The Original Najdi Wahhabi movement was more Extreme in Bloodshed & Takfir than ISIS!-Part-1
(Also Originally
Posted Here and Here By brother Abu Sulayman)
Part 2- Further
responses to the blind followers of Wahhabi -“Salafi” Cult
---
Ibn 'Abd
al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH)
accuses the people of al-Ahsa` of worshipping idols:
While addressing someone who is from al-Ahsa`,
he tells him that idols are worshipped in his land (which is again a clear-cut
lie!):
وقد بلغني
أنكم في هذا الأمر قمتم وقعدتم، فإن كنتم تزعمون أن هذا إنكار للمنكر، فيا ليت
قيامكم كان في عظائم في بلدكم تضاد أصلي الإسلام: شهادة أن لا إله إلا
الله وأن محمداً رسول الله! منها، وهو أعظمها:عبادة الأصنام عندكم
من بشر وحجر
Source: al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyyah
His blind followers attacked al-Ahsa` (which
by the way is Ottoman land!), slaughtered its people, destroyed their property
and stole whatever they could take several times during his lifetime and also
after him. So let's see what they did in one of these attacks:
Terrorizing and mass-slaugtering the people
of al-Ahsa`
Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH) said while speaking
about the incidents of the year 1210 AH:
فلما كان قبل طلوع الشمس ثور المسلمون بنادقهم دفعة واحدة , فأرجفت الأرض وأظلمت السماء , وثار عج الدخان في الجو
, وأسقط كثير من الحوامل في الأحساء , ثم نزل سعود في الرقيقة المذكورة , فسلم له , وظهر له جميع أهل الأحساء على إحسانه وإساءته , وأمرهم بالخروج فخرجوا , فأقام في ذلك المنزل مدّة أشهر يقتل من أراد قتله ويجلي من أراد جلاءه ، ويحبس من أراد حبسه ، ويأخذ من الأموال ، ويهدم من المحال ، ويبني ثغوراً ، ويهدم دوراً ، وضرب عليهم ألوفاً من الدراهم وقبضها منهم
... وأكثر سعود فيهم القتل
... فهذا مقتول في البلد ، وهذا يخرجونه إلى الخيام ، ويضرب عنقه عند خيمة سعود ، حتى أفناهم إلا قليلا ، وحاز سعود من الأموال في تلك الغزوة ما لا يعد ولا يحصى
"Then before the sunrise the Muslims
(read: the Wahhabis) shot with their rifles [all at] once, so that the earth
trembled, and the heaven became dark, and smoke rose into the sky and many of the pregnant women
(!!!) in al-Ahsa` had a miscarriage (due to extreme fear).
Then Sa'ud settled in the [earlier] mentioned
al-Raqiqah, so it was given to him. All of the people of al-Ahsa` [then]
appeared in front of him in kindness and badness. He commanded them to leave so
they left.
He stayed there for [several] months [while] kiling whomever he wanted
to kill, and exiling whomever he wanted to exile, and imprisoning whomever he
wanted to imprison, and
taking from the wealth, and destroying places, and building strongholds, and
destroying houses and wanting thousands of Dirhams from them and taking it from
them...
And Sa'ud killed many of them...
So this one [lies] killed in the land and that one is taken out to the tents
and his neck is struck off near the tent of Sa'ud until he annhalited [all of]
them except very few.
Sa'ud came into possesion of [much] wealth in
this attack (Ghazwah) which can not be counted or numbered." Source: 'Unwan al-Majd 1/216-217
(Remember: Sa'ud I. bin 'Abd al-'Aziz [bin
Muhammad bin Sa'ud] (d. 1229 AH) later on (i.e. 1218 AH) became the third ruler
of the first Saudi state and was a direct student of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.)
-------------------------------
Abu Sulayman's response to wahhabi:
It would be better for you to get out of this cultist
mentality and start investigating and learning before admiring such an evil
movement.
Imam Ibn 'Abidin lived from 1198 AH till 1252
AH. The first Saudi state existed from 1157 AH until 1234 AH. The Wahhabiyyah attacked al-Sham
al-sharif (and Imam Ibn 'Abidin was from Sham!) in the year 1225 AH.
And Imam Ibn 'Abidin was not alone in his
rejection of the Wahhabi movement: Literally
ALL scholars from the 4 Madhahib of the whole region were against the Najdi
Shayatin. Imam al-Sawi (d.
1241 AH) even referred to them as Hizb
al-Shaytan!
What I really don't get is what these "Salafi"
Mashayikh have done to your brains that you people are ready to defend this
movement blindly and no matter what one tells you.
I mean you had opened a thread just two days
before I opened this thread here, where you were asking regarding the first
Saudi state and about why they fought against the Ottomans. And now suddenly
you're trying to make statements about what happened back then!?
Najd was under the indirect control of the
Ottomans, but this point is not even important. The "Salafi"
Mashayikh of today are only mentioning this in order to distract their
followers from some very important informations:
The Wahhabiyyah were SLAUGHTERING Muslims
in huge numbers and taking their wealth and destroying their property not just
in Najd, but also in all areas around it.
It is established with absolute certainity
that they attacked al-Ahsa`, al-'Iraq, al-Sham, al-Hijaz (including the
Haramayn al-Sharifayn!), al-Yaman and other areas. All of that is Ottoman land.
Just read what the Wahhabi historian Ibn Bishr
(d. 1288 AH) reported. He has mentioned all of these attacks.
And if you want to claim that only the
followers of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) were crazy and that they had
misunderstood him, then let me tell you that he was the Mufti of the first
Saudi state (and after him his sons!).
All of this is reported by Ibn Bishr, but what
should do we with a people who are refusing to read?
Do you know what Allah ta'ala said regarding
the one who kills a believer?:
{ وَمَن يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِناً مُّتَعَمِّداً فَجَزَآؤُهُ
جَهَنَّمُ خَٰلِداً فِيهَا وَغَضِبَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَعَنَهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُ عَذَاباً
عَظِيماً }
{ Whoso slayeth a
believer of set purpose, his reward is hell for ever. Allah is wroth against
him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom. } [4:93]
So what about slaughtering thousands of
Muslims on the Arabian peninsula?
---------------------
Libyan said I don't know much about the original poster's
beliefs. But in terms of what he's stated he seems like he's winning the
argument. Everyone is crowding against him but no one is answering his points.
---------------------
The Wahhabiyyah attack a market near al-Basrah, kill the
people there and let those who flee from them drown in the water
The known Wahhabi historian Ibn Bishr (d. 1288
AH) said regarding the events of the year 1212 AH:
وفيها في رمضان سار سعود رحمه المعبود , بالجنود المنصورة والخيل العتاق المشهورة , من جميع نواحي نجد وعربانها وقصد الشمال , وأغار على سوق الشيوخ المعروف عند البصرة , وقتل منهم قتلى كثيرة , وهرب أناس وغرقوا في الشط
"And in [that year] in [the month of]
Ramadhan (!) Sa'ud [I. bin 'Abd al-'Aziz] - may the worshipped One have mercy
upon him - set out with the victorious armies and the famous horses, from all
of the areas of Najd and its [bedouin] Arabs and intended the North (i.e.
'Iraq). He attacked the known al-Shuyukh market near al-Basrah and killed many
of them. The people fled and drowned in the river." Source: 'Unwan al-Majd 1/240
So here we see that the Wahhabiyyah attacked a
random market of a Muslim town without any reason whatsoever and killed whoever
was on that market. And as if that is not enough: They ran after the poeple who
tried to flee from them, so that the people had to throw themselves into the
river. Then these evil criminals waited until the people drowned in the water!
And they did all of this in the month of
Ramadhan!!!
Know that doing this is not even allowed
against disbelievers, so what about doing this against Muslims?
(Our religion makes a distinction between
fiqhters and non-fighers and the Jumhur of the classical scholars have
mentioned that the reason for fighting is Muqatalah (fighting) and not Kufr
(disbelief).)
--
Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH):
The lying Dajjal from Najd
He said:
ومعلوم: أن أهل أرضنا، وأرض الحجاز، الذي ينكر البعث
منهم أكثر ممن يقر به، والذي يعرف الدين أقل ممن لا يعرفه
"It's known regarding the people of
our land (i.e. Najd) and the
land of al-Hijaz, that those among them who reject the resurrection [after
death] are more than those who accept it and
that those [among them] who know the religion are less than those who do
not..." Source: al-Durar al-Saniyyah 10/43
This is such a shameless lie from him and
whoever believes his claim must have lost his mind.
Just imagine: He accuses the majority of the
people of Hijaz - which by the way was full of scholars [of the Ahl al-Sunnah]
at that time - and the people of his land of the rejection of the resurrection
after death.
I mean even in our time, when ignorance
regarding the religion is becoming widespread (and "Salafism" is one
of the forms of this ignorance), we do not see anywhere people from the Ahl
al-Qiblah rejecting the resurrection!
So how for God's sake can one trust this
person after knowing this? How can one trust a person, who lies and deceives?!
And if you ask why he was lying like that,
then the answer is: He was doing this so that his blind followers can attack
al-Hijaz (and they attacked it more than once!).
And know that lying is something that some
of his followers do until today:
So you'll see them accusing other Muslims
of things that they have never done nor would ever do! Or they will interpret
an action that may be even allowed in the divine law in the worst possible
manner, so that they can accuse their opponent of disbelief and polytheism and
this and that.
And what is also widespread among their
Mashayikh is to deceive their followers and give them false information's
regarding events of the past, other Muslims, etc. (And this unites them with
the Mashayikh of the Rafidhah!)
--
Abu Sulayman said: Salamun 'alaykum,
I would like to remind the brothers here
that this thread is not about the divine attributes, but rather about the
unjustified Takfir and bloodshed of the original Wahhabi movement.
As for the issue of the divine attributes,
then I would like to say the following:
The classical scholars have mentioned that the
Ayat [and Ahadith] concerning the divine attributes are from among the
Mutashabihat (unclear/ambiguous verses). That which is obligatory regarding
these Ayat [and Ahadith] is to believe in them and that's it. Allah subhanahu
wa ta'ala has not obliged us to know their exact interpretation. The Madhhab of
the Salaf al-salih regarding them is to believe in them and to relegate the
knowledge of their exact interpretation to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala while
being sure that there is nothing unto like Him.
In the last comments some people have tried to
act as if the exact interpretation of these Ayat and Ahadith is known and
claimed that Yad definetly means a literal hand when it's used concerning Allah ta'ala.
It is said to these people:
The Qur`an was revealed in Arabic and not in
English and therefore the English word hand can nowhere be found in the Qur`an.
The majority of the scholars did not allow to translate Yad into other
languages when it's used concerning Allah ta'ala. The minorty view is that it's
allowed, but only if it's not meant as a limb.
As for your addition of the word literal or real,
then this is Bid'ah (innovation). It would have been better for you to stick to
the words of Allah ta'ala and not to add anything to it from yourself.
The interpretation that you've mentioned is
definetly not meant, because it goes against Ayat which are Muhkam. When Yad is taken literally it means Jarihah (limb) (look it up in an Arabic
dictionary) and to ascribe a limb to Allah ta'ala is Kufr (disbelief).
If you say "but we do not intend a limb
nor do we intend anything with a form and dimensions", then it is said: In
that case you shouldn't say a literal
hand. The reason why you're using this word is out of Taqlid of the
"Salafi" Mashayikh (Taqlid is not allowed in 'Aqidah!) and these
"Salafi" Mashayikh do actually intend limbs (Jawarih) or parts
(Ajza`/Ab'adh) when they say that "Allah has two real hands" (even
thoug they do not use the expression).
Go and look what Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH)
said (look for example into his Bayan
Talbis al-Jahmiyyah) said (and I'm mentioning him, because
"Salafis" love to make Taqlid of all his mistakes) and you'll see
that he makes a differentiation between accepting Yad, Wajh, etc. as Ma'ani
(which is the Madhhab of a group of scholars from among the Ahl al-Sunnah) and
between accepting it as A'yan (which is the Madhhab of Mujassimah (and he is
from among them)).
If you don't understand the difference
between accepting the Sifat as Ma'ani (معاني)
and accepting them as A'yan (أعيان) (and the
difference is very huge!), then I would seriously advise you to stop discussing
this issue, because it's not allowed to speak about Allah ta'ala without
knowledge.
And now I would like everyone to come back to
the real topic. If you want to keep on discussing about the divine attributes,
then please do so in another thread (but only if you know what you're saying).
--------------
abufulaans said:
The
reason they didn't say take the zahir is because it was simple and no one at
the time understood it wrong, later however people deviated thus the need for
the term zahir was introduced by the scholars,
--------------
Even the term Dhahir can be meant differently in this context.
But let me ask you a question since you're
acting as is if the meaning is sooo clear: What is the meaning of Yad or Wajh
when it's used for Allah ta'ala? (I don't want to hear a translation. Just
imagine you're speaking to someone who only understands Arabic.)
--------------------
Abu 'Abdullaah said:
You can't
start a 'Wahhabi thread' and not expect any and every Wahhabi issue to be
brought up. Even IS has had a million threads so I'm not sure that you've
mentioned anything new here.
--------------------
Did you read my previous comments
in this thread? If yes: Do you regard the people of Makkah as polytheists? Do
you believe that the one who doesn't make Takfir upon them is a disbeliever? Do
you regard the ottoman state as polytheists? Do you believe that it's okay to
make an embargo against the people of Makkah al-mukarramah and Madinah
al-Munawwarah? Do you believe that killing Muslims throughtout the whole
Arabian peninsula and areas around it is right and okay?
-----
Abu 'Abdullaah said: No, I done a tl;dr.
-----
Okay, alhamdulillah. Then what do
you say about the one who says the following? (I've already qouted this
statement HERE):
الأمر الثاني: الكفر بما يعبد من دون
الله، والمراد بذلك تكفير المشركين، والبراءة منهم، ومما يعبدون مع الله. فمن لم يكفر المشركين من الدولة
التركية، وعباد القبور، كأهل مكة وغيرهم،
ممن عبد الصالحين، وعدل عن توحيد الله إلى الشرك، وبدّل سنّة رسوله صلى الله عليه
وسلم بالبدع، فهو كافر مثلهم، وإن كان يكره دينهم،
ويبغضهم، ويحب الإسلام والمسلمين ; فإن الذي لا يكفر المشركين، غير مصدق
بالقرآن، فإن القرآن قد كفر المشركين، وأمر بتكفيرهم، وعداوتهم وقتالهم
"The second issue: To disbelieve in that
which is worshipped instead of Allah, and this means to make Takfir (declare as
disbelievers) upon the polytheists (Mushrikin) and the disavowal from them and
that which they worship alongside Allah.
So whoever does not make Takfir upon the
polytheists of the turkish state (i.e. the Ottomans!) and the grave-worshippers
like the people of Makkah (!!!) and
[upon] others from those who worship the righteous (Salihin) and left the
Tawhid (monotheism) of Allah for Shirk (polytheism) and exchanged the Sunnah of
his Messenger - sallalalhu 'alayhi wa sallam - with innovations, then he is a disbeliever like them even if dislikes
their religion und hates them and loves Islam and its people.
This is so because the one who does not
declare the polytheists to be disbelievers has not accepted the Qur`an. The
Qur`an declares the polytheists as disbelievers, and commands to declare them
as such and to show enmity towards them and to fight them." Source: al-Durar al-Saniyya 9/291
Is it okay to regard the people who said this
and who made an embargo against Makkah al-mukarramah and Madinah al-munawwarah
(it happened in 1220 AH) as criminal Khawarij?
Or let me ask in a different way: What is the
ruling concerning the people who made the above statement? And what is the
ruling of the one who tries to turn the people who made such kind of statements
as absolute authorities regarding the religion of Allah?
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
If shirk is proven then I don't believe they can be
regarded as 'Khawarij'.
I thought that
you regard the people of Makkah as Muslims? Or are you trying to tell me that
the people of Makkah and the whole Arabian peninsula were upon Shirk akbar
during the time of the first Saudi state?
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
Rather, declaring takfeer on polytheists and grave
worshippers is quite normal.
Upon
polytheists: Yes. (But this would not make it allowed to kill them, because the
reason for fighting is Muqatalah according to the Jumhur of the Fuqaha`.)
As for the "grave worshippers": What
do you intend by that? Let's say a person visits the grave of Rasulullah -
sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and asks him to pray for the forgiveness of his
sins. Has he committed Shirk akbar? If you say yes: According to
which logic and according to which Shari'ah?
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
I don't know anyone who regards 'them' as absolute
authorities so...
I know such
people. They will obviously not admit this with their tongues, but they will
blindly accept whatever Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and his so called
"students" said.
---
ZeeshanParvez
Are you seriously trying to blame this all on him and
are unaware of the history which has existed between the Ash'aris and Hanbalis
since long before.
I'm aware that
Asha'irah and Hanabilah usually weren't really good friends, but I hope you're
also aware of the fact that the Hanabilah were not a monolithic group and had
different beliefs.
And by the way: Just because a Hanbali scholar
disagrees regarding specific detailed issues with the Asha'irah it does not
mean that he is upon the same belief as that of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH).
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
As for that specific example then I believe it is
haram but whether it falls under shirk akbar then Allahu 'alam. I do find find
it problematic and it may possibly be shirk but I would have to refer it
someone more knowledgeable.
Okay. Who is
the "more knowledgable person" that you want to refer to? Would you
accept the ruling that the Jumhur of the Fuqaha` of the 4 Madhahib mentioned?
--
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
Any of the imams at the masajid I go to first and
foremost.
Let's just for
the sake of argument say that he tells you that it's "Shirk akbar"
(as an aditional information: according to Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) it's
among the issues that nullifies one's Islam!) and tells you that such people
are apostates. Would you accept such a ruling even though the Fuqaha` have said
otherwise?
(Go and read the chapter regarding the Manasik
of Hajj in some known Fiqh books of the 4 Madhahib and read the passage where
the visitation of the grave of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is
mentioned and see for yourself what the Fuqaha` recommended one to do.)
Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez
Nopes I am not. With the exception of Ibn Jawzi I do
not know too many others. Guess I have to study harder.
Imam Ibn
al-Jawzi (d. 596 AH) supported Tafwidh and Ta`wil, while most Hanabilah were
Mufawwidhah (which is good) and many of them were quite strictly against
Ta`wil. Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) was not just against Ta`wil, but even against
Tafwidh and called it as "one of the worst statements of the people of
innovation and atheism". The ironic thing here is that relegating the
knowledge of the exact interpretation of the knowledge regarding the Ayat of
the Sifat to Allah ta'ala (i.e. Tafwidh) is the Madhhab of the [majority of
the] Salaf al-salih not just according to the Asha'irah, but also according to
the Hanabilah!
Salih bin 'Abd al-'Aziz Al al-Shaykh, one of
the Mashayikh of the "Salafis", even admitted in his Sharh al-'Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah that most of the Hanbali Mashayikh of Ibn Taymiyyah were from among the
people of Tafwidh.
Ibn Taymiyyah believed that Allah ta'ala is
subject to changes, while many Hanabilah (even some of the Mushabbihah from
among them!) were against this false belief.
Ibn Taymiyyah also believed that Allah ta'ala
has Sifat 'Ayniyyah (i.e. that which we call as limbs or parts), while many
Hanabilah believed that Allah ta'ala is Exalted above being a body or having
parts/limbs, etc and would only affirm Sifat as Ma'ani.
Ibn Taymiyah believed that there is no first
creation, but acknowledged that every individual creation has a beginning (this
is a modified version of the statement of the Falasifah, who said that the
universe is eternal). I do not know of any Hanbali scholar who held such a
false position before him.
There are more such kind of examples, but the
above should be enough.
--
Originally Posted by Abu Kamel
Are you saying the 4 madhahib advocate while at his
grave praying to the Prophet(s) for him to seek Allah's forgiveness for us?
I did not say
praying, but rather asking. Praying is connected with the belief of
divinity/lordship of the one from whom one asks, while asking is simply asking.
And yes the scholars of the 4 Madhahib did not
see anything wrong with seeking intercession with the best of creation -
sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - unto one's Lord, because there is nothing wrong
in doing that.
If it was allowed to ask our beloved Prophet -
sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - during his lifetime for his intercession and if
it's allowed to do so on the day of judgement (refer toSahih al-Bukhari),
then why should it be wrong to do so in the time between? And I'll repeat my
question from a previous post: According to which Shari'ah and which logic is
it Shirk to ask the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - to supplicate for
one?
This a quote from the Hanafi Faqih 'Abdullah
bin Mahmud bin Mawdud al-Mawsili (d. 683 AH) [in the context of the Ziyarah]:
وقد قال الله تعالى
: ( ولو أنهم إذ ظلموا أنفسهم جاءوك
فاستغفروا الله واستغفر لهم الرسول لوجدوا اللهتوابا رحيما ) وقد جئناك ظالمين لأنفسنا ، مستغفرين لذنوبنا ، فاشفع لنا إلى ربك ، وأسأله أن يميتناعلىسنتك ، وأن يحشرنا في زمرتك ، وأن يوردنا حوضك ، وأن
يسقينا كأسك غير خزايا ولا نادمين، الشفاعة الشفاعة يا رسول الله ،
يقولها ثلاثا : ( ربنا اغفر لنا ولإخواننا
الذين سبقونا بالإيمان )الآية .ويبلغه سلام من
أوصاه فيقول : السلام عليك يا رسول الله من فلان بن فلان ، يستشفع بك إلىربك فاشفع له ولجميع المسلمين
“Allah ta’ala says: { If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee
and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for
them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful } [4:64].
So we’ve come to you, having wronged ourselves
and asking [Allah] for forgiveness regarding our sins, so intercede for us to your Lord and ask Him that He lets us die upon
your Sunnah, and that He
gathers us [on the day of reckoning] among your group, and allows us to get to
your Hawdh and drink from your bowl without disgrace or regret.
Intercession intercession, o Messenger of
Allah (al-Shafa'ah al-Shafa'ah, ya Rasulallah) – he (the visitor) should say this thrice -, { “Our Lord, forgive us and those of our brothers who preceded us in
faith” } [59:10] [till the end of] the Ayah.
[Then] he should deliver the greeting of those
who have told him to do so by saying: ‘Peace be upon you, o Messenger of Allah,
from Fulan bin Fulan, he seeks intercession through you
unto your Lord, so intercede for him and for all believers‘.” Source: al-Ikhtiyar li Ta’lil al-Mukhtar
And you will find the recommendation of
seeking intercession through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -
during the visitation of his blessed grave in most major Fiqh books of the 4
Madhahib.
--
Originally Posted by Mohamed Mifxal
look at all these shameless Mohammed Ibn 'Abd
al-Wahhab (ra) Haters, the more you hate, the more he'll be uplifted in the
sight of Allah.
I don't think
that one will be uplifted for trying to replace real Tawhid with a fake version
of Tawhid. And I also don't think that calling for the mass-slaughter of other
Muslims is something good.
Originally Posted by Mohamed Mifxal
He declared kaafir on kaafir
According to
the original Najdi movement most of you people who are blindly defending them
would also be not from among the people of Islam. If you really want to be
regarded as Muslims according to the standards of the original Wahhabi movement
you'll need to make Takfir upon the Ottomans, the people of Makkah, your own
parents (yes this crazyness is indeed mentioned in al-Durar al-Saniyyah!!!) and many many other Muslims.
Originally Posted by Mohamed Mifxal
lthey were not merely visiting graves, but asking for
blessings and stuff, This is by default shirk.
So seeking
blessings by touching the Hajar al-aswad is okay and seeking blessings by
drinking from the Zamzam water is also okay, but the moment one seeks blessings
through the Master of the first and the last - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -
one becomes a Mushrik? Do you actually realize that what you're saying?
--
Originally Posted by Mohamed Mifxal
ok, enough of your trolling
Weird reply.
But hey, you're the same person who regards 'Ulama` like Imam Ibn 'Abidin (d.
1252 AH) and Imam al-Sawi (d. 1241 AH) and basically all the scholars that
lived in the time of the first and second Saudi state as shameless people. Now
you can ask yourself who is shameless in reality.
Originally Posted by Bilal el
Your seeking blessing from the almighty not from the
rock
I don't get it
why you people always take the words of your opponents to the worst possible
meaning. Why so much Su` al-Dhann towards others Muslims?
The blessing and help obviously comes from
Allah ta'ala, but how did you attain it? It may happen by touching the Hajar
al-aswad or drinking from the Zamzam water OR through mentioning the name of
Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - [or other ways].
What you need to understand is that Allah
ta'ala has created Asbab (means) and there is nothing wrong with taking these
means and that the real help always comes from Allah ta'ala alone, because He
is the One who creates and brings forth without any partners.
Originally Posted by Bilal el
And if your parent are engaged in mushrikeen acts and
u recanise it the call a spade a spade it shirik
And what if
they have never committed Shirk?
Originally Posted by Abu Kamel
Sheikh `Abd al-Rahmân al-Barrâk said
He is a
follower of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) and it's already known that Ibn Taymiyyah
and his followers are against seeking intercession through the Prophet -
sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, but the Jumhur of the scholars were not against
it. This is an established fact that you need to acknowledge.
--
Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez
I think he is referring to what the likes of
Al-Nawawi, Al-Qurtubi, etc. have drawn evidence from, namely حديث العتبي
The Athar of
al-'Utbi has been often mentioned by the scholars either in the context of
recommending to do the same as described in the Athar (i.e. Tashaffu') during
the visitation of the grave of our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa
sallam - or regarding the Tafsir of 4:64. It should however be noted that the
scholars did not use it as an independent evidence.
As for the evidence for the permissibility
of seeking intercession through the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam:
The Ayah 4:64 is a evidence for it and the
scholars regarded is as general in meaning. (Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH)
disagreed with that, but who cares?)
Then there is the Athar of Malik al-Dar, where
a man (who is identified as the Sahabi Bilal bin al-Harith - radhiallahu 'anhu
- in another narration) went to the grave of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa
sallam - and asked him to pray for rain for his Ummah. (If any
"Salafi" wants to claim that it's not authentic, then my answer
simply is: The classical scholars of Hadith have authenticated it, so who
exactly are you people?)
Then there is the Hadith of the blind man
(which is authentic) where Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - teached
a supplication which contained doing Tawassul with him. Almost the same
expression was also teached by 'Uthman bin Hunayf - radhiallahu 'anhu - after
the death of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and this is reported
in the the Hadith of the man in need (which is again authentic according to the
scholars of Hadith).
There are more things, which one could mention
int his context.
What is also interesting is the incident which
has been mentioned by Maliki scholars (like al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH)) where
the 'Abbasi Khalifah Abu Ja'far al-Mansur (d. 158 AH) asked Imam Malik (d. 179
AH) a question and in the reply Imam Malik recommended Istishfa' with the
Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and mentioned the Ayah 4:64.
(Ibn Taymiyyah was the first person to doubt
the authencity of the incident... as usual!)
To make it short: We have texts which show its
permissibility, while our opponents have not even a single text where it has
been forbidden. The scholars did not see anything wrong in doing it until Ibn
Taymiyyah came up and tried to turn it into a big issue. No one from the
scholars of his time agreed with him regarding this issue with the exception of
some of his own students.
Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez
Of course, the authenticity of the Hadith all of them
use does not seem to reach the level of being used for evidence.
The people who
have a right to speak regarding the authencity of Ahadith are the scholars of
Hadith and the people who have the right to speak about rulings are the
scholars of Fiqh. Every science should be left to its people.
And: Putting Ibn Taymiyyah's weird opinions
above that of all other scholars is not really a good idea.
--
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
Just looking for the wording at the moment.
Brother, a
wording that one could use has already been mentioned:
Originally Posted by Abu Sulayman 
This a quote from the Hanafi Faqih 'Abdullah bin
Mahmud bin Mawdud al-Mawsili (d. 683 AH) [which he said in the context of the
Ziyarah]:
وقد قال
الله تعالى : ( ولو أنهم إذ ظلموا أنفسهم جاءوك فاستغفروا الله واستغفر
لهم الرسول لوجدوا اللهتوابا رحيما ) وقد جئناك ظالمين لأنفسنا ، مستغفرين
لذنوبنا ، فاشفع لنا إلى ربك ، وأسألهأن يميتناعلى سنتك ، وأن يحشرنا في
زمرتك ، وأن يوردنا حوضك ، وأن يسقينا كأسك غير خزايا ولا نادمين، الشفاعة الشفاعة يا رسول الله ، يقولها ثلاثا : ( ربنا اغفر لنا ولإخواننا الذين سبقونا
بالإيمان )الآية .ويبلغه سلام من أوصاه فيقول : السلام عليك يا
رسول الله من فلان بن فلان ، يستشفع بك إلىربك فاشفع له ولجميع المسلمين
“Allah ta’ala says: { If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves,
come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked
forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most
Merciful } [4:64].
So we’ve come to you, having wronged ourselves and asking [Allah] for
forgiveness regarding our sins, so intercede for us to your Lord and ask Him that He
lets us die upon your Sunnah, and that He gathers us [on the day of reckoning]
among your group, and allows us to get to your Hawdh and drink from your bowl
without disgrace or regret.
Intercession intercession, o Messenger of Allah (al-Shafa'ah al-Shafa'ah, ya
Rasulallah) – he (the visitor) should say this thrice -, { “Our Lord, forgive us and those of our brothers who
preceded us in faith” } [59:10] [till the end of] the Ayah.
[Then] he should deliver the greeting of those who have told him to do so by
saying: ‘Peace be upon you, o Messenger of Allah, from Fulan bin Fulan, he seeks intercession through you unto your Lord, so
intercede for him and for all believers‘.” Source: al-Ikhtiyar li Ta’lil al-Mukhtar
--
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
OK, so sticking with this specific example of asking
rasoolullah (s) at his grave only, what do you say is the 'status' of
this method when compared to making dua to Allah directly? In other words, is
it the same or do you consider it better?
This is a wrong
question, because one will make Du'a` to Allah ta'ala anyways. And if
Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - also makes Du'a` for you, is this a
bad thing?
--
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
The question is perfectly valid.
If I ask someone to make dua, then it's a request to that person. It doesn't
mean I automatically made dua to Allah too by asking them to make dua for me.
Hmm, so someone
will enter the Masjid al-Nabawi and stand in front of the blessed grave of Rasulullah
- sallalahu 'alayhi wa sallam - greeting him and asking him to supplicate for
the forgiveness of one's sins, while not having made a single Du'a` himself?
Does this sound normal to you, brother?
I mean we're speaking about Muslims and not
atheists. Every Muslim makes Du'a` for the forgiveness of sins and for
protection in the Dunya and the Akhirah and so on.
--
Let me also give an example:
Let's say someone has an illness and he has
prayed for Shifa`. Is it not allowed for him to take medicine? Yes, of course.
Because the medicine is a Sabab (mean) from among the Asbab that Allah ta'ala
has created to get his Shifa`.
Is the same person now allowed to ask a
righteous person whom he knows to pray for his Shifa`? The answer is again yes.
If that is understood, then one should also
understand that seeking aid with any creation should only be meant
metaphorically, because the creation can only help by the way of being a mean
(Sabab) and by the way of acquisition (Kasb), while the real help is expected
from Allah ta'ala alone without any partners.
--
ZeeshanParvez
So what exactly was Ibn Battaal, who Ibn Hajar quotes in Fath, saying when he said:
في هذه
الآية إثبات يدين لله ، وهما صفتان من صفات ذاته وليستا بجارحتين خلافا للمشبهة من
المثبتة ، وللجهمية من المعطلة
In this Verse is affirmation of Two Hands belonging to Allah and both [of them]
are two Sifah from the Sifaat of His Dhaat and they both are not limbs [which
is] opposed to the Mushabbiha and the Jahmiyyah...[1]
What Imam Ibn
Battal (d. 449 AH) said in the above statement is one of the 3 positions (i.e.
Tafwidh, Ta`wil and Ithbat with Tanzih; in this case it's Ithbat with Tanzih)
that you'll find among the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah concerning the divine
attributes.
In the qoute Yadayn (as a reminder: most scholars do not allow to translate such expressions
into other languages if they're used for Allah ta'ala and even those who do
only do so if it's clear that limbs are not meant) is affirmed as Sifat Ma'ani
as opposed to affirming them as A'yan and that's why it's said in the qoute
that they're Sifat and NOT limbs!
The problem however is that Ibn Taymiyyah (d.
728 AH) affirms it as parts or limbs. He doesn't use these expressions in
negation or affirmation, but unfortunately he does affirm its meaning. So his
Madhhab is Ithbat without Tanzih.
--
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
Whether it sounds normal to me is irrelevant. Please
answer the question which is about the 'status' of this type of dua compared to
calling on Allah directly.
Your question
is based upon false assumptions and that's why you won't get an answer.
And: Is it haram to take the Asbab that Allah
ta'ala has created? Is it haram if a person prays for you?
--
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
Please explain the false assumptions I've made.
Well it seems
that you're thinking about the issue of asking the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi
wa sallam - to supplicate for one as praying to him. That's why you say
"making du'a` directly to Allah" and that's why you're thinking about
it as "what is better to do".
But that what I mentioned are actually two
different issues and NOT "praying to a creation vs. praying to the
Creator".
A general question: Is it allowed to ask
someone to supplicate for you?
--
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
It turns out that that false assumptions are coming
from your side. Now that we're cleared that up, you have no excuse left not to
answer.
Okay, then
please explain to me why you said "directly"?
What's even the point
of this question?
I mean this is like asking: "If you're
ill, what's better?: That you supplicate directly to Allah ta'ala or go to the
doctor?".
It's not a matter of "either this or
that". You make Du'a` and you can also go to the doctor. Maybe Allah will
give you Shifa` on the hands of the doctor.
And likewise when it comes to your question:
It's not about what is better. You make Du'a` and you're also allowed to ask
someone to also make Du'a` for you. Where is the problem? Why turn it into a
"either this or that"-issue?
And since this thread is about the Najdi
movement: How for God's sake is it allowed to slaughter Muslims for such simple
issues?
--
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
Making dua for yourself is better than asking someone
else to make dua for you. As for the going to a doctor, you can make dua and
perform istikhara. Maybe going to the doctor isn't what is best for you.
However, this is an exceptional case we're talking about. Why won't you answer
the question?
Why should I
answer a question that doesn't really make sense to me?
And: Could you please explain to us why the
people on the day of judgement will go to different Prophets - as it's reported
in Sahih al-Bukhari - and ask them for intercession by
saying "intercede for us to your Lord"?
No one will intercede until they go to the
Master of the first and the last - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and ask him
the same. The Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - will then fall into
prostration until Allah ta'ala gives him the permission to intercede.
Why do the people not just simply make Du'a`
to Allah and that's it? (Well because even if one has made Du'a` it's still
allowed to ask someone else to make also Du'a`.)
--
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
I This is an exceptional situation that won't even
occur in this life. However, asking rasoolullah (s) at his grave to make dua for you is perfectly normal
and happens all the time according to you, correct? I don't consider it to be
permissible as I've already stated and I'm asking out of curiosity. This should
be an easy one for you.
You don't
consider it permissable, but the scholars (with the exception of Ibn Taymiyyah
(d. 728 AH) and those who were influenced by him regarding this issue) do
consider it permissable. And this was very very widespread in the past among
the Muslims (to the degree that many of the poems where Rasulullah - sallallahu
'alayhi wa sallam - was praised contained also statements of seeking
intercession through him). Why exactly do you think that it's not just allowed
but even RECOMMENDED in most major Fiqh books of the 4 Madhahib?
And I'll repeat myself: How for God's sake it
it allowed to slaughter people for such simple issues? I mean you've a opinion
regarding this issue and I've a opinion and that's it. At the end of the day
we're both Muslims and we may simply agree to disagree. But according to the
original Najdis you would be obliged to make Takfir upon me (otherwise they
would regard your blood as permissable to be spilled together with mine) even
if you would support many of their ideas. Go and read for yourself what they did
with the people of Huraymila just because they stopped supporting their
mass-slaughter of other Muslims throughout Najd.
--
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
You obviously can't, or don't want to answer. Not
interested in any of your other rhetoric to be honest.
I've actually
already answered you. For me it's not a matter of "either is or that"
nor a "what is better"-issue and that why you won't see me saying
"this is better or that is better".
--
Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah
So both methods are equal according to you? Funny how
you didn't just say that at the beginning and kept going off on a tangent,
making false accusations, and pretending not to understand.
--
You still don't
get it. Let's leave it at that.
--
Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi (d. (744 AH) was a Hanbali scholar and knowledgable regarding the
science of Hadith. It should however be noted that he was a direct student of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) and one of his fanatic followers. He was the author of
the book al-Sarim
al-Munki, where he tried to refute the book Shifa` al-Saqam by Imam Taqi
al-din al-Subki (d. 756 AH).
The
book Shifa` al-Saqam was a response
to Ibn Taymiyyah's attack against the visiting of the blessed grave of
Rasulullah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam. Ibn Taymiyyah's position regarding
this issue is 100 5 abnormal.
(The book of Imam al-Subki also contains a chapter regarding [the
permissibility of perfoming] Tawassul, Istighathah and Tashaffu' and has been
praised by scholars like Imam al-'Iraqi (d. 826 AH), Imam al-Suyuti
(d. 911 AH), Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH) and others.)
Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi still defended this wrong position.
That's why I don't care whatever he thinks regarding any issue where he was
trying to defend the abnormal positions of his Shaykh
(and this of course includes the rejection of Tashaffu'!).
And by the way: The Athar of al-'Utbi was not used by the scholars as an
independent proof, but rather only to recommend to do the same as the beduin
arab in the story. As for the permissibility of performing Tawassul and
Tashaffu' with the Master of first and the last - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam
-, then there are other proofs as already mentioned.
Based upon what exactly are you people disallowing it other than "Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers
said"?
If seeking intercession through Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is not allowed, then know that it should not be
allowed with anyone else (but you people are allowing it with non-deceased
persons), because no one among the creation has a higher rank.
---
ZeeshanParvez said: Lets get little precise here. You say Hand in English and there is
one of two possibilities. Your brain visualizes a three dimensional hand. Or
you say the word Hand, hear it, but no picture forms in your head. According to
you Ibn Battaal used the word Yadayn in his language, as he was speaking in
Arabic, and nothing was coming to his mind but when Ibn Taymiyyah was using it
he was visualizing a three dimensional hand?
Brother,
you wouldn't need to ask me this if you would know what Sifat 'Ayniyyah actually are?
This
is the vocabulary used by Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728
AH) himself and he himself has defined what it means. (It has the same meaning
as that which we call as parts (Ajza`/Ab'adh).)
I think this would need a new thread with some relevant qoutes by Ibn Taymiyyah.
--
Abufulaans said:
Would you like to translate the starting pages of tareekh al najd
for us so we can see the type of Shirk the people were upon at that time
according to the 'najdis'
It's much more then you have mentioned
--
The
name of the book is Tarikh Najd and not Tarikh al-Najd. You should at
least know this much of Arabic before trying to make Takfir upon Muslims who
lived before us and whom you've never met.
The book was written by one of the fanatic followers of
Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and contains lies and false
accusations against other Muslims. I've already brought qoutes from al-Durar
al-Saniyyah, where Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab himself lied
in a very clear manner by claiming that the majority
of the people of Hijaz rejected the resurrection after death. Why
should one believe him and his followers after knowing this?
And: Some of the things that you people call as "Shirk akbar" out of
nowhere are in reality forbidden (haram), but not polytheism. And some things
are only disliked (makruh) and some are even allowed.
And: A person who has entered into the religion with certainity does not exit
it except with certainity. Have the people whom you're trying to make Takfir
of rejected anything that is from the necessary knowledge of the religion?
If
not, then based upon what exactly are you trying to judge them as disbelievers
(or even worse: apostates!)?
--
source: "Ummah.com" Forum: Here
--
Edited by ADHM
