We are Muslims. We follows Islam as revealed by Allah swt in the Qur'an, explained by the Prophet saws in the Sunnah, and understood by the early generations of Muslims, the companions, their followers and those who followed them.
Please read the following for info:
http://islamicboard.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar
We are Muslims. We follows Islam as revealed by Allah swt in the Qur'an, explained by the Prophet saws in the Sunnah, and understood by the early generations of Muslims, the companions, their followers and those who followed them.
Please read the following for info:
http://islamicboard.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36
JKK brother Ansar for very appropriate and excellent response.
Two quick questions.format_quote Originally Posted by paki
1. What is "paki" and how legitimate this word/term is etymologically?
2. What is/are salafis(wahabis)?
I am trying to get a better understanding to further our dialogue that you have initiated.
Preacher
i just used paki for no reason, theres no reason to go deep into it. and for what is a salafi i'm not much learned so if you can answer that that would be better.
Giving a person a label and associating them with a stereotype is not a good thing
'Paki' is a contraction of 'Pakistani'. It is usually used in a racist or offensive manner.
to you maybe but not to me or to my friends. how many people really do think of it as racist? just estimate.
Please understand salafi's and wahabbis are two very different sects which are sometimes mistook to be the same!
I'm Pakistani myself, I was just stating that definition for the benefit of brother Preacher who doesn't seem to have heard the word beforeformat_quote Originally Posted by paki
It is a weird sort of double standard - it's okay for us Pakistanis to call each other that word, but not for anyone else. Kind of like how some black people call each other the 'N' word and it's inoffensive, but offensive when a non-black person calls them that.
And back on topic...
Last edited by Muezzin; 07-16-2005 at 10:05 AM.
As for 'wahhabi', there is no group on earth which calls themselves 'wahhabi'. It is a term used by some to label anyone they consider "extreme". For more info:
http://www.thewahhabimyth.com
As for Salafi, it refers to someone who follows the understanding of the early Muslims (salaf), including the companions of the Prophet Muhammad saws. Their understanding of Islam was the correct understanding, therefore, we all try to follow the understanding of the salaf.
For more info:
http://islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=1841
Yes many of them are salafi wahabis. If you call someone salafi they will tell you we will delete the post, but if someone calls you a kafir, then its ok. Most of them fit the profile of the london bombers. Living in britain, pakistani origin, isolated from the british society and bogged down with saudi salafi teachings where a step forward is shirk, a step backward is kufr, a step to the left is haraam, and a step to the right is bida'. They are stuck! The only difference is they are not violent, other than that they fit the profile.
Do you know what a Salafi is? It seems as though you are teeming with misconceptions.format_quote Originally Posted by tru_nigga
We unanimously denounce all terrorist activities.Most of them fit the profile of the london bombers.
Besides, you should educate yourself with the following:
http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/wahhabis_terrorism.htm
I'm going to ignore the rest of your lame insults. If you would like to have a mature discussion I'm ready. But until you're ready to learn the truth, there will be no benefit. You have to be open-minded.
Assalam alaikum
I just want to let it be known that Imaam Abdul Wahhab's movement did not propagate the killing of innocents or acts of terrorism that we see nowadays. On the contrary:
Ahmad bin Nasir bin Usman Muammari Najdi, the disciple of Shaikh Abdul Wahhab said before the ulema of the Haram Sharif in 1211:
"One of these fabrications is that the Sheikhul Islam sheds blood and plunders goods and has the audacity of killing people and calls all the Muslims of the world kafir..All this is a white lie" [4]
This is supported by the numerous ahadith against the killing of women and children and this was the position of Abdul Wahhab (RH).
Also Abdullah bin Mohammad bin Abdul Wahab, his son said: "And we do not view it permissible to kill women and children."
4. Alfawakehul Aezab fir-radde Ala mallam Yohakkim AsSunnata Wal Kitab (p. 55-90) by Sheikh Ahmad bin Nasir bin Usman al-Muammari An-Najdi (d. 1225)
He did say this:
Extracts from Sheikh Mohamed Abdel Wahab's letter to the Muftis of Mecca:
Quote:
And they gave us their strongest oaths, without it being asked from them, of the broadening of their understanding and the certainty of their conscience, that they no longer held the slightest doubt that the one who says: "Yaa Rasoolallaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam)", or: "Yabna 'Abbaas", or: "Yaa 'Abdal-Qaadir", or other than them from the creations, seeking by that to avert an evil or bring a good from anything that Allaah ta'aalaa alone is capable of doing, such as healing the sick, or granting victory over the enemy, or guarding from a misfortune, or the like: that he is a mushrik guilty of major shirk, whose blood may be shed and whose wealth is lawful, even if he believes that the ultimate controller of the universe is Allaah ta'aalaa alone but he turned to the creations with du'aa', seeking intercession from them, and drawing closer to them, in order to fulfill his need from Allaah by virtue of their "secret" and by their interceding with Him for them while they are in the barzakh;
That was actually his son Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab addressing the ulema around 12 years after Shaykh Abdul Wahhab ra died (in 1206 AH).format_quote Originally Posted by tru_nigga
But i think you got the article from here:
http://www.islamicawakening.com/view...articleID=1207
Ahmad bin Nasir bin Usman Muammari Najdi (disciple of Abdul Wahhab) said before the ulema of the Haram Sharif in 1211: "The Shaikh did takfir of only those idolators who asked for boons from the saints and the virtuous, those who committed shirk and polytheism even after receiving full proof and clarification about the way of God. And moreover they were the first to initiate the war. It was then that the Shaikh battled with them and shed their blood. Under such circumstances the Quran, the sunnah and the ijma are all in his support."
Last edited by panIslamist; 07-17-2005 at 05:17 PM.
Could you elaborate on the bolded part, what idolatory he is talking about?format_quote Originally Posted by panIslamist
Those who did major shirk. Like for example, saying "Ya Ali madad". After receiving full knowledge and it was their intention to do so. Because intention is a major component. If a person is doing it out of ignorance he did not make takfeer.format_quote Originally Posted by tru_nigga
This is considered major shirk by even non"Wahhabis".
If you want proof then look at this:
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=12722
The greater shirk can take you out of the fold of Islaam and it cannot be forgiven (until you convert back).
Please read: http://www.fatwaislam.com/fis/index.cfm?scn=fd&ID=169
Last edited by panIslamist; 07-17-2005 at 05:32 PM.
Wait a minute, i asked what is the idolatory he is talking about?
So let me ask you what is shirk? Its not about "wahabis" . Its about what is shirk. So lets say :
The following is a translation from the book Ashadd al-jihad:
Muhammad ibn Sulaiman al-Madani ash-Shafi'i (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih), [who passed away in Medina in 1194 A.H. (1780),] was questioned about Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab an-Najdi. He said, "This man is leading the ignoramuses of the present age to a heretical path. He is extinguishing Allahu ta'ala's light. But Allahu ta'ala will not let His light be extinguished in spite of the opposition of polytheists, and He will enlighten everywhere with the light of the 'ulama' of Ahl as-Sunnat." The [collection of the] questions and his answers at the end of Muhammad ibn Sulaiman's fatwas are as follows:
"Question: Oh great 'ulama', the stars who lead to the path of the Best of Creatures (the Prophet)! I ask you: Is a person to be permitted to disseminate his ideas if he says that this umma has wholly dissented from the essence of Islam and from the path of Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam), just by measuring with his short sight and narrow mind the knowledge he has gathered from various religious books, and if he says that he is mujtahid and, therefore, is able to derive knowledge on Islam from Allah's Word and Rasulullah's hadiths, although he does not have any of the qualifications stated as necessary by the 'ulama' of Islam for being a mujtahid? Should he not give up this claim of his and follow the 'ulama' of Islam? He says that he is an imam, that it is necessary for every Muslim to follow him and that his madhhab is necessary. He forces Muslims to accept his madhhab. He says that those who do not obey him are unbelievers, that they should be killed and that their possessions should be confiscated. Does this man tell the truth? Or, is he wrong? Even if a person fulfilled all the requirements necessary for making ijtihad and founded a madhhab, would it be jaiz for him to force everyone to adopt this madhhab? Is it necessary to adopt a certain madhhab? Or, is everyone free to choose any madhhab he like?
Does a Muslim go out of Islam if he visits the grave of a Sahabi or a pious servant of Allahu ta'ala, vows something for him, cuts an animal near a grave, prays making a mediator of a dead person, takes some soil from such a grave to receive blessings or asks help from Rasulullah or a Sahabi to get redeemed from danger? Is it permitted to kill such a Muslim even though he says, 'I do not worship the dead person and do not believe that he has the power to do anything. I make an intercessor, mediator, of that person with Allahu ta'ala to make me attain my wish, because, I believe that he is a beloved servant of Allahu ta'ala.' Does a person go out of Islam if he swears by something [or somebody] other than Allah? END QUOTE
Tell me what do you think about the bolded part? Especially the underlined part.
I dont know if that is true but here is what the scholars have said.
Major Shirk, is to worship other than Allaah, or to give the rights of Allaah to other than Him azza wajal. Minor Shirk, is every matter that contains an element of shirk. As well, Minor Shirk is to give right's to other than Allaah without putting that other object as a diety.Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen said:
“Shirk is of two types, major shirk which puts a person beyond the pale of Islam, and lesser shirk (minor shirk).”
The first type, major shirk, is “Every type of shirk which the Lawgiver described as such and which puts a person beyond the pale of his religion” – such as devoting any kind of act of worship which should be for Allaah to someone other than Allaah, such as praying to anyone other than Allaah, fasting for anyone other than Allaah or offering a sacrifice to anyone other than Allaah. It is also a form of major shirk to offer supplication (du’aa’) to anyone other than Allaah, such as calling upon the occupant of a grave or calling upon one who is absent to help one in some way in which no one is able to help except Allaah.
The second type is minor shirk, which means every kind of speech or action that Islam describes as shirk, but it does not put a person beyond the pale of Islam – such as swearing an oath by something other than Allaah, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that whoever swears an oath by something other than Allaah is guilty of kufr or shirk.”
The one who swears an oath by something other than Allaah but does not believe that anyone other than Allaah has the same greatness as Allah, is a mushrik who is guilty of lesser shirk, regardless of whether the one by whom he swore is venerated by people or not. It is not permissible to swear by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or by the president, or by the Ka’bah, or by Jibreel, because this is shirk, but it is minor shirk which does not put a person beyond the pale of Islam.
Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Rasaa’il Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, and al-Qawl al-Mufeed Sharh Kitaab al-Tawheed, vol. 1, p. 114, 1st edition
I doubt Abdul Wahhab ra said that.
IF you want to see his thoughts you should read:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen...ed/abdulwahab/
Last edited by panIslamist; 07-17-2005 at 05:51 PM.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen said:
“Shirk is of two types, major shirk which puts a person beyond the pale of Islam, and lesser shirk (minor shirk).”
The first type, major shirk, is “Every type of shirk which the Lawgiver described as such and which puts a person beyond the pale of his religion” – such as devoting any kind of act of worship which should be for Allaah to someone other than Allaah, such as praying to anyone other than Allaah, fasting for anyone other than Allaah or offering a sacrifice to anyone other than Allaah. It is also a form of major shirk to offer supplication (du’aa’) to anyone other than Allaah, such as calling upon the occupant of a grave or calling upon one who is absent to help one in some way in which no one is able to help except Allaah. END QUOTE
So lets wait a minute, act of worship is where he says shirk comes from. So shirk to him is an act and not a aqidah. But lets look at the aqidah, what does this person who he says commits shirk think about this dead saint in the grave. Now the question was asked:
What do you think about this:
'I do not worship the dead person and do not believe that he has the power to do anything.
And this:
Extracts from Sheikh Mohamed Abdel Wahab's letter to the Muftis of Mecca:
Quote:
And they gave us their strongest oaths, without it being asked from them, of the broadening of their understanding and the certainty of their conscience, that they no longer held the slightest doubt that the one who says: "Yaa Rasoolallaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam)", or: "Yabna 'Abbaas", or: "Yaa 'Abdal-Qaadir", or other than them from the creations, seeking by that to avert an evil or bring a good from anything that Allaah ta'aalaa alone is capable of doing, such as healing the sick, or granting victory over the enemy, or guarding from a misfortune, or the like: that he is a mushrik guilty of major shirk, whose blood may be shed and whose wealth is lawful, even if he believes that the ultimate controller of the universe is Allaah ta'aalaa alone but he turned to the creations with du'aa', seeking intercession from them, and drawing closer to them, in order to fulfill his need from Allaah by virtue of their "secret" and by their interceding with Him for them while they are in the barzakh;END QUOTE
Now the question is regarding the bolded part. Is someone who believes that this dead person is powerless and that God alone controlles the affairs of this world involved in shirk?
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks