SHIA SUNNI, MALEKI, SHAFI, HANAFI, WAHABI

Sonya wrote: ALHAMDULILAH.. FINALLY i'm back.. first and foremost.. brother/sister andalus.. i need to know where are you from [your origin]? you may think its irrelevant but its not.. i'll tell u why but first let me know and dont worry, i am not looking forward to any personal attacks.. i'm jus' trying to help myself understand why do you hold these views.. thats it!

Actually sister, where I am from is irrelevant. It has no bearing on my views, which are based upon sound reasoning, historical events, and current claims of the deviated sect now in question. I perfer not to allow my geographic location to become a kind of "strawman" to explain why I think the way I do, as opposed to looking at the problems with "wahabism".

Assalam Aleikum

ALHAMDULILAH.. FINALLY i'm back..

first and foremost.. brother/sister andalus.. i need to know where are you from [your origin]? you may think its irrelevant but its not.. i'll tell u why but first let me know and dont worry, i am not looking forward to any personal attacks.. i'm jus' trying to help myself understand why do you hold these views.. thats it!

abuzaid wrote: Assalamualaikum WRWB, 1. Why anything written in support of Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab is salafi propganda and rhetorics; and why anything against him is reality, is not it just mindsed? Again whoever write in his support is prejudiced and whoever write against him in free from any prejudiced. These are the two principles I have derived from posts of Rami and Andalus. On what criteria you people repeatedly call Bin baaz as biased and on what basis you believe that YOU are not biased against Mohammed Bin Abdul Wahhab? Just don't try to prove by you eloquence. Let reader choose to beleive what they prefer to.Final Judge will be Allah SW.

wa aleikum asalam Br,

1) The only real apologetics that support him come from those who follow him, and the apologetics never deal with his teachings and the great fitnah they brought. Actual historical account remove any sugar coating that the apologists put forth.

2) Bin Baaz is biased because his beliefs are deviated, his writings are simply unsubstantiated apologetics, and he has never actually covered the barbarism that stemmed from the deviated Anajdi. In other words, the acorn does not fall far from the tree.

3) We can get into the proofs behind his deviance. Here is a well established proof: No single scholar of any merit or worth as ever come out of that sect, and Bin Baaz and his sect have been clearly shown to be in great error. The scholarly works have spanned centuries which have defined and refuted the idea and beliefs that have been engendered from Anajdi and his fitnah.

 

2. Why Ibn Abdul Wahhab is called repeatedly unqualified? what was the criteria for a person to be called qualified before 300 to 250 years?

Show me his ijaza. There is an established method for learning and teahcing Islamc sciences. Anajdi was untrained, unqualified, and his juvenile methdologies for reaching his conclusions are self evident.

3. As per history, you can't just claim that whatever is written against him is truth and anything in his support is fabrication. I personally prefer not to judge him based on history because we don't have common account of history acceptable to both supporters and opponents of him.

His supporters have no historical methods for creating aplogetics. The aplogetics are extremely isolated and they simply "white wash" the historical accounts, based upon the best sources we have. In other words, from his supporters, we simply "disagreement", and no real answers to events that were documented. History accounts that they were uneducated brigands, and his modern day followers continue the tradition.

 

Indian traditional religious faction have been his great opponents based on known history about him. But things have changed now. In last two decades I never have not come across any reputed deobandi scholars writing against Mohammed Bin Abul Wahhab. Though they are opposed to "sect called salafis" yet you will never find anything written against Ibn Abdul Wahhab. This is just because they have realised that what was presented to them as history was fake.

This is a strawman. The merits or nonmerits of this deviant do not count on what deobandis think or not think about wahabis. The argument about how some deobanids feel or not feel is a matter of debate, and is not relevant to this discourse.

"Neosalafis", or la madhabis, or are acorns from the root, and they exist in vairuous shades.

Both Manzoor Nu'mani and Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi have specifically mention this in his writing. Abul Hasan Ali nadwi (a sufi hanafi) have specifically written a book to defend him. Now about me.. Some of you have just assumed that I am Wahhabi or salafi. I don't care what you call me or think about me. I am just one among many who think positively about Ibn Abdul Wahhab, like the two personalities mentioned above. I neither think that he was right in all respect neither I think that he was just an evil.

So it is ok to murder hundreds of Muslims by manipulating aqida without any education or qualification, and from a hole in the ground give permission to steel and pillage? Let me ask you, what qadi over saw this takfir?

It is ok to aid kafirs to over throw an Islamic ruler?

I know, there was bida in the land and shirk, and it had to be cleaned. This is the matra repeated by wahabis, but it is just that: Unsubstantiated, baseless mantra, and excuse to sugar coat the life of one of Islam's greatest deviants and fitnah mongers. Nothing good ever came from his sect, nothing.

I have read many post of Brother Rami and respect him for his knowledge and agree that he is comparatively unbiased, but unfortunately when it comes to Ibn Abdul Wahhab he is on one extreme. I understand that our difference is based on history, I don't trust on the historical account that he choose to believe and he don't trust on hisotiry I choose to believe. The reason I do not believe on what was writtin against Ibn Abdul Wahhab is not that I am a blind follower of salafi folks, its actually influnce of writing of Manzoor Numani and Abul Hasal Ali Nadvi, I also agree with the brother Rami that calling yourself as "Ahl-e-hadith" is claiming your own ignorance. I appreciate if we can have healthy and beneficial discussion about salafi approach rather than discussing personalities and their history.

Brother, I look at the fruit, which is the teachings, the claims, and the actions of the followers. Thats what I look at.

Assalam Aleikum

rami wrote: Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem Then you have wrongly derived something from my posts, i am not so ignorant as to think like this.

I am sorry, I have no intention of deriving something from your post. So far what you have presented is only history of what his opponent associated to him.

rami wrote: I can easily prove how wrong this movement is without even quoting a single thing from history and simply looking at there teachings and methodology.

Unfortunately you have not done this so far, Though I am a muqallid but I am ready to accept anything which is true and free from bias. I try my best to keep my mind away from taqleedi mindset.

rami wrote: My opinion is based on the holistic view of this movement and not any single account.

Correct, but others also have their own holistic view of this movement and we can't really keep on discussing out such views. Instead we have to take one aspect of the movement, discuss it and move on to other one.

rami wrote: Becouse his writings have no historical basis, i would like to see clear and reliable references for what he says.

 The counter argument is that, what he says is directly from Quran and Sunnah and have never been disputed issue among Sahaba, Tabieen and taba' tabieen. And its upon you to prove that what he said is AGAINST teaching of early scholars. I am sure, you will have lots of example to prove this wrong and I will sppreciate if you actually start proving.

rami wrote: When your sources all come from the propaganda work of your own group then yes by any standard this is bias.

When YOUR sources all come from the propaganda work of YOUR own group then yes by any standard this is bias.

rami wrote: Becouse he has no teacher

Is it????

rami wrote: or ijazzah from any scholar,

He was not a Sufi to get Ijazza, BTW did you get Ijazza from anybody to slander him??

rami wrote: he is not qualified in any of the islamic and non islamic sciences

Possibly he was not specialised in all or many Islamic science. But he was qualified, However, this is unnecessy arguments as his sopporters will prove based on history that his was qualified and his opponents will prove again based on HISTORY that he was not qualified. This is just your rhetorics chanting qualified and unqualified..

rami wrote: and thus incapable of Ijtihad which is what he did by not following a madhhab and his own Indipendent ideas and thoughts.

In one of his letter he clearly claimed to be Hanbali. Though he did not follow Hambali school of fiqh in full, but his da'wah was not anti-taqleed. BTW, his capability of Ijtihad will be seen only through his books not history presented by his opponents.

rami wrote: I find it ignorant on your part that you think the mujtahid imams had no teachers, we can trace there teachers all the way back to rasul allah [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] himself not so with the wahhabi movement.

Again history? When he himslef claim to be Hanbali and he had learned from many of scholars of his time ( kindly read the article posted by Abu Mujahid). However, his Ijtihad was limited to what was happening around him and claifying aspect of tawheed properly to the people.

rami wrote: By that standard anything in history can not be verified including Ahadith. The movement steered away from traditional Islam in Aqeedah and fiqh that is proof enough that they are wrong,

  As an argument his supporters claim that actally majority of muslims at his time have deviated away from traditional Islam and got influneced by beliefs and practices of many non-muslim and this is he who steered them towards traditional Islam.

rami wrote: How many Mujtahid Imams has this movement produced in 250 years the answer is none.

This a baseless question, you will call all the scholars produced by this movement as unqualified and they will call all people whom you consider as scholars as innovators. What's use of such rhetorics?

rami wrote: Logicaly speaking lets not center this argument around the deobanid's i am not one and what they believe is not a criterion for anything.

The reason I brough Deobandis in between is that I wanted to convey that, there is another approach, instead of just blindly opposing him, there are lots of people who respect him while disagreeing with him. When you say traditional Islam; what exactly you mean? spcifically if you want to keep deobandis away. Who are followers of traditional Islam today?? If you do not like to refer to deobandis for this thread, there can be other silent readers who understand what I mean.

rami wrote: This is also wishfull thinking on your part , since you clearly you have no knowledge of traditinal islam and what that entails how can you judge when a sect has moved away from traditional Islam and invented there own beliefs and understandings.

Kindly enlighten me on who are followers of traditinal Islam today! let us see, what follower of traditional Islam says about him.

rami wrote: If your entire argument is of the "this shaykh said this and that shaykh said that" variety then we may as well end this discussion now and wait for you to do some more reading on the matter.

I guessed that these two shaikhs were followers of traditional Islam, if not kindly let me know I won't refer to them.

rami wrote: I dont know who these people are frankly speaking or why there words have any weight but if you care to ask Deobandi's what they think specifically about wahabbi's then i suggest you visit sunniforum.com and ask your self.

I prefer not to. I don't think forum is right way to do that. I am looking for something from a well known deobandi scholars. Moulana Manzoor Nu'mani was one among them.