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

  • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

    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.
    The companions of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - did not get into the issue of the Kalam of Allah in the first place. They simply believed that the Qur`an is the revelation from God and His speech.

    The first group to turn the issue of the speech into a huge matter were the Mu‘tazila. Thereafter a group from among the Hanbalis made quite a similar thing, but only in the other direction.
    As for the position of the Salaf al-salih, then it was their known statement:
    The Qur`an is the speech of Allah, [the speech of Allah is] uncreated.

    As for believing that the speech of Allah is unlike his creation and free from Hawadith, then this is something agreed upon by Ash‘aris and Hanbalis. This is something that can easily be proven by qouting the statements of Hanbali scholars.

    The issue where difference occured, was regarding the Lafdh of the Qur`an and regarding the issue of Harf and Sawt, but like already mentioned the Hanabila still explicitly denied limbs / tools and they clearly stated that the letters are not muta'aqib (following each other) and other than this.

    So yes, the Ash'aris and Hanbalis did have differences regarding this issue (and they did heavily criticize each other because of this), but both of their positions is not in-line with Ibn Taymiyya's position.

    That is why I mentioned Imam Ibn Qudama: While he heavily criticized the position of the Ash'aris, he still clearly differed from the position of Ibn Taymiyyah. Can anyone imagine him accepting the claim of Ibn Taymiyyah that the speech of Allah is only eternal in its kind?

    That is why it is not allowed to take Ibn Taymiyya's statement and then to act as if this is what most Hanabila said regarding the issue of the speech of Allah. I can qoute Hanbali texts, which shows what their position was and what not.


    As for the claim that something can be with a beginning (muhdath) and not created (ghayr makhluq) at the same time, then this a purely polytheist and pagan idea.
    Please just think what this statement means. It‘s like turning Islam into a pagan religion the same way Christians turned their religion into a pagan religion.
    I ask: Where are the major Hanbali scholars who have stated this? (I can bring you explicit statements from them saying the exact opposite of this pagan claim.)

    Do you see what Ibn Taymiyya does: He describes God with temporality and the creation with eternity. This is the basis for polytheism and disbelief. May Allah ta‘ala protect us.
    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 12-12-18, 09:37 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

      The companions of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - did not get into the issue of the Kalam of Allah in the first place. They simply believed that the Qur`an is the revelation from God and His speech.

      The first group to turn the issue of the speech into a huge matter were the Mu‘tazila. Thereafter a group from among the Hanbalis made quite a similar thing, but only in the other direction.
      As for the position of the Salaf al-salih, then it was their known statement:
      The Qur`an is the speech of Allah, [the speech of Allah is] uncreated.

      As for believing that the speech of Allah is unlike his creation and free from Hawadith, then this is something agreed upon by Ash‘aris and Hanbalis. This is something that can easily be proven by qouting the statements of Hanbali scholars.

      The issue where difference occured, was regarding the Lafdh of the Qur`an and regarding the issue of Harf and Sawt, but like already mentioned the Hanabila still explicitly denied limbs / tools and they clearly stated that the letters are not muta'aqib (following each other) and other than this.

      So yes, the Ash'aris and Hanbalis did have differences regarding this issue (and they did heavily criticize each other because of this), but both of their positions is not in-line with Ibn Taymiyya's position.

      That is why I mentioned Imam Ibn Qudama: While he heavily criticized the position of the Ash'aris, he still clearly differed from the position of Ibn Taymiyyah. Can anyone imagine him accepting the claim of Ibn Taymiyyah that the speech of Allah is only eternal in its kind?

      That is why it is not allowed to take Ibn Taymiyya's statement and then to act as if this is what most Hanabila said regarding the issue of the speech of Allah. I can qoute Hanbali texts, which shows what their position was and what not.


      As for the claim that something can be with a beginning (muhdath) and not created (ghayr makhluq) at the same time, then this a purely polytheist and pagan idea.
      Please just think what this statement means. It‘s like turning Islam into a pagan religion the same way Christians turned their religion into a pagan religion.
      I ask: Where are the major Hanbali scholars who have stated this? (I can bring you explicit statements from them saying the exact opposite of this pagan claim.)

      Do you see what Ibn Taymiyya does: He describes God with temporality and the creation with eternity. This is the basis for polytheism and disbelief. May Allah ta‘ala protect us.

      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
      Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 13-12-18, 09:14 PM. Reason: Necessary

      Comment


      • Originally posted by faqir View Post

        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
        Right. Because havoc across the globe has nothing to do with kuffar and their stooges. It’s just darn wahabis going around blowing **** up coz Sheikh Abd al Wahaab told them to.

        Interesting how deviants try to push straight up kafir propaganda. It’s not surprising kuffar and their think tanks have identified modern sufis as potential allies in their war on Islam. They see sufism a great tool to destroy Islam from within.

        Allah will deal with the Sheikh for all the wrongdoings, if any. May Allah forgive him but history is history. Today matters are different and it’s pretty clear who is making sacrifices for the deen and who is pushing kuffars propaganda.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Pakisaurus View Post



          Interesting how deviants try to push straight up kafir propaganda. It’s not surprising kuffar and their think tanks have identified modern sufis as potential allies in their war on Islam. They see sufism a great tool to destroy Islam from within.

          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.
          "When a man sees the road as long he weakens in his walk." Ibn Qayyim

          Comment


          • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post


            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
            1) I‘m a layman. Imam al-Ghazali has a book where he warns laymen from getting into the science of Kalam. And this is true regarding any science, which one has not studied properly and under qualified scholars.

            The issues that you however mentioned are issues of the 'Aqida: Tanzih is obligatory upon laymen and scholars.
            God being completely different than his creation is something established by the divine scripture, the prophetic teachings and by the sound mind. The Ayat of the divine attributes are understood in the context of these clear-cut Ayat and Ahadith. It‘s not allowed to take statements out of their context and give them an interpretation which goes against other Ayat, which is exactly what "Salafis" are doing with a lot of Ayat and Ahadith regarding divine attributes.

            As for the metaphysical and theological absurdities that you‘re speaking of: What are they? Example?


            2) As for the existance of the Creator:
            When we look at ourselves and around us, then we see that everything is specified by a form, shape, colour, weight, size etc. and whatever is like that cannot be eternal and is in need of Creator, which has given it these specifications.
            What we also see is that we and the things around us are going through changes and from one state to another. This also shows us that the world has a beginning, because these changes are events and it is impossible that an infinite number of events have happened until the world reached its current state, because an infinite number of events can not finish so that we reach this state.
            So when it‘s clear that the world has a beginning, then it becomes known that its existance is depending upon something (or let‘s better say some being) that has no beginning and is necessary in its existence. Since the world has a beginning and it has a complex structure, it becomes known that this being must be described with will, knowledge and power. And this being must be One without any partners, because otherwise there would be chaos.
            This idea of an completely independent, omnipotent and omniscient being that has no beginning and that created everything that exists is what the Prophets - peace be upon them - teached. And they said that since this being is described with the attributes of absolute perfection and has created everything without any partners, then He alone deserves to be worspipped.
            So this being is Allah ta‘ala, the Creator of all things.

            That‘s why it‘s so important to differentiate between that which is eternal (i.e. Allah ta‘ala) and that which is temporal (i.e. everything other than Allah ta‘ala). It‘s a matter a fact that the polytheists and disbelievers did not do this clear differentiation and that is why they worshipped other than the Creator, because in their minds something can have divine and non-divine attributes at the same time.
            While we as Muslims firmly believe that the attributes of Lordship and absolute perfection are that of Allah ta‘ala and that He has no likeness and no partner in his essence, attributes or actions and that is why He‘s alone worthy of worship.

            Acting as if something can be temporal from one side and eternal from another is the foundation for polytheism.
            Whoever makes this type of claim has committed disbelief and has rejected what is established by revelation and rational thinking.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Pakisaurus View Post

              Right. Because havoc across the globe has nothing to do with kuffar and their stooges. It’s just darn wahabis going around blowing **** up coz Sheikh Abd al Wahaab told them to.

              Interesting how deviants try to push straight up kafir propaganda. It’s not surprising kuffar and their think tanks have identified modern sufis as potential allies in their war on Islam. They see sufism a great tool to destroy Islam from within.

              Allah will deal with the Sheikh for all the wrongdoings, if any. May Allah forgive him but history is history. Today matters are different and it’s pretty clear who is making sacrifices for the deen and who is pushing kuffars propaganda.
              The brother you‘re writing to is not a "modern Sufi" and has not said that all havoc across the globe is done by the Wahhabiyya. And the person who had opened this thread (which is me) is also not a "modern Sufi" and has also not claimed that the Wahhabiyya are at fault for all of the problems that the Muslims are going through.


              Please learn reading before making such unintelligent posts.
              Yes there maybe some fake Sufis whom the West loves, but this does not change the fact that Tasawwuf in itself is an important (and completely neglected!) part of our religion and that the classical scholars of Islam have supported it.
              Some of the great heroes and defenders of Islam who lived just some centuries ago where people like Usman dan Fodio, Imam Shamil, 'Umar al-Mukhtar, etc. and these people where all people of Tasawwuf.
              Do you want to tell us in all honesty that the West supports their way?

              Before you dare to point at others, let me remind you how the "Salafi" sect has spread:
              It has spread by the money, propaganda and lies of the third Saudi state (a state that was build upon treason against the Ummah of Islam!) and especially during the Cold War. The reason was that the West had asked the Saudi state to spread its idea so that it becomes like a shield against communism in Muslim countries.
              This is something admitted by this Muhammad bin Salman in his interview with the Washington Post.

              As for propaganda: Where is the propaganda? Come on, tell us! The sources that I used against that lying Dajjal who was rejected by the scholars of his time and whom you regard as a "Shaykh" were all original Wahhabi sources!

              And now you can tell us what the great things were that you "Salafis" have achieved:
              Tell us for example what your sect has "achieved“ in a country like 'Iraq?? Should I make a list for you of their "achievements" that all lead to hellfire?!

              Just because the West and the Zionists are accursed criminals and oppressors, this does not make the oppression committed by extreme "Salafi" groups against Muslims less criminal and oppressive.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                The brother you‘re writing to is not a "modern Sufi" and has not said that all havoc across the globe is done by the Wahhabiyya. And the person who had opened this thread (which is me) is also not a "modern Sufi" and has also not claimed that the Wahhabiyya are at fault for all of the problems that the Muslims are going through.


                Please learn reading before making such unintelligent posts.
                Yes there maybe some fake Sufis whom the West loves, but this does not change the fact that Tasawwuf in itself is an important (and completely neglected!) part of our religion and that the classical scholars of Islam have supported it.
                Some of the great heroes and defenders of Islam who lived just some centuries ago where people like Usman dan Fodio, Imam Shamil, 'Umar al-Mukhtar, etc. and these people where all people of Tasawwuf.
                Do you want to tell us in all honesty that the West supports their way?

                Before you dare to point at others, let me remind you how the "Salafi" sect has spread:
                It has spread by the money, propaganda and lies of the third Saudi state (a state that was build upon treason against the Ummah of Islam!) and especially during the Cold War. The reason was that the West had asked the Saudi state to spread its idea so that it becomes like a shield against communism in Muslim countries.
                This is something admitted by this Muhammad bin Salman in his interview with the Washington Post.

                As for propaganda: Where is the propaganda? Come on, tell us! The sources that I used against that lying Dajjal who was rejected by the scholars of his time and whom you regard as a "Shaykh" were all original Wahhabi sources!

                And now you can tell us what the great things were that you "Salafis" have achieved:
                Tell us for example what your sect has "achieved“ in a country like 'Iraq?? Should I make a list for you of their "achievements" that all lead to hellfire?!

                Just because the West and the Zionists are accursed criminals and oppressors, this does not make the oppression committed by extreme "Salafi" groups against Muslims less criminal and oppressive.
                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.

                Comment


                • Major Wahhabi theologian Abdullah al-Ghunayman recommending violence against the Ash’aris!:

                  https://wahhabisrefuted.wordpress.co...t-the-asharis/
                  www.marifah.info

                  Wahhabis Refuted
                  Ash'aris

                  Comment


                  • Wahhabism, Al-Ikhwan and ISIS – Has History Repeated itself?

                    https://wahhabisrefuted.files.wordpr...is_web3-21.pdf
                    www.marifah.info

                    Wahhabis Refuted
                    Ash'aris

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by faqir View Post
                      Wahhabism, Al-Ikhwan and ISIS – Has History Repeated itself?

                      https://wahhabisrefuted.files.wordpr...is_web3-21.pdf
                      who runs those sites?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

                        who runs those sites?
                        Rand Institute...And Allah Knows Best
                        "When a man sees the road as long he weakens in his walk." Ibn Qayyim

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Musbah View Post

                          Rand Institute...And Allah Knows Best
                          It wouldn't surprise me since they seem to have links to those Naqshbandi clowns (Hisham Kabbani etc.).

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Musbah View Post

                            Rand Institute...And Allah Knows Best

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Musbah View Post

                              Rand Institute...And Allah Knows Best
                              The website is run by the brother who posted the link.

                              Could you please explain to us why you’re lying without having any shame whatsoever?
                              In Islam lying is strictly forbidden, but it seems that Wahhabis / "Salafis" have no problem at all to lie against their opponents.
                              What‘s the reason for that? Why is it that you try to act as if anyone criticizing your sect must be working for the disbelievers?

                              And: The first people to criticize Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his followers were the scholars of the 4 Madhahib.
                              Know that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had not a single Ijaza to teach any one of the Islamic sciences and that he was rejected by his teachers. If someone has been rejected by the major scholars of this Ummah of his time in general (examples: Imam Ibn 'Abidin and Imam al-Sawi), then based upon what do you defend him or try to accuse the one criticizing him of working for the disbelievers?
                              What kind of behavior is that?
                              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 05-01-19, 03:21 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                                The website is run by the brother who posted the link.

                                Could you please explain to us why you’re lying without having any shame whatsoever?
                                In Islam lying is strictly forbidden, but it seems that Wahhabis / "Salafis" have no problem at all to lie against their opponents.
                                What‘s the reason for that? Why is it that you try to act as if anyone criticizing your sect must be working for the disbelievers?

                                And: The first people to criticize Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his followers were the scholars of the 4 Madhahib.
                                Know that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had not a single Ijaza to teach any one of the Islamic sciences and that he was rejected by his teachers. If someone has been rejected by the major scholars of this Ummah of his time in general (examples: Imam Ibn 'Abidin and Imam al-Sawi), then based upon what do you defend him or try to accuse the one criticizing him of working for the disbelievers?
                                What kind of behavior is that?
                                And all those who criticized him were mostly Sufi's from those Madthabs. Just like they did to tarnish the reputation of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim. And this is exactly what happens when Allah sends the great reformers from time to time to get the people back on the Straight Way. And during the time of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahaab the people of hijaz went back to shirk and jahaliyah. The people of al-Uyainah use to revere and seek blessings from trees and bushes in the area. Furthermore there was a grave in al-Jubail that was supposedly the grave of Zaid ibn al-Khattab, brother of Umar r.a. People would go there and seek blessings, slaughter animals on its behalf, make oaths and so forth. The people in prayer in the Haram would pray behind their imams separately from other madthabs so there was no unity. All this fitnah from the "Ash'ari Ulema". All you got is propaganda from those deluded sufi deviants who didn't want to give up their bidah.

                                Secondly, if you bothered to read the pdf that I linked to from the Rand Institute, then you would see that one of their aims is to sponsor Sufi's and modernist deviants to undermine Islam. And from the careful plotting of the kuffar, they came to the conclusion that Islam can be attacked through the Hanafi Madthab that many Sufi's flourish i.e. Deobandi's and Brevelis. And they also concluded there was no wiggle room to exploit and compromise Islam through the Hanbali madthab because of the rock solid manhaj of Imam Ahmad. And this is something attested to by the Shafi'i scholar Ibn Kathir who wrote in his book:

                                "And their land is one of the most guarded lands. They are the people of the Sunnah, and majority of them are Hanbali so the innovators cannot bear living among them".

                                ["Al-Bidayah Wal Nihayah", 14/50]

                                And your hero Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari said in one of his last books of his life, Al-Ibaanah an-Usoolid-Diyaanah:

                                "Our saying which we hold and take as our Deen is: clinging to the Book of Allah Azza wa Jal and to the Sunnah of the Prophet s.a.a.w., and what has been narrated by the Sahaba, the Tabi'een, and the imams of hadith. That is what we hold firmly on to, and also to that to which Abu Abdullah Ahmad ibn Hanbal may Allah brighten his face in the Hereafter, and raise his rank and increase his reward. Because indeed he is a virtuous Imam and a complete leader; through whom Allah established the Truth and removed the falsehood, and clarified the manhaj, and by him Allah annihilated the innovations of the innovators, the deviation of the deviants and the doubts of the doubters. So may Allah have mercy upon him, the foremost Imam."

                                And also Imam Ghazali came back to that same manhaj in the last book of his life, "Iljam al-Awaam an ilm al-kalam".

                                So the question is why do you claim to be Ash'ari when the man distanced himself from that deviant manhaj?

                                Also, I question the motives of The Middle East Monitor and where they get their funding.
                                "When a man sees the road as long he weakens in his walk." Ibn Qayyim

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X