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.

[Musbah]

Could you please get out of this thread?! We’ve already seen how you openly and shamelessly lied and refused to say sorry even when it became clear to everyone that you were lying! Your attitude is that of Zionist and not that of a Muslim!

And: You know literally nothing of the Islamic history otherwise you wouldn’t make worthless comments such as the above one! The Ash’aris and Maturidis have heroes like Sultan Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi and Sultan Muhammad al-Fatih in their ranks. None of the today’s groups have produced such people!

Infact we see here how some "Salafis" are openly justifying the killing of other Muslims and saying that the war of the early Najdis against the cities of the Arabian peninsula and against the Ottomans were justified. So this means that the primary enemies of you "Salafis" are Muslims!
Look how easily you people make Takfir upon Muslims of the past, who were much more knowledgeable and pious than you and your so called "scholars"! If this is not the way of the Khawarij then I don’t know what it is!

And by the way: You people are keeping on and on saying "the Salaf", so let me remind you that the Salaf al-salih were the noble Sahaba - radhiallahu 'anhum - the Tabi'in and the Atba' al-Tabi'in and not your Najdi and "Salafi" Mashayikh who are all followers of the chain-less and ijaza-less mass-murderer and Dajjal MiAW.
And: Our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - emphasized the sanctity of Muslim blood and mentioned this issue many many times and warned spilling it, but here we see how easily you people throw away his blessed words and instructions behind your backs and how easily you justify the killing of other Muslims!
Wallahi, you should be ashamed of yourselves!

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

[Abu Sulayman]

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.

Could you please get out of this thread?! We’ve already seen how you openly and shamelessly lied and refused to say sorry even when it became clear to everyone that you were lying! Your attitude is that of Zionist and not that of a Muslim!

And: You know literally nothing of the Islamic history otherwise you wouldn’t make worthless comments such as the above one! The Ash’aris and Maturidis have heroes like Sultan Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi and Sultan Muhammad al-Fatih in their ranks. None of the today’s groups have produced such people!

Infact we see here how some "Salafis" are openly justifying the killing of other Muslims and saying that the war of the early Najdis against the cities of the Arabian peninsula and against the Ottomans were justified. So this means that the primary enemies of you "Salafis" are Muslims!
Look how easily you people make Takfir upon Muslims of the past, who were much more knowledgeable and pious than you and your so called "scholars"! If this is not the way of the Khawarij then I don’t know what it is!

And by the way: You people are keeping on and on saying "the Salaf", so let me remind you that the Salaf al-salih were the noble Sahaba - radhiallahu 'anhum - the Tabi'in and the Atba' al-Tabi'in and not your Najdi and "Salafi" Mashayikh who are all followers of the chain-less and ijaza-less mass-murderer and Dajjal MiAW.
And: Our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - emphasized the sanctity of Muslim blood and mentioned this issue many many times and warned spilling it, but here we see how easily you people throw away his blessed words and instructions behind your backs and how easily you justify the killing of other Muslims!
Wallahi, you should be ashamed of yourselves!

[Abu julaybeeb]

Look at your weird logic!
Let‘s remind you that we‘re getting nearer and nearer to the day of judgement, so it‘s expected that people leave the teachings of classical scholars and start following Dajjals like MIAW.

As for the Wahhabi teachings being spread by the Saudi state: This is a fact that no one will be able to deny. This is something that Muhammad bin Salman explicitly admitted. So how will you be able to deny that?

Then: In the past the Sunni scholars belonged to the 4 Madhahib in Fiqh and where either Ash‘ari/Maruridi or Hanbali in 'Aqida (while you people belong to none of them!). For thousand years these teachings where followed by the absolute majority of Muslims and during that time Allah ta‘ala protected the Muslims from their enemies and made them victorious against the disbelievers!

Why is it the moment MIAW‘s teachings starts to spread this Ummah gets weak?! So your argument is actually against you!

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

[Abu julaybeeb]

Al-Hazimi‘s chain Takfir is correct according to Najdi standards! Why do you think Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab made Takfir upon all those Hanbali scholars of the region?!
I repeat: He made Takfir upon known Hanbali scholars of the region, while he had not a single Ijaza for a single Islamic science. When the Hanbali Shaykh Ibn 'Afaliq asked him some questions related to the Islamic sciences, he did not dare to respond to any of them! Just imagine: This guy was acting as if he has the right to decide who‘s Muslim and who‘s not and did not know the answer to issues, which every scholar and even every real student of knowledge should know!

If there would be no chain Takfir, why exactly did the Najdis attack the cities of Arabian peninsula one after the other? Why did they make Takfir upon the Ottomans and upon those who do not make Takfir upon them? Why did they explicitly make Takfir upon the people of Makka and said that whosoever does not make Takfir upon them is a disbeliever like them (even if he‘s upon Wahhabi beliefs!)?! Why?!

Before jumping to his defense go and inform yourself properly.

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

[Musbah]

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.

[Muslim First]

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.

[Pakisaurus]

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.

[Abu Sulayman]

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!

[Abu Sulayman]

After knowing the above we can start with your 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.

[Abu Sulayman]

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.

[Pakisaurus]

Informative posts. Jazakallah khair brother abu julaybeeb.

[Musbah]

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.

[Abu julaybeeb]

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

[Abu julaybeeb]

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