ASA,

This might sound like a strange question but I did look on wikipedia and the explanation was kind of limited and my family had a short definition as well but. What is a Wahabi and why when I visit other forums do so many people not trust them or even like them. I read they are from the sunni belief so what's it all about?

Also, facts instead of opinions would be most appreciated!

As'Salaamu Alakum

I found infomation on the net that provides more info the wiki

here is a excerpt from it:

here is the weblink to start at chapter 1:

http://biphome.spray.se/hyla/wahabia/01.htm - http://biphome.spray.se/hyla/wahabia/01.htm

I don't know how many chapters it is, but follow the arrows at the bottom of the page to read the following chapters.

wa Alaikum salam,

From my understanding there is no such thing as Wahhabi because no one calls themselves a Wahhabi.  This term was first stated by the kufar and some of those extreme Sufis.  There is even a book written by a non-Muslim called the Wahhabi Myth.  This is an attempt to divide the Muslims.  The Muslims must stick together.

This term comes from saying that Saudi's are followers of Ibnul Abdul Wahhab because he was from Saudi Arabia.  If anyone ever reads what Abdul Wahhab wrote they will find nothing wrong with his writings.  All he did was explain Tauheed using Quran and Sunnah.

We have to be careful and not let the Kufar divide us. 

Wa Salaam.

He added to this by saying, "To call upon the Holy Nabi, Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim, when performing tawassul by the Holy Nabi is shirk."

I got this from the website you left.  Can someone tell me how this isn't shirk and how Abdul Wahhab is wrong by calling this shirk?  Calling on the dead is shirk. 

Of course this is what is propogated by the Sufis.

From my understanding there is no such thing as Wahhabi because no one calls themselves a Wahhabi. 

That hasnt been my experience, i have met people who call themselves that if you take the term as an insult than should hanafi's, Shafii's, malikis, hanbalis be equally insulted?

This term was first stated by the kufar and some of those extreme Sufis. 

Proving this is like proving Aliens exist....you know something vaguely but have no concrete evidence.

There is even a book written by a non-Muslim called the Wahhabi Myth.  This is an attempt to divide the Muslims.  The Muslims must stick together.

There are plenty of books it doesn't prove the origin of something. Is the book wrong simply becouse it was written by a "non-muslim" or becouse the bookitself is wrong?

You will have to excuse my sarcasim but i can bring a long list of historical works written by muslim scholars against this group, so no "A" book written by a non muslim is not the cause of the anomosity people feel towards them History itself is.

This term comes from saying that Saudi's are followers of Ibnul Abdul Wahhab because he was from Saudi Arabia. 

No it comes from ibn abdul wahhab because his last name is wahhab hence "wahhabi".

If anyone ever reads what Abdul Wahhab wrote they will find nothing wrong with his writings.  All he did was explain Tauheed using Quran and Sunnah.

His followers see nothing wrong with his writtings becouse they are not qualafied to be able judge between what is right and what is wrong on a scholarly level. Most people are not inteligant and simply follow the crowd, im not saying he was absolutely wrong about everything but he made a lot of mistakes according to anyone who doesnt follow him and that is just about the majority of the muslim ummah.

We have to be careful and not let the Kufar divide us.

I agree Br but the source of this devision is not the kufar [well it is if you count the time they supplied the wahhabi group with arms to fight the muslims] so there is no point warning against this.

He added to this by saying, "To call upon the Holy Nabi, Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim, when performing tawassul by the Holy Nabi is shirk."

I got this from the website you left.  Can someone tell me how this isn't shirk and how Abdul Wahhab is wrong by calling this shirk?  Calling on the dead is shirk.

I suggest you be very careful in your wording becouse you will very soon be declaring yourself a Kafir. No one calls upon the dead if you think so then your understanding is wrong and have made a very grave mistake, go and carefully read again what tawassul is....A person prayes TO ALLAH to answer there needs by the rank of the prophet, like saying Allah if you love your prophet answer my prayer.

If Ibn Adbul wahhab objected to it then there are a long list of scholars more knowledgeable than him who say there is nothing wrong with it, he is not the be all and end all of the discussion so dont use his name like a trump card.

If you want to start this debate create another thread this isnt the place for it.

Of course this is what is propogated by the Sufis.

 I have read very carefully the post of rami of 9:22 p.m. I find it perfectly right. It is true all around and well described even though more could be said on the same lines.

 It is actually the group that follow or like the teachings of Abdul Wahhab. They originated in Saudi Arabia 300 years ago and spread to different places including India. Their headquarter in India was in Patnah. They definitely had some good qualities too. i.e. working for strict monotheism. But when you overdo something then you spoil the show.

 There was much Sofi-ism in India. Islam was spread in india by many Muslim saints (Sufis). Later some faults developed in the Sufi doctrine. Nowadays, there are Brelvis in India who visit monuments and graves (tombs, maqaabir). Some of them have  very bad beliefs such as saying that the prophet s.a.w.s. is alive sitting in his grave in Madinah. They have many more strange (bad) activities.

 The theory of Abdul wahhab was very good to eradicate those bad practices. I had seen with my own eyes, some people going to the grave of a saint (Dead man) and picking up shining stone from the grave and kissing those stones. The Wahhabis preached against such bad practices.

 Then there was a conflict about the prophet being made of Noor (gentle light). The people believed that the prophet was not made of clay. He was made of Light and he had no shadow. Some people had been teaching these wrong things. The wahhabis did well against such practices.

 Then there was grand debate about the prophet s.a.w.s. having had the news of the unseen (Ghaib). The Sufi type believed that the prophet had the complete knowledge of Ghaib. The Wahhabis denied it.

 Whenever the name of the prophet (Muhammad) was recited, the Sufi type kissed their fingers and touched them to their eyes as a mark of respect for the prophet. The Wahhabis spoke out against such practice.

 There were many other bad things too and the wahhabis tried to correct them. But because they said that the prophet was just another man like every one else, the Brelvis (Sufi type) did not like that. They said that it was a disgrace to the prophet s.a.w.s.

 The above mentioned differences continue to this day. Who is right and who is wrong, I will not say here. It appears that in most of the above disputes, the Wahhabis are right. Pardon me.

 Because of the various beliefs of the new sect, people named them as wahhabi. They did not like to be called a Wahhabi. They were so much disturbed this title that was given to them by the majority (Brelvis) that the new sect (Wahhabi) people requested the British government in India for help. They requested that order should be passed that no one should call them Wahhabi. That they would like to be called Ahle Hadith.

So the British government passed the order. 

This is a long story and I am not finished with it yet. A few bad points are yet to come. (i.e. in any next post).

 I admire the work of the Ahle Hadith (Wahhabis). I will hereafter call them Ahle Hadith and not Wahhabi. But personally I am with the Sufis. No hard feelings about any one. I admit the good things of any one. But i have to speak out against any bad thing too, or anything that i find is not right. I would like to follow the hanafi school of Fiqah. The Ahle Hadith do not follow any of the fiqah of any of the four scholars. They are not any followers (Muqallids). They do not do taqleed.

I have had quite a good meeting with these ahle hadith  fellows who:

 0. support Hadith too much.

 1. Who say that it is the Hadith which is important after the Quran and not the practice (Sunnah) of the holy prophet s.a.w.s.

 2. Who say that Sunnah (the practice) is same as hadith (the Sayings, traditions).

 3. Who sometimes give more importance to the Hadith,  even more than the verses of Quran.

 4. They say that we cannot understand the Quran without hadith (The sayings of the prophet).

 5. They try to derive their own meanings of matters by their own ideas in the light of Hadith and neglect any opinion given by the great scholars.

 6. They do not believe in any one at all, any learned man at all. They say that their Imam is the prophet s.a.w.s. and they derive their own rules.

 7. Practically, they do not approve any Zikar (Dhikar, rememberance or repeated utterance of verses). i.e. Tasbeeh.

 8. They (ahle Hadith) do not like to visit any graves or tombs. They are against making of any tombs. In Madinah, the wahhabis have bulldozed the graves in Jannat ul Baqi'e. I have seen it myself. the shias go there, weep and cry at the gates of that famous graveyard.

(More later)

Ibn Hajar says in FatH al-Bâri 6:379: "Abu al-Shaykh cites it with a good chain (sanad jayyid)," and Bayhaqi mentions it in Hayât al-anbiyâ with "ublightuhu" in the end.

Hadith 1: Sayyidina Hakeem Tirmidhi in his book Nawaadirul-Usool narrates from Sayyidina Zakwaan , a close Companion of the Prophet , the following Hadith: "The shadow of the Prophet could not be seen in the brightness of the sun, nor in moonlight".

Hadith 2: Allamah Ibn al-Jawzi in his Kitabul-Wafa narrates a hadith from Sayyidina Abdullah ibn Abbas the cousin of the Prophet in which he said: "The Messenger of Allah had no shadow, not while standing in the sun, but the brilliance of his light (nur) surpassed the rays of the sun; nor while sitting before a burning light, but his luminous light excelled the lustre of the light".

Hadith 3: Imam Nasafi in his Tafseer Madaarik narrates from Sayyidina Uthman ibn Affan , the son-in-law of the Prophet that he said to the Prophet : "Allah Almighty does not let your shadow fall on the ground, so that no foot of man can fall on it".

Hadith 4: Imam Jalaludeen Suyuti in his Khasaa'is al-Kubra narrates from Ibn Saba : "This is also a unique feature of the Prophet that his shadow did not touch the ground, because he was light (nur), and when he used to walk in the sunshine his shadow could not be seen."

There are three verses in the Qur'an which mention the Prophet as a light.

Allah said: "From Allah has come to you a Light and a Book manifest." (5:15)

Allah said: "The likeness of His light is as a niche wherein is a Lamp (the lamp in a glass, the glass as it were a glittering star) kindled from a Blessed Tree, an olive that is neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil wellnigh would shine, even if no fire touched it; Light upon Light." (24:35)

Suyuti said in al-Riyad al-aniqa: Ibn Jubayr and Ka`b al- Ahbar said: "What is meant by the second light is the Prophet because he is the Messenger and the Expositor and the Conveyor from Allah of what is enlightening and manifest." Ka`b said: "Its oil wellnigh would shine because the Prophet wellnigh would be known to the people even if he did not say that he was a Prophet, just as that oil would send forth light without a fire."

Allah said: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of glad tidings, and a Warner, and as one who invites to Allah by His leave, and as a Lamp spreading Light." (33:45- 46)

As-Salamu Alaikum,

Rami I don't know why you have to be so negative and sarcastic towards my post.  It is pretty much the first time I am posting on here.  I was not trying to attack anyone and was just stating my opinion from what I have seen.

What I believe is that Wahhabi is not a mathab and anyone that would take that is wrong.  I do not believe in following Mathabs because none of the scholars created Mathabs, Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafi and Hanbali each said that if you find something in the Sunnah that is against what I say do not follow me.  We should take from these scholars but not blindly follow them as if they are the Prophet(saaws) which is what many Muslims do.  Question, what Mathab was the Prophet(saaws)?  Which mathad was Abu Bakr(raa)?  Umar(raa)?

Rami how could you ever say that I am calling myself a Kafir by what I am saying if you don't even know me?

Are you a Sufi and is that what ticked you off by what I said?  In the Quran or in the Sunnah is there anywhere that says to call on the dead?  This is what is haraam and shirk and what was preached by all the great scholars.  There is nothing wrong with visiting graves but seeking the help of the dead is wrong. This is the extreme that the sufis get into. 

TAWASSUL (definition)

Supplicating Allah by means of an intermediary, whether it be a living person, dead person, a good deed, or a name or Attribute of Allah Most High. The scholar, Yusuf Rifa'i, says: I here want to convey the position, attested to by compelling legal evidence, of the orthodox majority of Sunni Muslims on the subject of supplicating Allah through an intermediary (tawassul), and so I say (and Allah alone gives success) that since there is no disagreement among scholars that supplicating Allah through an intermediary is in principle legally valid, the discussion of its details merely concerns derived rulings that involve interschool differences, unrelated to questions of belief or unbelief, monotheism or associating partners with Allah (shirk); the sphere of the question being limited to permissibility or impermissibility, and its ruling being that it is either lawful or unlawful. (From "Sunni Saint Worshippers?")

As-Salamu Alaikum,

Brother Rami obviously your knowledge is more then mine and you have researched your work more then I have. 

When I say I don't believe in following Mathabs is I don't believe in this blind following of Mathabs in which there are Muslims that will not even marry outside their Mathab.  There are Muslims that when given evidence to them from Scholars they will not accept it if it doesn't agree with their Mathab.  Do you really believe what we see today is what the Scholars of the past wanted?  Calling yourself a Hanafi or a Shafii or a Maliki instead of a Muslim?  I was born Muslim but never practiced until about a few years ago and I never associated myself through a Mathab and never found Islam through that.  If I actually followed the Mathab of my family and my people I wouldn't even make Salat the way I make it and the way I feel is how the Prophet(saaws) made it.

Sheikh Al-Albani was a great scholar of our time and he uses the statements made by the scholars that I used above in his book Pray as you see me Pray.  So I don't come to my conclusions through my own interpretation because I am not a Scholar and have no qualifications to do so but I read what the Scholars say through their use of Quran and Sunnah.

Here is a book written by a Scholar of our time about the Evolution of Fiqh.  Now whether you or I or anyone else agree with this Scholar he is still qualifed as a scholar.

http://www.kalamullah.com/knowledge.html - http://www.kalamullah.com/knowledge.html

From what I have known a Mathab is a school of Fiqh.  Now there is nothing wrong with using the school of fiqh but when you reject other scholars just because they don't agree with your school is wrong.  When you call yourself a Hanafi instead of a Muslim, I believe that is wrong.

I have not called anyone a Kafir.  I simply stated that what Abdul Wahhab said was shirk seems like shirk to me.  All I said was that calling on the dead was shirk.  Is it not?  I never called anyone a Kafir, I know the hadith of the Prophet(saaws).  This is your misunderstanding of what I am saying.

Tawwassul isn't just practiced by Sufi's but they are also praticed by Shiites.  Is what the Sufi's and Shiites do according to their interpretation of Tawwassul wrong?

I believe that you can ask someone to pray for you or for other things like the hadith in which during the time of the Sahaba's a family member of the Prophet(saaws) was asked to pray for rain.  I forget the name and the hadith but remember hearing about this.  Now they did not go to the Prophets(saaws) grave but they asked someone that is alive, I have seen the Sufis use this hadith as their evidence to go to the dead but that is wrong isn't it since the companian was alive?

What is the difference to what the Christians do and this?  Also what is the difference to what the Mushrikeen during the time of the Prophet(saaws) did and this?  They all use intermedies.  Now I'm looking for clarification not saying something is wrong.

As-Salamu Alaikum,

This is some of things that I found on Tawassul and in relation to it.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544334 - http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamO nline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=111950354433 4

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503546116 - http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamO nline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=111950354611 6

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544018 - http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamO nline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=111950354401 8

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=3297&ln=eng&txt=Tawassul - http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=3297&ln=eng&txt=Taw assul

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=979&ln=eng&txt=Tawassul - http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=979&ln=eng&txt=Tawa ssul

Also here are some things I found on the issue of Wahhabi.

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=36616&ln=eng&txt=Wahhabi - http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=36616&ln=eng&txt=Wa hhabi

http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/ - http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/

As-Salamu Alaikum,

Brother Rami I recently came across this book online and I haven't read through it yet so I don't know if it agrees with you have posted or not.  But it is a book about Tawassul written by Sheikh Naasirudden Al-Albaanee(ra).

I believe some have called him a Wahhabi but from what I have gotten from him was that he preached Salafi Manhaj.  Now I know people today put the two together from my understanding which is wrong. 

Also I would like to point out through my limited knowledge I only consider myself a Muslim for those that might claim I am a Salafi.  I could be wrong in calling myself only a Muslim but that is through my limited knowledge.

http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6103974/f/tawassul_in_english.pdf - http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6103974/f/tawassul_in_english.pdf

The Method of Salat in the Light of Authentic Ahadith

Aspects of the Salat with evidences used by the Hanafi Madhhab

"If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger of Allah had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-Returning, Most Merciful. " [4:64].

In explaining this verse, Ibn Kathir said,

"Allah guides the sinners and neglectful [`asi], if they do something sinful or corrupt, to come to the Prophet, take him as a means [wasilah], and ask forgiveness from Allah, and to ask the Prophet (s) to also request Allah's forgiveness for them. If they do this, Allah will forgive them, bless them and have mercy on them. "

And `Uthman swore, "By Allah, we did not part company before that person returned to us and his prayer had been granted. It was as if he had never been afflicted. " This is a Sahih Hadith. http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/error_belief.htm#8 - 8

The Last Messenger (s) was very clear in his order that anyone who has a request should take the Prophet as a means to Allah [wasilah]. That person called on Allah in the absence of the Prophet (s), i. e. he went out to make his supplication. Here he used the phrase, "Ya Muhammad!" addressing the Prophet (s) directly. From this we can understand that we can take the Prophet as a means to Allah in his presence or in his absence, during his life and after his passing away. This is the understanding the Companions (r) had of the Prophet's order, because his order to one person is like a general order in all times, unless there is a specific order to the contrary in the Sunnah."" http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/error_belief.htm -

http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/error_belief.htm - http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/error_belief.htm

What is the difference to what the Christians do and this?  Also what is the difference to what the Mushrikeen during the time of the Prophet(saaws) did and this?  They all use intermedies.  Now I'm looking for clarification not saying something is wrong.

The Christians [generaly speaking] called to the saints directly asking them to answer the prayer, the example of the mushrikeen is wrong since the very first link you post and my quote above both concur that it is accepted by all muslim schollars in all times that it is permissible to use intermediaries to allah but, it is only the types of intermediaries that are permissible that the scholars differ over.

O you with Iman! Do your duty to Allah and seek the means [AL-WASILAH] of approach unto Him, and strive (with might and main) in His Cause so that ye may prosper. " [5:35]

al-wisilah mean seek a "means" to allah which inturn is saying seek an intermediary to him, see your first link it perfectly explains this.

See the problem is Rami you are grouping Wahhabi's and Salafis together.  This is wrong and false.  First the Salafi's do not consider themselves Wahhabis so you shouldn't call them that.  This also falls in line with the Scholars that preach the Salafi Manhaj are wrong. 

One question Rami since you continue to harp on this, are you a Scholar?  What is your justification to say the things you say about me? 

You should read this before claiming what Sheikh Albaanee(ra) is or isn't.  There is also a autobiography on him. 

http://www.islamlife.com/print.php?type=N&item_id=190 - http://www.islamlife.com/print.php?type=N&item_id=190

Did you even read the information I left or just pick apart my statements? 

I really find it offensive that you are trying to claim that I am calling myself a Mushrik.  I am repeating what the scholars say, just because you do not agree with the Scholar doesnt' mean he is wrong so like I stated up above according to your statements do YOU have any qualifications to come up with the things you say?

What you are saying is that Abdul Wahhab and other scholars past and present that made the same statements have called themselves Mushriks and have died as Kafirs, is this correct?  I do not believe that the scholars are calling a particular person a Kafir but saying a particular practice is kufr and I don't believe anywhere do they say all of Tawwasul is taking part in shirk. 

If I say that what some Shiites do is a practice of Shirk am I signaling out a signal person and calling him a kafir?  There are trully some things that some Shiites do that are shirk should we not say they are just because some of them say the Kalimah?

There isn't only one aspect of shirk which is associating partners with Allah. There are other aspects which scholars of written books about.  To deny the laws of the Quran is an aspect of shirk but you are not associating partners with Allah by doing it but scholars have considered this shirk.

Maybe I am being confusing with what I am trying to say but I am trying to make a point...lol even though it might not look like it in writing....

If you read the book by Albaanee(ra) in which he explains the prayer of the Prophet(saaws) you will see all the evidence he uses.

If you read the book by Bilal Phillips that I left up you will see that no one is saying the scholars are wrong but that doesn't mean they had ALL the Ahadith.  Do you mean to tell me that Abu Hanifa(ra), Malik(ra), Shafie(ra) and Hanbali(ra) had all the Ahadith?  That is impossible to even believe.  You even have some of the students of Abu Hanifa pray a different way then Abu Hanifa taught because they found more Ahadith after his death. 

Calling my statements a joke is not a dialogue.  I'm not interesting in having a dialogue that way brother.  Let's have a peaceful dialogue in order to learn from one another not to say your wrong and I'm right approach.

"madinah university is not accepted as a place of traditional islamic knowledge [not simply becouse people dont agree with there fiqh] by the rest of the ummah only by wahhabis/salafi's"

And who justifies this?  Once again the grouping of wahhabis and salafi's, wrong brother.

I never said Bilal Phillips is the "scholar of our time" but he is a scholar.  Just because you or the people that do not agree with his statements say so.

Yusuf Qaradawi is a scholar but there are things that he says are wrong that doesn't make him not a scholar.  Just because people like Albaanee say things that are wrong, no one is perfect only Allah(swt).

Also Albaanee corrected himself when he found supporting Ahadith to go against his previous statements, look at the brothers entire life work not just statements made by those oppossed to his teachings.

Below is an excerpt from the link above, please read the entire link before passing judgement brother:

8.      He is contradictory in his judgment of Ahadeeth
This is ignorance or ignoring the fact of the matter, so know my
brother, may Allaah preserve you, that from the fundamental truths of
Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah is that the infallibility is not fully
established for anyone in this Ummah except the Prophet of Allaah,
salla-llaahu `alaihi wa sallam, and we, and we praise Allaah, and by
his grace, are upon that fundamental; we do not affirm infallibility
to al-Albaani, rahimahullaah, as we do not affirm it for anyone else
from the people of knowledge.
However, does the mere fact of a mistake or contradiction of the
scholar negate his knowledge and negates for him the title of
knowledge? I do not think that any just person, let alone a scholar,
would say this!  Yes, using one as proof whose mistakes are many, and
his mistakes are more than his accuracies,  negates his being called
trustworthy and his status is null and void.
If this is long-established, then know that all of the Ahadeeth, which
al-Albaani was ascribed to contradiction in his rulings leaves no mark
on neither his trustworthiness nor his knowledge, not to the layman
let alone a scholar, all praise is due to Allaah. Those Ahadeeth that
are said to have a contradiction, compared to the other Ahadeeth that
the Shaykh collected are few, of little significance, since it does
not tarnish his ocean of knowledge, and the water, if it lessens,
would not have scum [in it].  Ascribing him as being contradictory is
a spiteful allegation and a filthy fraud in most cases. After
reviewing this allegation, only a few are accepted, if they are not
disregarded from the following cases:
i.      Narrations that the Shaykh changed his ruling after more reasons
came about that were not known to him before.
ii.     Narrations that he ruled on them a certain way then stopped at another way.
iii.    Narrations that he ruled on them based upon what was superior to
him regarding the condition of the narrator, and his Ijtihaad
regarding that narrator was renewed, and he changed his ruling.
iv.     Narrations that did not reveal an `Illa (defect), but then it
became apparent later on.
v.      Narrations that he did not know of a present follower of it or
witness, and then he knew later on.

As-Salamu Alaikum brother Rami,

I just want to use an example of the misuse of following a Mathab.  There are many brothers that pray with their hands down to the side.  Now where did they get this?  They believe they are following the opinion of Imam Malik(ra).  Which is true but why did Imam Malik pray this way?  Did he pray this way because he believed that's how the Prophet(saaws) prayed?  No he prayed this way because he was severly beaten in which he could not raise his hands up so he was forced to pray this way because he could not anyother way.  So praying with your hands down on your sides for no reason would be an incorrect way of praying wouldn't it be?  This is the sort of blind following I am trying to say, you don't need to be a scholar to understand the reason Malik prayed that way and that you should NOT pray that way because Malik did it for a reason, he had to there was no other way for him to pray, but he would not say that's how the Prophet(saaws) made prayer.

I just want to use an example of the misuse of following a Mathab.  There are many brothers that pray with their hands down to the side.  Now where did they get this?............................ Malik did it for a reason, he had to there was no other way for him to pray, but he would not say that's how the Prophet(saaws) made prayer.

The Vindication of the People of the Maghrib Concerning the Issue of Sadl Laying the Hands Straight in the Prayer in the Maliki Madhhab.

Okay I'm not really understanding this brother, insha'Allah can you help me.  Is this saying that it is okay to put the hands down on the side and the story about Imam Malik(Ra) is not true?

Is there not a hadith related to the Prophet(saaws) saying not ot put your hands on the side?

Brother Rami,

I believe the way I am saying things or typing them is coming out not how I want them to be understood.  I have had many problems like this when posting on forums. 

I can see from your knowledge on your posts that you know a lot of information far more then I do, so I know you have heard of the Khawarji(SP?).  Wouldn't these people be the right name instead of Wahhabi's or Salafis'.  I know the Salafi's speak out against this group so this is why I don't feel that the Wahhabi's and Salafis are the same but I also don't believe there are Wahhabis but theire are Khawariji's.

I don't call myself a salafi maybe it would seem like I do with what I say and who I leave up as my evidence but I admire a lot of other scholars that are not salafi. 

I don't believe I have ever heard Albani or Bilal Phillips ever call themselves Wahhabi.  Yasir Qadhi has also spoken out against this Wahhabi name calling.

I don't believe I am frustrated I think maybe I or you are misunderstanding each other.  I don't consider these people as my scholars I take from what they say just like I take from what Ibn Taymijjah(ra) has said or Ibn Kathir(ra) or Abu Hanifah(ra) or Malik(ra) or other scholars. 

I do not agree with everything that some of the scholars like Albani or Bilal Phillips say because I have heard different opinions from other scholars.

I don't believe that they claim they can correct an entire mathab brother, I have not seen that in them anywhere.  I believe that they are doing exactly what other scholars of the past of done and that is with more information and more knowledge you come to the conclusions on certain issues according to practicing the Quran and Sunnah.  I believe they are against following Mathabs but not following a Manhaj which I believe is different, is it?

You have left many articles by http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/default.htm - Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller and it says that he  "possesses ijazas or "certifiates of authorisation" in Islamic jurisprudence from sheikhs in Syria and Jordan."

Now the same thing is said about Albani but you do not except that because of what Nuh Ha Mim Keller says.  Is that proper?

I have also said that Albani has made many mistakes and I also said if you read the information I left up he has admitted these mistakes later in life and has changed his stance on certain issues he made in the past and he gives the reasons why he has changed his stance.  I believe we should look at Albani life as a whole and to be honest I believe we should read about individuals and read their works before we read what others have said because then you come to the persons work with a biased opinion him before you even read his works.

Did I name call you brother?  Forgive me if I have, I didn't have the intention to do so.  I never said I don't believe in tawassul and neither has Albani but I left up his book on the subject.  He didn't deny tawassul just some of the aspects that are not part of the Quran and Sunnah but I don't believe I nor he totally rejected it.

As I said up above you have qouted the position of mainly one scholar and that is Nuh Ha Mim Keller.  I'm not saying that is all of your qouting but it is a majority of it from what I have seen.

There is a lot to respond and I am mostly doing this from work on my free time so it's not easy responding to everything so brother I'm not trying to avoid what you have said.

I am not tryint to put words in your mouth but no where have I called anyone a Kafir.  I know the hadith of the Prophet(saaws) and I have never called an individual a Kafir in any of my statements.

I never said that the Mathads are not praying as the Prophet(saaws) had prayed but there can be only one way am I right?  Yes under certain conditions there were different ways that the Prophet(saaws) may have prayed but can we agree that there was one majority way?  As I have stated do you believe that the scholars had compiled all of the Ahadith?  That is not saying the scholars are wrong, Allah even rewards them when they are wrong. 

This is actually the one of the first books I received on prayer and I can't remember anywhere the brother used a Mathab.

  http://www.onlineislamicstore.com/b8410.html - http://www.onlineislamicstore.com/b8410.html

I don't believe I ever said the Mathabs are bidah, my thing is and I believe I have stated this and it can be wrong but my thing is people follow mathabs so strongly that they will not even do something against it even if it is wrong.  A Mathab is not perfect is it? 

It states that you are from Australia is that correct?  I believe there have been Imams give lectures there by the name of Khalid Yasin who studied in Medina school.  Now he has give lectures in the Masjid I go for Jumuah in Manhattan and I have some of his DVD's.  From my impression on him, first he is a great speaker but it also seems he has a lot of knowledge and I don't see anything extreme out of him on the things he says.  What is your opinion on him?  Also Sheikh Feiz Muhammad and there is another Sheikh I have listened to from Australia by the name of Shady Sulaiman I believe.  What are your opinions on these brothers?

There is probably a lot I have left out and a lot misunderstand, forgive me brother for that.

So the story about Imam Malik(ra) and his beating is incorrect?

Also thank you for pointing out the evidence of the position of the hands because the Imams at the local Masjid I go to which is Albanian so they follow the Hanafi Mathab they continue to say that only women pray with their hands on the chest.  Now the reason I find this wrong is because if there is evidence that the Prophet(saaws) did it you should not say only women do that.

Now one issue I would like explained insha'Allah if you can brother is, is there two books on prayer in the hanafi mathab, one for men one for women?

Where does this come form if so, Did not the Prophet(saaws) say pray as you see me pray and no where does he make a distinction for women.  Is this true or not?

Brother Rami this is some of the information I have received about the scholar you leave up by the name of Nuh Ha Mim Keller

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/individual_callers/nuh_ha_mim/a_brief_clarification_about_nuh_ha_mim.htm - http://www.allaahuakbar.net/individual_callers/nuh_ha_mim/a_ brief_clarification_about_nuh_ha_mim.htm

Now of course I don't know if what they say about him is correct but the following statement:

Keller says: “The conduct of the disciple towards the sheikh… consists of five things: following what the sheikh says, even when something else seems better; avoiding what he forbids, even if it means ones death; upholding the sheikhs honor be he present or absent, dead or alive; fulfilling the sheikhs rights to the degree possible, without remissness.” He continues: “... Suspending ones intellect, knowledge, and leadership except as the sheikh confirms.”  

If this is what Keller has said then I don't see any basis in Islam on this, is there?

A little more from the same website:

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/individual_callers/nuh_ha_mim/nuh_keller_on_singing_and_dancing.htm - http://www.allaahuakbar.net/individual_callers/nuh_ha_mim/nu h_keller_on_singing_and_dancing.htm

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/individual_callers/nuh_ha_mim/lies_and_distortions_of_keller.htm - http://www.allaahuakbar.net/individual_callers/nuh_ha_mim/li es_and_distortions_of_keller.htm

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/individual_callers/nuh_ha_mim/a_review_of_tareeqa_notes_of_nuh_ha_mim.htm - http://www.allaahuakbar.net/individual_callers/nuh_ha_mim/a_ review_of_tareeqa_notes_of_nuh_ha_mim.htm

As-Salamu Alaikum,

Brother Rami I don't understand why you are talking to me the way you are talking to me. 

I don’t feel that this is a one-sided Q&A, you are leaving up your information, and I’m trying to leave up my information.  You state that what you are leaving up and reading is what you believe to be the truth, can I feel the same about what I leave up?

As you claim for me to have firm roots do you also not have firm roots into what you are leaving up?

I am seeking to learn and investigate but you have to to hold the same credentials with the scholars you post and the ones I post.  This is what you posted about Albani and his Ijaaz:

 “http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq6.htm

While the article above addresses the specifics of the first Ijazah i know little about the second. regarding the article you posted i ask you br to read that article in an unbiased way and tell me where in all of point A does he mention a single Ijazzah in regards to him being a faqih, also note the article above addresses what he learnt from his farther.”

Now I posted this in regards to the author of that article from his own website:

“possesses ijazas or "certifiates of authorisation" in Islamic jurisprudence from sheikhs in Syria and Jordan."

So what are the qualifications of Nuh Ha Mim Keller? 

I never said you are pretending to be a scholar nor have I criticized you for that I asked are you a scholar in reference to statements you made towards me concerning looking at Ahadith or fiqh without any qualifications.

You don’t know whether the story about Imam Mailk(Ra) is true or not yet you would call it ignorant or a joke.  First I know many followers of the Malii(ra) mathab and they do not pray with their hands down on their sides.  If at some point Imam Malik(ra) did this he did it for a reason and not as a practice.  Just as the you can pray sitting down but for a reason not as a practice. 

I don’t look at people who oppose the Maliki sources, what are you saying?  

Misuse of a Mathab is not saying the Mathab is wrong brother or the scholar is wrong.  No one is saying you are not allowed to follow a Mathab but the way a person follows a Mathab, read below:

This is what Muhammad Bin Saalih Al-Uthaymeen states about Mathab:

www.fatwaislam.com by: Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih al-`Uthaymeen
As-Sahwatul-Islaamiyyah (pp.141-142).

On a student of knowledge sticking to a school of thought

Question:

When encountering a difficult issue, do you advise the student of knowledge not to stick to a madhhab, or [do you advise] to turn to a particular madhhab?

Answer:

If what is intended by sticking to a madhhab is that a person sticks to that madhhab, and turns away from everything else; whether the correct view lies in his madhhab or another madhhab - then this is not permissible, and is from the blameworthy and bigotted partisanship. But if a person ascribes to a particular madhhab in order to benefit from its principles and guidelines, but he refers it back to the Book and the Sunnah; [such that] if it becomes clear to him that the preferred view lies in another madhhab, he then adopts that view - then there is no problem with this.

Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih al-`Uthaymeen
As-Sahwatul-Islaamiyyah (pp.141-142).

Brother no one is trying to correct the Mathab. 

I never called the scholars I read Khawarij but I stated that there are people out there that follow this movement which might be confusing the Muslims in considering that these people are the same as the so-called wahhabi movement or linking Khawarij to Salafi.  It is wrong and it is baseless that was my point, you are interpreting to what I am saying incorrect brother.

Brother I’m not trying to argue with you are trying to change what you believe, Alhamdulillah we are Muslim but that doesn’t mean we have to agree to each and everything we say.  The Sahabahs(RAA) did not agree with each other on every issue, they are Sahabah’s we can’t even compare to them but you are my brother and I love you because you believe in Allah and His Messenger but that doesn’t mean we have to agree with each other on everything.

The two main issues of our discussion is Wahhabism and Mathabs.  I do not discredit Mathabs like you are claiming I am I discredit a blind following of it which is totally different.  There were students under the Hanafi Mathab who followed Abu Hanifah’s Fiqh but prayed different according to the Mathab.  I believe if I’m not mistaken Imam Shafiee(ra) was a student of Imam Malik(ra) but he made his own Fiqh rulings which some were not in agreement with Malik’s(ra).  Does that make him against the Mathab of Imam Malik?

Below I will leave statements by Jalal Abualrub on First Albani and then on this Wahhabi Myth.  Take is as you want but you seem to discredit each and everything I bring up but at the same time if I do it to what you display you do not like it.

“they sometimes say al-Albani was not a Faqih, just a Mu`haddith; this, of course, is a joke because how can there be Fiqh without Hadeeth? They sometimes say he did not have Ijazah, which is also a lie, because he studied with some of the famous scholars in Syria in his time and did receive Ijazah from some of them. They sometimes say that al-Albani is an `Ajami who does not speak good Arabic; but they fail to mimic the eloquent writings of al-Albani, whose Arabic was as solid and well-grounded as the most eloquent Arab in his time. They sometimes say he made mistakes in Hadeeth, but they forget that not only every scholar makes mistakes, but they also forget to agree with al-Albani with what is not a mistake even according to them. Enviousness cannot lessen the profound impact al-Albani had on this Ummah and the vast knowledge that is proven through his writings and the legacy he left behind.
Ijazah has lost its scientific value centuries ago. It does not really mean anything anymore, especially after the narrations of Hadeeth were all recorded in writing. So for those who still use this excuse not to admit to al-Albani’s vast knowledge, they can keep their rage in their hearts and meet Allah with their hatred of an imam they could not even carry his shoes in knowledge.”

“As for Wahhabis, there is no such thing as Wahhabis and the Salafis do not call themselves Wahhabis nor do they accept that they are called such a name. Wahhabis is a name invented by the British to suppress the rebellion against their occupation of India. The rebellion was led by Salafi scholars, so the British thought of a name that they thought would discourage Indian Muslims from resisting their brutal occupation of India because the Muslims would think Wahhabism is a deviant Madh-hab. The British did not only succeed with many Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, but also with many generations of Muslims who gave up the decision on who is a good Muslim and who is not a good Muslim, to their mother, Great Britain. Congratulations for this success, which was handed to them by their enemy and the enemy of Islam. Britain still despises Islam and Muslims and engages in every hint of a war against Islam and Muslims. I, being a Palestinian, suffered personally the loss of my land, Palestine, which the British gave as a gift to the Jews, whom they expelled centuries ago from Great Britain. Why would I take this term ‘Wahhabis’ from such a profound enemy of Islam? Did the Salafi Da'wah start with Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab; i.e., did anyone call to the Sunnah before this imam called to the Sunnah, or was he the first Muslim to call to the Sunnah? What were those who called to the Sunnah before Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab was ever born, what were they called?”

Brother Rami I hope we can continue to discuss things I really feel you have a lot of knowledge.  I am telling you honestly right now my knowledge is limited and I only try to look to be on the correct path and take knowledge from the correct people.  Maybe I am wrong, I could be wrong but that doesn't mean I will not listen.  I have listened and read your information.  I believe you should do the same with my information instead of saying it is not credible.

Brother Rami maybe I'm wrong about this so correct me if I am but it seems that you discredit anyone that comes out of Medina Univeristy. 

I asked you about your opinion of some Imams which included Khalid Yasin who studied at Medina Univeristy.

Also I believe Imam Siraj Wahhaj studied at Medina Univeristy.  He is a Imam in NYC and is very involved in commuinty service all around the US, Dawah Activities in the US and abroad and has given lectures many places around the world from what I know.

Are these brothers not reliable because they studied at Medina University, I know you are not saying that, maybe I'm just jumping in the wrong direction but it seemed to me that you discredited the University so wouldn't that discredit that students coming out?

I would just like to make it clear that in no way am I say that the Mathhab itself is wrong as has been attributed to me. 

There is differences between the schools of Fiqh and as I posted the response from the Imam up above you can follow that school of Fiqh but you should not reject other statements by scholars from the other schools if they are correct. 

What I am trying to say is that the Scholars are rewarded even if they make mistakes which means they do, no one is infallable except Allah(swt) but they do not make mistakes like the average Muslims like me. 

The link I left up on the Evolution of Fiqh by Bilal Phillips explains this better then I can, I'm probably explaining it wrong but that book should be read in it's entirely in order to understand what is being said.

Here is an example from the book:

Taqleed (blind following) has to be distinguished from Ittibaa’ (reasoned following). The principle of following the rulings of our predecessors is normal and natural. In fact, it is by closely following earlier interpretations of Islaam that the message of Islaam remains uncorrupted through time. For, those early interpretations were founded on the Prophet’s (s.w.) divine inspiration and his divinely guided life style. The Prophet (s.w.) himself said that the best generation was his generation, then the generation following his, and then the generation following that.187 However, since Muslims of earlier generation, with the exeption of the Prophet (s.w.), were not infallible, even those earlier interpretations should not be followed blindly without without regard to certain basic principles of reason which enable us to distinguish between right and wrong. In this book the term Taqleed (blind following) is used to refer to the actions to those who slavishly follow a single Madh-hab regardless of errors that they see. As for the common people who do not have the knowledge to make independent decisions in doubtful situations, it is for them to follow whatever knowledge is available to them, keep their minds open and rely on open-minded scholars as much as possible.

As you claim for me to have firm roots do you also not have firm roots into what you are leaving up?

If you can prove anything that i have said is not the same as what the Traditional scholars of this ummah have been teaching for 1300 years then go ahead becouse that is the perspective we are dealing with and you continously ignore.

I am seeking to learn and investigate but you have to to hold the same credentials with the scholars you post and the ones I post.

Ok then test the credentials of the shaykh i posted rather than post twisted articles from dubious sources. Did i challenge any of Albani's views or post links to any of the countless articles on the internet refuting him.

Instead you chose not deal with the issues raised and go of in a different direction....Tit for tat does not realy work when only one party is playing it and as i said i did not insult any of your scholars or post lies about them.

reference to statements you made towards me concerning looking at Ahadith or fiqh without any qualifications.

those where directed towards the scholars you quoted not you.

You don’t know whether the story about Imam Mailk(Ra) is true or not yet you would call it ignorant or a joke.

i called its use as the basis for why the Maliki madhhab does sadl in prayer a joke not the story itself which sounds true as he was beaten by the khalifah of his time on a number of occasions. there is a diference betwen the two, read a little more carfully.

If at some point Imam Malik(ra) did this he did it for a reason and not as a practice.  Just as the you can pray sitting down but for a reason not as a practice. 

Unless you KNOW that is there reason dont say this is what they are doing.

I don’t look at people who oppose the Maliki sources, what are you saying?  

it seems your english is not that good, on number of occasions now you have confused the subject in my statments.

here is what i said, "try looking into the maliki sources instead of taking those who appose them at face value."

Misuse of a Mathab is not saying the Mathab is wrong brother or the scholar is wrong.

when you say they are blindly following the madhab becouse you think you have the correct view and they choose to ignore it, its the same as saying the madhhab is wrong.

What is "blind following"....you think you are right and they are wrong and stuburnly following the wrong thing....does the statment mean anything else.

its just a label the wahhabi/salafi's use for people who dont agree with them.

Brother Rami maybe I'm wrong about this so correct me if I am but it seems that you discredit anyone that comes out of Medina Univeristy.

The only authority in Islam are the madhhabs, this has been the case for 1200 years. madinah university does not teach any particular madhhab but its own brand of islam.

So based on that fact "I" am not the one discrediting anyone this is the reality of the situation they have no authority so to speak in matters of the madhhabs and thus Islamic Fiqh. they belong to a sect/group/minhaj that is not accepted by the wider muslim community how would you like me to describe that, its a simple fact and not in my hands to change.

Are these brothers not reliable because they studied at Medina University, I know you are not saying that, maybe I'm just jumping in the wrong direction but it seemed to me that you discredited the University so wouldn't that discredit that students coming out?

It seems Shaikh utheimeen discredited the traditional ijazah system in his reply doesnt that answer your question?

If i wanted the hanafi opinion on a matter i would go to a hanafi shaikh, if i wanted the shaffi i would go to a shafii shaikh if i go to any of these shaikhs you listed whose opinion am i getting.

To discredit someone is to say they have no authority in a particular field so in that sence it would be fair to say they have no authority in any of the madhhabs.

the word reliable can be used in a number of ways including as a comment on there personnal charachter, i dont doubt the good qualaties of these people that isnt what i am questioning.

There is differences between the schools of Fiqh and as I posted the response from the Imam up above you can follow that school of Fiqh but you should not reject other statements by scholars from the other schools if they are correct.

You know nothing about how the madhhabs derive rullings from the quran and have simpleton [without intending insult] understanding of the matter, How do you decide if they are correct if you are not qualafied and have the proper knowledge. 

regarding the term salafi wahabi, i refuse to use the term salafi becouse they are not the salaf or there followers as they claim, if that is there distinguishing feature than what are they saying about the rest of the Ummah they dont follow the salaf?

Bilal Philips should use a legal dictionary to look up the word taqlid becouse it does not mean blind following he simply made that up.

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/taqlid.htm - http://lexicorient.com/e.o/taqlid.htm

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/mhfatwa.htm - http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/mhfatwa.htm

this is also my last reply to you, it is very clear you refuse to address anything i have said and simply want to argue over the scholars you like which was never the issue as i have repeated.

brother what keller say's is not new every sufiswines have been saying it

and i say they are all liars

brother avoid them like plague and cholera

Mr Barzakh Fitrath Ullah: Doctor is dead now but his prescriptions lives
Knowledge is the singular truth here master's are the fibs
Guru is this Guru is that Guru is my whatnot
These are act's of the hypnotic charmers they employ this charms while milking the idiot
If without master one cannot become wise
Then who was the first master and how did he realize
The knowledge and know how needs teaching
Therefore learn oh BE AQL if you can become true learner then true GOD will do all the mastering

from SWEETSWORDS 107 [ Masters and Monsters ]

"this is also my last reply to you, it is very clear you refuse to address anything i have said and simply want to argue over the scholars you like which was never the issue as i have repeated."

Brother Rami this is not true.  I have tried to answer you but you continue to say that I reject the Mathhabs and people like Bila Phillips reject the Mathhab.  That is not true.  You have obvisouly not read the book I left up because you will clearly see he does not reject the Mathhab and even explains it in the history of Islam.  He explains how it should be used not how it is used.  Very two big differences. 

This is true but I am leaving the explanation by someone that does and has studied it and that is Bilal Phillips.

THe following is taken from Bilal Phillips Book that I left a link up above:

Nevertheless, the prohibition of Taqleed does not mean that

everyone must return to the sources before doing anything and it

does not mean that all the work of the earlier scholars should be

rejected or neglected, for that would be impractical and in most cases

impossible. It does, however, mean that those who have sufficient

knowledge of the various branches of Islamic sciences should not

hesitate to took at the sources as well as the opinions of all the

scholars, regardless of their Madh-hab. A scholar should be openminded

in his search for knowledge otherwise his rulings are likely

to be biased and sectarian. Let us not forget that even in searching             

through the sources he is obliged to rely on the great works of the

earlier scholars in one way or another. In Fiqh, totally independent

thought is impossible and efforts to achieve it undesirable, as it tends

to lead to deviation and heresy. On any particular issue the true

scholar is likely to either follow a ruling of one or another of the

early scholars, or deduce his ruling from one of their deductions. In

so dong, he will be following one of the early Imaams directly or

indirectly. However, this form of following is not to be considered

Taqleed, (blind rigid imitation), which we have shown was forbidden

categorically by the Imaams. This form is called Ittibaa’ wherein

reliable Hadeeths take precedence over all opinions, or as both Abu

Haneefah and ash-Shaafi’ee said, “If the Hadeeth is found to be

Saheeh, it is my Madh-hab”.

It is obvious that the great majority of Muslims will not be

able to return to the sources, due to their lack of knowledge, and they

will therefore be obliged to apply Ittibaa’ to the degree of their

ability. Many can achieve an awareness of the relevant Hadeeths by

asking questions concerning the basis for rulings given to them and

reading the books of Hadeeth. No true scholar should be offended by

such questions if politely worded. Similarly, if the masses are forced

to seek answers from books, they should try to choose books, which

mention explanations and proofs along with the various rulings, and

books, which are not biased, or sectarian. If such books are not

readily available, then they may still avoid Taqleed by not restricting

themselves to the books of one Madh-hab. As long as they are

prepared to follow the Sunnah, whenever it is presented to them,

regardless of which Madh-hab it may be found in, they are in effect

practicing Ittibaa’, not Taqleed.