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 Linkdeutscher View Post
    [MENTION=63294]AmantuBillahi[/MENTION]

    Are you a follower of Hatim al Awni in these matters?
    I am actually unaware of him and would need to read up more on him to get a better perspective on his creed.

    I don't mean to promote myself or my internal beliefs but as far as my laymen perspective is concerned , I rely completely on

    1) Strong foundation
    2) Consistency

    I believe this criteria is what can enable a light ijtihad when faced with opposing views. All of us made / needed to make ijtihadd at one point or another , when we chose Islam over other religions and Sunnism / Salafi / Ashari , etc.

    I have been reserved on calling these acts shirk akbar for some time ( though istighatha seems to have Quranic proofs to back it )

    What is certain is that these issues were not taught in definitive ways. The evidence of the sufis do not include the actions and practices of major Sahabah , nor the Salaf - so I avoid them for that reason.

    Reasoning through solid foundations / consistency , to claim tawasul / shaffa'a are major shirk ( while this was not stated prior to MIAW ) would be inconsistent and therefore not something I could uphold. I don't view those people or scholars as mushrikeen , only possibly upon an evil innovation or perhaps they are upon truth ( as far as those two concepts are concerned )

    Allah knows best.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by abufulaans View Post
      So when As-subki allowed istighatha, he didn't mean that you call upon the prophet (SAW) for help at or away from his grave?
      Meaning he didn't intend the shirki meaning like some sufis do, is this correct?

      Im not reffering to the issue above, indeed there is ikhtilaaf on it.
      The entire premise of as-Subki and other scholars like him is that whatever was done during the lifetime of the Prophet SAWS, then it applies to before his creation and after his death.

      So, since the Companions referred to the Prophet SAWS for intercession during his lifetime, and neither the Prophet SAWS nor the Companions RA mentioned a restriction at the time, then the matter remains "general" and "unrestricted" for application after the death of the Prophet SAWS. And since the proofs which apply to the Prophet's SAWS intercession also are not restricted to him SAWS alone, then they are possible for the Saliheen and Awliyaa'.

      Also, they argue that the Prophet SAWS and martyrs are alive in the grave and that their souls are returned to them according to Ahadith. Also, they use different Ahadith indicating that the dead can hear. Then there is the matter of the Salaam being conveyed to the Prophet SAWS and him responding. Through this they argue that, again, the proofs are general and not restricted, so it is possible that any of the Awliyaa' and Saliheen can receive requests for intercession and respond to them.

      This is how they derive the recommendation of saying "Yaa Rasulu Llahi!".

      Also, they argue that since the meaning is not that the Prophet SAWS is the one who provides the response, but rather Allah, then any manner of wording is permissible as long as that belief/meaning is maintained.

      Of course all of this is based on false premises which no one before them argued. They basically have taken strong Ahadith and reinterpreted them in a way contrary to the Salaf. Then they took various reports, weak and otherwise, from the books of biographies and history and used them as proof. Then they used various trains of logic and reasoning which are also false, to expand the context of the original Ahadith.

      From what I read at first of those who defend as-Subki in different forums and discussion sites, I thought that he has been wrongly accused of promoting Shirk in these matters. After reading the relevant chapters in Shifaa' as-Saqaam myself, it is clear to me that he does support forms of Tawassul, Shafaa'ah and Istighaathah that involve Shirk.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
        Please re-read this comment here:
        What for? You're a "cut & paste" man. Have you even read any of those references in their original works?

        I was able to recognize very easily some of the false claims in your post, especially regarding Ibn Qudaamah and al-Mawaardi.

        "Cut & paste" people are notorious for flooding posts with unverified quotes with all sorts of false claims of this or that scholar supporting a deviant view.

        You are a self-described "Ash'ari", so quoting Kullabi-Ash'aris who also tend to be extreme Sufis, does not make any of those quotes "mainstream" or the views of Ahl as-Sunnah.

        The only way that Ash'aris are Ahl as-Sunnah is when comparing to the Rafidhah and Mu'tazilah. However, when it comes to Aqeedah, everyone knows that Ash'aris are not part of Ahl as-Sunnah. Yet, you never stop trying to convince people that you are, even claiming a "majority". Pathetic.

        Ar-Ramli and al-Haytami are extreme Ash'aris and supporters of Shirk in Tawassul/Istighaathah.

        Nice try though.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
          What for? You're a "cut & paste" man. Have you even read any of those references in their original works?

          I was able to recognize very easily some of the false claims in your post, especially regarding Ibn Qudaamah and al-Mawaardi.

          "Cut & paste" people are notorious for flooding posts with unverified quotes with all sorts of false claims of this or that scholar supporting a deviant view.
          Your claims are not that intelligent and this becomes clear when one knows that the qoute I posted was written by myself and the qoutes in the links are mostly translated by me.

          Let me remind you that just some comments ago you didn't even know the position of Imam al-Subki (d. 756 AH) and where just blindly repeating what you had read in Arab "Salafi" Forums.
          And this goes not just for this issue: Your whole ideas and views are formed by these "Salafi" websites, so called "Du'at" and "Mashayikh". You're just blindly repeating what they're saying and are in no position at all to speak regarding these issues.
          You've no idea about what this Ummah has always been upon and are following a satanic cult that spread when the Muslims became weak.

          Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
          You are a self-described "Ash'ari", so quoting Kullabi-Ash'aris who also tend to be extreme Sufis, does not make any of those quotes "mainstream" or the views of Ahl as-Sunnah.

          The only way that Ash'aris are Ahl as-Sunnah is when comparing to the Rafidhah and Mu'tazilah. However, when it comes to Aqeedah, everyone knows that Ash'aris are not part of Ahl as-Sunnah. Yet, you never stop trying to convince people that you are, even claiming a "majority". Pathetic.

          Ar-Ramli and al-Haytami are extreme Ash'aris and supporters of Shirk in Tawassul/Istighaathah.

          Nice try though.
          Yeah yeah, whatever you say. Did Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) teach you that?!
          Let me ask you: Do you also agree with all of his Kufri statements in his book Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah like him acting as if God must necessarily be described by the meaning that the Mutakallimun intended by Tahayyuz (which means that according to him God has 3 dimensions) and that God has Sifat 'Ayniyyah Dhatiyyah (which means that he believed that God is made up of unseperable parts which can be ponited at) and other than that?!? Tell us: Do you agree with these statements of disbelief? Or let me guess: You've never even read that book nor relevant parts of it, but are still repeating his false views concerning the Sadah al-Asha'irah.

          But let me tell you this: Your "Salafi" Mashayikh are not Sunnis even in comparison to the Rawafidh. Infact they're evil deceivers and callers to misguidance just like the Mashayikh of the Rawafidh. The Wahhabiyyah and the Rawafidh are the enemies of this Ummah from within and whoever knows and understands what is happening in our countries will affirm that.
          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 26-09-17, 07:51 PM.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
            Patience is a virtue .. Lol



            Ok let me rephrase , just so I can get a clear perspective.

            If I claim to be able to fly , would that make me a Mushrik? If so , why?

            I am not associating myself with any of Allah's attributes. I am just giving myself a false ability.

            - Deciet
            -Misunderstanding

            Speaking logically here , the claim would make me a liar or a lunatic , not a polytheist.

            ( This is assuming the individual believes in La Ilaha illa Allah and does not have any other internal deficiencies like claiming internal abilities separate from Allahs Will for them to have it )
            No claiming to fly would not be shirk for two reasons

            1) Allah does not fly,
            2) Allah has given much of his creation the ability to fly

            To fly has got nothing do with an attribute of Allah, it is not specific to Allah at all
            ''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
              No claiming to fly would not be shirk for two reasons

              1) Allah exclusively does not fly,
              2) Allah has given much of his creation the ability to fly

              To fly has got nothing do with an attribute of Allah, it is not specific to Allah at all
              Fixed that.
              You think you know more than my scholar's qiyās? He was more learned than you and all other scholars combined. Yeah, the devil was the greatest scholar too and look where his qiyās of fire being better than tīn got him. Sorry.

              You follow your scholar's qiyās, and I will follow the Qur'ān and Sunnah.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                ...
                Drats! The age-old "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort.

                Alright, you win...

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                  He became obsessed with graves:
                  He regarded the wrong actions concerning the graves, which according to classical understanding are either forbidden (haram) or disliked (makruh), as Shirk akbar (polytheism). He did not stop here: He even regarded actions which are allowed according to all 4 accepted Madhahib of the Ahl al-Sunnah (like for example the seeking of intercession through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - (i.e. Tashaffu')) as "Shirk akbar" and regarded it as a nullifier of one's Islam.
                  If you can't even be honest about and get correct information for the basis of your argument, then there is no point responding to the rest of it:



                  "And they say that I declare as Disbelievers those who do Tawassul through the righteous," and this absolute ruling is not correct for Tawassul has categories ... As for if no act of worship is diverted to them, and they only direct the Tawassul through them towards Allah, in other words, indirectly through them, then this is an innovation and not Disbelief; such as to ask [Allah] "by so-and-so's honor" or "by the right of so-and-so" or "Your Prophet" or "Your slave so-and-so", without directing any act of worship to [the Waseelah]..."

                  Clearly, Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab does not say that the form of Tawassul through the Prophet SAWS discussed by the four schools is "Shirk Akbar".

                  You could not even be bothered to verify whether the very basis of your objection to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab is true. And your kind have been trying to conflate types of Tawassul for hundreds of years, suggesting that just because one type is permitted by some scholars, the one involving Shirk is also allowed by them.

                  What a fail on the part of your school, which you come here and make a fool of yourself in repeating.

                  And to be clear- none of the schools permit calling up the Prophet SAWS and asking him directly for anything.

                  Rather the form of Tawassul mentioned by the schools without recommendation is the one mentioned at the grave of the Prophet SAWS wherein the visitor may say, "I come to you as one seeking forgiveness [from Allah], seeking intercession through you with my Creator..." [see the report of al-Utbi as mentioned by the Hanbalis and Shafi'ees].

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Linkdeutscher View Post
                    Fixed that.
                    Can you tell me where it says Allah flies
                    يطير؟
                    ''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

                      The only one here who's making a fool out of himself are you AbuNajm. Instead of reading the thread and reading the links that I posted, you're posting random irrelevant things.

                      Tell me where did I ever say that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) made Takfir because of saying things like "O my Lord, help me for the sake of your Prophet!"?

                      What I said is that he made Takfir upon those who used the wordings of Tashaffu' (like saying "O Messenger of Allah, intercession!" or "O Messenger of Allah supplicate for the forgiveness of my sins!" or "O messenger of Allah, intercede for me unto my Lord!") and Istighathah (like saying "O Messenger of Allah [help]!").
                      The classical scholars did not just allow Tashaffu', rather they even recommended doing it while visiting the grave of our beloved Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam. This is an absolute fact (look at qoutes in the links that I had posted), so don't even try to deny it.

                      What you Wahhabiyyah only care about is only the wording without even looking at the intended meaning. The one using the wordings of Tashaffu' and Istighathah is simply intending the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - to be a mean (Sabab) for Allah's help to come. How for God's sake is this Shirk!?

                      Yes, there are people who go beyond what is allowed and use wrong wordings, but even in those cases the intention and beliefs of that person must be taken into consideration and Takfir is not made.

                      As for the scholars recommending doing that which is mentioned in the story of al-'Utbi, then they did this while recommending Tashaffu' (i.e. that which the Wahhabiyyah call as Shirk akbar!). Please don't try to deny this, because this is clear from the statements of the scholars.
                      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 27-09-17, 09:29 AM.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                        If you can't even be honest about and get correct information for the basis of your argument, then there is no point responding to the rest of it:



                        "And they say that I declare as Disbelievers those who do Tawassul through the righteous," and this absolute ruling is not correct for Tawassul has categories ... As for if no act of worship is diverted to them, and they only direct the Tawassul through them towards Allah, in other words, indirectly through them, then this is an innovation and not Disbelief; such as to ask [Allah] "by so-and-so's honor" or "by the right of so-and-so" or "Your Prophet" or "Your slave so-and-so", without directing any act of worship to [the Waseelah]..."

                        Clearly, Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab does not say that the form of Tawassul through the Prophet SAWS discussed by the four schools is "Shirk Akbar".

                        You could not even be bothered to verify whether the very basis of your objection to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab is true. And your kind have been trying to conflate types of Tawassul for hundreds of years, suggesting that just because one type is permitted by some scholars, the one involving Shirk is also allowed by them.

                        What a fail on the part of your school, which you come here and make a fool of yourself in repeating.

                        And to be clear- none of the schools permit calling up the Prophet SAWS and asking him directly for anything.

                        Rather the form of Tawassul mentioned by the schools without recommendation is the one mentioned at the grave of the Prophet SAWS wherein the visitor may say, "I come to you as one seeking forgiveness [from Allah], seeking intercession through you with my Creator..." [see the report of al-Utbi as mentioned by the Hanbalis and Shafi'ees].
                        :jkk:

                        There is so much dishonesty and distortion in the OP.

                        The "obsessed with graves" accusation is deprived of any context, nor is it a realistic observation. It's gross slant, for the purpose of persuading readers against the shaykh. And to top that, the OPer claims his OP is not intended for argumentation, but for education of readers who should then, subsequently trust in him and turn to him for quotes and translations of texts from the shaykh.
                        So, no one is supposed to debate his posts, but just sit and read them and trust him, despite his clear prejudices and distortions.

                        Abu Sulayman also said "he began to study" or 'began to be a student of knowledge' and then somehow developed strange ideas, and then "became obsessed with graves".

                        According to the sources the OPer cited, ibn Ghannam, shaykh Muhammad memorized the Holy Quran at age 10 year of age, was authorized by his father to lead the jama prayers at age 12, married at age 12, and went on hajj at age 12. He would go on hajj again by age 18 and remain in the Hijaz: Makka and Madinah, to study. He studied under two known Hanbali shuyukh. He would return to Najd, and for the purpose of additional study, wanted to travel to Damashqi, but instead remained in Basra.

                        So shaykh Muhammad studied and travelled to study in Najd, Makka, Madinah, and Basra, ad attended/performed Hajj twice, at an early age. These are all confirmed. This means he was exposed to not only the deviancies and the people in Najd, but in Hijaz, and in Iraq. Being at Hajj means one sees a global perspective of the Muslim Ummah, both good and bad. And being in Basra for a time meant he was exposed to the evils of the Rawafid in particular.

                        And most biographers agree that shaykh Muhammad did not initiate his dawah in its entirety until his father died, when the shaykh Muhammad (rh) was age 37 years old. So the shaykh was focused primary on studying from age 10 until 37. And his father, shaykh Abdul Wahhab (rh), was a local qadi with who shaykh Muhammad studied with, assisted, and later functioned as a qadi with, or in his stead, later to be a qadi himself. And the shaykh was the third generation qadi, his grandfather, Sulieman, was one of the most noteworthy qadiis in Najd.

                        So shaykh Muhammad was born into ad raised in a family of hanbali qudaa, respected in Najd.

                        No one reasonable questions this. No one, except those who seek to misguide readers.


                        The reality of the Ummah at that time can not be ignored by a commentator, except he intends to misguide readers who are unaware. This suggests a kind of "treachery"

                        The believer strives to think and comprehend like the mujtahid, which means to strive to gather extensive, comprehensive knowledge of a reality, before approaching the texts related to the matter. Thus, half of knowledge is in the question.

                        The Prophet said "Is not the cure for a lack of knowledge to ask questions?'" [sahih Ibn Majah]

                        As hadrat Abu Bakr :RA: declared:

                        sincere regard for Haqq is loyalty, disregard for Haqq is treachery.

                        So there should have been extensive information presented about Arabia, about the state of the Muslim Ummah under the Ottoman state, and about Najd itself in particular.

                        :insha: I will respond in depth about this aspect of the OP.
                        Last edited by Abu Kamel; 27-09-17, 10:14 AM.
                        Allahumma, aranee al haqqu haqqan wa arzuqnee itiba`ahu, wa aranee al baatilu baatilaan wa arzuqnee ijtinaabahu.Oh Allah! show us the truth as true, and inspire us to follow it. Show us falsehood as falsehood, and inspire us to abstain from it.
                        " Do you know what destroys Islam? A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray

                        Comment


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

                          So only your IAW (d. 1206 AH) knew the reality, right? And all these scholars were all blind?!? Ohh wait your IAW called them as "scholars of the polytheists"! All of the Hanbali scholars who spoke against him were all ignorant, right?

                          Ya subhanallah, look at these cultists: They have taken the words of one evil individual and turned his words into revelation! Based upon his words everything is judged in their understanding! Even mass-slaughtering Muslims is good and okay in their ugly understanding as long as their IAW has ordered this. They do not care about the scholars of the 4 accepted Madhahib telling him all that he should stop legalizing Muslim blood!

                          Originally posted by Abu Kamel View Post
                          Abu Sulayman also said "he began to study" or 'began to be a student of knowledge' and then somehow developed strange ideas, and then "became obsessed with graves".

                          According to the sources the OPer cited, ibn Ghannam, shaykh Muhammad memorized the Holy Quran at age 10 year of age, was authorized by his father to lead the jama prayers at age 12, married at age 12, and went on hajj at age 12. He would go on hajj again by age 18 and remain in the Hijaz: Makka and Madinah, to study. He studied under two known Hanbali shuyukh. He would return to Najd, and for the purpose of additional study, wanted to travel to Damashqi, but instead remained in Basra.

                          So shaykh Muhammad studied and travelled to study in Najd, Makka, Madinah, and Basra, ad attended/performed Hajj twice, at an early age. These are all confirmed. This means he was exposed to not only the deviancies and the people in Najd, but in Hijaz, and in Iraq. Being at Hajj means one sees a global perspective of the Muslim Ummah, both good and bad. And being in Basra for a time meant he was exposed to the evils of the Rawafid in particular.

                          And most biographers agree that shaykh Muhammad did not initiate his dawah in its entirety until his father died, when the shaykh Muhammad (rh) was age 37 years old. So the shaykh was focused primary on studying from age 10 until 37. And his father, shaykh Abdul Wahhab (rh), was a local qadi with who shaykh Muhammad studied with, assisted, and later functioned as a qadi with, or in his stead, later to be a qadi himself. And the shaykh was the third generation qadi, his grandfather, Sulieman, was one of the most noteworthy qadiis in Najd.

                          So shaykh Muhammad was born into ad raised in a family of hanbali qudaa, respected in Najd.
                          Yes, he was from a Hanbali family, but do you think they agreed with his extreme understanding?
                          Your IAW wrote himself that ALL of his teachers (and that includes his father) did NOT know Tawhid (well they knew Tawhid in reality much better than IAW).

                          Let's qoute him again (maybe you'll read it, because qouting it once seems not to be enough for you to read it):

                          وأنا أخبركم عن نفسي والله الذي لا إله إلا هو لقد طلبت العلم واعتقد من عرفني أن لي معرفة وأنا ذلك الوقت لا أعرف معنى لا إله إلا الله، ولا أعرف دين الإسلام قبل هذا الخير الذي من الله به. وكذلك مشايخي ما منهم رجل عرف ذلك، فمن زعم من علماء العارض أنه عرف معنى لا إله إلا الله أو عرف معنى الإسلام قبل هذا الوقت أو زعم عن مشايخه أن أحداً عرف ذلك فقد كذب وافترى ولبس على الناس ومدح نفسه بما ليس فيه

                          "And I inform you about myself - I swear by Allah whom there is none worthy to worship except Him - I have sought knowledge and those who knew me believed that I had knowledge while I did not know the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah at that time and did not know the religion of Islam before this grace that Allah favored. As well as my teachers (Mashayikh) no one among them knew that. And if someone from the scholars of al-'Aridh (the lands of Najd and surrounding areas) claims that he knew the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah or knew the meaning of Islam before this time, or claims on behalf of his teachers that someone from them knew that, then he has lied and said falsehood and deceived the people and praised himself with something he does not possess."

                          Source: al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyyah and al-Durar al-Saniyyah 10/51

                          What does that tell you?!?!? Where did this "understanding" suddenly come from? Did he receive Wahi?!? You're following a guy who indirectly claimed Prophethood! Congratulations to you for following the Dajjal of Najd!

                          As for the other things you mentioned, then this reminds me of the following narration:

                          أن حذيفة حدثه قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : " إن ما أتخوف عليكم رجل قرأ القرآن حتى رئيت بهجته عليه ، وكان ردئا للإسلام ، غيره إلى ما شاء الله ، فانسلخ منه ونبذه وراء ظهره ، وسعى على جاره بالسيف ، ورماه بالشرك " ، قال : قلت : يا نبي الله ، أيهما أولى بالشرك ، المرمي أم الرامي ؟ قال : " بل الرامي

                          Hudhaifa reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Verily, I fear for you that a man will recite the Quran until his delight is seen and he takes Islam as a cloak. Then, he changes to whatever Allah wills for him, such that it is stripped from him and he throws it behind his back, assaulting his neighbor with the sword and accusing him of idolatry.” I said, “O Prophet of Allah, which one is closer to idolatry? The accused or the accuser?” The Prophet said, “Rather it is the accuser.”

                          Source: Sahih Ibn Hibban, tranlation taken from HERE
                          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 27-09-17, 11:24 AM.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by abufulaans View Post
                            No claiming to fly would not be shirk for two reasons

                            1) Allah does not fly,
                            2) Allah has given much of his creation the ability to fly

                            To fly has got nothing do with an attribute of Allah, it is not specific to Allah at all
                            Okay, and why is it then Shirk to believe that the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - can be a mean (Sabab) for Allah's help to come? Is it Shirk to believe that it's possible that the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - supplicates for his Ummah after his death? Is it Shirk to believe that Allah's help may come by the Barakah (blessings) of Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam?

                            If you go to the doctor, because you believe that he may be a mean (Sabab) for Allah's healing to come, have you comitted Shirk?

                            The people on the day of judgement who explicitly ask the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - for intercession (as it's reported in Sahih al-Bukhari and other sources) have they comitted Shirk for believing that the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - can be a mean for Allah's help to come?

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by abufulaans View Post
                              1) Allah does not fly,l
                              Originally posted by Linkdeutscher View Post
                              Fixed that.
                              Real Wahhabis would neither affirm nor reject whether "God" (I'm writing it like this because Allah ta'ala is high above what they claim) is flying or not.
                              As Wahhabiyyah and Taymiyyun you have to believe that "God" has two real eyes with which he sees, a real face, two real hands with real fingers, a real shin, real feet, real this and real that.

                              Note that you're not allowed to accept Yad, Wajh and 'Ayn as Sifat which are meanings (Ma'ani) subsisting in the essence of Allah ta'ala (as a group of scholars from the Ahl al-Sunnah did) rather you've to accept them as A'yan (i.e. physical entities which can be literally pointed at). This is of course Kufr according to every single scholar of Ahl al-Sunnah through out all centuries, but heyy they didn't know Tawhid anyways.

                              Other than this you have to believe that "God" really really descends to the lowest heaven and at the same he's still literally in the upward direction of the throne. This is similar illogical as the belief in trinity, but heyy Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 Ah) said it so it must be true.

                              Woe to you if you believe in the absolute highness of Allah ta'ala and woe to you if you make Tafwidh (the Madhhab of the Salaf al-salih according to Ash'aris and Atharis) of the Ayat and Ahadith of the Sifat.

                              Isn't it weird that people with such type of thinking are trying to tell us what Tawhid is and what not?!
                              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 27-09-17, 01:44 PM.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by abufulaans View Post
                                Can you tell me where it says Allah flies
                                يطير؟
                                I misread your post, forget what I said.
                                You think you know more than my scholar's qiyās? He was more learned than you and all other scholars combined. Yeah, the devil was the greatest scholar too and look where his qiyās of fire being better than tīn got him. Sorry.

                                You follow your scholar's qiyās, and I will follow the Qur'ān and Sunnah.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X