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

  • Originally posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post

    The problem in answering that question is how do you view the statements of the past scholars.

    To give you an example consider Subki. He considered permissible Tawassul and Istigaatha.

    However, according to the Salafiyyah Subki considered Tawassul and Istigaatha the same thing.

    For him the wording is I ask You help O Allaah by means of so and so.


    The Ashaa'irah will say no. Subki considered O so and so I ask you for help as permissible.


    While one faction will tell you that for Subki Istighaatha and Tawassul were the same meaning that for him both meant O Allaah I ask you help by means of so and so the Ashaa'irah will claim no since he considered Istigaatha permissible I can say O so and so help me.


    From there the Ashaa'irah can then say see he never considered Istigaatha shirk.
    https://wahhabisrefuted.wordpress.co...-and-tashaffu/
    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 29-08-18, 05:05 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

      Re-read. I haven't made a claim.

      I related two positions.

      Your blog does the same while negating the position of the Salafiyyah.


      Are you sure I have the reading issues?


      Watch those eyes

      Comment


      • Now Abu Sulaimaan lets get back to the issue at hand.

        Your posts are filled with errors in spelling and grammar. Do I keep calling you out for it?

        You are now sounding like a broken record with the reading issue.


        So, tell us. Why do you ignore the dispute that he did not start the fighting?

        Why do you ignore he claimed I never started the fighting?
        Watch those eyes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post

          Now please tell us why you ignore the simple fact that Muhammad bin
          Why do you ignore that he himself claimed that I did not start the fighting.
          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 29-08-18, 05:23 PM.

          Comment


          • There were other ulama in Arabia who opposed the same actions. Shaykh Abdullah Ibn Ibraheem al Saif al Shammari was a Hanbali alim who left Najd, and lived and taught in al Madinah. He was an important teacher of shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab and was from Najd and openly condemned tree worship, grave worship, etc, and considered it a major conflict that must be fought.
            Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Hayat al Sindhi was a Hanafi scholar and muhadith. He taught in al Madinah, was Ibn Abdul Wahhab's main teacher there, and was openly critical of and condemned many actions, including the prayers to the Prophet (saws) at his grave.

            These ulama were not followers of sh. Ibn Abdul Wahhab, rather his teachers. They all had to witness a degraded level of munkar. And they could NOT act in al Madinah because it was under the rule of the Sharifs of Ahlil Bayt who were in turn under Ottoman/Uthmani sultan's authority. And the sultanate granted share authority to sufi orders to practice what they wanted according to their turuq/methodologies.

            What You are implying is all those pilgrims to al Madinah were knowledgeable and practicing Islam properly and all the classical ulama for the preceding 100s of years could vouch for the practices and beliefs of these pilgrims and the people of Najd. Instead, sh. Ibn Abdul Wahhab had a distorted, extremist, narcissistic sectarian mania which manifested into murderous rampages.


            What hat you are saying is after the shaykh started his Dawah back in Najd and after a few years, gathered 600 men and the village amir to oust the worshippers at the supposed grave of hadrat Zaid Ibn al Khattab (rah) brother of khalifa Umar (rah), and the shaykh himself led the men and demolished the shrine, with no one injured and no one killed as they were surprised and outnumbered, then this was a wrong action that interfered in the accepted valid worship of Muslim common folks and slaves.

            Land you stand by this, that nothing wrong, no munkar was occurring, except by the shaykh and his followers?
            Last edited by Abu Kamel; 29-08-18, 05:26 PM.
            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


            • Originally posted by Pakisaurus View Post

              Is there any action which was deemed to be shirk akbar by Sheikh Ibn Wahhab yet it was not seen that way by past scholars? This seems to be one of the point OP is making.
              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 29-08-18, 05:36 PM.

              Comment


              • Comment


                • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post


                  Why did you ignore the Shaykh Ibn Fayruz? He was Hanbali, quite knowledgeable and an admirer of Ibn Taymiyyah, but your IAW explicitly made Takfir upon him (while acknowledging that he was an admirer of Ibn Taymiyyah).
                  Tell me, why do you ignore that?
                  Because I do not know enough about him. My knowledge regarding him is incomplete.

                  From what I have read the only person who seems to have dissented from the Hanaabilah is Ibn Jawzi. The Hanabilah rebuked him for that. And the Ashaa'irah seem to always resort to him to try to defend themselves.

                  I remember this statement of yours. I simply cannot agree with it as they seem monolithic enough to be from what I have read.

                  And if you talk about varying grades of difference well those differences even exist among the Ashaa'irah.

                  Take for example the issue of the Kalaam being one. All commands of Allaah, the things He forbids, the Qur'aan, the Injiil, etc. are all one according many of the Ashaa'irah.

                  Other Ashaa'irah have admitted this is problematic. They ended up dividing it.

                  Based on that logic the Ashaa'irah were not one monolithic group either.


                  As a matter of fact those who the Ashaa'irah claim were from the Ashaa'irah like Ibn Hajar and al-Nawawi were not 100% Ashaa'irah. They had traits of the Ashaa'irah but they did not agree with everything which was coded by the spearheads al-baqillaani and Ibn Furak.


                  Last edited by ZeeshanParvez; 29-08-18, 06:08 PM.
                  Watch those eyes

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
                    Re-read. I haven't made a claim.
                    Originally posted by ZeeshanParvez
                    The problem in answering that question is how do you view the statements of the past scholars.

                    Comment


                    • Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 29-08-18, 09:52 PM.

                      Comment


                      • It is nice to see that you have regained your composure.

                        Finally, you now provide substance over emotional outbursts.

                        You have touched upon a number of issues. We shall deal with each one by one as otherwise most of what has to be discussed will just be lost.


                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        As for your constant mentioning of Hanbalis:
                        They were not a monolithic group.

                        I am not the only one who groups the Hanaabilah together like this. You must know if I am using a term like I am it is because it has been used by the scholars.


                        Now, lets take Ash-Shahrastani al-asha'ari.

                        In his book نهاية الأقدام في علم الكلام before talking about how Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari broke the Ijmaa and innovated a third saying he talks about how there were only two opinions among Muslims.

                        He says:

                        The Salaf and the Hanaabilah said....


                        You can view it for yourself at the following link. Just

                        enter page 305 in your PDF reader

                        https://ia801904.us.archive.org/16/i...dam/nihaya.pdf


                        Then we have in the book شرح العقائد النسفية the following:

                        (And the Qur'aan, the Kalaam of Allaah is not created) -

                        He followed "The Qur'aan" with "the Kalaam of Allaah"

                        because of what the mashaayikh have mentioned that it is

                        said: The Qur'aan, the Kalaam of Allaah is not created and

                        it should not be said that the Qur'aan is not created lest one

                        think that the Book (i.e. the Qur'aan we have) which

                        consists of letters is eternal like the Hanaabilah claim

                        either out of ignorance or opposition


                        Visit the following link

                        https://archive.org/details/sharh_nassafia

                        and enter in Page 52 in the PDF

                        reader






                        What you say is partly true. The Hanaabilah are a school of fiqh but unlike the other three schools the term is not confined to only the legislative aspect.

                        They collectively have an aqiidah. The Ashaa'irah have referred to them collectively as such in their works.

                        You will not find them or anyone else doing so with the other three schools.



                        Watch those eyes

                        Comment


                        • Another important thing to point out here that some authors have labelled the classical Hanaabilah as Hashwiyyah.

                          They did so because the Hanaabilah would not use ilm al-kalaam. They would adhere only to the zaahir of the Qur'aan and Sunnah in aqiidah.

                          al-Juwayni used this term in his book الإرشاد إلى قواطع الأدلة في أصول الاعتقاد

                          The Hashwiyyah have adopted the Zaahir opinion that the Kalaam of Allaah is Eternal. Then, they have thought that it consists of letters and 'aswaat....

                          Page 115 in your PDF reader at the following link https://ia801201.us.archive.org/32/i...ini/irshad.pdf


                          While some others referred to those who followed the aqiidh of Imaam Ahmad as the Hanaabilah, as shown in the post before this, you had others who were hardcore and chose the term Hashwiyyah to degrade the opposition.

                          Watch those eyes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                            This wording however can be found in the "al-Masalik fil Manasik" by Imam al-Kirmani (d. 597 AH), "al-Ikhtiyar li Ta'lil al-Mukhtar" by Imam 'Abdullah bin Mahmud bin Mawdud al-Mawsili (d. 683 AH), "Sharh Fath al-Qadir" by Imam Ibn Humam (d. 861 AH), the famous "Fatawa al-Hindiyya" and most major Hanafi Fiqh books.
                            Is this what you are referring to?

                            السلام عليك يا رسول الله من فلان بن فلان يستشفع بك إلى ربك فاشفع له ولجميع المسلمين

                            Fataawaa al-Hindiyya
                            Volume 1 Page 266
                            Watch those eyes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
                              Is this what you are referring to?

                              السلام عليك يا رسول الله من فلان بن فلان يستشفع بك إلى ربك فاشفع له ولجميع المسلمين

                              Fataawaa al-Hindiyya
                              Volume 1 Page 266
                              al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah":

                              السلام عليك يا رسولَ الله مِن فلانِ بنِ فلانٍ, يستشفع بك إلى ربك, فاشفَعْ له ولجميعِ المسلمين

                              "Peace be upon you, o Messenger of Allah, from Fulan bin Fulan (naming the person). "
                              - end of qoute -

                              (later on the Aya 4:64 is mentioned).
                              And there is nothing to be surprised about here, because this something allowed and recommended according to the scholars before and after them.

                              I already mentioned other Hanafi scholars like Imam al-Kirmani (d. 597 AH) in his "al-Masalik fil Manasikفاشفعْ لنا إلى ربِّنا وربِّك , واسأَلْه أنْ يُمِيتَنا على سنَّتِك" / "so intercede for us unto our and your Lord," until he says "يا رسولَ الله الشفاعة الشفاعة الشفاعة" / "O Messenger of Allah, intercession, intercession, intercession!"], Imam 'Abdullah bin Mawdud al-Mawsili (d. 683 AH) in his "فاشفَعْ لنا إلى ربِّك، واسأَله أنْ يُمِيتَنا على سنَّتِك، وأنْ يحشُرَنا في زُمْرَتِك، وأنْ يُوْرِدَنا حَوْضَك، وأنْ يُسقِيَنا كَأْسَك غيرَ خَزَايا ولا نادمينَ، الشفاعة الشافعة يا رسولَ اللهِ" / "so intercede for us unto your Lord and ask Him that He lets us die upon your Sunnah, and that He gathers us [on the day of reckoning] among your group, and allows us to get to your Hawdh and drink from your bowl without humiliation or regret. Intercession intercession, o Messenger of Allah!" and at the end he uses the same wording that the scholars of "al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah" recommended for delivering the greetings from those who told one to do so] and the Imam Ibn Humam (d. 861 AH) in his "Sharh Fath al-Qadirثم يسألُ النبيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم الشفاعةَ فيقول: يا رسولَ الله أسألك الشفاعةَ ، يا رسولَ الله أسألك الشفاعةَ وأتوسّلُ بك إلى اللهِ في أنْ أمُوتَ مُسلمًا على مِلّتِك وسنَّتِك" / "Know that one could go on and on qouting not just other major Hanafi Fiqh books regarding this issue, but rather books of all 4 accepted Madhahib! This was something generally accepted by the scholars for hundreds upon hundreds of years and in all Muslim lands!



                              In the next post it will be shown that the Najdis took this very issue as a reason to fight the Muslims of the Arabian peninsula and the regions around it.
                              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 13-09-18, 12:38 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                                In the next post it will be shown that the Najdis took this very issue as a reason to fight the Muslims of the Arabian peninsula and the regions around it.
                                ويسالهم الشفاعةWhosoever puts intermediaries (Wasa`it) between himself and Allah, [while] supplicating to them and asking them for intercession

                                Source: "Nawaqidh al-Islam"

                                A similar statement can be found in a number of Hanbali Fiqh books,





                                This is how the letter is named in "al-Durar al-Saniyyah": "رسالة الشيخ عبد الله آل الشيخ عندما دخلوا مكة، وبيان ما يطلبون من الناس ويقاتلونهم عليه" / "WHY THEY ARE FIGHTING THEMinside the letter. He mentions someone and then goes on to say:

                                ويسأل عن مسألة الشفاعة التي جرد السيف بسببها

                                "He was asking regarding the issue of intercession, BECAUSE OF WHICH THE SWORD WAS DRAWN.later it gets even clearer:

                                فإن قال قائل منفر عن قبول الحق والإذعان له: يلزم من تقريركم وقطعكم، في أن من قال: يا رسول الله، أسألك الشفاعة، أنه مشرك مهدر الدم، أن يقال بكفر غالب الأمة، ولا سيما المتأخرين، لتصريح علمائهم المعتبرين أن ذلك مندوب، وشنوا الغارة على من خالف في ذلك! قلت: لا يلزم، لأن لازم المذهب ليس بمذهب، كما هو مقرر، ومثل ذلك لا يلزم أن نكون مجسمة، وإن قلنا بجهة العلو، كما ورد الحديث بذلك. ونحن نقول فيمن مات: تلك أمة قد خلت، ولا نكفر إلا من بلغته دعوتنا للحق، ووضحت له المحجة، وقامت عليه الحجة، وأصر مستكبرا معاندا، كغالب من نقاتلهم اليوم، يصرون على ذلك الإشراك، ويمتنعون من فعل
                                الواجبات، ويتظاهرون بأفعال الكبائر والمحرمات ; وغير الغالب إنما نقاتله لمناصرته من هذه حاله

                                "If someone - intending to keep running away from accepting and following the truth - where to say:
                                'It becomes necessary from your confirmation and do not perform their [religious] duties and they openly commit big sins and forbidden actions.
                                As for the rest we fight, that is because they support those whose situation is like this.
                                "
                                -end of qoute-


                                We learn several things here:Conclusion:
                                The Najdis were fighting the Muslims for a position, which hundreds upon hundreds of previous major scholars from all Muslim lands held.
                                They openly said that they were fighting the people (Muslims!), because they regarded these people as apostate polytheists and disbelievers.
                                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 13-09-18, 04:33 PM.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X