Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: SHIA SUNNI, MALEKI, SHAFI, HANAFI, WAHABI(Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 11 Next >>
Author Message
Sonya
 
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2007
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 45
bullet Posted: 16 June 2007 at 7:33am

oho how many groups do we have?

can anyone tell me who are Deobandis?

I thought we only have shia and sunni...

Every one who can see has a sight but everyone who has a sight doesnt have an insight.
IP IP Logged
minuteman
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 25 March 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
bullet Posted: 16 June 2007 at 7:44am

 

 No Sonya, there are many groups. There are Deobandis, Brelvis, Sunnis, Shias, Ahle Hadith (Wahhabis) and Ahle Quran (who are considered not Muslims) and there are many more.

Here our discussion is going on between the Ahle Sunnah and Ahle Hadith. The problem is that the Ahle Hadith want to keep the Sunnah (practice) with the hadith (sayings)  of the prophet s.a.w.s.

 They should consider these two as different and one is preceding the other. I have read the post of Abuzaid. His first sentence is right but soon he has created doubt. I will reply to him separately, Insha Allah.

If any one is bad some one must suffer
IP IP Logged
abuzaid
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 163
bullet Posted: 16 June 2007 at 7:59am

Brother,

minuteman; I am not Ahle-hadith (in its popular meaning) and neither I am defending Ahle-hadith. In my understanding I am trying to defend Ahlus Sunnah. I got a perception that you are hadith-rejector.

All four Imams and their school of fiqh consider hadith as valid source of Deen.

Would you mind mentioning name of any reputed scholar of Ahlus Sunnah who rejected hadith as a source of Deen. Its possible that some of them rejected one or two hadith for some reason. But had anyone among them have rejected collection of hadith itself as a source of knowledge in Deen.



Edited by abuzaid
IP IP Logged
minuteman
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 25 March 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
bullet Posted: 16 June 2007 at 9:13am

 

 Thanks Abuzaid, I am in agreement with you about hadith being a  valid source of Deen. But I place it at the third place after the Quran and Sunnah.

But first you must understand that Hadith is not Sunnah. The Hadith may be a descriptive if the Sunnah. Hadith is different to the daily practice of the prophet. When ever any order came, the prophet s.a.w.s. acted on that order and every one learnt it. Then other people learnt it from the first group.

If you keep the Sunnah separate from the sayings of the prophet then you will see easily that I am belonging to Ahle Sunnah while you are belonging to Ahle Hadith. I have studied your posts and found that your beliefs are same as Ahle Hadith.

 You may be thinking that you are ahle Sunnah but with your beliefs it is clear that your beliefs are same as ahle hadith. We have seen many of them and we know all about it.

Next, your claim that all Imam of Fiqah have upheld the Hadith as a source of Deen, it is correct and I believe the same. But the Imams did not go for Hadith. They acted on the practice of the prophet. And used Hadith too for their guidance.

The ahle hadith accuse the Imams for not knowing the Ahadith. The followers of the ahle Hadith call the Sunni people as Muqallid. While they are themselves non Muqallid.

If any one is bad some one must suffer
IP IP Logged
abuzaid
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 163
bullet Posted: 16 June 2007 at 11:42am

First of all, I do not agree that Ahlus Sunnah and Ahl-e-hadith are exatcly opposite.

As per your point that second source of Deen is Sunnah and third is Hadith is a totally novel idea to Ahlus Sunnah.  Other than hadith rejector all muslims consider hadith and Sunnah as interchangeable.

When Sunnah is written it becomes hadith. I do not agree with your point that we should not follow written hadith, but only sunnah from our parents.

Four Imams of Fiqh and their students also bothered to find out the authenticity of any sunnah/hadith they learned and thus they are ahl-e-hadith. They never advocated to follow anything that they learned from elders.

According to your principle why should we follow written fiqh.. Nowaday we learn all the fiqh in written form. Should not we reject written fiqh as written is not acceptable in your principle.

I am a critic of traditional ahl-e-hadith for many reason, which I may explain in some other post if required.

As you have your own understanding of Ahlus Sunnah and thus you declared me as Ahle-e-hadith. I too have my understanding of Ahlus Sunnah and consider your approach as hadith-rejector and out of Ahlus Sunnah.

IP IP Logged
Sonya
 
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2007
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 45
bullet Posted: 17 June 2007 at 8:05am

first of all [this is for everyone].. let us have some respect and use Muwahhidun [thank you bro/sis number41] instead of 'wahabi'. Even saying followers of him or her is wrong i believe becoz as muslims, we can only be followers of prophet Muhammad [saw] regardless of whom do we agree or disagree with..

now brother minuteman.. i do not kno about the other groups you have mentioned but Muwahhidun [or ahle hadith as you name them] and ahlus Sunnah are not different sects! I had mentioned it earlier that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab was trained by the Hanbalee school of thought and this is a fact. Even today what Muwahhidun follow or believe comes from the hanbalee school of thought so for you to say that they are different from ahlus sunnah would be something very wrong..  

the differences of shias and sunnis are crystal clear. We have different sources. If not Quran then the books of ahadith and we all kno that ahadith play a very important role in determining our path. They dont have what we have and we dont have what they do. I am aware of some deviant groups such as the one in india who claim that we should only do what is farz and make Quran our only source since ahadith might not be authentic as they were not recorded during the time of prophet Muhammad [saw]. But for the rest of us who believe in Quran, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and the other authentic books of ahadith.. how can we differ? how can we be different sects when we use the very same sources? just becoz you dont understand a verse or hadith the way i do, we split into two different sects? in such a case there should be millions of sects.. unity is what we truly require today and with such thoughts in mind, i doubt prophet Muhammad's [saw] ummah will ever be united. Its so sad wen you look around and find people in the west progressing at a speed of light and us Muslims being busy in finding faults of eachother..

Every one who can see has a sight but everyone who has a sight doesnt have an insight.
IP IP Logged
number41
 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 March 2007
Location: Japan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 163
bullet Posted: 18 June 2007 at 8:27am

Sonya your expression are fully understood, I have been reading and analyzing different aspect of what is now and what it could be. I am not a genius, but I find most of the problems lies in as most of you have said and mentioned...understanding of ISLAM!

 

The reason why we are behind, because we LET OURSELVES being fooled...being manipulated and fight each other….. We cannot blame anybody else than ourselves! It is our fault, ……and it cannot be said enough. If we all improve ourselves and then being working to "benefit" the Ummah, we will indeed begin the elevation.

 

Each of us should stand firm by the philosophy and logic of our faith.  It is first faith, then knowledge. We are only getting further and further away from knowledge because we are getting further and further away from Quran and the Sunnah. How many Muslims are we? How many good leaders do we have? Are we then sincere?  Yes we do have differences and these differences are exploited by foreign forces to split us up in ethnically and regional differences thus avoid a united ummah. As I have been pointing out between lines, it is about character. Improve our character...and do not say what  we do not do ourselves…. If we have to do things positive around us, we must see our deeds, or attitude and behavior toward other people. Insha Allah we will be the Great Muslim Ummah.

'When one bright intellect meets another bright intellect, the light increases and the Path becomes clear' – Rumi
IP IP Logged
rami
Male  Islam
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Senior Member

Joined: 01 March 2000
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2550
bullet Posted: 22 June 2007 at 7:35am
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

assalamu alaikum

So far what you have presented is only history of what his opponent associated to him.

To begin with your view of history in general is warped, you have divided all accounts into for and against and simply labeled those apposing him as wrong. This is not acceptable by any scholarly standard, an ethical person looks at all the sources from all sides and then judges accordingly.

Regarding historical sources the only people who historical speaking view the wahhabi/salafi movement/sect as postive are the wahhabi's them selfs, if you are to impartially check the record you will find that scholars, historians from DIFFERENT parts of the muslim world apposed the movement. You can not accuse these scholars from different parts of the muslim world of conspiring, in fact the only conclusion you can come up with is that different people from different backgrounds following the same faith all came to the same conclusion about Muhammad ibn abdul wahhab and his movement.

Unfortunately you have not done this so far, Though I am a muqallid but I am ready to accept anything which is true and free from bias. I try my best to keep my mind away from taqleedi mindset.

Look at the reality of what he and this movement did. The greatest muslim minds, scholars, moral exemplars of Islam developed studied and promoted the four madhhabs [Islamic legal schools] and no educated person apposed this in more than a 1000 years of islam. From this any sane and rational person will conclude based on this fact and and countless verses in the Quran and ahadith that Allah chose this path for this Ummah and it was the correct one.

Muhammad Ibn abdul wahhab came some 200 years ago perceivesd that this Ummah had fallen into shirk, instead of educating himself Islamicly and proving his case using any one of the four legal methodologies of the madhhabs he simply declares all muslims who dont follow him Kufar with out any legal basis or Qualifications to do so. Wahhabi's appose Intersession and say it is shirk but not tassawuf itself [according to a speech by one of his sons/grandsons who clearly states this to be the only aspect of sufism abhorrent to them], then they declare shia to be outright kafirs after which they proceed to kill the "kufar".

His sect began to give fattwah in his lifetime on various legal issues based on there own bias rather than careful study and impartial analysis of the evidence and continued this long after his death.

If you look at this carefully you will see rather than simply say we dont agree with this aspect of the deen which we think is shirk, a serious fault in peoples practice and prove there case legally and peacefully, they apposed all four sunni traditional schools of thought and said they were wrong in everything they did and came up with thier own rulings.

Basically lets start over after 1200 years of scholarship.

This is there reality, a group of uneducated bedouins, cammel herders farmers, outlaws began to dictate the affairs of the muslims when they had no right to.


In Bukhari's sahih you will find the following,

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al' As:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "Allah does not take away the knowledge, by taking it away from (the hearts of) the people, but takes it away by the death of the religious learned men till when none of the (religious learned men) remains, people will take as their leaders ignorant persons who when consulted will give their verdict without knowledge. So they will go astray and will lead the people astray."

Narrated Abu Huraira :

The Prophet said, "(Religious) knowledge will be taken away (by the death of religious scholars) ignorance (in religion) and afflictions will appear; and Harj will increase." It was asked, "What is Harj, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied by beckoning with his hand indicating "killing." (Fateh-al-Bari Page 192, Vol. 1)

If you would like to challenge this reality show me the traditional Qualifications of Muhammad Ibn Abdul wahhab. Prove that he was above the madhhabs and the Imams of the madhhabs, we still have there teachings preserved untill this day nothing has been lost yet this movement saw fit not to follow Orthodox Islam. Where they also claiming the rest of the muslim world was following other than what these Imams had been taught by the Tabiin and the sahhabah and ultimately Muhammad [sallah llahu laihi wa sallam]?

The counter argument is that, what he says is directly from Quran and Sunnah and have never been disputed issue among Sahaba, Tabieen and taba' tabieen. And its upon you to prove that what he said is AGAINST teaching of early scholars. I am sure, you will have lots of example to prove this wrong and I will sppreciate if you actually start proving

This to me shows that you know nothing about traditional islam and simply think any person who speaks about a verse or hadith and says  this or thas is right by the sole assumption that they said they were right is therefor right. If i am wrong about you and you know something of traditional Islam and the islamic sciences you will easily understand the fallacy of the above and how it is so.

Otherwise to you it is all simply a matter of this scholar said this and that scholar said that and i simply prefer this one over that one because i like what he says more.

When YOUR sources all come from the propaganda work of YOUR own group then yes by any standard this is bias.

see my earlier point, word games dont touch on the reality of the situation you have simply painted the canvas black and white and picked a side.

Is it????

That was badly worded allow me to clarify, he was not a qualified scholar, he studied under many teachers while he traveled for a short period but who gave him ijazaah? in which madhhab was he a shaykh? at which point did he become a mujtahid mutalq [absolute mujtahid, ie a mujtahid of the highest caliber] capable of ijtihad [independent legal reasoning, independent of the madhhabs that is] and starting his own madhhab.

He was not a Sufi to get Ijazza, BTW did you get Ijazza from anybody to slander him??

I am sorry but you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge here, When an Islamic scholar, in any science, thinks his student has mastered and is educated enough to teach a particular science he gives him ijazzah in his name to do so. Traditionaly speaking A muslim shaykh would require Ijazah [or eejazah or ejaz depending how you pronounce it] in multiple Islamic sciences beffore they can be called a shaykh or scholar and ultimately be able to give fatwah on any topic. If a shaykh does not have Ijazzah in a particular topic then he is not permitted to give fatwah or any sort of advice on the matter until he has attained the necessary qualifications.

Muhammad Ibn Abdul wahhab did not have any Ijazzah and therefor was not qualified to make fatwah in any Topic on Islam. Lets assume he was qualified for arguments sake, then at which point did he become a mujathid mutlaq becouse that is the only way a person can give legal advice independent of the madhhabs since all a Ijazza does is state you are qualified to teach properly what was taught to you but he went beyond that.

If i am wrong please state the Ijazah he had, from which shaykhs he attained them from and the islamic sciences, then prove how he became a mujathid mutlaq by also providing the evidence that proves that he later was qualified in just about every islamic science, was a hafiz of the entire Quran including various tafsirs, asbab an nuzul [reason for revelation] for each verse and hafiz of at least 100,000 ahadith with there chains of narrations.

The only evidence i have seen is that he traveled [until the age of 25] to different areas and studied under different shaykhs and nothing to specifically state that he attained qualifications from any of them in this short period of time.

Possibly he was not specialised in all or many Islamic science. But he was qualified, However, this is unnecessy arguments as his sopporters will prove based on history that his was qualified and his opponents will prove again based on HISTORY that he was not qualified. This is just your rhetorics chanting qualified and unqualified..

i havnt seen this even from his supporters you assume to much.

In one of his letter he clearly claimed to be Hanbali. Though he did not follow Hambali school of fiqh in full, but his da'wah was not anti-taqleed. BTW, his capability of Ijtihad will be seen only through his books not history presented by his opponents.

you have to be Qualified to perform Ijtihad and that requires the approval of the scholarly community not simple claims you are a mujtahid. " his capability of Ijtihad" you are simply making this up as you go along i think, i am capable ijtihad according to your standards its all just a matter of agreeing with me and my views is it?

I am hanafi, am i now a hanafi shaykh?

As an argument his supporters claim that actally majority of muslims at his time have deviated away from traditional Islam and got influneced by beliefs and practices of many non-muslim and this is he who steered them towards traditional Islam.

You can not seriously claim that then go and start your own new version of islam that is idiotic, they claimed the sufis where mushriks what does that then have to with the madhhabs. It's like claiming we want revenge for America invading iraq and then attacking Sweden??!?....wait isnt that how america ended up in iraq... my point there was nothing wrong with the madhhabs yet they decided to follow there own caprice.

This a baseless question, you will call all the scholars produced by this movement as unqualified and they will call all people whom you consider as scholars as innovators. What's use of such rhetorics?

Give me a break even the salafi's recognise past mujtahid imams and at no point in time have they them selfs claimed to be mujtahids. You have taken this neutral approach of yours to far, beyond the scope of clear evidence and the obvious.

Kindly enlighten me on who are followers of traditinal Islam today! let us see, what follower of traditional Islam says about him.

Any person who follows any of Islams madhhabs, the question isnt so hard that you could not realise this yourself.

Sonya wrote

first and foremost.. brother/sister andalus.. i need to know where are you from [your origin]? you may think its irrelevant but its not.. i'll tell u why but first let me know and dont worry, i am not looking forward to any personal attacks.. i'm jus' trying to help myself understand why do you hold these views.. thats it!

im replying to this and what you wrote in your next post,

Br Andalus is a convert like yourself sister, when he first converted he fell under the influence of this sect but as his knowledge of islam increased he realised traditional Islam was the right path. regarding what you later said i am an arab not an indian or pakistani who have large salafi groups, it is a wrong to think that most people who appose them are simply from this region the remainder of the muslim world follow Traditional islam. Salafis makes up less than 3% of the world muslim population, they are the loudest becouse they have the most wealth in the muslim world as they are sitting on vast amounts of oil reserves.


Edited by rami
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 11 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com