Saturday, 5 June 2010

Wahhabi Deception! - Part1


How wahhabies deceive honest Muslims.


Wahhabi Deception!



Wahabis talk about a lot of things and argue about a lot of things, we all know. However, rarely do they define and clarify things.


We as Sunnis MUST learn to think analytically.

They use words without using their shariah-sanctioned definitions or establishing their definitions and mislead the masses.

They might say things like “Mawled is bidah” and many a time, common people, like sheep, regurgitate this kind of senselessness.

The comment on its own may look innocent and sensible, but as they say, common sense is not so common.

In order to legally establish the status of something, EVERY THING – pertaining to the matter – MUST BE DEFINED.


Read the books of classical scholars. They define every word before they use it and describe what exactly it entails.


They defined what is meant by aqidah, 3ebadah, tawbah, etc.


Have a look at your employment contracts and insurance policies and see how many definitions are given. They even define words like “the company” saying things like “from this point forward the words “the company” used in this contract shall refer to XYZ Corp.”

People are NOT rational and rarely do they think rationally and logically.

DEAR SUNNI:

Just mastering THIS ONE aspect of critical and analytical thinking alone will help you see half the misguidance of the wahabis exposed for what it really is and will be a MAJOR eyesore for the arrogant wahabi.

PLEASE, during any encounter with a wahabi, online or offline, ALWAYS ask him for definitions.

Just this will destroy half his nonsensical claims, and will undo a lot, if not all, of his efforts used in the other methods described in the other sections henceforth.

Let’s just take the example given:

wahabi: “Mawled is bidah”

Sunni: sir, define what you understand by mawled.

define, what you understand by bidah.

THIS is where you will see his mind games exposed immediately.

Ask him if by “mawled” he refers to a dance party or a gathering of good where Quran is recited, the Prophet’s seerah mentioned and the Prophet, sal’Allahu 3alaihi wa’sallam, praised in poetry or without it.

If he says it’s the latter, then ask him what is wrong with those individual acts that collectively form the mawled.

He will probably say they are bidah, and here, he is going to say like a parrot, this time without you asking for a definition

^ “bidah is any new innovation in religion that didn’t exist in the times of the Prophet, sahaba, tabieen, etc.”

(because he has been TRAINED to give this particular definition to suit his purpose, and its probably the only definition he will ever give along with DISTORTED definitions of maybe “kufr” and “shirk”)

The answer is very simple once you have defined the ground work.


You just ask him

How are any of those individual acts that you mentioned “new innovations” in religion?

Is reciting the Quran an “innovation”?

Is offering voluntary prayers an “innovation”?

Is praising the Prophet and discussing his seerah an “innovation”?

They can’t be called “innovations” if they are proven by the Quran and Sunnah and the first generation of Muslims.

This is where the rest of his methodology of deception will pick up and where he will use the other tactics mentioned in the following pages.

The aim is that ordinary innocent Muslims should be able to field any and every form of trickery and mind game that the wahabi plays with them to misguide them. The scholars of the Sunnis have beautifully and handsomely shredded their “Mawled is bidah” claims to bits.


Like I said, I just want to highlight a thought process of critical and analytical thinking here for us Sunnis, rather than refute actual claims of theirs which have already been rubbished by the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah.


Warning !


Note:

At times, the wahabi might get really annoyed and say something to patronize you and make you avoid digging his little brain, by questions like,

“Do you really want me to give you a definition for shirk?” or “Do you really want me to define 3ebadah to you?”

DON’T fall for it.

The wahabi’s aim is to call you to misguidance with as little resistance from you as possible, and when faced with resistance, his annoyance and arrogance will start to surface, the same way the blessed Prophet, sal’Allahu 3alaihi wa’sallam, narrated about the dajjal’s irritation with the believer when the believer refuses to fall into his trap. This will happen for 2 reasons:

1) He will most probably be a jahil who hasn’t had any formal education in Islam and won’t know the proper definition himself. The scholars of Islam have METICULOUSLY defined any and every term they use in the sciences of aqidah, fiqh, tasawwuf, hadith etc. from the smallest and the most “obvious” terms to the most complex ones.

2) He will be really annoyed by you probing his mind. His guards are going to go up at at your intelligence and he will be put on the defensive because a) You just might prove him wrong b) Even if you don’t prove him wrong, he will subconsciously know that the chances of you falling for his trickery have been significantly lowered. The wahabi hates intelligent people and runs from them.

Remain VERY calm and tell him, “Yes I need a definition, because that is what will establish the rest of the discussion. To have a discussion/debate, we must both be at the same level platform to start with, otherwise, we’re in two seperate worlds. I need to know what you understand by ’3ebadah”!

The word “site” means something totally different to a web designer compared to what it does for a civil engineer.

There are high chances he will give a definition of his own.

NEVER FORGET to ask him, who has defined it as such and watch him squirm further more in his dajjalic annoyance.

Literal interpretations

A wahabi simply has no grasp of metaphor and majaz and loves to interpret mutashaabihaat literally.

A truly retarded literalist wahabi is a sample worth watching really.

Classical example is their literal interpretation of

Istiwaa



Out of context quoting and misinterpreting

They do this with verses and ahadith that should really be applied to kafirs. Instead they apply them to Muslims. Classical example: equating dead Muslim “humans” to the idols of the kuffar while talking about the verses that mention the kuffar’s idols. They use them in other matters too, but mostly in such cases to brand Muslims as bidatis, kuffar and mushriks.



Misrepresentations and outright denial


They do this with religious texts, facts of history, statistical facts, etc.

Although denial is quite a primitive method, the first two can work quite well for a wahabi unfortunately.

Classical example regarding misrepresentations: Their propagation of the concept that the only thing valid other than the Quran is Sahih ahadith.


Denial classical example:

“There’s no such thing as wahabiism. We are Hanbalis and followers of Sahih ahadith.”


Misinterpreting, misrepresenting and denial hybrid, classical example: “najd is in Iraq (they say this to avoid falling under the jurisdiction of the Sahih Bukhari hadith that says the devil’s horn shall rise from the najd… now of course if they took it literally, AND honestly, without misrepresenting and misinterpreting, they’d shoot themselves in the foot, or maybe horn! )


An EXCELLENT functional example (and somewhat sophisticated too) is shown in the comments section below.

This catch by Sheikh Abu Adam is a gem and exposes this tactic of theirs in all its perverted glory.


QUOTE ABU ADAM:


““Abu Abdillah says: “Al-Khattaabee (d.388H) said: “The madhab of the Salaf with regard to the Attributes of Allaah is to affirm them as they are with their apparent (dhaahir) meaning, negating any resemblance to the creation and without asking how they are.”….”


^This is a perverted translation.


The Arabic states:

“كان مذهب السلف فيها الإيمان بها ، وإجراءها على ظاهرها ونفي الكيفية عنها”

Which means: “(كان مذهب السلف فيها) the way of the salaf in this (scripture texts that might make someone ignorant liken Allah to creation) (الإيمان بها) is to believe in them (the texts) (وإجراءها) and to pass them on (على ظاهرها) as they appear, (ونفي الكيفية عنها) and denying any modality from them.” Then he narrated from Az-Zuhriyy and Makĥuul that they said “امضوا الأحاديث على ما جاءت”, which means, “(امضوا) pass the (الأحاديث) hadiths on (على ما جاءت) as they came.”


There is no mention of “apparent meaning” in any of these statements.


Subĥaana Allaah, if the apparent meaning was meant, then why would the salaf make such a big deal out of it? If the apparent meaning was meant then they would not even have mentioned these ways of dealing with these types of scripture texts.!”



Notice how the matter relayed to us by brother Abu Abdillah, as he saw mentioned in wahabi sources says

“to affirm them as they are with their apparent (dhaahir) meaning”

See the explanation above and see the subtle manipulative techniques of the wahabis.

The Arabic “zdhaahiriha” is used in the sense of “as is” (ie without ascribing ANY meaning to it) and NOT in the sense of “apparent meaning”. This is evident by the fact that the same author uses the word “zdhaahiriha” in conjunction with “wa nafil kayfiyyati 3anha” which means “denying modality from them”.

Notice how the wahabi has manipulated the interpretation of the text to suit his concept of “to affirm them as they are with their apparent (dhaahir) meaning, negating any resemblance to the creation”.

One only needs to ask the wahabi:

1) What are the “apparent meanings” (“dhaahir”) of the various attributes? Let’s say “yad”.


What is the “apparent meaning” of “yad”?


2) How can it be “apparent” AND also “negate resemblance to creation” at the same time?


Working with the example, how does one explain the “apparent meaning of yad while “negating resemblance to creation”

Any wahabi is free to please define what exactly THEY mean by


“apparent meaning”

and

“dhaahir”

?

Partial and/or selective quoting

Mainly done with the sayings of scholars and salaf. Related to out of context quoting and misrepresenting. Quote a small passage from a chapter and you can convey a totally different message.

They also do that with ahadith. They love to quote one hadith from one book on a topic, but will refrain from quoting another hadith of the same grading from the same book, on the same topic.


Changing the subject

Self explanatory and a wahabi classic.

They resort to this when you catch them out on the first four and are working towards refuting them. It’s quite amusing and also quite annoying. You refute them on tawassul and they start talking about food when they start losing – literally.

This is not a joke.



Moving the goal post

Slightly different to changing the subject. You refute them on one topic, and suddenly they start talking about a seemingly related topic. This is quite a clever trick, worse than the drastic change of subject as that can be noticed but innocent and untrained people might not catch this one.


Example: You are talking to a wahabi regarding Mawled and refuting him away and somewhere in one of the proofs you mention a hadith by a sahabi, let’s say Seyyidina Umar, radi Allahu anhu.


Now the core object of the conversation is Mawled and its haramness or halalness, not Seyyidina Umar, as great and esteemed as he most definitely is. The wahabi will mention a few of his good points, and what a great leader he was, and so on; and before you know it, you’re no longer discussing the core subject.???


Islamic-emotional blackmail

Another wahabi classic and one of their most effective tools. This one sometimes even stumps the best of Sunnis. Mostly if you’re refuting them and doing a good job of it, you will be emotionally blackmailed by comments like:


“Why don’t you look at your own sins instead of saying I’m wrong in matter [x]?”


This one is enough to knock out an everyday common Muslim, who is “average” in knowledge and practice by modern standards.


OR you will be confronted with


“So are you saying the verses of the Quran and ahadith of the Prophet, sal’Allahu 3alaihi wa’sallam, and sayings of the scholars are rubbish too?”

(wal 3eyadhu billah)


… if you are a reasonably knowledgable Sunni common person who has caught them out on misinterpretations and misrepresentations (number 3). You will be thrown that line the moment you say something like “[wahabi sheikh]’s book/lecture [title] is full of rubbish”.


Its obvious since the wahabi is an honest to nafs literalist, he will interpret your comment to mean that every letter printed in the book or uttered by the person is rubbish, without seeing that you are calling his senior sheikh’s MESSAGE and the twisted interpretation of the subject as rubbish, not the verses and ahadith he has referenced, and some or all of – literally translated, quoted out of context, and misinterpreted and misrepresented or anything else.


This line even gets some of the best of people


“This is the way of the shias/qadianis/mutazila/christians/greek philosophers etc.”

OR

“This is how [kafir/jahmis/mutazila/any otherdeviant sect] think/act”


The MAJOR problem with this line is that if you fall for it, they have successfully made room to administer any or all of the methods of deception listed above or below this one. Most innocent Muslims, ie corrupt aqida-wise innocent, regardless of how practicing or how sinful they are, ARE instinctively scared of Allah’s ghadhab and do worry about maintaining and safeguarding their faith, even if they might be drunks or gamblers etc. This is a blessing given by Allah. The minute they say something like this, any Muslim’s antennas go up and he is immediately thrown on the defensive to safeguard his faith.


This is a MAJOR psychological tactic against unwitting Muslims caught off guard.

The key thing to be noted here is very simple and basic.

Islam is not against the truth. It is against falsehood.


We don’t adopt the thoughts/ways of the shias/christians/qadianis etc. because they are principally based on falsehood.

We have no problem with the truth, who ever says it.


The famous hadith of the Prophet, 3alahis salam, from Sahih Bukhari (something the wahabis can’t call daeef) regarding the Ayat al-Kursiy is testimonial to this.
The Holy Prophet (PBUH)has explicitly said regarding the cursed iblis himself, words to the effect of
“he (iblis) spoke the truth and he is a liar”.

This is proof for us that we accept the truth and what is just and right, even though it may not come from a Muslim.


They use this argument a lot against kalam saying “this is the way of greek philosophers”. They should be reminded that the world had rational thinkers who thought rationally even before the greeks. It is an instinctive Allah-given blessing. The greeks did not invent rational thinking. That’s about the only thing relating to kalam that they can attribute to the greeks. The major portion of it is related to Quran, Sunnah and the Arabic language as used by the Quraysh.


Besides, even if the greeks DID invent rational thinking, for arguments sake, it is only a tool and a methodology used to help us arrive at the right conclusions. It is not their belief system in and of itself.


It is equivalent to preaching Islam in a non-Arabic language. The language on its own, lets say Chinese, might have been developed by nonMuslims, but it is a tool we use to propagate Islam to the Chinese people. Its like using a gadget invented by the kuffar, like the radio, to listen to Quran recitation.


Why don’t the wahabis stop using ALL the inventions of nonMuslims in religious applications. Technically, they shouldn’t even drive their car to the mosque.


Besides, the Prophet’s willingness to fast on the Ashura after enquiring from the jews why they did so, is another testimony to the fact that something that is good and acceptable in principle (in this case, thanking Allah for a blessing by fasting), can be adopted as long as one applies it in the realm of Islam and maintains his distinct identity separate from other peoples.




Gotta give the devil his due credit, this technique is a bomb when incorporated with any of the other techniques and only those who know what wahabiism truly is actually get it.


...continue to: Part 2