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

[Abu Sulayman]

Assalamu alaykum

Could you please shed light on these doubts?



Theological differences among scholars exists within every Madhhab. Salafis are not claiming that the Hanabila were flawless. The assertion is that the Hanbali Madhhab contains the least amount of corruption, and this is because the Hanabila are unanimous on the prohibition of Kalam and the orthodoxy of Imam Ahmed's teachings.




How did you determine that the majority believed in 'complete Tafwid'? Also, would you say that the Salafis agree with this claim or do they dispute it?



"Tajsim" and "Hawadith" in the vernacular of a Mutakalim won't necessarily be consistent with the understanding of an Athari scholar.

1) How did you determine that the majority rejected Tajsim and Hawadith for Allah? And do the Salafis agree with your claim or do they dispute it?

2) Are you claiming that the majority of Hanbalis disbelieve in Allah being Above the Throne? Do they also reject Sifat like Nu'zool, Laughter, becoming Happy and Angry, and Speaking when He Wills, because they would entail Muhdath for Allah?

Wa 'alaykum al-salam wa rahmatullah,

yes, but I would like to remind you what Ibn Taymiyya himself said:

ولكن " هذه المسألة " و " مسألة الزيارة " وغيرهما حدث من المتأخرين فيها شبه . وأنا وغيري كنا على " مذهب الآباء " في ذلك نقول في " الأصلين " بقول أهل البدع ; فلما تبين لنا ما جاء به الرسول دار الأمر بين أن نتبع ما أنزل الله أو نتبع ما وجدنا عليه آباءنا فكان الواجب هو اتباع الرسول

"Me and others were upon the "way of the forefathers" regarding these [issues]; we would say the statement of the people of innovation regarding the Aslayn (i.e. the two foundations: the foundation of religion and that of jurisprudence). So when it became clear to us what the Messenger had came with, the issue became one of either following what Allah had sent down or to follow what we had found our forefathers to be upon. So what had become necessary upon us was to follow the Messenger."

Source: Majmu' al-Fatawa

The "Salafi" scholar Salih bin 'Abd al-'Aziz Al al-Shaykh has referred to this qoute in his Sharh al-'Aqida al-Wasitiyya

[Abu Sulayman]

Imam Ahmad and the rest of the Salaf taught us that the Quran is the uncreated Speech of Allah. The present Quran which consists of letters and sounds is Kalam Allahu Ghayru Makhluq.

The people of Kalam rejected the orthodox theology of Imam Ahmad concerning the nature of the Quran. The Ashari's believe that "Speech" is an eternal attribute which is free from Hawadith (re-occurrences). The Arabic Quran has a finite amount of letters and is confined to the Arabic language. As such, the Mutakalim has no choice but to recognize it as a temporal creation.

1) How do you resolve the contradiction from the Hanbalis who assert that both the Quran and Allah's Speech are Qadim? If both are Qadim, then what does that make the present Quran -- eternal yet emergent, or a creation? [Don't you think this is another example of Atharis understanding terms differently from Ahl al-Kalam?]

I'm not sure why you brought up Ibn Qudama considering his vicious stance against Kalam Nafsi and the deception of Ashari scholars. Ibn Taymiyyah did nothing but reaffirm the orthodox view regarding the Quran, although in a more sophisticated and meticulous manner. Allah's Speech is Qadim in the sense that He's always had the Ability to Speak and He Speaks from His Ilm. Orthodox Muslims believe that Allah speaks how He Wills and when He Wills. When Allah does Speak, neither does His Actions nor Statements become created, despite the fact that they were 'occurances'.

Allah says: "To Him belongs the creation and the Command."

The notion that every Muhdath is Makhluq is non-prophetic and unnecessary to uphold. The Quran states that our actions are created but we theologically believe that Allah's actions take place in reality without the need for Allah to create Himself.

[AmantuBillahi]

Thanks for the response.

Some of this is irrelevant to me specifically because I'm not a Wahhabi. However, I understand that your premise within this thread is to expose MIAW's unprecedented extremism -- so it's not completely off-topic.

Before proceeding further on what might be an unnecessary exchange, I need to identify how well-versed you are in Kalam.

1) Do you consider yourself a Mutakalim, a student of Kalam, or a layman?

If you're a layman who just quotes scholars, then you'll be oblivious towards the metaphysical and theological absurdities which are implied through your citations. So therefore it's necessary to establish a level of competence in Kalam before proceeding forward, or else this conversation will be fruitless.

2) Prove the existence of God.

Thank you

[Pakisaurus]

unfortunately history keeps repeating itself and his followers continue to wreak havoc across the globe, hence the importance of seeing the roots of these takfiri wahhabi / salafist groups

[Musbah]

So true. Muslims need to google search the pdf titled: "Civil Democratic Islam, Partners, Resources, Strategies" by Cheryl Benard from the Rand Division. They even say they want to promote Sufis in helping them in their goals to undermine Islam.

[Abu Sulayman]

Thanks for the response.

Some of this is irrelevant to me specifically because I'm not a Wahhabi. However, I understand that your premise within this thread is to expose MIAW's unprecedented extremism -- so it's not completely off-topic.

Before proceeding further on what might be an unnecessary exchange, I need to identify how well-versed you are in Kalam.

1) Do you consider yourself a Mutakalim, a student of Kalam, or a layman?

If you're a layman who just quotes scholars, then you'll be oblivious towards the metaphysical and theological absurdities which are implied through your citations. So therefore it's necessary to establish a level of competence in Kalam before proceeding forward, or else this conversation will be fruitless.

2) Prove the existence of God.

Thank you

[Abu Sulayman]

[Pakisaurus]

I did not say that he said ALL havoc across the globe is done by "wahhabis". Surely not even the most insane anti "wahhabi" lunatic would make such a claim. The issue is with how so called "wahhabis" are singled out and their role in any conflict twisted to imply wrongdoings on their part while kuffar and their largely non "wahhabi" stooges get mostly ignored when in reality THEY are the main cause of fitnah all around the world.....in this case the poster was simply echoing kuffars narrative.

It seems to me everything for you revolves around tasawuf. If you have problem with Salafis stance on tasawuf then stick to discussing that only. There is no need to branch out and try to make Salafis a villain in everything. The conflicts around the globe today have hardly anything to do with tasawuf.

I'm not a Salafi/Wahhabi and couldn't care less how they spread. The Saudi regime to me is no less criminal than any other taghout. The most intense rejection of Saudi regime comes from "wahhabis" themselves. So called "wahhabis" have rendered innumerable sacrifices of their blood and wealth today. They have faced the worst oppression of criminal kuffar all for sake of Islam. Only they have led the fight against Kufr. Where were the righteous sufis in all this? To me the lack of Sufis in struggle against kufr is quite telling.

[faqir]

https://wahhabisrefuted.wordpress.co...t-the-asharis/

[faqir]

https://wahhabisrefuted.files.wordpr...is_web3-21.pdf

[Simply_Logical]

https://wahhabisrefuted.files.wordpr...is_web3-21.pdf

who runs those sites?

[Musbah]

who runs those sites?

Rand Institute...And Allah Knows Best

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

Rand Institute...And Allah Knows Best

It wouldn't surprise me since they seem to have links to those Naqshbandi clowns (Hisham Kabbani etc.).

[Simply_Logical]

Rand Institute...And Allah Knows Best

[Abu Sulayman]

Rand Institute...And Allah Knows Best