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 ZeeshanParvez View Post
    What we do have is explicit texts from Ibn Taymiyyah where he mentions that the Fire will not come to an end. These can be found in many of his books.
    I know that he made these statements, but as I already mentioned he adopted the position of Fana` al-Nar later in his life.

    Ibn Qayyim (d. 751) said the following in his Shifa` al-'Alil:

    وكنت سألت عنها شيخ الإسلام قدس الله روحه فقال لي هذه المسألة عظيمة كبيرة ولم يجب فيها بشيء فمضى على ذلك زمن حتى رأيت في تفسير عبد بن حميد الكثي بعض تلك الآثار التي ذكرت فأرسلت إليه الكتاب وهو في مجلسه الأخير وعلمت على ذلك الموضع وقلت للرسول قل له هذا الموضع يشكل علي ولا يدري ما هم فكتب فيها مصنفه المشهور رحمة الله عليه فمن كان عنده فضل علم فليحدثه فان فوق كل ذي علم عليم


    I had asked Shaykh al-Islam [about everlasting chastisement]. He said to me, "This issue is very great", and he gave no reply concerning it. Some time had passed after that when I saw in the commentary of 'Abd b. Hamid [or Humayd] al-Kiththi one of those traditions I have mentioned. So, I sent the book to [Ibn Taymiyya] while he was in his last session (fi majlisihi al-akhir). I marked that place [in the book], and I told the messenger, "Say to him, "This place is difficult for him, and he does not know what it is." Then, he wrote his famous work about it. Whoever has the grace of knowledge, let him bring it forth, and above each one having knowledge is one who is Knowing (pp. 564-65).

    Source: Shifa` al-'Alil and translation taken from brother Murat Yazici.

    From the above we come to know that Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a book regarding this issue later in his life (i.e. after his last lesson according to Ibn Qayyim). And that book is - as you should know - is al-Radd 'ala man qala bi Fana` al-Jannati wal Nar:

    https://ia601001.us.archive.org/19/i...9543/49543.pdf

    And now please go to page 71-72 and tell me whether he's not explicitly rejecting the consensus regarding this issue.
    After that go please to page 80 where he speaks about the difference of the Paradise and Hellfire remaining and read till 83. What do you see? What does he say right in the beginning of page 83:



    Is a Muslim allowed to make such statements? He's basically saying that if Allah ta'ala punishs the disbelievers forever, then this would go against wisdom. What is this other than atheism?
    If you want to you can read till the end of the book which is page 87.

    And it's not just this issue: He has other views which are not acceptable at all like believing in Sifat 'Ayniyyah Dhatiyyah or that God is a Mahall for Hawadith and other than that.

    My point is not to make Takfir upon him, rather My point is that "Salafis" will defend him and excuse him no matter what, but at the same time they will do easily Takfir upon those who disagree with their views.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post
      so are you justifying the bloodshed?

      one thing i dont get is even if the peeps were commiting shirk for argument sake wouldnt it be better to educate them instead of killing them?
      As long as he clearly called them to islam and refuted their arguments his basis for takfeer and qitaal was justified,

      He did educate them but they persisted upon shirk, this is part of the decepetion of the posts of Abu Sulayman becasue it is something that he does not mention at all along with a lot of other things; in fact for a long period of time, sheikh IAW didn't even physically do anything against the shirk, he just called the peeople to tawheed and warned them from shirk.

      Thus his dawah resmebles the dawah of the prophet (SAW), calling the mushrikeen to Islam without war and then calling them with fighting when required.
      ''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

        Salaam

        Does anybody know this verse?
        Often comes to mind when i see protracted discussions like this.

        تِلْكَ أُمَّةٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ ۖ لَهَا مَا كَسَبَتْ وَلَكُمْ مَا كَسَبْتُمْ ۖ وَلَا تُسْأَلُونَ عَمَّا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ


        That was a nation that has passed: for it there will be what it has earned, and for you there will be what you have earned, and you will not be questioned about what they used to do.
        And the thunder exalts [ Allah ] with praise of Him - and the angels [as well] from fear of Him - and He sends thunderbolts and strikes therewith whom He wills while they dispute about Allah ; and He is severe in assault

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
          I know that he made these statements, but as I already mentioned he adopted the position of Fana` al-Nar later in his life.

          Ibn Qayyim (d. 751) said the following in his Shifa` al-'Alil:

          وكنت سألت عنها شيخ الإسلام قدس الله روحه فقال لي هذه المسألة عظيمة كبيرة ولم يجب فيها بشيء فمضى على ذلك زمن حتى رأيت في تفسير عبد بن حميد الكثي بعض تلك الآثار التي ذكرت فأرسلت إليه الكتاب وهو في مجلسه الأخير وعلمت على ذلك الموضع وقلت للرسول قل له هذا الموضع يشكل علي ولا يدري ما هم فكتب فيها مصنفه المشهور رحمة الله عليه فمن كان عنده فضل علم فليحدثه فان فوق كل ذي علم عليم


          I had asked Shaykh al-Islam [about everlasting chastisement]. He said to me, "This issue is very great", and he gave no reply concerning it. Some time had passed after that when I saw in the commentary of 'Abd b. Hamid [or Humayd] al-Kiththi one of those traditions I have mentioned. So, I sent the book to [Ibn Taymiyya] while he was in his last session (fi majlisihi al-akhir). I marked that place [in the book], and I told the messenger, "Say to him, "This place is difficult for him, and he does not know what it is." Then, he wrote his famous work about it. Whoever has the grace of knowledge, let him bring it forth, and above each one having knowledge is one who is Knowing (pp. 564-65).

          Source: Shifa` al-'Alil and translation taken from brother Murat Yazici.

          From the above we come to know that Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a book regarding this issue later in his life (i.e. after his last lesson according to Ibn Qayyim). And that book is - as you should know - is al-Radd 'ala man qala bi Fana` al-Jannati wal Nar:

          https://ia601001.us.archive.org/19/i...9543/49543.pdf

          And now please go to page 71-72 and tell me whether he's not explicitly rejecting the consensus regarding this issue.
          After that go please to page 80 where he speaks about the difference of the Paradise and Hellfire remaining and read till 83. What do you see? What does he say right in the beginning of page 83:

          [ATTACH=CONFIG]87791[/ATTACH]

          Is a Muslim allowed to make such statements? He's basically saying that if Allah ta'ala punishs the disbelievers forever, then this would go against wisdom. What is this other than atheism?
          If you want to you can read till the end of the book which is page 87.

          And it's not just this issue: He has other views which are not acceptable at all like believing in Sifat 'Ayniyyah Dhatiyyah or that God is a Mahall for Hawadith and other than that.

          My point is not to make Takfir upon him, rather My point is that "Salafis" will defend him and excuse him no matter what, but at the same time they will do easily Takfir upon those who disagree with their views.

          Did you ever get to read the preface of the book which states the following?


          Click image for larger version

Name:	preface.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	74.9 KB
ID:	10765808

          The book is a collection of the views of scholars when he was questioned about the subject. It is well known that Ibn Taymiyyah not only knew views but the evidences and reasons behind them. One only has to read his works to see that. He presented the views and their evidences. Its like me telling you the view of why the 'ahnaaf consider the tartiib of the jamaraat in rami to be only a Sunnah while all other schools hold it to be a sharT. Does that mean I hold the opinion? No.

          The fact that you have three different views coming about from this book with some saying he only presented the views and others that he inclined toward it because of the Mercy of Allaah. Finally with fanatics who hated him like Subki claiming he held the view is enough to show that there is no explicit statement!

          Second, consider the following:

          Click image for larger version

Name:	subkialways.png
Views:	1
Size:	73.7 KB
ID:	10765809

          Subki always seems to hide facts when it comes to Ibn Taymiyyah. He does it again. You ask if it is allowed for a Muslim to present this view. Do you deny the difference of opinion presented by the others some of which are your very own Ashaa'irah? Is transmitting the differences which existed a sin or hiding the fact that there was such a difference and claiming Ibn Taymiyyah was the first to come along and cause dissension like Subki does a sin?

          Click image for larger version

Name:	thosebefore.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	94.6 KB
ID:	10765810


          Finally, lets forget everything and say that everything you say is right.

          So far you have accused Ibn Taymiyyah of atheism, anthropomorphism, and kufri beliefs. Why are you scared to declare him a kaafir?

          Is that because you want to save face and come across as a moderate so people will listen to what you have to say or do you want a present a soft picture of yourself so that you can make the point that hey look despite all this I still don't declare him a kaafir but your MIAW declared so many of ours at a whim?

          Is it the last one?
          Last edited by ZeeshanParvez; 21-09-17, 04:29 PM.
          Watch those eyes

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            My point is not to make Takfir upon him, rather My point is that "Salafis" will defend him and excuse him no matter what, but at the same time they will do easily Takfir upon those who disagree with their views.
            Are you sure you haven't confused takfiir with tabdii'?

            Most of the times the Salafis will say you indulge in a bid'ah as opposed to claiming you are a kaafir.

            Istighaatha is one point where they will be vocal and tell you you are out of the fold of Islaam.
            Watch those eyes

            Comment


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

              al-Alusi writes in his Tafsiir:

              Then know that from that which we have transmitted it should be apparent to you that the correct opinion is that both Paradise and the Fire will remain and will not come to an end. As for Ibn Taymiyyah, then an authentic transmission is not known from him in regards to that which has been attributed to him. If it is true that he inclined towards it, then a group of the Salaf also adopted the opinion and a group from the khalaf. And his inclining towards it does not necessitate that he be declared a kaafir.



              Turning to this issue and away from MIAW since you keep on wanting to discuss Ibn Taymiyyah, where is this Ijmaa among the Salaf you claim of about the issue? al-Alusi sees no Ijmaa among the Salaf. You have the others in their tafaasir transmitting the opinion. They saw no Ijmaa among the Salaf.

              Was al-Alusi also misinformed or did Subki decide once again to accuse of Ibn Taymiyyah to be the first to cause dissention as he has done so in the issue of Istighaatha. Or do you think the Salaf held kufri views because you did say Ibn Taymiyyah held this kufri view?
              Last edited by ZeeshanParvez; 21-09-17, 04:59 PM.
              Watch those eyes

              Comment


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

                Brother, it seems you're more concerned about defending Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1206 AH) than the issue of this thread. Reading the end of the book makes it clear what his view is.
                Even if you claim it's not clear, then it still remains a fact that he believed in Sifat 'Ayniyyah Dhatiyyah for God and that God is Mahall for Hawadith and that the 'Alam is qadim al-naw' and that the meaning that the Mutakallimun intended by Tahayyuz necessarily must apply to God in order for God to exist subsisting in himself and so on. While "Salafi" Mashayikh do not believe in the extinction of the hellfire, they do however belief the other mentioned things. As such they're in no position to tell other Muslims what Tawhid is and what not.

                What is important to me in this thread that everyone understands that having different views (as long as it is not something necessarily known to be from the religion) does not justify making Takfir upon eachother and legalizing the blood that Allah ta'ala has made forbidden.
                The thing is that thanks to the views of IAW and his followers people are killed on a daily basis in the country I'm from. So we're not speaking about something that simpy happened in the history and that is it, but rather something has a very negative inpact until our day. Just look how Muslims are fighting eachother instead fighting the real enemies.

                Comment


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

                  The question seems to be, how much violence is permitted in the name of God? All religions in many ways seem to have started violently. If you look at the Hebrew scriptures, they are extremely violent. If you look at Christianity and its history, it had extremely violent periods. But keep in mind that in all these cases, violence was expected. The period of the Bronze Age, this was extremely violent. The time of the Middle Ages, this was extremely violent. The time even when Islam was founded, was rather violent. And, when the Salafis were founded in the 1700's, this was also another violent time. I honestly don't think it's fair to judge a certain time by our perspectives in this time. It seems a little unfair. Now, if you look at the fact that ISIS is ripping all over the place, in violation of modern-day ethics and morals, I think they can indeed be judged. Another perfect example. Martin Luther hated Jews. Then again, so did just about everybody in Europe at the time. So is he to be judged too harshly for a view that just about everybody had? On the other hand, Hitler's behavior is totally unacceptable by just about anybody's standards. The mentality was about the same. But the time was different. And no, I am not about to get into a political discussion over the Middle East. One could even use another example, when Muslims and Jews were forced out of Spain. Would we do that today? Probably not. But at the time it seemed perfectly rational. The same goes for when Muslims brutalized Hindus in India. This was to be expected during the time. But now, when things like that go on, whether it's Hindus brutalizing Muslims, Muslims brutalizing anybody, or Buddhists brutalizing Muslims, or anybody brutalizing anybody, we judge it harshly. We would like to think that our species has gotten past brutalizing each other in the name of God. But have we? I sometimes wonder.
                  Last edited by Diego007; 21-09-17, 06:11 PM.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Diego007 View Post
                    The question seems to be, how much violence is permitted in the name of God? All religions in many ways seem to have started violently. If you look at the Hebrew scriptures, they are extremely violent. If you look at Christianity and its history, it had extremely violent periods. But keep in mind that in all these cases, violence was expected. The period of the Bronze Age, this was extremely violent. The time of the Middle Ages, this was extremely violent. The time even when Islam was founded, was rather violent. And, when the Salafis were founded in the 1700's, this was also another violent time. I honestly don't think it's fair to judge a certain time by our perspectives in this time. It seems a little unfair. Now, if you look at the fact that ISIS is ripping all over the place, in violation of modern-day ethics and morals, I think they can indeed be judged. Another perfect example. Martin Luther hated Jews. Then again, so did just about everybody in Europe at the time. So is he to be judged too harshly for a view that just about everybody had? On the other hand, Hitler's behavior is totally unacceptable by just about anybody's standards. The mentality was about the same. But the time was different. And no, I am not about to get into a political discussion over the Middle East. One could even use another example, when Muslims and Jews were forced out of Spain. Would we do that today? Probably not. But at the time it seemed perfectly rational. The same goes for when Muslims brutalized Hindus in India. This was to be expected during the time. But now, when things like that go on, whether it's Hindus brutalizing Muslims, Muslims brutalizing anybody, or Buddhists brutalizing Muslims, or anybody brutalizing anybody, we judge it harshly. We would like to think that our species has gotten past brutalizing each other in the name of God. But have we? I sometimes wonder.
                    The religion of Islaam dictates that the apostates be killed by the state , under certain conditions set out by our religious authorities.

                    This thread is set out not to establish whether or not killing apostates is permitted , but rather , if MIAW and the early Wahhabi / Saudi movement were justified in their killing of who they deemed to be apostates.

                    Comment


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

                      And that becomes the question. Who is an apostate? In order to categorically state that someone is apostate, you have to be able to prove that they are. It's a bit difficult to call somebody apostate, unless they publicly announce that they have renounced the faith. I mean, come on. According to the Sunni, the Shia are unorthodox. According to Shiite Muslims the reverse is true. So, who wants to evaluate this? I certainly don't want to get into it.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Diego007 View Post
                        And that becomes the question. Who is an apostate? In order to categorically state that someone is apostate, you have to be able to prove that they are. It's a bit difficult to call somebody apostate, unless they publicly announce that they have renounced the faith. I mean, come on. According to the Sunni, the Shia are unorthodox. According to Shiite Muslims the reverse is true. So, who wants to evaluate this? I certainly don't want to get into it.
                        Hence , the direction of the discussion. Surely from a subjective standpoint Muhammad ibn abdul Wahhab justified his takfeer of those people. Naturally the discussion has moved forward to investigating - from an objective level - as to whether or not he was correct in that judgement.

                        Comment


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

                          [MENTION=118642]abufulaans[/MENTION]

                          Assalamu alaykom

                          When Salafi scholars and du'at use the term quburiyoon , who exactly are they speaking about?

                          Like , when you use it yourself , who exactly are you talking about?

                          1) Which shirk are the specific 'grave worshippers' comitting?

                          If it is 1-4 , isn't it unjust to call them grave worshippers , considering that 1-4 does not necessarily imply apostasy?

                          If you argue 3-4 can be kufr/shirk akbar , ok - but do we not assume the best , and in this case , free 'worship' from their apparent actions?

                          2) When you call someone a grave worshipper , are you also making takfir , with that statement? i.e All grave worshippers / quburiyoon are kuffar / mushrikeen .. ?

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                            [MENTION=118642]abufulaans[/MENTION]

                            Assalamu alaykom

                            When Salafi scholars and du'at use the term quburiyoon , who exactly are they speaking about?

                            Like , when you use it yourself , who exactly are you talking about?

                            1) Which shirk are the specific 'grave worshippers' comitting?

                            If it is 1-4 , isn't it unjust to call them grave worshippers , considering that 1-4 does not necessarily imply apostasy?

                            If you argue 3-4 can be kufr/shirk akbar , ok - but do we not assume the best , and in this case , free 'worship' from their apparent actions?

                            2) When you call someone a grave worshipper , are you also making takfir , with that statement? i.e All grave worshippers / quburiyoon are kuffar / mushrikeen .. ?

                            وعليكم السلام ورحمه الله وبركاته

                            1) The shirk of asking the dead to fulfil their needs mainly, sujood for the dead people, tawaaf and slaughter are sometimes found aswell
                            This would depend on the situation, you have to judge them accordingly to their intention and actions, so you can't always just assume the best

                            2) There is ikhtilaaf on this, according the scholars of najd, Islam and shirk cannot mix at all, so anyone who commits shirk akbar in the most basic part of the religion is a mushrik, even if that person says the shahadah
                            Other scholars have said there is no difference between shirk and kufr and just like a person is excused for most types of kufr due to complete ignorance, a person can likewise be excused for shirk, but they place conditions on this

                            But what's agreed is that any grave worshipper that is called away from shirk yet persists upon it is a kafir, the ikhtilaaf is when the grave worshipper says the shahadah but has absolutely no means of finding the truth and believes what he is upon is part of Islam
                            ''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
                              وعليكم السلام ورحمه الله وبركاته

                              1) The shirk of asking the dead to fulfil their needs mainly, sujood for the dead people, tawaaf and slaughter are sometimes found aswell
                              This would depend on the situation, you have to judge them accordingly to their intention and actions, so you can't always just assume the best

                              2) There is ikhtilaaf on this, according the scholars of najd, Islam and shirk cannot mix at all, so anyone who commits shirk akbar in the most basic part of the religion is a mushrik, even if that person says the shahadah
                              Other scholars have said there is no difference between shirk and kufr and just like a person is excused for most types of kufr due to complete ignorance, a person can likewise be excused for shirk, but they place conditions on this

                              But what's agreed is that any grave worshipper that is called away from shirk yet persists upon it is a kafir, the ikhtilaaf is when the grave worshipper says the shahadah but has absolutely no means of finding the truth and believes what he is upon is part of Islam
                              Jazak Allah khair

                              1) Why is asking the dead to fulfill a need shirk akbar?

                              1) You are at the grave site
                              2) You believe they can hear you
                              3)You assume Allah has granted them certain abilities after death.

                              Your proof is the answering of dua / " Are you belittling sayiduna Rasulullah !?!?!?!? " salla Allaho alayhi wa salam

                              What makes it Shirk or Kufr ? Why not bid'ah / pointless ?

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by abufulaans View Post
                                وعليكم السلام ورحمه الله وبركاته

                                1) The shirk of asking the dead to fulfil their needs mainly, sujood for the dead people, tawaaf and slaughter are sometimes found aswell
                                This would depend on the situation, you have to judge them accordingly to their intention and actions, so you can't always just assume the best

                                2) There is ikhtilaaf on this, according the scholars of najd, Islam and shirk cannot mix at all, so anyone who commits shirk akbar in the most basic part of the religion is a mushrik, even if that person says the shahadah
                                Other scholars have said there is no difference between shirk and kufr and just like a person is excused for most types of kufr due to complete ignorance, a person can likewise be excused for shirk, but they place conditions on this

                                But what's agreed is that any grave worshipper that is called away from shirk yet persists upon it is a kafir, the ikhtilaaf is when the grave worshipper says the shahadah but has absolutely no means of finding the truth and believes what he is upon is part of Islam
                                Also

                                1) Sajdah for other than Allah does not always necessitate major Kufr or Shirk.

                                A) Ya'qoub(as) did Sajdah to Yusuf(as) to fulfill the dream , in al Quran.
                                B) Instances of people doing Sajdah to Rasulullah ( Salman al Farsi comes to mind ) , though he admonished them.


                                But I am curious as to what Shirk the Quburiyoon commit , and do you charge them correctly?

                                1) Tawasul as defined by Subki is not Shirk akbar , though the early Najdi's may have believed so.

                                2) Shaffa'a is not shirk akbar , though early najdi's may have believed so - and perhaps modern Salafi's make takfeer as well? If so , they would be opposing so many scholars who made it part of their custom at the grave-sight of Rasulullah (saws). It is probably Halal / Mustahab , but I could understand why others would oppose it , but to claim that it is Shirk Akbar , makes the Sunni tradition inconsistent. How could a movement 12 Centuries later claim that previous scholars were calling people to Shirk Akbar , but we excuse them out of ignorance. So everyone was upon baa'til until you came along? That is simply irrational.

                                3) Tabbarruk ( Seeking blessings ) To what extent do you allow it? Why do you even find it problematic if the people are not intending to worship the grave / individuals. Here's an article by GF HADDAD http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/cape_tow...aykh_faiik.htm

                                4) Tawaf .. I have no idea what could possibly be the intention of those who partake in this? Does it make your dua's come true or something? Does anyone know , what is the point?

                                Even for Tawaf though , only an extremely deviant person would intend to worship the grave. As for the act , we make tawaf around the Kaa'ba , but we don't worship the Kaa'ba. Similarly , those performing tawaf are , inshaAllah , are not intending to worship the grave .. al Nawawi says " la ya'juz " .

                                5) Istighatha ( As defined by Salafis ) Could possibly be shirk , but this is not done at the grave site. If it's done at the grave sight , then it is either tawasul or Shaffa'a. What separates Istighatha from the others are , the absence and abilities. So istighatha is irrelevant in this instance , if that is even what you meant.

                                6) Slaughtering for Other than Allah - Is this an issue of Ijma from the scholars who preceded the Najdi movement?

                                Question : What do the people themselves intend when doing this , on average? Do they say " In the name of Abdul Qadir " upon slaughter? Or do they slaughter for Allah , but at the grave site?

                                7) Venerating the dead - How do you understand this term venerating? Isn't that just the general word for all of this ( Those who engage in it , exclude the haram forms )

                                :jkk:
                                Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 24-09-17, 01:22 AM.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X