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

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

    Come on are you not ashamed of the beliefs that are in that book?
    I mean a "God" who moves, stands up, sits, has a physical distance, has a direction and place, has limits and even a weight?!?
    Are you seriously telling us that this Tawhid? Is this how one differentiates between the Creator and the creation?

    We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being.

    By the way: Allah ta'ala is high above being described with movement (harakah) or stillness (sukun). Go and read what Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) said in his Ma'alim al -Sunan regarding the one describes Allah ta'ala with any of this.
    aren't these the attributes of accidents (things that came to exist and was created)? The 'Allāh' in that book seems to be just like you or me or the idols the Polytheists worship.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Zouhair al-'arabi View Post

      aren't these the attributes of accidents (things that came to exist and was created)? The 'Allāh' in that book seems to be just like you or me or the idols the Polytheists worship.
      Yes, you are right.

      The strange thing here is that the chain of this book contains several unknown persons and there are severely weak or outright fabricated narrations in it in addition to its absolutely pagan content, yet the so called "followers of the Salaf" (read: followers of the Mujassima and the Khawarij!) in our time rely upon it for their creed.

      ​​​​​Imagine playing with your Akhira, because so and so praised such an accursed book. This with knowledge that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala described the Ahl al-Kitab as taking their scholars as lords besides Allah ta'ala due to a similar behavior by them.


      Here are more informations regarding this pagan book:

      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
      __________

      Open disbelief and paganism found in "al-Naqdh 'ala Bishr al-Marisi"!


      There is a book which is named as al-Naqdh 'ala Bishr al-Marisi (see also HERE). It's ascribed to 'Uthman bin Sa'id al-Darimi (d. 280 AH), who was a scholar of Hadith (not to be mistaken with Imam al-Darimi [al-Samarqandi] (d. 255 AH), who was the author of Sunan al-Darimi).
      It should be noted here that the transmission chain of this book contains several unknown persons, so that the content can not be ascribed with certainty to 'Uthman bin Sa'id. What is also suspicious is that this book contains very obvious Karrami creedal statements, while 'Uthman bin Sa'id had expelled Ibn Karram (d. 255 AH) - the founder of the Karramiyya - from Herat.
      I would be not surprised if these Karrami Mujassima put it into his mouth, considering that their evilness was to such an extent that they even poisoned Imam Ibn Furak (d. 406 AH).

      As far as I know this book was not quoted - nor even mentioned - in early sources (correct me if I'm wrong) and somehow Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) got hold of a copy of it and started to regard it as one of the best creedal books ever and this while this book contains open disbelief, paganism and anthropomorphism.

      If one reads the title of the book one may think that it's an response against Bishr al-Marisi - one of the leaders of the Mu'tazila -, but the issue is not like this! The book "refutes" innovation with even greater innovation and even outright disbelief and disrespect towards Allah ta'ala!

      Note that disbelief remains disbelief no matter who utters it!:
      Whosoever is pleased with the creed that shall be quoted or tries to spread it among the people or prints it in order to call the people towards it has fallen into disbelief. Whosoever dies upon this creed has died upon disbelief!

      Some of the quotes are translated by me and some of them by others (but the sources are not online anymore, so I can't link to them).


      These are some of the examples of clear Tashbih and Kufr from the above mentioned book:

      - "god" has a physical distance to his creation [and is in the above direction of it]:

      فقال: ألا ترى أنه من صعد الجبل لا يقال له إنه أقرب إلى الله.
      فيقال لهذا المعارض المدعي ما لا علم له: من أنبأك أن رأس الجبل ليس بأقرب إلى الله تعالى من أسفله لأنه من آمن بأن الله فوق عرشه فوق سماواته علم يقينا أن رأس الجبل أقرب إلى الله من أسفله وأن السماء السابعة أقرب إلى عرش الله تعالى من السادسة والسادسة أقرب إليه من الخامسة ثم كذلك إلى الأرض. كذلك روى إسحاق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي عن ابن المبارك أنه قال: رأس المنارة أقرب إلى الله من أسفلها. وصدق ابن المبارك لأن كل ما كان إلى السماء أقرب كان إلى الله أقرب، وقرب الله إلى جميع خلقه أقصاهم وأدناهم واحد لا يبعد عنه شيء من خلقه وبعض الخلق أقرب من بعض على نحو ما فسرنا من أمر السموات والأرض وكذلك قرب الملائكة من الله فحملة العرش أقرب إليه من جميع الملائكة الذين في السموات والعرش أقرب إليه من السماء السابعة


      "He [al-Marīsi] said: “Don’t you see that you cannot say that whoever went up on a mountain is closer to Allah.” It should be said to this objector who claims that about which he has no knowledge: Who told you that the top of the mountain is not nearer to Allah than the bottom of it? Because those who believe that Allah is above His Throne and above His skies know for certain that the top of the mountain is closer to the sky than the bottom of it and that the seventh sky is closer to the Throne of Allah than the sixth, and that the sixth is closer to it than the fifth and so on down to the earth. Similarly, Ishāq ibn Ibrahīm al-Hanzali [ibn Rahaweh (d. 238)] reported that Ibn al-Mubārak said: “The top of the minaret is closer to Allah than the bottom of it.” Ibn al-Mubārak told the truth for whatever is closer to the sky is closer to Allah.
      Notwithstanding, Allah is close to all His creation the near and the far and He is not far away from anything in His creation. Yet some of His creation is closer to Him than other as we explained about the skies and the earth. Likewise, with His angels, for the bearers of the Throne are closer to Him than all the [other] angels that are in the seventh sky.
      "
      - end of the quote -

      (Note: The scholar whom he cites towards the end did not say what he claimed.)


      - "god" has a place (Makan):

      وأما قولك إن الله لم يصف نفسه أنه في موضع دون موضع، فإن كنت أيها المعارض ممن يقرأ كتاب الله ويفهم شيئا من العربية علمت أنك كاذب على الله في دعواك لأنه وصف أنه في موضع دون موضع ومكان دون مكان ذكر أنه فوق العرش والعرش فوق السموات وقد عرف ذلك كثير من النساء والصبيان فكيف من الرجال

      "As for your statement that Allah has not described himself with being in one location (Mawdhi') without another one: If you, o opponent, are from those who read the book of Allah and understand a little bit of Arabic, then you would've known that you're lying about Allah with your claim, because He has [indeed] described Himself with being in one location without another location and in one place (Makan) without another place. He mentioned that He's above the throne, and the throne is above the heavens and this is something that many of the women and children know, so what about the men?"
      - end of the quote -

      لأنا قد أينا له مكانا واحدا، أعلى مكان وأطهر مكان وأشرف مكان على عرشه العظيم المقدس المجيد فوق السماء السابعة العليا حيث ليس معه هناك إنس ولا جان

      "Because we've given Him one place (Makan), the most high, most pure and most noble place upon his great, holy and glorious throne, above the seventh heaven where there is no human or Jinn with him."
      - end of the quote -

      There are many such passages where "god" is explicitly described with having a place. The above two quotes however should be enough.


      - "god" has limits:

      وادعى المعارض أيضا أنه ليس لله حد ولا غاية ولا نهاية وهذا هو الأصل الذي بنى عليه جهم جميع ضلالاته واشتق منها أغلوطاته وهي كلمة لم يبلغنا أنه سبق جهما إليها أحد من العالمين. فقال له قائل ممن يحاوره: قد علمت مرادك بها أيها الأعجمي وتعني أن الله لا شيء، لأن الخلق كلهم علموا أنه ليس شيء يقع عليه اسم الشيء إلا وله حد وغاية وصفة وأن لا شيء ليس له حد ولا غاية ولا صفة، فالشيء أبدا موصوف لا محالة ولا شيء يوصف بلا حد ولا غاية، وقولك لا حد له يعني أنه لا شيء.
      قال أبو سعيد: والله تعالى له حد لا يعلمه أحد غيره ولا يجوز لأحد أن يتوهم لحده غاية في نفسه ولكن يؤمن بالحد ويكل علم ذلك إلى الله ولمكانه أيضا حد وهو على عرشه فوق سماواته؛ فهذان حدان اثنان


      "The opponent also claimed that Allah does not possess a Hadd (limit), Ghayah (restriction), or Nihayah (end). He said: And this is the basis upon which Jahm (ibn Safwan) built his misguidance and derived all of his errors. It has not reached us that anyone besides Jahm in the world preceded him with it. Someone who was discussing this with him (Jahm) said to him: I have come to know your intent oh non-Arab. You intend that Allah is nothing, because all of the creation have known that there is nothing that is called a “thing” except that it has a Hadd (limit), a Ghayah (restriction) and an attribute, and that what has no limit, restriction or attribute is nothingness.
      So that which is a “thing” must necessarily be described with attributes. Nothingness is described with no limit or restriction. Your statement: He has no limit means that He is nothing.”
      Abu Sa’id (al-Darimi) states:
      Allah Ta’ala has a limit that no one knows but Him and it is not allowed for anyone to imagine a limit to His limit in himself, however, he is to believe in the limit and relegate the knowledge of that to Allah. His place (Makan) also has a limit and He is upon His ‘Arsh above the seven heavens- so these are two limits.
      "
      - end of the quote -

      (Note: This statement is in direct opposition to what we find in the 'Aqida al-Tahawiyya, which has been accepted by the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna in general.)


      - "god" moves, sits and stands:

      لأن الحي القيوم يفعل ما يشاء ويتحرك إذا شاء ويهبط ويرتفع إذا شاء ويقبض ويبسط ويقوم ويجلس إذا شاء، لأن أمارة ما بين الحي والميت التحرك: كل حي متحرك لا محالة وكل ميت غير متحرك لا محالة

      "Because the Living the Sustainer does as He wills: He moves as He wills, and He descends and ascends as He wills, and He extends [His hand] as He wills and stands and sits as He wills, for the criterion that distinguishes the living from the dead is movement: every live thing moves of necessity and every dead thing does not move of necessity."
      - end of the quote -


      - When "god" sits upon the Kursi there remains a space of four fingers on it:

      إن كرسيه وسع السماوات والأرض وإنه ليقعد عليه فما يفضل منه إلا قدر أربع أصابع ومد أصابعه وإن له أطيطا كأطيط الرحل الجديد إذا ركبه من يثقله

      "“Verily, His chair can hold the skies and the earth, and verily He sits down on it and there is no space left over in it except the space of four fingers,” and he extended his four fingers. “And [the chair] makes a sound like that of a new saddle when someone sits on it with his weight.”"
      - end of the quote -

      (Note: This is part of a [wrong] narration that he cites as a proof against his opponent.)


      - When "god" sits on the throne it makes a sound, because of his weight:

      وروى المعارض أيضا عن الشعبي أنه قد ملأ العرش حتى إن له أطيطا كأطيط الرحل. ثم فسر قول الشعبي أنه قد ملأه آلاء ونعما حتى إن له أطيطا ... فيقال لهذا المعارض: ... ويلك فإن لم يكن على العرش بزعمك إلا آلاؤه ونعماؤه وأمره فما بال العرش يتأطط من الآلاء والنعماء؟ لكأنها عندك أعكام الحجارة والصخور والحديد فيتأطط منها العرش ثقلا، إنما الآلاء طبائع أو صنائع ليس لها ثقل ولا أجسام يتأطط منها العرش

      "The opponent has also reported from al-Sha'bi [who said] that He (Allah) has filled the throne and that [the throne] makes a sound like the sound of a saddle [when someone sits on it]. Then he interpretated the statement of al-Sha'bi [by saying], that [the throne] was filled by the grace and favor [of Allah]....
      It is said to this opponent: ... Woe to you! If there is nothing on the throne - in your claim - other than the grace and favor [of Allah] and His command, then is it that the throne is making a sound from the grace and favor? It is as if [they are like] stones and iron to you, so that the throne makes a sound because of their weight.
      Favors are traits and deeds which have no weight (Thiql) and they're not bodies which could cause the throne to make a sound.
      "
      - end of the quote -

      (Note: The statement that is ascribed to the Tabi'i is a lie against him as was mentioned by Imam Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) in his Daf' Shubah al-Tashbih.)


      - "god" has touched Adam, peace be upon him, while creating him with his hands:

      فيقال لهذا المريسي الجاهل بالله وبآياته: فهل علمت شيئا مما خلق الله ولي خلق ذلك غيره حتى خص آدم من بينهم أنه ولى خلقه من غير مسيس بيده، فسمّه؟ وإلا فمن ادعى أن الله لم يل خلق شيء صغير أو كبير فقد كفر. غير أنه ولي خلق الأشياء بأمره وقوله وإرادته وولي خلق آدم بيده مسيسا: لم يخلق ذا روح بيديه غيره فلذلك خصه وفضله وشرف بذلك ذكره، لولا ذلك ما كانت له فضيلة من ذلك على شيء من خلقه إذ خلقهم بغير مسيس في دعواك
      - end of the quote -


      - "god" may rest/sit upon the back of a mosquito:

      إن الله أعظم من كل شيء وأكبر من كل خلق ولم يحتمله العرش عظما ولا قوة، ولا حملة العرش احتملوه بقوتهم ولا استقلوا بعرشه بشدة أسرهم ولكنهم حملوه بقدرته ومشيئته وإرادته وتأييده لولا ذلك ما أطاقوا حمله. وقد بلغنا أنهم حين حملوا العرش وفوقه الجبار في عزته وبهائه ضعفوا عن حمله واستكانوا وجثوا على ركبهم حتى لقنوا لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله فاستقلوا به بقدرة الله وإرادته لولا ذلك ما استقل به العرش ولا الحملة ولا السموات والأرض ولا من فيهن ولو قد شاء لاستقر على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلت به بقدرته ولطف ربوبيته فكيف على عرش عظيم أكبر من السموات السبع والأرضين السبع وكيف ينكر أيها النفاج أن عرشه يقله والعرش أكبر من السموات السبع والأرضين السبع ولو كان العرش في السموات والأرضين ما وسعته ولكنه فوق السماء السابعة.
      فكيف تنكر هذا وأنت تزعم أن الله في الأرض وفي جميع أمكنتها والأرض دون العرش في العظمة والسعة فكيف تقله الأرض في دعواك ولا يقله العرش الذي أعظم منها وأوسع؟


      "Verily, Allah is greater than all things and bigger than all creation, and the throne is not carrying Him by [its] glory and strength, nor are the carriers of the throne carrying it by their strength, nor could they bear His throne; but they carried it by His power. It has reached us that when they carried the throne, and above it was the Almighty, in His glory and His splendor, they became weak from carrying it, and they became lowly, and knelt down on their knees, until they were taught to read: ‘There is no power, nor might, except with Allah.’ Then, they bore it by the power of Allah and His will. And if it were not for that, the throne would not be able to bear Him (i.e. Allah), nor the carriers [of the throne], nor the heavens, nor the earth, nor those in them.
      Had He willed, He would have settled on the back of a mosquito, so it would bear Him, by His power and the subtlety of His Lordship. Thus, what of the great throne, that is bigger than the heavens and the earth? And how do you deny, O vain one, that His throne bears Him, when the throne is bigger than the seven heavens and the seven earths? And had the throne been in the heavens and the earth, they would not have contained it, but it is above the seventh heaven. So how can you deny this, when you claim that Allah is in the earth in all its places, yet the earth is less than the throne in greatness and vastness. So how is it that the earth bears Him according to your claim, but the throne which is greater and more vast than it does not?

      - end of the quote -

      The above should be enough.

      Just because the Mu'attila went to one extreme it does not justify to go to the another extreme.
      The above descriptions are in no way from the attributes of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala or from the belief of the people of Islam regarding the Bari subhanahu wa ta'ala.
      These descriptions are from the beliefs of the pagans regarding their imaginary "gods". We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being and safety.

      __________


      Note: The grandmaster of the so called "Salafis" (i.e. Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH)) and his foremost student praised this accursed book like no other as can be seen HERE.
      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 09-11-21, 05:25 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

        Yes, you are right.

        The strange thing here is that the chain of this book contains several unknown persons and there are severely weak or outright fabricated narrations in it in addition to its absolutely pagan content, yet the so called "followers of the Salaf" (read: followers of the Mujassima and the Khawarij!) in our time rely upon it for their creed.

        ​​​​​Imagine playing with your Akhira, because so and so praised such an accursed book. This with knowledge that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala described the Ahl al-Kitab as taking their scholars as lords besides Allah ta'ala due to a similar behavior by them.


        Here are more informations regarding this pagan book:
        If this was Haqq, why the Early hashawites (who I'm pretty sure don't make open tajsim like that) and Karamites (who were either soft mujasima or hard mujasima) were condemned?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Zouhair al-'arabi View Post

          aren't these the attributes of accidents (things that came to exist and was created)? The 'Allāh' in that book seems to be just like you or me or the idols the Polytheists worship.
          Do you believe in Allah who is pleased and angry?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Musbah View Post
            Another one of these threads that makes it's way throughout forums on the Internet. The al-Ash'ari vs. the manhaj of the Salaf debate started by someone who got exposed to the propaganda of the Sufi's and now feels they are seasoned enough to propagate their deviation to others.
            I don't think that anyone had exposed or refuted the original post yet, rather it seems that every wahhabi in this thread seek to not answer in behalf of his Imam rather talk about other issues like the divine attributes and intercession, in which the op still in solid ground.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Zouhair al-'arabi View Post

              I don't think that anyone had exposed or refuted the original post yet, rather it seems that every wahhabi in this thread seek to not answer in behalf of his Imam rather talk about other issues like the divine attributes and intercession, in which the op still in solid ground.
              I asked you a question about divine attributes. Any reason why you're avoiding that and replying to a three year old post instead?

              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.
                So according to you, the 'mujahideen' who attacked local muslim arabs and Shi'ites without any reason other than sectarianism and arrogance and ambition to establish a Kharijite state (similar to the first Saudi state and other kharijites) and killed sunni scholars and demanded allegiance by force and all what the op have described, these are righteous 'mujahideen' who did some mistakes.
                but who disagree with them and their evil actions are blinded by nationalism and is soft with tawaghit?
                Subhanallah!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                  There is no hindsight bias involved here. What you say would be true, if I were to claim that al-Maliki and ISI/ISIL planned this together. This is however not what I said.

                  What I said is that al-Maliki commanded the leaders of the army to retreat from Mosul. Know that the soldiers were asked why they "deserted after what had happened in June 2014 and they said that they hadnt deserted, but had received commands from their leadership to retreat. Guess whose command the army leaders had to follow at that time? Al-Maliki! What a surprise!

                  There was not a single reason to leave a whole city. So why did the leaders of the army call their soldiers to retreat from the city? The number of the ISI/ISIL fighters in the city was a joke, so this can not be the reason.
                  Al-Maliki wanted to stop the protests in Sunni regions. So he did what he did with the intention that ISI/ISIL will control the city and the regions around it and this will give him the right to attack these regions and change the balance of power and make demographic changes. This is exactly what happened later on.


                  Anyways my point was that there was a justified struggle against the American occupation in Iraq, which was first and foremost destroyed by Zarqawis group (which later on mutated into ISI and then to ISIL).
                  SJ groups have had a quite negative role throughout the region and their action weakened Muslims in general (and Sunnis in particular!) even more.
                  While searching sometime before I found this report which seems to be documented by Iraqi intelligence officer after the 9/11 terrorist attack but prior to the US invasion of Iraq, The document details how the Wahhabiya movement started, how and by who it was supported and why.

                  https://irp.fas.org/eprint/iraqi/wahhabi.pdf

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Zouhair al-'arabi View Post

                    While searching sometime before I found this report which seems to be documented by Iraqi intelligence officer after the 9/11 terrorist attack but prior to the US invasion of Iraq, The document details how the Wahhabiya movement started, how and by who it was supported and why.

                    https://irp.fas.org/eprint/iraqi/wahhabi.pdf
                    Federation of American Scientists allegedly quoting some random Baathist. You really are a dumbo.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                      Federation of American Scientists allegedly quoting some random Baathist. You really are a dumbo.
                      The fact that it was written seems to indicate that there was, rightly, some concern about the movement.

                      When the document was released, it must have been a slap in the face to those who claimed, at the time, that there was a connection between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda, in order to partly justify the invasion.

                      Note: the fact that you're throwing labels like Ba'thist and such in order to undermine the informations of the document just show that you infact have no intention of real conversation and just want to troll and keep talking so the reader(s) get confused or they too undermine the content of the posts against the Wahhabiya, I have no intention of aiding you so I will not reply to your (honestly, useless) posts, but just so you know: I would rather trust a Ba'thist than any wahhabi who are known as liars and dishonest creatures who would openly lie upon the opponent.
                      ​​​​​​

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Zouhair al-'arabi View Post

                        The fact that it was written seems to indicate that there was, rightly, some concern about the movement.

                        When the document was released, it must have been a slap in the face to those who claimed, at the time, that there was a connection between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda, in order to partly justify the invasion.

                        Note: the fact that you're throwing labels like Ba'thist and such in order to undermine the informations of the document just show that you infact have no intention of real conversation and just want to troll and keep talking so the reader(s) get confused or they too undermine the content of the posts against the Wahhabiya, I have no intention of aiding you so I will not reply to your (honestly, useless) posts, but just so you know: I would rather trust a Ba'thist than any wahhabi who are known as liars and dishonest creatures who would openly lie upon the opponent.
                        ​​​​​​
                        There was also a lot written about WMD in Iraq. Were you concerned about that too?

                        Of course you would side with Baathists over Muslims. You brandished the French flag. You are a clown.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                          There was also a lot written about WMD in Iraq. Were you concerned about that too?

                          Of course you would side with Baathists over Muslims. You brandished the French flag. You are a clown.
                          Ba'thists were muslims, with few exceptions, in other hand we all know the Wahhabiya and its history, you can clownish me however you want and I don't actually care because you're the true clown.
                          goodnight.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Zouhair al-'arabi View Post

                            Ba'thists were muslims, with few exceptions, in other hand we all know the Wahhabiya and its history, you can clownish me however you want and I don't actually care because you're the true clown.
                            goodnight.
                            Nationalists like you are a scourge on Muslims. The sooner your pride and arrogance gets destroyed the better.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                              Nationalists like you are a scourge on Muslims. The sooner your pride and arrogance gets destroyed the better.
                              Is calling me a nationalist the best you can do?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Zouhair al-'arabi View Post

                                If this was Haqq, why the Early hashawites (who I'm pretty sure don't make open tajsim like that) and Karamites (who were either soft mujasima or hard mujasima) were condemned?
                                Indeed brother, but the problem is that today there is a rather shocking level of ignorance regarding Islamic history and regarding who the people of the Sunna were and are and what their creed is.
                                The mindless bedouin anthropomorphists of our time have been very successful in fooling and brainwashing quite alot of the laymen (and this through their petrodollars and their lies and propaganda) and if these very laymen would know what these Mujassima say regarding the Bari ta'ala among themselves and what they state in their so called lessons, they would disassociate themselves from them and what they worship besides Allah ta'ala.

                                In Islamic history there were even some scholars whom other scholars regarded as Hashwiyya and this simply due to their overreliance on severly weak / fabricated narrations in issues of creed and them arguing similar to Mujassima without intending Tajsim in reality.
                                So imagine what the scholars would have said, if they would have seen these mindless and ignorant bedouins who are lacking in basic Shar'i sciences and who are hellbent on forcing the Muslims to change their creed regarding Allah ta'ala and lead them astray.
                                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 12-11-21, 05:02 PM.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X