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

  • Abu 'Abdullaah
    replied
    Originally posted by Zouhair al-'arabi View Post
    If pointing to an obvious dishonesty is getting frustrated and angry, then yes I'm "frustrated" and "angry", just going with your expressions.
    however, if you want to act like Shi'ite and live within muslims for the only sake of confusing them with such (shameless) tactics, then please let me be as frustrated and angry as I want to be at pointing this obvious dishonesty and hypocrisy from your side.
    as for getting challenged, how are you "challenging" me? By asking a question that you already know the answer and when getting answered and pointed to your very taqiya-like attitude, you act strong and say words like: "He has attempted to answer but, like you, he gets flustered and and angry when he gets challenged."?
    ​​​Very challenging indeed.
    No, I've already explained, if my explanation was too complicated for your mental capacity then this is a problem you need to solve, it's non of my business.
    My guess is you have more in common with raafidah than me.
    Your answer to the question about Allah being pleased and angry is summarised by my answer.

    You can ask anyone if they understand it differently. Morose your expertise is needed here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zouhair al-'arabi
    replied
    Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
    He has attempted to answer but, like you, he gets flustered and and angry when he gets challenged.
    If pointing to an obvious dishonesty is getting frustrated and angry, then yes I'm "frustrated" and "angry", just going with your expressions.
    however, if you want to act like Shi'ite and live within muslims for the only sake of confusing them with such (shameless) tactics, then please let me be as frustrated and angry as I want to be at pointing this obvious dishonesty and hypocrisy from your side.
    as for getting challenged, how are you "challenging" me? By asking a question that you already know the answer and when getting answered and pointed to your very taqiya-like attitude, you act strong and say words like: "He has attempted to answer but, like you, he gets flustered and and angry when he gets challenged."?

    ​​​Very challenging indeed.

    [QUOTE=So you believe Allah is pleased and angry but not in the same way you (i.e. creation) get pleased and angry?
    [/QUOTE]

    No, I've already explained, if my explanation was too complicated for your mental capacity then this is a problem you need to solve, it's non of my business.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu 'Abdullaah
    replied
    Originally posted by Zouhair al-'arabi View Post

    Can I ask you something?
    are you interested in genuine discussion and seeking of knowledge? If the answer was yes, why are you asking me this question (whather I believe if Allah gets angry...blah blah blah) knowing that abu Sulayman had already answered this question of yours more than one time...
    He has attempted to answer but, like you, he gets flustered and and angry when he gets challenged.

    ...I assume, you're asking me this question because you seek not knowledge...
    Right, I am not seeking knowledge from you.

    ...Imam nawawi commentary on the narration of [my mercy override my anger]:
    "What is meant by anger is what is necessary from it, and it is the desire to deliver the punishment to the one upon whom the anger falls, because the precedence and dominance in consideration of attachment, i.e. attachment of mercy is predominant prior to attachment of anger, because mercy requires its sacred essence. He mentioned the occurrence of torment before mercy in some places, and all of this is based on the fact that mercy and anger are among the attributes of the Self. Some scholars said that mercy and anger are from the attributes of actions, not from the attributes of the Essence, and there is no objection to some actions taking precedence over others."...
    Source for the quote?

    ...I believe that Allāh have the attribute of mercy and anger, which are meanings subsisting in the divine essence, which realities cannot be comprehended...
    So you believe Allah is pleased and angry but not in the same way you (i.e. creation) get pleased and angry?

    Leave a comment:


  • Zouhair al-'arabi
    replied
    Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

    Is the question about divine attributes too difficult for you?
    Can I ask you something?
    are you interested in genuine discussion and seeking of knowledge? If the answer was yes, why are you asking me this question (whather I believe if Allah gets angry...blah blah blah) knowing that abu Sulayman had already answered this question of yours more than one time.
    I assume, you're asking me this question because you seek not knowledge, but to confuse the laypeople and ignorant brothers and sisters, am I right? You're acting as if "gotcha!" When asking that question.
    To answer you:
    I believe that Allāh have the attribute of mercy and anger, which are meanings subsisting in the divine essence, which realities cannot be comprehended, they can also be actions.
    Imam nawawi commentary on the narration of [my mercy override my anger]:
    "What is meant by anger is what is necessary from it, and it is the desire to deliver the punishment to the one upon whom the anger falls, because the precedence and dominance in consideration of attachment, i.e. attachment of mercy is predominant prior to attachment of anger, because mercy requires its sacred essence. He mentioned the occurrence of torment before mercy in some places, and all of this is based on the fact that mercy and anger are among the attributes of the Self. Some scholars said that mercy and anger are from the attributes of actions, not from the attributes of the Essence, and there is no objection to some actions taking precedence over others."

    I do not believe that Allah is described with emotions, or that he get angry like Zeus or Odin having emotional tentrum, or that he's subject to changes which what your question is also implying, if you will continue being deceptive and dishonest I will not reply to you.
    Last edited by Zouhair al-'arabi; 14-11-21, 08:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu 'Abdullaah
    replied
    Originally posted by Zouhair al-'arabi View Post

    Is calling me a nationalist the best you can do?
    Is the question about divine attributes too difficult for you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Zouhair al-'arabi
    replied
    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

    But I opened a newer thread regarding this Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and his early followers - may Allah ta'ala give them what they deserve! - and the newer thread is much more systematic and is filled with clear cut proofs from their own accursed works:
    [/URL][/B]
    Very beneficial threads of yours, may Allāh سبحانه وتعالى reward you abundantly for your good efforts.
    Last edited by Zouhair al-'arabi; 12-11-21, 05:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu Sulayman
    replied
    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.
    This thread here is quite old and it's a good example how these people have literally no proofs whatsoever and are simply blind followers of a criminal man, who was literally condemned by every major scholar of his region and the regions around it.

    From the beginning of this thread the fans of this man started with personal attacks, lies and making completely off-topic posts to the degree that the original issue was lost.



    But I opened a newer thread regarding this Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and his early followers - may Allah ta'ala give them what they deserve! - and the newer thread is much more systematic and is filled with clear cut proofs from their own accursed works:


    Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's lack of qualifications and the disasters that resulted from it!

    Table of contents (25-2-2021):

    - OP (includes examples of IAW's shocking level of ignorance): Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's (d.1206 AH) lack of qualifications and the disasters that resulted from it!
    - The results of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's ignorance and extreme ideas on a theoretical level (includes Takfir against scholars, cities, whole regions and basically the whole Umma!):
    Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
    - The results of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's ignorance and extreme ideas on a practical level (includes terrorizing, robbing, burning down fields, cutting trees and mass-killing the Muslims of the Arabian peninsula and surrounding regions; Part 12 is specifically regarding what they did to the people of the Haramayn al-Sharifayn and their stopping of the Hajj!):
    Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13
    - Different examples of stealing, killing and destruction caused by Wahhabis according to 'Unwan al-Majd
    - Translations of some of the examples given on the theoretical and practical results of MIAW's extremism and ignorance


    - Proving that the scholars were truthful regarding Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and that IAW himself was the liar!
    - Proving that "islamqa(.)info" are liars like their leader MIAW!
    - Proving that the "Salafi" Mashayikh are liars just like their leader MIAW!


    - The knowledge of the people of Washm regarding their Creator and the ignorance of IAW's followers regarding Him!
    - MIAW usage of fabricated narrations in his so called Kitab al-Tawhid

    - MIAW's ignorance regarding al-Iqna' (one of the most widespread Fiqh books in Najd!)

    - 'Allama Ibn Suhaym al-Hanbali (d. 1181 AH) regarding the extremism of IAW
    - 'Allama al-Saffarini al-Hanbali (d. 1188 AH) regarding IAW being a Mujtahid in destroying the divine law!
    - 'Allama Muhammad bin Sulayman al-Kurdi al-Shafi'i (d. 1194 AH) advising his student IAW to stop his Takfir against the Umma of Islam
    - 'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH): Some of his statements in response to the ignorance of his brother IAW
    - 'Allama 'Abdullah bin Dawud al-Hanbali (d. 1225 AH) regarded IAW a FALSE PROPHET in his "Lightnings and Thunders in Response to the Wretched Ibn Sa'ud"
    - 'Allama Ibn Humayd al-Hanbali (d. 1295 AH): Praising the father and brother of IAW and criticizing IAW as "the founder of the mission whose evil had spread across the horizon" and mentioning his attempt to assassinate his brother
    - Shaykh Mustafa bin Ahmad al-Shatti al-Hanbali (d. 1348 AH): Idolatry and its forms (contains criticism of MIAW by the 'Allama Hassan al-Shatti (d. 1274 AH))


    - Regarding the Hadith of Najd and the tribulations that will appear from the East and its connection to MIAW's "Najdi call":
    Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
    - Al-Lajna al-Da`ima admitting that Najd is included in the narrations regarding the tribulations and the horn of satan that would appear and emerge from the east!!!
    - Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH) - the Najdi Khariji! - AFFIRMS that Najd has always been a place for tribulations!



    - The Prophet ﷺ was not afraid that his nation will fall into [greater] polytheism and swore by Allah regarding this!
    - The only polytheism that can be found in his nation is the lesser one!
    - The Prophet ﷺ informed his nation that satan has despaired to be EVER worshiped on the Arabian peninsula again!
    - When will idols be worshiped again in the lands of the Arabs?: When ALL believers die (just before the end of times)!
    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 12-11-21, 05:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu Sulayman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zouhair al-'arabi
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu 'Abdullaah
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zouhair al-'arabi
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu 'Abdullaah
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zouhair al-'arabi
    replied
    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.
    ​​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu 'Abdullaah
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zouhair al-'arabi
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X