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

[Abu Sulayman]

Allahu yahdeek.

The same Buti who compared the SAA with the sahaba. May Allah give him what he deserves.

[Poster]

Look at how he described the SAA and all the positive attributes he gave to them. Does that look like a balanced view of the situation? The SJs have problems but let's not go to the other side of the spectrum and support individuals who support oppressors.

The sufiyyah of our time have an issue with this and it's unfortunate to see. Look at how they cosy up to Muhammad ibn Zayed and those like him.

Can anyone today claim that the people of Syria have benefited from what happened since the revolution? Be honest.

Whether or not they have benefited, the revolution itself was justified and a noble goal. I agree the lack of organisation + allowing any group to operate was problematic but that doesn't change the fact that the rebels were correct in this.

If Ibn al ash'ath and the Ulama revolted against Hajjaj for being a tyrant then the Muslims in this case have an even greater right to revolt because Bashar is a kaafir nusayri.

[Pakisaurus]

.

No one goes around killing innocent people and every side in a conflict claims innocence so these are just one sided claims and exaggerations.

Maliki is a Shia taghout and his claim to establishing Islam is worth as much as various other kufr regimes that make similar claims. A dog installed and sustained by kuffar and replaced with another dog. There is no comparison between the likes of him and those who effectively established hudood, jizya, zakat, salah among other things in every place under their authority but as usual Salafi phobia blinds you.

I've asked this multiple times in other posts and will ask again. What role have your scholars played except that to strengthen the kuffars narrative? Which righteous people have they backed? You want to replace a taghout like Maliki to the one more to your liking. This is why the righteous scholars of yours have no contribution. You don't have any leaders nor anyone fighting for Islam and everyone that does truly fight for this deen almost always ends up a khawarij.

Many in Syria supported the rebellion then flipped when things went south. The reality today is simple either muslims fight kuffar or they surrender to them. The weak have surrendered while others have persisted and remained steadfast and will continue their struggle whether you and I like it or not.

[Muslim First]

I would have loved to have read that thread. I have yet to see a truly academic, impartial discussion on the Najdi dawah that doesn't ultimately descend into polemics.

Yeah it was really good bro, the admin of the website still followed najdi dawah so things became interesting. Also their was a Maliki brother who was studying in Mauritania, he was a breath of fresh air in the forum. Great times..

[Abu Sulayman]

Look at how he described the SAA and all the positive attributes he gave to them. Does that look like a balanced view of the situation? The SJs have problems but let's not go to the other side of the spectrum and support individuals who support oppressors.

The sufiyyah of our time have an issue with this and it's unfortunate to see. Look at how they cosy up to Muhammad ibn Zayed and those like him.

Do you think it's fair to forget all of the work and service that Shaykh al-Bouti has done for Islam and Muslims and to go as far as supplicating against him and that based upon a video that was taken out of its context? Is it balanced to believe the lies of the Ruwaybidha and the Dajjalic media?

On youtube you'll find a series of 7 short videos with the name "سلسلة فتبينوا", which shows that the accusations against the Shaykh (using the words of the Shaykh himself) are wrong. Go and watch them

On the aslein website you'll find a refutation of the accusations against the Shaykh where his own Fatawa during the so called "revolution" are cited with the title "خلاصة الرد المفحم المفيد على الأكاذيب والشبهات المثارة عن البوطي الشهيد".

Instead of supplicating against the Shaykh - may Allah have mercy upon him - you should have supplicated against his godless killers, who did NOT respect the sacredness of the blood of a major scholar and that of the 49 students of knowledge. And they did this godless act inside a mosque (!), which shows even further how godless and satanic his killers were.

The Shaykh was a man with great foresight and his position regarding the revolution was based upon knowledge and NOT upon emotions or relying upon dajjalic western and zionist media.
To see his foresight go on youtube and watch this (it has English subtitles):
(and they have not changed in the least) | (Wamabaddaloo Tabdeela)

[Abu Sulayman]

Whether or not they have benefited, the revolution itself was justified and a noble goal. I agree the lack of organisation + allowing any group to operate was problematic but that doesn't change the fact that the rebels were correct in this.

Since when is a revolution in itself a justified and noble goal in Islam?!
You're speaking about lack of organisation and allowing any group to operate being problematic (which is right), but let me remind you of one thing: Who told you that this so called "revolution" was started by known and righteous Muslims in the first place? Who told you that these righteous Muslims have had control over the revolution in the first place in order for them to allow or disallow any group from participating?

This revolution was started by unknown people and many groups with many different goals participated in it. This is a fact!
In fact this so called "revolution" was part of the "Arab spring", which in itself was something that Zionists had hoped for in order to be able to implement their Yinon plan even further. Go and look up who someone like Bernard Henri Levy (Jewish philosopher and supporter of Zionism!) is, whom some regard as "godfather of the Arab spring".
I'm not denying that some righteous people also participated, but they were tricked into this!

From the very beginning the dajjalic media only showed one side of the story. What they didn't show is that all kinds of militant groups financed by the zionist loving West and the worthless Khaliji traitors entered into the issue in order to turn into into a great war and complete chaos.

Open your eyes: Thousand upon thousands Muslims were killed, tortured, made refugees and lost everything they had. Syria will most likely be seperated into several powerless and worthless mini states. All of this is what the Zionists wanted.

If Ibn al ash'ath and the Ulama revolted against Hajjaj for being a tyrant then the Muslims in this case have an even greater right to revolt because Bashar is a kaafir nusayri.

I'm rather surprised by this way of argumentation. Yes Bashar is from a 'Alawi family, but don't we Muslims judge by the apparent? The man showed himself as a normal Muslim (he did not adhere to any clear Kufri Nusayri belief in public!) and even prays like Sunni Muslims. Even if we say it's Taqiyya, he is still judged by what is apparent. So his case in no different from other Arab rulers. I repeat: He's NO different.

This actually reminds me of the Takfir that was performed against Saddam Hussayn by some Khaliji Mashayikh. Their rulers asked them to do Takfir upon him (to please America of course!) and they did so and brought up reasons which applied not just to Saddam, but to their own rulers also.
(By the way: Even though Saddam was an oppressive ruler, but his shoes are still more worth than all those Khaliji traitors together!)

And if ruling by other than Allah's laws are cited as a reason, then I say: Like already mentioned: This applies to all Arab rulers today.
Infact it applies to almost all rulers after the rightly guided Khulafa`! Take for example the Umawi leaders: Most of them were Nawasib and they would curse Imam 'Ali - karamallahu wajhahu - openly on the Minbar. What is the ruling upon such persons? Then some of their leaders would take Jizya from people who had already converted to Islam. What is this called? Ruling by Allah's laws?
And one can bring other examples from all the states after the first 30 years after the death of Rasulullah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam. Infact the first issue that was thrown out of the window was the concept of Shura and doing this falls under ruling by other than Allah's laws.
It's true that today the degree of ruling by other than Allah's laws is more, but this still does not warrant making Takfir upon everyone in the governments and upon soldiers, the police, the judges and the governmental employees (as done by crazy SJ groups).

As for the issue of revolting: If there are known leaders with good backgrounds and clear Islamic goals (i.e. establishing a ruling that is nearer to Islamic principles and justice than the existing system!) AND there is not a high risk for for ending up in complete chaos and even more corruption, then it's correct to rebel. OTHERWISE IT'S NOT.

This so called "revolution" lacks everyhing mentioned:
1) Known leaders with good backgrounds
2) Clear Islamic goals (I don't intend simply slogans!)
3) Low risk for causing more corruption and falling into complete chaos.

This is why Shaykh al-Bouti was against this uprising. And not because Bashar or the rest of the Arab rulers are such great people (because rather the opposite is the case).

[Abu julaybeeb]

).

could you send me the names of the books and references where it states what these specific leaders who were khulafa (after the khluafa rashideen ) and what they did in terms of kufr and if possible the time as well so i can see what shuyookh existed in that time and what they said about these people

im intrigued as ive never heard anyone say this before

usually what i hear was there were corrupt rulers such as yazeed and al hajaj however most still regarded them as muslim

and only during the ottoman era did rulers commit kufr/ shirk

[Stoic Believer]

could you send me the names of the books and references where it states what these specific leaders who were khulafa (after the khluafa rashideen ) and what they did in terms of kufr and if possible the time as well so i can see what shuyookh existed in that time and what they said about these people

im intrigued as ive never heard anyone say this before

usually what i hear was there were corrupt rulers such as yazeed and al hajaj however most still regarded them as muslim

and only during the ottoman era did rulers commit kufr/ shirk

Banu Umayya took jizya from non Arabs, even if they were already Muslims.

Clearly that's against the Shariah.

[Abu julaybeeb]

Banu Umayya took jizya from non Arabs, even if they were already Muslims.

Clearly that's against the Shariah.

id rather look into this before i say this khalifa under banu umaya became a taghut and thus was not ruling by sharia and was darul kufr etc

there maybe more to it
but im not denying it which is why i wanr to look more into it

[Stoic Believer]

id rather look into this before i say this khalifa under banu umaya became a taghut and thus was not ruling by sharia and was darul kufr etc

there maybe more to it
but im not denying it which is why i wanr to look more into it

Well, the question I'd ask is, is what they did taghy?

And if it isn't, what does that indicate?

[Abu Sulayman]

No one goes around killing innocent people and every side in a conflict claims innocence so these are just one sided claims and exaggerations.

Maliki is a Shia taghout and his claim to establishing Islam is worth as much as various other kufr regimes that make similar claims. A dog installed and sustained by kuffar and replaced with another dog. There is no comparison between the likes of him and those who effectively established hudood, jizya, zakat, salah among other things in every place under their authority but as usual Salafi phobia blinds you.

I've asked this multiple times in other posts and will ask again. What role have your scholars played except that to strengthen the kuffars narrative? Which righteous people have they backed? You want to replace a taghout like Maliki to the one more to your liking. This is why the righteous scholars of yours have no contribution. You don't have any leaders nor anyone fighting for Islam and everyone that does truly fight for this deen almost always ends up a khawarij.

Many in Syria supported the rebellion then flipped when things went south. The reality today is simple either muslims fight kuffar or they surrender to them. The weak have surrendered while others have persisted and remained steadfast and will continue their struggle whether you and I like it or not.

[Abu julaybeeb]

its funny how asharis always use aql and ulama

i rarely see quran and sunnah being used as daleel


whether u think istigatha is biddah, haram or mubah and not shirk i dont know

but to be so passionate about making duaa to other than Allah and defending it so much when the quran and the messenger صلي الله عليه وسلم emphasized on duaa to Allah asking Allah seeking from Allah etc
it boggles my mind

iyaakana3budu wa iyaakanastaeen

qul aoothubirabil falak

ith tastagheeshoona rabakum fastagaabalakum

ithasta anta fastain billah

qul inaswalaatee wa nusukee wa mahyaayaa wa mamaati lillahi rabil aalameen


Allah these quran ayaat and one hadith emphasize dua to Allah
seeking aid help relief from Allah

yet u asharis, sufis in this thread are defending seeking it from other than Allah


and im still waiting for the references i requested twice now

and i havent been told how the kuffar of quraysh are different to people who make duaa/seek help or intercession from other than Allah whether its the normal dead or a prophet

please tell me im eager to know how shirk and grave worshipping can be made halal in a monotheistic faith

[Simply_Logical]

its funny how asharis always use aql and ulama

i rarely see quran and sunnah being used as daleel


whether u think istigatha is biddah, haram or mubah and not shirk i dont know

but to be so passionate about making duaa to other than Allah and defending it so much when the quran and the messenger صلي الله عليه وسلم emphasized on duaa to Allah asking Allah seeking from Allah etc
it boggles my mind

iyaakana3budu wa iyaakanastaeen

qul aoothubirabil falak

ith tastagheeshoona rabakum fastagaabalakum

ithasta anta fastain billah

qul inaswalaatee wa nusukee wa mahyaayaa wa mamaati lillahi rabil aalameen


Allah these quran ayaat and one hadith emphasize dua to Allah
seeking aid help relief from Allah

yet u asharis, sufis in this thread are defending seeking it from other than Allah


and im still waiting for the references i requested twice now

and i havent been told how the kuffar of quraysh are different to people who make duaa/seek help or intercession from other than Allah whether its the normal dead or a prophet

please tell me im eager to know how shirk and grave worshipping can be made halal in a monotheistic faith

i think you make some good points especially about tawheed and worshipping Allah swt alone, im interested to see what brother abu sulayman has to say....

[Pakisaurus]

.

Fitna is worse than killing. The fitna of kufr in Iraq is the real cause of bloodshed NOT those fighting against kufr. In Islam there is no such thing as a "civilian" nor are the rafidha "innocent". Please ask your imaginary scholars to provide blueprint to the real Islamic State and let them put it into action.

You declare taghout a muslim ruler that establishes hudood, salah, zakat, jizya and abolishes kufr in all its forms and hold him equal to a rafidi taghout implanted by kuffar that rules with kufr. Ridiculous. An Islamic State can have faults and be extreme in some matters yet still be generally Islamic or otherwise it would be a kafir state so you in reality are accusing a muslim ruler of kufr. Funnily enough even by your own batil standards this muslim "taghout" would still be better than other options which are much worse.

The illegal murderous kafir regime of Iraq (which you and your scholars are in reality favourable to) has fought against Sunni muslims OPENLY under the coalition of kuffar, a coalition that includes "khaliji traitors" yet you imply same kuffar are dropping weapons to Islamic forces. Again, you're not fooling anyone. Haqq is haqq and batil is batil where ever you are. Being an Iraqi doesn't mean crap. The mujahideen are also from Iraq. Their understanding and commitment to Islam is better than yours and your imaginary scholars.

My final say: Your modern day classical scholars have NO role except to undermine Jihad. Your scholars have made every effort to undermine struggle for Islam to strengthen kufr rule. They are a fitna. You people have no leader of your own nor you ever will. Between Islam and kufr you have sided with kufr directly and indirectly. This is the reality. There is no blame on righteous mujahideen. They are upon haqq. Their opposition batil. This is the end of our discussion.

[faqir]

Fitna is worse than killing. The fitna of kufr in Iraq is the real cause of bloodshed NOT those fighting against kufr. In Islam there is no such thing as a "civilian" nor are the rafidha "innocent". Please ask your imaginary scholars to provide blueprint to the real Islamic State and let them put it into action.

You declare taghout a muslim ruler that establishes hudood, salah, zakat, jizya and abolishes kufr in all its forms and hold him equal to a rafidi taghout implanted by kuffar that rules with kufr. Ridiculous. An Islamic State can have faults and be extreme in some matters yet still be generally Islamic or otherwise it would be a kafir state so you in reality are accusing a muslim ruler of kufr. Funnily enough even by your own batil standards this muslim "taghout" would still be better than other options which are much worse.

The illegal murderous kafir regime of Iraq (which you and your scholars are in reality favourable to) has fought against Sunni muslims OPENLY under the coalition of kuffar, a coalition that includes "khaliji traitors" yet you imply same kuffar are dropping weapons to Islamic forces. Again, you're not fooling anyone. Haqq is haqq and batil is batil where ever you are. Being an Iraqi doesn't mean crap. The mujahideen are also from Iraq. Their understanding and commitment to Islam is better than yours and your imaginary scholars.

My final say: Your modern day classical scholars have NO role except to undermine Jihad. Your scholars have made every effort to undermine struggle for Islam to strengthen kufr rule. They are a fitna. You people have no leader of your own nor you ever will. Between Islam and kufr you have sided with kufr directly and indirectly. This is the reality. There is no blame on righteous mujahideen. They are upon haqq. Their opposition batil. This is the end of our discussion.

yes, you sound like a violent psychopath like your forefather MIAW.