Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Salafis / Wahhabis are Kharijites - debate point by point please

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Salafis / Wahhabis are Kharijites - debate point by point please

    I am making a new thread because my original one here: http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthrea...amp-Kharijites

    was getting trolled by one person in particular - but the cause of this person's massive problem was never stated, he declined a civil debate at every turn.

    The original post from that thread is reproduced here:



    Please enlighten me with your own opinions as to the difference between Wahhabi / Salafi modernists*, and Kharijites?
    Would prefer direct comparisons, side by side, point by point.


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    * I group Wahhabis and Salafis together as modernists, I can't remember why they are called modernists, but that's the category they are in, perhaps it refers to:

    - Their revivalism - proclaiming a purification of Islamic religious practice.

    - Their perceived incomplete implementation of Islam, which of course everybody else has too, but the modernists proclaim it (their system, including the missing parts) as integral to their Shari'ah, i.e. they see their modern Shari'ah as complete.
    >>> For example: people have said it is haram to go to a non-Muslim land except in a few cases (war, flight from persecution, education, trade, and preaching - but I think permanent settlement was intended in the tradition, thus the only exceptions are war, flight from persecution, and preaching). However, that tradition is now lost, it doesn't appear to even show up on Google anymore. The modernist has no problem with large-scale economic migration to non-Muslim lands, even claiming welfare benefits there, while still maintaining a hostile stance toward the "kuffar" (non-Believers). I'm not saying economic migration and claiming welfare benefits are bad - I'm just describing a situation where modernists may exist and flourish, despite how it compromises traditional Islam, yet the modernist proclaims a traditional Islam, i.e. the modernists claims his system is complete, despite it clearly being very modern in what it permits.

    - Their disregard historical aspects of Islam inasmuch as what passed since the first 3 generations after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, up to the 1900s - and thus they are criticised by some as being decontextualised, ahistoricists.

    >>> For example, they might despise the university system, ignoring that Muslims created the first university (either Kairouan or Madrid).
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    No flame war intended nor wanted.






    Post No. 37 from the original thread is reproduced here (with minor edits at the start and end):

    WHEREVER I WRITE ">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANSWER THIS:" - I REQUIRE A REFUTATION OTHERWISE THERE IS NO DEBATE - LET IT BE KNOWN THAT MY OPPONENTS WHO WILL NOT DEBATE BUT JUST FLAME, HAVE TACITLY UPHELD MY THESIS

    I explained in Post #9 how Neo-Salafis (as opposed to Modernist Salafis) can still be considered Modernist if you consider overstepping some of the Sunnah (e.g. how it's forbidden to live in a non-Muslim country) yet still proclaiming full Shari'ah compliance to be a kind of modernism. I guess one way out of it is to say there are no Muslim countries, but still, you can't escape the fact that the Salafi Shari'ah compliance - as with any other Muslim group's Shari'ah compliance - is incomplete.

    Some Islamic precepts disregarded by all Muslims - including Salafis - I think this means their Shari'ah compliance is incomplete: No call to prayer, no zakat collection or distribution system (nobody helps Muslim poor in their own country in the West - the point is: Zakat - the Alms Tax - just acts as Charity i.e. Sadaqat, it is not actually a national Alms Tax giving money to the poor wherever they are - because clearly there is no Islamic nation, there is no implementation of Islamic Law, so Salafis / Wahhabis / Kharijites have no right to claim they are upon full Islamic Law), and most of all, no Caliph, which has been said to render all Islamic laws void if you want to take a dogmatic, technical approach - because the Caliph is head of state.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANSWER THIS: Whilst all Muslims can therefore be said to have incomplete Shari'ah compliance, I believe the Salafis proclaim that they have complete Shari'ah compliance, hence my point in calling them modernists, as they a very modern Shari'ah, right?

    As I see it, Neo Salafis and Kharijites have similarities inasmuch as both put forward an incomplete Shari'ah i.e. both are fundamentalist, they leave off some of the Shari'ah and push only some basic concepts - but put this forward as the real Islam.

    However, Kharijites are extremist as they use Islamic law to break Islamic law. So that is my definition of an Islamic Extremist - whoever uses Islamic Law to break Islamic Law. Following from that, making takfir without due cause is extremism, it is making a judgement loosely based on Islamic law, to excommunicate other Muslims, which thus excommunicates the accuser as a breaker of Islamic Law.

    Is there a connection between Modernism / Fundamentalism, and Extremism? Perhaps if a person professes to enforce Islamic Law, without actually fulfilling the entire Islamic Law, then they too are using Islamic Law to break Islamic Law, and thus they too are extremist. So then, who is not an extremist? Those who do not enforce Islamic Law unless they can fulfill all of the Islamic Laws.

    Perhaps then, the similarities between Salafis and Kharijites is that they are both fundamentalists, and if you consider fundamentalism to be extremism (because it enforces Islamic Law but not the complete Islamic Law, therefore it uses Islamic Law to break Islamic Law), then both are extremist.

    Perhaps also, the difference between Salafis and Kharijites is that the Kharijites use Islamic Law to make takfir, thus excommunicating themselves, thus breaking Islamic Law, but moreover, their actual punishment for apostates itself is clearly beyond Islamic Law (e.g. burning people, raping, killing non-combatants, destroying graves of prophets).

    Please offer constructive arguments if you disagree, just as I have offered constructive arguments when I have disagreed (on this thread).




    Originally posted by Abu Kamel View Post
    One of the primary traits of the khawarij is they are easy, graceful, or merciful to the mushrikeen, but harsh, brutal, merciless to believers.
    Many of the jahil Muslims who responded here show traits of the khawarij - they join up and follow the kafir Daniel Agnostic in attacking Muslims.
    Allah hadeekum, ya Muslimeen.
    You are clearly harshing "Jahil" Muslims. Please do not flame on this thread. Also, REFUTE ME, because if you cannot do so, you will just insult. Please offer constructive arguments if you disagree, just as I have offered constructive arguments when I have disagreed (on this thread).


    Originally posted by Abu Kamel View Post
    Daniel,
    Why should I answer your question?
    THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUM. Please do not flame on this thread. Also, REFUTE ME, because if you cannot do so, you will just insult. Please offer constructive arguments if you disagree, just as I have offered constructive arguments when I have disagreed (on this thread).


    Originally posted by Abu Kamel View Post
    There really is no reason why any Muslim should respond to you here.
    This is a DISCUSSION FORUM. Please do not flame on this thread. Also, REFUTE ME, because if you cannot do so, you will just insult. Please offer constructive arguments if you disagree, just as I have offered constructive arguments when I have disagreed (on this thread).


    Originally posted by Mohamed Mifxal View Post
    try as much as you want to defame him but it doesn't change the virtue of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab one bit.
    Salafi is the way m/
    Salafis say they are not Wahhabis, that Wahhabis don't exist, that Wahhabism is a misnomer. But here you say that Salafism is "the" way, and 'Abd al Wahhab is a Sheikh. Salafis, then, are Wahhabis, and according to you, a sect.


    Originally posted by Mohamed Mifxal View Post
    HE IS A Disbeliver
    Am I a Khawaarij now?
    Logical Fallacy: Reductio ad Absurdam. This is nothing to do with the Pope.


    Originally posted by Ibn Taleb View Post
    The video still calls people specifically to Salafism, even after denouncing Salafism.


    https://fearthedunya.wordpress.com/e...ing-the-salaf/
    From this site, I will only consider Quran and Sunnah. The first Quran quote on that page doesn't lend itself to this discussion and the second Quran quote condemns all Muslims for not having a Caliph.

    1. The Statement of the Prophet salalahu alayhi wa salam : “The best of people are my generation then those who succeed them, then those who succeed them” (al Bukhari 5/199, 7/6 and 11/460) and Muslim, 7/184 and 185)
    RESPONSE: I would say this refers to understanding of the Prophet's message. The Prophet's message is still primary. Calling yourself "Salafi" or "Wahhabi", or even saying "We are not Salafi, we are just Muslims who are upon the way of the Salaf" diverts from the primacy of the Prophetic message. Maybe the Salaf in that hadith are judged by their adherence to the Prophetic message.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANSWER THIS: The Prophetic message is the primary factor, Muslims are Muhammadans, not Salafis. There never was a Salafi until after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. There never was a Sufi either, but as I've explained, when the religion died after 30 years, what remained was scraps of Religious Law [= MIND] still adhered to, but the spiritual understanding [= HEART] remained untouched. Sufism is that remnant, the science of the Heart. This is the main body of Muslims today - they adhere to what they can of the Religious Law, holding on by not all teeth, but the molar teeth, they accept they don't have a legitimate Shari'ah implementation, they just do what they can, but at least they have their understanding, their love and spiritual understanding i.e. their Heart / Sufi aspect, intact.

    [http://hadithprophesies.blogspot.co....-khalifas.html
    The Prophet declared:"This affair began with Prophethood and as a mercy; then it will be mercy and Caliphate; afterwards it will change into a cruel monarchy, and finally into an iniquity and tyranny." He also prophesied: "Surely, the Caliphate after me will last thirty years; afterwards it will be a cruel monarchy."
    (Abu Dawud, At‘ıma, 11; Tirmidhi, At‘ıma, 39; I. Hanbal, 5.441.)]

    It has been said that the reformed Muslims of the Messianic Age, the renaissance men, will be a perfect re-formation, recombination, of the Religious Laws (= MIND) and spiritual understanding (= SOUL). But until then, there is just partial Religious Law (you don't have a Caliph - never forget this) and a Spiritual Science (Sufism). The main body of Muslims at the moment are those who follow as much Islamic law as they can, without pretending they have an Islamic State (= partial Religious Law), and also have a love for God and a love for other Muslims (= Spiritual aspect, Sufism).

    What I'm seeing with people hurling accusations at me is an absence of love, and a revelling in how they are complete despite not having a Caliph.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANSWER THIS: What's the difference between a Salafi who believes their practice is upon a religious ideal, despite not having a Caliph, and thus despite having only partial implementation of Islamic Law
    ... what's the difference between that, and a Kharijite who has killed 'Ali, the Caliph, and struts around thinking the Religious Law has been fulfilled and everything is a-okay?



    2. The Messenger’s salalahu alayhi wa salam statement: “The Jews split up into seventy-one sects, the Christians split up into seventy-two sects and this Ummah will split up into seventy-three sects; all of them are in the Fire except one.” Someone asked: “Which is that one O Messenger of Allah? salalahu alayhi wa salam. He replied: “Whoever is upon that wwhich I am upon today and my companions. (Related by Abu Dawud, 4596-4597; al-Tirmidhi 2640-2641; Imam Ahmad, (2/332, 3/120 145 and 4/120 and Ibn Majah, 3991-3993)

    RESPONSE:
    NOTE: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/ahlsunna.htm
    "Awf ibn Malik reported that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said, 'The Jews split into 71 sects: one will enter Paradise and 70 will enter Hell. The Christians split into 72 sects: 71 will enter Hell and one will enter Paradise. By Him in Whose hand is my soul, my Ummah will split into 73 sects: one will enter Paradise and 72 will enter Hell.' Someone asked, 'O Messenger ofAllah (Peace be upon him), who will they be?' He replied, 'The main body of the Muslims (al-Jama'ah).' Awf ibn Malik is the only one who reported this Hadith, and its isnad is acceptable." And in another version of this Hadith the Prophet (Peace be upon him) goes onto say that the saved sect, "...Are those who follow my and my Sahaba's path" (Tirmidhi, vol. 2, pg. 89)

    I would therefore conclude that the true sect is the main body. The main body are not Salafis. The main body are secular Muslims who do not adhere completely to the Islamic Law because there is no Islamic head of state (Caliph), but they do what they can of it, and they have love in their hearts.


    3. His, salalahu alayhi wa salam, statement: “… for indeed, those who will still be alive after me will see many differences; so hold fast to my sunnah and to the sunnah of the rightly guided khalifahs after me. Adhere to and cling tightly to it and beware of newly-invented matters, for every newly-invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is a deviation.” (related by Imam Ahmad, 4/126-127; Abu Dawud, 4607; al-Tirmidhi, 2676; al-Darimi, 1/44 and others.)

    RESPONSE:
    What greater innovation in religion is there, than a full Religious Law that has no Caliph? He is the pinnacle of it all.

    Also, l've explained that Sufism is not an innovation because it is all superogatory practice ("nawafil"). It is not a change in religious law, it is not a new way of fulfilling any of the 5 pillars of Islam. Sufis do not consider non-Sufi Muslims as non-Muslim. Sufis may take on practices, may switch between practices, may abandon practices, and it's all ok. So how is Sufism an innovation in religion? Sufis exist in different religions, even in Hinduism where there is a core of monotheists who recognise that Sufism is the love which comes from pure Unitarianism, which is the beginning and end of Islam.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANSWER THIS: So, how can Sufism be a sect? I've stated this over and again, and nobody has refuted it, yet they still continue to call Sufis "innovators" and excommunicate them?

    I've also explained: It has been said that the reformed Muslims of the Messianic Age, the renaissance men, will be a perfect re-formation, recombination, of the Religious Laws (= MIND) and spiritual understanding (= SOUL). But until then, there is just partial Religious Law (you don't have a Caliph - never forget this) and a Spiritual Science (Sufism). The main body of Muslims at the moment are those who follow as much Islamic law as they can, without pretending they have an Islamic State (= partial Religious Law), and also have a love for God and a love for other Muslims (= Spiritual aspect, Sufism).

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANSWER THIS: So, in a future Messianic Age, when there is a Caliph again and religious law is fully legitimised again, there will be no more Sufism, but idealised followers who will have within them Sufism and full legitimised Religious Law combined together, legitmised because there is finally a Caliph and finally full implementation of all the laws not just a few. That person will represent the "Main Body" of the next age, that person will be the idealised Muslim. Sufis are ok with this. So how can you call Sufism a sect when they don't mind their eventual passing away? By contrast, the Wahhabis / Salafis and Kharijites will never yield anything for any new age - as far as they are concerned, they already have the full religious law even though it is clearly incomplete.



    __________________________________________________ ____________________________________________


    I motion that the thesis advanced in Post #37 stands, that Wahhabism, Salafism and Kharijism are all fundamentalist ideologies (see Posts #15 , #22 , #37 for an explanation that fundamentalism = to trim down a belief system to a smaller set of "fundamentals", ignoring the rest, and to push that incomplete system vigorously), they are modernist (see OP and Posts #9 & #37 for an explanation of why they are modernist), and they are also each extremist to varying degrees (see Posts #11 , #22 , #37 ). It also stands that varying levels of Sufism / spiritual beliefs / love / understanding (all related to the Heart) mixed with fulfilling whatever of the Islamic Law you can practically fulfill, is the most legitimate form of Islam today, it is the way of the main body of Muslims - Salafism / Wahhabism / Kharijism are fringe movements of people with dead hearts (see Posts #11 , #15 . #37 ). In some future Messianic Age, when Jesus Christ returns, Muslims will have full spirituality (Sufism component) and full adherence to religious laws and dogma. In that future epoch, that would be the "main body" (and only body, under the rule of Christ).

    Originally Posted by abu salmah (Post #7 of the original thread)
    Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam said: A people will emerge who recite the Qur'an but it will not go past their throats. Every time a faction of them emerges it will be cut off.
    The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The Khawaarij are the dogs of Hell.”


    The thesis advanced here (supported by many, many Muslims and even non-Muslims around the world) stands unchallenged. However, feel free to continue with the debate IF you have anything to debate - no flaming, that is the Kharijite way (the Punk Phenomenon - same with New Atheists and Rapture-Ready Evangelicals - i.e. arrogant fanatics who consider outsiders to be scum by definition).

    I am probably going to go before this thread gets going, as I have other commitments in life, but feel free to continue the debate here.
    Last edited by daniel_agnostic; 09-11-15, 11:54 PM. Reason: Removed unnecessary quotes etc.
    Every normal person makes mistakes, therefore too much religious disputation is vain and egotistical - goodbye Ummah.com. Peace be upon you.

  • #2
    Re: Salafis / Wahhabis are Kharijites - debate point by point please

    salafi's Wahhabis and kharijites are almost the same; the former two are the same except you cannot put all the salfi's in one box; some are more moderate than others and both salafi's and Wahhabis [they are the same group basically; salafi's were formerly known as Wahhabis] have traits of the kharijites amongst them i.e, kharijites were quick to do takfir on muslims who have different opinions than them; salafi's do the same, kharijites say there are no opinions in Islam but only the intention/command of Allah thus they believe they know the real meanings of what Allah is saying in the Quran and sunnah and this [to them] is the apperant litteral meaning of the texts

    kharijites used to kill any muslim that had different opinions than them, so the salafi branch of isis do just that dont they?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Salafis / Wahhabis are Kharijites - debate point by point please

      If you didn't already get your answer in the other thread then maybe you're looking in the wrong place ?
      I have left you on a clear path, its night is like its day. None stray from it except he is destroyed.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Salafis / Wahhabis are Kharijites - debate point by point please

        Originally posted by AbdullahiG View Post
        salafi's Wahhabis and kharijites are almost the same; the former two are the same except you cannot put all the salfi's in one box; some are more moderate than others and both salafi's and Wahhabis [they are the same group basically; salafi's were formerly known as Wahhabis] have traits of the kharijites amongst them i.e, kharijites were quick to do takfir on muslims who have different opinions than them; salafi's do the same, kharijites say there are no opinions in Islam but only the intention/command of Allah thus they believe they know the real meanings of what Allah is saying in the Quran and sunnah and this [to them] is the apperant litteral meaning of the texts

        kharijites used to kill any muslim that had different opinions than them, so the salafi branch of isis do just that dont they?
        Please give examples of their scholars declaring takfeer on people who hold different opinions.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Salafis / Wahhabis are Kharijites - debate point by point please

          Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
          Please give examples of their scholars declaring takfeer on people who hold different opinions.
          Some how i don't think he'll be back with those answers.
          I have left you on a clear path, its night is like its day. None stray from it except he is destroyed.

          Comment


          • #6
            Don't dodge the truth :)

            Because I have still not gotten any answers where I have requested in the OP (I wanted people to add to the debate, not cover the truth with logical fallacies, dodging my words, burying them under derpy posts that are neither here nor there), as far as I'm concerned the debate is over.

            I hope there is a new age of peace where fanatics for and against Islam fade away and everybody stops fighting each other.

            There will be snide comments after this post - you'll know the real character of a person by how they respond to this post and the OP. Goodbye Ummah.com, ban all of the Kharijites and I might return, otherwise it's just a waste of time isn't it.

            It remains undisputed: Salafis and Wahhabis ARE Kharijites.
            Every normal person makes mistakes, therefore too much religious disputation is vain and egotistical - goodbye Ummah.com. Peace be upon you.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Don't dodge the truth :)

              Peace be upon you, the reader, and the mercy of Allah and his blessings.
              Every normal person makes mistakes, therefore too much religious disputation is vain and egotistical - goodbye Ummah.com. Peace be upon you.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Salafis / Wahhabis are Kharijites - debate point by point please

                daniel agnostic is a kafir fitnah monger who seeks to divide muslims so they fight and kill each other. He should be banned from ummah forum.
                Allahumma, aranee al haqqu haqqan wa arzuqnee itiba`ahu, wa aranee al baatilu baatilaan wa arzuqnee ijtinaabahu.Oh Allah! show us the truth as true, and inspire us to follow it. Show us falsehood as falsehood, and inspire us to abstain from it.
                " Do you know what destroys Islam? A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Salafis / Wahhabis are Kharijites - debate point by point please

                  Originally posted by Abu Kamel View Post
                  daniel agnostic is a kafir fitnah monger who seeks to divide muslims so they fight and kill each other. He should be banned from ummah forum.
                  :jkk:

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Salafis / Wahhabis are Kharijites - debate point by point please

                    Ibn Abdul Wahhab said :
                    “The people that ask for intercession through the Prophets and Angels, calling upon them and making supplication through their waseelah in attempt to draw nearer to Allah are committing the greatest of sins. Thus it is permitted to kill them and take their property” [Kashf ash-Shubbahaat ]

                    Ibn Abdul Wahhab said:

                    "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 favoured.


                    As well as my shaikhs (teachers) no one among them knew that. And if someone from the scholars of al-'Arid (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 people and praised himself with something he does not possess."

                    Source: "Al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyyah

                    Muhammad bin Hamid Al-Najdi, from his chapter on Shaykh Abdul Wahhab, the father of Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab:
                    "He is the father of the Wahhabbi da'wah founder; Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, whose controversy spread to many places. Even though Mohammad did not publicly preach his ideas and teachings until after his fathers death, I was told by some scholars on the authority of the scholars who lived during Ibn Abdul Wahhabs lifetime, that his father (Abdul Wahhab) was extremely angry with him for not learning fiqh from the shaikhs and scholars of Najd, and that Shaykh Abdul Wahhab predicted his son would be the cause of unrest. Shaykh Abdul Wahhab would say to people: 'You will witness evil from Mohammad'. The Shaykh's son Sulaiman; brother of Mohammad, was also against the teachings of Mohammad and refuted them with Quranic verses and hadiths, because Mohammad would not accept anything else as evidence. He refused all the opinions and rulings of the Imams of Ahlus-Sunnah except those of Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibnul Qayyim, he considered their works almost sacred and infallible. He used the words of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibnul Qayyim to argue with people, even if their words were not to be understood in the way Mohammad understood them." [Ibn Hamid Al-Najdi, Al-Suhub Al-Wabila ala Dara'ih Al-Hanabila", 2/680.]

                    Imam Ahmad bin Muhammad as-Sawi al-Maliki (d.1241 AH/1825AD) over 170 years ago) in his book "Hashiat al-Allamah as-Sawi" which is part of the interpretation of Al-Qur'an book: "Tafsir al-Jalalayn", in his tafsir to this ayah, Imam as-Saw isays: "This Ayah was revealed about the Khawaarij ho misinterpret the Qur'an and Hadeeth, legitimising the killing and confiscating the property of other Muslims (under the impression that they are mushriks and upon kufr). As it is seen now, the equal, who are a group in the land of al-Hijaaz (its a region in the west of present-day Saudi Arabia) called 'al-Wahaabiyyah', who think they are following the truth but they are liars whom which the Shaytaan overwhelmed and made them forget the dhikr of Allah. They are the followers of Shaytaan (Hizbush Shaytaan). Surely the followers of Shaytaan are the losers and we ask Allah, the all generous, to amputate their origin."

                    Mufti of Mecca, Ahmad Zayni Dahlan al-Makki ash-Shafi‘i, rahimah-Ullah, wrote in a work titled: "Fitnatu-l-Wahhabiyyah", stating:

                    "In 1217 H(1802 C.E.) they [the Wahhabis] marched with big armies to the area of at-Tayf. In Dhu-l-Qa‘dah of the same year, they lay siege to the area the Muslims were, subdued them, and killed the people: men, women, and children. They also looted the Muslims belongings and possessions. Only a few people escaped their barbarism."
                    "They [the Wahhabis] plundered what was in the room of the Prophet, sall-Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam, took all the money that was there, and did some disgraceful acts of profanation."


                    The foremost Hanafi scholar of his time, Imam Muhammad Amin ibn Abidin (d. 1252/1836 Rahimahullah)
                    said in his celebrated work: Hashiyya radd al-Mukhtar (vol. 3, pg. 309) :
                    In our time Ibn Abdal Wahhab (Najdi) appeared, and attacked the two noble sanctuaries (Makkah and Madinah)
                    He claimed to be a Hanbali, but his thinking was such that only he alone was a Muslim, and everyone else was a polytheist! Under this guise, he said that killing the Ahl as-Sunnah was permissible, until Allah destroyed them (Wahhabi's) in the year 1233 AH by way of the Muslim army."


                    Shaykh Zayni Dahlan said in his book Futuhat al-Islamiyya (vol. 2, pg. 268):
                    "The sign of the Khawarij (the first deviant sect that appeared in the time of the Companions) concerning the shaving of the head, was not found in the Khawarij of the past, but only in the Najdi's of our time!"

                    Just to mention a few things.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Salafis / Wahhabis are Kharijites - debate point by point please

                      hmmm..

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Salafis / Wahhabis are Kharijites - debate point by point please

                        Originally posted by Abu Kamel View Post
                        daniel agnostic is a kafir fitnah monger who seeks to divide muslims so they fight and kill each other. He should be banned from ummah forum.
                        And if a Kaafir is going out of his way to abuse a group, there must be lots of good in them.
                        Watch those eyes

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Salafis / Wahhabis are Kharijites - debate point by point please

                          Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
                          Please give examples of their scholars declaring takfeer on people who hold different opinions.
                          It is a pity how some people are so ignorant. On the one hand they claim the Wahabis/Salafis declare Takfeer and at the same time they claim that Ibn Taymiyyah was their source, a man who rarely made Takfeer of a group. So much so that he was in union with Imaam Al-Shaafi as regarding the Khwaarij as non Kaafirs.

                          Poor ignorant souls. May Allah give them guidance to study harder.
                          Watch those eyes

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Salafis / Wahhabis are Kharijites - debate point by point please

                            Come to think of it if the Wahabis/Salafis really are Khawaarij as purported by some Sufi groups, then why don't these groups gather together, form a government so they can kill these people because the order in the Hadith is to kill them. Or would that be too Jihaadi like for the Sufis?

                            Or maybe they have a different interpretation for killing in the Hadith....
                            Watch those eyes

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Salafis / Wahhabis are Kharijites - debate point by point please

                              Originally posted by ZeeshanParvez View Post
                              And if a Kaafir is going out of his way to abuse a group, there must be lots of good in them.
                              so if a kaffir abuses deobandi's or sufi's , then there must lots of good in them?

                              salafi rhetoric.



                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X