings, either way it means they stopped after the prophet (SAW) passed away, this really shows something. But do you not realise that the muslims had the greatest creation of Allah so close to them, yet there are absolutely no sahih narrations that the sahabah would go to his grave, while there are a few weak ones (yes just a few), you should really ponder over this, why would you ask anyone to make dua wihtout asking the prophet (SAW) to make dua if one is able to, this would make no sense.

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.

Correct, the second is shirk as stated even by scholars before Ibn Taymiyyah, and very soon we will be discussing why it is shirk of worship, and what shirk and ibaadah actually are.

[AmantuBillahi]

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

Not too busy but gathering the relevent evidence and quotes does take a long time. No rush Insha'Allah, this this be a long discussion.



To my suprise you are actually correct (and wrong), indeed Ibn Taymiyyah was one of the first to criticise the bidah tawassul of asking the prophet (SA) to ask Allah after his death, however this is not exactly an evidence against us, and I will explain why.

So they argument is that scholars before Ibn Taymiyyah allowed or recommended tawassul, well the first question that arises is which scholars are you talking about, who were the first scholars to allow it?

None of the four imans and imams or their time, nor their students said this tawassul is permissible or even par of Islaam, they never mentioned it in their books or said it, because it infact is a bidah. It's only later that some scholars starting allowing it, I have yet to find an ashari showing the first scholar to allow it, the furthest back I have seen so far is around 500 or 600 Hijri, this is well after the salaf.

Now if you bring the narration of Imam Malik telling the khlifah Mansoor (?) to do this type of tawassul, then it has been refuted in numerous ways, and I will soon mention them, so don't bring this.

As for the evidences that are used, the main two being the narration of the bedoin and another of a man who had a dream and was told to go to Umar RA, then these too have been refuted and mention the refutaions later aswell so don't bring these either.

So my request is for you to bring a scholar of the early salaf that clearly allowed this act, if you can't then know that it is nothing short of a bidah as Ibn Taymiyyah rightly said. Surely if it was an act legislated in Islam you would have 10s if not 100s of ahadith of the sahabah doing this tawassul, and on top of that it would have been a very well known act among the imams including the four imams and their students, yet all you can bring is a (just one that is or 2) weak/fabricated narration of Umar telling the khalifah to do tawassul (seriously?), and then on the other hand we even have this narration:


Whenever drought threatened them, 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, used to ask Al-Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib to invoke Allah for rain. He used to say, "O Allah! We used to ask our Prophet to invoke You for rain, and You would bless us with rain, and now we ask his uncle to invoke You for rain. O Allah ! Bless us with rain."(1) And so it would rain.

Im aware this can have two meanings, either way it means they stopped after the prophet (SAW) passed away, this really shows something. But do you not realise that the muslims had the greatest creation of Allah so close to them, yet there are absolutely no sahih narrations that the sahabah would go to his grave, while there are a few weak ones (yes just a few), you should really ponder over this, why would you ask anyone to make dua wihtout asking the prophet (SAW) to make dua if one is able to, this would make no sense.




Correct, the second is shirk as stated even by scholars before Ibn Taymiyyah, and very soon we will be discussing why it is shirk of worship, and what shirk and ibaadah actually are.

:jkk:

It is not necessary for the Salaf to censure this practice when in reality , it was not prevalent in the first place. The silence of the Salaf is only a proof for what is clearly stated in the Quran. The Quran refutes calling 'other than Allah' in almost every chapter , it is something well known to anyone who has read the book.

In order to somehow validate it , then the evidence needs to be absolutely Muhkam.

[AmantuBillahi]

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

Correct, the second is shirk as stated even by scholars before Ibn Taymiyyah, and very soon we will be discussing why it is shirk of worship, and what shirk and ibaadah actually are.

Ah , excuse me. I misunderstood what you said above.

When you get a chance , can you mention any scholar who criticized Istighatha in particular , prior to Ibn Taymiyyah ? According to Brother Abu Sulayman , he was the first to do so ( and I was also under this impression )

[abufulaans]

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

:jkk:

It is not necessary for the Salaf to censure this practice when in reality , it was not prevalent in the first place. The silence of the Salaf is only a proof for what is clearly stated in the Quran. The Quran refutes calling 'other than Allah' in almost every chapter , it is something well known to anyone who has read the book.

In order to somehow validate it , then the evidence needs to be absolutely Muhkam.

Yes read what I said carefully akhi, Im saying in reality the bidah tawssul has an extremely weak basis and thats why none of the early salaf did it, the quotes that are brought are from 400+ Hijrah.