salafi
- Thread starter paki
- Start date
- Replies 47
- Views 13K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Ansar Al-'Adl
Jewel of LI
- Messages
- 4,681
- Reaction score
- 922
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
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
Ansar said:
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.
paki said:
Two quick questions.
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
Muezzin
Bat-Mod
- Messages
- 10,763
- Reaction score
- 2,056
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
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 beforepaki said:
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:
Ansar Al-'Adl
Jewel of LI
- Messages
- 4,681
- Reaction score
- 922
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
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.
Ansar Al-'Adl
Jewel of LI
- Messages
- 4,681
- Reaction score
- 922
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Do you know what a Salafi is? It seems as though you are teeming with misconceptions.tru_nigga said:
We unanimously denounce all terrorist activities.
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.
panIslamist
Well-known member
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 9
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)
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;
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;
panIslamist
Well-known member
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 9
tru_nigga said:
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).
But i think you got the article from here:
http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?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:
panIslamist
Well-known member
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 9
tru_nigga said:
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.
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:
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.
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.
panIslamist
Well-known member
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 9
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.
I doubt Abdul Wahhab ra said that.
IF you want to see his thoughts you should read:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/tawheed/abdulwahab/
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.
I doubt Abdul Wahhab ra said that.
IF you want to see his thoughts you should read:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/tawheed/abdulwahab/
Last edited:
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?
“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?