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

  • You conveniently ignored the issue of who initiated the fighting.


    You are clearly bigoted to Ash'arism and grave worshiping.

    How can you expect anyone to take you seriously? Anyone who reads the first three pages of this thread will see how everyone has already dismissed you...
    Watch those eyes

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
      Your Ashaa'irah have made takfiir. They haven't said so and so is on kufr. They have said he is a kaafir. Go back and read the screenshots. For a person who accuses others of having bad reading skills yours are terrible.
      Zeeshan, the screenshots are from a "Salafi" book and we both know how much "Salafis" lie. So what kind of proof is this?

      And: The Ash'aris controlled the Muslim lands for centuries and they did not go around committing mass-killings against Muslims, rather they defended the Muslims from the attacks of the disbelievers. This is a fact.

      Your sect however started by killing Muslims all over the Arabian peninsula. Will you be able to deny these FACTS?

      Originally posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
      The Salafi group of today is not a new one. You keep repeating yourself. That will do you no good.
      They're actually a new group no matter how much you want to deny that.
      It's true that your Tajsim and Tashbih can be found in the different groups of the Mujassimah, Mushabbihah and Hashwiyyah. But you did not stop at that. You combined this Tajsim with the ideas of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and with Anti-Madhhabism.
      So this means that your group is new.

      Originally posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
      Imaam al-Daarimi 255H.
      This is not the Imam al-Darimi you're intending. The one you intend died 280 AH. As for the one who died 255 AH, he's author of the Sunan al-Darimi.

      And by the way: I did not attack him, but I attacked the book that you people ascribe to him. It's not even sure whether the book al-Naqdh 'ala Bishr al-Marisi as it is today was even written by him. You know we're not like your brothers in Tajsim (I mean the Christians), who do not care about whether something is really authentic or not.
      The weird thing is that before Ibn Taymiyyah we find almost no one, who actually qoutes from that book or teaches it. Why?

      For those who don't know what the book contains:
      A physical distance, a direction and a place is affirmed for God and it is claimed that God sits, moves, stands up, touches things, has limits and has even a weight. All of this is done in an explicit manner without any place for interpretation. It is also said that God may rest upon the back of a mosquito.

      For more details:
      Extremely Recommended Gospel by Ibn Tayimyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim

      This is Tajsim and Kufr without any doubt.
      Zeeshan did the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - teach us this? No, rather he - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - teached the opposite.
      But since Ibn Taymiyyah says that al-Darimi said that, you simply believe it as if this book (which as already mentioned we do not even know whether it's authentic from him or not) is revelation.
      Don't you think that you're acting just like your brothers in Tajsim here and taking human beings as Lords besides Allah?


      There is another problem: You post random off-topic things without checking what you're actually posting. For example: You bring a qoute and say that this is what al-Shirani said. I ask: Is this really what his name is? No.
      And there is actually a Tawhjih for this qoute.

      Or you post something without its full context saying "look al-Baqillani is saying that the Arabic Nadhm of the Qur`an is that of Jibril", while if you had read further you would have seen that he says that the Arabic Nadhm of the Qur`an was teached by Allah ta'ala to Jibril, peace be upon him.

      You have other mistakes like that, but I seriously don't have time to correct all the mistakes that you make.
      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 16-08-18, 01:57 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

        Zeeshan, the screenshots are from a "Salafi" book and we both know how much "Salafis" lie. So what kind of proof is this?

        And: The Ash'aris controlled the Muslim lands for centuries and they did not go around committing mass-killings against Muslims, rather they defended the Muslims from the attacks of the disbelievers. This is a fact.

        Your sect however started by killing Muslims all over the Arabian peninsula. Will you be able to deny these FACTS?
        So, you deny those quotes?



        This is not the Imam al-Darimi you're intending. The one you intend died 280 AH. As for the one who died 255 AH, he's author of the Sunan al-Darimi.
        That I concede.

        And by the way: I did not attack him, but I attacked the book that you people ascribe to him. It's not even sure whether the book al-Naqdh 'ala Bishr al-Marisi as it is today was even written by him. You know we're not like your brothers in Tajsim (I mean the Christians), who do not care about whether something is really authentic or not.

        Anytime anything is not explainable by the Ashaa'irah they resort to the its a fake. Honestly?

        For those who don't know what the book contains:
        [B]A physical distance, a direction and a place is affirmed for God and it is claimed that God sits, moves, stands up, touches things, has limits and has even a weight. All of this is done in an explicit manner without any place for interpretation. It is also said that God may rest upon the back of a mosquito.
        Since we are on the subject of not reading things fully, did you forget to fully comprehend what the author was saying?

        He was making the point that Allaah can do what He Wills? Do you deny that?

        This is Tajsim and Kufr without any doubt.
        Zeeshan did the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - teach us this? No, rather he - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - teached the opposite.
        But since Ibn Taymiyyah says that al-Darimi said that, you simply believe it as if this book (which as already mentioned we do not even know whether it's authentic from him or not) is revelation.
        Don't you think that you're acting just like your brothers in Tajsim here and taking human beings as Lords besides Allah?
        It is very difficult to answer that question when you continue to assume that I, or the Salafis, take their entire Aqiidah from him!

        Maybe if you moved away for the prism from which you view others you might be able to understand that you don't have to be a follower of Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibn Uthaymiin to see the falsehood in the Ashaa'irah's belief system.


        Or you post something without its full context saying "look al-Baqillani is saying that the Arabic Nadhm of the Qur`an is that of Jibril", while if you had read further you would have seen that he says that the Arabic Nadhm of the Qur`an was teached by Allah ta'ala to Jibril, peace be upon him.
        Half baked information again.

        The word teach is not what he says.

        He says it was by means of ilhaam.

        And your brothers the Maturidi say it was by creating a voice.

        Did the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) teach this?



        Watch those eyes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

          This is Tajsim and Kufr without any doubt.
          Zeeshan did the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - teach us this? No, rather he - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - teached the opposite.
          But since Ibn Taymiyyah says that al-Darimi said that, you simply believe it as if this book (which as already mentioned we do not even know whether it's authentic from him or not) is revelation.
          Don't you think that you're acting just like your brothers in Tajsim here and taking human beings as Lords besides Allah?
          While we are on the subject of what the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa salalm) taught, did he teach what al-Baqillaani says?

          Was it ilhaam by means of which Jibriil got the message?

          Or was it a voice as your Maturidi brothers claim? You accept their group.

          https://prnt.sc/kjcek1

          Did he (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) teach that the word Qur'aan could be used for

          The Qur'aan as the internal Kalaam of Allaah which is not created
          The word revealed to him (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) which is created?


          Did he (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) teach of the Kalaam al-Nafsii Abu al-Hasan invented?


          And now you don't have time when I bring forth the pressing issue of who was it who initiated the fighting which forced Muhammad ibn abd al-Wahhaab to retaliate?

          How convenient.
          Watch those eyes

          Comment


          • The Qur`an al-karim is the revelation of Allah ta'ala and his word. This is what all Muslims believe and this enough for laymen.

            As for the details of this issue (also in a short manner):
            Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 16-08-18, 03:48 PM.

            Comment


            • It was Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab who was a simple student, but started to think too much of himself, which resulted in his claim that no one in the region knew Tawhid except him. And it was him, who accused other Muslims of Shirk akbar left and right. It was him who started destroying the grave of Zayd bin al-Khattab, radhiallahu 'anhu. It was him who made an alliance with Ibn Sa'ud. From there everything started. Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was the Mufti for Ibn Sa'ud and Ibn Sa'ud's army attacked the people of Najd. Then they attacked all regions around them: Ahsa`, Hijaz, 'Iraq, Sham, Yaman, 'Oman.
              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 16-08-18, 04:23 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
                He was making the point that Allaah can do what He Wills? Do you deny that?
                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 16-08-18, 04:28 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                  To make it short: The Qur`an al-karim is the revelation of Allah ta'ala and his word. This is what all Muslims believe and this enough for laymen.

                  As for the details of this issue (also in a short manner):


                  But is this the topic of this thread?

                  Has your memory failed you as to what you said? Did you forget how you started this thread?


                  The reason why it's important to know about the history of the original Wahhabiyyah is because it's necessary in order to understand the roots of fanaticism of an organization like ISIS and also in order not to be fooled by the deception, lies and propaganda of the Mashayikh of so called "Salafi" movement, who are exploiting the thirst of young people - especially those living in the West - to learn the religion. The reason why young people in the West are easily fooled by these so called "Salafis" is because of the ignorance regarding the [true] religion (i.e. Islam) that is unfortunately prevelant in the West.
                  You state your purpose clearly.

                  You want to use Muhammad bin abd al-Wahhaab to convince people that the way of the Salaf is wrong because he killed people.

                  The true Islam you want people to come to is Asha'rism and Maturidism.

                  That is the whole premise of your thread.

                  I am simply reminding you that what you consider "true Islaam" is far from it.


                  Hence, there is nothing off topic about my posts. The only reason you see them as that is because you don't feel comfortable discussing the hidden aqiidah of the Ashaa'irah which the layman does not know.


                  The Mutazilah began with Wasil 131H. Imaam al-Shaafi'i was around at that time. Imaam Ahamd was around at that time.

                  None of them learned ilm kalaam or advised anyone to learn to dispute these people.


                  Ilm al-kalaam was never a part of Islaam.


                  What your scholars did was never endorsed. Yet, you indulged in it and came up with things like the Kalaam of Allaah which is internal which has no basis in the Sunnah.

                  Your scholars did this with the intention to defeat their opponents. It has no basis.

                  Hence, what you term true Islam is not true Islam. You want people to believe that but as you can see that is not the case.

                  Again it was not off topic as you are the one calling people to your Ash'arism by labeling it true Islam. You are using Muhammad bin abd al-Wahhaab to call towards that.



                  As for you posting a "Salafi" website link thinking as usual you proved something:
                  It was Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab who was a simple student, but started to think too much of himself, which resulted in his claim that no one in the region knew Tawhid except him. And it was him, who accused other Muslims of Shirk akbar left and right. It was him who started destroying the grave of Zayd bin al-Khattab, radhiallahu 'anhu. It was him who made an alliance with Ibn Sa'ud. From there everything started. Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was the Mufti for Ibn Sa'ud and Ibn Sa'ud's army attacked the people of Najd. Then they attacked all regions around them: Ahsa`, Hijaz, 'Iraq, Sham, Yaman, 'Oman.
                  Lol this is hilarious. You didn't read the link did you because it undermines the whole purpose of this thread.

                  You make it seem like you are open to discussion but in reality when you see something which opposes what you believe in your just plain refuse.


                  You are free to call me what you like. If it is true I deserve it. If it is not I get your good deeds.




                  For someone who constantly tells the other that they have reading problems, you continue to make the same mistake over and over again.


                  No one says Allaah rests on the back of a mosquito.


                  Its a hypothetical statement to say that Allaah can make the impossible happen.



                  Can you honestly not see the difference.

                  Consider the following Verse


                  لَوْ أَرَدْنَا أَنْ نَتَّخِذَ لَهْوًا لَاتَّخَذْنَاهُ مِنْ لَدُنَّا إِنْ كُنَّا فَاعِلِينَ

                  Does it say Allaah has taken lahw for Himself?


                  No, He has made a hypothetical statement to make a point. He has told those who ascribe a son to Him that I have no son but (the law here in Arabic being one which introduces a hypothetical situation which can never happen, English does not have this) if I were to do something like that it would not be from among you the creation but from My Own.


                  لو أردنا أن نتخذ زوجة وولدا لاتخذنا ذلك من عندنا، ولكنا لا نفعل ذلك، ولا يصلح لنا فعله ولا ينبغي، لأنه لا ينبغي أن يكون لله ولد ولا صاحبة.


                  al-Tabari writes: Had We wanted to take a wife or a son we would have taken it from Our selves but we did not do that and it is not fitting for us to do that because it is not fitting for Allaah to have a son or a companion.



                  Do you seriously have trouble understanding this or has Asha'rism blinded you to the point where you see things in the writings of others which are not there?


                  Have you forgotten the discussion between the Hanafi groups of If Allaah can create another Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) with one saying He can as He can do anything while the other saying no He cannot. Nu Ha Miim keller discussed the issue and said it is only a difference in semantics.


                  Maybe you should jump in there and say how dare they say this about Allaah.


                  No one says Allah sits on the back of mosquito.

                  You say that.

                  It is called putting words in the mouth of the other. You purposely choose not to understand the intent of the writer.



                  The writer was telling you that Allaah can do anything He Wills. To be able to do something and to do it are two different things.


                  But wait you Ashaa'irah also believe Allaah cannot do everything at Will.

                  He cannot choose to talk when He Wills as that would mean His Speech is not eternal but has a beginning and an end.


                  Have you seen how your ilm al-Kalaam has deceived you?


                  You attempt to make tanziih based on flawed human logic.


                  You forget Allaah can do what He Wills without there being any resemblance to the creation.


                  If you have a family feel free not to respond.

                  But I see it my obligation that I let people know that the Islam you called "true Islam" right at the beginning of your thread is not the way of the Salaf. All of what I post is right in accordance with what you started.

                  If you have trouble finishing what you started that is your problem not mine.
                  Watch those eyes

                  Comment


                  • The OP said earlier in the thread that the aqiidah of the layman is more like the Ashaa'irah than the "Salafis."

                    This is a false statement.


                    I have met countless elders in the years Allaah has blessed me to go the masjid for prayer.


                    All of them are laymen who read the Qur'aan.


                    All of them say that when Allaah intends something He says Be and it is.


                    They believe that exactly like it is. This is the aqiidah of the ones on the way of the Salaf. This is not the way of the Ashaa'irah


                    The Ashaa'irah give that Verse an interpretation

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	be.jpg
Views:	94
Size:	127.6 KB
ID:	12573418

                    As you can see the author of تحفة المريد على جوهرة التوحيد says it is a kinaayah (metonymy) for how fast what He intends comes into being and the lack of delay when His Iraada and Qudra are attached to the thing

                    And the zaahir is not what is meant.


                    This is not what the layman believe. They believe exactly what those on the way of the Salaf preach.

                    And these are layman who do not even know of the different designations in aqiidah (i.e. Maturidi, Ashaa'irah, Salafi).


                    I told an elder just a few days about what al-Baqillaani says about the internal Kalaam of Allah and how the Qur'aan we have is only an expression of that Kalaam.


                    He laughed..
                    Watch those eyes

                    Comment


                    • ولو قد شاءلاستقر على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلت به بقدرته ولطف ربوبيتهHad He willed, He would have settled on the back of a mosquito, so it would bear Him, by His power and the subtlety of His Lordship.

                      Comment


                      • So wait patiently (O Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) for the Decision of your Lord, for verily, you are under Our Eyes , and glorify the Praises of your Lord when you get up from sleep.

                        [Qur'aan 52:48]


                        Anas bin Malik reported that Allah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) said:

                        There is never a prophet who has not warned the Ummah of that one-eyed liar; behold he is one-eyed and your Lord is not one-eyed. On his forehead are the letters k f. r. (Kafir).

                        [Sahih Muslim 2933]
                        Watch those eyes

                        Comment


                        • Fact 1: The Arabs were a nation of illiterates. They had no knowledge of ilm al-kalaam


                          Fact 2: The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) never made ta'wiil of the Sifaat of Allaah


                          Fact 3: He (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) used the Sifah of Allaah mentioned in the Qur'aan in the form of a sentence consisiting of a subject and predicate as can be seen below

                          كلتا يديه يمين

                          Both His Hands are right (note the usage of the dual in Arabic for both His Hands)

                          [Part of a longer hadith in Sahih Muslim]


                          وَكِلْتَا يَدَىْ رَبِّي يَمِينٌ مُبَارَكَةٌ

                          And both the hands of my Lord are Right and Blessed (again dual used for Hands just as dual used in Qur'aan)

                          [Jaami' al-Tirmidhi part of longer hadiith]



                          Fact 4: Given the above it is clear to anyone with any intellect that our Diin is not understood in the light of ilm al-kalaam as the OP is desperately trying to preach. You can see this in the links he shares. You can see this in the books of his sect.



                          True Islaam is the way of the Salaf.




                          Extra


                          Ashaa'irah starter kit to reject the truth

                          Usuul 1

                          Declare hadith to be khabar al-waahid and unfit for evidence even if authentic


                          Usuul 2

                          Declare hadiith to differ in wordings among narrators and hence unfit for evidence even if authentic


                          Usuul 3

                          Reject a book as being that of a scholar we hold in high esteem when it contradicts what we believe



                          Usuul 4

                          If it does not agree with our ilm al-kalaam find a fault in the hadiith and declare it unfit for use even if authentic


                          Usuul 5

                          We are masters of ilm al-Kalaam. We know what appeals to the logic and Nafs of humans. Make unrestricted use of words such as kufr and tashbiih to counter the opposition as this will create doubts in their mind.

                          Repeat.
                          Watch those eyes

                          Comment


                          • a man not known for his religion or piety, nor was he known for any of the Sacred sciences. In fact, he belongs to no science except the science of blameworthy Kalamwho avoided ilm al-kalaam just like the Companions (may Allaah be pleased with him) never indulged in it and were masters of Qur'ana and Hadiith or a man who claimed to have left the way of the Mutalizah but had no knowledge of the sacred sciences?


                            Any Muslim can judge based on what has been discussed in this thread what true Islaam is.
                            Watch those eyes

                            Comment


                            • Abu Haamid al-'isfaraayiinii was the Sheikh of the Shaafi'i Madhhab in Baghdaad.

                              He would get people to testify that they believed the Qur'aan was not created in accordance to the belief of Ahmad bin Hanbal and not in accordance with the belief of al-Baqillaani.

                              al-Baqillaani is one of the major spear heads of the Ashaa'irah.


                              Abu Hamid clearly made a distinction between the baatil belief of al-Baqillaani and that of Ahmad bin Hanbal.


                              He would also prevent his students from sitting with al-Baqillaani.


                              He labelled al-Baqillaani an innovator and one who calls people to misguidance.


                              He also told them not to sit in his gatherings if they sat in the innovator's gathering.


                              This is the "true Islaam" this OP wants you to adopt. The lies and deception have no end.


                              وسمعت شيخي الامام أبا منصور، الفقيه الاصبهاني، يقول: سمعت شيخنا الامام أبا بكر الزاذاقانى يقول: كنت في درس الشيخ أبى حامد الاسفرايينى وكان ينهى أصحابه عن الكلام، وعن الدخول على الباقلانى.
                              فبلغه أن نفرا من أصحابه يدخلون عليه خفية لقراءة الكلام، فظن أنى معهم ومنهم، وذكر قصة قال في آخرها: إن الشيخ أبا حامد قال لى: يا بنى، بلغني أنك تدخل على هذا الرجل - يعنى الباقلانى - فإياك وإياه، فإنه مبتدع يدعوا الناس إلى الضلالة وإلا فلا تحضر مجلسي، فقلت: أنا عائذ بالله مما قيل! وتائب إليه! واشهدوا على أنى لا أدخل عليه! " " كان الشيخ أبو حامد: أحمد بن أبى طاهر الاسفرايينى - إمام الائمة الذى طبق الارض علما وأصحابا - إذا سعى إلى الجمعة من قطيعة الكرخ إلى جامع المنصور، يدخل الرباط المعروف بالروزى المحاذي للجامع، ويقبل على من حضر ويقول: اشهدوا على بأن القرآن كلام الله غير مخلوق، كما قاله أحمد بن حنبل، لا كما يقوله الباقلانى
                              Last edited by ZeeshanParvez; 24-08-18, 01:51 AM.
                              Watch those eyes

                              Comment


                              • Ignorance is a sign of the end days. Perhaps the two sides should actually read about each other rather than assuming each other's beliefs - this is pathetic.

                                That is all I'll say. Take from that what you will. And Allah knows best.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X