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

[Rumaysah~]

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

Just going to reply to the relevant part of this post.

Why do you disagree -barring the whole mass-ignoring the evidences shown. But maybe since you won't hear the opinion of non-salafis then atleast hear from salafis themselves.

Former Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Adel Kalbani: Daesh ISIS have the same beliefs as we dohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWORE6OBfhc

At the end of the day, ISIS practice Salafism, pure and applied. Those who disagree with ISIS have deviated from the path of salafism. There is a reason why knowledgable salafists refer to isis as mujahideen. Only ignorant salafis dislike ISIS.

I'm not sure what more is there to prove.

The thing is I don't understand what point you guys are making with this because the reality is there are sub groups within the salafi methodology or at least who claim to be salafi and non of them agree on anything. You can have one salafi masjid on a road and another on the other side and they could be enemies and not even give the salaams to each other. In some places they may even be killing each other. It happens, and not only amongst salafis but amongst many muslims.

At the end of the day I have to separate people from the truth, people will use bits of the truth and twist it to fit their own agenda. I am convinced that this is the right methodology or closest to the truth because it makes the most sense. One individual or a few individual's mistakes, misunderstandings or deviance from the correct islam and the correct way of following the salaf can't change that.

[noobz]

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

I thought this was about the extremism of the najdi dawah? lol every time op starts this topic it delves into aqeedah wars.

thats what makes it quite obvious.

you show from the books of what MIAW did and the thread is changed into the ashari's belief system.

just shows how bad salafi's are in their strawman arguments.

[ZeeshanParvez]

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

thats what makes it quite obvious.

you show from the books of what MIAW did and the thread is changed into the ashari's belief system.

just shows how bad salafi's are in their strawman arguments.

At least you are consistent.

and that is why i don't go into depth of these issues.

This is the same issue which has plagued pakistan and other areas where people have called each other kaffir and people have been going from masjid to masjid....

same with the halala issue or the sahabi who said mutah is halal or when they say nikah misyar is halal , everybody is doing takfir on each other.

[noobz]

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

At least you are consistent.

well of course i am , its not like i change a thread from the genocide MIAW committed to a thread about ashari beliefs cause i couldn't defend my mass murdering scholar.

no wonder abu bakr baghdadi and isis are always claiming they're following the sunnah when they're reaching for all MIAW material for their jihad.

[ZeeshanParvez]

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

well of course i am , its not like i change a thread from the genocide MIAW committed to a thread about ashari beliefs cause i couldn't defend my mass murdering scholar.

no wonder abu bakr baghdadi and isis are always claiming they're following the sunnah when they're reaching for all MIAW material for their jihad.

Do you think that part of the problem is the personality worship which plagues this Ummah?

Regardless of which faction, everyone seems to suffer seizures when their loved scholar is put under the microscope. Even those who claim to not follow any scholar succumb to it.

But then on the other side, you have a few individuals who live up to what they say.

They do not follow any one person. They will point out the mistakes.

But many of them end up loving their own verdicts and beliefs so much that they begin to pretty much worship themselves.

What a difficult situation.....

[imran1976]

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

thats what makes it quite obvious.

you show from the books of what MIAW did and the thread is changed into the ashari's belief system.

just shows how bad salafi's are in their strawman arguments.

obviously they will try to change the subject - kis mun sey defend karein ;)

[aMuslimForLife]

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

This quote itself is problematic , due to the fact that it can be interpreted in different ways , based on the readers preconception. In one sense it is correct , and in another sense it is incorrect ..

It's very recitation is it's explanation. Our dictionaries do not have an "Allah Chapter". The Mushabbihah is the one approaches the text preconceiving tashbih.

1) It is essential to acknowledge that these attributes are relevant to Allah , and not created beings.
2) It is essential to acknowledge the context in which the attributes are being described.

The quote above would have it seem that the people who affirm the Dhahir of Yad , intend by it a created hand , or a door hand , or the hand of a clock- because there is no "Uncreated Perfect Hands of Allah" in the language of people. Our language is relevant to our day to day discourse.

The wordings of the Attributes of Allah , although the same , are ultimately relative to Allah's Existence.

They are similar only in concept , but not in reality. Had they not been similar in concepts , we would have absolutely no idea what they meant , and this also includes Life, Power, Will, Knowledge, Hearing, Sight, Speech. We affirm them as concepts , relative to Allah's nature , which is a Nature / Essence / Existence separate and unlike the creation.

The onus of proof is upon you to prove that Yad , by definition , can not apply to Allah. If you respond with "But what is a Yad" , then please re-read what I have typed. But just for clarity sake.

1) Yad is a Sifat mentioned clearly in both the Qur'an and the Hadeeth.
2) Allah's attributes are not created.
3) Allah Created Adam and performed other tasks with his Yadayn.

Allah did not say , "Why did you not bow down to that which I have created with Alif Lam Meem." ..

It is only tashbih if one says "Hand like my hand , or Hand similar to."

I really can not see why anyone would find this problematic as far as definitions are concerned. In fact , early Ashari's affirmed Sifat Dhatiyyah , and they are actually acceptable within your Madhhab , and Allah knows best.

The problem with it, is Allah and His Messenger, didn't explain it as such. Thus, your explanation is your TAWIL of the said verse or verses. No different then a person saying Hand means power. In both situations, Allah and His Messenger :saw: have not confirmed your belief nor the belief of the person who says Hand means power.

And Allah knows best.

[aMuslimForLife]

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

This quote itself is problematic , due to the fact that it can be interpreted in different ways , based on the readers preconception. In one sense it is correct , and in another sense it is incorrect ..

It's very recitation is it's explanation. Our dictionaries do not have an "Allah Chapter". The Mushabbihah is the one approaches the text preconceiving tashbih.

1) It is essential to acknowledge that these attributes are relevant to Allah , and not created beings.
2) It is essential to acknowledge the context in which the attributes are being described.

The quote above would have it seem that the people who affirm the Dhahir of Yad , intend by it a created hand , or a door hand , or the hand of a clock- because there is no "Uncreated Perfect Hands of Allah" in the language of people. Our language is relevant to our day to day discourse.

The wordings of the Attributes of Allah , although the same , are ultimately relative to Allah's Existence.

They are similar only in concept , but not in reality. Had they not been similar in concepts , we would have absolutely no idea what they meant , and this also includes Life, Power, Will, Knowledge, Hearing, Sight, Speech. We affirm them as concepts , relative to Allah's nature , which is a Nature / Essence / Existence separate and unlike the creation.

The onus of proof is upon you to prove that Yad , by definition , can not apply to Allah. If you respond with "But what is a Yad" , then please re-read what I have typed. But just for clarity sake.

1) Yad is a Sifat mentioned clearly in both the Qur'an and the Hadeeth.
2) Allah's attributes are not created.
3) Allah Created Adam and performed other tasks with his Yadayn.

Allah did not say , "Why did you not bow down to that which I have created with Alif Lam Meem." ..

It is only tashbih if one says "Hand like my hand , or Hand similar to."

I really can not see why anyone would find this problematic as far as definitions are concerned. In fact , early Ashari's affirmed Sifat Dhatiyyah , and they are actually acceptable within your Madhhab , and Allah knows best.

As Salam Alaykum,

I don't have a problem with referring to Yad as a Sifat, in a general sense. As the Salafus Saleh affirmed such as a Sifat.

Al-Walid ibn Muslim (d. 194H) said, “I asked Malik, al-Awza’i, Laytb ibn Sa’d and Sufyan al-Thawri, may Allah have mercy upon them, concerning the reports related about the Attributes, so they all said, ‘Leave them as they are without asking ‘How?” (Reported by al-Aajurri in Ash-Sha’ri’ah, p. 314, al-Bayhaqi in Al-Asma was-Sifat, p. 453 and also al-I’tiqad, p. 118 and the chain of narration is hasan.)

If you want to be Hanbali and follow the Salafus Saleh, stop where they stopped.

Ibn Jawzi al Hanbali, said, “Companions! Brothers! You are the People who adhere to the texts and follow them. This was the example of your Imam, the greatest Imam, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, May Allah Exalthed be He, have mercy on him, who under pain of torture, proclaimed, ‘How can I say what was not been said before?’ So, take care not to introduce into his madhab what does not belong in it.”
( Daf Shubah al Tashbih - Rebuttal of the Insinuations of Anthropomorphism)

At the same time, I do not consider it obligatory for a Muslim to believe they are Attributes, as Allah and His Messenger :saw: did not confirm such wording, and a Muslim is only obligated to believe in what Allah and His Messenger :saw: brought.

As for the specifics that some Salafis delve into, such as saying Allah's Yad is to be taken literally (Haqiqataan), this to me is an innovation, and anthropomorphism.

Like the words of Ibn Uthaymeen, “ The Prophet’s words, “Adam was created in His image” means that Allaah created Adam in His image, “FOR HE HAS A FACE, AN EYE, A HAND, AND A FOOT, and Adam had a face, an eye, a hand, and a foot… but that does not mean that these things are exactly the same. “THERE IS SOME SIMILARITY, BUT IT IS NOT EXACTLY THE SAME” (Sharh al-‘Aqeedah al-Waasitah by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 1/107, 293. Fatwa No: 20652)

I also dislike the emphasizes that Salafis make when coming across such verses and hadith, Salafis tend to focus unclear, instead of the clear aspect of the verse which seems the point of the text.

Allah says, It is He Who has sent down to you the Book (this Quran). In it are Verses that are clear, they are the foundations of the Book and others unclear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation they follow that which is unclear thereof, seeking dissension and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, except Allah.. And those firmly rooted in knowledge say, 'We believe in it; all is from our Lord'; yet none remembers, but men possessed of minds. (Quran 3:7)


None, knows it explanation except Allah. A position confirmed by Ibn Abbas and Ibn Masud. If Allah says none knows it explanation except Allah, why the focus on it. And then Allah says, deviated hearts focus on the unclear.

Wouldn't it be wise to remain silent concerning these verses? To make tafwid.

Abu Hurairah reports that the Messenger of Allah :saw: said: “Our Lord Descends to the lowest heaven during the last third of the night, inquiring: `Who will call on Me so that I may respond to him? Who is asking something of Me so I may give it to him? Who is asking for My forgiveness so I may forgive him?”[ Bukhari and Muslim.]

The point of the hadith isn’t how Allah descends (literally or metaphorically), the point of hadith is to get Muslims to pray tahajjah.

Salafis act as if these unclear aspects of text are the most important aspects of Tawhid. I don't think so.

As for the wisdom behind mentioning these unclear point, perhaps its part of the eloquence of the language. In the beginning I was more inclined to your way of thinking. But the more I started to learn the Arabic language, the more vast Quran became. Metaphors is part of the beauty of language.

As for the proof of tafwid, in the sunnah... The Prophet :saw: rarely detailed anything. His speech is described as ‘jawami al-kalim’ "As far as the basic principles that unite Ash’aris, two have primacy. The first is that revelation can be affirmed by intellect, but when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two, revelation has to be given primacy. This is a conclusion substantiated by the Qur’an and Hadith and has provided the basis for the Ash’aris both beating back the intellectual challenge of various sects such as the Mu’tazila, the Isma’ilis and others, while affirming the integrity of divine revelation. The second is that Allah is transcendent above any likeness. This principle is also rooted in the text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. That transcendence has been articulated with the aid of two processes. One is by deputing unto Allah the knowledge of any text whose superficial understanding might imply drawing a likeness between Allah and His creation. This is known as Tafwid. The second is interpreting such a text in a way that is supported by its linguistic meaning, while warding off the ability to draw any likeness unto Allah. This is known as Ta’wil."


This is confirmed by both early and late Asharis.

Imam Ibn Khafif who took kalam from Imam al Ashari said, "Imagination cannot perceive Him, nor knowledge encompass Him, nor reason (al Aql) describe Him." He also said, Reason alone (al aql) cannot determine right and wrong. It is the Law (Shariah - Quran and Sunnah) that holds sway over reason (in determining the licit and the unlawful)." (Al Aqida al Sahiha)

The place of Kalam

Imam al Ghazali said, "As for its benefit, it might be supposed that it is to reveal truths and know them as they truly are. and how farfetched! kalam theology is simply unable to fulfill this noble aim, and it probably founders and misguides more than it discovers or reveals. If you had heard these words from a hadith scholar or literalist, you might think, "People are enemies of what they are ignorant of." So hear them instead from someone steeped in kalam theology, who left it after mastering it in depth and penetrating into it as far as any scholar can, and who then went on to specialize in closely related fields, before realizing that access to the realities of true knowledge was barred from this path. By my life, theology is not bereft of revealing and defining the truth and clarifying some issues, but it does so rarely, and about things that are already clear and almost plain before learning its details. (Ihya Ulum al Din)

Ihya Ulum al Din is studied by all modern Asharis.

As far as Abu Ammar dissertation, and Ibn Taymiyyah's Dar al Ta'arud, which is a refutation of Fakr al Din al Razi's work. It was a misplaced emphasizes on Ibn Taymiyyah's part. Fakr al Din al Raz's work was a refutation against the philosophers, not a refutation against Hanbalis or Ahlul Hadith. So what he wrote has to be understood in that context, "a refutation of philosophers." The Universal Principle, is Tafwid and Tawil, which has a basis in the Quran and Sunnah. Fakr al Din al Razi, was telling the philosophers, that logic dictates their methodology is illogical and thus one has to return to the Quran and Sunnah.

And Allah knows best.

[faqir]

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

https://news.sky.com/story/imam-reca...rises-11144623


hundreds more killed in Egypt by Wahhabi fake ‘salafi’ terrorists

most common lies used to justify their takfir and Murder of Sufis:

sufis worship graves
sufis worship the prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi was-Salam)
sufi believe God is everywhere
those who don’t believe God is sitting on a chair in heaven deny the qur’an

Feel free to add more lies...

[Abu julaybeeb]

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

https://news.sky.com/story/imam-reca...rises-11144623


hundreds more killed in Egypt by Wahhabi fake ‘salafi’ terrorists

most common lies used to justify their takfir and Murder of Sufis:

sufis worship graves
sufis worship the prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi was-Salam)
sufi believe God is everywhere
those who don’t believe God is sitting on a chair in heaven deny the qur’an

Feel free to add more lies...

Do you have any actual reliable proof as to who it was as no group has claimed it yet

Watch who you accuse as a muslim if you wrongly accuse someone and your not flogged for it then on the day of judgement it will be settled

[noobz]

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



Do you have any actual reliable proof as to who it was as no group has claimed it yet

Watch who you accuse as a muslim if you wrongly accuse someone and your not flogged for it then on the day of judgement it will be settled

UF isis supporters were already praising the attack in the sinai thread , so connect the dots.

[ZeeshanParvez]

I think the forum upgrade has caused some content to go missing.

faqir replied and now there is no reply.....

[Gingerbeardman]

UF isis supporters were already praising the attack in the sinai thread , so connect the dots.

Ironically it's one of the few attacks Daesh have not claimed, so far the only group to claim responsibility for that one has been an arab Christian extremist group

[imran1976]

i am in, Plz ban me agian from this thread ........

[ZeeshanParvez]

You know most of what was said in this thread reminds me of what is written in the book

الحنابلة والاختلاف مع السلفية المعاصرة في العقائد والفقه والتصوف

If the OP is still following this thread, have you read that book as some of what you have said in our discussions seems to be a direct translation of the book.