Print Page | Close Window

SHIA SUNNI, MALEKI, SHAFI, HANAFI, WAHABI

Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: Matters/topics, related to various sects, are discussed where only Muslims who may or may not belong to a sect take part.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8834
Printed Date: 29 March 2024 at 12:57am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: SHIA SUNNI, MALEKI, SHAFI, HANAFI, WAHABI
Posted By: sulooni
Subject: SHIA SUNNI, MALEKI, SHAFI, HANAFI, WAHABI
Date Posted: 14 March 2007 at 5:23am

SHOULD SOME MUSLIMS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER MUSLIMS ?

 



-------------
www.insight-info.com/forum/default



Replies:
Posted By: USA-NIQAABI
Date Posted: 14 March 2007 at 6:08am

Assalamu'Alaikum,

Islam is for everyone not just a select few.

MasSalaama



Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 14 March 2007 at 9:18am
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

This is a sunni website, the main section of the forums are for topics from a sunni perspective. So as not to confuse people about what sunni Islam teaches non sunni discussions are confined to the Itrafaith section of the forum.

People come here to learn not just discuss, which is why we have the different sections of the forum.

Shafii, hanafi, maliki, Hanbali, sufi, wahhabi all come under Sunni Islam.


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: Alwardah
Date Posted: 14 March 2007 at 9:50am
Originally posted by sulooni sulooni wrote:

SHOULD SOME MUSLIMS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER MUSLIMS ?

 

As Salamu alaikum

We don't discriminate against other Muslims - but we do distinguish between those following the Sunnah and those who do not follow the Sunnah.

Brother Rami pointed out this is a Sunni based Forum meaning - We follow the Islamic Shariah according the Quran and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam)

Salams



-------------
�Verily your Lord is quick in punishment; yet He is indeed Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful (Surah Al-An�am 6:165)
"Indeed, we belong to Allah and to Him is our return" (Surah Baqarah 2: 155)


Posted By: Sonya
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 6:36am

As salaamu'alikum wr wb

Currently, i am having a debate in a forum where i say that wahabbis are sunnis but ppl over there say that they are not sunnis. they are a totally different sect. i dont believe this.. i live in UAE and i have seen wahabbis. they are just like myself. the only difference is they are a bit more ultra strict when it comes to music and thats something good ofcourse. i was told by these ppl on the forum that wahabis are not even strict with their sunnah prayers. please help me because i strongly believe that i am right. i need solid proofs to support my claim. I also know its wrong to use the term 'wahabi' but Allah knows that i did it only for the sake of clarity. my intention was not to discriminate between Muslims. One question that is raised is why did Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab declare jihad against Muslims of those days? why did he rise against Ottoman Empire which belonged to Muslims? i was told by a frend that back in those days.. ppl had somewhat started grave worshipping and so he had to claim that they are polytheists. he even demolished tomb of a companion (r.a). this makes sense but isnt it that we cant declare war against our fellow muslims? isnt it that we have to make them understand in a more peaceful way?

kindly get back to me as soon as possible..

ma'salaama



-------------
Every one who can see has a sight but everyone who has a sight doesnt have an insight.


Posted By: Abeer23
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 7:10am
Originally posted by Sonya Sonya wrote:

As salaamu'alikum wr wb

Currently, i am having a debate in a forum where i say that wahabbis are sunnis but ppl over there say that they are not sunnis. they are a totally different sect.

Wa alaikum as-sala wr wb,

Sister, you sound sincere in your quest for a better understanding of the different Islamic sects.  Its fine to read up, ask questions and educate yourself.  I think the more you do this the more you'll understand where their differences of opinions (in legal matters) arise from; but, it's really not worth arguing over. 

I think our #1 problem as Muslims is that we bicker among each other way too much over just about anything.  Does it really matter what we call the wahabbis???  They're our brothers/sisters in Islam, why not just call them that? 



Posted By: Sonya
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 8:15am

Originally posted by Abeer23 Abeer23 wrote:

Wa alaikum as-sala wr wb,

Sister, you sound sincere in your quest for a better understanding of the different Islamic sects.  Its fine to read up, ask questions and educate yourself.  I think the more you do this the more you'll understand where their differences of opinions (in legal matters) arise from; but, it's really not worth arguing over. 

I think our #1 problem as Muslims is that we bicker among each other way too much over just about anything.  Does it really matter what we call the wahabbis???  They're our brothers/sisters in Islam, why not just call them that? 

I understand that in our day and age when it is important to stress points of agreement rather than points of disagreement, we keep looking for faults in eachother. this is what i am against! i also understand that what unites Muslims is much greater than what disunites them. This is exactly why i want to prove that Wahabis are no different than sunnis. The minor differences that we have exist even between the four schools of thought so its not a big deal but these ppl wont understand unless i provide them with evidence. i am not against Wahabis at all. as matter of fact, i am grateful to them becoz if we observe today, they are the ones who make sincere efforts in spreading Islam across the globe.

ofcourse they are our brothers and sisters. and thats how i refer to them which is why i had mentioned that the term 'wahabi' was used only for the sake of clarity... [i just wanted u to know what am i talking about..]



-------------
Every one who can see has a sight but everyone who has a sight doesnt have an insight.


Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 1:20pm

Sister Sonya,

You have to be very clear about whom you refer to be as Wahabi.. some sects calls anyone against themselves as Wahabis. The wahabi is a term created by British in subcontinent to slander people who call for pure tawheed and elimination of bid'ah.

To be strict in sunnah prayer is not the method of Ahlus Sunnah. Sunnah prayer are those which are not obligatory and to stress on sunnah prayer as though its is obligatory is bidah. Here I never meant to demean Sunnah (naoodu billah) But in sub-continent there are muslims who never bother if his brother does not do fard prayer, but if someone goes out of masjid without sunnah, they just can't digest it. They feel its complusory to perform all sunnah prayer once a person enter into Masjid. If a person never comes to masjid in years, they do not have any issue with them, they consider such person as AHlus Sunnah. This is the mindset, this is clearly making something as fard with is not fard in the Deen of Allah.

 

As per the proof, why do you think you have to provide the proof? This is they who have to provide proof for someone to be out of Ahlus Sunnah. If they says that they are less strict about sunnah prayer, than again its upon them to prove that being less strict in sunnah prayer throw them out of fold of Ahlus Sunnah.

I am sure that those who claim wahabis are not ahlus Sunnah would consider grave worshippers as Ahlus Sunnah despite their clear shirk in Ibadat.



Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 1:25pm
Originally posted by sulooni sulooni wrote:

SHOULD SOME MUSLIMS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER MUSLIMS ?

Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali are Ahlus Sunnah..

Wahabi is a vague term and carries different meaning for different places and people.

Shia are not Ahlus Sunnah, they consider source of Deen as Ah Al bayt and Quran only. Some may dispute Quran also.

Ahlus Sunnah are those..

1. Who Take Quran as Source of Deen,

2. Hadith as Source of Deen..

3. Explain Deen as per Understanding of Sahabah, Tabieen and Taba Tabieen.



Posted By: Abu Mujahid
Date Posted: 03 June 2007 at 4:46am
Originally posted by abuzaid abuzaid wrote:

Originally posted by sulooni sulooni wrote:

SHOULD SOME MUSLIMS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER MUSLIMS ?

Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali are Ahlus Sunnah..

Wahabi is a vague term and carries different meaning for different places and people.

Shia are not Ahlus Sunnah, they consider source of Deen as Ah Al bayt and Quran only. Some may dispute Quran also.

Ahlus Sunnah are those..

1. Who Take Quran as Source of Deen,

2. Hadith as Source of Deen..

3. Explain Deen as per Understanding of Sahabah, Tabieen and Taba Tabieen.

 

Bro Abuzaid,

 

Well said and may Allah reward you khair.

 

 

Abu Mujahid



-------------
Islam need true muslims


Posted By: number41
Date Posted: 03 June 2007 at 7:25am

Bro Abuzaid said : The wahabi is a term created by British in subcontinent to slander people who call for pure tawheed and elimination of bid'ah.

Mashallah bro you have said it all..


 



-------------
'When one bright intellect meets another bright intellect, the light increases and the Path becomes clear' � Rumi


Posted By: Sonya
Date Posted: 03 June 2007 at 9:03am
Originally posted by abuzaid abuzaid wrote:

Sister Sonya,

You have to be very clear about whom you refer to be as Wahabi.. some sects calls anyone against themselves as Wahabis. The wahabi is a term created by British in subcontinent to slander people who call for pure tawheed and elimination of bid'ah.

To be strict in sunnah prayer is not the method of Ahlus Sunnah. Sunnah prayer are those which are not obligatory and to stress on sunnah prayer as though its is obligatory is bidah. Here I never meant to demean Sunnah (naoodu billah) But in sub-continent there are muslims who never bother if his brother does not do fard prayer, but if someone goes out of masjid without sunnah, they just can't digest it. They feel its complusory to perform all sunnah prayer once a person enter into Masjid. If a person never comes to masjid in years, they do not have any issue with them, they consider such person as AHlus Sunnah. This is the mindset, this is clearly making something as fard with is not fard in the Deen of Allah.

 

As per the proof, why do you think you have to provide the proof? This is they who have to provide proof for someone to be out of Ahlus Sunnah. If they says that they are less strict about sunnah prayer, than again its upon them to prove that being less strict in sunnah prayer throw them out of fold of Ahlus Sunnah.

I am sure that those who claim wahabis are not ahlus Sunnah would consider grave worshippers as Ahlus Sunnah despite their clear shirk in Ibadat.

Thank you brother!

i agree with everything you have said and i need your help with this. its not that i am eager to prove to them that 'wahabis' are part of ahlus sunnah. its an established fact and we dont need to prove facts. what offends me is their ignorance towards this subject. and what is more serious is the fact that they are our Muslim brothers. its such a shame to know that at this time when we need to fight enemies of Islam, we fight our own Muslim brothers.

brother, it will be of great if you could provide me an answer for why did Mohammad ibn Abdul wahab declare a jihad against fellow Muslims? against the ottoman empire? did Mohammad ibn Abdul wahab attack first or the ottoman empire? i am aware that Muslims in those days had somewhat started grave worshipping and so Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab said its wrong. but are we allowed to declare jihad against our Muslim brothers? is there an islamic justification to this?

ma'salaama



-------------
Every one who can see has a sight but everyone who has a sight doesnt have an insight.


Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 03 June 2007 at 10:59am

First of all, who are Wahhabis?

Can any specific groups be classified as follower of Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab?? Has any group claimed that they are Wahhabi or follower of Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab???

Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab is history, both his supporters and opponents will propose their own version of history and no one will agree on others version.

So, its better we discuss present instead of past. Just ask them, just because someone respect Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi, he goes out of Ahlus Sunnah? Is this the criterion to judge if someone is Ahlus Sunnah?

Normally barelwis of subcontinent would declare anyone as Wahhabi who does not agree with them. If required they declare Jamaat-e-Islami as Wahhabi, and sometime deobandis and Tablighi as Wahhabi and mostly they declare Ahle-Hadith as Wahhabi. And none of these groups ever claim to be Wahhabi.



Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 03 June 2007 at 9:11pm

Originally posted by Sonya Sonya wrote:

As salaamu'alikum wr wb

Currently, i am having a debate in a forum where i say that wahabbis are sunnis but ppl over there say that they are not sunnis. they are a totally different sect. i dont believe this.. i live in UAE and i have seen wahabbis. they are just like myself.

 

Assalam Aleikum Sonya.

A wahabi is a term given to those who follow the teachings espoused by the 18th century sectarian, self proclaimed scholar and leader named Muhammad ibn Abd'l wahab. The movement became well known on the Arabian Peninsula as it took on a political tone as part of an ethical Arab uprising to the tired Ottoman regime. Using its tenets as being those that would purify the land, the political synthesis gave rise to the chieftain Muhammad ibn Saud, who was the political power to move the sectarian tenets of uneducated followers to an actual movement as a way to move the local masses to rebel against the acting Caliph, under the guise of "purifying" the faith and the land. In reality they were mostly bandits and created a great fitnah that would eventually aid the enemies of Islam. 

The British used this sect that had become a faith/political synthesis to help finish off the Ottomans (a religious sect is an efficient way to mobilize a grass roots uprising). The nature of a sect is to be in constant tension with those around it. By nature, they declare that everyone has been wrong and only they, and the founder, have it right, and it is their religious duty to bring about change, sometimes violently as with the early roots of "wahabism". It is this constant tension that can maintain harsh feelings between a sect and the mainstream, in general, depending on the ideas that a sect uses to separate itself from others.

Without any use of an actual judicial system, Imam An-Najdi simply declared hundreds of Muslims as apostates for issues that were 1) not a matter of aqida and were only apparent under his irrational guidelines of "shirk", and 2) not actually proven under an official "qadi", this gave rise to the free taking of property and "pious murder".

Wahabism, through the use of oil revenue, had some small successes moving out from the Arabian peninsula, but the successes did not match the amount of money put behind the attempt to make the teachings of Imam An-Najdi mainstream.        

My understanding is that "wahabis" are Sunni, but are considered to be a sect due to their abuse and over arguing of various concepts in aqida, and relegating certain beliefs of Sunni Muslims as a matter of aqida when they were never a matter of a aqida before. This has caused a great deal of "tension" and anger within the Ahl As-sunnah and this why you may find high animosity towards "wahabis" from Sunnis.

 

Quote

the only difference is they are a bit more ultra strict when it comes to music and thats something good ofcourse. i was told by these ppl on the forum that wahabis are not even strict with their sunnah prayers. please help me because i strongly believe that i am right. i need solid proofs to support my claim.

The differences are actually a bit more complicated, and depending upon the various shades of the adherents of the "wahabi"/"neo-salaf" path. At the core of "wahabism" is an inflated focus on aqida, which is where they derive their rhetorical takfir's on thousands of adherent muslims. Sunni Muslims claim to follow in line with the teachings of the Prophet (saw), some of the "sunnah" prayers are deemed important, though not defined as "fard", but their value is extremely high due to the strong hadiths that tell us about this particular practice of the Prophet (saw). The Sahaba knew that the Prophet (saw) was the "target", as far as how we should act and worship, and if the prophet (saw) considered something important, then it is only reasonable that it is something we should also value as important, especially if we strive to love the Messenger (saw). To try and make such a silly point of ignoring a very important sunnah prayer simply to claim that you are protecting Islam against innovation, is an extremely juvenile point and the price to pay for such a silly point (wasting a precious moment that you can never get back to bring yourself closer to God) is too great. I have prayed behind an Imam who made such an idiotic statement after the fard prayer. I was simply floored.

Being strict with the shariah is not a trophy nor should it be a way to show how you are different from others. Riya has a nasty way of creeping into our every day practices and we should be always vigilant. We should be harder on ourselves than others, and not distinguish ourselves from others by showing how zealous we are with outward appearances and practices. 

In general, another area of dispute has also divided "wahabis" from Sunnis, and that is in regard to the science of tasawuuf. The propaganda and cheap polemics have been an avenue the group has tried to use to smear an acceptable part of the deen, and it has been more "fitnah". The cheap polemics usually amount to taking statements from Sunni scholars out of context, displaying ignorant men who are mistakenly practicing something not considered a part of "tasawuuf", and then labeling it "sufi" so they can claim how deviated Sufis are.

Quote   

I also know its wrong to use the term 'wahabi' but Allah knows that i did it only for the sake of clarity. my intention was not to discriminate between Muslims. One question that is raised is why did Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab declare jihad against Muslims of those days?

Because he was not qualified to make the claims he did and made great errors, and his followers were no different than bandits. By re-inventing aqida, he could have the power to make takfir as he pleased.

Quote

 why did he rise against Ottoman Empire which belonged to Muslims? i was told by a frend that back in those days.. ppl had somewhat started grave worshipping and so he had to claim that they are polytheists. he even demolished tomb of a companion (r.a).

Not only did he rise up again the Caliph, but his later followers aided the British in taking out the last of the Ottomans. They installed regimes more corrupt than the Ottomans were at the end of their 700 reign, and they (the fruit of those who used this movement to take power) currently aid kafir governments, and they waste the oil revenue. The idea that the "wahabis" were just cleaning up the land is a strawman argument used by the official historians to sugar coat the actual truth. Who actually knew if any of the hundreds of Muslims that were declared kafirs and murdered through Imam An-Najdi's delusional ijtihad were actually committing shirk? 

Quote

 this makes sense but isnt it that we cant declare war against our fellow muslims? isnt it that we have to make them understand in a more peaceful way?

Any man who single handedly tampers with matters of aqida and then declares thousands of Muslims to be "kafirs" should be a wake up call.

 In the end, "wahabis" are Sunni, but some of their ideas create a huge fitnah and a constant tension within Sunni Islam, which is why you will find some who will resent you if you will declare yourself to follow the teachings and ideas that are found in the expressions of Muhammad ibn abd'l wahab.

Assalam Aleikum

 



-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/


Posted By: fatima
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 4:47am

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaykum

Sister sonya i was just wondering why do you need to prove it to other people that people who call themselves 'ahlul hadith' are part of 'ahlul sunnah wal jama'? its such a can of worms which don't need to be openend as majority of it is in past and people have moved on since the time of Muhammad ibn abdul wahab.

There is a truth in what brother abuzaid said that there are people among us who would call any1 a 'wahabi' who does not agree with them and on the other hand there are people who would call anything 'bida' or 'shirk' which they themselves don't agree with. So if you talk to one group they would give you hundered reason against the other and the other would do the same.

It is also truth that people who think themselves to be higher in status, be it religious or anything else, seperate themselves from the main stream. In this case people with Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab did think that what they have was better than rest of main stream islam. Majority of muslims before and even after that follow what was there before.

If a muslims believes in tawheed of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and as Holy Qur'an says follows Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wassalam without having any resistance in heart, knows and admits the merits of early generations and their rulings, then rest is between him and His Lord.

I have learnt from experience here that if some1 does not want to believe you then you can make them drink water and they will call it fire.

Wassalam



-------------
Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL


Posted By: aka2x2
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 6:25am

�SHOULD SOME MUSLIMS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER MUSLIMS ?�

 

�This is a sunni website, the main section of the forums are for topics from a sunni perspective. So as not to confuse people about what sunni Islam teaches non sunni discussions are confined to the Itrafaith section of the forum.�

 

�Shia are not Ahlus Sunnah, they consider source of Deen as Ah Al bayt and Quran only. Some may dispute Quran also.�

 

049.010

YUSUFALI: The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.

 

003.103

YUSUFALI: And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided.

 

General discussion is not for Sunnis only. Muslims, Non-Muslims, Sunnis, and Non-Sunnis have posted in this section and continue to do so. Non-Sunnis are not �confined� to the ghetto of �Intrafaith section�.

 

Shia�s do not dispute the Quran. Anyone who claims otherwise is wrong by ignorance or malice. He should fear Allah (SWT) and not accuse fellow Muslims unjustly

-------------
Respectfully
aka2x2


Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 6:55am
4:115 But as for him who, after guidance has been vouchsafed to him, cuts himself off from the Apostle and follows a path other than that of the believers - him shall We leave unto that which he himself has chosen, and shall cause him to endure hell: and how evil a journey�s end!

����� ��������� ���������� ��� ������ ��� ��������� ���� �������� ����������� ������ ������� �������������� ��������� ��� �������� ����������

 



Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 7:12am
Originally posted by aka2x2 aka2x2 wrote:

Shia�s do not dispute the Quran. Anyone who claims otherwise is wrong by ignorance or malice. He should fear Allah (SWT) and not accuse fellow Muslims unjustly

I firmly believe that some shia consider the existing Quran is corrupted one and actual Quran is with Imam Mehdi Ghayeb and he will present it when he comes out from a cave just before end time.

However, I don't want to make this thread shia-Sunni debate. So, I won't present any proof, because if I present any proofs, many other issues like, Companions, Imamat, Bada, Muttu'ah, mourning, cursing of Sahabah, cursing mothers of believes will come into discussion, which is my last priority.



Posted By: aka2x2
Date Posted: 05 June 2007 at 6:58am

Abuzaid

Your colorful posting leads one to conclude that Shia�s are heretics and deserve hell fire. Yet you are very tolerant of the Wahabis and advise others to �� discuss present instead of past.�

 

Alhamd-O-Lellah imperfect humans are not the final judge and Allah is. Meanwhile, I remind you of the geographic location of UAE. Hateful rhetoric is not always cost free and bombs do not distinguish between Sunni and Shia. The sectarian violence that started in Iraq could spread throughout the region.

 

Please stop pouring fuel on this fire.

Otherwise

Go in peace and Allah-Ma�ak



-------------
Respectfully
aka2x2


Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 05 June 2007 at 11:58am

Please don't put words in my mouth..

Did I ever said that all shia deserved hell? But yes many shia are heretic.

You said

Yet you are very tolerant of the Wahabis

Definitely I am very tolerant of Wahabis.. specifically as compared to shia.

You said

Hateful rhetoric is not always cost free and bombs do not distinguish between Sunni and Shia. The sectarian violence that started in Iraq could spread throughout the region

Now, tell me who is playing rhetorics?? Did I ever called for violence?

Islam does not call for mixing truth and evil, but call for seperation of evil from truth and thus exposing evil. Tolerance does not mean that you start compromising on very basics of Deen.



Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 06 June 2007 at 7:16am

 

 A lot has been said in this thread already. It is sad news that the Shias are far away from the good well known principles for the Ummah. There is a long list of disagreement with them. But this is not the place and time to discuss those things. We would very much have loved the Shias to come around to some settlement. But their view was that let the Sunnis and other Muslims, all love and respect ahle bait. But we (Shias) will never respect the three great Khalifas. That was their opinion. And as I said that there is a long list of disagreements, it is better to keep that box closed now.

I am of Sunni aqueedah. I know quite a lot about the Wahabi system too, their history etc...  I may write it all in next post, Insha Allah.

 



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 06 June 2007 at 8:52am

 

 In continuation of my last post:

 Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab lived about 300 years ago. He started a movement to improve the beliefs of the muslims and to bring them closed to Tauheed and to keep them away from any Bad works. He was supported by the Saudi Shaikh of that time. The bond was strengthened through some marriage.

Since then the co-operation continued till today. The followers of Muhamamd bin Abdul Wahhab were called Wahhabis by their opponents. They were active in gaining the kingdom of Arabia for the Saud family (Abdul Aziz AleSaud), specially during attack on Taif , Saudi Arabia. I am not sure what the did against the Turks. But Turks were occupying the land in the east Arabia, Al Hasa, Dammam. The Saudis liberated that area from the Turks in 1913 A.D. At thattime nobody knew that there was lot of oil (black gold) underground.

The movement for the revival of Islam spread to India too. Its center was in Putnah, near Calcutta. There were many learned pious persons attached to the movement. In the late 18th century, in India, famous Wahhabis were Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Mian Nazir Hussain Dehlavi and M. Hussain batalawi. All of them were faithful to the british government.

The Ahle Sunnah noted some bad points of the Wahhabis. I will list them later. The name Wahhabis was given to the followers of the new movement by the people, by the Ahle Sunnah. The sect people did not like that name. So, they requested the british government to pass an order that they should never be called Wahhabis. Instead, they liked to be called Ahle Hadith. That order was passed by the government in their favor.

I have described some part of their history. More in next post later....

 



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 06 June 2007 at 9:09am

 

 Now, about the main sects amongst Muslims: They are:

 1.  Ahle Sunnah.    2. Ahle Tashiah (Shias)   3. Ahle Hadith

 4. Ahle Quran.

 The Ahle Sunnah believe in the Quran and the practice of the holy prophet s.a.w.s. They also believe in the hadith (sayings) of the prophet s.a.w.s.

 2. The ahle Tashiah are Shias of Ali. They have thir own beliefs.

 3. The Ahle Hadith are those who were being called the Wahhabis. They try to keep away from the saints and their Muqaabir (grave worship). They try to stress too muchon strict following of the Shariyat. They say the Muhammad was a man like all of us. That he did not know the Ghaib (unseen).

 They try to follow the books of Hadith i.e. sayings as recorded in the books of Hadith, Bukhari and Muslims etc. They give too much importance to the sayings (Hadith), more than the acts acts and the practice of the holy prophet s.a.w.s.

 There are trouble creators in every field. Some of thee Ahle Hadith (Wahhabis) give more importance to Hadith (sayings) than the verses of the Quran. (believe me please). That is could be called an extreme case only. But it has to be mentioned and to be avoided. They say that Hadith can take charge of the verses and meanings of the verses of Quran.

 4. The Ahle Quran are those who give more importance to the Quran. They say that Quran is enough for us. They do not like to follow any Sunnah or Hadith. But when under pressure, they deny anything against hadith and Sunanh.

 That was a brief reference about the four main schools of thought that every one of us will meet some time in our dialogue on the internet too.  More in next post.....

 If any friend has disagreement, then he/she may please advise me... and help all friends here.

 



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 06 June 2007 at 1:42pm
Originally posted by minuteman minuteman wrote:

 

 In continuation of my last post:

 Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab lived about 300 years ago. He started a movement to improve the beliefs of the muslims and to bring them closed to Tauheed and to keep them away from any Bad works. He was supported by the Saudi Shaikh of that time. The bond was strengthened through some marriage.

 

This is over simplifying history:

1) There has been no real proof to suggest that there was anything wrong with the Tawheed of thousands of Muslims that were declared kafir and killed by he and his followers. 

2) His support from the Saud family was nothing more than a way to utilize this khawarij type movement to gain power. To try and over simplify the actual fitnah that cam about from this man and movement should not be sugar coated.

 

Quote  

Since then the co-operation continued till today.

Another over simplification.

The sect was divided into two groups by the ruling authority.

Group one is put on the government payroll. They give the fatwas that the government needs.

Group two are those who feel the government is not strict enough.

 

Quote

 The followers of Muhamamd bin Abdul Wahhab were called Wahhabis by their opponents. They were active in gaining the kingdom of Arabia for the Saud family (Abdul Aziz AleSaud), specially during attack on Taif , Saudi Arabia. I am not sure what the did against the Turks. But Turks were occupying the land in the east Arabia, Al Hasa, Dammam. The Saudis liberated that area from the Turks in 1913 A.D. At thattime nobody knew that there was lot of oil (black gold) underground.

1) The movement spanned the last 200 years of the Ottoman period. The initial rebellion was to throw out the Ottoman Turks who were the acting Caliphs of the time, in the name of purifying the land.

2) The British finished off the Ottoman Turks with the use of these bandits and helped establish the house of Saud, along with oil rights in the land for BP.

Your above explanation tried to erroneously mash the entire period into a decade. This is not accurate.

 

Quote

The movement for the revival of Islam spread to India too. Its center was in Putnah, near Calcutta. There were many learned pious persons attached to the movement. In the late 18th century, in India, famous Wahhabis were Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Mian Nazir Hussain Dehlavi and M. Hussain batalawi. All of them were faithful to the british government.

You are trying to make a broad generalization.

The wahabi movement has only had "local" successes outside Saudi Arabia, usually in areas where the locals have had no traditional Islamic education. The "wahabi" movement has never produced a single, solid, reputable scholar who has been accepted by mainstream Sunnis, across the Sunni spectrum. I do not doubt they are pious, but that is irrelevant, as I know men who are pious due to Judaism, but their piousness does not make their belief correct. 

 



-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 06 June 2007 at 4:36pm

 

 Andalus,  You are on the right lines. Perhaps your info is more than mine about these matters. But I wrote what I knew. Thanks for explaining. Please continue...



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: aka2x2
Date Posted: 07 June 2007 at 11:28am

I think there is a little more to Shia Islam than "they have their own beliefs". I believe that Shia was a political movement started by Persian Muslims. The Persian Empire used to have a rigid class system. The majority of the population was born into the lower peasant class and stayed there all their lives. Islam promised equality and justice for all. Persian masses converted to Islam and the Persian Empire fell before the Arab Muslim army. However, afterwards, Arabs started to discriminate between Arab Muslims and Ajam Muslims, or Arab and non-Arab Muslims. This was particularly hard for Persians who had come to Islam for its promise of equality. Furthermore, the new religion was teaching them that they should follow God, the Prophet and those in charge of their affairs. In other words the Arab Khalif was telling the non-Arab population that they had to accept the status quo and dissent was forbidden by Quran.

 

Persians turned this argument on its head by rejecting the whole notion of Khalifate. They said the true leaders of the Muslim Ummah were chosen by God. They said the leaders should have been the Prophet�s descendants through his daughter and son-in-law Ali. Therefore, any other government was against the will of God and could be removed. They were then able to mount a military campaign against the central government which ended in a new Khalifate dynasty and a semi-autonomous Iran. Once the political objective was accomplished the Sunni/Shia debate became an academic affair for a long time.

 

Centuries later Otoman and Safavid empires were fighting each other for territory. They used the Sunni/Shia divide to justify a brutal war that pitched Muslim against Muslim. This war was welcomed and encouraged by the colonial powers. They grabbed land from both sides of the weakened Muslim Umma. The brutality of this war has split the Sunni and Shia ever since and enemies of Islam have exploited the division time and again.

 

Muslims in Iraq kill each other for the same reasons people kill each other anywhere else. They kill for the same reasons that Adam�s son killed his brother; Money, power, oil, intrigue, revenge, hatred, land, religious bigotry, whatever. Just take your pick.

 

However, there is normally an initial spark that starts the fire of war and the cycles of killing. In this instance, Bush and his cohorts lit the match and they kept on pouring fuel over the fire.

 

It saddens me to see Muslims provide the fuel for this fire.



-------------
Respectfully
aka2x2


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 07 June 2007 at 2:53pm
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

assalamu alaikum

Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792) joined forces in http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/safavid_and_ottoman_eras.php#saudi_wahhabi_alliance1744 - 1744 with a tribal chief, Muhammad Ibn Saud, to lead a militant reform movement in Arabia. Although known to us today as the "Wahhabi" movement, they called themselves Muwahidun: "those who advocate oneness,"  i.e. strict monotheists based on the Islamic doctrine of Tawhid which Abd al-Wahhab understood not merely as the "oneness" of God, but, the exclusiveness of the One God. Adherents of the movement also called themselves followers of http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/salafi.php - al-salaf http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/salafi.php - ("the predecessors") , a reference to the early companions of the Prophet Muhammad.

Influenced by the thought of medieval theologian http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/taqi_al.php - Ibn Taymiyya , the Wahhabis practice a form of legalism somewhat resembling the Hanbali School of jurisprudence. An innovation of theirs, however, is the exclusion of  the normal Islamic practice of ijma ("consensus") as the basis of Islamic Sharia law.

Wahhabis in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries went on an uncompromising campaign against http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/sufism.php - Sufis , http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/shia.php - Shiites , and all others deemed unfaithful to the Wahhabis' austere interpretation of the sunna ("custom") of the Prophet Muhammad. The ways of Muhammad and his community at Medina were the only acceptable models for the Wahhabis, and, all Muslims, in their view, should be compelled to follow them. Many practices of Muslims who came after the Prophet were labeled bida'a, "objectionable innovations."  At first, these included the building of minarets (acceptable to Wahhabis today) and the use of funeral markers. Wahhabi zealots even tried to destroy the tomb of the Prophet in Medina and were narrowly prevented from doing so through the intervention of King Abd al-Aziz al-Saud. Religious police, called mutawi'oon ("enforcers of obedience") were responsible for maintaining Wahhabi moral order. Today, Wahhabi standards have moderated somewhat from what they were, but the mutawi'oon remained a pillar of the religious Saudi establishment in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.

Ibn Abd al-Wahhab labeled all who disagreed with him heretics and apostates, which in his eyes justified the use of force in imposing both his beliefs and his political authority over neighboring tribes. This in turn led him to declare holy war (jihad) on other Muslims (neighboring Arab tribes), an act which would otherwise have been legally impossible under the rules of jihad.

In 1802, the Wahhabis captured Karbala in Iraq and destroyed the tomb of the http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/shia.php - Shiite Imam Husayn. In 1803 the Wahhabis captured Mecca. The Ottoman Turks became alarmed and dispatched http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/safavid_and_ottoman_eras.php#muh%20ali%20defeats%20wahhabis - Muhammad Ali , the Ottoman ruler of Egypt, to challenge the Wahhabis in 1811. He succeeded in reimposing Ottoman sovereignty in 1813. Nearly a century later in 1901 with Wahhabi help, Saudi amir Abd al-Aziz al-Saud recaptured Riyadh. Saud's sovereignty over the Arabian peninsula grew steadily until 1924 when his dominance became secure. The Wahhabis went on a rampage throughout the peninsula at this time smashing the tombs of Muslim saints and imams, including the tomb of the Prophet's daughter Fatima. (see Wahhabi http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/world_war_i_and_the_early_mandat.php#wahhabi_raid1924 - raid of 1924 ) Saudi Arabia was officially http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/later_mandate_period_and_world_w.php#kingdom%20of%20saudi%20arabia - constituted as a kingdom in 1932 .

The first Wahhabi missionaries to Central Asia actually arrived there in 1912 led by a resident of Medina named Sayed Shari Muhammad. They set up cells in the Fergana Valley and Tashkent. ( http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/islamic_movement_of_uzbekistan.php - more on radical movements in Uzbekistan )  But, the big impetus for Wahhabi mission activity came in 1962 when http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/arabisraeliwars.php#wahhabi%20muslim%20world%20league - the Muslim World League was founded in Saudi Arabia for the specific purpose of exporting Wahhabism throughout the world. (see Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2002), 52) After this time, Wahhabism began to fall under the influence of even more extreme ideas as exiled radicals from the Palestinian territories and Egypt found their way to the Saudi kingdom. Some ( http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/abdullah_azzam.php - Abdullah Azzam and Muhammad Qutb, brother of http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/sayyid_qutb.php - Sayyid Qutb , whom the http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/arabisraeliwars.php#qutb_hanged1966 - Egyptians executed in 1966 ) began teaching in Saudi universities and laid the foundations for the sahwa ("awakening") movement that took hold in the 1980s. The sahwa movement was based on a blend of Wahhabist ideas with those of http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/sayyid_qutb.php - Sayyid Qutb and contributed to such events as the http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/oslo_and_aftermath.php#buraydah_uprising1994 - Buraydah Uprising (1994).

The http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/arabisraeliwars.php#1973%20Arab%20oil%20cutbacks - surge in oil prices following the http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/1973_fourth_arab.php - 1973 Arab-Israeli war  that brought unprecedented high levels of wealth into Saudi Arabia meant huge amounts of money became available to fund these Wahhabi missionary movements. The Wahhabis began supporting Islamist revivalist movements in countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Western China, in East Africa, and in Central Asia. Wahhabi translations of the sayings of http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/taqi_al.php - Ibn Taymiyya were distributed in Egypt and used by extremist members of the http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/jihadorgan.php - Jihad organization there to justify the http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/assassination_of_anwar_al.php - assassination of President Anwar Sadat in 1981 (see Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2002), 72 and 86f.). Wahhabi dissidents http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/war_in_lebanon.php#wahhabis%20seize%20great%20mosque - seized and briefly held the Great Mosque in Mecca in 1979 .

In the 1990s, in the aftermath of the war to liberate Kuwait, the Saudi government invited the United States to build military bases and station troops in the kingdom. As a result, tensions between the ruling Saudis and their Wahhabi allies began to grow. The http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/oslo_and_aftermath.php#buraydah_uprising1994 - Buraydah Uprising (1994) made it clear to the Saudis that Wahhabi fundamentalism had grown to become a potent threat to their sovereignty. Arguably the most famous Wahhabi Muslim of the late 20th and early 21st centuries was http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/bombings_in_africa.php - Osama bin Laden .

source: http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/wahhabi_movement.htm - http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/wahhabi_movement.htm




-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 07 June 2007 at 7:30pm

 

 I have read this post by rami and found it to be more accurate descriptive of the matter under discussion. It is more detailed and true. Thanks to rami.



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Abu Mujahid
Date Posted: 07 June 2007 at 11:11pm

Andulus

I stayed away from this thread except short comment thinking it was not helpful to open this serious chapter. But when I red Sonya complain I decided to make quick review of the follow ups. To my surprise, I found Andulus (moderator!!) -wearing The grand Muftil Islam turband- making offensive remarks and insulting to the intelligence of readers.

I understand more why muslims like this moderator!!! want commerial Islam!!. Commerical Islam that appease half truth and feed current fear climate.  Why on earth lying to this extent when every student in Islam can refute your bloating lies about Mohamed Abdul Wahab attempts to revive Islam. Why do you paint here the dreaded Sufis, Dahlan's and some Ikhwans version of the man. Don't you fear Allah?!!. Or Don't you know its one click away from the whole truth of the subject.

I still bound not say more than what I said but I want to clearfiy briefly very serious subject sister Sonya asked for. That is why he fought against Ottomans? Is it allowed to fight muslims? Under what condition? etc etc?

Sister, first you have know, Sahaba fought each other without believing the dead was kafir. Zakah rejectionist, khawarij etc were all killed without getting Kafir label. They were Sahaba (companion not Wahabis). Second, Ottomans at that time were in name only. There was no khilafah functioning in any meaningful way. Many muslim regions was taken by British soliders or their cohorts. The house of Ala Ottman was full of Jewish Donoma running the muslim affairs!!!. Bidah in creed and ibadah was the order of the day. Innovation (Ijtihad) to address all socio-economic/political ills were susupended by Turkish rulers long time ago. That made the whole ummah stuck in the middle of nowhere. Moreover, invited their innovative enemies to take advantage on Ummah and attack them into pieces.

Though I'm not fan of removing the khilafah title from Arabia, what Sheikh Mohamed Abdulwahab did was establishing his own enclave according to pure Islamic teaching. He removed all this tiny puppet Arab tribes that was neither following Ottomans or nor adhering to the teaching of prophet pbuh.  In the proccess there was some political mistakes but they marveled to some extent the revival of Islam. 

They revived tawhid and the way of Islam. They fought hard against sufis and grave worshippers. They established an Islamic states in their Arabian context......of course with many flaws. They removed Sherrif - another British solider- from hijaz. Sherrif refuge to Britian and was given later to Jordan. Moreover, Sherrif supporters wage campaign to discrect Mohamed Ibnu Abudulwah and his followers. He used his ala bayt name to fool weak ignorant muslims. He used traditionalist -similar to many current religious establishment- Dahlanis/Azhar to challenge Wahabis. It was great time of debate whereby Wahabis come out at the end victorious. But their name was trashed by lies of these fake sheikhs. Today, that lies was put to rest and truth prevailed. Even some current loyalist wahabis to ala Saud was challenged by the action of Mohamed Abulwahab. Their preach of blind loyalty to ruling family was grinded by Mohamed's fight against Turkish rule. 

Sister, he fought Turkish regime because they were disgrace to Ummah at least where he was. Hence, its allowed muslims with showkat (power) to fight ruling class that don't follow Islam as a way of life. That is not fitnah.

Egyptian Ikhwan tried to follow the foot step of Mohamed Abdulwahab in term of regime change. They were loyalist to faruq until Sayid Qutb changed the course. They fought hard with less strategic thinking until they fell into pieces. Jihadist took the banner while rest of ikhwan was tamed and incorporated to chamber parlaiment. Equally so, Wahabi sunnis is divided on the issue of loyality to ruling class. Salafist went on their way but traditionalist Wahabist stick on their war on limited important issue. They said like Ikhwan don't rock the boat or wil sink all toghether. That is what is coloring muslim world today including many muslim websites.

 

 

Abu Mujahid

 



-------------
Islam need true muslims


Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 08 June 2007 at 12:17am

Originally posted by Abu Mujahid Abu Mujahid wrote:

Andulus

I stayed away from this thread except short comment thinking it was not helpful to open this serious chapter. But when I red Sonya complain I decided to make quick review of the follow ups. To my surprise, I found Andulus (moderator!!) -wearing The grand Muftil Islam turband- making offensive remarks and insulting to the intelligence of readers.

No, I never made any claim to be Mufti, it is not I who declared thousands of Muslims to be kafir. No, I did not claim or make myself to be a "mufti".

Quote

I understand more why muslims like this moderator!!! want commerial Islam!!. Commerical Islam that appease half truth and feed current fear climate. 

I am sorry, you will have to me more clear for the "intelligent" readers you care so much for.

 

Quote

 Why on earth lying to this extent when every student in Islam can refute your bloating lies about Mohamed Abdul Wahab attempts to revive Islam.

Interesting, since you seem to be a person of repute, lets see if you have single handedly refuted me, since even a student can do it!

 

Quote

 Why do you paint here the dreaded Sufis, Dahlan's and some Ikhwans version of the man. Don't you fear Allah?!!. Or Don't you know its one click away from the whole truth of the subject.

This is called a strawman argument. In other words, it is a fallacy. I have never argued for any such "versions", I simply commented on Imam An-Najdi. Your bloated rhetoric is symptomatic of the intellectually bankrupt sect that you are so proud of, howlers, slogans, and over dramatic labeling of groups based upon uneducated "over" generalizations are simply fallacious, and this is why your fitnah has never become successful, even with the millions upon millions of oil money that has tried to push it.

 

Quote

I still bound not say more than what I said but I want to clearfiy briefly very serious subject sister Sonya asked for. That is why he fought against Ottomans? Is it allowed to fight muslims? Under what condition? etc etc?

Sure it is allowed, just preach to the uneducated that everyone else has violated your version of aqida, and we can kill them and steal their property. You must be proud!

Quote

Sister, first you have know, Sahaba fought each other without believing the dead was kafir. Zakah rejectionist, khawarij etc were all killed without getting Kafir label. They were Sahaba (companion not Wahabis).

And the truth for all to see! And you guys wonder why your sect cannot ever catch on. (I was indoctrinated to "wahabism" when I converted; thank God I was educated about Islamic civilization enough to know I was being sold a really bad product!)

This lout preaches his sects doctrine, and goes out of his way to excuse the practice of Muslims killing Muslims. What a shame. The Prophet (saw) stated that a true believer is one who's hand and tongue Muslims are safe by.

Your excuses for Muslim fighting other Muslims is as pathetic as it is sad, and explains to everyone why your sect is the modern khawarij fitna. Rejection of zikah, and the rejection of what the Prophet ordered and what the Quran ordered is completely different than declaring thousands of Muslims kafir due to self proclaimed "nuances" in theolgocial theory. Your reasoning is really sad. The two events (fitnah from Najd vs rejecting zakah) are not even related.

 

Quote

 Second, Ottomans at that time were in name only. There was no khilafah functioning in any meaningful way. Many muslim regions was taken by British soliders or their cohorts. The house of Ala Ottman was full of Jewish Donoma running the muslim affairs!!!.

And you wonder why no one takes you serious. You cannot even make a coherent rant to explain why your sect rebelled against the Ottoman's, and then favored the British (kafirs) in the process!

And all you have to say is that "the Jews" were controlling the Ottomans? LOL Seriously? That is so foolish, and obtuse, I will not even qualify that. But you should make up your mind, did you uprise against the Ottomans because they were really Jews, or because they were making shirk in the land?

Quote

 Bidah in creed and ibadah was the order of the day. Innovation (Ijtihad) to address all socio-economic/political ills were susupended by Turkish rulers long time ago. That made the whole ummah stuck in the middle of nowhere. Moreover, invited their innovative enemies to take advantage on Ummah and attack them into pieces.

Yes, the ever present "boogy men" of wahabism, bidah, shirk, kufr, daif, these are the trademark labels of your sect. Delare these words, and you can do whatever you want, and conclude what you want.

Could you show me the official qadi writings on the hundreds of Muslims that Imam An-Najdi declared kafir and were killed?

I love this, "That made the whole ummah stuck in the middle of nowhere. Moreover, invited their innovative enemies to take advantage on Ummah and attack them into pieces."

So let me get this straight, your sect was going to show those Jewish, bidah bringing, shirk acting Ottomans a thing or two and aid the kafir British and set up a string of "Arab" governments that aided kafirs and wasted the Ummah's money on lavish lifestyles, and have allowed themselves to be used by kafir foreign policy and stifled any growth in the Middle East? You all did a great job! You sure showed those Jewish Ottomans a thing or two! Things are soooo much better.

Quote

Though I'm not fan of removing the khilafah title from Arabia, what Sheikh Mohamed Abdulwahab did was establishing his own enclave according to pure Islamic teaching.

Amazing. So you and your buddies, your sectarian leader, and Ibn Taymiyyah are the only ones who really know what�s going on, and it is "everyone" else who are deviated and full of shirk, kufr, bidah, daif hadiths? You and your fellows are truly blessed to be chosen with such insight. It is a shame that God did not send "wahabism" to the fourth century so that the Ummah would not be so misguided for so long.

In case you have not noticed, your beliefs fall into definition of a sect.

 

Quote   

 He removed all this tiny puppet Arab tribes that was neither following Ottomans or nor adhering to the teaching of prophet pbuh.  In the proccess there was some political mistakes but they marveled to some extent the revival of Islam. 

Funny, I have yet to find a single reputable scholar of any following that goes beyond your small group. If a revival took place, I think everyone missed it!

Quote

They revived tawhid and the way of Islam. They fought hard against sufis and grave worshippers. They established an Islamic states in their Arabian context......of course with many flaws. They removed Sherrif - another British solider- from hijaz. Sherrif refuge to Britian and was given later to Jordan. Moreover, Sherrif supporters wage campaign to discrect Mohamed Ibnu Abudulwah and his followers. He used his ala bayt name to fool weak ignorant muslims. He used traditionalist -similar to many current religious establishment- Dahlanis/Azhar to challenge Wahabis. It was great time of debate whereby Wahabis come out at the end victorious. But their name was trashed by lies of these fake sheikhs. Today, that lies was put to rest and truth prevailed. Even some current loyalist wahabis to ala Saud was challenged by the action of Mohamed Abulwahab. Their preach of blind loyalty to ruling family was grinded by Mohamed's fight against Turkish rule. 

This blithering is the same old sugar coated glory stories of the fitnah that Muhamad ibn Abd' Wahab created. The problem is that you can try and bury the truth by telling these creative stories over and over, but in the end, the core ideas and principles of your sect simply do not catch hold and are not long lasting, and we have historical reports that tell us the fitnah that your teacher brought, and his ideas have been refuted in volumes of work that show just how misguided he was. One day when the oil money backing runs out, his work will be buried in some library and forgotten about. That is the usual ending of sect.

 

Quote

Sister, he fought Turkish regime because they were disgrace to Ummah at least where he was. Hence, its allowed muslims with showkat (power) to fight ruling class that don't follow Islam as a way of life. That is not fitnah.

And so far, your group has not produced any proof that the hundreds of Muslims whom your leader declared takfir on were kafirs. He not only fought against the Ottoman's, but he fought against fellow Muslims. He twisted theological theory and had Muslims declared Kafir. He "killed" Muslims over "nuances" created by his single minded view, which no one agrees with.

 

Quote

Egyptian Ikhwan tried to follow the foot step of Mohamed Abdulwahab in term of regime change. They were loyalist to faruq until Sayid Qutb changed the course. They fought hard with less strategic thinking until they fell into pieces. Jihadist took the banner while rest of ikhwan was tamed and incorporated to chamber parlaiment. Equally so, Wahabi sunnis is divided on the issue of loyality to ruling class. Salafist went on their way but traditionalist Wahabist stick on their war on limited important issue. They said like Ikhwan don't rock the boat or wil sink all toghether. That is what is coloring muslim world today including many muslim websites.

 

 

Abu Mujahid

 

 

Your rhetoric is simply disturbing; you are now labeling your own fellow followers. This is why your sect will never have any real success, the beliefs allow you to manipulate who is a believer and not a believer to easily, and you move as quickly as possible to condemn others.  

 



-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 08 June 2007 at 7:36am

 

 The Wahhabis as they were called in the beginning were very much disliked by the common Muslims due to their bad ideas. They believed that Muhammad was a mere man like all of us. In their mind, they were doing good service to the religion of Islam. But there were serious mistakes.

Most important was their belief that most of the muslims were wrong. It was true. In fact the common Muslims were also misled by the uneducated maulvis and peers in India. Therefore there was a necessity to revive the true system. BUt the way they were forced or applied, that was wrong.

Those people were later, at their own request to the government, called the ahle Hadith. They do not believe in grave worship. They do not go near the graves. But what happens. They are not really spiritually guided. That is why they are misled. They just have a zeal for something. But that cannot be enough or replacement for guidance.

I give an example now: These Ahle Hadith (Wahhabis) taught that the prophet went to his mothers grave on the way to Madinah. He wanted to pray there but he was not allowed to do that because his mother was a mushrikah.

I was surprised. The mother of the prophet (Aminah) may be anything in her days. There was no Islam then. Nobody preached to her the real deen. She did not refuse to obey any command of Allah because there was no command conveyed to her. How could any one pass an order on her Kufr??

Similarly, there were many other things. These Wahhabis believed that Hadith was the utmost. Some of them even gave more importance to the Hadith over and above the verses of  the Quran.

It was not good of them to move politically, killing every one for the sake of the establishment of their creed. That was really bad. Ottoman empire was collapsing anyhow. Turkey was called the ill man of Europe (Europe kaa mard e beemar). The british took advantage of the sectarian feelings. There was a whiteman disguised as an Arab, called Lawrence of Arabia.

And later there was another one in Jordon, I have forgotten his name. He used to ride the camels and was commanding the Jordanian forces. He was a British national. Colonel Nasir of Egypt got him thrown out of Jordon in 1953/54. (I just remembered his name. He was called Gulab Pasha. His real name was Glubb.)

 



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Abu Mujahid
Date Posted: 08 June 2007 at 12:37pm

 

Andulus Moderator!!!

When I red your rambling/funny post, I said like what Imam Malik said in similar situation......"Let Abu Mujahid stretch his legs"

I really don't want to be rude or say similar to one who said, "My donkey is more fiqih than him" but you are rare king of your kind. Enjoy it. No wonder why IC -adopting affirmative action- choose you to be moderator.

PS: Please learn real Islam from Sunni Sheikh in your State.

 

Abu Mujahid



-------------
Islam need true muslims


Posted By: Abu Mujahid
Date Posted: 08 June 2007 at 12:55pm

Minuteman,

Please check out your facts before you post. 



-------------
Islam need true muslims


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 08 June 2007 at 6:10pm

 

 It is difficult to check out now. Could you correct me or point out my mistakes. It will be good for every one here. Thanks. Please give proper comments alongside my words. Be explicit. No hard feelings. You are free to present the correct picture. It is possible that my info may be wrong.



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: fatima
Date Posted: 09 June 2007 at 9:54am

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaykum

What is it with you lot, can't you digest your food without throwing insults at each other? A person who makes fun of other people is obviously looking at the other person from somewhere high above. And I am sure i dont need to tell such knowledgeable people about 'kibr' and what our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassalam said about that.

There is no need to carry on and on about 'wahabism' or anything else for that matter. The person has long died and for sake of your Lord, let a muslim rest in peace regardless of what happened during his time. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is Judge of everything.

I have seen people of extremes both sides and i have also seen and known people who are such good muslims that you wish to have that level of faith regardless of ......... or ...........

Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is going to judge you for what you did in your life time so is it not better to worry about that then some incident of past.

Saying that if according to you, brother andalus needs to learn about real islam than maybe so do you brother Abu Mujahid. What is it that Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wassalam said about a muslim? not hurting his fellow muslims with his words or otherwise. Since your arrival here have you done anything but insulting other members and questioning your fellow bretheren. Islam teaches us that if you brother says something than believe that thats the truth he knows but for some reason from start you are trying to prove us all to be hypocrites.

If you are so happy and proud on your beliefs that it makes you make fun of rest of us then to you is your religion. We are humble before our Lord, asking Him for His guidance and praying that He guides us on straight path.

wassalam



-------------
Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL


Posted By: Abu Mujahid
Date Posted: 09 June 2007 at 1:06pm

Fatima Moderator!

Assalamu alaikum

You have difficult to live up with truth. Your support for Andulus shows how much you care about truth, brotherhood, Islam or revival of khilafa. Despite he filled in his post, hate, lies and deception he got stand oviation from liberals.  Your attack on me lacks direction let alone have stand in Islam.  I found this medium by accident long time ago. I preferred to be silent reader. Then I decided to join and contribute in proper way. I found amazing how liberals want to reshape islam in the context of American culture. Moreover, tear a part anyone who challenge them. You saw it and properly enjoyed our exchanges. When they insult me you never raise a finger. They call me all kind of un-islamic names. But when we expose your friends like this fake convert you cry foul.

Sister, I don't see in this medium islamic brotherhood nor revival of Islamic khilate. Moreover, I don't know how long I will survive or allowed to stay in this medium. Once I red a book called Bitter harvest (Hasad al-Mur) for Salah Shadi. The guy marvelled what went wrong of that Islamic movement. He was fair and talk from knowledge. But this IC moderator who lied about Sh. M. Abdulwahab lacks qualification let alone Islamic class. That is why I brushed off to debate with him seriously. You jump on me to remind me what all of you lacks: NO kibir/Brotherhood.......

 

Sister, either you let people debate in fairness or ban people like me who strive hard to tell the true version of Islam. Your political correctness is not the problem.....-it can be corrected easily- but your ardent effort to lie and belittle anyone who threaten your human premises.

 

 

Abu Mujahid



-------------
Islam need true muslims


Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 09 June 2007 at 1:50pm
Originally posted by Abu Mujahid Abu Mujahid wrote:

But this IC moderator who lied about Sh. M. Abdulwahab lacks qualification let alone Islamic class. That is why I brushed off to debate with him seriously. You jump on me to remind me what all of you lacks: NO kibir/Brotherhood.......

Your love for Imam Annajdi is based upon your ignorance. If I have lied, and if I lack so much Islamic "class work", then why not show the forum? So far, you blow off a lot of hot air, throw around insults, and little in the way of "debate". I believe you are incapable of debating your way out of a paper sack.

Debate your love for your misguided leader, show everyone my lies.

Your group is based upon a lie, and when the oil money runs out, your ignorant fitnah will be buried and forgotten about in the dark areas of a library.

I think you are all talk, and Brother Whisper has probably given the best advice on dealing with you: Ignore you and do not qualify your juvenile posts with any serious reply.

Quote

Sister, either you let people debate in fairness or ban people like me who strive hard to tell the true version of Islam. Your political correctness is not the problem.....-it can be corrected easily- but your ardent effort to lie and belittle anyone who threaten your human premises.

Funny. I have not found a single post that shows you providing a single rational argument. What are you worried about the freedom of debate for? Do not put the cart before th ox, first go and learn how to debate then worry about the freedom to debate.



-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/


Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 09 June 2007 at 1:53pm
Originally posted by Abu Mujahid Abu Mujahid wrote:

 

Andulus Moderator!!!

When I red your rambling/funny post, I said like what Imam Malik said in similar situation......"Let Abu Mujahid stretch his legs"

I really don't want to be rude or say similar to one who said, "My donkey is more fiqih than him" but you are rare king of your kind. Enjoy it. No wonder why IC -adopting affirmative action- choose you to be moderator.

PS: Please learn real Islam from Sunni Sheikh in your State.

 

Abu Mujahid

You are right about this forum having an affirmative action program. We are required to maintain so many "village idiots" per year, this usually works until the villages begin to miss them and they recall them. Has your village called yet? 

 



-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 09 June 2007 at 11:15pm

 

 It is better to calm down. We should write about the real topic or what we know of the good and bad things. It is better not to make it personal  and better not say a single word about th lack of knowledge of the friends.

 I had asked Abu Mujahid to guide me about my posts. We can have a start from there now. How about it?? I am waiting?? And, Abu Mujahid should be free to support his Imam with his correct information and present that here. No harm.

Abu Mujahid has mentioned something good about Khilafat or Khalifah. Does he intend to establish Khilafat?? Or what does he want to say about the Khilafat now??? Please post with peace. Wassalam.



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Abu Mujahid
Date Posted: 10 June 2007 at 12:13am
Originally posted by minuteman minuteman wrote:

>I give an example now: These Ahle Hadith (Wahhabis) taught that the prophet went to his mothers grave on the way to Madinah. He wanted to pray there but he was not allowed to do that because his mother was a mushrikah<. 

I was surprised. The mother of the prophet (Aminah) may be anything in her days. There was no Islam then. Nobody preached to her the real deen. She did not refuse to obey any command of Allah because there was no command conveyed to her. How could any one pass an order on her Kufr??

 

Minuteman,.

Assalamu Alaikum.

For your information read this fatwa regarding this topic. You will see this is not Wahabi Stuff. Its in pure correct sunnah. We need to be careful about this and learn Islam before denying or quesitoning correct sunnah.


 

 


 

 

 

 



Question: How come the father of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is in Hell, even though he never heard the Message? For the same reason, why was the Prophet (peace be upon him) not allowed to pray for his mother's forgiveness? I also heard that the parents of the Prophet (peace be upon him) were brought back to life so that they could believe in him. Is this true?

Answered by Sheikh Muhammad al-Qann�s

Regarding the parents of the Prophet (peace be upon him) we say: It is well known that Allah will not punish someone except after the call to Islam reaches him. This would include the people who lived before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). It also applies to the children of the unbelievers, people who are insane, and those who are born deaf and blind. All such people will be tested on the Day of Judgment.

There are some had�th related about the parents of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Ab� Hurayrah relates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: �I had sought Allah permission to allow me to beseech forgiveness for my mother, but He did not allow me to do so, and I sought Him permission to allow me to visit her grave and he allowed me to do so.� [Sah�h Muslim (976)]

Anas relates that a man asked the Prophet (peace be upon him): �O Messenger of Allah, where is my father?�

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: �In the Fire.� When the man left, the Prophet (peace be upon him) called to him and said: �My father and your father are in the Fire.� [Sah�h Muslim (203)]

It is related by way of Ibn Mas`�d that the two sons of Mulaykah came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: �Our mother used to show respect to her husband and affection to her children�� and they mentioned something about the guest ��but she buried alive an infant daughter in the times of ignorance.�

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: �Your mother is in the Fire.�

They turned away with expressions of pain clearly visible in their faces. The Prophet (peace be upon him) called for them. They returned with expressions of pleasure on their faces, in hope that something had changed.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: �My mother is with your mother.� [Musnad Ahmad (3598)]

These had�th are used as evidence by some scholars that the parents of the Prophet (peace be upon him) had been acquainted with the message of truth. The Arabs to whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) was sent were familiar with the religion of Abraham (peace be upon him), and that is why there were among them some true believers who did not commit polytheism, such as Zayd b. `Amr and Qiss b. S�`idah.

Al-Nawaw� in his commentary on had�th 203 of Sah�h Muslim speaks about the had�th of Anas, saying [Commentary on Sah�h Muslim (3/79)]:
This shows that those whoever dies upon unbelief will be in the Fire and will not get any benefit on account of his relatives. It also shows that those (people in Arabia) who had died during the era in which the Arabs used to worship idols are also among the denizens of the Fire. This is not a case of holding them to account before they received the Message, because they had already received the Message of of Abraham and other Prophets (peace be upon them all).

The Prophet�s saying: �My father and your father are in the Fire� is an act of good will, to help ease the pain by sharing in the affliction.
Imam al-Nawaw� also comments on the had�th in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not permitted to beseech forgiveness for his mother. He writes [Commentary on Sah�h Muslim (7/45)]:
This shows us that it is permissible to visit polytheists while they are alive and to visit their graves after they die. It follows from the permissibility of visiting them after death that it is permissible to do so when they are alive. Allah says: �Yet bear them company in this life in a good manner.� [S�rah Luqm�n: 15] It also shows that it is prohibited to beseech forgiveness for the unbelievers.
It is possible that these had�th intend only that people who die on other than monotheism and faith must be treated as disbelievers in this life; so it will not be allowed for anyone to pray for them or beseech forgiveness for them. This is because they appear to us as unbelievers. However, their true fate rests with Allah.

And Allah knows best.

It is related in some weak and false had�th that Allah brought the Prophet�s parents back to life so that they could believe in him. Then they were made to die again. A good number of scholars have declared these had�th to be fabricated. Refer to: Tafs�r Ibn Kath�r (3/462), al-H�w� fi al-Fat�w� by al-Suy�t� (2/352) and al-Rawd (2/185).

Ibn Taymiyah writes [Majm�` al-Fat�wa (4/324)]:
There is no disagreement among those acquainted with the field that this is among the most obvious of fabricated lies, as has been clearly stated by the scholars. It is not found in any of the accepted had�th works, not in any Sah�h or Sunan or Musnad, or any other recognized had�th work.

It has never even been mentioned by the authors of the books of campaign and the books of Qur��n commentary, even though they narrate weak had�th together with authentic ones, since recognition of what is false is not hard to ascertain.

Had it been true, great attention and care would have been paid to its transmission, since contains two miraculous acts; the first being that of bringing the dead back to life and the second being that of believing after death.

The narration of such an event would take priority over anything else. It follows that since no trustworthy narrators ever mentioned it, it must be declared as false.

Moreover, it goes against the Qur��n, the authentic Sunnah, and consensus.

Allah says: �Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them, and he says: �Now have I repented indeed�; nor of those who die rejecting faith.� [S�rah al-Nis�: 18]

Allah shows us that there is no accepted repentance for the one who died as an unbeliever.

A man asked the Prophet (peace be upon him): �O Messenger of Allah, where is my father?�

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: �In the Fire.� When the man left, the Prophet (peace be upon him) called to him and said: �My father and your father are in the Fire.� [Sah�h Muslim (203)]

Then there is the had�th about preventing the Prophet (peace be upon him) from beseeching forgiveness. If beseeching their forgiveness had been something permissible in its own right, he would not have been forbidden from doing so. Deeds are according to how the person concludes his life, so whoever dies on faith, Allah will forgives him and consequently beseeching his forgiveness will not be prohibited.

As for the Prophet (peace be upon him) visiting his mother�s grave, it was on his way to al-Huj�n near Mecca. As for his father, he was buried in Syria, so how could he have been brought to life for him?

Had the parents of the Prophet (peace be upon him) been believers, they would be more renowned than Hamzah and al-`Abb�s, the uncles of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

And Allah knows best.

 

Source: Islamtoday.com



-------------
Islam need true muslims

Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 10 June 2007 at 3:51am
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

assalamu alaikum

Muhammad Ibn abdul al wahhab is not qualified to be called shaykh by the islamic defanition of the word just like Osama Bin laden is not Qualified to be called shaykh....Yet both produced many fatawah which the uneducated followed.

""It is striking that not one of the great muhaddiths, mufassirs, grammarians, historians, or legists of Islam has emerged from the region known as Najd, despite the extraordinary and blessed profusion of such people in other Muslim lands.""

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/najd.htm - Puncturing the Devil's Dream About the Hadiths of Najd and Tamim


    THE BEGINNING AND SPREAD OF WAHHABISM

  • http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-36.htm - The origins of Wahhabism

  • http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-37.htm - The first Wahhabite mission

  • http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-38.htm - The massacre and looting of the Muslims of Ta'if

  • http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-39.htm - The Wahhabite persecutions in Mecca

  • http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-40.htm - The Wahhabis in Medina

  • http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-41.htm - The Ottomans clear the blessed cities of the Wahhabite bandits

  • http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Advice_for_the_Muslim/wah-42.htm - Invaluable works done in Mecca and Medina after the clearance
  • just adding the reference to the British spy is a latter addition and not part of the original work, an aspect of this work that is unsubstantiated.


    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: fatima
    Date Posted: 10 June 2007 at 5:16am

    Bismillah irrahman irrahim

    Wa'alaykum assalam wa rahmatullahe wa barakatuhu

    Originally posted by Abu Mujahid Abu Mujahid wrote:

    Fatima Moderator!

    Assalamu alaikum

    You have difficult to live up with truth. Your support for Andulus shows how much you care about truth, brotherhood, Islam or revival of khilafa. Despite he filled in his post, hate, lies and deception he got stand oviation from liberals.  Your attack on me lacks direction let alone have stand in Islam.  I found this medium by accident long time ago. I preferred to be silent reader. Then I decided to join and contribute in proper way. I found amazing how liberals want to reshape islam in the context of American culture. Moreover, tear a part anyone who challenge them. You saw it and properly enjoyed our exchanges. When they insult me you never raise a finger. They call me all kind of un-islamic names. But when we expose your friends like this fake convert you cry foul.

     

    Abu Mujahid

    May Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala bless you brother you have given me a good hope that inshaAllah with mercy of my Lord, I might be on a middle path. As to some members i am a fundamentalist extremist and now according to you a liberal.

    Wassalam



    -------------
    Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL


    Posted By: abuzaid
    Date Posted: 11 June 2007 at 12:57am

    Some stuff is give from those who are against Ibn Abdul Wahhab, have a look at what proponent of him says.

    Mind you, I have taken it from a webiste which can be categorised as Deobandi Sufi

    http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/hist_bio/ibnwahhaab.htm - http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/hist_bio/ibnwahhaab.htm

    SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN ABDUL-WAHHAAB (RA)

    by Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah ibn Baaz

    In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

    All praise is to Allah, Lord of the worlds. Peace and blessings of Allah be upon his slave and Messenger and the best of Creation, our leader and guide, Muhammad Bin Abdullah, and upon his family, Companions and followers.

    Dear brothers and children! I would like to present this lecture with a view to enlightening your thoughts, clarifying some facts, showing goodwill towards Allah and people, and fulfilling part of my duty towards the personality about whom I am going to speak. And the topic of this lecture is: Imam Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab - his life and mission.

    When we talk about reformers, revivers and preachers, recalling their circumstances, good qualities and meritorious activities and describing their truthfulness and sincerity in their personal life as well as preaching, men of good spirits would eagerly listen to it with comfort and contentment. Whoever is attached to Islam and desirous of reformation and preaching cannot help hearing such talks.

    I would like to talk about a great man, an outstanding reformer and a zealous preacher who appeared in the Arabian peninsula in the twelfth century A.H - Imam Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab Bin Sulaiman Bin Ali Al-Tamimi Al-Hanbali Al-Najdi. He is wellknown to the people, particularly to the scholars, leaders, elders and high officials within and without the Peninsula. Many authors have written about him. And many others have mentioned him privately in their writings. Even the orientalists have dealt with him. Many others appraised and praised him in their writings about the reformers and history.

    The unprejudiced described the Sheikh as a great reformer and reviver of Islam, and admitted that he had been on the Path and Light shone by his Lord. It is difficult to mention all the writers, but a few of them deserve reference. Among them was the great author, Abu Bakr Sheikh Husain Bin Gannam Al-Ahsae. He wrote well about the Sheikh and his mission and benefited many. In his book he has elaborately explained the life and campaigns of the Sheikh as well as his preaching and deduction from the Qur'an.

    Another author was Sheikh Imam Uthman Bin Bishr who in his work, The Banner of Glory, wrote about the Sheikh's life, preaching, campaigns and jihad.

    Among other authors from outside the Peninsula was Dr. Ahmad Amin who appraised him in his book entitled 'The Great Leaders of Islamic Reformation'. Another great scholar was Masood Alam Nadvi who wrote a book about him under the title 'The Persecuted Reformer', one of the well-written biographies of the Imam. The great scholar Muhammad Bin Ismael San'ani was a contemporary of the Imam, and he had preached Islam in his own capacity. When he heard about the Imam's activities, he thanked Allah with delight. Similarly, Allama Sheikh Muhammad Bin Ali Showkani, the author of Nailul A utar, had written about the Imam. He also lamented his demise in a grand elegy. And there are many others who had written about the Imam, and they are well-known to the readers and scholars.

    Since many people seem to know little about the life and preaching of the Imam, I think I should explain his faithful life and sincere mission and struggle. Then whoever has ambiguity about the life and preaching of the Imam may understand the truth.

    Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab was born in 1115 A.H though some are of the opinion that it was in 1111 A.H, which is not popular.

    He was educated by his father at Oyayna, his homeland. It was a village located at Yamama in Najd, northwest of the city of Riyadh.

    He lived there a pious life. He learnt to read the Qur'an very early. He exerted himself in his studies and advanced learning at the hands of his father, Sheikh Abdul Wahhab Bin Sulaiman, who was a great jurisprudent and the Judge of Oyayna.

    Having attained puberty, the Sheikh went to the Sacred Mosque at Makkah to perform Hajj as well as to learn from the learned personalities of Makkah. From Makkah he went to Madinah.

    During his stay there, he met two great scholars of Madinah. One of them was Sheikh Abdullah Bin Ibrahim Bin Sayf Al-Najdi, the father of Sheikh Ibrahim Bin
    Abdullah who authored 'An Appreciation of the Law of Inheritance'. The other was Sheikh Muhammad Hayat Al-Sindi. The, Imam might have learnt from other scholars as well.

    Then he travelled to Iraq to seek after knowledge. He reached Basara, met with the scholars therein and learnt from them.

    It was in Iraq that he started his mission. There he called the people to Tawhid (Oneness of Allah) and the Sunnah of the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam]. He announced that it was the duty of every Muslim to follow his or her religion (Islam) strictly in accordance with the Qur'an and Sunnah. He also engaged some scholars in discussions and debates. Thus he became famous among his teachers. He had a debate with one of the outstanding scholars, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Majmuei.

    However, some characterless scholars rebelled against him. He and his teacher even received some harms and persecutions from them. Therefore, he left Basara. Although his intention was to go to Syriya, he gave up the idea due to paucity of money and travelled to Azzubair. He then headed towards Al-Ahsa. There he met some scholars and engaged them in discussions on the fundamentals of Islam.

    Then he moved to Huraymela. It was in the fifth decade of the twelfth century A.H. While his father was the Judge of Oyayna, a dispute arose between the prince of Oyayna and his father. He therefore left Oyayna for Huraymela in 1139 A.H. That was why the Sheikh moved to Huraymela. His arrival there was in 1140 or so.

    There he continued his activities in the fields of learning, teaching and preaching until his father died in 1153. There he had to face much suffering at the hands of the wicked. Some of them even attempted on his life. It is said that some persons climbed up the wall of his house, but ran away when some others knew about it.

    In the circumstances, the Sheikh had to leave Huraymela. Why those mean people were hostile to him was that he enjoined the good and forbade the evil. He also persuaded the rulers to punish the criminals severely. Among them were those people known as "Abeed". They were used to stealing, plundering and violation of others' rights. As soon as they knew that the Sheikh was against their actions and interests, they tried to assassinate him. But Allah saved his life.

    Then he moved to Oyayna which was then governed by Prince Uthman Bin Muhammad Bin Muammar. The Prince welcomed the Sheikh with hospitality. He persuaded him to start calling the people to Islam and promised him all support and help. He showed him kindness, goodwill and sympathy. Thus the Sheikh continued his activities in teaching and guiding the people, and calling them to the Path of Allah. He guided the people to piety, righteousness and love in the cause of Allah.

    Gradually, Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab became famous in and around Oyayna. People came to Oyayna to meet him from the neighbouring areas and villages. One day the Sheikh told the Prince: 'let us demolish the dome at the grave of Zaid Bin Al-Khattab [radhiallaahu anhu]. It is erected on deviation. Allah would not accept it. And the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam], had forbidden building domes or mosques on the graves. Moreover, this dome has enthralled the people and replaced their creed with polytheism. So it must be demolished.' The Prince acceded to his suggestion. Then the Sheikh remarked that he was afraid that the people of Al-Jubaila would revolt against this action. Al-Jubaila was a village close to the grave. Uthman then mobilized an army of six hundred soldiers and marched towards the grave in order to destroy the dome. The army was accompanied by the Sheikh.

    As soon as they approached the dome, the people of AlJubaila came forward to defend the dome. But when they saw the Prince with his army, they changed their decision and withdrew. Then the Sheikh took the action of demolishing and removing the dome. Allah removed it by his hands.

    Let us now consider the condition of Najd before the arrival of the Sheikh and the reasons for his preaching.

    The people of Najd had lived in a condition that could not be approved of by any believer. Polytheism had appeared there and spread widely. People worshipped domes, trees, rocks, caves or any persons who claimed to be Auliya (saints) though they might be insane and idiotic. Magic and soothsaying also had spread there, and the belief therein was popular. No one had showed disapproval of them except a very few. And the people were preoccupied with worldly goods and pleasures.

    There were few to rise up for the sake of Allah and support His Religion. Same was the situation in Makkah and Madinah as well as Yemen where building domes on the graves, invoking the saints for their help and other forms of polytheism were predominant. But in Najd polytheistic beliefs and practices were all the more intense.

    In Najd people had worshipped different objects ranging from the graves, caves and trees to the obsessed and mad men who were called saints. Among others popular in Najd were praying to the demons asking for their help, sacrificing animals for them and placing them at the corners of the houses hoping for their protection and fearing their harms.

    When the Sheikh saw that polytheism was dominating the people and that no one showed any disapproval of it or no one was ready to call the people back to Allah, he decided to labour singly and patiently in the field. He knew that nothing could be achieved without jihad (holy fighting), patience and suffering. So he exerted himself in teaching, orientation and guidance. Also he wrote to the scholars requesting their support and reminding them of their task of helping Allah's Religion and fighting against polytheism as well as superstitions. Many scholars from Najd, Makkah and Madinah acceded to his request. Also the scholars in Yemen and other countries agreed upon him and sent him their approval. However, some scholars who disagreed with him; they reproached his mission, condemned him and kept away from him.
     

    Now the Sheikh and those with him were in between two types of people. One group consisted of the ignorant and the idiots who knew nothing about Islam or Tawhid. What they knew all about was nothing but polytheism, ignorance, deviation, innovations, superstitions etc. which their forefathers had upheld. The Qur'an reported on such people:

    "We found our fathers following a certain way and religion and we will indeed follow their footsteps." (43:23)

    The second group, on the other hand, was related to knowledge. They responded to the Sheikh negatively because of their envy and inferiority complex. They were ashamed of the people. They were afraid that the people would question their integrity: 'why did you keep silent without warning us against such and such evils until Ibn Abdul Wahhab appeared?' In choosing the worldly materials, they followed the Jews.

    But as for the Sheikh, he carried on patiently. Many scholars and officials of high position from within and without the Peninsula persuaded him. And he was determined and resolute. He also sought help of Allah in all matters. He strove in studying the Qur'an and reading up the useful books. He had a special skill of interpreting the Qur'an and deducing from it. He also worked hard in studying the life of the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] and the lives of his Companions [radhiallaahu anhum] with deep insight till he got inspiration and firmness of faith from them by the grace of Allah.

    The Sheikh became all the more determined and continued his mission of calling people to Islam and correspondence with the rulers and scholars. Allah materialized his virtuous desires, spread the preaching and strengthened the truth by him. Allah also provided him with supporters and helpers till Islam and Tawhid gained the upperhand.

    The Sheikh went on teaching and preaching. Gradually, he exerted himself on action and practically removing polytheism when he noticed that his call to Islam had no effect on some. Thus he undertook the task of practically removing what was available and possible to be removed from the traces of polytheism. It was against this background that he said to Prince Uthman that the dome of the grave of Zaid should be demolished.

    Zaid Bin Al-Khattab [radhiallaahu anhu], was the brother of Umar Bin Al-Khattab [radhiallaahu anhu]. He was one of the martyrs who died in their fighting against Musailamah Al-Kaddhab in 12 A.H. He was buried there and later on a dome was built over the grave said to be his grave.

    Prince Uthman readily accepted the Sheikh's demand, as said before, and the dome was demolished. And thank Allah none of its traces remains now.

    There were other graves such as the one said to be of Derar Bin Awzar [radhiallaahu anhu]. It had once a dome which was then demolished. There were also other signs which were removed by the grace of Allah. There were caves and trees which were worshipped besides Allah, but they were all destroyed and removed. Also the people were warned against them.

    The Sheikh thus continued his mission by words and action. One day a woman came to him and confessed that she had committed adultery. She repeated the confession without any hesitation or external compulsion. After he realized that she was sane and married, he gave orders that she should be punished by stoning to death. His order could be soon implemented as he had by then become the Judge of Oyayna.

    After this incident, the Sheikh became more famous. He had already become well-known for his earlier actions such as demolishing the domes and calling people to Tawhid. Immigration of people to Oyayna from the neighbouring places has also made him famous.

    Meanwhile, the Prince of Al-Ahsa and the surrounding villages, who was of Banu Khalid Sulaiman Bin Orayer Al-Khalidi, came to know about the mission of the Sheikh and his actions such as the demolition of the domes and implementation of Islamic punishments. He took it as a menace. Since it was usual for the nomads with a few exceptions to commit wrong, robbery, murder and violation of the inviolable, the nomad prince was naturally afraid that the Sheikh's position would grow greater and that his political power would be taken away from his hands. Therefore, he wrote to Prince Uthman threatening him and demanding him to kill the Sheikh who was living with him in Oyayna. He also threatened that he would cut off the tax due to Uthman if his demand was not accepted. Uthman, who had to receive his due of gold from this nomad ruler, took the message seriously. He was afraid that the nomad ruler would cut off his taxes or attack him if he disobeyed him. Hence he reported that to the Sheikh: 'the nomad prince has sent me a message to do so and so. We never wish to kill you, but we are afraid of that prince and we are unable to fight him. So if you think, you may leave us'.

    Then the Sheikh replied: `I am simply calling the people to Islam and to the fulfilment of the testimony of Faith that there is no God except Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Messenger. Whoever holds fast to Islam and upholds it truthfully, Allah will help him and make him ruler of his enemies' countries. And if you endure and be righteous and accept this Religion, then be glad that Allah will help you and protect you from that nomad prince and others. Allah will also give you power over his country and his kinsfolk'.

    But Uthman said: `O Sheikh! but we cannot fight him nor can we stand his opposition'.

    In the circumstances, the Sheikh had to leave Oyayna for Dareyya. He set out from Oyayna on foot at the beginning of the day and reached his destination at the end of the day. He travelled on foot because Uthman did not provide him with any means of transportation.

    On reaching Dareyya, the Sheikh came to a man who was of the best personalities living in the upper city. His name was Muhammad Bin Suwailim Al-Orayni. The Sheikh stayed in his house. It is said that this man was afraid of Muhammad Bin Saud, the Prince of Dareyya. But the Sheikh reassured him and said: `be glad and hope for the best. I am simply calling the people to Allah's Religion, and He will undoubtedly make it victorious'.

    The news about Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab reached Muhammad Bin Saud as well. It is said that it was his wife who first informed him of the Sheikh. Some pious persons approached her and requested her to let her husband know about the Sheikh and encourage him to accept the Sheikh's mission and support it.

    She was a kind, pious lady. When Muhammad Bin Saud came to her, she said to him: `here is a great fortune sent to you by Allah. A man who is calling the people to Islam, calling to the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam]. What a good fortune! Rush to him and support him. Never resist him or stop him from that'.

    Prince Muhammad Bin Saud accepted her advice, but hesitated a little whether to go to the Sheikh personally or to invite him to his presence. It is said that his wife along with a group of pious persons advised him thus: `it is not proper for you to invite him to you; you would rather go to his house to meet him personally in recognition to his knowledge and preaching'.

    He accepted their advice, as it was destined by Allah to be his happiness in this world and the Hereafter. Then he went to the house of Ibn Suwailem, greeted the Sheikh and talked with him. He said: `O Sheikh Muhammad! I am glad to promise you all help, security and assistance'.

    The Sheikh responded thus: `you too have glad tidings of help, power and a good end. This is Islam - the Religion of Allah. He will surely help those who help His Religion, and He will support those who support it. You would soon see its effects'.

    Then the Prince said: `O Sheikh! I will make a contract with you on the Religion of Allah, His Messenger and jihad in the cause of Allah. However, I fear that, after we help and support you and Allah makes you victorious over your enemies, you may prefer another country and leave us'.

    The Sheikh replied: `I will not make a contract on these matters. But the contract will be on blood for blood and destruction for destruction. I shall never leave your country'.

    Then a contract was made to the effect that Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab would remain in Dareyya and help Prince Muhammad Bin Saud who would in turn help the Sheikh and struggle with him in the cause of Allah till Islam gets the upperhand. Thus the contract was completed.

    The Sheikh now settled at Dareyya. People started to come to Dareyya from every place - from Oyayna, Irqa, Manfooha, Riyadh and other neighbouring places. It continued to be a place of immigration. As soon as the people heard about the news of the Sheikh, his lectures at Dareyya and calling to Allah, they came to him individually and in groups.

    Respected, loved and supported by the people, the Sheikh arranged the lectures on various topics such as Islamic Creed, the Holy Qur'an, the Qur'anic Commentaries, Islamic Jurisprudence and its Principles, the Hadith and its Terminology, Linguistics of Arabic, Studies on History and other useful disciplines.

    People from many places came to him for learning; both the young and the old attended his classes. He arranged classes for the public as well as for the selected persons. Thus he disseminated knowledge in Dareyya and continued his activities in preaching.

    Then the Sheikh turned to jihad. He wrote to the people to enter the field of jihad and remove polytheism which existed in their countries. First of all, he wrote to the rulers and scholars of Najd. He wrote to the scholars of Riyadh and its Prince Deham Bin Dawwas. He also sent messages to the scholars and rulers of Al-Kharj, and to the scholars of the south, Qassim, Hael, Washim, Sedir etc. Similarly, he wrote to the scholars of Al-Ahsa as well as Makkah and Madinah. Then he sent letters to the scholars of Egypt, Iraq, India, Yemen etc.

    He continued his mission of writing letters. He wrote to the people establishing his arguments and warning them against polytheism and innovation into which the majority of mankind has fallen. But it does not mean that there have been no supporters of Islam. It cannot be so because Allah has given guaranty to the Religion that there would be always a group in this Ummah on the true path, receiving Divine Help, as the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] said. And there have been helpers of truth in many parts of the world.

    But our concern at present is about Najd where evil, corruption, polytheism and superstitions in immeasurable quantity were rampant. Although there were pious scholars, they were unable to shoulder the task of preaching in its proper method. There were several preachers and helpers of Islam in Yemen and other countries, who were well-aware of these various kinds of polytheism and superstitions. But Allah did not grant them success and victory as He granted to the preaching of Sheikh Ibn Abdul Wahhab for several reasons. First, these preachers had no supporting force. Secondly, most of them could not presevere and withstand persecutions in the way of Allah. Thirdly, some of them were ill-informed with regard to the orientation of the people through proper methods, expressions, and advice and wisdom. There might be other reasons as well.

    Because of his correspondence with scholars and rulers and his struggling in the cause of Allah, the Sheikh became famous. His preaching spread far and wide; his letters reached the scholars within and without the Peninsula.

    His preaching had its impact on the people of the Indian subcontinent, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Africa, Morocco, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. There were many knowledgeable preachers in these countries. When they learnt about the Sheikh's mission, they became more active and their activities got wider recognition.

    The Sheikh's mission continued and spread all over the Islamic world and other countries. Then in recent times his books and letters - as well as the works of his sons and grandsons, supporters and helpers from the scholars within and without the Peninsula - were printed and published. Also the works on his life and mission and on the lives of his helpers have been published; and they have become popular throughout the world.

    It is a known fact that every favour has its envier as every preacher has his enemies. Allah the Exalted said:


    "And so We have appointed to every Prophet an enemy - devils among rnen and jinn - inspiring to each other adorned speech as a delusion. And had your Lord willed, they could not have done it. So leave them alone to their fabrication." (6:112)

    When the Sheikh became famous for his preaching and letters, and his writings received wide popularity among the people, many envious groups emerged as his opponents. Many other enemies also emerged.

    These opponents and enemies can be grouped into two. One group opposed him in the name of religion, while the other opposed him in the name of politics though they hid under the cover of knowledge and religion and exploited the enmity of those scholars who had hated him and accused him of deviation.

    Meanwhile the Sheikh continued his mission, removing the doubts of the people with the support of proofs and guiding them to the facts based on the Qur'an and Sunnah.

    Sometimes his opponents argued that he belonged to the Khawarij. Sometimes they said that he tore apart the Consensus (of the scholars) and claimed the authority for absolute Ijtihad (independent judgement in a legal or theological question), without considering any scholar or jurisprudent before him. At times some criticised him out of their lack of proper knowledge. Another group hated him because of their imitation of and reliance on others. Still another group feared that they would lose their positions and therefore hated him politically under the cover of Islam and religion, relying on the words of the superstitious and misguided people.

    In fact, there were three groups of the Sheikh's opponents. The first group consisted of the characterless scholars who saw the truth as falsehood and the falsehood as truth. They believed that building domes and mosques over the graves and invoking those in the graves for help and the like were right and pertaining to Islam. They also thought that whoever was against such things hated the righteous and the saints and that jihad against him was compulsory.

    The second group was associated with knowledge; but they were ignorant of the reality of the Sheikh's mission. They knew nothing about the truth to which he was calling the people; they simply followed others and believed whatever was said by the characterless, superstitious scholars. Consequently, they even believed that he had hated the prophets and saints and denied their miracles. Therefore, they condemned him and kept aloof from him.

    The third group feared the removal of their positions and ranks. They showed him hostility so that the supporters of the Islamic mission might not reach them and remove their positions and take over their lands.

    Thus the fighting with words - arguments and debates between the Sheikh and his opponents - continued. He argued with them - he would write to them and they would reply to him, and he would refute them and they would reply to him. As a result, numerous questions and answers were accumulated and compiled into volumes. And thank Allah most of them have been published. The Sheikh carried on his mission of preaching and fighting with the help and support of Prince Muhammad Bin Saud, the ruler of Dareyya and later the founder of the Saudi Dynasty.

    Then in 1158 A.H jihad with sword was started. It is wellknown that if the preacher who calls people to Allah does not have any force to support him and maintain the truth, then his mission will soon subside and his reputation will be extinguished, and consequently the number of his supporters will decrease. The importance of weapon and power is well-known for their effectiveness in spreading the preaching, subduing the opponents and falsehood and supporting the truth. Allah the Exalted said:


    "Indeed we have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance (justice) that mankind may keep up justice. And we brought forth iron wherein is mighty power (in matters of war) as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allah may test who it is that will help Him (His Religion) and His Messengers in the unseen. Verily Allah is All-Strong, All-Mighty." (57:25)

    In the above verse, Allah points out that He sent the Messengers with clear proofs. These were arguments by which they clarified the truth and pushed back the falsehood. He also revealed to the Messengers the Book that contained guidance as well as clear explanation. He also revealed the Balance. It is justice which protects the oppressed from the oppressor, maintains the truth and spreads the guidance; it is in the light of justice that people treat one another with truth and fairness. Allah also brought forth iron of mighty power.

    That is, it is force, deterrence and suppression against those who oppose the truth. So the use of iron is for those in whom proofs and explanation do not work. Hence it is adherent to the truth and suppressor of the falsehood.

    Any intelligent man with a common sense will benefit from clear proof and accept the truth with its evidence. But the oppressor or the wrong-doer who follows his lusts cannot be deterred except without a sword.

    The Sheikh thus strove in his preaching and jihad for fifty years from 1158 A.H. until he died in 1206 A.H. He resorted to all the methods in his mission - jihad, preaching, resistance, debates and arguments, elucidation of the Qur'an and Sunnah and guidance towards the legal ways shown by the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] - until people adhered to obedience, entered the Religion of Allah, demolished the domes and mosques built by them on the graves and agreed to run their affairs in accordance with Islamic Law, discarding all rules and laws which had been applied by their fathers and forefathers.

    Thus mosques became active with prayers and study circles. Zakat (obligatory charity) was regularly paid. People fasted in the month of Ramadan as prescribed by Allah. The good was enjoined and the evil was forbidden. Peace and security reigned in villages and towns, and highways and desert areas. The Bedouins were stopped to their limits; and they entered the fold of Islam and accepted the truth. The Sheikh disseminated his message among them.

    Then the Sheikh sent the guides and preachers to the desert areas and suburbs. He also sent instructors, advisors and judges to the towns and villages. This great blessing and straight path spread all over Najd; the truth and Allah's Religion prevailed there.

    Then after the death of the Sheikh, his sons, grandsons, pupils and supporters continued his mission and struggle in the cause of Allah. At the head of his sons was the famous Sheikh Imam Abdullah Bin Muhammad; and the other sons were Sheikh Husain Bin Muhammad, Sheikh All Bin Muhammad and Sheikh Ibrahim Bin Muhammad. And his grandsons were Sheikh Abdurrahman Bin Hasan, Sheikh All Bin IluSain and Sheikh Sulaiman Bin Abdullah Bin Muhamrnad. And among his pupils were Sheikh Hamad Bin Nasir Bin I.VIuammar and many other scholars of Dareyya.

    They all carried on the task of preaching and jihad and spread the Religion of Allah through correspondence and writing books as well as fighting the enemies of Islam. The only hostility between these preachers and their opponents was that the former called the people to Tawhid, to the worship of Allah alone with uprightness and demolition of domes and mosques erected on the graves, to the establishment of Islamic government and implementation of Islamic punishments, and to enjoining the good and forbidding the evil. And nothing else.

    In short, the preachers guided the people to the Oneness of the worship of Allah, warned them against the different forms and ways of polytheism and made Islamic Law incumbent upon them. It was also ordained that whoever rejected the message of Tawhid and insisted on polytheism, even after the truth was explained to him on the basis of proofs and arguments, should be fought against until he and his people surrendered to the truth. The preachers also warned the people against the innovations and superstitions which were not prescribed by Allah, as building domes on the graves, seeking decision of false gods or un-Islamic rulers, seeking help of sorcerers and soothsayers and believing them and the like. But Allah removed all such things by the hands of the Sheikh and his supporters.

    Mosques became active by the teaching of the Qur'an and Sunnah, Islamic history and other useful Arabic studies. People became interested in learning, knowledge, guidance, preaching and teaching. Some, on the other hand, took to agriculture and commerce; they combined both work and knowledge, the world and the religion. Thus a person learnt and referred to books, but at the same time worked in his farm or factory as well. In other words, he worked simultaneously for his religion and worldly interests; he called people and guided them to the Path of Allah, but indulged himself in various trades and industries which are beneficial to himself as well as his country.

    Having accomplished their mission in Najd, the preachers and the Al-Saud extended their preaching to Makkah and Madinah and the south of the Peninsula. They had written to the scholars of the Two Holy Cities several times. But the preaching had no effect and the people therein continued their polytheistic actions like building domes on the graves, venerating the domes and seeking help of those who are buried in the graves.

    After eleven years of the death of Sheikh Ibn Abdul Wahhab, Imam Saud Bin Abdul Aziz Bin Muhammad set out to Hijaz. He clashed with the people of Taif on his way to Makkah. Prince Uthman Bin Abdurrahman Al-Madaefi had already fought against them with an army - including the people of Najd; etc. - dispatched by the prince of Dareyya, Imam Saud Bin Abdul Aziz Bin Muhammad. They assisted him until he occupied Taif and expelled its sherief. There he established the calling to Allah, guided the people to the truth and forbade polytheism and the worship of Ibn Abbas [radhiallaahu anhuma], and others who were worshipped by the ignorant idiots of Taif.

    Then Imam Saud set out to Makkah by order of his father, Abdul Aziz. The army sieged Makkah, and when its sherief came to know about this he fled to Jeddah. Then Saud along with his Muslim army entered the country and conquered Makkah without fighting in the early morning of Muharram 1 st in 1218 A.H. In Makkah they established the calling to Allah and demolished all the domes built over the graves of Khadija and others. They also appointed there scholars, teachers and guides for teaching and guiding the people, as well as judges for passing judgements according to Islamic Law.

    Then after a short term, Madinah was conquered by AlSaud in 1220 A.H. (The Two Holy Cities have continued to be under the rule of Al-Saud). In Madinah also teachers and guides were appointed, and justice and Islamic rule were established. They showed benevolence to its people, especially the poor and the needy. They gave them financial aid, showed them sympathy, taught them the Qur'an and guided them to the good. They also respected the scholars there and encouraged them to teach and guide the people.

    This condition continued till 1226 A.H when the combine of the Egyptian and Turkish armies moved towards Hijaz to fight against Al-Saud and expel them from the Two Holy Cities. It had several reasons. As mentioned earlier, the enemies were enviers and idiots who had no insight. Some politicians wanted to suppress this movEment because they feared that their positions and interests would be destroyed. Therefore, they charged false allegations against the Sheikh and his followers: they propagated that he and his followers hated the Prophet
    [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam], and saints, and denied the miracles. Some ignorant and biased people took such allegations to be true and encouraged the Egyptians and Turks to fight against the followers of the Sheikh.

    Consequently, affliction and war created havoc in the country. And a great war was fought between the forces of Turkey and Egypt on one side and those of Al-Saud from Najd and Hijaz on the other side. The war lasted for a long time (1226 -1233 A.H). It was a fierce battle fought between the forces of falsehood and truth.

    Imam Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab simply stood for the victory of Islam, guidance of the people to Tawhid, rejection of all the superstitions and innovations that have crept into the body of Islam, imposition of truth and deterrence of falsehood, and enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.

    His creed was that of the Pious Predecessors: he believed in Allah and His Names and Attributes, in His angels, in His Messengers and Books, in the Last Day and in Fate, in its being good or bad. He was on the path of the Imams of the Ummah in his understanding and beliefs with regard to Tawhid and devotion of the acts of worship to Allah alone, belief in the Names and Attributes of Allah in a way that suits the Divine Majesty and without denying or comparing them with those of the creations. He also believed in the Resurrection, Reckoning, Reward of Heaven and Hell etc. strictly in accordance with the belief of the Predecessors. Concerning belief, he, like the Predecessors, believed that it increases and decreases - increases through submission to Allah and decreases through sins. In all these, the Sheikh meticulously followed the Pious Predecessors, both theoretically and practically. He never deviated from their path nor had he his own special doctrines other than those of the Pious Predecessors and the Companions of the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam].

    The Sheikh exerted himself in his mission of calling the people to the above creed and path, preaching and fighting, till the Religion of Allah got the upperhand.

    When he called people to Allah or enjoined the good and forbade the evil, he was in fact fulfilling his duty as a Muslim. And Allah removed the innovations and superstitions from Najd and paved the way for Tawhid and Islamic preaching in the Muslim world by his hands.
    Hence the reasons for the conflicts between the Sheikh and his opponents were clear, as mentioned earlier:
    l. His rejection of polytheism and his calling to the pure and absolute Tawhid.
    2. His refutation of innovations and superstitions such as building domes or mosques over the graves, celebration of birth anniversary and other "methods" invented by the sufis (mystics).
    3. He enjoined the good on the people and imposed it on them. Whoever refused and rejected the good, he would use force against him and punish him. He also forbade the evil to them and implemented the punitive measures prescribed by Allah. He obliged the people to associate with the truth and avoid the falsehood. Consequently, the truth prevailed and the falsehood vanished.'The conduct and character of the people changed considerably; they treated mutually with fair and upright manners in the mosques, markets and in all conditions. Polytheism, innovations and all such vices were no more among them. Whoever noticed this condition would immediately recall the life conditions during the times of the Pious Predecessors and the Companions of the Prophet [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam].

    The Sheikh and the followers followed the footsteps of the Pious Predecessors. They endured patiently and struggled vigorously in the cause of Allah. But after the death of the Sheikh and most of his sons and supporters, in the long run, certain changes occurred in the above conditions the result of which was a series of afflictions at the hands of Turkey and Egypt, in confirmation to what Allah the Exalted has stated in the Qur'an:

    "Verily Allah will not change the (good) condition of a people as long as they do not change their state (of goodness) themselves." (13:11)

    May Allah wipe out the sins that have befallen them and elevate their martydom!

    The mission of ibn Abdul Wahhab has continued till this date. Within a short period after the destruction and killings let loose by the Egyptian army, his mission raised up again and spread far and wide. The revival was by the hands of Imam Turkey Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Saud. He spread the preaching in and around Najd; and scholars were seen everywhere in Najd. He expelled all the Turks and Egyptians from Najd and the surrounding villages. It was in 1240 A.H.

    Whereas the destruction of Dareyya and termination of the Al-Saud government were in 1233 A.H. The people of Najd remained in a state of riots and killing for about five years. Then in 1240 A.H the Muslims in Najd were reunited by Imam Turkey Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Saud. The truth reappeared and the scholars started sending messages and letters to different parts of the country. They called the people to Islam. And very soon the afflictions occurred in the society were extinguished.

    Again the Religion of Allah reigned in Najd. The people worked on education, guidance and preaching till everything fell in its proper place. They returned to their normal life which they were used to during the life of the Sheikh, his sons and his supporters.

    By the grace of Allah, from 1240 A.H till this day, the Al-Saud has continued to govern the country, and the Al-Sheikh has continued to lead and guide the people through preaching and fighting in the cause of Allah.

    But as for the Two Holy Cities, they remained separate from the Saudi rule for a long time till they returned to the Saudi authority in 1343 A.H. The Two Holy Cities were occupied by Imam Abdul Aziz Bin Abdurrahman Bin Faisal Bin Turkey Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Saud. By the grace of Allah, Makkah and Madinah have continued to be under the Saudi rule till now.

    May Allah guide the rest of the Al-Saud and Al-Sheikh as well as all the scholars in this country to the right! May He grant them all success in whatever is approved of by Him! May He guide all the scholars in all Muslim countries to the right and make them support the truth as a whole and abandon the falsehood altogether! May He grant all the preachers of truth success, and guide them as well as us to the right! May He preserve the Two Holy Mosques and its annexes! May He guide all the Muslim countries to the right and the true Religion! May He grant all Muslims good fortune to uphold the Qur'an and Sunnah, to learn them deeply, to live them with fortitude and perseverance and to make them judge in their affairs till their death! Allah is All-Powerful and Responsive.

    All that I said is what I could easily explain to you about the life and mission of the Sheikh and his supporters and the activities of his opponents. We seek Allah's help and put our trust in Him. There is no power and might except with Allah. Peace and blessings of Allah be upon His slave and Messenger, our Prophet and leader, Muhammad, and upon his family and Companions and all who have entered his right path! All praise is to Allah, Lord of the worlds.



    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 11 June 2007 at 3:14am
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    assalamu alaikum

    it makes no difference where you found this it is by Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah ibn Baaz who is a major salafi figure, hardly an impartial personality.

    You cant twist and hide the truth from people who have seen it, "say truth has come and falsehood has vanished".

    Muhammad ibn abdul wahhabs brother sulaiman destroyed the salafi falshood and claims by quoting a single hadith found in bukhari, Allah promised his prophet [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] that his ummah will be safeguarded from shirk.

    you cant re write historical facts no matter how hard you try.


    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: abuzaid
    Date Posted: 11 June 2007 at 4:35am

    Originally posted by rami rami wrote:



    it makes no difference where you found this it
    Well, it actally makes a differnce, deobandis have been critics of Ibn Abdul Wahhab and when they give such article on their websites, it show that there are people who think differently. Its not necessary that you associate all sort of evil with Ibn Abdul Wahhab if you have some differences with him. This is what I tried to indicate by mentioning that this is from deobandi/sufi website. In india Abul Hasan Ali nadwi and Moulana Manzoor Nu'mani, both Hanafi/sufi were proponents of Mohammed Bin Abdul Wahhab.

    Originally posted by rami rami wrote:

    is by Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah ibn Baaz who is a major salafi figure, hardly an impartial personality.

    According to your principle anybody who support Ibn Abdul Wahhab or known be salafi is partial and anybody who only condemn him is impartial???

    On what basis you say that, those refernces you gave is impartial, as its clear from their writing that they have only hate for him?

    Originally posted by rami rami wrote:

    You cant twist and hide the truth from people who have seen it, "say truth has come and falsehood has vanished".
    And my answer to point is exactly same as yours. Just by quoting a portion of verse Quran you can't become truth.


    Originally posted by rami rami wrote:

    you cant re write historical facts no matter how hard you try.
    Again you also can't rewrite histrical facts no matter how hard you try. Propaganda of innovators can't become historical facts just because of your wish.



    Posted By: fatima
    Date Posted: 11 June 2007 at 6:45am

    Bismillah irrahman irrahim

    Assalamu alaykum

    Originally posted by abuzaid abuzaid wrote:

    Its not necessary that you associate all sort of evil with Ibn Abdul Wahhab if you have some differences with him.

    I agree with brother that if we don't agree with some1 then we can simply state our reason and our side of truth and discuss it in a manner where there is no insult to any1. I would also like to point out that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala tells us in Holy Qur'an to call each other with good names. I know people of ahle hadith don't like to be called wahabis so we should respect them and their choice and obey our Lord and should not call them that.

    Wassalam



    -------------
    Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL


    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 11 June 2007 at 7:15am
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    Well, it actally makes a differnce, deobandis have been critics of Ibn Abdul Wahhab and when they give such article on their websites, it show that there are people who think differently.

    The article is nothing but salafi propaganda and there twist on history. The website belongs to a school that is located in south africa not Pakistan or india. There is not further commentary on why this article is posted on the website [considering there usual stance on salafi's as you clearly admit] so you cant infer anything from it.

    Its not necessary that you associate all sort of evil with Ibn Abdul Wahhab if you have some differences with him. This is what I tried to indicate by mentioning that this is from deobandi/sufi website. In india Abul Hasan Ali nadwi and Moulana Manzoor Nu'mani, both Hanafi/sufi were proponents of Mohammed Bin Abdul Wahhab.

    I find it hard to believe that Qualified scholars would take anything from an unqualified individual such as Ibn Abdul wahhab. this is unacceptable in any madhhab and just plain common sense, i doubt it is the way you have stated.

    According to your principle anybody who support Ibn Abdul Wahhab or known be salafi is partial and anybody who only condemn him is impartial???

    dont put words in my mouth i didnt propose any principle.

    On what basis you say that, those refernces you gave is impartial, as its clear from their writing that they have only hate for him?


    This is history as witnessed by people who where not responsible for the murder of thousands of muslims in makkah and madinah. Bin baz is a salafi shaykh this is plain fact my claim of his bias is just fact and obvious there is no need to even challenge the claim.

    And my answer to point is exactly same as yours. Just by quoting a portion of verse Quran you can't become truth.

    It is truth according to the entirety of the muslim ummah not according to your sect. Would you really expect me to believe that a salafi would propodate anything other than the greatness of there sect, any salafi who would question there version of history would no longer be a salafi just like our friend Andalus and many other brothers and sisters around the world who have seen past the salafi rehtoric and oil money.

    Again you also can't rewrite histrical facts no matter how hard you try. Propaganda of innovators can't become historical facts just because of your wish.

    I havnt what I have is the condemnation of the entire muslim ummah against this individual and his movement.

    Muhammad Ibn abdul wahhab didnt simply attack sufis and shia he attacked the madhhabs ie the entiraty of the muslim Ummah and said everyone else is wrong and i am right this is the reality of your claim.


    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 11 June 2007 at 7:31am
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    I know people of ahle hadith don't like to be called wahabis so we should respect them and their choice and obey our Lord and should not call them that.

    What about the salafis who like being called wahhabi's shouldnt we respect there wishes equally. is it an insult to be called hanafi or shafii the term wahhabi is in the same vein it is only insulting if you believe there is something wrong with muhammad ibn abdul wahhabs teachings.

    The term ahl al hadith is literally more insulting than being called wahhabi since it is a direct reference to there Ignorance.

    I find it insulting that we should be forced to call them salafi's and if we shouldnt call them salafi's or wahhabi's then what should we call them?


    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: minuteman
    Date Posted: 11 June 2007 at 8:08am

     

     I feel I have read the post and Fatawa posted by Abu Mujahid. It is hard to believe that.But it is all there, re;ated by some on and found in the Muslim (hadith). Surprising. I could not believe any of that. They had not been given any guidance. They had not rejected the truth. They had not opposed the truth. They had died long before.

     I mustsay that in the matters of Hadith there are two important tasks/ tests.

    1. The Darayat.

    2. The Rawayat.

    I am sure that the darayat ( The integrity) takes perecedence over the rawayat (chain of narrators). Thanks any way.



    -------------
    If any one is bad some one must suffer


    Posted By: Andalus
    Date Posted: 11 June 2007 at 9:09am
    Originally posted by abuzaid abuzaid wrote:

    Some stuff is give from those who are against Ibn Abdul Wahhab, have a look at what proponent of him says.

    Mind you, I have taken it from a webiste which can be categorised as Deobandi Sufi

    http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/hist_bio/ibnwahhaab.htm - http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/hist_bio/ibnwahhaab.htm

    SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN ABDUL-WAHHAAB (RA)

    by Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah ibn Baaz  

    Are you serious? A piece by ibn Baaz? You must certainly be joking. Obviously anything written by this �wahabi� cleric about Imam An-najdi will be an over romanticized �love fest�, since he is a follower of the deviated Imam An-najdi. Bin Baaz is neither qualified to give rulings in matter of aqida or fiqh, much less a history lesson on his leader.  This is a "neo-Salafi" propoganda piece to hush the concerns of thier more intelligent adherents who might question their problematic history and deviated founder. 

     

     



    -------------
    A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
    http://www.sunnipath.com
    http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
    http://www.pt-go.com/


    Posted By: Andalus
    Date Posted: 11 June 2007 at 9:31am
    Originally posted by abuzaid abuzaid wrote:

    Originally posted by rami rami wrote:



    it makes no difference where you found this it
    Well, it actally makes a differnce, deobandis have been critics of Ibn Abdul Wahhab and when they give such article on their websites, it show that there are people who think differently. Its not necessary that you associate all sort of evil with Ibn Abdul Wahhab if you have some differences with him. This is what I tried to indicate by mentioning that this is from deobandi/sufi website. In india Abul Hasan Ali nadwi and Moulana Manzoor Nu'mani, both Hanafi/sufi were proponents of Mohammed Bin Abdul Wahhab.

    Deobandis are not in "total"agreement concerning Muhammad ibn wahab najdi, and because a few who have connections to the Deobandi Ulema are misguided does not imply that deobandis supprt him, or any further implication that mainstream sunnis accept him. The piece you postes, is what it is, and to try and draw deeper inferences would be inaccurate.

     

    Quote  

    Originally posted by rami rami wrote:

    is by Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah ibn Baaz who is a major salafi figure, hardly an impartial personality.

    According to your principle anybody who support Ibn Abdul Wahhab or known be salafi is partial and anybody who only condemn him is impartial???

    Anyone who is a follower and proponent of najdi, and who's ideas are also rejected by the Ahl Asunnah, and who has a stake in being a apologetic for a figure head who is the founder of their way of thought and their government, (who was also on the government payroll) cannot be expected to write an accurate piece. And there are no more salafis, that time period is gone, they are all dead, and there is no way to go back. I would say that he tried to push "neo-salafism", which is as banckrupt as "wahabism", and in many ways they are just a like.

    Quote   

    On what basis you say that, those refernces you gave is impartial, as its clear from their writing that they have only hate for him?

    On what bases would you say that ibn Baaz would be impartial and that his work should be accepted without critical review? And why should all other accounts that list the crimes of Annajdi and his bandits be discounted when they are in direct opposition to the love fest piece you put up?

    Annajdi's own brother was against him. 

    Quote  

    Originally posted by rami rami wrote:

    You cant twist and hide the truth from people who have seen it, "say truth has come and falsehood has vanished".
    And my answer to point is exactly same as yours. Just by quoting a portion of verse Quran you can't become truth.


    Originally posted by rami rami wrote:

    you cant re write historical facts no matter how hard you try.
    Again you also can't rewrite histrical facts no matter how hard you try. Propaganda of innovators can't become historical facts just because of your wish.

    So how do you decide what happened? rami just presented historical accounts of what happened, you posted an aplogetic from a mainstream wahabi cleric that was on the Saudi payroll.

     



    -------------
    A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
    http://www.sunnipath.com
    http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
    http://www.pt-go.com/


    Posted By: Andalus
    Date Posted: 11 June 2007 at 11:59pm

    The hadith "Your mother is with my mother" related in Ahmed has been delcared "dha'eef" by such hadith scholars as Ibn Hajar Asqalani due to a single "weak" narrator without other chains to strengthen it. Only your sect would go out of its way to try and give rise to fitnah and such a quest as to convince everyone that the Prophet Muhammad's (saw) parents are in hell. This is simply rude, terrible adhab that is at the bases of your sect. I dislike even mentioning the idea in debate about his parents being in hell. Sunnis did not accept this single hadith as a source to issue a belief about his mother in hell. The others (hadith) have been explained in a piece I have put up in another thread. I am done with this topic about his parents, if you want to dabble is such nonsense, do it some place else. We respect the Prophet (saw) here, and not try and find ways to degrade him and his family. You are the proof of the deviance of your group and its uneducated, and unrefined apporach to theology.

    God help you.



    -------------
    A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
    http://www.sunnipath.com
    http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
    http://www.pt-go.com/


    Posted By: abuzaid
    Date Posted: 12 June 2007 at 1:19am

    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.
    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?
    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. 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. 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. 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.

     



    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 12 June 2007 at 3:37am
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    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.

    Then you have wrongly derived something from my posts, i am not so ignorant as to think like this.

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

    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?

    Becouse his writings have no historical basis, i would like to see clear and reliable references for what he says. When your sources all come from the propaganda work of your own group then yes by any standard this is bias.

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

    Becouse he has no teacher or ijazzah from any scholar, he is not qualified in any of the islamic and non islamic sciences and thus incapable of Ijtihad which is what he did by not following a madhhab and his own Indipendent ideas and thoughts. 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.

    As per history, you can't just claim that whatever is written against him is truth and anything in his support is fabrication.

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

    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.

    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. 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.

    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.

    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.


    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 - sunniforum.com and ask your self.

    but unfortunately when it comes to Ibn Abdul Wahhab he is on one extreme.

    I am also on one extreme about the Dajjal and what he stands for does that make what i say about him wrong. The fact is The man created his own group with there own Aqeedah and Fiqh seperate from Orthodox Islam regardless of his actions or history that is by itself enough to show he is wrong.

    I understand that our difference is based on history,


    My difference isnt simply because of history, i knew about there differences in Aqeedah and fiqh long before i read any historical accounts of just how astray they where.



    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: fatima
    Date Posted: 12 June 2007 at 4:44am

    Bismillah irrahman irrahim

    Assalamu alaykum

    Originally posted by rami rami wrote:

    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    I know people of ahle hadith don't like to be called wahabis so we should respect them and their choice and obey our Lord and should not call them that.

    What about the salafis who like being called wahhabi's shouldnt we respect there wishes equally. is it an insult to be called hanafi or shafii the term wahhabi is in the same vein it is only insulting if you believe there is something wrong with muhammad ibn abdul wahhabs teachings.

    The term ahl al hadith is literally more insulting than being called wahhabi since it is a direct reference to there Ignorance.

    I find it insulting that we should be forced to call them salafi's and if we shouldnt call them salafi's or wahhabi's then what should we call them?

    I never knew of people who liked being called wahabis so i raised that point and i don't think it is an insult that if some1 wants being called something you have to call them that, even though to you it might be worse than what you were originally calling them. 

    I dont really get why brothers disagree so fiercely about religious matters. You can state your side of truth and others can do the same and have discussion with adab that islam teaches us. If you can convince others then mashaAllah good, if not khair, say salam and depart.

    Wassalam



    -------------
    Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL


    Posted By: abuzaid
    Date Posted: 12 June 2007 at 7:01am

    Originally posted by rami 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.

    Originally posted by rami 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.

    Originally posted by rami 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.
    Originally posted by rami 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.

    Originally posted by rami 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.
    Originally posted by rami rami wrote:


    Becouse he has no teacher
    Is it????

    Originally posted by rami 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??

    Originally posted by rami 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..

    Originally posted by rami 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.

    Originally posted by rami 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.

    Originally posted by rami 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.

    Originally posted by rami 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?

    Originally posted by rami 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.

    Originally posted by rami 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.

    Originally posted by rami 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.
    Originally posted by rami 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 - 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.



    Posted By: minuteman
    Date Posted: 12 June 2007 at 11:38am

     

     Not all all ahle Hadith were wrong. In fact they did a good work to keep the people away from Shirk. There was too much ignorance in the muslims, and malpractices such as peer parasti and grave worship etc. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was a great ahle hadith. I forget the name of another one.

    But the moral: Too much of everything is bad.

    In order to bring about improvements, it is necessary to have a licence, a permission, a connection with Allah. Without that no one can take up task. Deeds are dependent on intentions (hadith number one).

     What a good man may have started can go wrong in the end by too much bad work.



    -------------
    If any one is bad some one must suffer


    Posted By: Andalus
    Date Posted: 12 June 2007 at 5:00pm
    Originally posted by abuzaid 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.

     

    Quote
    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.

    Quote
    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.

     

    Quote

    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.

    Quote

    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.

    Quote

     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



    -------------
    A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
    http://www.sunnipath.com
    http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
    http://www.pt-go.com/


    Posted By: abuzaid
    Date Posted: 12 June 2007 at 8:59pm

    Andalus,

    I prefer not to reply to you...I don't have any problem if you keep on calling my apologetic. Let readers judge.

    Let me wait for Rami.



    Posted By: Sonya
    Date Posted: 13 June 2007 at 5:10am

    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!



    -------------
    Every one who can see has a sight but everyone who has a sight doesnt have an insight.


    Posted By: Andalus
    Date Posted: 13 June 2007 at 6:08am
    Originally posted by abuzaid abuzaid wrote:

    Andalus,

    I prefer not to reply to you...I don't have any problem if you keep on calling my apologetic. Let readers judge.

    Let me wait for Rami.

    An "apologetic" is not a derogatory term.



    -------------
    A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
    http://www.sunnipath.com
    http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
    http://www.pt-go.com/


    Posted By: Andalus
    Date Posted: 13 June 2007 at 6:10am
    Originally posted by Sonya 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



    -------------
    A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
    http://www.sunnipath.com
    http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
    http://www.pt-go.com/


    Posted By: Sonya
    Date Posted: 14 June 2007 at 11:22am

    Alright as you wish.. its your choice anyway..

    but i'll still tell you why i wanted to kno.. since i am not an Arab myself, I have heard people's opinions towards wahabbis in countries like pakistan, afghanistan etc. This does not apply to you but trust me, those people talk out of ignorance. For example, i have an afghani friend who decided to quit music and at her home, her brothers would tease her by calling her things like al-qaeda, osama bin laden, in short 'wahabbi' but if you ask them anything about Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, they wont be able to answer.. anyone who appears to be ultrastrict is labeled as Wahabbi. Brother Abuzaid had mentioned this and i agree becoz i have witnessed it. however, u seem to have knowledge but your knowledge could have been influenced by these views [thts if you're from them]. how? wen you believe that something's evil then whatever you tend to find about it should be -ve.. in case you come across something good then its NOT true. so you go like 'whatever..'

    As for Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab's history... there's no proper record. Atleast I cant find anything about him as easy as about Osama bin Laden, G. Bush, or Alexander. Its also mentioned that not much was written about him. Therefore, we are not in a position to judge him as a person. At this point, i would say Allahu'Alam. To be honest, whatever u hve provided so far is nothing more than your personal opinion about this man. You have not provided any significant fact so far and to remind you brother Abu Mujahid always had some good things as a counterattack to your argument. its not about agreement or disagreement, the thing is if there's someone who can fill up one entire page against Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab then there's also someone else who can fill up 10pages in his favor. Brother Abuzaid made a very good point over here.. he said 'Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab is history'. i totally agree.. trust me this line made me stop wasting my time trying to find a true picture of this man. you should also remember that if you sit with a shia, they'll be able to convince you somewhat that Umar[ra] was an evil [thts if you dont kno much about him] by providing you AUTHENTIC ahadith. but does that change the fact that he was one of Prophet Muhammad[saw]'s beloved sahabah? we should also consider the fact that Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab was a reformer and media does not always treat reformers as good ppl. however, anyone's denial makes no difference i believe...

    what we should do is try to judge whats good and not good among present day's beliefs of various ppl. What did Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab do? did he try to reinterpret the Quran? No! did he try to include something new in Shari'ah? No! Did he try to collect ahadith by himself? No! then what makes one say that 'Wahabbis' are a different sect? now thats st**id.. isnt it? Well according to my father, we belong to the hanafi school of thought. Its a fact that Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab studied and followed the Fiqh of the Hanbalee Mathab so isnt he supposed to be one of us? You may argue that he didnt stick to his Mathab for every minor thing. he said there's no such thing for one to stick to a single mathab and i agree to this! if something of Imam Shafi' appears to be more convincing to me.. wht do i do? ignore it becoz i dont belong to his mathab? well i wont do that.. if its more covincing, i'll go for it regardless of which mathab does it belong to. Which Quranic verse or hadith tells us that we should stick to a single mathab and follow it no matter what? With all due respect to these 4 great Scholars, i would say no one can deny that human is fallible. how would i kno which mathab is the perfect one? its not possible that all four of them are on the right path.. 3 has to be wrong.. isnt it? I'm aware that these scholars went a long long way.. they devoted their lives for the sake of teaching islam.. no proper muslim would deny this! i shall not be able to reach anywhere near them.. may Allah[swt] reward them for their sincere service but why dont we understand that these mathabs were not divinely ordained?

    There were differences even among the Sahabas and we have plenty examples. we also have differences but i dont think the sahabbas ended up calling someone 'accursed innovator' jus becoz he didnt understand something the way they did. this is unjust!

    The other thing which made Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab an extremist is his objection to grave worshipping.  Let Allah be my witness that he has my full support on this! no matter how much they say 'we dont intend to worship the dead', you can still make out from their actions.. wen i look at these ppl, i ask myself 'how st**id can one get..'.

    i dont know whether it was you or someone else you said Wahabbis give priority to ahadith over anything else. i would say Wrong! i hve studied in an Arab country and my teachers held the so called 'wahabi' ideology. none of them ever said that ahadith should be considered before anything else.. We have been taught that ahadith are the second source [after Qura'n] of Shair'ah and this is not wrong. There's a verse confirming this...

    i would be thankful to any brother or sister who could provide me the name starting with letter 'M' which should be used instead of 'Wahhabis'. Allah knows that i never used this offensive term to discriminate between prophet Muhammad's [saw] Ummah.. i tried to recall the accurate term but my memory failed me..

    may Allah bless and guide us all...

    ma'salaama.. [i'm used to writing a lot although i always try to make it short.. sorry for this!].



    -------------
    Every one who can see has a sight but everyone who has a sight doesnt have an insight.


    Posted By: Abu Mujahid
    Date Posted: 15 June 2007 at 12:26am

    Sister Sonya

    Salamu alaikum

    May Allah reward you khair. Muhammad Abdulwahabs books speak volume and non one can challenge its authencity. The only option they have is to ambush and distort innocent muslims who don't know fast the true picture of this chapter.

    I tried to educate him in peace but he opted for Kabbani hit and run game. That won't help him. Every muslim should be fair even with kafirs. If you look his intense hatred toward Muhammad Abdulwahab you wonder what kind of venom was injected to this convert by Kabbban's. BTW, Hisham Kabbani is US sufi Spy who operatate under direction of US government. All American muslim organizations has condemned him on his lies and deceptions. He is one sufi wacko who careless real Islam in this climate of fear.

    Sister, have a patience while debating with these poor fellows. One day they may realize their Hisham/Habashi fake creed was not the right path of Isalm 

     

    May Allah guide us to right path.

     

    Abu Mujahid



    -------------
    Islam need true muslims


    Posted By: minuteman
    Date Posted: 15 June 2007 at 3:49am

     

     Sonya has stated:

      I dont know whether it was you or someone else you said Wahabbis give priority to ahadith over anything else. i would say Wrong! i hve studied in an Arab country and my teachers held the so called 'wahabi' ideology. none of them ever said that ahadith should be considered before anything else.. We have been taught that ahadith are the second source [after Qura'n] of Shair'ah and this is not wrong. There's a verse confirming this...

     I had posted that Hadith is the third source of guidance. Nobody replied properly except that some friends tried to meddle (tied) the Hadith with the Sunnah. I request that if Hadith is kept and understood as something separate from the practice of the prophet s.a.w.s. (IF) then please let me know which thing has the priority. The Hadith or the Sunnah??? Just guide me about it please. Thanks.

     



    -------------
    If any one is bad some one must suffer


    Posted By: abuzaid
    Date Posted: 15 June 2007 at 6:48am

    Originally posted by minuteman minuteman wrote:

     I request that if Hadith is kept and understood as something separate from the practice of the prophet s.a.w.s. (IF) then please let me know which thing has the priority. The Hadith or the Sunnah??? Just guide me about it please. Thanks.
    From where you got this If??? Hadith is one of the main source of Sunnah. From where you learn Sunnah?? Of course another source of Sunnah is Quran itself, as it gives clear intstruction to Prophet Mohammed PBUH. And hadith of Ayesha RA mentioned that character of Prophet PBUH is Quran.

    Even if you say that Sunnah is the source, source of Sunnah is Quran and Hadith.

    Another possibility could be that, history is another source of Sunnah. But Hadith is the most authentic history of Prophet Mohammed PBUH.

    So, when you say Sunnah; from where you get that Sunnah other than Quran and hadith??



    Posted By: minuteman
    Date Posted: 15 June 2007 at 8:33am

     

     abuzaid That is your question. You do not know that there is a continous practice also going on about all rituals, prayers etc from the very first day without any break and millions of people have been doing it all the time in all countries. Will you ignore that??

     The Quran had been put into practice in the life time of the prophet s.a.w.s. and very one learnt that from the prophet s.a.w.s. They copied and followed that practice. There were no books of Hadith then. Even verbal Hadith was not needed because every one knew what to do and how to do it.

     If there were any Hadith  (The said word) they were advisory sentences spoken by the prophet s.a.w.s. and they were far and few  with few people only such that they had to be gathered by much effort 80 -100 years after the passing away of the prophet. They were collected, compiled and written down.

     Do you think that nobody knew how to pray before the Hadith were compiled?? People did not know how to pray or how to perform Hajj etc.??? Please think over these lines and then you will come to know that there is something else present other than the Quran and the Hadith. That is the second thing And that is between the Quran and the Hadith. Please reply.

     




    -------------
    If any one is bad some one must suffer


    Posted By: abuzaid
    Date Posted: 15 June 2007 at 9:23am

    Brother,

    You have a point when it comes to throery; but practically how do we follow sunnah. Can you give me list of Sunnah according to your definition which is not mentioned in Quran and Hadith?? and which is agreed upon by all muslims in 15th century. If not, than simple conclusion drawn by your principle is to follow only Quran and reject everything other than Quran. If we agree on your principle, even explnantion of Quran will also be subjected to understanding of individuals. Which also would divide this whole ummah into scattered groups.

    Another point is that, Hadith is not just "said word" or "advisory sentences" of Prophet PBUH. It gives an impression that you have not read any hadith so far.

    Hadith contains saying of Prophet PBUH, action of Prophet PBUH. There are hadith, which even mentions that, such and such thing is done in front of Prophet and Prophet did not prohibited it. So, hadith is recored of Life of Prophet and also Sahabah. Thus (Authentic)Hadith is one of the basic source of Sunnah.

    Further, if we know something is said by Prophet from authentic source can we just ignore it by saying these were "advisory sentneces"!!!

    Are not we disobeying Allah SW who order us to Obey Prophet and even follow Prophet-- Allahumma Swalli Ala Mohammed

    Hope this helps



    Posted By: number41
    Date Posted: 15 June 2007 at 5:03pm

    Sis Sonya wrote : ........name starting with letter 'M' which should be used instead of 'Wahhabis'.

    What I know...... is that the Wahhabi title is riddled with pejorative intent. Instead  they called themselves MUWAHHIDUN----or those who profess the Doctrine of the Unity of God...(Ahl al tawhid).

    It is precisely because they called themselves muwahhidun, that others have accused the Wahhabi of dismissing other Muslims as being guilty of practising shirk.

    Don't label yourself barelvi, deobandi, ahl-e-hadith, salafi, wahaabi, or any other. We all are just MUSLIMS.

    May Allah help us forever...

    Ameen.



    -------------
    'When one bright intellect meets another bright intellect, the light increases and the Path becomes clear' � Rumi


    Posted By: abuzaid
    Date Posted: 15 June 2007 at 10:11pm

    Dear number41;

    You have a point, when a specific group claim to be Muwahideen, this also means that other than this group is non-muwahhideen. In the same way when a specific group claim to be salafi, a direct conclusion is that any group other than this does not follow manhaj of Salaf As Saaliheen, which is wrong. However, Followers of Ibn Abdul Wahhab called themselves Muwahhideen in a specific context; these were the people who tried to spread tawheed when grave worshipping has become common in Arabian penninsula.

    Sister Sonya's suggestion was in this specific context when other members insisted on slandering them and calling them as Wahhabis.



    Posted By: minuteman
    Date Posted: 15 June 2007 at 10:31pm

     

     Abuzaid: You have a point when it comes to throery; but practically how do we follow sunnah. Can you give me list of Sunnah according to your definition which is not mentioned in Quran and Hadith?? and which is agreed upon by all muslims in 15th century. If not, than simple conclusion drawn by your principle is to follow only Quran and reject everything other than Quran. If we agree on your principle, even explnantion of Quran will also be subjected to understanding of individuals. Which also would divide this whole ummah into scattered groups.

     My reply:How do I follow Sunnah. I am surprised at you. The Sunnah is being followed by all the Muslims from the very first day that they learnt from the prophet s.a.w.s. There is no break and no need of any book of Hadith for that.

     To think that without Hadith, one will reject everything other than Quran is also false. Why? Do you think that people will forget how to pray?? Orhow to perform Hajj without your Hadith. You are wrong. The practice of the holy prophet s.a.w.s. which you are denying and you have no value for that, is continous and is a good explaination of the Quran and its verses. Itis not hadith or books of Hadith which are explaining the Quran. It is the practice of the Holy prophet which is supporting the Islamic teachings. Hadith came on the scene much later.

    I ask you again, were the people not praying properly until the Ahadith were collected?? You have not replied.

    Abuzaid:

    Another point is that, Hadith is not just "said word" or "advisory sentences" of Prophet PBUH. It gives an impression that you have not read any hadith so far.

      My reply:I know Hadith is not just "said word". It also contains the various deeds of the prophet s.a.w.s. Please do not try to misunderstand me. How do you say that I have not read any book of Hadith. I have read them quite a lot. There are acts and deeds in the books of Hadith. Admitted and many other useful words of wisdom too.

    But remember that the deeds (acts) in Hadith are not necessary to teach us what to do. They simply prove that what we are doing is in fact right and it was done by the prophet s.a.w.s. If you think that it is the books of Hadith which taught us how to do Wudhu and how many Rak'at of prayer at various times then you are very much mistaken. Why don't you admit that please???



    -------------
    If any one is bad some one must suffer


    Posted By: abuzaid
    Date Posted: 16 June 2007 at 6:06am

    What I understand from you is..Continuous practice of Muslim Ummah over the period of time till today is sunnah. and the moment these practice is written down in a book it ceases to be sunnah. I am not getting confused, when you try to define Sunnah while avoiding hadith you conclude this.

    your Question:were the people not praying properly until the Ahadith were collected?? You have not replied.

    Well! even Sahabah and early generation followed Hadith. Because what they heard from Prophet and observed Prophet doing is nothing but hadith. Only difference is that these hadith were not in written form. Muhadditheen in an attempt to preserve Sunnah/hadith; they collected available ahadith from people, verified its authenticity and wrote it for the ease of Ummah. And what you are saying is that we should not follow sunnah if it is written.

    We are far away from Prophets period, and its easy to manipulate any prevailing practice among ummah as sunnah. In practice, for many, celebration of Prophets birth day is one of the greatest sunnah and for some worshipping grave is another important sunnah, just because they learned it from their parents and we are 1400 years away from Prophetic era.

    you said: If you think that it is the books of Hadith which taught us how to do Wudhu and how many Rak'at of prayer at various times then you are very much mistaken. Why don't you admit that please???

    Well, I never hesitate to admit my mistakes. But I don't totally agree with you. You are correct wrt to wudu by itself. But if any differences arises among ummah about wudu, like if wudu gets broken by touching wife. and if saying Bismillah is complusory before wudu etc.. In such cases the only option we have is to refer to Ahadith.

     



    Posted By: Sonya
    Date Posted: 16 June 2007 at 7:33am

    oho how many groups do we have?

    can anyone tell me who are Deobandis?

    I thought we only have shia and sunni...



    -------------
    Every one who can see has a sight but everyone who has a sight doesnt have an insight.


    Posted By: minuteman
    Date Posted: 16 June 2007 at 7:44am

     

     No Sonya, there are many groups. There are Deobandis, Brelvis, Sunnis, Shias, Ahle Hadith (Wahhabis) and Ahle Quran (who are considered not Muslims) and there are many more.

    Here our discussion is going on between the Ahle Sunnah and Ahle Hadith. The problem is that the Ahle Hadith want to keep the Sunnah (practice) with the hadith (sayings)  of the prophet s.a.w.s.

     They should consider these two as different and one is preceding the other. I have read the post of Abuzaid. His first sentence is right but soon he has created doubt. I will reply to him separately, Insha Allah.



    -------------
    If any one is bad some one must suffer


    Posted By: abuzaid
    Date Posted: 16 June 2007 at 7:59am

    Brother,

    minuteman; I am not Ahle-hadith (in its popular meaning) and neither I am defending Ahle-hadith. In my understanding I am trying to defend Ahlus Sunnah. I got a perception that you are hadith-rejector.

    All four Imams and their school of fiqh consider hadith as valid source of Deen.

    Would you mind mentioning name of any reputed scholar of Ahlus Sunnah who rejected hadith as a source of Deen. Its possible that some of them rejected one or two hadith for some reason. But had anyone among them have rejected collection of hadith itself as a source of knowledge in Deen.



    Posted By: minuteman
    Date Posted: 16 June 2007 at 9:13am

     

     Thanks Abuzaid, I am in agreement with you about hadith being a  valid source of Deen. But I place it at the third place after the Quran and Sunnah.

    But first you must understand that Hadith is not Sunnah. The Hadith may be a descriptive if the Sunnah. Hadith is different to the daily practice of the prophet. When ever any order came, the prophet s.a.w.s. acted on that order and every one learnt it. Then other people learnt it from the first group.

    If you keep the Sunnah separate from the sayings of the prophet then you will see easily that I am belonging to Ahle Sunnah while you are belonging to Ahle Hadith. I have studied your posts and found that your beliefs are same as Ahle Hadith.

     You may be thinking that you are ahle Sunnah but with your beliefs it is clear that your beliefs are same as ahle hadith. We have seen many of them and we know all about it.

    Next, your claim that all Imam of Fiqah have upheld the Hadith as a source of Deen, it is correct and I believe the same. But the Imams did not go for Hadith. They acted on the practice of the prophet. And used Hadith too for their guidance.

    The ahle hadith accuse the Imams for not knowing the Ahadith. The followers of the ahle Hadith call the Sunni people as Muqallid. While they are themselves non Muqallid.



    -------------
    If any one is bad some one must suffer


    Posted By: abuzaid
    Date Posted: 16 June 2007 at 11:42am

    First of all, I do not agree that Ahlus Sunnah and Ahl-e-hadith are exatcly opposite.

    As per your point that second source of Deen is Sunnah and third is Hadith is a totally novel idea to Ahlus Sunnah.  Other than hadith rejector all muslims consider hadith and Sunnah as interchangeable.

    When Sunnah is written it becomes hadith. I do not agree with your point that we should not follow written hadith, but only sunnah from our parents.

    Four Imams of Fiqh and their students also bothered to find out the authenticity of any sunnah/hadith they learned and thus they are ahl-e-hadith. They never advocated to follow anything that they learned from elders.

    According to your principle why should we follow written fiqh.. Nowaday we learn all the fiqh in written form. Should not we reject written fiqh as written is not acceptable in your principle.

    I am a critic of traditional ahl-e-hadith for many reason, which I may explain in some other post if required.

    As you have your own understanding of Ahlus Sunnah and thus you declared me as Ahle-e-hadith. I too have my understanding of Ahlus Sunnah and consider your approach as hadith-rejector and out of Ahlus Sunnah.



    Posted By: Sonya
    Date Posted: 17 June 2007 at 8:05am

    first of all [this is for everyone].. let us have some respect and use Muwahhidun [thank you bro/sis number41] instead of 'wahabi'. Even saying followers of him or her is wrong i believe becoz as muslims, we can only be followers of prophet Muhammad [saw] regardless of whom do we agree or disagree with..

    now brother minuteman.. i do not kno about the other groups you have mentioned but Muwahhidun [or ahle hadith as you name them] and ahlus Sunnah are not different sects! I had mentioned it earlier that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab was trained by the Hanbalee school of thought and this is a fact. Even today what Muwahhidun follow or believe comes from the hanbalee school of thought so for you to say that they are different from ahlus sunnah would be something very wrong..  

    the differences of shias and sunnis are crystal clear. We have different sources. If not Quran then the books of ahadith and we all kno that ahadith play a very important role in determining our path. They dont have what we have and we dont have what they do. I am aware of some deviant groups such as the one in india who claim that we should only do what is farz and make Quran our only source since ahadith might not be authentic as they were not recorded during the time of prophet Muhammad [saw]. But for the rest of us who believe in Quran, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and the other authentic books of ahadith.. how can we differ? how can we be different sects when we use the very same sources? just becoz you dont understand a verse or hadith the way i do, we split into two different sects? in such a case there should be millions of sects.. unity is what we truly require today and with such thoughts in mind, i doubt prophet Muhammad's [saw] ummah will ever be united. Its so sad wen you look around and find people in the west progressing at a speed of light and us Muslims being busy in finding faults of eachother..



    -------------
    Every one who can see has a sight but everyone who has a sight doesnt have an insight.


    Posted By: number41
    Date Posted: 18 June 2007 at 8:27am

    Sonya your expression are fully understood, I have been reading and analyzing different aspect of what is now and what it could be. I am not a genius, but I find most of the problems lies in as most of you have said and mentioned...understanding of ISLAM!

     

    The reason why we are behind, because we LET OURSELVES being fooled...being manipulated and fight each other�.. We cannot blame anybody else than ourselves! It is our fault, ��and it cannot be said enough. If we all improve ourselves and then being working to "benefit" the Ummah, we will indeed begin the elevation.

     

    Each of us should stand firm by the philosophy and logic of our faith.  It is first faith, then knowledge. We are only getting further and further away from knowledge because we are getting further and further away from Quran and the Sunnah. How many Muslims are we? How many good leaders do we have? Are we then sincere?  Yes we do have differences and these differences are exploited by foreign forces to split us up in ethnically and regional differences thus avoid a united ummah. As I have been pointing out between lines, it is about character. Improve our character...and do not say what  we do not do ourselves�. If we have to do things positive around us, we must see our deeds, or attitude and behavior toward other people. Insha Allah we will be the Great Muslim Ummah.



    -------------
    'When one bright intellect meets another bright intellect, the light increases and the Path becomes clear' � Rumi


    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 22 June 2007 at 7:35am
    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.


    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: Abu Mujahid
    Date Posted: 22 June 2007 at 12:03pm

    Rami,

     

    Ijaza -though I don't down play its importance- is not required to convey Islam? I don't want to discuss with you deeply in this......because you are just overlooking the writings of the man and his citation from Quran and sunnah correctly. The prophet pbuh said, convey from me even a single verse.

    If you are muqallid, no one is forcing you to go outside madhab. Just mindful what madhabs got wrong is what we are saying!!.  Instead of dangling around Ijaza issue which is -adorable if someone gets- look out what Ulima has said about the issue at hand.

    I visited your Lakemba website couple of times to see your direction. I don't blame you but saw you are traped in madhab world alone. Imam Shafi" wrote a madhab when he was Sham. Then when he came Egypt to learn from Waki Ibnu Jarrah, he changed many rules/edicts he adopted happily when was sham. In his life he has two madhabs. Because, the proof of Waki was stronger than what he said in first madhab. Before that, all madhab founders has explicity said if Hadith is correct its my madhab. 

    Rami, you remind a me group of Salafi defeatist who said during first gulf war you have to ask every question regarding personal/community/internalitional only three Sheikhs: Albani, Bin Baz and Uthaimen. Otherwise, you are committing bida etc. They altered the whole ummah mind and other reputable scholars. Allah said in Quran, "and we have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember; then, is there anyone who will remember". Qamar:17

    Don't get me wrong I'm not saying you don't need a sheikh or alim. I'm saying Quran is not dhalasim and alqaz.....magic words that only small group of people understand. If someone speaks Arabic and know Nahwa, Sarf, balaqha, asbabul nuzul, mutlaquhu etc and got someone help him from any Islamic sheikh without giving ijaza its persmissible. My friend has sat down with couple of sheikhs for seven years for learning tafsir and ummahatu sitah without getting Ijaza. He teaches Tafsir/Hadith/Usul fiqh and master his subjects. Yusuf Qardawi and these Ikhwan Sheikhs has no izaja at all. At least to my knowledge. The best one is graduate from Azhar only. They fill the air with fatwa all the time. Even your Taj in Lakemba, who issued some strange fatwas in Australia, has no ijaza. He carry the title of Mufti Australia!! No one said you can't do that until we know your ijaza or who taught you. People need prove even if someone wear the Azhari Turbans.

    As long as they cite correctly from Quran and sunnah and they have extensive reading and knowledge of one or two three or all four madhahibs their fatwa count.

    Muhamad Ibnu Wahab was only mujadid. He never came up anything new. He was hanbali madhab though he was not strict muqallid. He focued on towhid and fought hard to show the true towhid that Othman's and Arabs neglected. The condemnation of some traditionalist didn't count that much. Their premises was based on hearsay and envy only. For instance, Dahlan's who spear headed the smear campaign couldn't live up the challenges of Sheikh's writings.

    When Islamic movements began in Islamic world and demand rule of sharia, Sh. Ali Abdirizak come out from Azhar shadow, claiming strange stuff. Many traditionalist went against muslim brotherhood in their early days even though they were muqallideen's.

    When Ansaru sunnah was founded before Ikhwan's, traditionalist walk on their heads. Both groups were condemned and lynched by traditionalist in various ways.

    So please discuss the writings of the man, not topics he didn't ever bother that much. Get his kitabul towhid  for instance and see what mistakes he make in light of Quran and correct hadith. If you get something on it, then people can discuss.....but this sweep claims don't help anyone.  

     

    Abu Mujahid



    -------------
    Islam need true muslims


    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 24 June 2007 at 4:31am
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    Ijaza -though I don't down play its importance- is not required to convey Islam? I don't want to discuss with you deeply in this......because you are just overlooking the writings of the man and his citation from Quran and sunnah correctly.

    Literally you have just said you do not require Qualifications to teach an Islamic Science, When you go to university to learn Physics or Engineering are you telling me you wont care if the person teaching you is not qualified?

    Any educated person understands the value of Qualifications and the importance of Highly trained teachers.

    I think you are confusing the simple subjects like tawheed and fiqh rulings with the much more complicated aspects of our deen becouse what you are claiming is nothing short of laughable.

    If you dont put importance in islamic scholarship then you dont value your deen period. would you accept people like salaman rashdi as your shaykh?

    as long as his quotes are correct.....who cares how explains what something means, right?

    The prophet pbuh said, convey from me even a single verse.

    The prophet
    [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] can explain what he himself meant but how many people can explain a hadith or verse in the same way the prophet intended it some 1400 years after his death, this is much more difficult. I would not follow a man who simply knows how to speak this is the sign of jahaliyah that people dont care where there deen is coming from or who is teaching it to them.

    Just mindful what madhabs got wrong is what we are saying!!

    .  Instead of dangling around Ijaza issue which is -adorable if someone gets- look out what Ulima has said about the issue at hand.

    When a person is ignorant of something and has not bothered to study it but then decides to comment on it [and lecture others who are familiar with it] he comes up with ignorant arguments like this. Lets break down what you have just said, ""the shaykhs i follow have no Qualifications or education in the higher aspects of our deen but that is ok becouse they are not forcing you to leave the madhhabs but just to be mindful of what my uneducated, unqualified shaykhs have discovered are wrong teachings of the madhhabs.""

    If they are not Qualified at the basic level of islam then how on earth can they talk about the higher much more difficult aspects of our deen and not only comment but correct those who are leading figures in there respective fields. its like a child trying to correct Steven Hawkins in Quantum physics and then expecting others to take them seriously.

    I visited your Lakemba website couple of times to see your direction.


    What lakemba website? i dont have a site.

    I don't blame you but saw you are traped in madhab world alone.

    If your not taking your religion from any one of the madhhabs then you are taking it from shaytan. "madhhab world" is that like some new catch phrase you came up with to reassure yourself that "they" or the "others" are wrong.

    Imam Shafi" wrote a madhab when he was Sham. Then when he came Egypt to learn from Waki Ibnu Jarrah, he changed many rules/edicts he adopted happily when was sham. In his life he has two madhabs.

    Imam Shafii developed Usul al Fiqh, imam Abu hanifah [if my memory is correct] developed Qawaid al Fiqh which where then adopted unanimously without exception by all the madhhabs and the entire muslim world. To the uneducated person like your self the difference between one madhhab and the other is just that one madhhab has this ruling on this matter and the other has that ruling, its all simple, dumb, easy, and black and white to you.

    Imam Shafii didnt have two madhhabs stop making things up, all you have done is quoted events in a general manner and invented your own explanation for what they mean or what there significance was.

    Because, the proof of Waki was stronger than what he said in first madhab.

    This clearly illustrates that all you think a madhhab is, is just the outward fiqh rulling and not the method of how they arrived at these fiqh rullings.

    Before that, all madhab founders has explicity said if Hadith is correct its my madhab.


    I put it to you that the insects that where with them when they said that had more of an idea of what they meant by it than you do now some 1400 years later.

    Rami, you remind a me group of Salafi defeatist who said during first gulf war you have to ask every question regarding personal/community/internalitional& amp; nbsp;only three Sheikhs: Albani, Bin Baz and Uthaimen. Otherwise, you are committing bida etc. They altered the whole ummah mind and other reputable scholars. Allah said in Quran, "and we have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember; then, is there anyone who will remember". Qamar:17

    You remind me of the jahaliyah arabs in the prophets time who said to him "fear allah oh muhammad", asserting themselfs above the prophet who replied "if i dont fear Allah then who will".

    I'm saying Quran is not dhalasim and alqaz.....magic words that only small group of people understand. If someone speaks Arabic and know Nahwa, Sarf, balaqha, asbabul nuzul, mutlaquhu etc and got someone help him from any Islamic sheikh without giving ijaza its persmissible.

    When a person doesnt have something he belittles what others have and makes himself sound like he is on there level. Only uneducated people believe you dont need education similarly only unqualified people say you dont need to be qualified to teach. Only the salafi sect says things like this and no one else that is becouse none of them are suitably educated to teach orthodox islam so they come up with their own meanings for certain verses and ahadith and say things like its ok if he quotes correctly and it doesnt matter if he changed the meaning.

    My friend has sat down with couple of sheikhs for seven years for learning tafsir and ummahatu sitah without getting Ijaza. He teaches Tafsir/Hadith/Usul fiqh and master his subjects.

    which shaykhs did he sit with, what would his shaykhs say of him if they found out he was teaching without them giving him permission to teach, what guaranty is there that what he is teaching is correct and free from mistakes, only a similarly educated person can see what mistakes he is making so i doubt you are able to your probably blindly following what he says without knowing if it is right or wrong.

    Quran; "do you think, dont you percieve"

    Yusuf Qardawi and these Ikhwan Sheikhs has no izaja at all. At least to my knowledge. The best one is graduate from Azhar only. They fill the air with fatwa all the time. Even your Taj in Lakemba, who issued some strange fatwas in Australia, has no ijaza. He carry the title of Mufti Australia!! No one said you can't do that until we know your ijaza or who taught you. People need prove even if someone wear the Azhari Turbans.

    I have never in my life taken a ruling from any of these people nor would i recommend anyone else to.

    ""
    the point of traditional education is its methodology, which centers on the student-teacher relationship and close contact between the two, and makes the student an "inheritor" of a scholarly methodology and way. Its basis is transmission, continuity, and reverence. Following the footsteps of one's teachers is virtue. Change for its own sake is blameworthy. One starts with small texts in the key Islamic subjects, which must be mastered (and often memorized). Then, one builds on these, step-by-step, with progressively larger and more sophisticated texts. The goal is mastery of the knowledge, and to become an inheritor of the understanding, wisdom, and way of one's teachers and predecessors. The point of the knowledge is inherently practical: one's own practice, and serving the real-life needs of the community."" Shaykh  Faraz Rabbani.

    As long as they cite correctly from Quran and sunnah and they have extensive reading and knowledge of one or two three or all four madhahibs their fatwa count

    only to those who follow a sect and ignorant of real islam believe this. Ijazah from a shaykh who learnt from a shaykh who learnt from a shaykh who intrun learnt from another shaykh going all the way back to a shaykh [imam abu hanifah] who learnt from a tabii or sahaba who learnt from the prophet himself [ie an isnad] is how this deen WAS preserved and how Allah fulfilled his propmise in the Quran,

    Allah Most High says:

    �We have without doubt, sent down the Message; and we will assuredly guard it�. (Surah al-Hijr, V.9)

    Those with out Ijazzah or isnad are following something new becouse it is only the knowledge from these sources that can guaranty what we have has came from the earlier generations.

    Otherwise it has no source!

    Muhamad Ibnu Wahab was only mujadid. He never came up anything new.

    That is a lie, the word mujadid means to renew something old. If he was not renweing traditional islam then he was inventing something new. he did not know islam more than any one of the four Imams, dont make his rank higher than his followers claim it to be.

    He was hanbali madhab though he was not strict muqallid.

    which basically contradicts you earlier statement, if he was not muqalid of a madhhab then he was inventing something not in the madhhab.

    He focued on towhid and fought hard to show the true towhid that Othman's and Arabs neglected. The condemnation of some traditionalist didn't count that much. Their premises was based on hearsay and envy only. For instance, Dahlan's who spear headed the smear campaign couldn't live up the challenges of Sheikh's writings.

    it didnt count to your sect but it counted to the remainder of the muslim Ummah who where against this group. I dont know what standard of scholarship you adhere to but his writtings where simple and riddled with mistakes, many shaykhs have written refutations against them so dont bother trying to overpraise him.

    So please discuss the writings of the man, not topics he didn't ever bother that much. Get his kitabul towhid  for instance and see what mistakes he make in light of Quran and correct hadith. If you get something on it, then people can discuss.....but this sweep claims don't help anyone.

    The topic is the various groups not muhammad ibn abdul wahhab so i am well within the scope of the discussion.


    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 24 June 2007 at 4:39am
    Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

    Is Isnad (chain of transmission) a requirement for anyone who claims to be a scholar? 
    Answered by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari

    I have read one of your recent articles and I wanted to know what is the legal requirement for someone to be considered a knowledgeable scholar whom we can take knowledge from. Is Isnad one of the requirements and is there any evidence for this deduced from the sources? Also, I have noticed that Isnad is not usually mentioned by the scholars as a prerequisite for someone to be considered a Mujtahid. Can one therefore become a Mujtahid Mutlaq without Isnad - i.e. self taught?

    In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

    There are two aspects to your question. The first is regarding the importance of the chain of transmission (Isnad/Sanad) in relating Islamic knowledge, and the second concerns the status of learning from a qualified teacher. I will attempt to shed some light, Insha Allah, on both of these topics in the light of the Qur�an, Sunna and the statements of classical scholars.

    Isnad (chain of transmission)

    Allah Almighty has honoured the Ummah of the best of creation, our master Muhammad (Allah bless him & give him peace) with many special characteristics that were not given to any other nation before.

    From among these favours is the unrivalled and unique feature of Isnad in relating the various sciences of Islamic knowledge. Isnad was regarded by the early Muslims (salaf) as the first and primary condition in relating any aspect of Shariah even if it was merely relating one word.

    With this, Allah Most High fulfilled his promise of preserving the Deen which includes the book of Allah, Sunna of the beloved of Allah and the various Islamic sciences that are indispensable in understanding the former two.

    Allah Most High says:

    �We have without doubt, sent down the Message; and we will assuredly guard it�. (Surah al-Hijr, V.9)

    The message here refers to the book of Allah and also the Sunna of his blessed Messenger (Allah bless him & give him peace), for whatever the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) says is from Allah Almighty, for Allah Most High says:

    �Nor does he (the Messenger of Allah) say (aught) of (his own) desire. It is no less than revelation (wahi) sent down to him�. (al-Najm, V. 3-4).

    The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) explained both verbally and practically the contents of the book of Allah. The Qur�an is quite ambiguous and limited in stating the laws of Shariah, and the Messenger of Allah�s (Allah bless him & give him peace) duty was to explain these injunctions.

    Allah Most High says to his Messenger (Allah bless him & give him peace):

    �And We have sent down unto you the Message (Qur�an); that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them�. (al-Nahl, V. 44).

    So the promise of preserving the Deen is not restricted to the Qur�an, rather it encompasses the Sunna and also the Companion�s (Allah be pleased with them all) understanding of the Sunna and the understanding of those who took from them.

    Isnad is a unique feature of the Messenger of Allah�s (Allah bless him & give him peace) Ummah. No other nation, religion or community can claim or boast to have such rigorous analysis of the various aspects of their faith.

    Early Muslim scholars examined and analysed each and every statement that came to them, whether it was the statement of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), his companions (Allah be pleased with them all) or anyone else. They studied the life and character of those who were part of the transmitting chain (isnad) in the strictest way possible.

    Thus, the Ummah witnessed an amazing introduction of the �science of studying the reporters of Hadith� (rijal al-Hadith) which was unprecedented and is unrivalled till today. The recording of the names, dates of birth, dates of demise, qualities and characteristics of thousands and thousands of people is something that only Muslims possess.

    Books such as, Tahzib al-Kamal of al-Mizzi, Tahzib al-Tahzib of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Mizan al-I�tidal of Dhahabi and Lisan al-Mizan of Ibn Hajar are just some examples of this amazing phenomenon. There are also books that are dedicated to preserving the biographies of the Sahaba, such as Tabqat of Ibn Sa�d, al-Isti�ab of Ibn Abd al-Barr, Usd al-Ghaba of Ibn al-Athir and al-Isaba of Ibn Hajar, in which the biographies of approximately ten thousand companions (Allah be pleased with them all) have been covered.

    Imam Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak (Allah be pleased with him) said:

    �Isnad is part of religion (deen), and if it was not for Isnad, one would have said whatever one desired. When it is said (to the one who speaks without an Isnad): �Who informed you? He remains silent and bewildered�. (Introduction to Sahih Muslim, 1/87, al-Jami� li akhlaq al-rawi wa adab al-sami� and others).

    He (Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak) also stated:

    �The one who seeks matters of his deen without an Isnad is similar to the one who climbs to the roof without a ladder�.

    Sufyan al-Thawri (Allah have mercy on him) states:

    �Isnad is the weapon of a believer. When one does not possess a weapon, then with what will he combat?�

    Sayyiduna Imam Shafi�i (Allah have mercy on him) says:

    �The example of the one who seeks Hadith without an Isnad is of a person who gathers wood in the night. He carries a bundle of sticks not knowing that there is a snake in it�. (Meaning, he gathers and collects all types of narrations, the genuine and spurious, m).

    Baqiyya ibn al-Walid (Allah have mercy on him) once related to Hammad ibn Zaid (Allah have mercy on him) certain narrations that were void of Isnad. So Hammad said: �If only they had wings�.

    Imam Ibn Taymiyya (Allah have mercy on him) states:

    �Isnad is a unique feature of this Ummah and Islam. Then from among the Muslims, it is a specialty of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama�ah�.

    (The above excerpts recorded by Shaykh Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda (Allah have mercy on him) in his excellent work �al-Isnad min al-Din� P. 18-20).

    These and many other similar statements of the predecessors imply that the early Muslims held Isnad to be indispensable in order to acquire Knowledge. So much so, that in order to relate even one word in their books, they would mention a whole chain of transmission that covered three or four lines.

    Isnad was not only mentioned in order to narrate Prophetic traditions, rather, it was related for every form of knowledge, such as the exegesis of the Qur�an, stories of the pious and worshippers, incidents of history, etc.

    After the Prophetic traditions were gathered in the great compilations, such as Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and others, and the compilations in various other sciences, it was not deemed necessary to relate every statement with a chain of transmission going back to its original authority. Rather, it was sufficient to have an Isnad or Sanad going back to the author. The Isnad of the author going back to the original authority would be mentioned in his book.

    Till this very day, we have scholars from around the globe relating Prophetic traditions and other branches of Islamic knowledge with a chain that reaches all the way to the authors of the books.

    The six major books of Hadith are generally taught with a Isnad that goes back to their authors, and from them to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). Many scholars are seen to travel and make distant journeys in order to acquire Ijazah and a higher form of Isnad.

    In terms of Isnad with regards to prophetic traditions, the scholars of the Indo/Pak are (perhaps) at the forefront. The science of Hadith is given special attention and almost every student that studies in the various Islamic institutions (Dar al-Ulooms) is blessed with a Isnad in each of the major books of Hadith. Even major Arab scholars are seen to travel to the Indo/Pak in order to acquire Ijazah and Isnad from the great Hadith masters.

    In terms of other branches of knowledge, such as the science of Tajweed, Fiqh, etc, we see the Arab scholars at the forefront in relating and teaching the various books with Isnad. Major scholars in Syria and elsewhere have a chain in the recitation and memorization of the Qur�an that goes back to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) via the angel Jibril to Allah Almighty Himself.

    The major books in Hanafi Fiqh (and other madhhabs) are taught with a Isnad/Sanad going back to their authors and to Sayyiduna Imam Abu Hanifa (Allah be pleased with him) himself. Books in other sciences are also taught and related in a similar manner.

    In conclusion, Isnad (or Sanad) is a unique feature with which our Ummah has been blessed. It has always been regarded to be indispensable in teaching and seeking knowledge. Scholars mention, that even today, one should acquire knowledge from a scholar who has a Isnad or at least a teacher who he studied with. Having a complete chain of transmission is not a pre-requisite for teaching. However, what is necessary, is that the one from whom one takes his/her knowledge, is amongst those who studied by other shuyukh. This is discussed further in the following section.

    Learning from a qualified teacher

    Allah Almighty created man different from animals. Animals are not in need of a teacher or trainer in a way man is. We see for example that, when a fish is born, it automatically begins to swim without being taught how to do so. If a man was to take the example of the fish and throw his new-born baby into the river thinking that he will swim, then he is without doubt insane, for a fish is not in need of an instructor who instructs it how to swim, while a man needs a tutor to teach him to swim.

    Take the example of the new-born chick; the moment it comes out of the egg, it begins to nibble at food without being taught. However, a human baby will not know how to eat unless it is taught practically how to consume the various types of foods.

    It is the Sunna of Allah Almighty that he fashions human beings in such a way that they are in need of practical instruction from a teacher in order to learn any science, technique or craft. From the moment one is born, one is in need of practical teaching and guidance in all aspects of life.

    There is almost consensus on the fact that it is virtually impossible for one to master any science or art in the world without the guidance and tutelage of a qualified teacher under whom one practically learns the fundamentals of that science. It is not possible to gain expertise in any field unless one submits himself to the guidance of a teacher.

    Take for example the science of medicine. If one was to think that I will read and study the books on medical science in the comfort of my home, thus become a medical practitioner, then he will be considered to be insane by almost everybody. If this individual was to perform surgery on a patient or begins to treat people, then his patients will not end up anywhere other than the grave yard!

    Even if this individual is very talented and knowledgeable, the guidance of a tutor is indispensable. Suppose this individual is able to understand the books of medical science and He masters the language in which the books are written, he will still not be permitted to work as a physician or surgeon unless he studies under the guidance of a qualified person in the field of medical science. No government will ever allow this individual to take up the medical profession due to the fact that he did not pursue the method necessary in order to take up this profession

    It is the same with all the other sciences of the world in that the guidance of a teacher is necessary. No body would allow you to practice law until you don�t attend a law school and learn form a qualified barrister. Let alone the major sciences, even the simple art of cooking is not achieved by merely reading a book. There are several books published explaining the methods of cooking different types of food. If an individual who had never cooked in his lifetime cooked by merely reading the procedure of cooking mentioned in the book, then you can imagined what the outcome would be!

    So, it is the nature of man that he can not acquire knowledge merely from books unless he has a teacher and mentor to train and guide him. He needs to stay in the company of a qualified teacher who will help and assist him on every step and save him from the errors that may be committed. This applies to every science, art and craft, and sacred and religious knowledge is of no exception. It is not possible for one to acquire sacred knowledge unless one is trained by a qualified teacher and mentor.

    This is the secret behind a book or scripture never being revealed except Allah Almighty sent a Messenger to explain its contents. There are many examples where a Prophet was sent by Allah Almighty and no book or scripture was revealed unto him, but there is not a single case where a book was revealed without a Prophet carrying it.

    The simple reason behind this is that if a book was sent on its own, man would not possess the capability to understand it without the teaching of a Prophet. If Allah wished He could have sent the book on its own. Every individual could have found a book when he woke up in the morning, and a voice from the heavens would have declared: �Obey what is in this book�. But Allah, the Creator of mankind, who is fully aware of the human instincts, chose to send the book with a teacher who would explain the contents of the book, both practically and verbally.

    Allah Most High explains this concept in the following verse:

    �Allah did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves, reciting upon them verses (of the book), sanctifying them, and teaching them the scripture (book) and wisdom, while before that, they had been in manifest error�. (Ali Imran, V. 164).

    Similarly, Allah Almighty says:

    �And We have sent down unto you (Messenger) the message, that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them�. (al-Nahl, V. 44).

    Therefore, it is the Sunna of Allah Almighty that He has kept two means for the guidance of mankind. One is through the medium of His books (kitab Allah) and the other is the Prophets and their successors. Hence, both the book of Allah (kitab Allah) and men of Allah (rijal Allah) are necessary for one�s guidance. Sufficing with one of the two will surely lead to deviation.

    At this point, it would be useful to quote the great scholar of Usul, Imam al-Shatbi (Allah have mercy on him). The following is the crux of what he stated on this issue in his renowned treatise al-Muwafaqat:

    �The most beneficial and effectual way of gaining knowledge is by learning it from those who are masters in their field. It is necessary to have a teacher in aspects of knowledge that need explanation and interpretation. It is not impossible for one to gain knowledge without a teacher; however, normally it is observed that a teacher is of utmost importance. This is, somewhat, agreed upon by the scholars.

    Scholars said: �Sacred knowledge was in the hearts of men, then it moved into the books and the keys to these books are in the hands of scholars (rijal)�. This implies the necessity of acquiring knowledge from the people who master it.

    The basis for this is the Hadith which states: �Verily Allah does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but He takes away knowledge by taking away the scholars, so that when He leaves no learned person, people appoint ignorant as their leaders. They are asked to deliver religious verdicts and they deliver them without knowledge, they go astray, and lead others astray�. (Sahih al-Bukhari & Sahih Muslim). If this is so, then the scholars are without doubt the keys for this knowledge�. (al-Muwafaqat).

    Imam al-Shatibi (Allah have mercy on him) further mentions three signs and characteristics of a expert qualified teacher:

    1) He practices what he teaches,

    2) He himself has been trained by a qualified scholar,

    3) His students follow and pursue in his footsteps, for if his students generally tend to not follow him, then this is a sign that there is something inherently wrong with him. (ibid)

    There are many benefits and wisdoms in learning from a teacher. Sound understanding of the texts, its correct interpretation, being saved from making errors in understanding the texts (for each science has its own special terminologies), getting questions and queries that may arise answered, practical application of the knowledge and obtaining the Baraka and light of guidance from that special teacher-student relationship are just a few to mention.

    In conclusion, it is necessary for one that he learns his knowledge from a scholar of knowledge, piety and wisdom, and who himself has been taught and trained by a similar scholar. That does not mean it is incumbent for an individual that each time he picks up a book, he must find a scholar to teach him, rather one needs to study the fundamentals of each science with those qualified, thus become acquainted with the different terminologies, terms and expressions used. Thereafter one may study a book on his own with always referring to senior scholars whenever something is unclear.

    And Allah knows best

    Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari
    Darul Iftaa, Leicester, UK
    http://www.daruliftaa.org/" id="" name="" target=" - www.daruliftaa.org  


    http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4980&CATE=22 - - How Does One Become A Mufti?




    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: minuteman
    Date Posted: 29 June 2007 at 7:17pm

     

     Just in case someone did not know, there are many Ahle Hadith (Wahhabi) schools of thought and many mosques in Indian sub continent. Their beliefs are different from those of Ahle Sunnah. The Ahle Sunnah are called Muqallid and they follow one of the Imams of Fiqah, Imam Abuhanifah or Malik or Shafi or hanbal.r.a.

    The Ahle Hadith do not follow any Imam. They say that their Imam is Muhammad s.a.w.s. They do not believe in Taqleed. They try to derive their theories from the Ahadith. So, it appears that each of them is a Mujtahid. In order to defend themselves, they combine the Hadith (sayings) with the Sunnah (practice of the prophet). Let them admit that practice was from the very first day, even though done by the prophet himself, it was watched and picked up and followed by the Ummah without any Hadith or book of hadith. As soon as they admit that practice is different to sayings, they will fail at once. This practice was carried forward by observation.

     I don't deny the importance of Hadith at all. But I keep it at the third place i.e. after the Quran and the Sunnah. I feel that Hadith is very useful for guidance if not against the Quran and Sunnah. Hadith is to serve the Quran and Sunnah. Hadith is not to take charge of the Quran and Sunnah.

     There are people (Muslims) who say that Hadith is more important than Quran. That Quran cannot be understood without Hadith. If a verse of the Quran is in accordance with their Hadith then they will accept it. Otherwise they will obey the meaning of the Hadith and will not obey the verse of Quran. That attitude, I feel, is not right.

     Discussion is going on the forum but no result is coming out. There are all types of people in the Muslims... There are those who doubt the Hadith and do not admit its importance. They are called Quranis. But there are some opposite type who give too much importance to hadith.

     I remember one friend who argued that dead people do come backto this world. I told him that it was against the teachings of the Quran. But he said that it was written in a Hadith and according to Hadith, dead people do come back alive in this world again. I could not continue the discussion with him any more.

     Also I may inform you that every one was praying very well in a single and simple way until some people opened the books of Hadith and saw some faults with the prayers too. Now every sect has its own Hadith and do not co-operate with the others. It is the Ahadith which have put differences in the minds of the Muslims.

     On top of thattoo much lecture about the common Muslims being Mushriks, that put the Ummah on hellfire. Please think about it.

     



    -------------
    If any one is bad some one must suffer


    Posted By: rami
    Date Posted: 01 July 2007 at 3:54am
    Bismillahir rahmanir raheem

    assalamu alaikum

    Just in case someone did not know, there are many Ahle Hadith (Wahhabi) schools of thought and many mosques in Indian sub continent.

    br a madhhab or school of thought is not a school consisting of teachers and students. An Islamic madhhab is a methodology or way of deriving rulings from the Quran and sunnah that other shaykhs who follow the same madhhabe can copy and emulate even though they live in different lands. This safeguards the sunnah from coruption and misinterpretation by giving the local scholar a set of rules , guidlines, or a method to follow to extract a specific ruling aplicapble to a current situation from general or unrelated  [by time] events in the past.

    In this way two scholars living in diferent patrs of the world can come up with the same rulings to the same situation thus ensuring consitanacy in the law.

    salafi's do not have and have never formed a madhhab, lately they are claiming to follow the hanbali madhhab but no scholar i have spoken to says they are doing this correctly and have twisted its teachings towards there beliefs rather than the other way around, when in reality not one scholar among them is qualified enough to even be a majtahid in the hanabli madhhab let alone qualify to be an absolute mujtahid and start a new madhhab.

    This is why they belitle the rank of mujtahid and the need for ijazah, since none of them can attain such things in order to legitimize there movement they would rather do away with the 1400 years of scholarship and start over. There is nothing wrong with the madhhabs there has never been anything wrong the reason why things are the way they are is becouse of politics not islamic law which has always been seperate from politics [not in the western sence ie church and state]. 

    -------------------------

    Main Entry: meth�od�ol�o�gy javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?method13.wav=methodology'">
    Pronunciation: "me-th&-'d�-l&-jE
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
    Etymology: New Latin methodologia, from Latin methodus + -logia -logy
    1 : a body of http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/methods - methods , rules, and postulates employed by a discipline : a particular procedure or set of procedures
    2 : the analysis of the principles or procedures of inquiry in a particular field

    --------------------------

    Main Entry: de�rive javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?derive01.wav=derive'">
    Pronunciation: di-'rIv, dE-
    Function: verb
    Inflected Form(s): de�rived; de�riv�ing
    Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French deriver, from Latin derivare, literally, to draw off (water), from de- + rivus stream -- more at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/run - - INFER , http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/deduce - - BRING
    4 : to trace the http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/derivation - derivation of


    -------------
    Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


    Posted By: Syed Nasruallah
    Date Posted: 10 July 2008 at 6:07am
    The General Pattern; of Islamic Thought in the Qur�an

    (Some Chapters from the book)

    WALAYAH
     

    The new thought and vision which is proposed by God through the Prophet promises a new life. This can be achieved only if that thought can establish its identity in the mind and action of an integrated community.

    For such a community, which forms a solid and impenetrable front strongly tries not to efface when confronting the opposite thoughts and actions. This purpose requires the rejection of any dependence-if necessary or possible even breaking off the ties of ordinary relationship-which enfeebles the front of the believers. In the language of the Our'an this intellectual and practical stand, from the point of view of thought and action is called 'walayah'.

    Again when this integrated group, which is the cornerstone of Islamic society and the principal basis of Islamic community, changes to a strong nation and establishes an Islamic society, it needs to observe the principle of 'walayah' in order to preserve its unity and integrity and avoid the penetration of its enemies.

    The Our'an points out these ideas in several verses as follows:

    "0 believers, take not My enemy and your enemy for friends, offering them love, though they have disbelieved in the truth that has come to you, expelling the Messenger and you because you believe in God your Lord. If you go forth to struggle in My way and seek My good pleasure, secretly loving them, yet I know very well what you conceal and what you publish; and whosoever of you does that, has gone astray from the right way. If they come on you, they will be enemies to you, and stretch against you their hands and their tongues, to do you evil, and they wish that you might disbelieve. Neither your bloodkindred nor your children shall profit you upon the Day of Resurrection; He shall distinguish between you. And God sees the things you do. You have had a good example in Abraham, and those with him, when they said to their people, 'We quit you and what you worship, apart from God. We disbelieve in you, and between us and you enmity has shown itself, and hatred for ever, until you believe in God alone. '(60:1- 4 )

    The Relations of Islamic Community

    After the establishment of the great 'community', the integrated group which is the origin of the Islamic Nation, expands to the extent of all the true believers of the world. In such a community the principle of 'walayah' influences its civil and foreign affairs.

    In civil affairs, all the units and wings of the nation are obliged to carefully prepare all the forces in one way and for one aim and strongly avoid dispersion and disorder which cause the futility of some parts of these forces '

    In foreign affairs, they should abstain from any relationship and friendship which endangers independence and authority of the world of Islam.

    It is quite obvious that taking care of the two aspects of , walayah'(integrity and co-ordination in internal affairs, freedom and non-alliance in foreign affairs) requires a central and superior power which is, in fact, the crystallization of all the constructive elements of Islam (Imam"-the Islamic governor). I also requires a deep and strong relationship between all the members of the Islamic community and the Islamic governor (Imam). Here another aspect of walayah' is manifested and that is the Imam's walayah and the leadership of the Islamic world.

    In the following verses the Our'an has skillfully mentioned these subtle facts.

    "O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. God guides not the people of the evil-doer. Yet thou seest those in whose hearts is sickness lying with one another to come to them, saying, 'We fear lest a turn of fortune should smite us.' But it may be that God will bring the victory, or some commandment from Him, and then they will find themselves, for that they kept secret within them, remorseful, and the believers will say, 'What, are these the ones who swore by God most earnest oaths that they were with you? Their works have failed; now they are losers. '0 believers, whosoever of you turns from his religion, God will assuredly bring a people He loves, and who Love Him, humble towards the believers, disdainful towards the unbelievers, men who struggle in the path of God, not fearing the reproach of any reproacher. That is God's bounty; He bestows His favors upon whomever He wills And God is All-embracing, Allknowing. Only your friend is God, and His Messenger. And the believers who perform the prayer and pay the poor-due (zakat), while bowing down (in prayer). 5:51-55

    O believers, fear God as He should be feared, and do not die unless you are Muslims. And you hold fast to God's bond, together, and do not scatter... " (3:102-103)

     

    The Paradise of Walayah

    Only that society can enjoy having 'walayah' in which the 'wali' is ascertained, the one who is the authority and the inspirer of all the liveliness and activities of life. And a person can enjoy having 'walayah' if he has a true understanding of the wali and if he is in a constant struggle to connect himself with him, who is the manifestation of God's walayah. So far as the wali is God's successor and the manifestation of the Divine authority and justice on the earth, he uses all the possibilities and talents, which are disposed in men's nature for their evolution and exaltation and for their own benefits. Furthermore, he would not let any of these talents be used against humanity or be lost, for if it happened, it would be a great damage. He firmly fixes justice and security, in the community, which are necessary for man's flourishing as are rich soil, water and good weather necessary for the growth of a plant. He will stop the appearance of cruelty in any form (polytheism, doing injustice to others or oneself). He leads all towards God's servitude. He ripens man's knowledge and vision and leads him to endeavor and initiation. His principal obligations are: keeping up prayer for God's remembrance (salat), just distribution of wealth (zakat)"' , spreading of goodness (al-'amr bil-ma'ruf). and abolishment of wickedness (al-nahy'an al-munkar)". In short, he helps man to approach the ultimate aim of creation.

    Thinking about the following verses will show us the vast horizons of walayah's paradise, and will once more emphasize the fact that none of the religious commandments is as important as walayah.

    "Cursed were the unbelievers of the Children of Israel by the tongue of David, and Jesus, Mary's son; that, for their rebelling and their transgression. They forbade not one another any dishonor that they committed; surely evil were the things they did. Thou seest many of them making unbelievers their friends. Evil is that they have forwarded to their account, that God is angered against them, and in the chastisement they shall dwell forever. Yet had they believed in God and the Prophet and what has been sent down to him, they would not have taken them as friends; but many of them are of evil conduct. (5:78-81)

    "0 believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Scripture before you and the unbelievers-who take your religion for a jest and sport-and fear God, if you are believers-and when you call to prayer, they take it for a jest and sport; that is because they are people who have no understanding. Say: 'People of the Scripture, do you blame us for any other cause than that we believe in God, and what has been sent down to us, and what was sent down before, and that most of you are evil-livers?' Say: 'Shall I tell you of a recompense with God, worse than that:' Whomsoever God has cursed, and with whom He is wroth, and made some of them apes and swine, and worshippers of idols-they are worse situated, and have gone further astray from the right way.' (5:57-60)

    About Walayah (1)

    The principle of walayah, discussed in the Qur'an comprehensively, can be considered from many points of view. Sometimes each of them can be regarded as a principle in itself in understanding Islam. If one thinks attentively about the following verses, some of these points of view can be observed.

    1. The wali of the Islamic society, that is the power which leads all the mental and practical activities of the society, is God or whomever God has assigned-either in -name or by signs-for walayah.

    "Your guardian wali is only God, and His Messenger, and the believers who perform the prayer and pay the Zakat while bowing down, " (5:-5-5)

    "God commands you to deliver trusts back to their owners; and when you judge between the people, that you judge with justice. Good is the admonition God gives you; God is All-hearing, All- seeing. 0 believers, obey God, and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. If you have a dispute on anything, refer it to God and the Messenger, if you believe in God and the Last Day; that is better. and fairer in the issue. (4:58-59)

    "Whosoever obeys the Messenger, thereby obeys God; and whosoever turns his back-We have not sent thee to be a watcher over them. "(4:80)

    "Hast thou not regarded those who assert that they believe in what has been sent down to thee, and what was sent down before thee, desiring to take their disputes to idols, yet they have been commanded to disbelieve in them? But Satan desires to lead them astray into far error. "(4:60)

    2. God's walayah and its acceptance by the believers has a mental foundation which has been taken into consideration in the Islamic world view and is a natural phenomenon.

    "And to Him belongs whatsoever inhabits the night and the day; and He is the Allhearing, the All-knowing, Say: 'Shall 1 take to myself as guardian other than God, the Originator of the heavens and of the earth, He Who feeds and is not fed'?' say: 'l have been commanded to be the first of them that surrender: "Be not thou of the idolaters...... (6:13-14)'

    About Walayah (2)

    Any walayah except the walayah of God and His viceroys is the walayah of taghut and Satan. The acceptance of Satan's walayah makes Satan dominant over all the constructive and creative forces of man which he will use in the way of his own lusts. As far as taghut does not consider any essentiality for anything except his own benefits and due to his lack of information about man's needs and his possibilities in Nature, his leadership for human community is the origin of damage and loss of man's valuable energies. The very lack of Information in the community under the dominance of  taghut's walayah deprives its people of the brightness of knowledge, humanity and God's life-giving rules, and confines them in the darkness of ignorance, lusts, selfishness and perverseness. The Holy Qur'an says:

    "When thou recites the Our'an, seek refuge in God from the accursed Satan; he has no authority over those who believe and trust in their Lord; his authority is over those who take him for their friend and ascribe associates to God. (16:98-100)

    ....brings them forth from the darkness into the light. And the unbelievers-their patrons are idols, that bring them forth from the light into the darkness; those are the inhabitants of the Fire, therein dwelling forever. "(2:257)

    About Walayah (3) (Hijrah)

    4. Taghut's and Satan's walayah in a community makes the true believer dependent on taghut's power in many different ways and encumbers him with its invisible net; his freedom is taken away and he is unconsciously let to the end which that system is doomed to. Such a system prevents the true believer from spending his power in the way of Islam.

    This inevitable reality proposes the phenomenon of "hijrah". Hijrah means escaping from taghut's bondage and getting to the free environs of Islam, where everything guides man to the divine aim, where the natural process of the society is leading towards exaltation, mental and material evolution, where goodness prevails and no signs of malignity can be seen,. that is, the Islamic community.

    Therefore, according to the principle of walayah, hijrah, is an essential and urgent obligation for the true believer. He is to transfer from the taghut's environs to the Islamic community and step into the environs of God's walayah.

    Thinking about the verses of "hijrah" in the Qur�an reveals many points about this subject.

    "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be.. (ensan89).

    "But whoso makes a breach with the Messenger after the guidance has become clear to him and follows a way other than the believers, We shall turn him over to what he himself has turned to and We shall roast him in Gehenna-an evil homecoming. God forgives not that aught should be with Him associated; less than that He forgives to whomsoever He wills. Whoso associates with God anything, has gone astray into far error. Instead of Him, they pray not except to female beings; they pray not except to a rebel Satan accursed by God. He said, 'Assuredly I will take unto myself a portion appointed of Thy servants, and I will lead them astray, and fill them with fancies, and I will command them and they will cut off the cattle's ears; I will command them and they will alter God's creation. ' Whoso takes Satan to him for a friend, instead of God, has surely suffered a manifest loss. He promises them and falls them with fancies but there is nothing Satan promises them except delusion. "(4:115-120)

    "God is the Guardian of the believers; He equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and kill them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves anyone of them as friend or helper (4:89)

    "Those who believe, and have emigrated and struggled with their possessions and themselves in the way of God, and those who have given refuge and help-those are friends one of another. And those who believe, but have not emigrated-you have no duty of friendship towards them till they emigrate; yet if they ask you for help, in religion's matter, it is your duty to help them, except against the people between whom and you there is a compact, and God sees the things you do. As for the unbelievers, they are friends one of another. Unless you do this there will be persecution in the land and great corruption. And those who believe, and have emigrated and struggled in the way of God and those who have given refuge and help those in truth are the believers. And theirs shall be forgiveness and generous provision.'(8:72-74)

    ,'And those the angels take (in death), while still they are wronging themselves the angels will ask, 'In what circumstances were you?' They will say, 'We were oppressed in the earth.' The angels will say, 'But was not God's earth wide, so that you might have emigrated in it?' For such men, their refuge shall be Gehenna-and evil homecoming except the men, women, and children who, being oppressed, can devise nothing and arc not guided to a way; haply them God will yet pardon for God is All-Pardoning, All-forgiving. Whoso emigrates in the way of God will find in the earth many refuges and plenty; whoso goes forth from his house an emigrant to God and His Messenger, and then death overtakes him, his reward is then incumbent on God; surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. (4:97-100)




    Print Page | Close Window

    Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
    Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net