|
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem
assalamu alaikum
So far what you have presented is only history of what his opponent associated to him.
To begin with your view of history in general is warped, you have divided all accounts into for and against and simply labeled those apposing him as wrong. This is not acceptable by any scholarly standard, an ethical person looks at all the sources from all sides and then judges accordingly.
Regarding historical sources the only people who historical speaking view the wahhabi/salafi movement/sect as postive are the wahhabi's them selfs, if you are to impartially check the record you will find that scholars, historians from DIFFERENT parts of the muslim world apposed the movement. You can not accuse these scholars from different parts of the muslim world of conspiring, in fact the only conclusion you can come up with is that different people from different backgrounds following the same faith all came to the same conclusion about Muhammad ibn abdul wahhab and his movement.
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.
Look at the reality of what he and this movement did. The greatest muslim minds, scholars, moral exemplars of Islam developed studied and promoted the four madhhabs [Islamic legal schools] and no educated person apposed this in more than a 1000 years of islam. From this any sane and rational person will conclude based on this fact and and countless verses in the Quran and ahadith that Allah chose this path for this Ummah and it was the correct one.
Muhammad Ibn abdul wahhab came some 200 years ago perceivesd that this Ummah had fallen into shirk, instead of educating himself Islamicly and proving his case using any one of the four legal methodologies of the madhhabs he simply declares all muslims who dont follow him Kufar with out any legal basis or Qualifications to do so. Wahhabi's appose Intersession and say it is shirk but not tassawuf itself [according to a speech by one of his sons/grandsons who clearly states this to be the only aspect of sufism abhorrent to them], then they declare shia to be outright kafirs after which they proceed to kill the "kufar".
His sect began to give fattwah in his lifetime on various legal issues based on there own bias rather than careful study and impartial analysis of the evidence and continued this long after his death.
If you look at this carefully you will see rather than simply say we dont agree with this aspect of the deen which we think is shirk, a serious fault in peoples practice and prove there case legally and peacefully, they apposed all four sunni traditional schools of thought and said they were wrong in everything they did and came up with thier own rulings.
Basically lets start over after 1200 years of scholarship.
This is there reality, a group of uneducated bedouins, cammel herders farmers, outlaws began to dictate the affairs of the muslims when they had no right to.
In Bukhari's sahih you will find the following,
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al' As:
I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "Allah does not take away the knowledge, by taking it away from (the hearts of) the people, but takes it away by the death of the religious learned men till when none of the (religious learned men) remains, people will take as their leaders ignorant persons who when consulted will give their verdict without knowledge. So they will go astray and will lead the people astray."
Narrated Abu Huraira :
The Prophet said, "(Religious) knowledge will be taken away (by the death of religious scholars) ignorance (in religion) and afflictions will appear; and Harj will increase." It was asked, "What is Harj, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied by beckoning with his hand indicating "killing." (Fateh-al-Bari Page 192, Vol. 1)
If you would like to challenge this reality show me the traditional Qualifications of Muhammad Ibn Abdul wahhab. Prove that he was above the madhhabs and the Imams of the madhhabs, we still have there teachings preserved untill this day nothing has been lost yet this movement saw fit not to follow Orthodox Islam. Where they also claiming the rest of the muslim world was following other than what these Imams had been taught by the Tabiin and the sahhabah and ultimately Muhammad [sallah llahu laihi wa sallam]?
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
This to me shows that you know nothing about traditional islam and simply think any person who speaks about a verse or hadith and says this or thas is right by the sole assumption that they said they were right is therefor right. If i am wrong about you and you know something of traditional Islam and the islamic sciences you will easily understand the fallacy of the above and how it is so.
Otherwise to you it is all simply a matter of this scholar said this and that scholar said that and i simply prefer this one over that one because i like what he says more.
When YOUR sources all come from the propaganda work of YOUR own group then yes by any standard this is bias.
see my earlier point, word games dont touch on the reality of the situation you have simply painted the canvas black and white and picked a side.
Is it????
That was badly worded allow me to clarify, he was not a qualified scholar, he studied under many teachers while he traveled for a short period but who gave him ijazaah? in which madhhab was he a shaykh? at which point did he become a mujtahid mutalq [absolute mujtahid, ie a mujtahid of the highest caliber] capable of ijtihad [independent legal reasoning, independent of the madhhabs that is] and starting his own madhhab.
He was not a Sufi to get Ijazza, BTW did you get Ijazza from anybody to slander him??
I am sorry but you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge here, When an Islamic scholar, in any science, thinks his student has mastered and is educated enough to teach a particular science he gives him ijazzah in his name to do so. Traditionaly speaking A muslim shaykh would require Ijazah [or eejazah or ejaz depending how you pronounce it] in multiple Islamic sciences beffore they can be called a shaykh or scholar and ultimately be able to give fatwah on any topic. If a shaykh does not have Ijazzah in a particular topic then he is not permitted to give fatwah or any sort of advice on the matter until he has attained the necessary qualifications.
Muhammad Ibn Abdul wahhab did not have any Ijazzah and therefor was not qualified to make fatwah in any Topic on Islam. Lets assume he was qualified for arguments sake, then at which point did he become a mujathid mutlaq becouse that is the only way a person can give legal advice independent of the madhhabs since all a Ijazza does is state you are qualified to teach properly what was taught to you but he went beyond that.
If i am wrong please state the Ijazah he had, from which shaykhs he attained them from and the islamic sciences, then prove how he became a mujathid mutlaq by also providing the evidence that proves that he later was qualified in just about every islamic science, was a hafiz of the entire Quran including various tafsirs, asbab an nuzul [reason for revelation] for each verse and hafiz of at least 100,000 ahadith with there chains of narrations.
The only evidence i have seen is that he traveled [until the age of 25] to different areas and studied under different shaykhs and nothing to specifically state that he attained qualifications from any of them in this short period of time.
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..
i havnt seen this even from his supporters you assume to much.
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.
you have to be Qualified to perform Ijtihad and that requires the approval of the scholarly community not simple claims you are a mujtahid. " his capability of Ijtihad" you are simply making this up as you go along i think, i am capable ijtihad according to your standards its all just a matter of agreeing with me and my views is it?
I am hanafi, am i now a hanafi shaykh?
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.
You can not seriously claim that then go and start your own new version of islam that is idiotic, they claimed the sufis where mushriks what does that then have to with the madhhabs. It's like claiming we want revenge for America invading iraq and then attacking Sweden??!?....wait isnt that how america ended up in iraq... my point there was nothing wrong with the madhhabs yet they decided to follow there own caprice.
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?
Give me a break even the salafi's recognise past mujtahid imams and at no point in time have they them selfs claimed to be mujtahids. You have taken this neutral approach of yours to far, beyond the scope of clear evidence and the obvious.
Kindly enlighten me on who are followers of traditinal Islam today! let
us see, what follower of traditional Islam says about him.
Any person who follows any of Islams madhhabs, the question isnt so hard that you could not realise this yourself.
Sonya wrote
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!
im replying to this and what you wrote in your next post,
Br Andalus is a convert like yourself sister, when he first converted he fell under the influence of this sect but as his knowledge of islam increased he realised traditional Islam was the right path. regarding what you later said i am an arab not an indian or pakistani who have large salafi groups, it is a wrong to think that most people who appose them are simply from this region the remainder of the muslim world follow Traditional islam. Salafis makes up less than 3% of the world muslim population, they are the loudest becouse they have the most wealth in the muslim world as they are sitting on vast amounts of oil reserves.
Edited by rami
|
Tweet
SHIA SUNNI, MALEKI, SHAFI, HANAFI, WAHABI
Topic Options
