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

[Abu Sulayman]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. And may the peace and blessings be upon the Master of all Messengers - our Prophet Muhammad - and upon his family and companions and those who followed them in goodness until the day of judgement.

To proceed:

Al-Salamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah,

I've read some threads on this forum and saw that there are people here who dislike the crimes of IS / ISIS against the Muslims and other innocent people, but at the same time they admire Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and the original Najdi movement. This shows that there is huge amount of lack of information regarding the original Najdi movement and the level of their fanaticism.
Know that IS / ISIS has not even committed 10 % of that which the original Najdi / Wahhabi movement committed against the Muslims in the time of the first Saudi state.

The reason why it's important to know about the history of the original Wahhabiyyah is because it's necessary in order to understand the roots of fanaticism of an organization like ISIS and also in order not to be fooled by the deception, lies and propaganda of the Mashayikh of so called "Salafi" movement, who are exploiting the thirst of young people - especially those living in the West - to learn the religion. The reason why young people in the West are easily fooled by these so called "Salafis" is because of the ignorance regarding the [true] religion (i.e. Islam) that is unfortunately prevelant in the West.

In this thread I'll insha`Allah try to lessen this lack of information concerning the original Najdi movement.

Before I begin I would like to make an important note: This thread is NOT for the sake of dicussion and argumentation, but rather in order to inform those brother and sisters who don't know the reality of this movement and to warn them from being influenced by them or their descendants (i.e. the "Salafis"). I would also like to request that no one starts blindly defending Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his original followers in time of the first Saudi state, because I'm quite sure that you haven't read some of the Hardcore-Takfiri books of the original Najdis. All the informations that I will mention are from those books. If you want a proof for anything that I'll mention, then please write a comment here and I'll bring you the relevant qoutes in Arabic [from Najdi books] (and summarize its content).


These are the most important Najdi sources in order to know the reality of this movement:

- Tarikh Najd by the Wahhabi historian Hussayn bin Ghannam (d. 1225 AH): It's a history book and the author is a supporter and direct student of Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab.
- 'Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd by the Wahhabi historian 'Uthman bin Bishr (d. 1288 AH): It's also a history book and the author lived during the time of the first and the second Saudi state. Similar to the book of Ibn Ghannam it's full of shocking passages where the author proudly reports how they attacked the cities of the Arabian peninsula and the surrounding areas and how "the Muslims" (while refering to themselves, i.e. the Najdis) killed the "Mushrikin" and "Murtadin" (while refering to the Muslims of the whole region!).
- Mufid al-Mustafid fi Kufri Tarik al-Tawhid by Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH): He wrote this book after he had made Takfir upon a whole town in Najd (i.e. Huraymila`) and tried to justify it. The reason for his Takfir was first and foremost that the people of the city didn't support his unjustified Takfir and call to bloodshed anymore.
- Al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyyah: These are the personal letters that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab sent to the scholars, people of authority and other imporant people. In these letters you'll see him making all kind of crazy statements like making Takfir upon the scholars of his time and claiming that he alone has understood Tawhid.
- Al-Durar al-Saniyyah: A compilation of statements from Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his [blind] followers (whom the "Salafis" refer to as "scholars of Najd"). It was meant as a defence of their creed.

So let's now begin with the important part:


Who are the Wahhabiyyah and who is their leader?

The Wahhabiyyah are the followers of Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH). He was the son of a Hanbali scholar and was born in al-'Uyayynah, a village in Najd. He started to study Islam and to become a student of knowledge (Talib al-'Ilm), but somehow he developed strange and extreme views.

He became obsessed with graves: He regarded the wrong actions concerning the graves, which according to classical understanding are either forbidden (haram) or disliked (makruh), as Shirk akbar (polytheism). He did not stop here: He even regarded actions which are allowed according to all 4 accepted Madhahib of the Ahl al-Sunnah (like for example the seeking of intercession through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - (i.e. Tashaffu')) as "Shirk akbar" and regarded it as a nullifier of one's Islam.

When his father saw that his son had developed these strange views and had deviated from the way of the Ahl al-Sunnah, he disallowed him to spread his wrong views. He feared however that his son would be the cause of great tribulations after his demise and he was indeed right with this feeling.

When his father died, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab started to try to spread his new call.
Before I proceed I would like to show you what this person thought about himself, so that you do not have any doubts regarding his deviance from the way of the Ahl al-Sunnah and the Sawad al-A'dham of this Ummah.


Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab: "No one knows Tawhid except me"

He said in one of his letters:

وأنا أخبركم عن نفسي والله الذي لا إله إلا هو لقد طلبت العلم واعتقد من عرفني أن لي معرفة وأنا ذلك الوقت لا أعرف معنى لا إله إلا الله، ولا أعرف دين الإسلام قبل هذا الخير الذي من الله به. وكذلك مشايخي ما منهم رجل عرف ذلك، فمن زعم من علماء العارض أنه عرف معنى لا إله إلا الله أو عرف معنى الإسلام قبل هذا الوقت أو زعم عن مشايخه أن أحداً عرف ذلك فقد كذب وافترى ولبس على الناس ومدح نفسه بما ليس فيه

"And I inform you about myself - I swear by Allah whom there is none worthy to worship except Him - I have sought knowledge and those who knew me believed that I had knowledge while I did not know the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah at that time and did not know the religion of Islam before this grace that Allah favored. As well as my teachers (Mashayikh) no one among them knew that. And if someone from the scholars of al-'Aridh (the lands of Najd and surrounding areas) claims that he knew the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah or knew the meaning of Islam before this time, or claims on behalf of his teachers that someone from them knew that, then he has lied and said falsehood and deceived the people and praised himself with something he does not possess."

Source: al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyyah and al-Durar al-Saniyyah 10/51

Just look at the arrogance and narcissm of this person and how he claims that he alone knows Tawhid while accusing the scholars (!) of the whole region of not knowing it. And where did this "knowledge" come from if no one teached it him?
And you'll be surprised how many times he makes such crazy statements in his letters and how he sometimes lies (like for example by accusing anyone who critises him of "Sabb al-Din"/"cursing the religion") in a very clear way without having any shame whatsoever! May Allah ta'ala give him what he deserves!


What was his connection to the first Saudi state?

After he was thrown out of his hometown he met the Amir of al-Dir'iyyah (which is a town in Najd), Muhammad bin Sa'ud (d. 1179 AH), in the year 1157 AH. Ibn Sa'ud accepted his call after Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had told him that the people of Najd and the surrounding were upon "polytheism" and "ignorance" and after he explained to him his new religion. (Ibn Bishr has mentioned the incident.) Ibn Sa'ud and Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab made an alliance and agreed that the polical power shall be for Ibn Sa'ud (and his sons after him) and that the religious power shall be for Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his new ideas. This was the birth of the first Saudi state and he was the "Mufti" of this [accursed] state.


The first Saudi state: The worst and most bloodthirsty Khawarij in the history!

After the alliance was made Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab started throwing around with Fatawa of Takfir and to claim that most people of his time were are upon "Shirk akbar" (polytheism), so that the soldiers of the new born Saudi state could take this as a justifcation to fight the surrounding areas and occupy these regions. The Najdis first started with the towns and villages of Najd and attacked them one after the other.

But they did not stop with Najd. Soon they started to attack the whole Arabian peninsula. They also attacked all surrounding areas like 'Iraq, Sham, Yemen, 'Oman, etc.
They did no even shy away from making Takfir against the people of Makkah al-mukarramah and Madinah al-munawwarah and harming them and occupying these blessed cities!!

If you read how the two Wahhabi historians Ibn Ghannam and Ibn Bishr proudly and without any shame reported these incidents you'll be shocked. They reported how they made Takfir upon whole towns and villages, attacked them and killed them on the streets, the markets and even in their houses. They even killed the Amir of al-'Uyayynah inside the mosque (!!!) after he had prayed the Salat al-Jum'ah. (Not even the houses of Allah had any sanctity for them!)
They also reported how they burned and destroyed the fields of Muslims (while referring to them as "polytheists" and "apostates"), robbed and stole from them whatever they could take!
They even reported what a great fear their attacks caused in the heart of the people (this was during their attack on al-Sham) or how the people - innocent Muslim men and women!!! - ran away from them and died from hunger and thirst in the desert (this is what happened to the people of al-Riyadh) or how the people fled to the ocean and drowned in the water (this happened to the people of al-Basrah). They also reported how they made an embargo against different cities which caused the people to die from hunger (this happened to the people Makkah al-mukarramah!).

And as if all of these crimes are not enough: When they occupied Makkah al-mukarramah they stopped the people from the other Muslim lands from making Hajj for several years, because they regarded all of them to be "polytheists" and "apostates". The first time this happened in the year 1221 AH.

When their tyranny and bloodshed had reached its peak, the Ottomans - who were the biggest "Mushrikin" (polytheists) upon this earth according the Najdis - decided to stop these criminal Mariqin and Khawarij and to retake every single city that they had occupied. The Ottomans crushed their Khariji state and the first Saudi state ceased to exist by the help of Allah and his permission.


What is build upon deviation does not lead to anything except more deviation:

After the first state they had a second state, but the second state was only in Najd and was weak compared to their first state. As for the third state: It's the current Saudi state and it was build upon treason against the whole Ummah of Islam.

In the time of their first State the Wahhabiyyah were hated by all Muslims of the region (because everyone saw and knew of their crimes) and the people did not accept their views. However when time passed by the people started to forget about them.

During the third state (i.e. the actual one) the government started to spread the so called "Salafi" Da'wah with huge amounts of money (because there is still an alliance between the Saudi rulers and the Wahhabi Al al-Shaykhs, who are the descendents of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab). This and the widespread ignorance regarding the religion in our times are the main reason why the "Salafis" have spread. It should be noted that the so called "Salafi" Da'wah has nothing to do with the Salaf al-salih or the Ahl al-Sunnah. It's the result of a mix of the ideas of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and some other controversial personalities.

So beware from whom you take religion and do not let these deceivers influence you.

And our last call is that all praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. And may the peace and blessings be upon our Master Muhammad - the seal of the Prophets and Messengers - and upon all of his familiy and companions.

[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.

[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....

[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

[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.

Maliki is a Shi'a Taghut and Baghdadi is a extreme Salafi Taghut and the claim of both of them that they’re ruling by Islam is rejected.

The rules of the divine law are there to uphold major principles and they’re preserving religion, life, intellect, lineage and property.
A state that claims to follow Islam needs to build such a system, legislation and administration that the above major principles are preserved. If they‘re not preserved then even if one claims a thousand times that the state rules by Islam, it does not become true.

Then: It‘s a known issue that Zarqawis group / ISI / ISIL would attack innocent people. They would blow up Shi'a civilians and this is something they themselves admitted. Then they would also attack funerals of Sahwa/police members (who were Sunnis). This is also a known issue and they themselves would claim responsibility for these attacks. Is going to the funeral of a deceased family member a reason to get killed?
They would attack scholars and other Sunni personalities for criticizing their way. Is this a justified a reason to kill people?
And they would do a lot of other satanic stuff, which you have no idea of.

Since you‘re most likely chilling among the disbelievers and living there either paying them taxes or humiliating yourself by receiving their haram money it would be nice if you stop acting as if you know what goes on in our countries and it would be nice if you stop supporting groups that are killing Muslims and other innocent people.

Then: You ask regarding our scholars: Let me remind you that these scholars have studied Islam in a classic and systematic way and they have a chain of knowledge going back to Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and they teach classical Islam without mixing disbelief into it. This alone would be enough to make them better than your "Salafi" Mashayikh and also the Shi'a Mashayikh.

Add to that: They do not call to hatred and killing of other Muslims - even not against non-Sunnis and deviants like Salafis and Shi'as! - and they do not call to wars between Muslims themselves! (Know that just because we don‘t make Takfir upon "Salafi" and Shi'a laymen - or even their scholars - it does not mean that Allah ta‘ala will automatically accept them all as Muslims in the hereafter!)
Our scholars follow the Prophetic teachings and know what a grave sin it is to spill blood without any justified reason. They do not call to the spilling of blood based upon suspicious reasons and wrong justifications.
When America occupied our country they called to resistance and the people indeed resisted them in a very strong way until Zarqawis group destroyed their struggle!

Then: They‘re not getting fundings by the Khaliji traitors andere they‘re not getting weapons by other states (many many Muslims - including people from our city! - have seen with their own eyes how planes and helicopters have thrown big packages of weapons to your beloved Dawa‘ish and this has happened so many times that America had to claim once that they had delivered them weapons, but that this was done accidentally!), so what do you expect them do?

If you want them to call to rebelling against the governments in Muslim countries, then this is in itself wrong, because there is not enough power to overthrow these governments and to build a better and more Islamic system instead. Rebelling in this cases would just lead to complete chaos and war (as it is seen in Syria!). They‘re people of intellect and knowledge and they think of the benefits and the risks before issuing any Fatawa.

[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 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]

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]

).

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

[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 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)

[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..

[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.

[Poster]

Don‘t rush into wrong judgements bro. Some people lied against the Shaykh and tried to paint him in a specific way, but the reality is not like that. The Shaykh was in no way supporting the killing committed by the government forces, but at the same time he was warning from making a revolution without known leaders - with known and good backgrounds - and without clear goals.

He was warning from the chaos and senseless killing that we see today. So he was actually right.
Can anyone today claim that the people of Syria have benefited from what happened since the revolution? Be honest.

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.

[Abu Sulayman]

Allahu yahdeek.

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

Don‘t rush into wrong judgements bro. Some people lied against the Shaykh and tried to paint him in a specific way, but the reality is not like that. The Shaykh was in no way supporting the killing committed by the government forces, but at the same time he was warning from making a revolution without known leaders - with known and good backgrounds - and without clear goals.

He was warning from the chaos and senseless killing that we see today. So he was actually right.
Can anyone today claim that the people of Syria have benefited from what happened since the revolution? Be honest.