Ads by Muslim Ad Network

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

  • I'm really confused and I don't even know what questions to ask. This is the first time I've heard about the Wahhabi movement. Are Wahhabis 'good' or 'bad' (for lack of better phrasing) and which schools of thought follow that movement? It seems from the first post that it is 'bad' but from what I gather lots of people are saying otherwise? I think? I'm genuinely interested in learning more, and even asked my sheikha about it and she didn't really tell me a lot and ultimately said she'll do some more research and get back to me.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by bismillah View Post
      I'm really confused and I don't even know what questions to ask. This is the first time I've heard about the Wahhabi movement. Are Wahhabis 'good' or 'bad' (for lack of better phrasing) and which schools of thought follow that movement? It seems from the first post that it is 'bad' but from what I gather lots of people are saying otherwise? I think? I'm genuinely interested in learning more, and even asked my sheikha about it and she didn't really tell me a lot and ultimately said she'll do some more research and get back to me.
      There is no such thing as a "Wahhabi" movement. That is simply a term that Ash'aris came up with to refer to the "Salafi" organization. The "Salafis" are basically the religious institutions and leaders of Saudi Arabia which have come to support and be integral to the rule of the Saudi monarchy. They have several corruptions in beliefs and areas of Fiqh due to the requirements of the alliances of the rulers. For the most part they are Athari in Aqeedah and overwhelmingly Hanbali in Fiqh, however they practice a form of Ijtihad that mimics the Zahiris somewhat.

      It is the Athari creed of the "Salafis" that Ash'aris hate so much and the Saudi money that has spread this creed far and wide in the last century or so.

      Comment


      • im reading the whole of this thread and its going to take some time

        Originally posted by noobz View Post
        Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than



        i remember a certain somebody showed a salafi on this forum his place and he couldn't respond back. Even among salafi's , intercession is a bidah , not shirk , yet modern day salafi's claim its shirk and put the stamp of mushrik on the people.

        No wonder these ibn abdul wahab descendands of najd used to kill women and children.

        Just look at their whole tawhid dawah which is built on the blood of the final caliphate, all so that they could allign with the british kuffar and give them the treasures of the muslims and use tawhid as the excuse.
        good post

        Comment


        • Originally posted by imran1976 View Post
          Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

          Do not question the decision to ban Gev, but I am wondering if same swift action will be taken if someone insults, say Maulana Ahmad Raza Brelvi ( I see regularly ppl insulting him)
          this is true and its a clear double standard

          Comment


          • Originally posted by noobz View Post
            Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than



            well there was a simple explanation provided ,MIAW did dawah , sufis did takfeer on him , fighting took place and he killed the heretics.

            Look at the hollywood style writing there, now they only need a lead actress to add to the love story of the khariji's killing in the name of dawah.
            lol

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Muslim First View Post
              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.
              exactly lol

              Comment


              • just been through this whole thread, i think the OP makes interesting points about Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post
                  just been through this whole thread, i think the OP makes interesting points about Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab
                  No doubt he isn't the angel Salafis portray him to be.
                  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


                  • Originally posted by Linkdeutscher View Post

                    No doubt he isn't the angel Salafis portray him to be.
                    yea true say, anyone who opposes him or criticize is automatically called a sufi when this isnt true

                    i miss islamicawakening forum, they had some really good discussions about this

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Linkdeutscher View Post

                      No doubt he isn't the angel Salafis portray him to be.
                      Was it sarcasm? or an irony? Well, I can agree that no human is angel, though.
                      Nasheeds By Al-Munshid Muhammad Al-Wahaj


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by muhammadwahaj View Post

                        Was it sarcasm? or an irony?...
                        Trolling. You took the bait.

                        -_-

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by muhammadwahaj View Post

                          Was it sarcasm? or an irony? Well, I can agree that no human is angel, though.
                          y dont u come back to sons

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Linkdeutscher View Post

                            No doubt he isn't the angel Salafis portray him to be.
                            Most salafis you mean?



                            ''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


                            • I would like to add several notes here regarding the issue of seeking intercession through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - unto his Lord, which was the main reason for the Takfir of the devils from Najd against the people of Makkah al-mukarrama as admitted by the son of the Najdi Dajjal Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab:


                              - The opposition mentions "foundations of the religion“ and "'Aqida“ while speaking about this issue, while this issue is in reality a Fiqhi issue according to eyeryone other than Ibn Taymiyyah and his group. It‘s quite obvious that the scholars prior and after Ibn Taymiyyah did not regard it as an issue of 'Aqida.


                              - The opposition tries to act as if this position is somehow special to the Ash'aris and this is clearly wrong. The Hanabila prior and after Ibn Taymiyyah have supported seeking intercession through our beloved Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.

                              As an examples one could mention Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) who mentioned the story of al-'Utbi in the context of the visitation of the blessed grave of Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - in his famous al-Mughni and recommended that one should say the following:

                              اللهم إنك قلت وقولك الحق : { ولو أنهم إذ ظلموا أنفسهم جاءوك فاستغفروا الله واستغفر لهم الرسول لوجدوا الله توابا رحيما } . وقد أتيتك مستغفرا من ذنوبي ، مستشفعا بك إلى ربي ، فأسألك يا رب أنتوجب لي المغفرة ، كما أوجبتها لمن أتاه في حياته ، اللهم اجعله أول الشافعين

                              O Allah, You spoke and your saying is the truth: { If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful } [4:64].
                              So I’ve come to you, asking [my Lord] for forgiveness for my sin and seeking intercession through you unto my Lord.
                              So I ask you, o Lord, that you grant me forgiveness just like you granted it to the one who came to him during his life. O Allah, make him the first of intercessors.


                              - end of qoute -

                              What we understand from the above is that Imam Ibn Qudama regarded the 64th Aya of Surat al-Nisa` to be generel in meaning just like the rest of the scholars before and after Ibn Taymiyyah. Some "Salafis" in their ignorance, idiocy and stubbornness claim that he did not intend seeking intercession (even though he explicitly states this!), but it‘s obvious that what he intended was the same as the scholars of his time otherwise he would have warned the readers from the "Shirk akbar" - according to Najdis! - that the scholars of his time were committing based upon this Aya.

                              Another example is that which was recommended by Imam Ibn 'Aqil (d. 513 AH) in his al-Tadhkira in the context of the visitation:

                              اللهم إنك قلت في كتابك لنبيك صلى الله عليه وسلم: {وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذْ ظَلَمُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ جَاءُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُوا اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُوا اللَّهَ تَوَّابًا رَحِيمًا} [سورة النساء] وإني قد أتيت نبيك تائبًا مستغفرًا فأسألك أن توجب لي المغفرة كما أوجبتها لمن أتاه في حياته، اللهم إني أتوجه إليك بنبيك صلى الله عليه وسلم نبي الرحمة، يا رسول الله إني أتوجه بك إلى ربي ليغفر لي ذنوبي، اللهم إني أسألك بحقه أن تغفر لي ذنوبي

                              "O Allah, You told to your Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - [the following] in your book: { If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful } [4:64] and I've come to your Prophet repenting [from my sins] and seeking forgiveness, so I ask you [my Lord] that you grant me forgiveness just like you granted it to the one who came to him (i.e. the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) during his life.
                              O Allah, I approach you through your Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, the Prophet of Mercy. O Messenger of Allah, I approach my Lord through you that He forgives my sins. O Allah, I ask you by his right that you forgive my sins."

                              - end of qoute -

                              Note how he also regards the Aya 4:64 to be general in meaning and how he uses almost the same wording as recommended by 'Uthman bin Hunayf- radhiallahu 'anhu - based upon the recommendation of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - himself in the Hadith of the blind man, which was also understood to be general in meaning by the classical Hadith scholars.
                              The ironic thing is that one of the Wahhabi commentators of al-Tadkhkira could not hold himself back from calling that which was recommended by Imam Ibn 'Aqil as Shirk akbar (!).

                              One could easily bring other Hanabila prior and after Ibn Taymiyya all supporting seeking intercession with the best of creation, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.
                              That is why Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab‘s Takfir was not simply just against Ash‘aris. He started his Takfir with the Hanabila in Najd and the surrounding regions! He even made Takfir upon the known Hanbali Shaykh Ibn Fayruz, who admired Ibn Taymiyyah (as acknowledged by himself).


                              - In discussions "Salafis“ like to act as if this practice of seeking intercession is based upon nothing whatsoever and that their position is supported by the Shar’i texts.
                              The reality however is completely the other way around. They are not able to present any proofs from the Qur`an and Sunnah (I’m speaking about proofs that scholars have mentioned and not their own interpretations!) to support their claim that seeking intercession is forbidden let alone Shirk akbar. Nor can they present any logical argument why it should be Shirk.
                              While at the other side we see that seeking intercession through our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and taking him as means to one’s Lord is supported by many proofs, among that is the Aya 4:64, which was understood to be general in meaning by the scholars (and that is why they would mention the story of al-'Utbi and recommend doing the same), the Tawassul of Adam - peace be upon him -, the recommendation of Rasulallah- sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - himself in the Hadith of the blind man (which was again understood to be general in meaning by the scholars), the understanding of 'Uthman bin Hunayf - radhiallahu 'anhu - of this incident as in the Hadith of the man in need, the action of Bilal bin al-Harith - radhiallahu 'anhu - who asked Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - after his death to pray for rain for his Ummah, the Tawassul of 'Umar through al-'Abbas (!) - radhiallahu 'anhuma - which was based upon the high rank of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - which is clear from the words of al-Abbas himself, the statement of 'A`isha of opening a window above the blessed grave of Rasulullah - sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam - which shows that she was convinced that the Mu'jizat of our Prophet - sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam - do not stop with his death, the call of Ibn ‘Umar - radhiallahu ‘anhu - when his leg got numb, the call of the scholars of the Salaf and Khalaf when they would loose their way, the Ahadith regarding intercession in general and other than that.

                              "Salafis” will usually try to act as if many of these reports are weak and come up with all kind if weird explanations just in order to reject all of these proofs.
                              This however does not change the fact that all these proofs exist in the Qur`an, the Sunnah and the Athar and that the scholars did not reject these proofs and they did not criticize these reports, but rather permitted seeking intercession with the best of creation - sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam - unto his Lord.

                              If after all of this the "Salafis" still decide to follow the abnormal view of Ibn Taymiyyah regarding these issues, then they should at least not do Takfir of the opponent (Ibn Taymiyyah himself did not Takfir!!) and not allow the spilling of blood based upon issue (as the Najdi criminals did!).

                              Comment


                              • See the problem with all this is that, who cares? Today, no one cares. The Muslim world is burning, we're over here splitting hairs about some people a century or two ago. Was IAW (rahimahullah) completely innocent of everything you're saying here? Probably not, he has been criticized, he may well have even been problematic to an extent. I say rahimahullah because if indeed he is guilty of all of what you say, then certainly he will be more greatly in need of Allah's mercy, just as you would like to have it if you had such grave deeds to your name.

                                But today, if we look at Salafis, Sufis, Tablighis, people who do tawassul, people who do not, etc. Can we say all of those in any of these groups will never make it to heaven, or can't be "good"? I think all of these movements have been influenced by politics, racism, nationalism, etc to some extent. Doesn't make them necessarily evil, unless they're completely off (like rawafid who reject Sahabah/Qur'aan, or ahamdis who claim a new prophet, and are hostile to the rest of the Muslims because of it).

                                But to the average Muslim of today just trying to get by, none of this is really relevant. To people of knowledge who need to study history, sure. But why am I (or you for that matter), expected to pick up this flag and get into this toxic, never ending war against "dem najdis" or "dem sufis"? And at a time like this? It's just contributing to the situation that has caused this Ummah's current state and a complete and utter waste of time. It's not even just a waste of time, it's like a bad kind of time waste. Even playing a video game would be more productive, because at least then the potential harms are more limited. I didn't sign up for any of this, but I'm supposed to read all of what you're saying and get worked up such that I start ending every third sentence with an exclamation mark... to what end? Who. Cares.

                                And just the fact that you feel the need to proclaim you're ash`ari, or maturidi. Again, who cares? We all have our convictions in life. You need to realize that the need to proclaim every single belief on every single controversial matters is just stirring up an age old drama that was a waste of time back then, still is today. Why is the average Muslim, in these times of ignorance, expected to appropriately categorize themselves on these specific, arbitrary matters that do not advance or hinder at the end of the day. Even if we look at proper Ash`aris, they did not feel the need to bring it up in every conversation along with Tawassul or whatever. There are maybe a million more pressing issues to discuss before all that. It's literally no different than girls at school growing up. They just up and decide to start different dramas every two weeks, they thrive off it.
                                Last edited by علي; 26-11-18, 07:09 PM.
                                والمبادرة إلى التكفير إنما تغلب على طباع من يغلب عليهم الجهل - ابن تيمية رحمه الله - بغية المرتاد

                                "Rushing towards takfir is an attitude which is dominant over those who are defeated by ignorance." - Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimahullah [Bughyatul Murtaad, page 354]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X