Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Originally posted by abufulaans View Post
    He has made a grave mistake by becoming an ashari, if he had remained an athari and rejected some of the teachings of MIAW it would have been much better for him, he also seriously thinks that no one other then Ibn Qudaamah reported the retraction of Ibn 'Aqeel, I dont know which planet he is on.
    Al-Shawkanis statement is very clear also, of course he was much closer to our time then the mid century scholars, so he will probably just ignore it
    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

    Comment


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

      1. 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."











      This really shows you the ignorance of his brother, lets see what Ibn Taymiyyah said:

      قال أبو العباس رحمه تعالى في كتابه "اقتضاء الصراط المستقيم" في الكلام على قوله تعالى: {وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِه} 2 ظاهره أنه ما ذبح لغير الله سواء لفظ به أو لم يلفظ، وتحريم هذا أظهر من تحريم ما ذبحه النصراني للحم، وقال فيه بسم الله ونحوه، كما أن ما ذبحناه نحن متقربين به إلى الله سبحانه وتعالى كان أزكى مما ذبحناه للحم وقلنا عليه بسم الله، فإن عبادة الله سبحانه بالصلاة له والنسك له، أعظم من الاستعانة باسمه في فواتح الأمور، والعبادة لغير الله أعظم كفرا من الاستعانة بغير الله، فلو ذبح لغير الله متقربا به إليه لحرم، وإن قال فيه بسم الله كما قد يفعله طائفة من منافقي هذه الأمة، وإن كان هؤلاء مرتدين لا تباح ذبائحهم بحال، ولكن يجتمع في الذبيحة مانعان. ومن هذا ما يفعل بمكة وغيرها من الذبح للجن

      Here he clearly says that worshipping other then Allah is worse in kufr than doing istighatha to other then Allah, he says this after mentioning the issue of slaughtering for other than Allah, clealy he saw it as shirk akbar to slaughter for other than Allah.

      ومن أنواع هذا الشرك سجود المريد للشيخ، ومن أنواعه التوبة للشيخ فإنها شرك عظيم، ومن أنواعه النذر لغير الله؛ والتوكل على غير الله، والعمل لغير الله والإنابة، والخضوع، والذل لغير الله، وابتغاء الرزق من عند غيره ... ومن أنواعه طلب الحوائج من الموتى، والاستغاثة بهم، والتوجه إليهم. وهذا أصل شرك العالم. فإن الميت قد انقطع عمله، وهو لا يملك لنفسه نفعا ولا ضرا فضلا لمن استغاث به. بل الميت محتاج إلى من يدعو له كما أوصانا النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا زرنا قبور المسلمين أن نترحم عليهم، ونسأل الله لهم العافية والمغفرة. فعكس المشركون هذا، وزاروهم زيارةَ العبادةِ وجعلوا قبورهم أوثانا تعبد، فجمعوا بين الشرك بالمعبود، وتغيير دينه ومعاداة أهل التوحيد ونسبتهم إلى تنقص الأموات، وهم قد تنقصوا الخالق بالشرك، وأولياءه المؤمنين بذمهم ومعاداتهم، وتنقصوا من أشركوا به غاية التنقص إذ ظنوا أنهم راضون منهم بهذا

      Ibn Al Qayyim says here that Nathr to other than Allah is a great shirk just like istighatha and seeking help from the dead is, again clearly he saw it as shirk Akbar, obviously sufis misunderstand this and claim he said it was shirk asghar, but the fact that he mentioned it with other types of shirk akbar shows the ruling clearly.

      أن كل من غلا في نبي، أو رجل صالح، وجعل فيه نوعا
      ن الإلهية، مثل أن يقول: يا سيدي فلان أغثني، أو انصرني، أو ارزقني، أو اجبرني، أو أنا في حسبك ونحو هذه الأقوال. فكل هذا شرك وضلال يستتاب صاحبه فإن تاب وإلا قتل. فإن الله تعالى إنما أرسل الرسل وأنزل الكتب ليعبد وحده ولا يجعل معه إلها آخر

      Ibn Taymiyyah here clearly says saying ''O Sayyid so and so help me or aid me....'' is all shirk and miguidance and the sayer of it should be asked to repent, and if he doesn't should be killed.

      So what are you talking about when you say these two great imams didn't consider these acts as acts of shirk akbar?


      1. 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)!


      Or Maybe you have not understood what the scholars have said on these issues?
      ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
        They assume the best that their opposition is learned enough to find the source. Here is the source of that. Anyone who knows Arabic, like you do, should be able to find the source and descredit that as opposed to the poster quite easily. I guess the author had no clue what he was talking about right?

        Here it is from the book حكم الله الواحد الصمد on page 44.
        Brother, I know that the qoute is from that book. Just look when the book is written (it's not a classical book) and also how the author has not mentioned a real soure, then it should be obviously why I rejected his qoute and brought another statement which has a source.
        The problem is that "Salafis" often misqoute things or qoute things without its context.
        Of course members of other groups do that too, but "Salafis" do this more often. And they do it especially when trying to do Takfir of other Muslims.

        There is one issue that I've stressed upon in thread quite often and that is that a person who says the Shahadatayn does not leave the religion except if he goes against what is necessarily known to be from the religion.
        One can have a different opinion regarding specific issues, but it's not okay to make Takfir upon another Muslim just because he follows other views. What is even less acceptable to legalize the mass-slaughtering of Muslims like IAW and his followers did.

        Originally posted by abufulaans View Post
        He has made a grave mistake by becoming an ashari, if he had remained an athari and rejected some of the teachings of MIAW it would have been much better for him, he also seriously thinks that no one other then Ibn Qudaamah reported the retraction of Ibn 'Aqeel, I dont know which planet he is on.
        "Salafis" are not Atharis. The problem is that you do not know what Ash'aris and Atharis (who are both Sunnis) actually believe. Infact I doubt you actually truly understand the Madhhab of "Salafis" regarding the Sifat.

        And: Please read my posts properly: I did not say that Imam Ibn Qudamah (d. 620 AH) alone reported his retraction, but I rather said that his retraction was regarding Kalam and Tawil as mentioned by Ibn Qudamah and NOT regarding Sufis or Taswawuf. Did you understand now? Subhanallah, you're making one mistake after the other and then you still act like that.

        Originally posted by abufulaans View Post
        Al-Shawkanis statement is very clear also, of course he was much closer to our time then the mid century scholars, so he will probably just ignore it

        Al-Shawkani did accept Tawassul and Tashaffu'. He did however call Istighathah as Shirk just like Ibn Taymiyyah did, but he did not do Takfir and he also regarded IAW to be extreme. He has even reported one of the works of al-San'ani who first praised him, then however he came to know of his mass-takfir and he wrote something against it. In that he clarified that the things that IAW had mentioned are Shirk 'amali and not Shirk I'tiqadi and that Takfir is therefore not done.

        Like I said earlier: Even those who agreed with Ibn Taymiyyah's position regarding Istighathah (as the two mentioned scholars above) still regarded IAW has very extreme.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
          Could you explain to me why "Salafis" and those who are influenced by them love to qoute things without proper source as long as it suits their cause, while at the same time rejecting anything that doesn't suit them even if their Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) has actually not rejected it (like the Hadith of the man in need!)?
          You mean the Shubha that Islamqa has clearly refuted in detail?
          https://islamqa.info/en/162967
          If this is what you mean then nice try.

          Imam Ibn 'Aqil (you know the one who regarded al-Hallaj (d. 309 AH) a wali and whom some Hanbali zealots wanted to kill because of the issue of the Sifat) died 513 AH, while Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir died 561 AH. I'm just mentioning that so that you learn to see whether a qoute is authentic or not and then to use it. The above qoute has no proper source and is therefore rejected.
          Yes Al-Hallaj was rightly killed just like Al-Ja'd ibn Al-Dirham was slaughtered on eid by the khalifah (before Ibn Taymiyyah before anyone asks) infront of the people.

          He thought he was a Wali, ok lets see what Hanbali scholars soon after him said:

          فيقول ابْنُ عَقِيْلِ: "واعتقدتُ في الحلاج أنه من أهل الدين والزهد والكرامات. ونصرتُ ذلك في جزء عملته. وأنا تَائب إلى الله تعالى منه، وأنه قتل بإجماع علماء عصره، وأصابوا في ذلك، وأخطأ هو. ومع ذلك فإني أستغفر اللّه تعالى، وأتوب إليه من مخالطة المعتزلة، والمبتدعة، وغير ذلك، والترحم عليهم، والتعظيم لهم فإن ذلك كله حرام. ولا يحل لمسلم فعله لقول النبي ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ: " من عظَّم صاحب بدعة فقد أعان على هَدْمِ الإسلام

          Ibn Rajab says he repented and retracted his support for Al-Hallaj and quotes something that Ibn Aqeel himself said where he clearly states his repentance.

          وقال الحافظ ابن كثير رحمه الله: "في يوم الخميس حادي عشر المحرم حضر إلى الديوان أبو الوفا علي بن محمد بن عقيل العقيلي الحنبلي، وقد كتب على نفسه كتابا، يتضمن توبته من الاعتزال، وأنه رجع عن اعتقاد كون الحلاج من أهل الحق والخير، وأنه قد رجع عن الجزء الذي عمله في ذلك، وأن الحلاج قد قتل بإجماع علماء أهل عصره على زندقته، وأنهم كانوا مصيبين في قتله وما رموه به، وهو مخطئ واشهد عليه جماعة من الكتاب، ورجع من الديوان إلى دار الشريف أبي جعفر فسلم عليه وصالحه واعتذر إليه فعظمه"

          Ibn Kathir says exactly the same thing, that Ibn Aqeel repented and retracted his view and stated Al-Hallaj was rightly killed. Oh, and lets not forget his general view of the Sufis at the time, I won't bother bringing that at the moment.


          Let me however bring you a qoute which Imam Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) qouted in his Talbis Iblis:

          لما صعبت التكاليف على الجهال والطغام عدلوا عن أوضاع الشرع إلى تعظيم أوضاع وضعوها لأنفسهم فسهلت عليهم إذ لم يدخلوا بها تحت أمر غيرهم قال وهم كفار عندي بهذه الأوضاع مثل تعظيم القبور وإكرامها بما نهى الشرع عنه من إيقاد النيران وتقبيلها وتحليقها وخطاب الموتى بالألواح [بالحوائج] وكتب الرقاع فيها يا مولاي أفعل بي كذا وكذا وأخذ التراب تبركا وإفاضة الطيب على القبور وشد الرحال اليها وإلقاء الخرق على الشجر أقتداء بمن عبد اللات والعزى ولا تجد في هؤلاء من يحقق مسألة في زكاة فيسأل عن حكم يلزمه والويل عندهم لمن لم يقبل مشهد الكهف ولم يتمسح بآجرة مسجد المأمونية يوم الأربعاء ولم يعقد على قبر أبيه أزجا بالجص والآجر ولم يشق ثوبه إلى ذيله ولم يرق ماء الورد على القبر ويدفن معه ثيابه
          - end of the qoute -

          Based upon the above qoute the people that he was talking about were writing things on sheets of paper which said "O my master do this and that for me" (which is by the way is something that Shi'ah do) (and other things which are either either forbidden or disliked with the exception of one issue). The above qoute however is not about seeking intercession or aid with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alawhi wa sallam - with correct manners and correct beliefs. Other than that: We don't even have the book where Ibn 'Aqil has said the above.
          We do however have his book al-Tadhkirah where he says that one should do the following while visiting the grave of Rasulallah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam:


          اللهم إنك قلت في كتابك لنبيك صلى الله عليه وسلم: {وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذْ ظَلَمُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ جَاءُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُوا اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُوا اللَّهَ تَوَّابًا رَحِيمًا} [سورة النساء] وإني قد أتيت نبيك تائبًا مستغفرًا فأسألك أن توجب لي المغفرة كما أوجبتها لمن أتاه في حياته، اللهم إني أتوجه إليك بنبيك صلى الله عليه وسلم نبي الرحمة، يا رسول الله إني أتوجه بك إلى ربي ليغفر لي ذنوبي، اللهم إني أسألك بحقه أن تغفر لي ذنوبي

          "O Allah, You spoke and your saying is the truth: { I } [4:64] and I've come to your Prophet repenting [from my sins] and seeking forgiveness, so I ask you [my Lord] that you grant me forgiveness just like you granted it to the one who came to him (i.e. the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) during his life.
          O Allah I approach you through your Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, the Prophet of Mercy. O Messenger of Allah I approach my Lord through you that He forgives my sins. O Allah I ask you by his right that you forgive my sins."
          - end of the qoute -

          Conclusion:
          He was no different from other Classical scholars. The funny thing is that the Wahhabi editor of the book couldn't resist to accuse him of Shirk akbar because of the above statement!
          I already stated that I belive the correct opinion on this is that it is a Bidah, not sure how it has anything to do with istighatha but ok whatever.

          Then there is another issue: Imam Ibn al-Jawzi himself qoutes a story in his book al-Wafa bi Ta'rif Fadha`il al-Mustafa of three of the early scholars and the story contains the seeking of aid with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - with the statement "O messenger of Allah, hunger, hunger!" ("يا رسول الله الجوع الجوع") upon which a man came with food and he told them that he had seen the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - in his dream who ordered him to bring them food. He mentions this under the chapter Fil Istisqa` bi Qabrihi sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam, wnich means that he was supporting it.
          So seeking aid with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - with the correct manners and beliefs was permitted according to his understanding too.
          Yes sure bring it, I'm sure the case is similar to the refutation i posted at the start of this post by Islamqa

          Lol bro, why are you acting as if there are many qoutes? The other qoute is that of Imam al-Razi (d. 606 AH) which you people like to misuse... read simply this:
          Are you seriously now even trying to justify istighatha just because some of the ashari scholars seemed to have compared it to 'tawassul'?
          ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            I had a long discussion regarding this on IA Forums and to be honest I'm not interested in repeating that. Whatever you bring is already known to me and we both know that you took it from IAW.

            Here are big parts of the discussion:

            What is Ibadah? (Discussion Part-1)
            What is Ibadah? (Discussion Part-2)

            And I've one request: Please bring me a definition of 'Ibadah that is jami' and mani' (good look with that, because the Wahhabiyyah do not have this!). This is a definition given by Shaykh Hatim al-'Awni, which is actually jami' and mani':


            فـ(العبادة) بمعناها الخاص : هي تعظيمُ الذي بيده الخلقُ أو الملك أو التدبير أو المتصفُ بالكمال المطلق ، وهذه هي خصائص الربوبية
            أو قل : العبادة هي : تعظيمك (بالحب والخوف والرجاء) المتصفَ بشيء من خصائص الربوبية

            "So 'Ibadah (worship) with it's specific meaning is: The veneration (Ta'dhim) of the one in whose hands creating (Khalq) or dominion (Mulk) or disposal (Tadbir) lies or of the one who is characterized with absolute perfection (Kamal mutlaq). And [what has been mentioned] are the attributes / characteristics of lordship (Khasa`is al-Rububiyyah).
            Or say: 'Ibadah (worship) is your veneration with love, fear and hope for the one who is characterized with anything of the attributes of lordship (Khasa`is al-Rububiyyah)."


            Source: العبادة: بوّابةُ التوحيد.. وبوابة التكفير
            Let us start very simply with this.
            Is calling upon and asking those that are not present or dead shirk?
            ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by noobz View Post
              same old ahle hadeeth diatribe , lets attack him for being ashari instead of refute the arguments he brang forth.

              such a waste of space when others are trying to read and the crows try to scream for some shock value.
              OP is yet to be refuted

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                Assalamu alaykom

                What grave worship?

                1) Tawasul is not shirk akbar
                2) Ta'shaffa is not shirk akbar
                3) Tawaf around graves is not shirk akbar
                4) Tabbaruk is also not shirk akbar

                If anything , I thought you agreed that MIAW had an unprecedented view , and fell in to extremes in his understanding of Haram vs Shirk.
                1) Which type, I assume you mean what we have been discussing, in which case your correct
                2) This also seems to take the same ruling
                3) It depends, yes it can be shirk akbar
                4) Again it can be shirk akbar

                Your also forgetting other things they would do such as
                1) Istighatha by the dead
                2) Slaughtering for other then Allah
                3) Venrating the graves

                All which are shirk akbar

                The question which remains is whether or not he is a Khariji and if the Saudi state was a khariji state.

                Be aware , I am not promoting everything from 1-4 as being Halal. Scholars differ in their opinions and limits based on their criteria and understandings. To call something which may be bid'ah and Haram at most , to something which is Shirk and equates apostasy is extremism , if not , kharijism.

                Wa Allahu alam

                Do you disagree with this ? If so , why?
                The Najdi scholars seemed to have gotten one thing wrong, which can be very close to shirk akbar, if they had wrongly made takfeer and killed muslims based on it then they would have been khawarij, however since the state of the lands was so bad at the time, their view on this specific type of tawassul made do difference to the reality, even if they didn't hold this view then takfeer would have been made on them due to all of the other types of shirk they commited.
                ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

                Comment


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

                  Abufulaans... you do know that there is a Tafsil in the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) regarding this and that simply bringing one qoute will not help you.

                  For God's sake are Ibn Taymiyyah's words revelation that we have to argue based upon his words?
                  This is the same person who according to his own very student (i.e. Ibn Qayyim) had accepted the position of the extinction of the hellfire and one of his last books contain such type of statements. According to classical scholars this is disbelief by concensus.
                  So why are you trying to argue with me based upon his words?

                  And don't try to change the subject. What has al-Hallaj to do with our subject?!

                  Listen very well: We're speaking about Muslim blood here which your IAW legalized on mass scale. What is your justifiction for that?!? These Muslims had not rejected anything that is necessarily known to be from the religion. How is it then allowed for you to support their killing (a major sin by the way!).
                  Why is it that ALL scholars of his time rejected his Takfir and bloodship? Why!?!

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post
                    OP is yet to be refuted
                    Nothing to refute in he opening posts

                    MIAW gave dawah, sufis made takfeer on him, he made takfeer on them and refuted them and fighting took place in many places.
                    ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                      Abufulaans... you do know that there is a Tafsil in the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) regarding this and that simply bringing one qoute will not help you.
                      Honestly its because you dont understand the way Ibn Taymiyyah writes, i think his view is clear on these issues.
                      For God's sake are Ibn Taymiyyah's words revelation that we have to argue based upon his words?
                      This is the same person who according to his own very student (i.e. Ibn Qayyim) had accepted the position of the extinction of the hellfire and one of his last books contain such type of statements. According to classical scholars this is disbelief by concensus.
                      So why are you trying to argue with me based upon his words?
                      Wait a minute, so when you quote scholars its all good and jolly, yet when I do it it means im taking his words as Wahy?
                      The issue of the fanaa' al-Naar has been clarified and it seems as though both scholars retracted their statemements on the issue, but you won't accept this becasue your just going to follow any view to criticise salafis, yes its kufr, but if they did ( and i say if) die upon that belief then they would be excused due to ta'weel, you have to look at what they said and what they meant.

                      And don't try to change the subject. What has al-Hallaj to do with our subject?!
                      Your the one that orginially brought Al-Hallaj up!!!!!! What are you running away now because Ibn Aqeel retracted his statements?

                      Listen very well: We're speaking about Muslim blood here which your IAW legalized on mass scale. What is your justifiction for that?!? These Muslims had not rejected anything that is necessarily known to be from the religion. How is it then allowed for you to support their killing (a major sin by the way!).
                      Why is it that ALL scholars of his time rejected his Takfir and bloodship? Why!?!
                      Well he was a scholar himself
                      This is really what I want to know aswell, it's clearly not a simple topic, maybe both sides were mistakes, maybe one side more then the other, but clearly he had a solid basis for making takfeer the way he did even if we exclude tawassul to the prophet (SAW) at his grave.
                      ''If the bedouins and city dwellers were to fight between themselves until they wipe each other out, it will surely be less significant than them appointing a taghoot in the land which rules by that which is against the Shari'ah of Islaam which Allah sent his Messenger ﷺ with'' - Sheikh Sulayman bin Sahmaan

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by abufulaans View Post
                        Nothing to refute in he opening posts

                        MIAW gave dawah, sufis made takfeer on him, he made takfeer on them and refuted them and fighting took place in many places.
                        his OP hasnt been refuted yet

                        Comment


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

                          IAW was a Talib al-'Ilm who completely went crazy and accused the scholars of his time of not understanding Tawhid. He did not take his understanding from any living scholars and his views are full of mistakes.
                          To call him a scholar is great injustice towards the classical Islamic scholarship.

                          Anyone saying that he was right in his legalizing of mass-slaughtering of other Muslims (laymen and scholars alike) is a cultist and extremist who has thrown the Sunnah behind his back!!

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by abufulaans View Post
                            Wait a minute, so when you quote scholars its all good and jolly, yet when I do it it means im taking his words as Wahy?
                            The issue of the fanaa' al-Naar has been clarified and it seems as though both scholars retracted their statemements on the issue, but you won't accept this becasue your just going to follow any view to criticise salafis, yes its kufr, but if they did ( and i say if) die upon that belief then they would be excused due to ta'weel, you have to look at what they said and what they meant.?
                            Well, unlike you I'm not treating the words of one or two people (who were NOT prophets) as revelation. I'm simply telling you most scholars had this view or that view. Unlike you I'm not taking one or two qoutes to make Takfir upon thousands upon thousands of Muslims. Did you understand the difference?

                            And please show me where they retracted from that Kufri view of theirs? You know that he didn't hold this view until later towards the end of his life, right? And what about his views in his Bayyan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah where he argues that God necessarily must be described with that which the Mutakallimun intend by Tahayyuz (which basically means that according to him God must have at least 3 dimensions to exist)?!? This is a position that every Ash'ari and Athari (i.e. every Sunni) scholar would have regarded as disbelief!
                            But heyy for you he's excused any ways. The scholars and laymen in the time of IAW all deserved to be killed, but IT is of course excused.

                            By the way: I'm not making Takfir upon IT. I'm just trying to show you that you're ready to excuse IT no matter what, but then you don't see any problem with mass-slaughtering Muslims as long as IAW has ordered it.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post
                              his OP hasnt been refuted yet
                              Brother he actually already admitted that Takfir and mass-killing has happened by IAW and his followers. Right now he's just trying to justify it.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                                Brother he actually already admitted that Takfir and mass-killing has happened by IAW and his followers. Right now he's just trying to justify it.
                                how can the bloodshed be justified?

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X