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
minuteman
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 25 March 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
bullet Posted: 11 June 2007 at 8:08am

 

 I feel I have read the post and Fatawa posted by Abu Mujahid. It is hard to believe that.But it is all there, re;ated by some on and found in the Muslim (hadith). Surprising. I could not believe any of that. They had not been given any guidance. They had not rejected the truth. They had not opposed the truth. They had died long before.

 I mustsay that in the matters of Hadith there are two important tasks/ tests.

1. The Darayat.

2. The Rawayat.

I am sure that the darayat ( The integrity) takes perecedence over the rawayat (chain of narrators). Thanks any way.

If any one is bad some one must suffer
IP IP Logged
Andalus
 
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1187
bullet Posted: 11 June 2007 at 9:09am
Originally posted by abuzaid

Some stuff is give from those who are against Ibn Abdul Wahhab, have a look at what proponent of him says.

Mind you, I have taken it from a webiste which can be categorised as Deobandi Sufi

http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/hist_bio/ibnwahhaab.htm

SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN ABDUL-WAHHAAB (RA)

by Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah ibn Baaz  

Are you serious? A piece by ibn Baaz? You must certainly be joking. Obviously anything written by this “wahabi” cleric about Imam An-najdi will be an over romanticized “love fest”, since he is a follower of the deviated Imam An-najdi. Bin Baaz is neither qualified to give rulings in matter of aqida or fiqh, much less a history lesson on his leader.  This is a "neo-Salafi" propoganda piece to hush the concerns of thier more intelligent adherents who might question their problematic history and deviated founder. 

 

 



Edited by Andalus
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
IP IP Logged
Andalus
 
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1187
bullet Posted: 11 June 2007 at 9:31am
Originally posted by abuzaid

Originally posted by rami



it makes no difference where you found this it
Well, it actally makes a differnce, deobandis have been critics of Ibn Abdul Wahhab and when they give such article on their websites, it show that there are people who think differently. Its not necessary that you associate all sort of evil with Ibn Abdul Wahhab if you have some differences with him. This is what I tried to indicate by mentioning that this is from deobandi/sufi website. In india Abul Hasan Ali nadwi and Moulana Manzoor Nu'mani, both Hanafi/sufi were proponents of Mohammed Bin Abdul Wahhab.

Deobandis are not in "total"agreement concerning Muhammad ibn wahab najdi, and because a few who have connections to the Deobandi Ulema are misguided does not imply that deobandis supprt him, or any further implication that mainstream sunnis accept him. The piece you postes, is what it is, and to try and draw deeper inferences would be inaccurate.

 

 

Originally posted by rami

is by Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah ibn Baaz who is a major salafi figure, hardly an impartial personality.

According to your principle anybody who support Ibn Abdul Wahhab or known be salafi is partial and anybody who only condemn him is impartial???

Anyone who is a follower and proponent of najdi, and who's ideas are also rejected by the Ahl Asunnah, and who has a stake in being a apologetic for a figure head who is the founder of their way of thought and their government, (who was also on the government payroll) cannot be expected to write an accurate piece. And there are no more salafis, that time period is gone, they are all dead, and there is no way to go back. I would say that he tried to push "neo-salafism", which is as banckrupt as "wahabism", and in many ways they are just a like.

  

On what basis you say that, those refernces you gave is impartial, as its clear from their writing that they have only hate for him?

On what bases would you say that ibn Baaz would be impartial and that his work should be accepted without critical review? And why should all other accounts that list the crimes of Annajdi and his bandits be discounted when they are in direct opposition to the love fest piece you put up?

Annajdi's own brother was against him. 

 

Originally posted by rami

You cant twist and hide the truth from people who have seen it, "say truth has come and falsehood has vanished".
And my answer to point is exactly same as yours. Just by quoting a portion of verse Quran you can't become truth.


Originally posted by rami

you cant re write historical facts no matter how hard you try.
Again you also can't rewrite histrical facts no matter how hard you try. Propaganda of innovators can't become historical facts just because of your wish.

So how do you decide what happened? rami just presented historical accounts of what happened, you posted an aplogetic from a mainstream wahabi cleric that was on the Saudi payroll.

 

A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
IP IP Logged
Andalus
 
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1187
bullet Posted: 11 June 2007 at 11:59pm

The hadith "Your mother is with my mother" related in Ahmed has been delcared "dha'eef" by such hadith scholars as Ibn Hajar Asqalani due to a single "weak" narrator without other chains to strengthen it. Only your sect would go out of its way to try and give rise to fitnah and such a quest as to convince everyone that the Prophet Muhammad's (saw) parents are in hell. This is simply rude, terrible adhab that is at the bases of your sect. I dislike even mentioning the idea in debate about his parents being in hell. Sunnis did not accept this single hadith as a source to issue a belief about his mother in hell. The others (hadith) have been explained in a piece I have put up in another thread. I am done with this topic about his parents, if you want to dabble is such nonsense, do it some place else. We respect the Prophet (saw) here, and not try and find ways to degrade him and his family. You are the proof of the deviance of your group and its uneducated, and unrefined apporach to theology.

God help you.

A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
IP IP Logged
abuzaid
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 163
bullet Posted: 12 June 2007 at 1:19am

Assalamualaikum WRWB,

1. Why anything written in support of Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab is salafi propganda and rhetorics; and why anything against him is reality, is not it just mindsed? Again whoever write in his support is prejudiced and whoever write against him in free from any prejudiced. These are the two principles I have derived from posts of Rami and Andalus. On what criteria you people repeatedly call Bin baaz as biased and on what basis you believe that YOU are not biased against Mohammed Bin Abdul Wahhab? Just don't try to prove by you eloquence. Let reader choose to beleive what they prefer to.Final Judge will be Allah SW.
2. Why Ibn Abdul Wahhab is called repeatedly unqualified? what was the criteria for a person to be called qualified before 300 to 250 years?
3. As per history, you can't just claim that whatever is written against him is truth and anything in his support is fabrication. I personally prefer not to judge him based on history because we don't have common account of history acceptable to both supporters and opponents of him. Indian traditional religious faction have been his great opponents based on known history about him. But things have changed now. In last two decades I never have not come across any reputed deobandi scholars writing against Mohammed Bin Abul Wahhab. Though they are opposed to "sect called salafis" yet you will never find anything written against Ibn Abdul Wahhab. This is just because they have realised that what was presented to them as history was fake. Both Manzoor Nu'mani and Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi have specifically mention this in his writing. Abul Hasan Ali nadwi (a sufi hanafi) have specifically written a book to defend him.
Now about me..
Some of you have just assumed that I am Wahhabi or salafi. I don't care what you call me or think about me. I am just one among many who think positively about Ibn Abdul Wahhab, like the two personalities mentioned above. I neither think that he was right in all respect neither I think that he was just an evil. I have read many post of Brother Rami and respect him for his knowledge and agree that he is comparatively unbiased, but unfortunately when it comes to Ibn Abdul Wahhab he is on one extreme. I understand that our difference is based on history, I don't trust on the historical account that he choose to believe and he don't trust on hisotiry I choose to believe. The reason I do not believe on what was writtin against Ibn Abdul Wahhab is not that I am a blind follower of salafi folks, its actually influnce of writing of Manzoor Numani and Abul Hasal Ali Nadvi, I also agree with the brother Rami that calling yourself as "Ahl-e-hadith" is claiming your own ignorance.

I appreciate if we can have healthy and beneficial discussion about salafi approach rather than discussing personalities and their history.

 



Edited by abuzaid
IP IP Logged
rami
Male  Islam
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Senior Member

Joined: 01 March 2000
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2550
bullet Posted: 12 June 2007 at 3:37am
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

1. Why anything written in support of Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab is salafi propganda and rhetorics; and why anything against him is reality, is not it just mindsed? Again whoever write in his support is prejudiced and whoever write against him in free from any prejudiced. These are the two principles I have derived from posts of Rami and Andalus.

Then you have wrongly derived something from my posts, i am not so ignorant as to think like this.

I can easily prove how wrong this movement is without even quoting a single thing from history and simply looking at there teachings and methodology. My opinion is based on the holistic view of this movement and not any single account.

On what criteria you people repeatedly call Bin baaz as biased and on what basis you believe that YOU are not biased against Mohammed Bin Abdul Wahhab?

Becouse his writings have no historical basis, i would like to see clear and reliable references for what he says. When your sources all come from the propaganda work of your own group then yes by any standard this is bias.

Why Ibn Abdul Wahhab is called repeatedly unqualified? what was the criteria for a person to be called qualified before 300 to 250 years?

Becouse he has no teacher or ijazzah from any scholar, he is not qualified in any of the islamic and non islamic sciences and thus incapable of Ijtihad which is what he did by not following a madhhab and his own Indipendent ideas and thoughts. I find it ignorant on your part that you think the mujtahid imams had no teachers, we can trace there teachers all the way back to rasul allah [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] himself not so with the wahhabi movement.

As per history, you can't just claim that whatever is written against him is truth and anything in his support is fabrication.

By that standard anything in history can not be verified including Ahadith. The movement steered away from traditional Islam in Aqeedah and fiqh that is proof enough that they are wrong, How many Mujtahid Imams has this movement produced in 250 years the answer is none.

yet you will never find anything written against Ibn Abdul Wahhab. This is just because they have realised that what was presented to them as history was fake.

Logicaly speaking lets not center this argument around the deobanid's i am not one and what they believe is not a criterion for anything. This is also wishfull thinking on your part, since you clearly you have no knowledge of traditinal islam and what that entails how can you judge when a sect has moved away from traditional Islam and invented there own beliefs and understandings.

If your entire argument is of the "this shaykh said this and that shaykh said that" variety then we may as well end this discussion now and wait for you to do some more reading on the matter.

Both Manzoor Nu'mani and Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi have specifically mention this in his writing. Abul Hasan Ali nadwi (a sufi hanafi) have specifically written a book to defend him.


I dont know who these people are frankly speaking or why there words have any weight but if you care to ask Deobandi's what they think specifically about wahabbi's then i suggest you visit sunniforum.com and ask your self.

but unfortunately when it comes to Ibn Abdul Wahhab he is on one extreme.

I am also on one extreme about the Dajjal and what he stands for does that make what i say about him wrong. The fact is The man created his own group with there own Aqeedah and Fiqh seperate from Orthodox Islam regardless of his actions or history that is by itself enough to show he is wrong.

I understand that our difference is based on history,


My difference isnt simply because of history, i knew about there differences in Aqeedah and fiqh long before i read any historical accounts of just how astray they where.

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
fatima
 
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 04 August 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 979
bullet Posted: 12 June 2007 at 4:44am

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaykum

Originally posted by rami

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

I know people of ahle hadith don't like to be called wahabis so we should respect them and their choice and obey our Lord and should not call them that.

What about the salafis who like being called wahhabi's shouldnt we respect there wishes equally. is it an insult to be called hanafi or shafii the term wahhabi is in the same vein it is only insulting if you believe there is something wrong with muhammad ibn abdul wahhabs teachings.

The term ahl al hadith is literally more insulting than being called wahhabi since it is a direct reference to there Ignorance.

I find it insulting that we should be forced to call them salafi's and if we shouldnt call them salafi's or wahhabi's then what should we call them?

I never knew of people who liked being called wahabis so i raised that point and i don't think it is an insult that if some1 wants being called something you have to call them that, even though to you it might be worse than what you were originally calling them. 

I dont really get why brothers disagree so fiercely about religious matters. You can state your side of truth and others can do the same and have discussion with adab that islam teaches us. If you can convince others then mashaAllah good, if not khair, say salam and depart.

Wassalam

Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL
IP IP Logged
abuzaid
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 163
bullet Posted: 12 June 2007 at 7:01am

Originally posted by rami

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem
Then you have wrongly derived something from my posts, i am not so ignorant as to think like this.
I am sorry, I have no intention of deriving something from your post. So far what you have presented is only history of what his opponent associated to him.

Originally posted by rami

I can easily prove how wrong this movement is without even quoting a single thing from history and simply looking at there teachings and methodology.
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.

Originally posted by rami

My opinion is based on the holistic view of this movement and not any single account.
Correct, but others also have their own holistic view of this movement and we can't really keep on discussing out such views. Instead we have to take one aspect of the movement, discuss it and move on to other one.
Originally posted by rami


Becouse his writings have no historical basis, i would like to see clear and reliable references for what he says.
 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.

Originally posted by rami

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


Becouse he has no teacher
Is it????

Originally posted by rami

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

Originally posted by rami

he is not qualified in any of the islamic and non islamic sciences
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..

Originally posted by rami

and thus incapable of Ijtihad which is what he did by not following a madhhab and his own Indipendent ideas and thoughts.
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.

Originally posted by rami

I find it ignorant on your part that you think the mujtahid imams had no teachers, we can trace there teachers all the way back to rasul allah [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] himself not so with the wahhabi movement.
Again history? When he himslef claim to be Hanbali and he had learned from many of scholars of his time ( kindly read the article posted by Abu Mujahid). However, his Ijtihad was limited to what was happening around him and claifying aspect of tawheed properly to the people.

Originally posted by rami

By that standard anything in history can not be verified including Ahadith. The movement steered away from traditional Islam in Aqeedah and fiqh that is proof enough that they are wrong,
  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.

Originally posted by rami

How many Mujtahid Imams has this movement produced in 250 years the answer is none.
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?

Originally posted by rami

Logicaly speaking lets not center this argument around the deobanid's i am not one and what they believe is not a criterion for anything.
The reason I brough Deobandis in between is that I wanted to convey that, there is another approach, instead of just blindly opposing him, there are lots of people who respect him while disagreeing with him. When you say traditional Islam; what exactly you mean? spcifically if you want to keep deobandis away. Who are followers of traditional Islam today?? If you do not like to refer to deobandis for this thread, there can be other silent readers who understand what I mean.

Originally posted by rami

This is also wishfull thinking on your part , since you clearly you have no knowledge of traditinal islam and what that entails how can you judge when a sect has moved away from traditional Islam and invented there own beliefs and understandings.
Kindly enlighten me on who are followers of traditinal Islam today! let us see, what follower of traditional Islam says about him.

Originally posted by rami

If your entire argument is of the "this shaykh said this and that shaykh said that" variety then we may as well end this discussion now and wait for you to do some more reading on the matter.
I guessed that these two shaikhs were followers of traditional Islam, if not kindly let me know I won't refer to them.
Originally posted by rami


I dont know who these people are frankly speaking or why there words have any weight but if you care to ask Deobandi's what they think specifically about wahabbi's then i suggest you visit sunniforum.com and ask your self.
I prefer not to. I don't think forum is right way to do that. I am looking for something from a well known deobandi scholars. Moulana Manzoor Nu'mani was one among them.

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