IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - More Antics from Wahabi Clerics  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

More Antics from Wahabi Clerics
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Talib_Asadullah View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Male
Joined: 04 January 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 128 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Talib_Asadullah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: More Antics from Wahabi Clerics
    Posted: 08 January 2009 at 7:53am
Im familar with this fatawa.

But if I may, I have question.

Can anybody really define what a so called "Wahhabi" is?  Do any of you actually define this as a sect in Islam?  Why cant they just be Muslims? Or do you see them as people who hold beliefs that nullify their Islam?

From my brief and incomplete study of "wahhabism", Ive deduced that "wahhabism" was just a movement in the 17-18th century.  Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab(rahimullah) didnt introduce any innovation into the aqeedah of Ahl-us-Sunnah-wal-Jamaah.

Please show me if I am wrong.

Assalamu alaikum.
Al-Qur'an was-Sunnah
Back to Top
Andalus View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andalus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 January 2009 at 10:25am
Originally posted by Chrysalis Chrysalis wrote:

Originally posted by Andalus Andalus wrote:

 
 
Maliki fiqh, which does not consider dogs or their slaiva impure. (I personally follow Maliki fiqh), while Shaffi scholars have a strong argument that the dog, its fur and its saliva is impure, and Hanafi scholars have argued that the fur is pure but the saliva is impure, which the Hanbalis also follow.  
 
So to say that a dog is not impure. just the saliva is over simplfying the legal aspect you are delving into.
 
/
Quote
 
Thats all I was trying to bring to attention - for the benefit of our potential readers, particularly non-muslims - that Dogs in general are not considered unclean in Islam - hence detested. A common misconception, which I think muslims need to correct (like any other misconception). Sorry if u think its nitpicking or oversimplying. I agree that it is not exactly relevant to the topic. . . but I considered it worth mentioning here, since it was brought up in the article. Because it didnt make sense to me to create a seperate Thread specially to discuss Doggy Drool.
 
Like you mentioned, 3 out of the 4 schools of thought believe the Saliva is impure, while merely touching a dog (fur) is not considered impure.
 
 
[QUOTE] 
Would the Quran allow an 'unclean' animal to hunt, catch and bring FOOD to you???
 
 
Sure it would and that is a different matter.
 
If you could kindly explain what you mean. . .  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It is a different matter making it irrelevant. In other words it is a non sequitur (one does not follow from the other).
 
 


Edited by Andalus - 01 January 2009 at 10:27am
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/
Back to Top
Chrysalis View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2033 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chrysalis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 January 2009 at 8:49am
Originally posted by Andalus Andalus wrote:

 
 
Maliki fiqh, which does not consider dogs or their slaiva impure. (I personally follow Maliki fiqh), while Shaffi scholars have a strong argument that the dog, its fur and its saliva is impure, and Hanafi scholars have argued that the fur is pure but the saliva is impure, which the Hanbalis also follow.  
 
So to say that a dog is not impure. just the saliva is over simplfying the legal aspect you are delving into.
 
/
Quote
 
Thats all I was trying to bring to attention - for the benefit of our potential readers, particularly non-muslims - that Dogs in general are not considered unclean in Islam - hence detested. A common misconception, which I think muslims need to correct (like any other misconception). Sorry if u think its nitpicking or oversimplying. I agree that it is not exactly relevant to the topic. . . but I considered it worth mentioning here, since it was brought up in the article. Because it didnt make sense to me to create a seperate Thread specially to discuss Doggy Drool.
 
Like you mentioned, 3 out of the 4 schools of thought believe the Saliva is impure, while merely touching a dog (fur) is not considered impure.
 
 
[QUOTE] 
Would the Quran allow an 'unclean' animal to hunt, catch and bring FOOD to you???
 
 
Sure it would and that is a different matter.
 
If you could kindly explain what you mean. . .
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Chrysalis - 01 January 2009 at 8:56am
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."
Back to Top
Andalus View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andalus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 December 2008 at 10:46pm
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

Well, one article I read on why the Clerics wanted to ban pets was that young men were using them as ways of attracting women?  Wacko

These laws have gotten such that there is a subculture of rebellion forming.  The NY Times did an article on "dating" in Saudi Arabia and what lengths people go to in order to avoid the religious police and yet live normal lives.  (Okay, its what I would consider normal, admittedly, that might not be everyone's definition.)

One thing I've learned is that when you restrict freedoms to the point where people feel stifled they will rebel and when they do they will swing in the exact opposite direction.    For the sake of their children, they need to back off and teach instead of order.
 
We are on the same page!
Smile
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/
Back to Top
Andalus View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andalus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 December 2008 at 10:43pm
Originally posted by Chrysalis Chrysalis wrote:

Will just adderess the issue of : dog saliva bieng unclean, is the same as the dog bieng unclean . . .
 
I'm not splitting hairs, but yes, the distinction needs to made. Because unfort, a lot of muslims think that touching a dog renders them unclean, etc. There are countries, where muslims cite Islam as the reason why they are not allowed to work as dog-catchers (just an e.g)!! You dont even have to physically touch a dog to be a dog-handler!  
 
 
 
I will break the issue down further.
Careful handing out legal rulings, Maliki fiqh, which does not consider dogs or their slaiva impure (I personally follow Maliki fiqh), while Shaffi scholars have a strong argument that the dog, its fur and its saliva is impure, and Hanafi scholars have argued that the fur is pure but the saliva is impure, which the Hanbalis also follow. The Middle East is predominantly Shaffi and Hanbali, both of which consider the saliva to be impure, but even in the case of saliva impure but fur pure, it would be nearly impossible to control the situation so that wudu would not have to be frequently made. So I am back to my original statement, that trying to use a legal idea to split hairs is just nit picking. Even as a Maliki, going along with the legal repsect held between madhabs, I still make wudu after touching a dog, fur or saliva.
 
So to say that a dog is not impure. just the saliva is over simplfying the legal aspect you are delving into.
 
 
Quote  
 
 
Touching a dog/petting it doesnt not render one unclean . . .  however, if the saliva comes into contact with a utensil, or the body, that needs to be 'cleansed'.
 
 
 
 
Careful rendering Islamic legal rulings. You are oversimplfying as a way to split hairs.
 
 
[s. If the moisture from a dog (or dry dog hair) affects one�s person, clothes or place of prayer, one�s prayer would be invalid, until he purified them, see Reliance of the Traveller, e14.1(14), e14.7 and f4.0.]
 
This is directly from my book.
 
 
 
Quote
 
 
Would the Quran allow an 'unclean' animal to hunt, catch and bring FOOD to you???
 
 
Sure it would and that is a different matter.
 
 
Quote
 
 And true, about the hadith, which is why the majority of muslims, who keep dogs, keep them outside thier house, and not inside.
 
Yes, the article is not about the history of pet-ownership , nor about the cleanliness vs uncleanliness of Dogs, but the topic came up, and thus was discussed. Thats how threads work, thats why they are called 'threads'. It was a good opportunity to discuss a relevant subject.
 
Regards, Br
 
Actually, a thread works when the topic is coherent and not dragged down with obfuscations like jutristic details that have no regard to the topic of the article. Hence, it was "splitting hairs". When a thread becomes obfuscated, and hits minor points that do not have any real bearing on the subject, the thread looses its point.
 
Trying to wrangle with "it is not the dog just the saliva" added nothing to the topic nor did it prove anything wrong with the article.
 
If this breaks further into the legal matters of dogs and purity, I will move the topic into another section.
 
Finally, I ask you with sincerity to refrain from making rash statements with religous legal rulings without first looking them up.
 
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/
Back to Top
Angela View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 July 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2555 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angela Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 September 2008 at 4:06am
Well, one article I read on why the Clerics wanted to ban pets was that young men were using them as ways of attracting women?  Wacko

These laws have gotten such that there is a subculture of rebellion forming.  The NY Times did an article on "dating" in Saudi Arabia and what lengths people go to in order to avoid the religious police and yet live normal lives.  (Okay, its what I would consider normal, admittedly, that might not be everyone's definition.)

One thing I've learned is that when you restrict freedoms to the point where people feel stifled they will rebel and when they do they will swing in the exact opposite direction.    For the sake of their children, they need to back off and teach instead of order.
Back to Top
Chrysalis View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2033 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chrysalis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2008 at 8:22am
Will just adderess the issue of : dog saliva bieng unclean, is the same as the dog bieng unclean . . .
 
I'm not splitting hairs, but yes, the distinction needs to made. Because unfort, a lot of muslims think that touching a dog renders them unclean, etc. There are countries, where muslims cite Islam as the reason why they are not allowed to work as dog-catchers (just an e.g)!! You dont even have to physically touch a dog to be a dog-handler!  
 
Touching a dog/petting it doesnt not render one unclean . . .  however, if the saliva comes into contact with a utensil, or the body, that needs to be 'cleansed'.
Would the Quran allow an 'unclean' animal to hunt, catch and bring FOOD to you???
 
 And true, about the hadith, which is why the majority of muslims, who keep dogs, keep them outside thier house, and not inside.
 
Yes, the article is not about the history of pet-ownership , nor about the cleanliness vs uncleanliness of Dogs, but the topic came up, and thus was discussed. Thats how threads work, thats why they are called 'threads'. It was a good opportunity to discuss a relevant subject.
 
Regards, Br
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."
Back to Top
Andalus View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andalus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2008 at 8:26pm
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

I think you would more want to look at historical context versus cultural.

Go back to pre-600AD and "pet ownership" was not in the same mentality.

We have pets for pleasure and joy.  But, domestic animals of any kind had their Function.    In Egypt, the Cat was worshiped because it killed the rats that ate the wheat, brought disease and destroyed property.  They also killed snakes.  That's why almost every Egyptian family had a cat.  (Ancient Egypt is one of my former obsessions.)

Secondly, for the shepherd, the dog was a valuable ally.  They kept away the wolves and jackals and help to herd the goats, sheep, cattle.

The Horse was invaluable transportation, same with the camel.  The Cow brought meat and milk.  People usually didn't have fish and birds as pets, except hunting falcons etc.

In todays society, so much of our life has moved from our early agricultural existence.  Wolves are no longer a threat to our sheep and goats.  Rats are controlled by traps, poison and refuse practices.

Muhammed (pbuh) would not have forbidden the ownership of valuable domestic animals like dogs for protection and cats for pest control.

But, dogs eat wierd things....at least all the ones I've ever owned have needed the occasional bath after getting into something they shouldn't have.  I can imagine some of the things my beagle rolled in would definitely kill any wudu one might have performed. 

This prohibition from these clerics is just non-sense.  They want to prevent anything western from disrupting their perceived Utopia. 

Unfortunately, one of two things are going to happen.  The information and learning of the new generations will eventually put the clerics back in their place as scholars of the Quran and advisors instead of tyrants.  Or, the Last Days will arrive and God will sort it all out.

Either way, its really not for us to judge.  Until the Saudis demand a change, nothing will.  That's the problem with Western politics. 
 
Thank you for the contribution. My only comment is that the historical conext is irrelevant and has no bearing on the article. The Saudi clerics have boxed themselves, and their people, into a self made prison with petty laws and irrational statutes. It is not just about western politics, it is the Saudi regime that is the result of western politics, and now they will leave a mark on Islamic history that will be a stain.


Edited by Andalus - 12 September 2008 at 8:31pm
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/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.