/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Saddam Hussein



AllahIsAl-Malik
03-30-2018, 07:20 AM
Many of you may know more about Saddam Hussein than I do. You may know Arabic and you may have more knowledge.

For me, it is very difficult to assess- what is the truth about him?

If you have knowledge, it will be appreciated if you share it.

What are your thoughts?

I post because I wonder what the people have to say.

I post also because I found this, which I think is very interesting. I haven't watched the whole thing yet but... I am very excited by what I have found.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvp68ZjXLGw

I feel very excited to have found this. This was published about four days ago. This is footage in Arabic with English subtitles. To my knowledge, this was not previously available in English.

I feel this is something important. I have not watched the whole thing but- I feel this is something worth examining. What is the truth? It is very intriguing.

I hope people examine the footage and I hope people share their knowledge.

I definitely think there is more to be learned about this man. There are so many questions surrounding him.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
anatolian
03-30-2018, 07:45 AM
He was an American agent and was used to attack Iran between 80-88. He then started think that he was a sultan on his own and disobeyed America. He started to persecute his own people. He is finally owned and finished. He was cruel and deserved his end if you ask me.

I rather feel sorry for Ghaddafi. He did not deserve his end. He must be valued as an example of a real Arabic leader
Reply

Yahya.
03-30-2018, 10:27 AM
Qaddafi, Saddam Hussain etc. they are all the same tyrants with some peculiarities. They follow their desires, lead an idle and prosperous life and are ready to crush every dissidence and obstacle that rises in front of their path. They may adopt some aspects of Islam in order to preserve the homogeneity of their societies and the integrity of the state, but they do not care much about Islam beyond that.

Saddam was a nepotist, narcissistic, authoritarian dictator who oppressed his people when they objected to his action or made any move of opposition. He was an Arab nationalist and has foremost favored his own tribe and gave them the share of his (embezzled national) wealth and appointed them to government positions. However he oppressed Kurds, even using chemical weapons against them, and Shiites who were accused of loyalty towards Iran. His relatives in the military and governance would do any injustice without any consequences, including rape and murder. It is even said that his hideaway was given away by a Kurd from Tikrit, whose daughter Saddam Hussein's son had allegedly raped. The same son is also known to have killed other military officers with whom he got in odds. Saddam of course may have had some pro-Islamic appearances, but this was again rather motivated by nationalism; like celebrating the conquest of Madain and praising Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas (radiyallahu anh).

As for Qaddafi, he replaced Islamic law by his own rules, the Green Book, that emanated from his hawaa' (baseless, self-made desires and ideas). And he too was oppressive, as all tyrants. He may have served for the welfare and development of Libya, refused imperialists and exploitation and helped other Muslim countries, but this does not whitewash his transgressions against Islam. Unfortunately people are quite quickly deceived by such worldly values like prosperity and development, which are in reality nothing when weight of with the value of Islam.
Reply

azc
03-30-2018, 11:22 AM
Now he is a part of history...chapter closed
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
anatolian
03-31-2018, 03:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
Qaddafi, Saddam Hussain etc. they are all the same tyrants with some peculiarities. They follow their desires, lead an idle and prosperous life and are ready to crush every dissidence and obstacle that rises in front of their path. They may adopt some aspects of Islam in order to preserve the homogeneity of their societies and the integrity of the state, but they do not care much about Islam beyond that.

Saddam was a nepotist, narcissistic, authoritarian dictator who oppressed his people when they objected to his action or made any move of opposition. He was an Arab nationalist and has foremost favored his own tribe and gave them the share of his (embezzled national) wealth and appointed them to government positions. However he oppressed Kurds, even using chemical weapons against them, and Shiites who were accused of loyalty towards Iran. His relatives in the military and governance would do any injustice without any consequences, including rape and murder. It is even said that his hideaway was given away by a Kurd from Tikrit, whose daughter Saddam Hussein's son had allegedly raped. The same son is also known to have killed other military officers with whom he got in odds. Saddam of course may have had some pro-Islamic appearances, but this was again rather motivated by nationalism; like celebrating the conquest of Madain and praising Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas (radiyallahu anh).

As for Qaddafi, he replaced Islamic law by his own rules, the Green Book, that emanated from his hawaa' (baseless, self-made desires and ideas). And he too was oppressive, as all tyrants. He may have served for the welfare and development of Libya, refused imperialists and exploitation and helped other Muslim countries, but this does not whitewash his transgressions against Islam. Unfortunately people are quite quickly deceived by such worldly values like prosperity and development, which are in reality nothing when weight of with the value of Islam.
Ofcourse we cannot show Qaddafi a perfect example of an Islamic leader but we know that he tried to establish atleast a kind of Islamic rule a socialist Islamic one and he was honest unlike the others. He had a position against the imperialist west. He did significant things for his people. He almost established a semi socialist semi Islamist system. And he is the only example of an Arabic leader we can show of the last a houndred years

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by azc
Now he is a part of history...chapter closed
Nah.. If you cant analyze history, you cant synthesize future
Reply

Misbah-Abd
03-31-2018, 03:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
He was an American agent and was used to attack Iran between 80-88. He then started think that he was a sultan on his own and disobeyed America. He started to persecute his own people. He is finally owned and finished. He was cruel and deserved his end if you ask me.

I rather feel sorry for Ghaddafi. He did not deserve his end. He must be valued as an example of a real Arabic leader
If you would of stopped at the first paragraph it would of been good. Ghaddafi didn't rule by the law of Allah, tried to implement his "green book" which was suppose to outline his political beliefs, as if Islam and Muslims need such a worthless book. And far from what the Arab world needs. Saddam was a tool of the Global Elite and when he exhausted his usefulness he was destroyed.
Reply

anatolian
03-31-2018, 04:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
If you would of stopped at the first paragraph it would of been good. Ghaddafi didn't rule by the law of Allah, tried to implement his "green book" which was suppose to outline his political beliefs, as if Islam and Muslims need such a worthless book. And far from what the Arab world needs. Saddam was a tool of the Global Elite and when he exhausted his usefulness he was destroyed.
Ok I exegarated him with a real example of an Arabic leader. But as for his book.. Muslims have written books thats not news. That just doesnt mean that he wanted to replace Quran with his book.
Reply

Misbah-Abd
03-31-2018, 04:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
Ok I exegarated him with a real example of an Arabic leader. But as for his book.. Muslims have written books thats not news. That just doesnt mean that he wanted to replace Quran with his book.
What we need are leaders that adhere to the Quran and Sunnah. And he wasn't one of them. But I see that he is so popular on social media because he comes off as standing up to the West, hence the exaggeration about his legacy.
Reply

Zzz_
03-31-2018, 04:38 PM
Saddam Hussain was supported by the west but then he broke off from them and did what he felt was right to rule his people. With 4 million dead, even those who supported his fall are crying in the streets for him to come back and regretting their actions. This is why Islam does not support overthrowing a ruler, even a bad one. Anyway, we do not talk bad about the dead, especially Muslims. And whatever he did, Allah blessed him with a good end. His last words were the shaahadah as the shia khawrij hanged him in secret like cowards. we can only hope for such a good end ourselves. Best we leave it at that.
Reply

azc
03-31-2018, 05:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
Ofcourse we cannot show Qaddafi a perfect example of an Islamic leader but we know that he tried to establish atleast a kind of Islamic rule a socialist Islamic one and he was honest unlike the others. He had a position against the imperialist west. He did significant things for his people. He almost established a semi socialist semi Islamist system. And he is the only example of an Arabic leader we can show of the last a houndred years

- - - Updated - - -



Nah.. If you cant analyze history, you cant synthesize future
Invasion of Iraq and execution of Saddam Husain is the slap on the face of Muslim countries and it opened the door of killing of innocent people at large. Rulers of the region are equally responsible for humiliation of Iraqi people in abu ghraib, in their own country.
Reply

Misbah-Abd
03-31-2018, 05:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
Saddam Hussain was supported by the west but then he broke off from them and did what he felt was right to rule his people. With 4 million dead, even those who supported his fall are crying in the streets for him to come back and regretting their actions. This is why Islam does not support overthrowing a ruler, even a bad one. Anyway, we do not talk bad about the dead, especially Muslims. And whatever he did, Allah blessed him with a good end. His last words were the shaahadah as the shia khawrij hanged him in secret like cowards. we can only hope for such a good end ourselves. Best we leave it at that.
Is Saddam and Ghaddafi Muslim? They didn't rule by the law of Allah and they were in a position to do so because they had an iron grip on their nations. Those two got what they deserved. And I will leave it at that.

Oh, and nice revisionist history about Saddam breaking off from the West and do what is right to rule his people. I'm sure the Kurds would agree with you.
Reply

Yahya.
03-31-2018, 05:52 PM
@anatolian

I have not examined the book but most probably it contains ideas contradicting Islamic teachings and laws, which were in order to be applied in practice. Supposedly there would not be any criticism if it were an auxiliary law book like the Mecelle of the Ottoman government.

Moreover, Qaddafi wanted to buy the tomb of Jamal Abdunnasir to make it into a central pilgrimage sight in Benghazi that is should be visited like the grave of Prophet Muhammad, as explained by Shaykh Abdulhamid Kishk.

In my opinion these tyrants are very peculiar person with various kinds of ideas formed in their unrestricted minds. Out of these minds beneficent ideas can emanate, just as ideas that transgress the borders of Allah. He somehow reminds me of Genghis Khan, who actually never claimed to be Muslim - at least being honest and understanding that Islam is a whole. He agreed to every aspect of Islam except Hajj and Qurban forwarding some complaints. Just like him these dictators have their own whims which they put in front of the divine laws.
Reply

azc
03-31-2018, 06:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
Ofcourse we cannot show Qaddafi a perfect example of an Islamic leader but we know that he tried to establish atleast a kind of Islamic rule a socialist Islamic one and he was honest unlike the others. He had a position against the imperialist west. He did significant things for his people. He almost established a semi socialist semi Islamist system. And he is the only example of an Arabic leader we can show of the last a houndred years

- - - Updated - - -



Nah.. If you cant analyze history, you cant synthesize future
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
@anatolian

I have not examined the book but most probably it contains ideas contradicting Islamic teachings and laws, which were in order to be applied in practice. Supposedly there would not be any criticism if it were an auxiliary law book like the Mecelle of the Ottoman government.

Moreover, Qaddafi wanted to buy the tomb of Jamal Abdunnasir to make it into a central pilgrimage sight in Benghazi that is should be visited like the grave of Prophet Muhammad, as explained by Shaykh Abdulhamid Kishk.

In my opinion these tyrants are very peculiar person with various kinds of ideas formed in their unrestricted minds. Out of these minds beneficent ideas can emanate, just as ideas that transgress the borders of Allah. He somehow reminds me of Genghis Khan, who actually never claimed to be Muslim - at least being honest and understanding that Islam is a whole. He agreed to every aspect of Islam except Hajj and Qurban forwarding some complaints. Just like him these dictators have their own whims which they put in front of the divine laws.
You have soft corner in your heart for Genghis khan....?
Reply

Alamgir
03-31-2018, 06:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
Is Saddam and Ghaddafi Muslim? They didn't rule by the law of Allah and they were in a position to do so because they had an iron grip on their nations. Those two got what they deserved. And I will leave it at that.

Oh, and nice revisionist history about Saddam breaking off from the West and do what is right to rule his people. I'm sure the Kurds would agree with you.
Asalamu Alaikum

Not sure about Gaddafi, but Saddam became a much more pious Muslim in his last few years. He died reciting the Shahadah.

Saddam Hussein did try to bring glory to Iraq, and advocated the Arabs unifying under a single nation.

The Kurds are irrelevant, they get along with nobody.
Reply

Zzz_
03-31-2018, 06:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
Is Saddam and Ghaddafi Muslim? They didn't rule by the law of Allah and they were in a position to do so because they had an iron grip on their nations. Those two got what they deserved. And I will leave it at that.
.

Regardless of how he lived his life, the fact that Allah gave him a good end means a lot more than what anyone can say bad about him. Anyone who dies with shahadah on their lips as their last words go to Jannah. Can you guarantee you will have such a good end? we should worry about ourselves rather than one who was blessed to have a good end.

It was narrated that Mu’aadh ibn Jabal (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “If a person’s last words are Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah, Paradise will be guaranteed for him.” Narrated by Ahmad, 21529; Abu Dawood, 3116; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel, 687
Reply

Alamgir
03-31-2018, 07:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
@anatolian

I have not examined the book but most probably it contains ideas contradicting Islamic teachings and laws, which were in order to be applied in practice. Supposedly there would not be any criticism if it were an auxiliary law book like the Mecelle of the Ottoman government.

Moreover, Qaddafi wanted to buy the tomb of Jamal Abdunnasir to make it into a central pilgrimage sight in Benghazi that is should be visited like the grave of Prophet Muhammad, as explained by Shaykh Abdulhamid Kishk.

In my opinion these tyrants are very peculiar person with various kinds of ideas formed in their unrestricted minds. Out of these minds beneficent ideas can emanate, just as ideas that transgress the borders of Allah. He somehow reminds me of Genghis Khan, who actually never claimed to be Muslim - at least being honest and understanding that Islam is a whole. He agreed to every aspect of Islam except Hajj and Qurban forwarding some complaints. Just like him these dictators have their own whims which they put in front of the divine laws.
Asalamu Alaikum

Khan banned circumcision and the halal method of slaughtering. He also completely massacred Muslims living within the Khwarezmid Empire and tried to do the same to the Muslims within the Delhi Sultanate (luckily he failed miserably).

He was a terrible tyrant, no respect should be given to him other than the fact that he should be recognised as a powerful military leader.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
@anatolian

I have not examined the book but most probably it contains ideas contradicting Islamic teachings and laws, which were in order to be applied in practice. Supposedly there would not be any criticism if it were an auxiliary law book like the Mecelle of the Ottoman government.

Moreover, Qaddafi wanted to buy the tomb of Jamal Abdunnasir to make it into a central pilgrimage sight in Benghazi that is should be visited like the grave of Prophet Muhammad, as explained by Shaykh Abdulhamid Kishk.

In my opinion these tyrants are very peculiar person with various kinds of ideas formed in their unrestricted minds. Out of these minds beneficent ideas can emanate, just as ideas that transgress the borders of Allah. He somehow reminds me of Genghis Khan, who actually never claimed to be Muslim - at least being honest and understanding that Islam is a whole. He agreed to every aspect of Islam except Hajj and Qurban forwarding some complaints. Just like him these dictators have their own whims which they put in front of the divine laws.
Asalamu Alaikum

Khan banned circumcision and the halal method of slaughtering. He also completely massacred Muslims living within the Khwarezmid Empire and tried to do the same to the Muslims within the Delhi Sultanate (luckily he failed miserably).

He was a terrible tyrant, no respect should be given to him other than the fact that he should be recognised as a powerful military leader.
Reply

Misbah-Abd
03-31-2018, 07:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
Asalamu Alaikum

Not sure about Gaddafi, but Saddam became a much more pious Muslim in his last few years. He died reciting the Shahadah.

Saddam Hussein did try to bring glory to Iraq, and advocated the Arabs unifying under a single nation.

The Kurds are irrelevant, they get along with nobody.
Even the Kurds who are good Muslims are irrelevant? Nice blanket statement there. How about unifying under the single nation of Muhammad s.a.a.w. Or was that asking too much?
Reply

Alamgir
03-31-2018, 07:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
Even the Kurds who are good Muslims are irrelevant? Nice blanket statement there.
Kurds who are good Muslims will not advocate for an independent Kurdistan, and would get along nicely with their fellow Muslims in Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

Any Kurd who desires independence is a nationalist jahil.
Reply

familon
03-31-2018, 07:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
He was an American agent and was used to attack Iran between 80-88. He then started think that he was a sultan on his own and disobeyed America. He started to persecute his own people. He is finally owned and finished. He was cruel and deserved his end if you ask me.

I rather feel sorry for Ghaddafi. He did not deserve his end. He must be valued as an example of a real Arabic leader
Do you know Ghaddafi was the richest man on Earth before he died? He was worth over 200 billion, but the western media never mentions it.
Reply

Misbah-Abd
03-31-2018, 07:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
Kurds who are good Muslims will not advocate for an independent Kurdistan, and would get along nicely with their fellow Muslims in Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

Any Kurd who desires independence is a nationalist jahil.
So any Arab who desires independence is a nationalist jahil also or are you just an Arab nationalist talking nonsense?
Reply

Alamgir
03-31-2018, 07:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
So any Arab who desires independence is a nationalist jahil also or are you just an Arab nationalist talking nonsense?
Yeah pretty much, any Muslim in general who desires independence from his fellow Muslims for reasons outside of religion is a nationalist jahil. I don't care what ethnic/linguistic group that person belongs to.

I'm not an Arab (well maybe ancestrally but that doesn't really count since many Muslims are Arabs ancestrally).
Reply

Misbah-Abd
03-31-2018, 07:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
Yeah pretty much, any Muslim in general who desires independence from his fellow Muslims for reasons outside of religion is a nationalist jahil. I don't care what ethnic/linguistic group that person belongs to.

I'm not an Arab (well maybe ancestrally but that doesn't really count since many Muslims are Arabs ancestrally).
But you praised Saddam for doing the same thing now that you call a nationalist Jahil, i.e. unifying under one Arab nation. ^o)
Reply

Alamgir
03-31-2018, 08:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
But you praised Saddam for doing the same thing now that you call a nationalist Jahil, i.e. unifying under one Arab nation. ^o)
He was trying to unify Muslims, not separate them further. That's totally different to the idea of Kurdistan.

Are you Kurdish?
Reply

Misbah-Abd
03-31-2018, 08:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
He was trying to unify Muslims, not separate them further. That's totally different to the idea of Kurdistan.

Are you Kurdish?
Nope. But why is it ok for the Arabs under the banner of nationalism to have a nation but not the Kurds? And I doubt Saddam had any intention to unify Muslims under the banner of Tawheed. Like I said before, he was in a position to implement Shariah but didn't do it. He could of unified the Muslims in his own country under the Law of Allah but didn't do that.

And let's face it. The Arabs only have their countries because the kuffar divided it up that way.
Reply

Alamgir
03-31-2018, 08:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
Nope. But why is it ok for the Arabs under the banner of nationalism to have a nation but not the Kurds? And I doubt Saddam had any intention to unify Muslims under the banner of Tawheed. Like I said before, he was in a position to implement Shariah but didn't do it. He could of unified the Muslims in his own country under the Law of Allah but didn't do that.

And let's face it. The Arabs only have their countries because the kuffar divided it up that way.
It's okay for the Arabs because their process involved reunifying Muslims, not further chopping us up into smaller groups like the Kurds want. It is a movement which is beneficial for the Muslims.

Islam is an integral part of Arab nationalism, promoting the latter indirectly promotes the former. You will struggle to find an Arab nationalist who does not hold Islam close to their heart.
Reply

Misbah-Abd
03-31-2018, 08:42 PM
That is the most absurd comment you have made on this forum. History and the current state of affairs suggest otherwise. Unbelievable.
Reply

Alamgir
03-31-2018, 08:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
That is the most absurd comment you have made on this forum. History and the current state of affairs suggest otherwise. Unbelievable.
Prove me wrong.
Reply

Misbah-Abd
03-31-2018, 10:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
Prove me wrong.
"It's okay for the Arabs because their process involved reunifying Muslims, not further chopping us up into smaller groups like the Kurds want." Chopping the Arabs up into smaller groups is exactly what happened. Take out an Atlas of the Middle East and tell me how many Arab countries you see there.

"Islam is an integral part of Arab nationalism, promoting the latter indirectly promotes the former." Islam has nothing to do with any nationalism.

"You will struggle to find an Arab nationalist who does not hold Islam close to their heart." There are many Arab nationalists who are Christian, Communist, Socialist, Apostates, etc.

Come on brother. I sense some Arab nationalism in your words. This Deen isn't about nationalism. It's about the Nation of Muhammad s.a.a.w.


Reply

Alamgir
03-31-2018, 11:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
"It's okay for the Arabs because their process involved reunifying Muslims, not further chopping us up into smaller groups like the Kurds want." Chopping the Arabs up into smaller groups is exactly what happened. Take out an Atlas of the Middle East and tell me how many Arab countries you see there.

"Islam is an integral part of Arab nationalism, promoting the latter indirectly promotes the former." Islam has nothing to do with any nationalism.

"You will struggle to find an Arab nationalist who does not hold Islam close to their heart." There are many Arab nationalists who are Christian, Communist, Socialist, Apostates, etc.

Come on brother. I sense some Arab nationalism in your words. This Deen isn't about nationalism. It's about the Nation of Muhammad s.a.a.w.

The Arabs desired a unified Arab nation, not the multiple independent nations they ended up getting. They consider this a great backstabbing of the colonial powers (serves them right though for rebelling against the Caliphate). Also, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about Arabs in modern times who want a unified Arab state, not the Arabs who rebelled against the Caliphate

Arab nationalists are overwhelmingly Muslim, and view Islam as integral to their nationalism as Islam started in Arabia. Islam doesn't promote Arab nationalism, but Arab nationalism promotes Islam wholeheartedly, just like how Punjabi nationalism promotes Sikhism, or Indian nationalism promotes Hinduism. Very few of them are not Muslim, and those that do not believe in Islam are almost certainly not apostates. Apostates do not like Arab nationalism because it promotes Islam.

Of course, but our objective is to unify the Ummah, yes? Movements like this help us achieve our objective, I see no reason not to embrace the Arab nationalists attempts at unifying the Arabs, as it only leads to Muslims being more unified.

I can't be an Arab nationalist, I'm not an Arab. I am a Muslim nationalist though (not talking about that movement in South Asia, I'm talking about being hyper-patriotic about my Muslim identity).
Reply

JustTime
04-01-2018, 01:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
"It's okay for the Arabs because their process involved reunifying Muslims, not further chopping us up into smaller groups like the Kurds want." Chopping the Arabs up into smaller groups is exactly what happened. Take out an Atlas of the Middle East and tell me how many Arab countries you see there.

"Islam is an integral part of Arab nationalism, promoting the latter indirectly promotes the former." Islam has nothing to do with any nationalism.

"You will struggle to find an Arab nationalist who does not hold Islam close to their heart." There are many Arab nationalists who are Christian, Communist, Socialist, Apostates, etc.

Come on brother. I sense some Arab nationalism in your words. This Deen isn't about nationalism. It's about the Nation of Muhammad s.a.a.w.

He is correct and you are wrong, had Saddam attained what he wanted the Arabs would be more united thus a large Muslim nation would exist with a common people then eventually if Allah willed the greater Ummah, Saddam was not a Baathist like that Nusayri dog Assad, Saddam was from Ahlus Sunnah his uncle raised him religious the people of Saddam in Salah ad Din region of Iraq and areas like Anbar and Ninawa are strongholds of Sunnah they are like the Arabs of Rasoolillah (SAAWS) and of the Jazeera they are the same people, and by the will of Allah they were charged with authority over the land of the two rivers.

Saddam was shield against the Safawi Majoos and a torment upon them, even Rasoolillah (SAAWS) said the Muslims of Iraq will suffer because of a Roman intervention, it is clear that prior to such an intervention the Muslims were better off. Saddam was not perfect but he defended his nation and people, he was a just ruler, I have heard many from Iraq and other Arabs living in Iraq under the era of Saddam even say that a Rawafid would not dare utter a word against a companion or wife of the prophet.

Prior to the invasion he initiated a massive Dawah campaign he built Masjids across Iraq even in the UK.

He died reciting the Shahada, how many of us will do the same?

Fear Allah.
Reply

Zzz_
04-01-2018, 01:17 AM
Those who are bad mouthing Saddam, he won. He got paradise. What do you have?
let's stop worrying about the dead and start worrying about our akhirah.
Reply

JustTime
04-01-2018, 01:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
The Arabs desired a unified Arab nation, not the multiple independent nations they ended up getting. They consider this a great backstabbing of the colonial powers (serves them right though for rebelling against the Caliphate). Also, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about Arabs in modern times who want a unified Arab state, not the Arabs who rebelled against the Caliphate

Arab nationalists are overwhelmingly Muslim, and view Islam as integral to their nationalism as Islam started in Arabia. Islam doesn't promote Arab nationalism, but Arab nationalism promotes Islam wholeheartedly, just like how Punjabi nationalism promotes Sikhism, or Indian nationalism promotes Hinduism. Very few of them are not Muslim, and those that do not believe in Islam are almost certainly not apostates. Apostates do not like Arab nationalism because it promotes Islam.

Of course, but our objective is to unify the Ummah, yes? Movements like this help us achieve our objective, I see no reason not to embrace the Arab nationalists attempts at unifying the Arabs, as it only leads to Muslims being more unified.

I can't be an Arab nationalist, I'm not an Arab. I am a Muslim nationalist though (not talking about that movement in South Asia, I'm talking about being hyper-patriotic about my Muslim identity).
You are right, Akhi, this person is very ignorant about Hikmah of some rulers in the past, when we lost Saddam we lost one of the few great rulers of this modern time. Had Saddam lived in the 1200s Wallah there would be Khutbas about him in the Masjid he would be given the Salah ad Din treatment, he would be praised like the Ottomans.

It's obvious the individual prefers the Safawi regime that rapes, steals, and murders and slanders the first of this Ummah, and Rasoolillah (SAAWS) said "The sign of the hour will not occur until the last of this Ummah curse the first."
Reply

anatolian
04-01-2018, 04:21 AM
Saddam may have died a Muslim but there is a difference between being Muslim and being a cruel Muslim. What we criticize is his cruelty, primarly towards the Iraqi Kurds. He killed civilian people in Halabja.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

Reply

azc
04-01-2018, 05:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
Saddam may have died a Muslim but there is a difference between being Muslim and being a cruel Muslim. What we criticize is his cruelty, primarly towards the Iraqi Kurds. He killed civilian people in Halabja.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

Why did he take this step...?

see it in your given link:

''The Kurdish rebellion of 1983 occurred during the Iran–Iraq war as PUK ...combining the forces of KDP and PUK succeeded in retaining control of some enclaves with Iranian logistic and sometimes military support. The initial rebellion resulted in stalemate by 1985.''
Reply

anatolian
04-01-2018, 06:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
Why did he take this step...?

see it in your given link:

''The Kurdish rebellion of 1983 occurred during the Iran–Iraq war as PUK ...combining the forces of KDP and PUK succeeded in retaining control of some enclaves with Iranian logistic and sometimes military support. The initial rebellion resulted in stalemate by 1985.''
There is no harm with fighting with the armed rebelions but he targted also unarmed people, children with chemical weapons. That gas bruttaly killed those Kurdish children in Halabja.
Reply

azc
04-01-2018, 08:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
There is no harm with fighting with the armed rebelions but he targted also unarmed people, children with chemical weapons. That gas bruttaly killed those Kurdish children in Halabja.
Did the women and children support their men...?
Reply

anatolian
04-01-2018, 09:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
Did the women and children support their men...?
Did they? You are in the position of accusing. You must prove your point.
Reply

azc
04-01-2018, 09:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
Did they? You are in the position of accusing. You must prove your point.
You mean women and children were not supporting their men ...?
Reply

Yahya.
04-01-2018, 10:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
You have soft corner in your heart for Genghis khan....?
format_quote Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
Asalamu Alaikum

Khan banned circumcision and the halal method of slaughtering. He also completely massacred Muslims living within the Khwarezmid Empire and tried to do the same to the Muslims within the Delhi Sultanate (luckily he failed miserably).

He was a terrible tyrant, no respect should be given to him other than the fact that he should be recognised as a powerful military leader.
Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullah.

Of course I reject him too :) Otherwise I would not compare him to the other tyrants...

I had lately read his constitution, called "Yasak", which included many good aspects like tolerance, preserving the nasl (prohibition of fornication) etc. so I found it to be reminiscent of other tyrants who along their whole oppression and transgression against Islam had some praiseworthy stances, which but nonetheless do not suffice to repair their overall image and our judgement of him. And that had been my final conclusion. And I mentioned this because many people take the good aspects of a tyrant, like Saddam Hussein, and completely ignore his great atrocities.
Further discussions on him in this thread would be superfluous, as this thread is about contemporary tyrants.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
You are right, Akhi, this person is very ignorant about Hikmah of some rulers in the past, when we lost Saddam we lost one of the few great rulers of this modern time. Had Saddam lived in the 1200s Wallah there would be Khutbas about him in the Masjid he would be given the Salah ad Din treatment, he would be praised like the Ottomans.

It's obvious the individual prefers the Safawi regime that rapes, steals, and murders and slanders the first of this Ummah, and Rasoolillah (SAAWS) said "The sign of the hour will not occur until the last of this Ummah curse the first."
Please stop twisting the words of others and using a black-white logic or interpreting every verse and hadith according to your own view.

The hadith you quoted certainly does not apply to Saddam Hussein who live in our century, but rather to the companions and salaf.

It is known what contemporary scholars have said about him... Most people supporting him are just Arab nationalist, IS sympathizers - as most ex-Saddam officers joined IS, or ordinary Iraqis/Arabs who are emotionally overwhelmed by the lack of leadership in the Islamic world and thus seek to find makeshift leaders.

You say he was not a Baathist? Are you serious with this claim? The Iraqi Baathists are those who helped Hafiz al Assad to obtain power! Abdullah Azzam had stated in his lectures that Saddam Hussein is a disbeliever, and that his view on this is certain. Saddam Hussein and all these Baathist value Michael Aflaq as their leader, who is a Christian.

Brother @Ibn Shahid you are probably mixing the basic love for one's own race and the desire for unity with Arab nationalism. For the latter one has been started and deeply influenced by Arab Christians from Lebanon. If somebody doubts this he may have a look on the first literature promoting Arab nationalism. There is only place for one nation, which is Islam, so we may only have Islamic nationalism, nothing else. And this does not exclude the ordinary feelings of greater closeness and geniality towards one's own cultural (consequentially ethnic) environment.
Reply

Misbah-Abd
04-01-2018, 11:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
He is correct and you are wrong, had Saddam attained what he wanted the Arabs would be more united thus a large Muslim nation would exist with a common people then eventually if Allah willed the greater Ummah, Saddam was not a Baathist like that Nusayri dog Assad, Saddam was from Ahlus Sunnah his uncle raised him religious the people of Saddam in Salah ad Din region of Iraq and areas like Anbar and Ninawa are strongholds of Sunnah they are like the Arabs of Rasoolillah (SAAWS) and of the Jazeera they are the same people, and by the will of Allah they were charged with authority over the land of the two rivers.

Saddam was shield against the Safawi Majoos and a torment upon them, even Rasoolillah (SAAWS) said the Muslims of Iraq will suffer because of a Roman intervention, it is clear that prior to such an intervention the Muslims were better off. Saddam was not perfect but he defended his nation and people, he was a just ruler, I have heard many from Iraq and other Arabs living in Iraq under the era of Saddam even say that a Rawafid would not dare utter a word against a companion or wife of the prophet.

Prior to the invasion he initiated a massive Dawah campaign he built Masjids across Iraq even in the UK.

He died reciting the Shahada, how many of us will do the same?

Fear Allah.
More revisionist history. That post of yours sounded more like a eulogy rather than an honest assessment of history.
Reply

Alamgir
04-01-2018, 11:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
There is no harm with fighting with the armed rebelions but he targted also unarmed people, children with chemical weapons. That gas bruttaly killed those Kurdish children in Halabja.
Asalamu Alaikum

Collateral damage.

Also, those Kurdish seperatist movements also target civilians.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullah.

Of course I reject him too :) Otherwise I would not compare him to the other tyrants...

I had lately read his constitution, called "Yasak", which included many good aspects like tolerance, preserving the nasl (prohibition of fornication) etc. so I found it to be reminiscent of other tyrants who along their whole oppression and transgression against Islam had some praiseworthy stances, which but nonetheless do not suffice to repair their overall image and our judgement of him. And that had been my final conclusion. And I mentioned this because many people take the good aspects of a tyrant, like Saddam Hussein, and completely ignore his great atrocities.
Further discussions on him in this thread would be superfluous, as this thread is about contemporary tyrants.

- - - Updated - - -



Please stop twisting the words of others and using a black-white logic or interpreting every verse and hadith according to your own view.

The hadith you quoted certainly does not apply to Saddam Hussein who live in our century, but rather to the companions and salaf.

It is known what contemporary scholars have said about him... Most people supporting him are just Arab nationalist, IS sympathizers - as most ex-Saddam officers joined IS, or ordinary Iraqis/Arabs who are emotionally overwhelmed by the lack of leadership in the Islamic world and thus seek to find makeshift leaders.

You say he was not a Baathist? Are you serious with this claim? The Iraqi Baathists are those who helped Hafiz al Assad to obtain power! Abdullah Azzam had stated in his lectures that Saddam Hussein is a disbeliever, and that his view on this is certain. Saddam Hussein and all these Baathist value Michael Aflaq as their leader, who is a Christian.

Brother @Ibn Shahid you are probably mixing the basic love for one's own race and the desire for unity with Arab nationalism. For the latter one has been started and deeply influenced by Arab Christians from Lebanon. If somebody doubts this he may have a look on the first literature promoting Arab nationalism. There is only place for one nation, which is Islam, so we may only have Islamic nationalism, nothing else. And this does not exclude the ordinary feelings of greater closeness and geniality towards one's own cultural (consequentially ethnic) environment.
Asalamu Alaikum

All I want is a more unified Ummah. Arab nationalism helps achieve this goal, therefore, I do not dislike it as strongly as I do Turkish or Iranian nationalism.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
You are right, Akhi, this person is very ignorant about Hikmah of some rulers in the past, when we lost Saddam we lost one of the few great rulers of this modern time. Had Saddam lived in the 1200s Wallah there would be Khutbas about him in the Masjid he would be given the Salah ad Din treatment, he would be praised like the Ottomans.

It's obvious the individual prefers the Safawi regime that rapes, steals, and murders and slanders the first of this Ummah, and Rasoolillah (SAAWS) said "The sign of the hour will not occur until the last of this Ummah curse the first."

Asalamu Alaikum

Okay calm down, Saddam was not Saladin. For most of his life he was not very religious, it was only near the end he became pious Muslim.

He was, however, a good leader.
Reply

azc
04-01-2018, 12:02 PM
@Yahya.

Mongolian leader was one of the most cruel king of the world, Saddam Husain's nowhere stands before his cruelty.

It's true that he wasn't kind for his opponents as normally kings or rulers deal with their opponents or insurgents or traitors ruthlessly.

But After his arrest he repented for his sins and repentance is always praiseworthy.
Reply

anatolian
04-01-2018, 12:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
Asalamu Alaikum

Collateral damage.

Also, those Kurdish seperatist movements also target civilians.

- - - Updated - - -



Asalamu Alaikum

All I want is a more unified Ummah. Arab nationalism helps achieve this goal, therefore, I do not dislike it as strongly as I do Turkish or Iranian
You seem to have no idea about what a colleteral damage is. It is when you attack a military target you find out that there were civilians and died there. Delibaretly attacking civilians is not colleteral damage. It is cruelty. They knew that that gas was going to kill everybody in halabja that day.

There are different sorts of nationalisms. Racist, civic, secular , religious.. There are both secular and Islamist nationalists within Arabs just as there are in Turks. Turko-Islamic nationalism that was started with “İttihat ve Terakki” Union and Progress party in the early 20th century Ottoman empire was even the first religious nationalist movement within entire Muslim world. My avatar is their flag. I am myself a Turko-Islamic nationalist too and it definately serves the same purpose, union of Muslim Turks first and all Muslims eventually. The problem behind every nationalism is showenism and separatism. Your nationalism must serve the union not separation
Reply

Alamgir
04-01-2018, 04:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
You seem to have no idea about what a colleteral damage is. It is when you attack a military target you find out that there were civilians and died there. Delibaretly attacking civilians is not colleteral damage. It is cruelty. They knew that that gas was going to kill everybody in halabja that day.

There are different sorts of nationalisms. Racist, civic, secular , religious.. There are both secular and Islamist nationalists within Arabs just as there are in Turks. Turko-Islamic nationalism that was started with “İttihat ve Terakki” Union and Progress party in the early 20th century Ottoman empire was even the first religious nationalist movement within entire Muslim world. My avatar is their flag. I am myself a Turko-Islamic nationalist too and it definately serves the same purpose, union of Muslim Turks first and all Muslims eventually. The problem behind every nationalism is showenism and separatism. Your nationalism must serve the union not separation
No, collateral damage is when you have to take out a military target but end up killing civilians in the process. Whether or not you are aware that you will end up killing civilians is irrelevant.

During the siege of taif, the place was hit by catapults even though it was well known that civilians would be exterminated in the process. It was still done anyway. The action is perfectly halal, you just need to decide when it is appropriate.
Reply

anatolian
04-01-2018, 05:50 PM
“during a war, the unintentional deaths and injuries of people who are not soldiers, and damage that is caused to their homes, hospitals, schools, etc”

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...lateral-damage

collateral damage Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
collateral damage meaning, definition, what is collateral damage: during a war, the unintentional deaths and injuries of people who are not soldiers, and…. Learn more....
Reply

Yahya.
04-01-2018, 05:59 PM
I think your definitions are reaching the same end. What we should concentrate on should be whether Saddam Hussein's aim and the means he used to achieve it are proportional? Is a government in need of bombing an area with chemical weapons in order to suppress a revolt? But we are already disregarding international conventions on weapons when asking this question.
Reply

JustTime
04-01-2018, 10:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullah.

Of course I reject him too :) Otherwise I would not compare him to the other tyrants...

I had lately read his constitution, called "Yasak", which included many good aspects like tolerance, preserving the nasl (prohibition of fornication) etc. so I found it to be reminiscent of other tyrants who along their whole oppression and transgression against Islam had some praiseworthy stances, which but nonetheless do not suffice to repair their overall image and our judgement of him. And that had been my final conclusion. And I mentioned this because many people take the good aspects of a tyrant, like Saddam Hussein, and completely ignore his great atrocities.
Further discussions on him in this thread would be superfluous, as this thread is about contemporary tyrants.

- - - Updated - - -



Please stop twisting the words of others and using a black-white logic or interpreting every verse and hadith according to your own view.

The hadith you quoted certainly does not apply to Saddam Hussein who live in our century, but rather to the companions and salaf.

It is known what contemporary scholars have said about him... Most people supporting him are just Arab nationalist, IS sympathizers - as most ex-Saddam officers joined IS, or ordinary Iraqis/Arabs who are emotionally overwhelmed by the lack of leadership in the Islamic world and thus seek to find makeshift leaders.

You say he was not a Baathist? Are you serious with this claim? The Iraqi Baathists are those who helped Hafiz al Assad to obtain power! Abdullah Azzam had stated in his lectures that Saddam Hussein is a disbeliever, and that his view on this is certain. Saddam Hussein and all these Baathist value Michael Aflaq as their leader, who is a Christian.

Brother @Ibn Shahid you are probably mixing the basic love for one's own race and the desire for unity with Arab nationalism. For the latter one has been started and deeply influenced by Arab Christians from Lebanon. If somebody doubts this he may have a look on the first literature promoting Arab nationalism. There is only place for one nation, which is Islam, so we may only have Islamic nationalism, nothing else. And this does not exclude the ordinary feelings of greater closeness and geniality towards one's own cultural (consequentially ethnic) environment.
I never said he wasn't a Baathist, I said he wasn't a Baathist like Assad. It is clear that this Hadith is of this era and to deny it is your loss.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
There is no harm with fighting with the armed rebelions but he targted also unarmed people, children with chemical weapons. That gas bruttaly killed those Kurdish children in Halabja.
Those dogs in Peshmerga and other Kurdish nationalist movements exaggerate more than even the most extreme of Zionists ever would. The Halabja "massacre" is an exaggeration I'm surprised a Turk would trust the word of a Kurd these people have no morals, look at the degenerate cesspool called Rojava where Gays have more rights than Muslims.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
I think your definitions are reaching the same end. What we should concentrate on should be whether Saddam Hussein's aim and the means he used to achieve it are proportional? Is a government in need of bombing an area with chemical weapons in order to suppress a revolt? But we are already disregarding international conventions on weapons when asking this question.
If he knew what these dogs would do today back then it would only be a shame that he didn't do more to handle the Rawafida and Kurdish murtadeen of Barzani and others.
Reply

azc
04-02-2018, 02:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
I think your definitions are reaching the same end. What we should concentrate on should be whether Saddam Hussein's aim and the means he used to achieve it are proportional? Is a government in need of bombing an area with chemical weapons in order to suppress a revolt? But we are already disregarding international conventions on weapons when asking this question.
and killing the innocent people without any valid reason can't be justified
Reply

AllahIsAl-Malik
04-02-2018, 10:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
I never said he wasn't a Baathist, I said he wasn't a Baathist like Assad. It is clear that this Hadith is of this era and to deny it is your loss.

- - - Updated - - -



Those dogs in Peshmerga and other Kurdish nationalist movements exaggerate more than even the most extreme of Zionists ever would. The Halabja "massacre" is an exaggeration I'm surprised a Turk would trust the word of a Kurd these people have no morals, look at the degenerate cesspool called Rojava where Gays have more rights than Muslims.

- - - Updated - - -



If he knew what these dogs would do today back then it would only be a shame that he didn't do more to handle the Rawafida and Kurdish murtadeen of Barzani and others.
I am inclined to believe you about Rojava. The Rojava thing sounds crazy and weird. Also it is backed by the US. I understand now that the US opponents like Assad aren't necessarily good guys either but... the US-backed Rojava stuff sounds very weird and bizarre to me. The ideology sounds bizarre.

I don't get the impression there should be independent Kurdistan or anything like that. I am not an expert on what is going on over there. But honestly, I hope the Rojava thing is crushed and not heard from anymore. It seems weird, dangerous and repugnant. The last thing Muslims need is exported radical feminist garbage. Colonialists are always trying to turn the women against the men. When the world needs guidance from Allah, it can turn to Islam. If the world wants to hear from experts in the experience of broken families, single motherhood, damaged children- let the West stay the experts in that field. With all this Rojava stuff and extreme ideology- I am inclined to wonder if Saddam had a good reason for what he did. The world needs promotion of Islam. Not promotion of filth like radical feminism and homosexuality. If that's what Rojava is about then may their movement be crushed.
Reply

anatolian
04-02-2018, 11:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime



Those dogs in Peshmerga and other Kurdish nationalist movements exaggerate more than even the most extreme of Zionists ever would. The Halabja "massacre" is an exaggeration I'm surprised a Turk would trust the word of a Kurd these people have no morals, look at the degenerate cesspool called Rojava where Gays have more rights than Muslims.
You are confusing dfferent occasions and using something wrong as a tool to justify the injustice in the other occasion. What is going on in rojava today is not directly related to what happened in halabja 30 years ago. I justify fighting with PKK and all other terrorist groups but I cannot justify intentional attacks on non fighting people, most especially children who have no or limited accountability on whats going on. This has nothing to do with being turk but being human and muslim..
Reply

Yahya.
04-02-2018, 11:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
I never said he wasn't a Baathist, I said he wasn't a Baathist like Assad. It is clear that this Hadith is of this era and to deny it is your loss.
Right, it is clear because you tell that... This is a dogmatic approach. Look what the muhaddithun have said about that hadith.

format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
If he knew what these dogs would do today back then it would only be a shame that he didn't do more to handle the Rawafida and Kurdish murtadeen of Barzani and others.

You are the ones who have started the resentful battle between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, they had lived for centuries in peace under the Ottomans and the pre-Saddam period. The wahhabis of Najd started attacking their holy sites, like in Karbala, and massacred their people. And then their descendants from ISI continued on their path by bombing Shiite places, not obeying the orders of their leader from the Al Qaeda Centre in Khorasan, who discouraged such attacks. After invoking all these hatred, the supposed representatives of the Sunnites, the Islamic State group or Saddam Hussein, have just redrawn and left our Sunni brothers on their own to the rancor of Shiite militias. And Saddam Hussein is a part of all these crimes. Are there any Sunnis south of Baghdad today? If not, how did this demographic change occur?
Reply

JustTime
04-02-2018, 04:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
You are confusing dfferent occasions and using something wrong as a tool to justify the injustice in the other occasion. What is going on in rojava today is not directly related to what happened in halabja 30 years ago. I justify fighting with PKK and all other terrorist groups but I cannot justify intentional attacks on non fighting people, most especially children who have no or limited accountability on whats going on. This has nothing to do with being turk but being human and muslim..
You have not studied history of the Iraqi Baath Government, and you are only looking at one narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Zafar_7

Iran was invading Northern Iraq with Kurdish support, in Halabja there were PUK, Peshmerga, and Iranian soldiers occupying the city and the Iraqi military was already exhausted and spread out by their forces in the South trying to take Ahwaz and Khuzestan. The narrative told is no different than other exaggerations, not even as I said Zionists make stories that are so full of falsehood.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by AllahIsAl-Malik
I am inclined to believe you about Rojava. The Rojava thing sounds crazy and weird. Also it is backed by the US. I understand now that the US opponents like Assad aren't necessarily good guys either but... the US-backed Rojava stuff sounds very weird and bizarre to me. The ideology sounds bizarre.

I don't get the impression there should be independent Kurdistan or anything like that. I am not an expert on what is going on over there. But honestly, I hope the Rojava thing is crushed and not heard from anymore. It seems weird, dangerous and repugnant. The last thing Muslims need is exported radical feminist garbage. Colonialists are always trying to turn the women against the men. When the world needs guidance from Allah, it can turn to Islam. If the world wants to hear from experts in the experience of broken families, single motherhood, damaged children- let the West stay the experts in that field. With all this Rojava stuff and extreme ideology- I am inclined to wonder if Saddam had a good reason for what he did. The world needs promotion of Islam. Not promotion of filth like radical feminism and homosexuality. If that's what Rojava is about then may their movement be crushed.
Rojava is garbage and its supporters are the worst of people, if you look at its supporters young usually white liberals that are covered in tattoos and piercings and smoke marijuana and believe that morals are outdated and that there needs to be a "revolution", when they are done bringing that filth to Sham they'll bring it back home to America and Europe and corrupt their nations further.

In Rojava they want to ban all religious weddings and only have Civil weddings, and their "brave" soldiers that can't advance until at least 100 airstrikes occur on their off time are required to wear women's clothing to get rid of "gender specific clothing".

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
Right, it is clear because you tell that... This is a dogmatic approach. Look what the muhaddithun have said about that hadith.




You are the ones who have started the resentful battle between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, they had lived for centuries in peace under the Ottomans and the pre-Saddam period. The wahhabis of Najd started attacking their holy sites, like in Karbala, and massacred their people. And then their descendants from ISI continued on their path by bombing Shiite places, not obeying the orders of their leader from the Al Qaeda Centre in Khorasan, who discouraged such attacks. After invoking all these hatred, the supposed representatives of the Sunnites, the Islamic State group or Saddam Hussein, have just redrawn and left our Sunni brothers on their own to the rancor of Shiite militias. And Saddam Hussein is a part of all these crimes. Are there any Sunnis south of Baghdad today? If not, how did this demographic change occur?
The moment you begin rambling about "Wahhabis" is when your true colors emerge. And it doesn't matter what AQ, the Shuyukh or anyone says it's what is said in the Quran and Sunnah that matters. There may be ones who disregard what they "People of Knowledge" say but it doesn't matter when those who are learned disregard what the Quran and Sunnah says.

In the Pre-Islamic Period of Ignorance there was a house called Dhu-l-Khalasa or Al-Ka'ba Al-Yamaniya or Al-Ka'ba Ash-Shamiya. The Prophet said to me, "Won't you relieve me from Dhu-l-Khalasa?" So I set out with one-hundred-and-fifty riders, and we dismantled it and killed whoever was present there. Then I came to the Prophet and informed him, and he invoked good upon us and Al-Ahmas (tribe). Sahih Muslim

Narrated Qais:

Jarir said to me, The Prophet said to me, "Won't you relieve me from Dhu-l-Khalasa?" And that was a house (in Yemem belonging to the tribe of) Khatham called Al-Kaba Al Yamaniya. I proceeded with one-hundred and-fifty cavalry from Ahmas (tribe) who were horse riders. I used not to sit firm on horses, so the Prophet stroke me over my chest till I saw the mark of his fingers over my chest, and then he said, 'O Allah! Make him (i.e. Jarir) firm and one who guides others and is guided on the right path." So Jarir proceeded to it dismantled and burnt it, and then sent a messenger to Allah's Apostle. The messenger of Jarir said (to the Prophet), "By Him Who sent you with the Truth, I did not leave that place till it was like a scabby camel." The Prophet blessed the horses of Ahmas and their men five times.

Jarir said "Allah's Apostle said to me, "Won't you relieve me from Dhul-Khalasa?" I replied, "Yes, (I will relieve you)." So I proceeded along with one-hundred and fifty cavalry from Ahmas tribe who were skillful in riding horses. I used not to sit firm over horses, so I informed the Prophet of that, and he stroke my chest with his hand till I saw the marks of his hand over my chest and he said, O Allah! Make him firm and one who guides others and is guided (on the right path).' Since then I have never fallen from a horse. Dhul-l--Khulasa was a house in Yemen belonging to the tribe of Khatham and Bajaila, and in it there were idols which were worshipped, and it was called Al-Ka'ba." Jarir went there, burnt it with fire and dismantled it. When Jarir reached Yemen, there was a man who used to foretell and give good omens by casting arrows of divination. Someone said to him. "The messenger of Allah's Apostle is present here and if he should get hold of you, he would chop off your neck." One day while he was using them (i.e. arrows of divination), Jarir stopped there and said to him, "Break them (i.e. the arrows) and testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck." So the man broke those arrows and testified that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah. Then Jarir sent a man called Abu Artata from the tribe of Ahmas to the Prophet to convey the good news (of destroying Dhu-l-Khalasa). So when the messenger reached the Prophet, he said, "O Allah's Apostle! By Him Who sent you with the Truth, I did not leave it till it was like a scabby camel." Then the Prophet blessed the horses of Ahmas and their men five times.

al-Bukhaari (3020) and Muslim (2476) narrated that Jareer ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Bajali said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to me: “O Jareer, will you not relieve me of Dhu’l-Khalsah?” That was a house (in Yemen) belonging to the (tribe of) Khath’am, which was called Ka’bat al-Yamaaniyyah. I set out with one hundred and fifty horsemen. I used not to sit firm on horses and I mentioned that to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He struck me on my chest with his hand and said, 'O Allaah! Make him firm and make him one who guides others and is guided on the right path.' " So Jareer went and burned it with fire, then Jareer sent a man called Abu Artaat to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said, “I did not come to you until we had left it like a scabby camel.” Then the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) blessed the horses of (the tribe of) Ahmas and their men five times.

Muslim (969) narrated that Abu’l-Hayaaj al-Asadi said: ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib said to me: “Shall I not send you with the same instructions as the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent me? ‘Do not leave any image without defacing it or any built-up grave without leveling it.’”

Muslim (832) narrated from ‘Urwah ibn ‘Abasah that he said to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “With what were you sent?” He said, “I was sent to uphold the ties of kinship, to break the idols, and so that Allaah would be worshipped alone with no partner or associate.”

The Demolition of Shriki shrines is not new to Islam, Mujdaddid Muhammad Ibn Abd al Wahab did not introduce this to Islam but only reminded the people of the importance of Tawhid in an era where the Jazeera of An Nabi :saws1: was filled with Shirk and Bidah and Bilad ar-Rafidayn was likewise filled with the Shirk of the Majoos.

And the Rawafida have been plotting to takeover the land of Mashriq and have succeded by their victories in Iraq and Sham because of the faliures fueled by the arrogance Asabiyya, ignorance, as well as greed. In Lebanon is when it began than in Iraq then Syria and now Yemen, these dogs Wallahi are the ones who will welcome the Dajjal.

Anas (May Allah be pleased with him) said:
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "Dajjal (the Antichrist) will be followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan and will be dressed in robes of green coloured satin."
Sahih Muslim

And we all know that the Shias are the students of Ibn Saba the Jew, the Rawafida are the biggest enemy of Islam on the face of the planet.
Reply

Yahya.
04-04-2018, 09:07 AM
@JustTime

format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
it doesn't matter what AQ, the Shuyukh or anyone says it's what is said in the Quran and Sunnah that matters. There may be ones who disregard what they "People of Knowledge" say but it doesn't matter when those who are learned disregard what the Quran and Sunnah says.
After pledging allegiance to a Muslim leader, you are obliged to follow his orders, no matter if these please you or not. Obligations relate to timing and zone, this is a matter of maslaha (interest), that is decided by the amir one has given bayah to. One cannot just act individually disregarding the orders of one's amir. And in this case, as it is a matter of maslaha, you cannot forward the claim that the orders go against the shariah.


format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
The Demolition of Shriki shrines is not new to Islam
It is not about the demolition of crimes, it is about massacring people! They did not do this just in Karbala, but also in Taif and other Muslim cities. The Wahhabi movement was nothing more than the blind aggression of uneducated Najdi Bedouins who had no clue of the Usul ad-Din. They had been reading verses and hadiths and acting according to their formal expression without any profound background knowledge on its wisdom (maqasid as-shariah) and usul, thus calling Muslims disbelievers and slaughtering them, just like IS does today.
Reply

azc
04-04-2018, 10:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
@JustTime



After pledging allegiance to a Muslim leader, you are obliged to follow his orders, no matter if these please you or not. Obligations relate to timing and zone, this is a matter of maslaha (interest), that is decided by the amir one has given bayah to. One cannot just act individually disregarding the orders of one's amir. And in this case, as it is a matter of maslaha, you cannot forward the claim that the orders go against the shariah.




It is not about the demolition of crimes, it is about massacring people! They did not do this just in Karbala, but also in Taif and other Muslim cities. The Wahhabi movement was nothing more than the blind aggression of uneducated Najdi Bedouins who had no clue of the Usul ad-Din. They had been reading verses and hadiths and acting according to their formal expression without any profound background knowledge on its wisdom (maqasid as-shariah) and usul, thus calling Muslims disbelievers and slaughtering them, just like IS does today .
^Some people wouldn't like this part at all...
Reply

Yahya.
04-04-2018, 06:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
^Some people wouldn't like this part at all...
Unfortunately that's solely due to the great influence of Saudi Wahhabism on Salafis. Beyond all disagreements in aqidah and usul al-fiqh between Salafis and Ash'ariyyah-Maturidiyyah, the behaviour of the Wahhabi movement can only be described as sheer takfirism and aggression, which has no proof in the shariah, of course. But as all Wahhabis claim to be Salafis, and the Salafis regard Wahhabis as a part of themselves, Salafis will see it as an offense when somebody justifiably criticizes the crimes of the Wahhabi movement, whereas one is solely talking about historical facts and their proper evaluation. In reality these are two different layers; Islam on a scholarly level with aqidah, fiqh, tafsir etc. along its disagreements between different schools and sects, and an evident deviation in the manners (minhaj) that contradicts the shariah and comprises physical aggression harming other Muslims. So, no matter to which 'aqidah school' one belongs, one has to distinguish between these two. Criticizing manners is not criticizing beliefs.
Reply

Zzz_
04-04-2018, 11:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
Unfortunately that's solely due to the great influence of Saudi Wahhabism on Salafis. Beyond all disagreements in aqidah and usul al-fiqh between Salafis and Ash'ariyyah-Maturidiyyah, the behaviour of the Wahhabi movement can only be described as sheer takfirism and aggression, which has no proof in the shariah, of course. But as all Wahhabis claim to be Salafis, and the Salafis regard Wahhabis as a part of themselves, Salafis will see it as an offense when somebody justifiably criticizes the crimes of the Wahhabi movement, whereas one is solely talking about historical facts and their proper evaluation. In reality these are two different layers; Islam on a scholarly level with aqidah, fiqh, tafsir etc. along its disagreements between different schools and sects, and an evident deviation in the manners (minhaj) that contradicts the shariah and comprises physical aggression harming other Muslims. So, no matter to which 'aqidah school' one belongs, one has to distinguish between these two. Criticizing manners is not criticizing beliefs.
wahhabi this wahhabi that. People need to educate themselves.

Reply

azc
04-05-2018, 02:04 AM
@Yahya.

But people run away from historical facts. This movement has produced ''Rejectors'' of agreed upon Islamic traditions.
Reply

Yahya.
04-05-2018, 09:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
wahhabi this wahhabi that. People need to educate themselves.

Look, my second post was exactly meant to avoid such disgression from my main statements. I did not address any of Ibn Abdulwahhab's teachings, for I honest have not read any of his works. I consciously said "the Wahhabi movement", because what he had supposedly been teaching seems to have been reflected a bit different in practice by his followers. I do not follow him, but I nevertheles, too, reject worshipping graves and erecting tombs, following Prophet Muhammad's teachings. He, or at least his followers, went as far as claiming that visiting graves itself is considered haram. But anyway, I was merely talking about their physical aggression and khariji-like harshness, not about his teachings, because this is a topic on politics, not fiqh or aqidah or something else. And the reason I mentioned it is because IS-sympathizers like @JustTime are inspired by the Wahhabi movement and their mentality, they do not even reject it. It would be profitable for one to educate himself on the practice of teachings parallely, and not to stick by ideallistic theories.

As for the word "wahhabi" I do not agree to Shaykh Yusuf Estes. Semantics consists of two layers; the word and its meaning. Let's say in some language "wahhab" means sun and you say "wahhabi" in that language, are you then talking about Allah? No, you are talking about the sun. Just like this relation between different languages, the contextual difference of words are playing a primary role. We talk about the followers of Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahhab, it has been abbreviated like this and established itself, everybody knows this. Nobody can claim that we are talking, or even making fun of Allah! Audhubillah... Frankly he is digressing from the topic, or just attempts a conspicious introduction. May Allah have mercy on him, I respect him nonetheless.
Reply

Zzz_
04-05-2018, 03:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
@Yahya.

But people run away from historical facts. This movement has produced ''Rejectors'' of agreed upon Islamic traditions.
can you show proof of such a thing?

This movement stood against the grave worshippers who couldn't let go of their hindu and Zoroastrian roots.
Reply

Yahya.
04-05-2018, 04:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
can you show proof of such a thing?

This movement stood against the grave worshippers who couldn't let go of their hindu and Zoroastrian roots.
Brother, most people who reject, or at least take a dim view of Ibn Abdulwahhab, are not necessarily "grave worshipers". Of course there are many circles entrenched in deviated Sufi traditions (bid'ahs), but as of what I have heard from Muslim scholars and researchers, Ibn Abdulwahhab employed an exaggeratedly harsh tone and measures in fighting these superstitions. And after he passed away in 1792, his followers adopted extreme interpretations on takfir, which Ibn Abdulwahhab's words apparently allowed for, and went as far as massacring Muslims for failing their expectations in the knowledge of Tawhid. You may refer to the Taif Mosque Massacre, which I -looking at the map below- suppose happened after his death.

Reply

Zzz_
04-05-2018, 05:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
Brother, most people who reject, or at least take a dim view of Ibn Abdulwahhab, are not necessarily "grave worshipers". Of course there are many circles entrenched in deviated Sufi traditions (bid'ahs), but as of what I have heard from Muslim scholars and researchers, Ibn Abdulwahhab employed an exaggeratedly harsh tone and measures in fighting these superstitions. And after he passed away in 1792, his followers adopted extreme interpretations on takfir, which Ibn Abdulwahhab's words apparently allowed for, and went as far as massacring Muslims for failing their expectations in the knowledge of Tawhid. You may refer to the Taif Mosque Massacre, which I -looking at the map below- suppose happened after his death.
And what is the source of your information? most of anti ibn abdulwahhab scholars, speakers or laymen are from the subcontinent and those who follow sufi and their own nafs. Have you read his books personally? Most who reject him are the ignorant caught up in the hate propaganda or are part of the hate propaganda themselves.

I've met most of these rejectors, nothing more than slaves of their own desires.

You grow a beard, "oh you become a wahhabi"
You do niqab, "oh you become a wahhabi"
you don't do birthdays, "oh you become a wahhabi"
you don't do milad, 'oh you become a wahhabi"

give it another decade or two and it'll be
you don't do zina, "oh you became a wahhabi"
you don't drink, "oh you became are a wahhabi"

that's what majority of your anti wahhabi lots consists of, ignorant cultural Muslims
--

If we want to know more about him, we cannot find anyone who can describe the man better than himself, because when there is a man concerning whom people’s opinions vary greatly, with some praising him and some condemning him, we should look at what he says in his writings and his books, and at what is correctly attributed to him, then weigh that against the Qur’aan and Sunnah. What Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab said, describing himself, was:

“I tell you that– praise be to Allaah – my belief and my religion, according to which I worship Allaah, is the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, which was the way of the imaams of the Muslims, such as the four Imaams and their followers until the Day of Resurrection. But I explain to people that they must devote their worship sincerely to Allaah (ikhlaas). I forbid them to call upon the Prophets and the dead among the righteous and others, and from associating them with Allaah in any act of worship that should be done for Allaah alone, such as offering sacrifices, making vows, putting one’s trust, prostrating and other actions which are due to Allaah and in which no one should be associated with Him, not any angel who is close to Him or any Prophet who was sent.

This is the Message which was proclaimed by all the Messengers, from the first of them to the last of them, and this is the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. I hold a high position in my village and people listen to me. Some of the leaders denounced that because it goes against the customs they grew up with. I also obliged those who are under me to perform regular prayer, pay zakaah and fulfil other Islamic duties, and I forbade them to deal with ribaa, drink intoxicants and other kinds of forbidden things. The leaders could not criticize that or find fault with it, because it is something that is liked by the common folk, so they directed their criticism and enmity against that which I enjoin of Tawheed and that which I forbid of shirk, and they confused the common folk by saying that this goes against what everyone is doing, and they caused a great deal of fitnah…” (al-Durar al-Sunniyyah, 1/64-65, 79-80)


Any fair-minded person who studies the books of this man will know that he is one of those who call people to Allaah with sure knowledge, and that he bore many difficulties and hardships in order to restore Islam to its pure form, when it had been altered a great deal at his time, and that was because of his opposition to the whims and desires of the leaders, who stirred up the ignorant masses of the common people against him, so that they could continue to enjoy their positions of worldly leadership and wealth.


I urge you not to be easily influenced by others with regard to what you listen to and believe. Rather you should be a seeker of truth, defending it no matter who is promoting it, and I urge you to avoid falsehood and error no matter who is promoting it. So if you look at any of the books by this shaykh – and I recommend you to read Kitaab al-Tawheed alladhi huwa haqq Allaah ‘ala al-‘Abeed [Kitaab al-Tawheed is available in English translation] – you will find out how great the Shaykh’s knowledge was, and how important his call is, and the extent to which his words have been twisted and accusations have been made against him.

https://islamqa.info/en/12932
Reply

Yahya.
04-05-2018, 05:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
And what is the source of your information? most of anti ibn abdulwahhab scholars, speakers or laymen are from the subcontinent and those who follow sufi and their own nafs. Have you read his books personally? Most who reject him are the ignorant caught up in the hate propaganda or are part of the hate propaganda themselves.
There are also objective Muslim researchers who explain their ideas and development based on their own works. I know some works in Turkish regarding this. As I said, I did not read his books personally, but I trust the persons I listen to and seek correct citations. There are some chronicles written by Ibn Abdulwahhab's followers themselves, like Unwanul majd fi tarikhi Najd by Ibn Bishr an-Najdi. He openly explains how they treated the people of the places they conquered. For example in the year of 1216 H. (1802), they conquered Taif, and in page 260 (Arabic version) he says: "Allah conquered it [Taif] for them in coercion without a fight, people of the city were killed in markets and houses, some two hundreds were killed from them." Is this how Muslims are treated? And this is just what's narrated in this book... I have downloaded a PDF version of the book that was printed in Saudi-Arabia.
Reply

Zzz_
04-05-2018, 06:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
There are also objective Muslim researchers who explain their ideas and development based on their own works. I know some works in Turkish regarding this. As I said, I did not read his books personally, but I trust the persons I listen to and seek correct citations. There are some chronicles written by Ibn Abdulwahhab's followers themselves, like Unwanul majd fi tarikhi Najd by Ibn Bishr an-Najdi. He openly explains how they treated the people of the places they conquered. For example in the year of 1216 H. (1802), they conquered Taif, and in page 260 (Arabic version) he says: "Allah conquered it [Taif] for them in coercion without a fight, people of the city were killed in markets and houses, some two hundreds were killed from them." Is this how Muslims are treated? And this is just what's narrated in this book... I have downloaded a PDF version of the book that was printed in Saudi-Arabia.
What you say would be more convincing if you put names to those researchers and people you completely trust. I do not find any trust worthy that is going call it a 'wahhabi movement' and paint it as nothing more than takfiri zealots. Nor would I consider quotes allegedly from a follower as the only proof presented of their "evil" ways. If you want to talk about wahhabism, then i suggest reading this first: http://sultan.org/articles/wahabism.html
Reply

anatolian
04-05-2018, 06:35 PM
They were the ISIS of the Ottoman Empire two hundred years ago. Ibn Abdulwahhab declared jihad against the Khalifa at the end of his life. His sons took action. They gathered an army of bedouins ,terrorized the Arabian Peninsula, invaded Iraq and killed thousands of innocent Shias and were finally executed by the Sultan. They started with mischief and continue with mischief.
Reply

Misbah-Abd
04-05-2018, 07:01 PM
There is a lot of misconception about Shiekh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab's teachings due to those of the ahlu bidah who disparaged him because of his opposition to their beliefs.
Reply

Zzz_
04-05-2018, 07:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
They were the ISIS of the Ottoman Empire two hundred years ago. Ibn Abdulwahhab declared jihad against the Khalifa at the end of his life. His sons took action. They gathered an army of bedouins ,terrorized the Arabian Peninsula, invaded Iraq and killed thousands of innocent Shias and were finally executed by the Sultan. They started with mischief and continue with mischief.
you sound like the sufi members we have here who claim he was part of the rebels who rebelled against the Ottomons. He wasn't even in lands of the Ottoman's empire. Where is your proof?
Reply

anatolian
04-05-2018, 08:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
you sound like the sufi members we have here who claim he was part of the rebels who rebelled against the Ottomons. He wasn't even in lands of the Ottoman's empire. Where is your proof?
You can read the actions of the Suud in all historical records. How they killed people in Arabia. Ofcourse they were influenced by the teachings of Ibn Abdulwahhab.

http://www.wiki-zero.com/index.php?q...2F1ZGlfU3RhdGU

I am following the sufi interpretation of Islam myself. In fact, most of Turkish Muslims are following the sufi interpretation of Islam.
Reply

Zzz_
04-05-2018, 09:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
You can read the actions of the Suud in all historical records. How they killed people in Arabia. Ofcourse they were influenced by the teachings of Ibn Abdulwahhab.

http://www.wiki-zero.com/index.php?q...2F1ZGlfU3RhdGU
Wikipedia is not considered a reputable source in academia, not by a long short and nor should an educated person trust it. I doubt there will be much reliable information found in the mainstream world about "wahabi movement" or historical facts surround the events. Not to mention, much of the history the world learns is fake.




I am following the sufi interpretation of Islam myself. In fact, most of Turkish Muslims are following the sufi interpretation of Islam.
Well that explains why you consider them ISIS. I don't know the historical facts around the formation of saudia arabia and I certainly will not take my knowledge from lying propaganda outlets like wiki nor from sufi Turkey of post kemalist era . Regarding the killing and stuff, that's been going on for 1400 years among the shia and sunni so i'll just leave that at that. Regarding the shayk being involved in the rebellion, i recommend reading this :https://islamqa.info/en/9243
Reply

سيف الله
04-05-2018, 09:38 PM
Salaam

Maybe this thread will shed some light on the subject on the origins.

History of Saudi Arabia (House of Saud)

Reply

Misbah-Abd
04-05-2018, 11:06 PM
From the book: The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab by Jamal al-Din Zarabozo

"During the time of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, Najd fell under control of small states and rulers coming out of Bahrain or small emirates in the area....In reality, though, the Ottomans never gave much thought to Najd and had no influence over Najd. In fact, an Ottoman governemt document recorded by Yameen Ali Effendi in 1018 A.H. (1609) shows that the Ottoman state was divided into 32 states or provinces. Of those, 14 were Arab states; however, Najd was not included among them. The historian Ameen Saeed wrote, 'Every Sheikh or Amir in Najd had complete independence in running his land. He would not recognize the Turks nor would the Turks recognize him.' "

- - - Updated - - -

There have been eye witness accounts by Orientalists to the immoral condition and vices in the land of Hijaz during the time of the Shiekh. The book continues:

Vassiliev writes: "Since 1803, the Wahabis had put all kinds of obstacles in the way of pilgrims from the Ottoman Empire, particularly those from Syria and Egypt...The pilgrims were accompanied by musicians, playing tambourines, drums and other instruments (such as flutes). Many pilgrims brought alcohol with them and it was not unusual to find groups of prostitutes in the caravans. All this could not fail to provoke the Wahabis hostility because of its incompatibility with their religious and moral standards.....According to Bazili, the Wahabis demanded-not without reason- that there should be no boys nor other beardless persons in the caravans."

Vassiliev writes further about the reforms brought to Mecca as a result of its occupation by the followers of ibn Abdul Wahab:

The strict morals introduced in Mecca ran counter to its people's customs and habits. The status of the holy city made its inhabitants feel superior to all other Muslims and led them to excuse a certain lewdness or behavior. Whole blocks of Mecca belonged to prostitutes, who even paid a tax on their occupation. Homosexuality was widespread. Alcohol was sold almost at the gate of the Kaba and drunkenness was not uncommon. The new rules might meet with the approval of the pious scholars and sincere believers, but they were burdensome for the greater part of the population."

- - - Updated - - -

The American Lothrop Stoddard wrote about Islam in the 18th century:

"As for religion, it was as decadent as everything else. The austere monotheism of Muhammad had become overloaded with a rank growth of superstition and puerile mysticism. The mosques stood unfrequented and ruinous, deserted by the ignorant multitude which, decked out in amulets, charms and rosaries, listened to the squalid faqirs or dervishes and went on pilgrimage to the tombs of the "holy men" worshiped as saints an intercessors. As for the moral precepts of the Quran, they were ignored or defied. Even the holy cities were the holes of inequity. In fact, the life had apparently gone out of Islam. Could Muhammad return to earth, he would unquestionably have anathematized his followers as apostates and idolaters."
Reply

Zzz_
04-05-2018, 11:37 PM
Could Muhammad return to earth, he would unquestionably have anathematized his followers as apostates and idolaters."
It's no wonder these "majority" made the devil out of ibn abdul wahab and his movement, it stood for the Islam of the Prophet and against everything they were doing, from prostitutes and alcohol to saint worship.
Reply

Misbah-Abd
04-05-2018, 11:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
It's no wonder these "majority" made the devil out of ibn abdul wahab and his movement, it stood for the Islam of the Prophet and against everything they were doing, from prostitutes and alcohol to saint worship.
Jamal al-Din Zarabozo writes:

"Like what happens to every purifying call or teaching, those who take part in evil deeds meet the steps of purification with great alarm and fear. There is nothing more alarming to an evil people than threatening their vices."
Reply

Yahya.
04-06-2018, 08:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
What you say would be more convincing if you put names to those researchers and people you completely trust. I do not find any trust worthy that is going call it a 'wahhabi movement' and paint it as nothing more than takfiri zealots. Nor would I consider quotes allegedly from a follower as the only proof presented of their "evil" ways. If you want to talk about wahhabism, then i suggest reading this first: http://sultan.org/articles/wahabism.html
There is a Turkish scholar-researcher who has a video series on the Wahhabi idea, in which he directly quotes from their own books. His name is Ebu Bekir Sifil.

As for my quote, it is not of an ordinary follower. Like I mentioned in my earlier post that you quoted here, he is from Najd and a supporter of Ibn Abdulwahhab who was considered a scholar among the Wahhabis of the First Saudi Dynasty. Then, ordinary people would not write any books those days... And the book was printed in Saudi-Arabia. So, Wahhabis themselves admit how they treated the Muslims; slaughtering them and looting their wealth. I did not really understand what disturbs you in this narration, do you doubt its authenticity? If you would do any research on primary sources, instead of sticking to biographies of Ibn Abdulwahhab, you would see that most Wahhabis are not bothered with such narrations and actions, because they regard the ordinary non-Wahhabi Muslim as disbelievers... You can observe this in Saudi state laws.

***

format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
From the book: The Life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab by Jamal al-Din Zarabozo

"During the time of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, Najd fell under control of small states and rulers coming out of Bahrain or small emirates in the area....In reality, though, the Ottomans never gave much thought to Najd and had no influence over Najd. In fact, an Ottoman governemt document recorded by Yameen Ali Effendi in 1018 A.H. (1609) shows that the Ottoman state was divided into 32 states or provinces. Of those, 14 were Arab states; however, Najd was not included among them. The historian Ameen Saeed wrote, 'Every Sheikh or Amir in Najd had complete independence in running his land. He would not recognize the Turks nor would the Turks recognize him.' "

There have been eye witness accounts by Orientalists to the immoral condition and vices in the land of Hijaz during the time of the Shiekh. The book continues:

Vassiliev writes: "Since 1803, the Wahabis had put all kinds of obstacles in the way of pilgrims from the Ottoman Empire, particularly those from Syria and Egypt...The pilgrims were accompanied by musicians, playing tambourines, drums and other instruments (such as flutes). Many pilgrims brought alcohol with them and it was not unusual to find groups of prostitutes in the caravans. All this could not fail to provoke the Wahabis hostility because of its incompatibility with their religious and moral standards.....According to Bazili, the Wahabis demanded-not without reason- that there should be no boys nor other beardless persons in the caravans."

Vassiliev writes further about the reforms brought to Mecca as a result of its occupation by the followers of ibn Abdul Wahab:

The strict morals introduced in Mecca ran counter to its people's customs and habits. The status of the holy city made its inhabitants feel superior to all other Muslims and led them to excuse a certain lewdness or behavior. Whole blocks of Mecca belonged to prostitutes, who even paid a tax on their occupation. Homosexuality was widespread. Alcohol was sold almost at the gate of the Kaba and drunkenness was not uncommon. The new rules might meet with the approval of the pious scholars and sincere believers, but they were burdensome for the greater part of the population."

- - - Updated - - -

The American Lothrop Stoddard wrote about Islam in the 18th century:

"As for religion, it was as decadent as everything else. The austere monotheism of Muhammad had become overloaded with a rank growth of superstition and puerile mysticism. The mosques stood unfrequented and ruinous, deserted by the ignorant multitude which, decked out in amulets, charms and rosaries, listened to the squalid faqirs or dervishes and went on pilgrimage to the tombs of the "holy men" worshiped as saints an intercessors. As for the moral precepts of the Quran, they were ignored or defied. Even the holy cities were the holes of inequity. In fact, the life had apparently gone out of Islam. Could Muhammad return to earth, he would unquestionably have anathematized his followers as apostates and idolaters."
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
It's no wonder these "majority" made the devil out of ibn abdul wahab and his movement, it stood for the Islam of the Prophet and against everything they were doing, from prostitutes and alcohol to saint worship.
Brothers, it's a bit hypocritical if you accuse Sufis and that "deviated majority" of ignorance and bias and simultaneously do not fall in any doubts while coming up with books printed by the Saudi Dawah Ministery that bases its claims on the records of Western disbelievers...

It is an overly great word to claim that the holy cities were filled with prostitutes, homosexuals and drunkards...

So actually you are just saying, "they were apostates, so their killing and pillage was justified."
Reply

Misbah-Abd
04-06-2018, 09:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
There is a Turkish scholar-researcher who has a video series on the Wahhabi idea, in which he directly quotes from their own books. His name is Ebu Bekir Sifil.

As for my quote, it is not of an ordinary follower. Like I mentioned in my earlier post that you quoted here, he is from Najd and a supporter of Ibn Abdulwahhab who was considered a scholar among the Wahhabis of the First Saudi Dynasty. Then, ordinary people would not write any books those days... And the book was printed in Saudi-Arabia. So, Wahhabis themselves admit how they treated the Muslims; slaughtering them and looting their wealth. I did not really understand what disturbs you in this narration, do you doubt its authenticity? If you would do any research on primary sources, instead of sticking to biographies of Ibn Abdulwahhab, you would see that most Wahhabis are not bothered with such narrations and actions, because they regard the ordinary non-Wahhabi Muslim as disbelievers... You can observe this in Saudi state laws.

***





Brothers, it's a bit hypocritical if you accuse Sufis and that "deviated majority" of ignorance and bias and simultaneously do not fall in any doubts while coming up with books printed by the Saudi Dawah Ministery that bases its claims on the records of Western disbelievers...

It is an overly great word to claim that the holy cities were filled with prostitutes, homosexuals and drunkards...

So actually you are just saying, "they were apostates, so their killing and pillage was justified."
If I quoted followers of the Shiekh then you would say they have a bias. I quoted Westerners because they don't have a horse in the race and were eye witnesses. Do you have eye witness evidence to the contrary? But it doesn't surprise me of this type of reaction.
Reply

Yahya.
04-06-2018, 11:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
If I quoted followers of the Shiekh then you would say they have a bias. I quoted Westerners because they don't have a horse in the race and were eye witnesses. Do you have eye witness evidence to the contrary? But it doesn't surprise me of this type of reaction.
Look my previous post:

There are some chronicles written by Ibn Abdulwahhab's followers themselves, like Unwanul majd fi tarikhi Najd by Ibn Bishr an-Najdi. He openly explains how they treated the people of the places they conquered. For example in the year of 1216 H. (1802), they conquered Taif, and in page 260 (Arabic version) he says: "Allah conquered it [Taif] for them in coercion without a fight, people of the city were killed in markets and houses, some two hundreds were killed from them." Is this how Muslims are treated? And this is just what's narrated in this book...
Reply

Misbah-Abd
04-06-2018, 09:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
Look my previous post:

There are some chronicles written by Ibn Abdulwahhab's followers themselves, like Unwanul majd fi tarikhi Najd by Ibn Bishr an-Najdi. He openly explains how they treated the people of the places they conquered. For example in the year of 1216 H. (1802), they conquered Taif, and in page 260 (Arabic version) he says: "Allah conquered it [Taif] for them in coercion without a fight, people of the city were killed in markets and houses, some two hundreds were killed from them." Is this how Muslims are treated? And this is just what's narrated in this book...
So you want to condemn a man for something that his followers did 10 years after his death? How is he personally responsible for that? And I really would like to see all the details of this incident before commenting. Allah will judge those who treated innocent Muslims harshly. But if this is you line of thinking and condemnation then you must really despise Abu Bakr r.a., and Salahudin. You see, there are times when commanding the right and forbidding the wrong can be achieved with dawah and other times the sword is necessary. For instance, Abdullah ibn Abbas r.a. was able to go into the Khawraj camp and use dawah and the correct interpretation of the Quran to win over some of their soldiers before they fought Ali r.a. On the other hand, Abu Bakr was firm and unleashed the Sword of Allah, Khalid bin Waleed r.a., on tribes who refused to pay the zakat. They said there is no god but Allah, they prayed, but they didn't want to pay zakat. He brought them back forcefully until they seen the errors of their ways and the strength of the Caliphate. Salahudin was not able to effectively expel the Crusaders out of Jerusalem and its vicinity because the Shiites and the Muslim governors in the area of Ash Sham were putting their whims and desires first and colluding with the Christians to preserve their control. So Salahudin had to eradicate the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt and fight the Muslim governors by laying siege to their cities until they submitted under the banner of Islam. Then Salahudin was able to expel the Crusaders out of Jerusalem. So is this how Muslims are treated? Sometimes yes because Islam comes before Muslims and sometimes the sword has to be used to get those people under the Tawheed of Islam. And Allah Knows Best.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a lot of misinformation out there concerning the sheikh. But I also believe that the modern Saudi state contradicts some of his teachings and could very well violate some of his 10 nullifiers of Islam even though they claim they are followers of his.
Reply

JustTime
04-07-2018, 06:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
Unfortunately that's solely due to the great influence of Saudi Wahhabism on Salafis. Beyond all disagreements in aqidah and usul al-fiqh between Salafis and Ash'ariyyah-Maturidiyyah, the behaviour of the Wahhabi movement can only be described as sheer takfirism and aggression, which has no proof in the shariah, of course. But as all Wahhabis claim to be Salafis, and the Salafis regard Wahhabis as a part of themselves, Salafis will see it as an offense when somebody justifiably criticizes the crimes of the Wahhabi movement, whereas one is solely talking about historical facts and their proper evaluation. In reality these are two different layers; Islam on a scholarly level with aqidah, fiqh, tafsir etc. along its disagreements between different schools and sects, and an evident deviation in the manners (minhaj) that contradicts the shariah and comprises physical aggression harming other Muslims. So, no matter to which 'aqidah school' one belongs, one has to distinguish between these two. Criticizing manners is not criticizing beliefs.
"Wahhabi" is a term used by extremely uneducated individuals who believe they sound smart while using it, Wahab is one of Allah's 99 names and using it in a derogatory fashion is nothing less than Haram, but indeed I am a follower of the most generous and therefore a Wahhabi, for taking from the knowledge of al-Wahab, Allah.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
They were the ISIS of the Ottoman Empire two hundred years ago. Ibn Abdulwahhab declared jihad against the Khalifa at the end of his life. His sons took action. They gathered an army of bedouins ,terrorized the Arabian Peninsula, invaded Iraq and killed thousands of innocent Shias and were finally executed by the Sultan. They started with mischief and continue with mischief.
The "Ottoman Khilafah" wasn't even valid, and by all Islamic standards they were indeed guilty of various forms of Bidah and Shirk, as well as their tyranny against Muslims, this Romanticized view of the Ottomans that plagues many is extremely distorted.
Reply

azc
04-07-2018, 07:40 AM
@Misbah-Abd :

Whole blocks of Mecca belonged to prostitutes, who even paid a tax on their occupation. Homosexuality was widespread. Alcohol was sold almost at the gate of the Kaba and drunkenness was not uncommon.
It's disgusting...!

How can you even imagine that imams of haramain sharifain and Arab and non Arab ulama who would visit haramain for haj and umrah remained silent nor they mentioned all these sinning in their books,

it's a big lie on the ulama and all Muslims. You only want to defend ibn abdulwahab and his party. You have no shame making these disgusting allegation on pious Muslims
Reply

Misbah-Abd
04-07-2018, 09:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
@Misbah-Abd:



It's disgusting...!

How can you even imagine that imams of haramain sharifain and Arab and non Arab ulama who would visit haramain for haj and umrah remained silent nor they mentioned all these sinning in their books,

it's a big lie on the ulama and all Muslims. You only want to defend ibn abdulwahab and his party. You have no shame making these disgusting allegation on pious Muslims
These were eye witness accounts. So show evidence to the contrary if you can. You can also read Ibn Jawzi's Tablis Iblis and he recounts the same type of debauchery in his time from those misguided and deviant sufi's 800 years earlier.
Reply

azc
04-07-2018, 11:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
These were eye witness accounts. So show evidence to the contrary if you can. You can also read Ibn Jawzi's Tablis Iblis and he recounts the same type of debauchery in his time from those misguided and deviant sufi's 800 years earlier.
Show me the prove from the books of the contemporary scholars of ibn abdulwahab that imam haramain sharafian and other scholars even common Muslims tolerated prostitution, homosexuality, drinking in pious cities...

Can you tolerate all this sinning....?

It's only an effort to justify the killing of innocent people in Arab perpetrated by wahabi insurgents.

- - - Updated - - -

Some of the contemporary scholars of his age:

Moroccan scholar, Ahmad ibn Idris, studied in Mecca and later established an independent state, run by religious leaders, in Asir province, to the south of Mecca.

Shah Wali Ullah, the outstanding Islamic thinker of India, studied in the Hijaz in the early eighteenth century. His teachers were Sheikh Abu Tahir Muhammad Bin Ibraheem Kurdi Madani, Sheikh Wafadullah Maliki Makki, Sheikh Tajuddin Hanafi Qalaei Makki

Shariat Allah, the founder of the Fara'idiya, a fundamentalist movement in Bengal, studied in Mecca for twenty years before returning home and agitating for fundamentalist goals.

Abd ar-Ra'uf as-Sinkili studied for nineteen years in Arabia before going back to Indonesia and spreading a Neo-Sufi order.

Abd as-Samad al-Palimbani studied and taught in Mecca before he too returned to Indonesia to propagate a brotherhood.

- - - Updated - - -

Some other scholars of 17th and 18th century but none of them mentioned all this in their books.

*. Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi
*. Abul Hassan Sagheer Sindhi
*. Al-Barzanjī
*. Sulayman Bal
*. Fatima al-Fudayliya
*. Subhan Ali Khan Kamboh
*. Liu Zhi (scholar)
*. Mirza Mazhar Jan-e-Janaan
*. Muhammad Baqir Behbahani
*. Muhammad Hayyat ibn Ibrahim al-Sindhi
*. Abdul Hakim Sialkoti
*. Abu'l-Mawahib al-Shinnawi
*. Mir Mukhtar Akhyar
*. Nuruddin ar-Raniri
*. Bahā al-dīn al-Āmilī
*. Seyyed Hashem Bahrani
*. Al-Bahūtī
*. Bari Imam
*. Hazrat Ishaan
*. Ismail Hakki Bursevi
*. Jana Begum
*. Mohsen Fayz Kashani
*. Khayr al-Din al-Ramli
*. Mirza Sayyed Hasan
*. Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi
*. Mustafa Devati
*. Osman Fazli
*. Qazi Sa’id Qumi
*. Mulla Sadra
*. Seyyed Nematollah Jazayeri
*. Shah Abdur Rahim
*. Sultan Bahu
*. Rajab Ali Tabrizi
*shah Rafiuddin
* shah Abdulaziz
* Firangi Mehhli
Reply

Misbah-Abd
04-07-2018, 11:50 AM
Mostly sufi's who turned a blind eye to what was going on or themselves who participated in shirk, grave worship, etc.
Reply

azc
04-07-2018, 02:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
Mostly sufi's who turned a blind eye to what was going on or themselves who participated in shirk, grave worship, etc.
it's nothing to do with wrong sufis. You are making false allegations of tolerating or involving in fornication, drinking, homosexuality on ulama of 17th and 18th century, imams of ka'abah and masjid nabwi, noble Muslims who went for performing hajj. Astaghfirullah..!
Reply

Misbah-Abd
04-07-2018, 02:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
it's nothing to do with wrong sufis. You are making false allegations of tolerating or involving in fornication, drinking, homosexuality on ulama of 17th and 18th century, imams of ka'abah and masjid nabwi, noble Muslims who went for performing hajj. Astaghfirullah..!
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't report that the sufi shiekhs were involved with debauchery but the people were. Though I don't doubt that those sufi sheikhs were involved with some form of shirk which is even worse than the sins of the flesh that were going on but you take exception to the sins of the flesh rather than the shirk that was prevalent in the land of Hijaz at the inception of the reforms about to take place by Sheikh abdul Wahaab. Doesn't suprise me at all.
Reply

Zzz_
04-07-2018, 04:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
it's a big lie on the ulama and all Muslims. You only want to defend ibn abdulwahab and his party. You have no shame making these disgusting allegation on pious Muslims
rather it is you who is blinded by your sufi hatred of the great sheikh and having a knee jerk reaction to eye witnesses and can't come to terms with accepting the truth.
Reply

azc
04-07-2018, 05:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
rather it is you who is blinded by your sufi hatred of the great sheikh and having a knee jerk reaction to eye witnesses and can't come to terms with accepting the truth.
Who was the eye witness ?, quote him. Any contemporary scholar of ibn abdulwahab , preferably, ulama of makka and madina of 17th or 18th century.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't report that the sufi shiekhs were involved with debauchery but the people were. Though I don't doubt that those sufi sheikhs were involved with some form of shirk which is even worse than the sins of the flesh that were going on but you take exception to the sins of the flesh rather than the shirk that was prevalent in the land of Hijaz at the inception of the reforms about to take place by Sheikh abdul Wahaab. Doesn't suprise me at all.
What I'm asking you aren't answering. I quoted some of famous ulama of 17th and 18the century. You prove your allegations from their statements. Nobody is interested in your sectarian propaganda to justify the killing of Muslims and revolting against the khilafah
Reply

Misbah-Abd
04-07-2018, 05:58 PM
Famous to who? You? I gave evidences of the condition of Hijaz at the time of Abdul Wahaab. I also told you that the same debauchery and shirk was prevalent during the time of Ibn Jawzi according to his book, Tablis Iblis. So sufism has a problem where people can transgress all bounds if they are not careful. Its like chemotherapy. It can kill the cancer but too much exposure can also destroy vital organs in the process. If you don't like the truth then you have to deal with it.
Reply

azc
04-07-2018, 06:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
Famous to who? You? I gave evidences of the condition of Hijaz at the time of Abdul Wahaab. I also told you that the same debauchery and shirk was prevalent during the time of Ibn Jawzi according to his book, Tablis Iblis. So sufism has a problem where people can transgress all bounds if they are not careful. Its like chemotherapy. If can kill the cancer but too much exposure can also destroy vital organs in the process. If you don't like the truth then you have to deal with it.
Then, you quote the statements of famous scholars of 17the and 18th century that prostitution, music, homosexuality and drinking was common in hijaz.
Reply

Yahya.
04-07-2018, 11:25 PM
1) Methodology of the Wahhabi movement in fighting bidah - takfir then slaughter

format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
So you want to condemn a man for something that his followers did 10 years after his death? How is he personally responsible for that? And I really would like to see all the details of this incident before commenting. Allah will judge those who treated innocent Muslims harshly. But if this is you line of thinking and condemnation then you must really despise Abu Bakr r.a., and Salahudin. You see, there are times when commanding the right and forbidding the wrong can be achieved with dawah and other times the sword is necessary. For instance, Abdullah ibn Abbas r.a. was able to go into the Khawraj camp and use dawah and the correct interpretation of the Quran to win over some of their soldiers before they fought Ali r.a. On the other hand, Abu Bakr was firm and unleashed the Sword of Allah, Khalid bin Waleed r.a., on tribes who refused to pay the zakat. They said there is no god but Allah, they prayed, but they didn't want to pay zakat. He brought them back forcefully until they seen the errors of their ways and the strength of the Caliphate. Salahudin was not able to effectively expel the Crusaders out of Jerusalem and its vicinity because the Shiites and the Muslim governors in the area of Ash Sham were putting their whims and desires first and colluding with the Christians to preserve their control. So Salahudin had to eradicate the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt and fight the Muslim governors by laying siege to their cities until they submitted under the banner of Islam. Then Salahudin was able to expel the Crusaders out of Jerusalem. So is this how Muslims are treated? Sometimes yes because Islam comes before Muslims and sometimes the sword has to be used to get those people under the Tawheed of Islam. And Allah Knows Best.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a lot of misinformation out there concerning the sheikh. But I also believe that the modern Saudi state contradicts some of his teachings and could very well violate some of his 10 nullifiers of Islam even though they claim they are followers of his.
Actually I did not want to express any condemnation of Ibn Abdulwahhab. For, honestly I do not have certain knowledge on his teachings. I can merely judge on what his followers did, and they are but attributed to him - that's not really my fault. We where talking on Saddam Hussein and the post-Saddam conditions in Iraq. And my main concern was to touch upon the great similarities between the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) and the early Wahhabi movement, as they carry the same mentality and methodology. To me, I cannot say anything concerning the question whether these ideas did really emanate from him, or if it was just misinterpreted by his followers. And nor is that any concern for me, because there is no benefit in accusing dead people. Only the Wahhabi mentality concerns me; takfir on Muslims, massacring/slaughtering them and looting their goods, attacking people and running away to let the remaining Muslims bear the burden. You may call it something else, it does not really matter. But if we follow the course of this idea, it may be helpful in exploring its causes...

As for using the sword. Abu Bakr (r.a.) unleashed the sword and eliminated those who transgressed against the authority of Muslims and caused fitnah (here strife-kufr) between the Muslims. Furthermore, the fight between different Muslim dynasties was just as you have described, a fight between armies and forts. Did Salahuddin slaughter the Muslims of Egypt in the markets and in their houses? That is exactly what the Wahhabis did, as the Najdi Ibn Bishr has described in plain Bedouin accent. This can only indicate that they were viewing single Muslims as disbelievers, not a particular city-collective that exclaimed its riddah by rejecting zakat or prayer. And if this analogy had been valid, that would mean the Hejaz just left Islam... I understand your loathing of bidah, which I, and every truthful Muslim shares, but that does not mean that we should just start a movement, enter cities and kill those who partake in bidahs. This exactly what's meant by "takfir due to major sins", which is not from the methodology of Ahl as-Sunnah, but rather an ill concept of deviated extremist sects like Kharijis, and obviously Wahhabis.

As we all here do not have profound historical knowledge on the events, maybe it would be better to just talk about actions and manner beyond their perpetrators? And that was actually my main intention when addressing this topic. Historical movements and people themselves do not concern me personally, only their remnants and influence on the present do.


2) Wahhabi movement - Ottoman Khilafa relations


format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
"Wahhabi" is a term used by extremely uneducated individuals who believe they sound smart while using it, Wahab is one of Allah's 99 names and using it in a derogatory fashion is nothing less than Haram, but indeed I am a follower of the most generous and therefore a Wahhabi, for taking from the knowledge of al-Wahab, Allah.

- - - Updated - - -



The "Ottoman Khilafah" wasn't even valid, and by all Islamic standards they were indeed guilty of various forms of Bidah and Shirk, as well as their tyranny against Muslims, this Romanticized view of the Ottomans that plagues many is extremely distorted.
a- If you have read my previous posts, I responded to the claim that one is supposedly talking about Allah when using the word Wahhabi. It is a coined term, it is not a conventional Arabic word. We are talking about the Wahhabi movement, not about al-Wahhab, subhanahu wa ta'ala. Instead of derailing the topic, concentrate on the core...

b- As for the Ottoman Khilafah, you would have to explain what you mean by valid. I admit that they had fallen into many illegitimate actions, but my main concern is not a rebellion against an unjust imam, though it is regarded contra-productive by most scholars, but rather the manner how the Wahhabi movement treated ordinary Muslim living in the Ottoman Khilafah, and with with they had replaced that order, a just one? Then, agreeing to the scholars, they contributed to a major mafsadah by this rebellion, as they opened another front against the Muslims contemporaneous to the attacks of the disbelievers. And if an actual collaboration can be proofed, as what is claimed for the "later Wahhabis", this would be a grave error; allying with disbelievers against Muslims. But of course, people carrying the Wahhabi mentality will choose the exit door and claim that the Ottomans were, beyond unjust leaders, apostates... why not?

3) Disgusting conditions in the holy haram ash sharif

format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
These were eye witness accounts. So show evidence to the contrary if you can. You can also read Ibn Jawzi's Tablis Iblis and he recounts the same type of debauchery in his time from those misguided and deviant sufi's 800 years earlier.
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
Famous to who? You? I gave evidences of the condition of Hijaz at the time of Abdul Wahaab. I also told you that the same debauchery and shirk was prevalent during the time of Ibn Jawzi according to his book, Tablis Iblis. So sufism has a problem where people can transgress all bounds if they are not careful. Its like chemotherapy. It can kill the cancer but too much exposure can also destroy vital organs in the process. If you don't like the truth then you have to deal with it.
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
rather it is you who is blinded by your sufi hatred of the great sheikh and having a knee jerk reaction to eye witnesses and can't come to terms with accepting the truth.
As you admitted yourself, your source is forwarding the accounts of Western travelers, and in Islam the witness of disbelievers is not accepted. As for Ibn Qayyim rahimahullah, did he mention the holy lands particularly in his work? And did he particularly talk about fornication and homosexuality?

Moreover, it is very disrespectful and irrational to build ones claims around a false target and then attach every evil to them... You are talking as if everyone else beside Salafis /"Wahhabis" were "Sufis", which is a very vague term also. As if the Muslim world was divided into two parts, where the people in Najd where the only righteous people adhering to the true belief, and every others from Istanbul to Delhi deviant Sufis. This has actually been the premise for the bloodshed of Muslims by people carrying this mentality. You may not precisely consider it like this, but this lies in the unconscious. Wallahu a'lam. Anyway, if you have any claims, please state them in particular instead of attaching everything to the "deviant Sufi" dummy.
Reply

anatolian
04-08-2018, 07:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
Wikipedia is not considered a reputable source in academia, not by a long short and nor should an educated person trust it. I doubt there will be much reliable information found in the mainstream world about "wahabi movement" or historical facts surround the events. Not to mention, much of the history the world learns is fake.






Well that explains why you consider them ISIS. I don't know the historical facts around the formation of saudia arabia and I certainly will not take my knowledge from lying propaganda outlets like wiki nor from sufi Turkey of post kemalist era . Regarding the killing and stuff, that's been going on for 1400 years among the shia and sunni so i'll just leave that at that. Regarding the shayk being involved in the rebellion, i recommend reading this :https://islamqa.info/en/9243
I just quoted Wikipedia as an example of information on how the things went on. Ibn Abdulwahhab created the first Saudi state in Darriyah with Muhammed bin Suud as a reaction to the Ottoman rule. Ottoman Empire was a de fecto protector of all Arabian peninsula although the inner parts of the peninsule were not directly ruled by the official rulers. Later on their children and grand children invaded entire Arabia including the territories under the direct Ottoman rule such as Taif, Mekkah and Medina. They killed also Sunni Muslims there. Wahhabi-Suudi movement considred the Ottoman rule illegitimate.

Post Kemalist era has nothing to do with Sufism in Turkey. Islam was spread withing Turks in Turkistan (Central Asia) and Turkey with the works of Sufi dervishes hundreds of years before the Kemalist era. Ottomans also valued the Sufi teachers a lot and they followed their footsteps. There is a Sufi sheykh in every milestone of the Ottoman Empire. This was one of the reasons of Ibn Adulwahhab's reaction against them. Ibn Suud was just looking for an independant state based on a religious fundemental.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime

The "Ottoman Khilafah" wasn't even valid, and by all Islamic standards they were indeed guilty of various forms of Bidah and Shirk, as well as their tyranny against Muslims, this Romanticized view of the Ottomans that plagues many is extremely distorted.
Just prove us where they commited bidah and shirk and tyranny against Muslims and how it illegitimates their rule according to Quran and Sunnah. There is no romanticization of Ottomans here but we need to analyze the history correctly inorder to synthesize the future.
Reply

cinnamonrolls1
04-08-2018, 08:55 PM
All i know is that he killed a lot of shias :(
Reply

Zzz_
04-08-2018, 10:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
I just quoted Wikipedia as an example of information on how the things went on. Ibn Abdulwahhab created the first Saudi state in Darriyah with Muhammed bin Suud as a reaction to the Ottoman rule. Ottoman Empire was a de fecto protector of all Arabian peninsula although the inner parts of the peninsule were not directly ruled by the official rulers. Later on their children and grand children invaded entire Arabia including the territories under the direct Ottoman rule such as Taif, Mekkah and Medina. They killed also Sunni Muslims there. Wahhabi-Suudi movement considred the Ottoman rule illegitimate.
Bro,

all those who say he rebelled against the ottomons have their info wrong. And lot of that info comes from anti-wahhabi haters for being called out for their shirk saint and grave worships among other innovations.

Did ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebel against Ottoman Caliphate

He lived in a region that wasn't even part of the ottomon empire. As for the so called "islamic" practices of those people , well read the previous posts and you'll see how jahil they had become.




Post Kemalist era has nothing to do with Sufism in Turkey. Islam was spread withing Turks in Turkistan (Central Asia) and Turkey with the works of Sufi dervishes hundreds of years before the Kemalist era. Ottomans also valued the Sufi teachers a lot and they followed their footsteps. There is a Sufi sheykh in every milestone of the Ottoman Empire. This was one of the reasons of Ibn Adulwahhab's reaction against them. Ibn Suud was just looking for an independant state based on a religious fundemental.
We don't look at the validity of sufism based on what some empire admired and followed. We judge its practices against the quran and Sunnah. The book Tablis Iblis by Ibn Jawzi does a great job of highlight how they emerged and deviated.

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

Book: Tablis Iblis

by Ibn Jawzi

Chapter 11 The Devil's Deception of the Sufis

(excerpts)

Sufism started as a way of extreme asceticism. Later, its followers practiced listening to songs and dancing. The name came into use before the year 200AH, and when the first of these people proclaimed it, they talked about it, expressing its import in various ways; whereof the gist is that according to them Sufism means disciplining of the soul, and resistance to nature by restraining it from vices and impelling it to virtues such as asceticism, gentleness, patience, sincerity, truthfulness, etc, such earn praise in this world and reward in the next.

I would observe that the first Sufis carried this out, the devil however deceived them in various ways, and yet further deceived their successors. As a century elapsed, his hopes for the next century increased, and he deceived them still further, and obtained complete control over the later generations. He started deceiving them by diverting them from knowledge, making them suppose that the object to be aimed at is action. When he had extinguished the lamp of knowledge which they had, they floundered in darkness. He persuaded some to the point that the purpose of their system was complete abandonment of the world; hence they discarded what was good for their bodies; compared wealth to scorpions, forgetting that it was ordained for useful purposes; imposed all sorts of penances on themselves, so that some of them would never lie down. The aims of these people were good, only they were diverted from the Straight Way. Some of them through lack of knowledge used to act according to fabricated hadiths unknowingly.

Later came authors who presented Sufism an independent school of thought, and gave it certain distinguishing characteristics, such as the patched garment, listening to music, ecstatic rapture, dancing, clapping of the hands. They further distinguished themselves by excessive purity and cleanliness. So the gulf between them and the true scholars widened more and more until they started to consider Sufism as the most complete knowledge, which they called the inner knowledge, whereas they made knowledge of the Shariah the outer knowledge. Some Sufi's were caused by extreme hunger to hallucinate. They imagined that they saw Allah in the form of a beautiful form and fell in love with him. These were something between kufr and bidah. And then the paths of some branched out, and their beliefs were even more corrupted. Some of them adopted the doctrine of incarnation, others of union; and the devil continued to encompass them with various heresies to the point that they even made for themselves laws.

Iblis continued his efforts of deceiving them until they fabricated their own hadiths and books of tafsir. Then arose Abu Abdu'l Rahman al-Sulami who composed for them the Kitab al-Sunan, and collected for them Haq'iq al-Tafsir, in which he mentioned extraordinary ways that they have of interpreting the Quran according to their whims and desires without finding the correct chains of narrations for them in any principles of knowledge, but merely only relying on their own principles. Strange indeed how they were careful about what they eat, but not careful about how they interpreted the Quran.
Reply

JustTime
04-09-2018, 05:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
I just quoted Wikipedia as an example of information on how the things went on. Ibn Abdulwahhab created the first Saudi state in Darriyah with Muhammed bin Suud as a reaction to the Ottoman rule. Ottoman Empire was a de fecto protector of all Arabian peninsula although the inner parts of the peninsule were not directly ruled by the official rulers. Later on their children and grand children invaded entire Arabia including the territories under the direct Ottoman rule such as Taif, Mekkah and Medina. They killed also Sunni Muslims there. Wahhabi-Suudi movement considred the Ottoman rule illegitimate.

Post Kemalist era has nothing to do with Sufism in Turkey. Islam was spread withing Turks in Turkistan (Central Asia) and Turkey with the works of Sufi dervishes hundreds of years before the Kemalist era. Ottomans also valued the Sufi teachers a lot and they followed their footsteps. There is a Sufi sheykh in every milestone of the Ottoman Empire. This was one of the reasons of Ibn Adulwahhab's reaction against them. Ibn Suud was just looking for an independant state based on a religious fundemental.

- - - Updated - - -



Just prove us where they commited bidah and shirk and tyranny against Muslims and how it illegitimates their rule according to Quran and Sunnah. There is no romanticization of Ottomans here but we need to analyze the history correctly inorder to synthesize the future.
Their shirk lied in their preservation of shrines and elevated graves such Karbala and the tombs of various Ottoman figureheads like Suleyman Shah (who's shrine is still protected by the Turkish government today).

Their Bidah shouldn't even be questioned, anyone with a slight amount of knowledge of Ottoman history would know that things such as the Tanzimat reforms are Bidah and Shirki in nature, as well as the adoption of their constitution. Another Bidah they committed was the Janissaries they removed Muslims from their military and relied on non-Muslim slaves for the expansion of their "Caliphate". Another Bidah they practiced which also extremely homosexual and disgusting was pederasty, they would sit and stare at young boy for "spiritual" reasons, one Ottoman wrote in a memoir that a young Austrian boy approached him and offered to have sex with him, because the Austrian knew of the Ottoman customs.

The Ottomans also sought to emulate the Europeans in almost anyway they could, this is a fact and something Haram. The Ottomans would also drink alcohol, they allowed alcohol in their lands and this is a failure to enforce the laws of Allah.

Their oppression lied in how they would deal with actual Muslims who support the Hukm of Allah over the illogical satanic whims of Ottoman rulers that mocked them while executing them by playing music just to rub in the fact that they have killed a Muslim.

Their illegitimacy falls in the fact that their leadership fell deep into disbelief, they had absolutely no authority as they failed to rule with the law of Allah and they exceeded the boundaries of simply being tyrants to waging war on Islam and its people and forbidding what is good and enjoining what is evil which is contrary to what Allah has ordered, and as stated they left the religion which is the gravest of sins. They also had no grounds or right to call themselves a Khilafah either as it is required that the position is held by a member of Quraysh and no Ottoman ruler was Qurayshi or could have ever been by any means as they were all Turkish.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
1) Methodology of the Wahhabi movement in fighting bidah - takfir then slaughter



Actually I did not want to express any condemnation of Ibn Abdulwahhab. For, honestly I do not have certain knowledge on his teachings. I can merely judge on what his followers did, and they are but attributed to him - that's not really my fault. We where talking on Saddam Hussein and the post-Saddam conditions in Iraq. And my main concern was to touch upon the great similarities between the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) and the early Wahhabi movement, as they carry the same mentality and methodology. To me, I cannot say anything concerning the question whether these ideas did really emanate from him, or if it was just misinterpreted by his followers. And nor is that any concern for me, because there is no benefit in accusing dead people. Only the Wahhabi mentality concerns me; takfir on Muslims, massacring/slaughtering them and looting their goods, attacking people and running away to let the remaining Muslims bear the burden. You may call it something else, it does not really matter. But if we follow the course of this idea, it may be helpful in exploring its causes...

As for using the sword. Abu Bakr (r.a.) unleashed the sword and eliminated those who transgressed against the authority of Muslims and caused fitnah (here strife-kufr) between the Muslims. Furthermore, the fight between different Muslim dynasties was just as you have described, a fight between armies and forts. Did Salahuddin slaughter the Muslims of Egypt in the markets and in their houses? That is exactly what the Wahhabis did, as the Najdi Ibn Bishr has described in plain Bedouin accent. This can only indicate that they were viewing single Muslims as disbelievers, not a particular city-collective that exclaimed its riddah by rejecting zakat or prayer. And if this analogy had been valid, that would mean the Hejaz just left Islam... I understand your loathing of bidah, which I, and every truthful Muslim shares, but that does not mean that we should just start a movement, enter cities and kill those who partake in bidahs. This exactly what's meant by "takfir due to major sins", which is not from the methodology of Ahl as-Sunnah, but rather an ill concept of deviated extremist sects like Kharijis, and obviously Wahhabis.

As we all here do not have profound historical knowledge on the events, maybe it would be better to just talk about actions and manner beyond their perpetrators? And that was actually my main intention when addressing this topic. Historical movements and people themselves do not concern me personally, only their remnants and influence on the present do.


2) Wahhabi movement - Ottoman Khilafa relations




a- If you have read my previous posts, I responded to the claim that one is supposedly talking about Allah when using the word Wahhabi. It is a coined term, it is not a conventional Arabic word. We are talking about the Wahhabi movement, not about al-Wahhab, subhanahu wa ta'ala. Instead of derailing the topic, concentrate on the core...

b- As for the Ottoman Khilafah, you would have to explain what you mean by valid. I admit that they had fallen into many illegitimate actions, but my main concern is not a rebellion against an unjust imam, though it is regarded contra-productive by most scholars, but rather the manner how the Wahhabi movement treated ordinary Muslim living in the Ottoman Khilafah, and with with they had replaced that order, a just one? Then, agreeing to the scholars, they contributed to a major mafsadah by this rebellion, as they opened another front against the Muslims contemporaneous to the attacks of the disbelievers. And if an actual collaboration can be proofed, as what is claimed for the "later Wahhabis", this would be a grave error; allying with disbelievers against Muslims. But of course, people carrying the Wahhabi mentality will choose the exit door and claim that the Ottomans were, beyond unjust leaders, apostates... why not?

3) Disgusting conditions in the holy haram ash sharif







As you admitted yourself, your source is forwarding the accounts of Western travelers, and in Islam the witness of disbelievers is not accepted. As for Ibn Qayyim rahimahullah, did he mention the holy lands particularly in his work? And did he particularly talk about fornication and homosexuality?

Moreover, it is very disrespectful and irrational to build ones claims around a false target and then attach every evil to them... You are talking as if everyone else beside Salafis /"Wahhabis" were "Sufis", which is a very vague term also. As if the Muslim world was divided into two parts, where the people in Najd where the only righteous people adhering to the true belief, and every others from Istanbul to Delhi deviant Sufis. This has actually been the premise for the bloodshed of Muslims by people carrying this mentality. You may not precisely consider it like this, but this lies in the unconscious. Wallahu a'lam. Anyway, if you have any claims, please state them in particular instead of attaching everything to the "deviant Sufi" dummy.
The Caliph must be from Quraysh and enforce the laws of Allah
Reply

Yahya.
04-09-2018, 08:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
The Caliph must be from Quraysh and enforce the laws of Allah
The caliph does not necessarily need to be from Quraysh, that was a conditional term for the time when the rule of Muslims was comprised to the Arabian Peninsula. Because a noble tribal status was required to unite the various warring Arab tribes. Obviously the Abyssinian slave1 we might be supposed to follow is not from Quraysh either. As for the enforcement of Shariah, the Ottomans did enforce it... Bidah or tyranny do not amount to the abandonment of Shariah. If someone desires to make any differences, he should do it through dawah, not aggression. Massacring Muslims in their homes, markets and mosques is not the right manner to induce islaah, nor is it an indication of a new just rule.


1 Anas (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "Hear and obey even if an Abyssinian slave whose head is like a raisin is placed in authority over you."

[Al- Bukhari].
Reply

JustTime
04-09-2018, 09:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
The caliph does not necessarily need to be from Quraysh, that was a conditional term for the time when the rule of Muslims was comprised to the Arabian Peninsula. Because a noble tribal status was required to unite the various warring Arab tribes. Obviously the Abyssinian slave1 we might be supposed to follow is not from Quraysh either. As for the enforcement of Shariah, the Ottomans did enforce it... Bidah or tyranny do not amount to the abandonment of Shariah. If someone desires to make any differences, he should do it through dawah, not aggression. Massacring Muslims in their homes, markets and mosques is not the right manner to induce islaah, nor is it an indication of a new just rule.


1 Anas (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "Hear and obey even if an Abyssinian slave whose head is like a raisin is placed in authority over you."

[Al- Bukhari].
They did not enforce Sharia they allowed alcohol, they didn't collect the Zakat or Jizya or close stores for salah and so on they were Disbelievers all of them.
Reply

azc
04-10-2018, 08:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
They did not enforce Sharia they allowed alcohol, they didn't collect the Zakat or Jizya or close stores for salah and so on they were Disbelievers all of them.
Nobody can kill another Muslim until he's utterly brainwashed and systematically indoctrinated. Who filled so much hatred in your heart...?
Reply

AllahIsAl-Malik
04-10-2018, 09:10 AM
I think grave worship definitely seems like shirk
Reply

Misbah-Abd
04-10-2018, 09:41 AM
The Ottoman Caliphate was legitimate. The Arabs had lost their way and were more concerned about the dunya and fighting each other than the kuffar. So Allah Azza wa Jal replaced them as the leaders of this Ummah. But the same thing happened to the Ottomans and they were on the decline in the late 18th centuries till the early 20th century. So now the Ummah is without a head and is in total disarray, following the ideologies of the kuffar and being humiliated by them. May Allah Azza wa Jal unify us once again. Ameen.

Read this link and the conclusion at the end of it:

https://islamqa.info/en/227620
Reply

anatolian
04-10-2018, 10:41 AM
Exactly. It is Allah who gives and takes back. He replaced Arabs with Turks when they fell but He did not replace Turks with any other people after they fell . Maybe it is bc we are just going to the end times..
Reply

JustTime
04-10-2018, 01:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
Nobody can kill another Muslim until he's utterly brainwashed and systematically indoctrinated. Who filled so much hatred in your heart...?
The Bara towards the Ottoman state is based on evidence from the Quran and Sunnah.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
Exactly. It is Allah who gives and takes back. He replaced Arabs with Turks when they fell but He did not replace Turks with any other people after they fell . Maybe it is bc we are just going to the end times..
You are just a Nationalist who exagerates the status of the the Turks.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
The Ottoman Caliphate was legitimate. The Arabs had lost their way and were more concerned about the dunya and fighting each other than the kuffar. So Allah Azza wa Jal replaced them as the leaders of this Ummah. But the same thing happened to the Ottomans and they were on the decline in the late 18th centuries till the early 20th century. So now the Ummah is without a head and is in total disarray, following the ideologies of the kuffar and being humiliated by them. May Allah Azza wa Jal unify us once again. Ameen.

Read this link and the conclusion at the end of it:

https://islamqa.info/en/227620
They had zero legitimacy by not beinf from Quraysh, if that was their only problem it would be okay, but it isnt they had numerous issues that did ammount to kufr.
Reply

anatolian
04-10-2018, 01:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime


You are just a Nationalist who exagerates the status of the the Turks.
Its not about “status”. Its rather a mission. You need to study the history of Islam in detail to understand it.

Note: There is a misconception regarding who/what the Turks are. You need to solve that at first to unferstand what I mean above
Reply

JustTime
04-10-2018, 02:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
Its not about “status”. Its rather a mission. You need to study the history of Islam in detail to understand it.

Note: There is a misconception regarding who/what the Turks are. You need to solve that at first to unferstand what I mean above
Yet again, I have provided suffiecnt and sound evidence that refutes the Ottomans
Reply

anatolian
04-10-2018, 03:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
Yet again, I have provided suffiecnt and sound evidence that refutes the Ottomans
You have just produced a lot of misconception rather than evidence bro, sorry. Again you need to learn who the Turks are. Ottoman doesnt mean Turk. It is only a sub branch of it
Reply

Misbah-Abd
04-10-2018, 04:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
They did not enforce Sharia they allowed alcohol, they didn't collect the Zakat or Jizya or close stores for salah and so on they were Disbelievers all of them.
Wow. Talk about blanket takfir.
Reply

JustTime
04-10-2018, 05:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
You have just produced a lot of misconception rather than evidence bro, sorry. Again you need to learn who the Turks are. Ottoman doesnt mean Turk. It is only a sub branch of it
Erecting shrines alone is grounds for Takfir
Reply

azc
04-10-2018, 05:21 PM
@JustTime :

Ottomans weren't perfect though but calling them disbeliever can make you disbeliever...
Reply

JustTime
04-10-2018, 05:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
@JustTime :

Ottomans weren't perfect though but calling them disbeliever can make you disbeliever...
I have evidence they were, they were Mushrikeen and comitted Bidah
Reply

anatolian
04-10-2018, 06:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
Erecting shrines alone is grounds for Takfir
Building shrines doesnt make you kafir unless you worship or pray to the men lying in them.
Reply

azc
04-10-2018, 06:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
I have evidence they were, they were Mushrikeen and comitted Bidah
You need introspection and self reformation. Your views may lead you to kufr.
Reply

JustTime
04-10-2018, 11:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
Building shrines doesnt make you kafir unless you worship or pray to the men lying in them.
Building shrines is Shirk regardless of praying or not elevated graves are Shirk.
Reply

azc
04-11-2018, 01:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
Building shrines is Shirk regardless of praying or not elevated graves are Shirk.
extremism is reprehensible....
Reply

Alamgir
04-11-2018, 01:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
Building shrines is Shirk regardless of praying or not elevated graves are Shirk.
Asalamu Alaikum

No bro it's just haram to build them, it only becomes shirk if one starts performing religious rituals around the shrine.
Reply

JustTime
04-11-2018, 02:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
Asalamu Alaikum

No bro it's just haram to build them, it only becomes shirk if one starts performing religious rituals around the shrine.
Sheikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyya would disagree

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by azc
extremism is reprehensible....
There is no extremism, either you follow Islam correctly or you don't there is no 'moderate' or 'extremist' approach.
Reply

Alamgir
04-11-2018, 02:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
Sheikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyya would disagree

- - - Updated - - -



There is no extremism, either you follow Islam correctly or you don't there is no 'moderate' or 'extremist' approach.
I think you might be skewing his words, I've never heard a scholar call building shrines shirk.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
Yet again, I have provided suffiecnt and sound evidence that refutes the Ottomans
The Ottomans carried the title of Caliphate for hundreds of years, they represented Islam.

Yes some of their rulers and people were questionable in terms of their Islam, but their Caliphate was still valid since nobody else could hold that position.
Reply

azc
04-11-2018, 03:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
Sheikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyya would disagree- - - Updated - - -There is no extremism, either you follow Islam correctly or you don't there is no 'moderate' or 'extremist' approach.
Definitely something is wrong in your understanding this deen.
Reply

JustTime
04-11-2018, 04:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
I think you might be skewing his words, I've never heard a scholar call building shrines shirk.

- - - Updated - - -



The Ottomans carried the title of Caliphate for hundreds of years, they represented Islam.

Yes some of their rulers and people were questionable in terms of their Islam, but their Caliphate was still valid since nobody else could hold that position.
Even if they had the right to call themselves a Khilafah and one of their rulers committed acts of disbelief then the validity of the Khilafah would be null, even Abu Bakr :ra: acknowledged this as did the other rightly guided Caliphs.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by azc
Definitely something is wrong in your understanding this deen.
I call for nothing more than Tawhid and that is the essence of Islam, so it is rather your understanding of the deen is corrupt.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
Asalamu Alaikum

No bro it's just haram to build them, it only becomes shirk if one starts performing religious rituals around the shrine.
And Allah said in his speech:
وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّخَذُوا۟ مَسْجِدًا ضِرَارًا وَكُفْرًا وَتَفْرِيقًۢا بَيْنَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَإِرْصَادًا لِّمَنْ حَارَبَ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ مِن قَبْلُ ۚ وَلَيَحْلِفُنَّ إِنْ أَرَدْنَآ إِلَّا ٱلْحُسْنَىٰ ۖ

And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars.
Surah Tawbah Ayah 107

(If we come back from our travel, Allah willing.) When the Messenger of Allah came back from Tabuk and was approximately one or two days away from Al-Madinah, Jibril came down to him with the news about Masjid Ad-Dirar and the disbelief and division between the believers, who were in Masjid Quba' (which was built on piety from the first day), that Masjid Ad-Dirar was meant to achieve. Therefore, the Messenger of Allah sent some people to Masjid Ad-Dirar to bring it down before he reached Al-Madinah. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said about this Ayah (9:107), "They are some people of the Ansar to whom Abu `Amir said, `Build a Masjid and prepare whatever you can of power and weapons, for I am headed towards Caesar, emperor of Rome, to bring Roman soldiers with whom I will expel Muhammad and his companions.' When they built their Masjid, they went to the Prophet and said to him, "We finished building our Masjid and we would like you pray in it and invoke Allah for us for His blessings
Tafsir ibn Kathir on 9:107

قال ابن قيم "لا يجوز إبقاء مواضع الشرك والطواغيت بعد القدرة على هدمها وإبطالها يوما واحدا فإنها شعائر الكفر والشرك وهي أعظم المنكرات فلا يجوز الإقرار عليها مع القدرة البتة."

Ibn Qayyim :rahm: said: It is not permissible to keep the positions of shirk and tyrants after the ability to destroy them and invalidate them for one day, for they are the rituals of kufr and shirk, which are the greatest evils.


Narrated 'Aisha:
When the Prophet became ill, some of his wives talked about a Ethiopia and it was called Mariya. Um Salma and Um Habiba had been to Ethiopia, and both of them narrated its (the Church's) beauty and the pictures it contained. The Prophet raised his head and said, "Those are the people who, whenever a pious man dies amongst them, make a place of worship at his grave and then they make those pictures in it. Those are the worst creatures in the Sight of Allah."
Sahih Bukhari
Reply

azc
04-11-2018, 04:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
Even if they had the right to call themselves a Khilafah and one of their rulers committed acts of disbelief then the validity of the Khilafah would be null, even Abu Bakr :ra: acknowledged this as did the other rightly guided Caliphs.

- - - Updated - - -



I call for nothing more than Tawhid and that is the essence of Islam, so it is rather your understanding of the deen is corrupt.
Everybody calls to tawhid but the way of yours is questionable.

What was mission of our prophet s.a.w...?
Was it not to change kuffar into Muslims,
Did he ever try to prove any Muslim as disbeliever....?

and what is your mission..?

To call Muslims as kuffar...???
Reply

JustTime
04-11-2018, 04:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
Everybody calls to tawhid but the way of yours is questionable.

What was mission of our prophet s.a.w...?
Was it not to change kuffar into Muslims,
Did he ever try to prove any Muslim as disbeliever....?

and what is your mission..?

To call Muslims as kuffar...???
I don't just say "Oh so and so is a Kafr" and not provide evidence that is Haram and would indeed make me a Kafr, I do provide evidence and I am able to back what I am saying and whilst doing this I call for a return to Islam and call on the enjoining of good and guarding against evil, the Ottomans were Kufar and it is plain and simple and its not anyone's problem if you don't like this.
Reply

Alamgir
04-11-2018, 06:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
Even if they had the right to call themselves a Khilafah and one of their rulers committed acts of disbelief then the validity of the Khilafah would be null, even Abu Bakr :ra: acknowledged this as did the other rightly guided Caliphs.

- - - Updated - - -



I call for nothing more than Tawhid and that is the essence of Islam, so it is rather your understanding of the deen is corrupt.

- - - Updated - - -



And Allah said in his speech:
وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّخَذُوا۟ مَسْجِدًا ضِرَارًا وَكُفْرًا وَتَفْرِيقًۢا بَيْنَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَإِرْصَادًا لِّمَنْ حَارَبَ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ مِن قَبْلُ ۚ وَلَيَحْلِفُنَّ إِنْ أَرَدْنَآ إِلَّا ٱلْحُسْنَىٰ ۖ

And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars.
Surah Tawbah Ayah 107

(If we come back from our travel, Allah willing.) When the Messenger of Allah came back from Tabuk and was approximately one or two days away from Al-Madinah, Jibril came down to him with the news about Masjid Ad-Dirar and the disbelief and division between the believers, who were in Masjid Quba' (which was built on piety from the first day), that Masjid Ad-Dirar was meant to achieve. Therefore, the Messenger of Allah sent some people to Masjid Ad-Dirar to bring it down before he reached Al-Madinah. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said about this Ayah (9:107), "They are some people of the Ansar to whom Abu `Amir said, `Build a Masjid and prepare whatever you can of power and weapons, for I am headed towards Caesar, emperor of Rome, to bring Roman soldiers with whom I will expel Muhammad and his companions.' When they built their Masjid, they went to the Prophet and said to him, "We finished building our Masjid and we would like you pray in it and invoke Allah for us for His blessings
Tafsir ibn Kathir on 9:107

قال ابن قيم "لا يجوز إبقاء مواضع الشرك والطواغيت بعد القدرة على هدمها وإبطالها يوما واحدا فإنها شعائر الكفر والشرك وهي أعظم المنكرات فلا يجوز الإقرار عليها مع القدرة البتة."

Ibn Qayyim :rahm: said: It is not permissible to keep the positions of shirk and tyrants after the ability to destroy them and invalidate them for one day, for they are the rituals of kufr and shirk, which are the greatest evils.


Narrated 'Aisha:
When the Prophet became ill, some of his wives talked about a Ethiopia and it was called Mariya. Um Salma and Um Habiba had been to Ethiopia, and both of them narrated its (the Church's) beauty and the pictures it contained. The Prophet raised his head and said, "Those are the people who, whenever a pious man dies amongst them, make a place of worship at his grave and then they make those pictures in it. Those are the worst creatures in the Sight of Allah."
Sahih Bukhari
I've never seen any Islamic scholar call the Ottoman Caliphate invalid, all I've heard is that some of their people were questionable in terms of their piety, but the Caliphate was still valid none the less.

https://islamqa.info/en/227620

Again, you haven't proven building shrines is shirk, yes it's haram and they should be taken down, but it's only shirk if one performs rituals around the shrine.
Reply

azc
04-11-2018, 06:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
I don't just say "Oh so and so is a Kafr" and not provide evidence that is Haram and would indeed make me a Kafr, I do provide evidence and I am able to back what I am saying and whilst doing this I call for a return to Islam and call on the enjoining of good and guarding against evil, the Ottomans were Kufar and it is plain and simple and its not anyone's problem if you don't like this.
No, you are wrong.

It's not the matter of like or dislike.
Reply

JustTime
04-11-2018, 09:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
No, you are wrong.

It's not the matter of like or dislike.
Where in my post did I say it was?
Reply

azc
04-12-2018, 05:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
Where in my post did I say it was?
you said this in #117 :

''the Ottomans were Kufar and it is plain and simple and its not anyone's problem if you don't like this''
Reply

Yahya.
04-12-2018, 06:18 PM
@JustTime

How are you going to provide evidence? First, for which statement? You are talking about the disbelief of a ~600 year lasting state, or maybe the disbelief of the Ottoman dynastic family - ambiguity in takfir target already suggests the ambiguity of your mind and evidences. This is not the Islamic way of talking, if its concerns you seriously. I doubt that you have sufficient historical information to talk on this matter. Just taking what you come across and avoiding any serious research one cannot make any judgement on questions relating Islam.

"They were disbelievers...all of them"
Who are you talking about? As for sultans, if you assume that authorizing the construction of shrines is disbelief, than bring your proof.
Reply

azc
04-12-2018, 06:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
@JustTime

How are you going to provide evidence? First, for which statement? You are talking about the disbelief of a ~600 year lasting state, or maybe the disbelief of the Ottoman dynastic family - ambiguity in takfir target already suggests the ambiguity of your mind and evidences. This is not the Islamic way of talking, if its concerns you seriously. I doubt that you have sufficient historical information to talk on this matter. Just taking what you come across and avoiding any serious research one cannot make any judgement on questions relating Islam.


Who are you talking about? As for sultans, if you assume that authorizing the construction of shrines is disbelief, than bring your proof.
I think this brother has misconceptions but hope that at the end of the day he will realize the error of his ways.
Reply

JustTime
04-12-2018, 08:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
@JustTime

How are you going to provide evidence? First, for which statement? You are talking about the disbelief of a ~600 year lasting state, or maybe the disbelief of the Ottoman dynastic family - ambiguity in takfir target already suggests the ambiguity of your mind and evidences. This is not the Islamic way of talking, if its concerns you seriously. I doubt that you have sufficient historical information to talk on this matter. Just taking what you come across and avoiding any serious research one cannot make any judgement on questions relating Islam.


Who are you talking about? As for sultans, if you assume that authorizing the construction of shrines is disbelief, than bring your proof.
I already did provide proof and if you didnt see it, you're either deaf, dumb or blind.
Reply

azc
04-13-2018, 01:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
I already did provide proof and if you didnt see it, you're either deaf, dumb or blind.
Will you give proof again, bro..?

Thanks
Reply

JustTime
04-13-2018, 04:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
@JustTime

How are you going to provide evidence? First, for which statement? You are talking about the disbelief of a ~600 year lasting state, or maybe the disbelief of the Ottoman dynastic family - ambiguity in takfir target already suggests the ambiguity of your mind and evidences. This is not the Islamic way of talking, if its concerns you seriously. I doubt that you have sufficient historical information to talk on this matter. Just taking what you come across and avoiding any serious research one cannot make any judgement on questions relating Islam.


Who are you talking about? As for sultans, if you assume that authorizing the construction of shrines is disbelief, than bring your proof.
And Allah said in his speech:
وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّخَذُوا۟ مَسْجِدًا ضِرَارًا وَكُفْرًا وَتَفْرِيقًۢا بَيْنَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَإِرْصَادًا لِّمَنْ حَارَبَ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ مِن قَبْلُ ۚ وَلَيَحْلِفُنَّ إِنْ أَرَدْنَآ إِلَّا ٱلْحُسْنَىٰ ۖ

And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars.
Surah Tawbah Ayah 107

(If we come back from our travel, Allah willing.) When the Messenger of Allah came back from Tabuk and was approximately one or two days away from Al-Madinah, Jibril came down to him with the news about Masjid Ad-Dirar and the disbelief and division between the believers, who were in Masjid Quba' (which was built on piety from the first day), that Masjid Ad-Dirar was meant to achieve. Therefore, the Messenger of Allah sent some people to Masjid Ad-Dirar to bring it down before he reached Al-Madinah. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said about this Ayah (9:107), "They are some people of the Ansar to whom Abu `Amir said, `Build a Masjid and prepare whatever you can of power and weapons, for I am headed towards Caesar, emperor of Rome, to bring Roman soldiers with whom I will expel Muhammad and his companions.' When they built their Masjid, they went to the Prophet and said to him, "We finished building our Masjid and we would like you pray in it and invoke Allah for us for His blessings
Tafsir ibn Kathir on 9:107

قال ابن قيم "لا يجوز إبقاء مواضع الشرك والطواغيت بعد القدرة على هدمها وإبطالها يوما واحدا فإنها شعائر الكفر والشرك وهي أعظم المنكرات فلا يجوز الإقرار عليها مع القدرة البتة."

Ibn Qayyim :rahm: said: It is not permissible to keep the positions of shirk and tyrants after the ability to destroy them and invalidate them for one day, for they are the rituals of kufr and shirk, which are the greatest evils.


Narrated 'Aisha:
When the Prophet became ill, some of his wives talked about a Ethiopia and it was called Mariya. Um Salma and Um Habiba had been to Ethiopia, and both of them narrated its (the Church's) beauty and the pictures it contained. The Prophet raised his head and said, "Those are the people who, whenever a pious man dies amongst them, make a place of worship at his grave and then they make those pictures in it. Those are the worst creatures in the Sight of Allah."
Sahih Bukhari
Reply

azc
04-13-2018, 06:49 AM
@JustTime :

Islam came to destroy the idols. Our prophet s.a.w hated idols.

But what about them who love to preserve the idols in museum...?

Be honest in saying truth...!
http://www.irshad-ul-islam.com/showt...lafi-ancestors

Idols worshiped by wahhabi/salafi ancestors
http://i.imgur.com/Ljz32.gif The National Museum of Saudi Arabia was opened in Riyadh in 1999 to celebrate centenary (100 year) of Saudi occupation of Arabian Peninsula. It was designed by Moriyama & Teshima Planners, Canada, the winners of Intl Design Competition for this Museum. http://i.imgur.com/VsbQs.gif Riyadh Museum at Night: Among other ancient artifacts, the Museum houses ancient Idol Gods which were worshiped by Saudi ancestors. These Idols are reported to have...

- - - Updated - - -

Note: I disagree with author that wahabis/salafis worship idols.
But what about preservation...?
Reply

azc
04-13-2018, 07:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
And Allah said in his speech:
وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّخَذُوا۟ مَسْجِدًا ضِرَارًا وَكُفْرًا وَتَفْرِيقًۢا بَيْنَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَإِرْصَادًا لِّمَنْ حَارَبَ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ مِن قَبْلُ ۚ وَلَيَحْلِفُنَّ إِنْ أَرَدْنَآ إِلَّا ٱلْحُسْنَىٰ ۖ

And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars.
Surah Tawbah Ayah 107

(If we come back from our travel, Allah willing.) When the Messenger of Allah came back from Tabuk and was approximately one or two days away from Al-Madinah, Jibril came down to him with the news about Masjid Ad-Dirar and the disbelief and division between the believers, who were in Masjid Quba' (which was built on piety from the first day), that Masjid Ad-Dirar was meant to achieve. Therefore, the Messenger of Allah sent some people to Masjid Ad-Dirar to bring it down before he reached Al-Madinah. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said about this Ayah (9:107), "They are some people of the Ansar to whom Abu `Amir said, `Build a Masjid and prepare whatever you can of power and weapons, for I am headed towards Caesar, emperor of Rome, to bring Roman soldiers with whom I will expel Muhammad and his companions.' When they built their Masjid, they went to the Prophet and said to him, "We finished building our Masjid and we would like you pray in it and invoke Allah for us for His blessings
Tafsir ibn Kathir on 9:107

قال ابن قيم "لا يجوز إبقاء مواضع الشرك والطواغيت بعد القدرة على هدمها وإبطالها يوما واحدا فإنها شعائر الكفر والشرك وهي أعظم المنكرات فلا يجوز الإقرار عليها مع القدرة البتة."

Ibn Qayyim :rahm: said: It is not permissible to keep the positions of shirk and tyrants after the ability to destroy them and invalidate them for one day, for they are the rituals of kufr and shirk, which are the greatest evils.


Narrated 'Aisha:
When the Prophet became ill, some of his wives talked about a Ethiopia and it was called Mariya. Um Salma and Um Habiba had been to Ethiopia, and both of them narrated its (the Church's) beauty and the pictures it contained. The Prophet raised his head and said, "Those are the people who, whenever a pious man dies amongst them, make a place of worship at his grave and then they make those pictures in it. Those are the worst creatures in the Sight of Allah."
Sahih Bukhari
No, bro, you failed to provide specific proof concerning the matter.
Reply

Misbah-Abd
04-13-2018, 09:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
@JustTime:

Islam came to destroy the idols. Our prophet s.a.w hated idols.

But what about them who love to preserve the idols in museum...?

Be honest in saying truth...!
http://www.irshad-ul-islam.com/showt...lafi-ancestors

Idols worshiped by wahhabi/salafi ancestors
http://i.imgur.com/Ljz32.gif The National Museum of Saudi Arabia was opened in Riyadh in 1999 to celebrate centenary (100 year) of Saudi occupation of Arabian Peninsula. It was designed by Moriyama & Teshima Planners, Canada, the winners of Intl Design Competition for this Museum. http://i.imgur.com/VsbQs.gif Riyadh Museum at Night: Among other ancient artifacts, the Museum houses ancient Idol Gods which were worshiped by Saudi ancestors. These Idols are reported to have...

- - - Updated - - -

Note: I disagree with author that wahabis/salafis worship idols.
But what about preservation...?

Those idols should not be allowed regardless if it is in a museum. I was dissappointed when they allowed the Ritz Carlton Riyahh to place these horses in the lobby:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...EBu_v5UQMkFIM:
Reply

azc
04-13-2018, 10:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd
Those idols should not be allowed regardless if it is in a museum. I was dissappointed when they allowed the Ritz Carlton Riyahh to place these horses in the lobby:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...EBu_v5UQMkFIM:
Sadly, truthful scholars are imprisoned for speaking the truth. Even today many scholars are behind the bar for criticising the wrong policies of Saudi government.

Sh al suraim may be the next target for his truthfulness.
Reply

JustTime
04-13-2018, 01:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
@JustTime :

Islam came to destroy the idols. Our prophet s.a.w hated idols.

But what about them who love to preserve the idols in museum...?

Be honest in saying truth...!
http://www.irshad-ul-islam.com/showt...lafi-ancestors

Idols worshiped by wahhabi/salafi ancestors
http://i.imgur.com/Ljz32.gif The National Museum of Saudi Arabia was opened in Riyadh in 1999 to celebrate centenary (100 year) of Saudi occupation of Arabian Peninsula. It was designed by Moriyama & Teshima Planners, Canada, the winners of Intl Design Competition for this Museum. http://i.imgur.com/VsbQs.gif Riyadh Museum at Night: Among other ancient artifacts, the Museum houses ancient Idol Gods which were worshiped by Saudi ancestors. These Idols are reported to have...

- - - Updated - - -

Note: I disagree with author that wahabis/salafis worship idols.
But what about preservation...?
If they are perserving items that are Shirki then they are Kufar.
Reply

azc
04-13-2018, 01:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
If they are perserving items that are Shirki then they are Kufar.
stop...stop, my bro.

I can't label them as kafir, however, this kind of preservation of idols may lead them to kufr.


Allah swt knows best
Reply

JustTime
04-13-2018, 02:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
stop...stop, my bro.

I can't label them as kafir, however, this kind of preservation of idols may lead them to kufr.


Allah swt knows best
Then they are no different than those who perserved the idols of Makkah and Dhul Khalasa
Reply

Zzz_
04-13-2018, 02:49 PM
Ali ibn abi Talib radiallahu anhu said to abul hayyaj al asadi radiallahu anhu
“Shall I charge you with a duty which the Prophet salalahu alayhi wa salam charged me with? Destroy every idol or statue, and level down every raised grave.” (Sahih Muslim)

The Prophet salalahu alayhi wa salam forbade plastering graves, sitting on them, or erecting structures on them or to include it in a structure” (Sahih muslim)

From that which has reached us from the Sunnah is that the Prophet Muhammad salalahu alayhi wa salam forbade erecting structures on graves (as you will see contrary to the sunnah some amongst sufiya making domes over the graves of their so called awliya).

https://wayofthesalaf.wordpress.com/...raised-graves/
Reply

azc
04-13-2018, 05:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
Then they are no different than those who perserved the idols of Makkah and Dhul Khalasa
No, there is a big difference between them.
Idol worshippers of makka preserved their idols to worship them whereas these modern deviants of Saudi Arab have preserved for tourists in order to earn money.

This act of theirs, indeed, is disgusting.
Reply

JustTime
04-13-2018, 09:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
No, there is a big difference between them.
Idol worshippers of makka preserved their idols to worship them whereas these modern deviants of Saudi Arab have preserved for tourists in order to earn money.

This act of theirs, indeed, is disgusting.
It isnt any different
Reply

azc
04-14-2018, 01:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
It isnt any different
O.K. It's not necessary for you to agree with me and vice versa, bro
Reply

Yahya.
04-14-2018, 08:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
And Allah said in his speech:
وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّخَذُوا۟ مَسْجِدًا ضِرَارًا وَكُفْرًا وَتَفْرِيقًۢا بَيْنَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَإِرْصَادًا لِّمَنْ حَارَبَ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ مِن قَبْلُ ۚ وَلَيَحْلِفُنَّ إِنْ أَرَدْنَآ إِلَّا ٱلْحُسْنَىٰ ۖ

And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars.
Surah Tawbah Ayah 107

(If we come back from our travel, Allah willing.) When the Messenger of Allah came back from Tabuk and was approximately one or two days away from Al-Madinah, Jibril came down to him with the news about Masjid Ad-Dirar and the disbelief and division between the believers, who were in Masjid Quba' (which was built on piety from the first day), that Masjid Ad-Dirar was meant to achieve. Therefore, the Messenger of Allah sent some people to Masjid Ad-Dirar to bring it down before he reached Al-Madinah. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said about this Ayah (9:107), "They are some people of the Ansar to whom Abu `Amir said, `Build a Masjid and prepare whatever you can of power and weapons, for I am headed towards Caesar, emperor of Rome, to bring Roman soldiers with whom I will expel Muhammad and his companions.' When they built their Masjid, they went to the Prophet and said to him, "We finished building our Masjid and we would like you pray in it and invoke Allah for us for His blessings
Tafsir ibn Kathir on 9:107

قال ابن قيم "لا يجوز إبقاء مواضع الشرك والطواغيت بعد القدرة على هدمها وإبطالها يوما واحدا فإنها شعائر الكفر والشرك وهي أعظم المنكرات فلا يجوز الإقرار عليها مع القدرة البتة."

Ibn Qayyim :rahm: said: It is not permissible to keep the positions of shirk and tyrants after the ability to destroy them and invalidate them for one day, for they are the rituals of kufr and shirk, which are the greatest evils.


Narrated 'Aisha:
When the Prophet became ill, some of his wives talked about a Ethiopia and it was called Mariya. Um Salma and Um Habiba had been to Ethiopia, and both of them narrated its (the Church's) beauty and the pictures it contained. The Prophet raised his head and said, "Those are the people who, whenever a pious man dies amongst them, make a place of worship at his grave and then they make those pictures in it. Those are the worst creatures in the Sight of Allah."
Sahih Bukhari
Is your sharh pending? These nusus do not contain any indication that those who build or preserve shrines are disbelievers.
Reply

azc
04-15-2018, 01:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
Ali ibn abi Talib radiallahu anhu said to abul hayyaj al asadi radiallahu anhu
“Shall I charge you with a duty which the Prophet salalahu alayhi wa salam charged me with? Destroy every idol or statue, and level down every raised grave.” (Sahih Muslim)

The Prophet salalahu alayhi wa salam forbade plastering graves, sitting on them, or erecting structures on them or to include it in a structure” (Sahih muslim)

From that which has reached us from the Sunnah is that the Prophet Muhammad salalahu alayhi wa salam forbade erecting structures on graves (as you will see contrary to the sunnah some amongst sufiya making domes over the graves of their so called awliya).

https://wayofthesalaf.wordpress.com/...raised-graves/
And what is your fatwa about those who are preserving idols...?
Reply

Zzz_
04-15-2018, 02:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
And what is your fatwa about those who are preserving idols...?
So you are calling the words of the Prophet (S) and sahih hadith as my fatwa?
Reply

azc
04-15-2018, 03:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
So you are calling the words of the Prophet (S) and sahih hadith as my fatwa?
Ali ibn abi Talib radiallahu anhu said to abul hayyaj al asadi radiallahu anhu
“Shall I charge you with a duty which the Prophet salalahu alayhi wa salam charged me with? Destroy every idol or statue, and level down every raised grave.”(Sahih Muslim)

You've quoted ^this hadith.
Now see it:

http://www.irshad-ul-islam.com/showt...lafi-ancestors

What is your fatwa on idol preservation..?

How many lectures or books of your scholars have come in the market/internet against this idol loving concept...?
Reply

Zzz_
04-15-2018, 03:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
Ali ibn abi Talib radiallahu anhu said to abul hayyaj al asadi radiallahu anhu
“Shall I charge you with a duty which the Prophet salalahu alayhi wa salam charged me with? Destroy every idol or statue, and level down every raised grave.”(Sahih Muslim)

You've quoted ^this hadith.
Now see it:

http://www.irshad-ul-islam.com/showt...lafi-ancestors

What is your fatwa on idol preservation..?

How many lectures or books of your scholars have come in the market/internet against this idol loving concept...?
1. Yes, that is a sahih hadith, in face of that hadith why do you sufi have shrines and tombstones? what is your excuse?

2. by asking me for "my" fatwa, are you accusing me of giving out fatwas?

3. by stating "your scholars" and attacking salafi scholars but then turning around quoting those very scholars on here when you can't find the answer on your hanafi website is a sign of hypocrisy. So it's ok to give out answers to others on here from islamqa.com when it suits and talk against them when it it doesn't suit you?
Reply

azc
04-15-2018, 04:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
1. Yes, that is a sahih hadith, in face of that hadith why do you sufi have shrines and tombstones? what is your excuse?

2. by asking me for "my" fatwa, are you accusing me of giving out fatwas?

3. by stating "your scholars" and attacking salafi scholars but then turning around quoting those very scholars on here when you can't find the answer on your hanafi website is a sign of hypocrisy. So it's ok to give out answers to others on here from islamqa.com when it suits and talk against them when it it doesn't suit you?
why do You always run away from speaking truth?

I asked you about preservation of idols which were destroyed and buried by our prophet s.a.w and sahaba ikram ra...

I take the knowledge from all groups including salafis.

I'm not sufi though but you are scared of sufiphobia as others to islamophobia.

Now tell me what is the fatwa/books/lectures of your scholars (as I couldn't find) about these people who are preserving idols...?
Reply

Zzz_
04-15-2018, 04:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
why do You always run away from speaking truth?

I asked you about preservation of idols which were destroyed and buried by our prophet s.a.w and sahaba ikram ra...

I take the knowledge from all groups including salafis.

I'm not sufi though but you are scared of sufiphobia as others to islamophobia.

Now tell me what is the fatwa/books/lectures of your scholars (as I couldn't find) about these people who are preserving idols...?
maybe you should learn some adaabs of discussion, then someone may consider answering your questions.

I don't issue fatwas

Listening to salafi scholars does not make them "my" scholars, especially since you claim you listen to them too

I don't have sufiphobia, i do have hate for bidah and innovators with their kufr and saint worship and idols and shrines

if you want an answer then try again with some proper adaabs.
Reply

azc
04-15-2018, 05:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
1. Yes, that is a sahih hadith, in face of that hadith why do you sufi have shrines and tombstones? what is your excuse?

2. by asking me for "my" fatwa, are you accusing me of giving out fatwas?

3. by stating "your scholars" and attacking salafi scholars but then turning around quoting those very scholars on here when you can't find the answer on your hanafi website is a sign of hypocrisy. So it's ok to give out answers to others on here from islamqa.com when it suits and talk against them when it it doesn't suit you?
No, I am not fond of listening to scholars, nor trust them wholeheartedly/blindly. I simply see their opinions in their books, articles, sites, fatwas etc and take what is good and leave what is bad.

I don't label any Muslim as kafir or mushrik.

I don't mind whether or not you answer of my question




(Allah swt knows best)
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-07-2018, 12:06 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-28-2011, 11:28 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-03-2009, 08:27 AM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-05-2008, 08:12 PM
  5. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-30-2006, 11:07 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!