How , who and why Wahhabi?

[MustafaMc]

Wahabia is term that is used to refer to a particular ultra-conservative orientation within Salafism

Assalamu alaikum, thanks I didn't know that

.most of them would say that shia are worse than Jews and Christians !!!! la ḥawla wa la quwwata illa billah ....

I don't have animosity toward the Shi'a. The Muslim room mate that I had in college was a Shi'a from Iran and he was the first Muslim I ever met.

by the way I don't follow any madhab strictly (though I don't advice any beginner to do the same)

Neither do I, but I have an inclination towards Shafi'i. I have 'Reliance of the Traveler' but haven't read all of it yet.

 

[MustafaMc]

I came across a detailed work on his life and influence which might be of interest:
http://www.islamhouse.com/p/54190

Assalamu alaikum, thank you for the link. Insha'Allah I will check it out.

At the end of the day, as long as we follow the Qur'an and the Sunnah as understood by the Companions and early Muslims, that is the main thing.

I agree with you. I would like to add that we should also be more tolerant of the differences among us and respectful of others.

 

[Salahudeen]

Assalamu alaikum, thanks I didn't know thatI don't have animosity toward the Shi'a. The Muslim room mate that I had in college was a Shi'a from Iran and he was the first Muslim I ever met.Neither do I, but I have an inclination towards Shafi'i. I have 'Reliance of the Traveler' but haven't read all of it yet.

Brother you don't feel any animosity for a people who curse Abu Bakr, Umar, and Ayesha RA?? And say they apostated after the death of the prophet (saw) and when the mahdi comes he's going to resurrect Umar and Abu Bakr and then hang them and whip them??

 

[MustafaMc]

Brother you don't feel any animosity for a people who curse Abu Bakr, Umar, and Ayesha RA?? And say they apostated after the death of the prophet (saw) and when the mahdi comes he's going to resurrect Umar and Abu Bakr and then hang them and whip them??

My statement was in reference to a statement by Al-manar, 'most of them would say that shia are worse than Jews and Christians !!!!". I respect Abu Bakr, Umar and Ayesha and my opinion is that the view or belief of someone else regarding them does not put them outside the fold of Islam. For that matter neither do I feel animosity towards Christians who worship Jesus as only Allah (swt) should be worshiped even though "the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin" at what they do.

I don't know a lot about the details of history, but my opinion is that both Muawiya and Ayesha were wrong to oppose and to fight against Ali. To illustrate my point, at Karbala on whose side would you have fought, Yazid's or Hossein's? The problem is that the Shi'a capitalized on this conflict and used it as an excuse to deviate in their deen and to rewrite history.

 

[MustafaMc]

When you say destroying graves, do you mean destroying shrines and levelling them to the ground because people would make special journeys to the shrines in order to receive blessings?

The problem is in people's hearts and their lack of iman. You change that by education not with a bulldozer. I don't agree with the wanton destruction of sites that were important in Islamic history. Likewise, I don't believe the graves of Muhammad (saaws), Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) and the green dome on Masjid An-Nabawi should be destroyed. I visited these graves a couple of times when I was in Medina, but my intention was to pray in the second most holy masjid in Islam which I assume was also the intention of all other Muslims that I saw. While I was there, why should I not visit the grave of Prophet Muhammad (saaws)?

 

[Al-manar]

Some people regard Salafism or Salafiyyah as a new maddhab

I agree with you ... as the word (Salaf) in Arabic simply means the past ....

This is what all the maddhabs do, and so they all follow the methodology of Salafiyyah

That is again true .....

it is simply adhering to what the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his Companions and those who followed them were upon.

That is where the disagreement between the Islamic theologies emerge ,

1- How trustworthy the traditions? The shia sect (due to the known political problem of Imamah) not only they radically mistrust the sunni hadith collections ,but also forged traditions that support their political position...

2- How far the traditions (sunna.. etc) be helpful in fiqh ,is where both the school of Abu Hanifah and Ibn Hanbal (God bless their souls both) differs (I think the later exaggerated its significance) ...

3- should we accept beliefs with certainity that included in Hadith Ahad or it has to be Hadith Mutawatir? ,what if Hadith Ahad contradicts the Quran? a controversy that led to theological differences .

4- could we question the understanding of Salaf (the early generation after the prophet) in some points, or if we do so ,we make bad innovations? could we simply, rely all the way on the interpretations of texts provided by medieval clerics, or we need to use reason to keep up with changing times.

I'm not posing those question seeking answers ,just to elborate the point

Regarding Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab - we have to be aware that there are many lies and fabrications in circulation about him..

That is true , but that is the way with the reformers ,some would praise them ,others would criticise .....

but you know, the focus of criticism on the Salafia ,wahabia movement (be sure I'm using the term with good intention),is not on the its founder (may Allah bless his soul),but on the actions of the movements itself all over the years .....

At the end of the day, as long as we follow the Qur'an and the Sunnah as understood by the Companions and early Muslims, that is the main thing.

Though I don't think the part in bold has to be accepted strictly ,yet I respect and appriciate those who held it ,who put the understanding of the early muslims all the way above criticism ..... me personally I think some later understandings ,I won't say better but at least possible ...

away from the methodology ,I don't think the movement was civilized,ambitious, realistic ,tolerant as it should be......
I pray for Allah that they reform the movement in a way to be suitable for the serious challenges that face our Islamic nation....

They have the financial abilities to build a united,civilized,tolerant and powerful nation that is feared and respected by the other nations ,but they lack the open minded leadership ...

Thank you Bro Muhammad for your input .... and I'm pleased ,we for the first time, have a discussion...

peace

 

[Muhammad]

Wa Alaykum Assalaam brother Al-manar,

That is where the disagreement between the Islamic theologies emerge ,

1- How trustworthy the traditions? The shia sect (due to the known political problem of Imamah) not only they radically mistrust the sunni hadith collections ,but also forged traditions that support their political position...

2- How far the traditions (sunna.. etc) be helpful in fiqh ,is where both the school of Abu Hanifah and Ibn Hanbal (God bless their souls both) differs (I think the later exaggerated its significance) ...

3- should we accept beliefs with certainity that included in Hadith Ahad or it has to be Hadith Mutawatir? ,what if Hadith Ahad contradicts the Quran? a controversy that led to theological differences .

4- could we question the understanding of Salaf (the early generation after the prophet) in some points, or if we do so ,we make bad innovations? could we simply, rely all the way on the interpretations of texts provided by medieval clerics, or we need to use reason to keep up with changing times.

I'm not posing those question seeking answers ,just to elborate the point

These points are separate discussions on their own but are not related to the one in this thread, because we are not talking about theological differences between different sects of Islam. We mentioned earlier that all the maddhabs adopt the same methodology in terms of following the Qur'an, Sunnah and understanding of the early Muslims, and therefore are not different sects. And Salafiyyah is one of the names given to this methodology.

but you know, the focus of criticism on the Salafia ,wahabia movement (be sure I'm using the term with good intention),is not on the its founder (may Allah bless his soul),but on the actions of the movements itself all over the years .....

This is an important distinction to make. If we can separate the actions of some people from what the true teachings (which they claim to follow) are, it helps us to understand the discussion better.

Though I don't think the part in bold has to be accepted strictly ,yet I respect and appriciate those who held it ,who put the understanding of the early muslims all the way above criticism ..... me personally I think some later understandings ,I won't say better but at least possible ...

This requires its own discussion - there are textual and rational evidences establishing the authority of the Companions and those who followed them. And there are further details regarding the role of their statements and different types and so on. That doesn't mean that later scholars do not have any role though...

Thank you Bro Muhammad for your input .... and I'm pleased ,we for the first time, have a discussion...

It is an interesting discussion, but firstly I do not consider myself knowledgeable to discuss this in any depth and secondly I haven't got much time to devote to it. Also, we generally discourage such topics from being discussed on the forum as they often lead to argumentation and disunity. That is why I was only intending to give brief points and was hoping to close the thread if the original question had been answered.

May Allaah (swt) bless us all with understanding of His religion, guide us to the Straight Path and forgive us for our mistakes and anything we may have said out of ignorance, Aameen.

 

[Al-manar]

peace brother Muhammad

Wa Alaykum Assalaam brother Al-manar,

These points are separate discussions on their own but are not related to the one in this thread, because we are not talking about theological differences between different sects of Islam.

except point (1) the shia, I didn't refer to any sect ,I don't think points 2,3,4 requires a sectarian definition .

It is an interesting discussion, but firstly I do not consider myself knowledgeable to discuss this in any depth and secondly I haven't got much time to devote to it. Also, we generally discourage such topics from being discussed on the forum as they often lead to argumentation and disunity.

and I agree with that approach ... that is why my points were in brief too . but I hope there would be a balance ,I mean ,the forum should attract the beginners and the advanced learners as well..... to do so it should have some input that attracts the in depth readers ....

still I agree with you ,I guess this thread ,if continue with its theme ,would lead to disunity....

May Allaah (swt) bless us all with understanding of His religion, guide us to the Straight Path and forgive us for our mistakes and anything we may have said out of ignorance, Aameen.

Aameen Aameen...

 

[MustafaMc]

away from the methodology ,I don't think the movement was civilized,ambitious, realistic ,tolerant as it should be......
I pray for Allah that they reform the movement in a way to be suitable for the serious challenges that face our Islamic nation....

Wa alaikum assalam, I agree that the methodology is good, but also there tends to be a serious lack of civility, respect and tolerance.

They have the financial abilities to build a united,civilized,tolerant and powerful nation that is feared and respected by the other nations ,but they lack the open minded leadership ...

Sadly, I don't see how the immense wealth generated from oil has significantly benefited Islam, perhaps it is only due to my ignorance of what has actually been done.