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

  • also i referenced the wrong book before saying the topic of chain takfir is mentioned in shaykh ali al khudairs kitab al haqaaiq

    it is not mentioned there

    Comment


    • also i meant to write a man married his step mother
      not aunty in regards to takfir from matters of the deen known by necessity for some reason it does not let me edit it
      Allahu A3lam

      Comment


      • The problem is also that these present day sufi ashari's say they go by what the khalaf say and not the salaf. But the salaf are superior to the khalaf. And the closer to the source the more authentic it is.
        "When a man sees the road as long he weakens in his walk." Ibn Qayyim

        Comment


        • Informative posts. Jazakallah khair brother abu julaybeeb.

          Comment


          • Abu julaybeeb, this is not how you establish your point.

            Let me remind you what the issue here is and let's get everything in the correct order, so that we can discuss the issues properly and one by one inshallah:

            MiAW and his early followers claimed that whosoever seeks aid or seeks intercession with the Prophets or the Righteous has committed polytheism that throws one out of the religion. They said that whomsoever reaches their [Najdi] call and he still remains upon what has been mentioned (i.e. seeking aid or intercession with the Prophets and the Righteous), then he will be regarded as a disbeliever and his blood will be allowed to spill (FYI: This claim of theirs contains an indirect claim of prophethood for MiAW!). What MiAW then did is that he made Takfir upon whomsoever did not perform Takfir upon these Muslims.
            So MiAW first made Takfir upon those seeking aid or intercession with the Anbiya` and Awliya` and then went on making Takfir upon whomsoever does not make Takfir upon these Muslims. With these two Takfirs he basically made Takfir upon LITERALLY ALL MUSLIMS (SCHOLARS AND LAYMEN ALIKE!) of that time.

            The first Takfir included already most Muslims:
            The scholars from the 4 Madhahib did regard it as permissible to seek intercession with our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and they even recommended it when one visits his blessed grave. Know that we're not speaking here of one or two insignificant persons, but rather the major scholars from ALL 4 Madhahib. How is it possible to make Takfir based upon an issue which the major scholars have regarded as allowed? (I can easily bring you qoutes, if you ask for it.) Only Ibn Taymiyya and his direct followers disallowed it, but he did not make Takfir because of this issue and only said that it's an innovation and something that leads to Shirk. He was strongly criticized by other scholars during his lifetime because seeking intercession with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - was something done from the time of the Sahaba - radhiallahu 'anhum - on and the Islamic texts support doing it and there is no text whatsoever disallowing it.
            As for seeking aid: Then there are also a lot of scholars who have explicitly mentioned its permissibility and even mentioned that Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighatha is allowed during and after the death of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and that the meaning intended in all of that is the same even if the expression used (during the call) is different. (If it's wanted I can also qoute some scholars.) Ibn Taymiyya referred to this as Shirk and was harsh regarding it, but he again did not go as far as making Takfir (rather there is a Tafsil in his words that MiAW did not comprehend as explained by his brother - the Shaykh Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab).
            There are of course people who exaggerate in this context (i.e. Istighatha) and go beyond what is allowed, but even in such cases Takfir is not done, because that is bound to the presence or absence of a clear-cut Shirki intention/belief.

            As for the second Takfir:
            This included people who were disallowing seeking intercession (i.e. people who were following Ibn Taymiyya) or seeking aid (there were scholars who had no problem with seeking intercession (because the texts in this regard especially when it comes to the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - were clear and general in meaning, so there is actually no way to deny it!), but disallowed seeking aid or at least some forms of seeking aid that go beyond its limits), but did not perform Takfir. According to MiAW they were also disbelievers. This basically means that MiAW would have even made Takfir upon Ibn Taymiyya (if he were to live in the same time as him), whose words he treated as divine (but he still misunderstood him!).
            So with this second Takfir ALL OF THE UMMAH AT THAT TIME was included and that's why the Najdis attacked literally ALL MUSLIMS of the region and tried to kill more and more Muslims.
            Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 19-03-19, 10:21 PM.

            Comment



            • After knowing the above we can start with your post:

              Originally posted by Abu julaybeeb View Post
              show me adilla from the sahaba that istiaaana(seeking aid) or istighaatha(seeking relief) was permissable

              with authentic ahadith not daeef

              just because some ulama said it was permitted,makruh, biddah etc does not mean they are correct and that does not mean aimmah najd was wrong in saying it is shirk
              but bring evidence from the sahaba

              and the quran ayaat support my point
              proove to me this is permissable because this is an act of ibaadah istiaana, istighaatha

              the reason im speaking is because your saying its allowed to ask people (and im talking about asking dead people by the way) to ask Allah for you
              and i dont want people reading this and then doing this
              this is shirk calling upon dead people
              You're asking me for the proofs from the companions for the permissibility of seeking aid. I add to that the seeking of intercession also, because Najdis made Takfir based upon that too. (If you look through this thread, you'll see that I've already mentioned some proofs).

              Let me tell you that this is actually not the issue at hand, because it is YOU who has to prove that seeking aid or seeking intercession is a justified and clear ground for Takfir and for spilling the blood of Muslims.
              Let me remind you: Both has been allowed (as long as it doesn't go beyond limits) by major scholars. (Again: I can easily bring you their qoutes!)
              So the question here is: How is it allowed for you to make Takfir based upon an issue, which so many scholars have allowed? And even those who disallowed it, did not perform Takfir (and the Najdi Takfir includes them!).

              I ask you: Who are the scholars who made Takfir based upon these two issues? Give me their names and give me clear-cut qoutes! Note that I'm asking for classical scholars here and I do not care what Najdis and people who have come more than 1000 years after the Hijra and are now accusing the people who have transmitted the Shari'a and explained it to us of Shirk akbar and not knowing Tawhid!

              I'll inshallah respond to your other misunderstandings (especially the beliefs of the Qurayshi polytheists, which is mentioned in the Qur`an al-karim but you people rely on MiAW instead!), but I ask you to prove to me that the classical scholars of the past regarded this issue (seeking aid and seeking intercession) as a clear-cut reason to spill blood.
              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 19-03-19, 10:13 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Pakisaurus View Post
                Informative posts. Jazakallah khair brother abu julaybeeb.
                Bro, did you read this?:

                The events in 'Iraq:

                In 2003 the United States of America - a state that originally was build upon oppressing, terrorizing and killing the native American population - decided to send its criminal troops to 'Iraq - the land of the two rivers - based upon the lie that 'Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.
                The American state knew of course that there were no such weapons, but used this lie as a justification to occupy the land of the two rivers and this was their first major step in changing the borders and the demographics in the Middle East. In accordance with the Zionist Yinon Plan this occupation would lead to the partition of the 'Iraqi state into many parts based upon the different ethnicities, schools of thoughts and religions. After that the other states in the Middle East would follow in this plan (and what we're seeing today in Syria is part of this plan!).
                Know that 'Iraq was once the strongest Arab country in the region and that is why they started with 'Iraq

                After 'Iraq's occupation the American troops started to oppress the people of 'Iraq and try to humiliate its people. Soon resistance groups were formed to fight the criminal American occupiers and to free the land of the two rivers from their oppression and disbelief.
                The members of these resistance groups were first and foremost the local people. In regions like Diyala, Mosul, al-Anbar and Salah al-Din they were mostly Sunni Arabs, while in the south they were mostly Shi'a Arabs. In the regions of Tal A'far, Kirkuk and Diyala there were also Turkmen fighters (who are also either Sunni or Shi'a).
                Kurds (other than some belonging to Ansar al-Islam) took almost not part in this resistance, because they were still dreaming of their independent state and thought that serving the American interests would bring them nearer to their goal.
                The only 'Iraqi "Salafi" resistance group was Ansar al-Islam. Then there was another "Salafi" group which was al-Qa'ida in 'Iraq. In the beginning it was almost exclusively made off foreign fighters.
                So in the beginning the absolute majority of the resistance fighters were 'Iraqis and the absolute majority of them were non-Salafis (because until the occupation "Salafism" was something completely alien to 'Iraqis).

                The resistance was getting stronger day by day and America was losing members of their troops every day. Especially in Sunni regions they saw hell on Earth, because they could not trespass these regions without getting attacked.
                At this point the Americans were basically losing the war and started to think of a new strategy. What came to their mind was the classical divide-and-conquer-strategy and the best group for that was Zarqawi's group (i.e. al-Qa'ida in 'Iraq) and that was because of two main reasons: One of them is that they were non-'Iraqis and the other was them being "Salafis". So there was two main points which made them different from all the other resistance fighters.

                America started to highlight the role of al-Qa'ida in 'Iraq and to exaggerate their strength beyond limits (with the above mentioned divide-and-counqer intention of course!). The foreign "Salafi" fighters started now to think of themselves even greater than they already did. Just imagine: Their average member thought of himself of being much more knowledgable than 'Iraqi Sunni scholars, who had studied the religion in a classical way for years upon years. This is the amount of Kibr that "Salafism" had put into their minds!

                Zarqawi's group started doing two things:
                1) Instead of concentrating on fighting the occupiers like the rest of the resistance fighters, they started to try to control the different Sunni regions of 'Iraq. When they would control a region they would put some idiotic and ignorant youngsters as leaders and as judges and claim that this is how Islam should be implemented. Add to this: They had a lot of corrupt people among them, who would use their positions in order to steal from the local people and do other corrupt things.
                2) They started targeting the Shi'a without any justified reason. This included attacking normal civilians, religious leaders and their religious sites. This made the Shi'a in 'Iraq ask help from Iran.

                From there on everything went downwards. In the Sunni regions the resistance fighters were getting more and more displeased with the actions of the foreign fighters, who now were hellbent on ruling over the local population and acting as if everyone has to follow their views and obey them. Zarqawi's group then started attacking the other resistance groups and killing Sunni scholars and Mashayikh who critisized their wrong behaviour and actions. At the same time Zarqawi's group kept on and on targetting the Shi'a population, which led to the formation of Shi'a death squads.
                In 2005 in the Sunni regions the Sahwa was formed in order to fight against these foreign fighers, who had started to terrorize the 'Iraqi population as a whole. America started to give money to the Sahwa fighters, because this was serving their divide-and-conquer-strategy even further.
                What had started as a fight against the occupiers was getting more and more a fight between the resistance groups.

                2006 al-Qa'ida formed a fake Majlis al-Shura and proclaimed their fake "Islamic State of Iraq". They went as far as disallowing the rest of the resistance fighters to fight against the occupiers if it was not under their command and their rule. They demanded Bay'a by force from the Sunni tribes and started killing more and more Sunni tribal leaders and scholars.

                (On a side note: When they proclaimed their fake "Islamic State" they proclaimed a Saudi guy in his 20s as the head judge of the state. How for God's sake is it possible to turn such a young person into a head judge?! This should be enough for you to know that they lacked profession in every aspect to lead a State.
                And even this Saudi guy - who was extreme in his views like them and there is even a video where he burns (!) some 'Iraqi Sunnis whom he accused of apostasy! - could not bear the corruption of this so called "Islamic State" (he wrote a letter to the central al-Qa'ida where he mentions some of the corruptions) and left them and went to Afghanistan.)

                At this stage the people started to forget about the occupation forces and the fight had become a full-scale civil war: Sunnis vs Shi'as, Shi'as vs Salafis, Sunnis vs foreign Salafis, ISI (formerly al-Qa'ida in 'Iraq) vs resistance groups, Sahwa vs ISI, Sahwa vs Shi'a death squads, etc.

                This is exactly what the Americans had hoped for. From there on the number of their troops being killed and injured got lower and lower and their control got stronger and stronger again. The rest is history.

                Do you now see how these foreign "Salafi" groups destroyed a justified struggle and turned it into a civil war? And this is something that these foreign "Salafis" always do.
                That is why I'm saying that America uses them for their own goals!
                And:

                Know that even that criminal al-Maliki - may Allah ta'ala give him what he deserves! - used ISI in 2014 (which had mutated into ISIL at that time) for his own goals! He himself told his soldiers to leave Mosul to a small number of ISIL fighters (and this is something that everyone in 'Iraq knows!) and this was in order to stop the protests against oppression in the Sunni regions and in order to be able to bomb the 'Iraqi Sunni cities later on and make demographic changes! And this is exactley what happened later on.

                Today we have an 'Iraq where the North is almost ruled independetely of the rest and where the people have not received their full salaries since 2014 (this month they're receiving it for the first time fully again!), the regions in the middle have been heavily bombarded and many people can still not return to their homes and many regions in the South (especially Basra) have not even clean water or electricity.

                And then some youngsters living in the West - who basically have no idea of classical Islam whatsoever!!! - are trying to tell us how great these "Salafi" groups are. We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                  Bro, did you read this?:



                  And:
                  Yes I've read it and I strongly disagree with what you are saying. Like I pointed out in my last post you have a negative mindset towards the mujahideen and there is no possible outcome except for the mujahideen to be in the wrong so there is no way forward with you. I see hints of nationalism in your post. I see softness towards tawaghit. These critical flaws put you against mujahideen and their struggle. On top of this you are very biased towards "Salafis" who make bulk of mujahideen today further skewing your perspective.

                  There are two main sides of conflict in our lands. Those fighting strictly to establish Islam and those fighting against it. Any shortcomings and mistakes among mujahideen take a backseat here. Excessive fault finding and microscopic analysis is undertaken against mujahideen with the intent of discrediting the struggle for Islam. The only ones to benefit from this are kuffar and it does not befit a believer to act like this. This is the attitude of munafiqeen.

                  The mujahideen were a threat to kafir interests in Iraq so they openly made use of batil elements against the mujahideen/Islam. One group openly collaborated with kuffar. Other group openly fought against them. How do you conclude from this that the latter is serving their interest while the former, the one actually collaborating with kuffar, gets excused? Brother this is the result of your bias and if you were fair you'd see the nonsense in this.

                  "The believers fight in the way of Allah, and the disbelievers fight in the way of Tāghūt. So, fight the friends of Satan. No doubt, the guile of Satan is feeble." 4:76

                  The mujahideen reject nationalism in all its form so it is not possible for "foreigners" to look down on "locals" on the basis of nationality as it does not fit their ideology. The ranks of mujahideen are overwhelmingly "local". From their leaders all the way down to foot soldiers but because of rejection of nationalism you will obviously find "foreigners" among them. Alhamdulillah this is because Islam unites all muslims and kafir made borders/divisions hold no value to believers.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Musbah View Post

                    The only people that tend to bring him up are those deviated sufi's who are still ginger in the rear from him taking away all their peeps innovated toys back in the Arabian Peninsula.
                    I agree somewhat. Sufis etc tend to speak of him like he's the shaitan in human form, but Salafis also go to the extreme, his work isn't the end all be all.
                    "The organisation that is called as "the state" puts effort to destroy jihad in Sham as they destroyed it in Iraq because of their obvious transgressions against Quran and Sunnah." Abu Khalid as-Suri (Rahimahullah)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Pakisaurus View Post

                      Yes I've read it and I strongly disagree with what you are saying. Like I pointed out in my last post you have a negative mindset towards the mujahideen and there is no possible outcome except for the mujahideen to be in the wrong so there is no way forward with you. I see hints of nationalism in your post. I see softness towards tawaghit. These critical flaws put you against mujahideen and their struggle. On top of this you are very biased towards "Salafis" who make bulk of mujahideen today further skewing your perspective.

                      There are two main sides of conflict in our lands. Those fighting strictly to establish Islam and those fighting against it. Any shortcomings and mistakes among mujahideen take a backseat here. Excessive fault finding and microscopic analysis is undertaken against mujahideen with the intent of discrediting the struggle for Islam. The only ones to benefit from this are kuffar and it does not befit a believer to act like this. This is the attitude of munafiqeen.

                      The mujahideen were a threat to kafir interests in Iraq so they openly made use of batil elements against the mujahideen/Islam. One group openly collaborated with kuffar. Other group openly fought against them. How do you conclude from this that the latter is serving their interest while the former, the one actually collaborating with kuffar, gets excused? Brother this is the result of your bias and if you were fair you'd see the nonsense in this.

                      "The believers fight in the way of Allah, and the disbelievers fight in the way of Tāghūt. So, fight the friends of Satan. No doubt, the guile of Satan is feeble." 4:76

                      The mujahideen reject nationalism in all its form so it is not possible for "foreigners" to look down on "locals" on the basis of nationality as it does not fit their ideology. The ranks of mujahideen are overwhelmingly "local". From their leaders all the way down to foot soldiers but because of rejection of nationalism you will obviously find "foreigners" among them. Alhamdulillah this is because Islam unites all muslims and kafir made borders/divisions hold no value to believers.
                      Great post. Al-Hamdulilah. These same people sufi ashari's had animosity to Ibn Taymiyyah also. For he called for the jihad against the tatars and the sufi's were content with the way things were with their innovated forms of worship.
                      "When a man sees the road as long he weakens in his walk." Ibn Qayyim

                      Comment


                      • no they dont do chain takfir
                        i already explained chain takfir before

                        and second of all the ottomans were committing shirk

                        they committed istihlaal
                        and also did grave worshipping and miaw wasnt the only one to make takfir on them either in that time

                        i need to look into the makkah thing before i comment on it

                        Comment


                        • sahaba never had the views of ashari and matureedis
                          asharis and matureedis came were after the rise of the mutazila
                          and the influx of kalaam

                          and the ummah suffered defeats in that time as well
                          they lost andalus, loss to mongals etc dont act like they were invincible
                          and it was nothing to do with asharia that they were winning

                          second of all it wasnt miaw who caused the ummah to become like this
                          it was muhammed al sauds grandson who sold out to britain

                          and the young turks and mustafa kamal from within turkey

                          that led to the destruction of the islamic empire

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Musbah View Post

                            Great post. Al-Hamdulilah. These same people sufi ashari's had animosity to Ibn Taymiyyah also. For he called for the jihad against the tatars and the sufi's were content with the way things were with their innovated forms of worship.
                            Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 21-03-19, 07:29 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Why would I say sorry to you when you disparage scholars of Islam. I will repeat again, you are either working directly or indirectly with the kuffar to marginalize Islam with this nonsensical thread. You have motive here. Read this and tell me who benefits from your nonsense. Read this is tell me who the kuffar are using to weaken Islam:

                              https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...005/MR1716.pdf
                              Last edited by Musbah; 21-03-19, 10:37 AM.
                              "When a man sees the road as long he weakens in his walk." Ibn Qayyim

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Musbah View Post

                                Why would I say sorry to you when you disparage scholars of Islam. I will repeat again, you are either working directly or indirectly with the kuffar to marginalize Islam with this nonsensical thread. You have motive here. Read this and tell me who benefits from your nonsense. Read this is tell me who the kuffar are using to weaken Islam:

                                https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...005/MR1716.pdf
                                You're forgetting your own lies. A brother (faqir) posted two links to a website (i.e. wahhabisrefuted.wordpress.com) which refutes the Wahhabiyya. Another brother (Simply_Logical) asked who runs the website and you - out of nowhere! - claimed that RAND runs the website. This is clear-cut lie, because the one running the website is a muslim who follows classical Islam and is a member on this very forum. When I told you this, you did not even think of taking back your claim or saying a simple and short "sorry". And now you have the nerves to keep on with your off-topic posts in this thread after openly lying. This makes you a shameless and worthless liar!
                                It's obvious why you're doing this: Because you have no answers whatsoever to what has been posted. You're not even able to prove that your Dajjal MiAW was actually a scholar in the first place!

                                Then: I don't care about the document you posted, because I don't change my views based upon what the West regads as correct or not (unlike modernists and extremists!).
                                [FYI: Your document does not support traditional or classical Islam (which I'm calling to!) and even in the case of Sufis it's obvious that they intend the fake ones (i.e. the non-traditional ones!). So you posting this here is actually completely off-topic!]



                                Let's clarify several issues here:

                                - In classical Islam knowledge is taken from people who have a chain of knowledge that goes back to our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and not from random people who have come up with their own interpretations and views. The scholars who fulfill the above criteria are those who adhere to the 4 Madhahib in Fiqh and are either Ash'ari/Maturidi or Hanbali in 'Aqida. They are the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna!

                                - When someone reaches a good level of understanding and knowledge in an Islamic science / subject / text his teacher attests to that and gives him an Ijaza, which is like a license to transmit and teach that Islamic science / subject / text. The teacher must obviously already be in possesion of this license. If one goes back in time this chain of knowledge reaches the Atba' al-Tabi'in, then the Tabi'in and then the noble Sahaba, who have learned this knowledge directly from our beloved Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam. This ensures that incorrect views and interpretations do not get part of Islam. Know that knowledge is consigned through people and not through books alone. Books are only there to facilitate this consigning of knowledge.

                                - Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab was not in possession of a single Ijaza to transmit and teach any Islamic science. None of his teachers attested to him that he has the qualifications of a scholar, let alone that of a Mujtahid! He was rejected by his own teachers and he rejected them. Among his teachers was the Shaykh Muhammad bin Sulayman al-Kurdi, who was the Mufti of the Shafi'iyya in Madina al-Munawwara and he openly rejected his Takfir and bloodshed! The Hanbali scholars rejected him! Major scholars like Ibn 'Abidin (Hanafi Faqih) and al-Sawi (Maliki Faqih) explicitily regarded him and his followers as Khawarij! NONE OF THE MAJOR SCHOLARS OF HIS TIME REGARDED HIM A SCHOLAR!
                                Even a non-classical scholar like al-San'ani (I'm calling him non-classical, because he had a Zaydi backgroud and was Dhahiri influenced!) - first praised him and thereafter took it back (as transmitted by al-Shawkani) after knowing how much Takfir and bloodshed this man was causing.
                                To make it short: According to Sunni standards MiAW can NOT be regarded as a scholar in any way or form, because he lacks the qualifications to be regarded as such on all levels. In fact he can NOT be regarded a scholar according to any group from among the Muslims, who care for knowledge and its people.

                                - Throughout Islamic history there is not a single classical scholar who has turned his own views and opinions regarding issues which are not clear-cut as something that decides whether one is Muslim or not. MiAW accused anyone criticizing him of "cursing the religion". He allowed the spilling of blood of scholars! He allowed the spilling of blood of whole cities! There is no precedence for this among the classical scholars. Why? Because MiAW was not a scholar as already mentioned. The only precedence that we find in the Islamic history for the kind of behavior of MiAW is that of the Khawarij! This means that MiAW was a Khariji.


                                Conclusion:
                                MiAW can NOT be regarded as a scholar by any Sunni standards, because he lacked the qualifications to be regarded as such and non of the scholars of his time attested him any license regarding any Islamic science. He was criticized by major scholars of his time and the time after him for his Takfir and call to bloodshed. There is not a single known classical scholar who supported him during that time!
                                Since MiAW and his early followers performed Takfir on unjustified grounds and killed a huge number of Muslims based upon this Takfir, they are to be regarded as Khawarij. Whosoever follows some of his views is to be regarded as deviant in these issues. Whosoever studies Islamic sciences while his chain of knowledge stops at MiAW he can not be regarded upon classical Islam, because his chain does not reach our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, but rather stops at the Najdi Dajjal MiAW.
                                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 24-03-19, 10:58 PM.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X