will wahhabism induce terrorism

Some more info on the man would be nice. From the little I know about him, it seems he was "ousted" from a lot of places and lots of Muslims opposed his views. Again, this is just from the little bit of information I read on him, so if anyone has some stuff that's worth highlighting, this would be a good place to post it for everyone to read. JazakAllah
 
keiv said:
Some more info on the man would be nice. From the little I know about him, it seems he was "ousted" from a lot of places and lots of Muslims opposed his views. Again, this is just from the little bit of information I read on him, so if anyone has some stuff that's worth highlighting, this would be a good place to post it for everyone to read. JazakAllah
Click to expand...

I believe that he was correct to condemn those who had turned to culturally inherited deviant rituals and a traditionally controlled legalistic "religion" (like the jews had done with the guidance given through Moses) which had no good relationship with Quran and intellect, and most of us probably know that the ottoman hereditary kingdom had lost touch with Allah.
Being driven out of a place for strong opinions is not necessarily a sign of deviance - since it was something the Prophets went through. And if he was disliked by people for cutting down trees which the people had started to go to pray to - it only shows their own deviance.
He appears to have done a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" compromise with others who needed him for his influence, and who he appeared to feel he needed for their tribal backing - this is sometimes done if the intentions and calculations are correct according to circumstances (yusuf :saws: in egypt) with the aim of pleasing Allah and making a bad situation better, but sometimes dangerous - especially when the people with whom the deal is being done are treacherous.

Allah knows best.
 
Abz2000 said:
I believe that he was correct to condemn those who had turned to culturally inherited deviant rituals and a traditionally controlled legalistic "religion" (like the jews had done with the guidance given through Moses) which had no good relationship with Quran and intellect, and most of us probably know that the ottoman hereditary kingdom had lost touch with Allah.
Being driven out of a place for strong opinions is not necessarily a sign of deviance - since it was something the Prophets went through. And if he was disliked by people for cutting down trees which the people had started to go to pray to - it only shows their own deviance.
He appears to have done a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" compromise with others who needed him for his influence, and who he appeared to feel he needed for their tribal backing - this is sometimes done if the intentions and calculations are correct according to circumstances (yusuf
saws_2.png
in egypt) with the aim of pleasing Allah and making a bad situation better, but sometimes dangerous - especially when the people with whom the deal is being done are treacherous.

Allah knows best.
Click to expand...

Good point

Unfortunately the sources for the places I have visited were pretty basic in terms of the information given. So while they may say he was driven out of the countries he visited, they wouldn't state details other than that his views were different than theirs which is about as vague as they could get.
 
They were the ISIS of the Ottoman Empire of 200 years ago. They terrorized the region and killed thousands of shias.
 
anatolian said:
They were the ISIS of the Ottoman Empire of 200 years ago. They terrorized the region and killed thousands of shias.
Click to expand...


The issue with governance is that consensus on the path of Allah is required in obedience to the ruler who establishes the guidance of Allah best - unless he is proven beyond doubt to be a rebel against Allah and His messenger and must therefore be removed from authority and replaced with someone better and best suited for the role of leadership under Allah.
This in turn requires that all who fall within the boundaries of the genuine Islamic State must relegate their authority to it - otherwise it risks becoming more like a chaotic, weak, and teetering karzai government with no credibility or real authority to legislate.
One of the main points of the second pledge of Al-'Aqabah was the monopoly of the Prophet :saws: to command within Allah's obedience and to be obeyed. Therefore people need some sort of general consensus within the limits of Allah in order to be able to run a state that is not in turmoil; on the brink of collapse from mutiny; or at risk of external invasion due to it's occupation and expenditure of human and material resources on internal problems.
On arriving in al-Madeenah, a treaty was signed (along with other stipulatuons) with the Muslim leaders of clans to hear and to obey within Allah's limits, and with neighbouring non-Muslim clans to run their separate governments, but to be ready to assist each other in the event of an external attack whilst bearing their own costs, and to allow the Prophet :saws: to settle any major disputes which may turn up amongst them - this sounded like a very cohesive government with stability and the ability to advance positively whilst making sound deals and treaties outside of the state.


وَإِن طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا فَإِن بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَى فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّى تَفِيءَ إِلَى أَمْرِ اللَّهِ فَإِن فَاءتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ {9

If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair and just: for Allah loves those who are fair and just.
 
muslimreviver said:
nice simple post that explains it fairly well.

http://www.thesimplemuslim.com/wahhabism-threat-humanity/
Click to expand...
I can't believe in this story that people were involved in grave worshipping in Arab land including jannat ul baqi and jannat ul mualla.-


I can't think that the ulama of Hijaz, imamas of kaaba and masjid nabwi allowed grave worshipping and they didn't perform their duty to stop people from shirk.


Scholars would go from different parts of the world to perform Hajj but Why they didn't stop shirk nor mentioned it in their books if people were bowing their heads before graves...?




e.g.
Some ulama from India.




Shah Waliullah rh,
Sayed Ahmad rh, -Sayed Ismael rh (contemporory ulama of Sh ibn abdul wahab rh) -spent more or less one year in hijaz




Molana Muhammad Qasim nanotvi rh, -molana Rashid Ahmad gangohi rh and molana Ashraf Ali thanvi rh and many other ulama went to perform hajj.




Molana Hussain Ahmad madani rh taught hadith in masjid -nabwi for 18 years




Hajj imdadullah rh migrated, lived in makka and buried in jannat ul mualla




Shah is' haq muhaddis rh migrated, -lived in madina and buried in jannat ul baqi




But none of them mentioned this story of
grave worshipping.....???
On the authority of Abu Sa’eed al-Khudree (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say, “Whosoever of you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then [let him change it] with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart — and that is the weakest of faith.” [Muslim]
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top