Wahhabism or Slander ?

[AdoonkaAlle]

@AdoonkaAlle it's clear these guys don't listen to reason they want to stick to their own thoughts instead of using their own brains.

The issue i would say that for the vast majority the salafi dawah is the one that's easily accessible to them, which is why they equate salafism with islam. In addition to this most the famous public speakers that people listen to are either salafis,share their views have some connection to them etc That's why it's hard for the common muslim to look into this movement closely for themselves.

On the flip side you've the asharis who even though differ from the salafis in their aqeedah share similarities with them in terms of interpreting the deen based on the understanding their scholars. Despite having different views they both suffer from the same problems ie superimposing their understanding on the Quran & Sunnah.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

@AdoonkaAlle what do you think about the 10 nullifiers of Islam?

Considering that miaw had a different undertanding of tawheed & shirk, i definitely wouldn't recommend it even though there maybe some benefit in some of what he says. If you can't recognise where he went wrong how will you be able to discern what's correct etc . Unless you're comfortable with your level of knowledge i wouldn't read it tbh.

 

[ReerVanCadde]

To the layman, all these shieks being quoted is absolutely unnecessary in their daily lives. I literally cringe it's that bad.

 

[المهندس]

To the layman, all these shieks being quoted is absolutely unnecessary in their daily lives. I literally cringe it's that bad.

I don't think you understand brother @AdoonkaAlle point he is not attacking sheikhs, if we dont refer to sheikhs how do we learn the diin ?

Rather what he is referring to is the modern day dawah of people who claim to salaf when in reality some of their views differed from the first three generations

Everything must be referred back to
the first 3 generations

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

@Dawo

Just forgot to add another important point about the classification of tawheed as understood by salafis.

When talking about the definitions of Rabb (Lord) & Ilah (God) they make a separation between the 2 by stating that ilah simply means "object of worship" and Rabb means Lord. They claim that they're not inclusive of each other ie not synonymous.

In the Quran however Allah doesn't distinguish between the worship of Him as sn Ilah and as a Rabb. Just think about it for a min, is there any difference between worshipping Allah as a God and as a Lord ? Your God is Your Lord they are one and the same

The reason why they make the separation is so that they can claim that the makan pagans worshipped their statues etc as gods but not as lords. This separation is absurd from an islamic point of view since when we worship Allah as our Ilah this means we worship Him as our Rabb at the same time. In fact worship is but a result of Allah being the Rabb, meaning Rabb is also Al mabood ( The one worthy of Worship), both Ilah & Rabb are Al mabood

Allah says in surah 2:21

O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous

If you happen to have a discussion with them just ask when we worship Allah do we worship Him as Ilah only or as Ilah & Rabb ?

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

To the layman, all these shieks being quoted is absolutely unnecessary in their daily lives. I literally cringe it's that bad.

It's as @Dawo said, even though i understand where you're coming from i nonetheless believe that it's necessary to highlight issues so as to clarify any misunderstanding, mistakes that have been made.

People are using the opinions of shiekhs to refute, rebuke and accuse others of falling into shirk, kufr and lastly declare takfir. That's why it's important to clear this issues so as to avoid people from falling into such mistakes.

 

[adventurequestworlds1.0.2]

The destruction of the ottoman empire was not caused by the dawah of tawheed which has been referred to as wahhabism in a derogatory way by its opponents who call to shirk.


Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez al-‘Abd al-‘Lateef said:

Some opponents of the salafi da’wah claim that Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebelled against the Ottoman Caliphate, thus splitting the jamaa’ah (main body of the Muslims) and refusing to hear and obey (the ruler).

Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een li Da’wat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahaab, p. 233



^^ This is the grandson of muhammad ibn abdul wahhab this is what came out of his mouth


The Shaykh said in his letter to the people of al-Qaseem: “I believe that it is obligatory to hear and obey the leaders of the Muslims, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they do not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah. Whoever has become Caliph and the people have given him their support and accepted him, even if he has gained the position of caliph by force, is to be obeyed and it is haraam to rebel against him.”
Majmoo’at Mu’allafaat al-Shaykh, 5/11



^ Muhammad ibn abdul wahhab didn't believe in rebelling against rulers of the muslim world as long as they did not commit shirk

Dr. ‘Ajeel al-Nashmi said: … The Caliphate did not react in any way and did not show any discontent or resentment during the life of the Shaykh, even though there were four Ottoman sultans during his lifetime…

(Majallat al-Mujtama’, issue # 510)



^^ More proof he didn't rebel against the ottomans



Dr. Abdullah Al-A’thmeen says, “Whatever the case Najd was never regarded as being under the direct influence of the Ottomans prior to the call of Sheikh Mohammad bin Abdel Wahaab. It also has never experienced any strong influence on its internal affairs from the Ottomans, not even under control of Bani Jabr or Bani Khaled either, nor control from any other superior tribe trying to make some kind of political stability. For wars between Najd lands have remained constant and ongoing between its different tribes in a brutal manner.” [Mohammad Bin Abed Al-Wahaab His Life and Philosophy p. 11 via “Protestor Claims” (pg. 234-5)]


after some research i have to come a conclusion

^^ Najd was a place engulfed in shirk before muhammad ibn abdul wahhab came, all his oppononents were from his province and it was those people from those province who rebelled against the ottoman caliphate via help from the british not muhammad ibn abdul wahhab himself he simply called to tawheed, the british did not like the dawah of the muhammad ibn abdul wahhab hence they stirred up controversy by aiding his opponents in najd.

The actions of ibn saud did not correlate with the teachings of muhammad ibn abdul wahhab..

So i don't understand how muhammad ibn abdul wahhab can be the one who is accused of destroying the ottoman caliphate which was a legit caliphate..

If someone can bring proof muhammad ibn abdul wahhab actively or indirectly aided in the destruction of the caliphate than i will examine it and compare it to what i read ...

I didn't read since I saw ottomans I tell u my opinion I think ottomans conquer and colonise Muslim land include Arab using Islam saying ottomans are the leaders of Muslims worlds tht is big claim since if each Muslims followed Allah laws and put in their system government those don't need turks or arabs to come to them and say we will rule over I your land I see tht is controling ppl using Islam and I think arabs had every right to chase away turks from their land since turks want to take over arabs land being Muslim is to worship allah
And not to be someone else servise
I am Muslim to worship allah and not be under turks or arabs servent in my homeland
My opinion each Muslims should control their own land system of government economics borders business and Muslims should be allies
Not the away arabs or turks colonise half of the Muslim lands tht didn't belong to them
It all about to control ppl in their land system government economics business borders and change ppl language culture and put them in emparilism using Islam as excuse saying they are the khalifa
Me personally I don't believe khalifa since khalifa=leader and each Muslim have leaders their own and dont need non their Ethnicity leader to come and rule them

 

[Abu Hesi]

Sheikhul Islam Muhammad ibn Abudlwahhab ilaahay ha u naxariisto.

Wa bilaahi tawfiiq!

 

[Uncle ruckus]

Lol, this wahabbi guy is a complete joke watch the video from yasir qadhi

Yasir qadhi is a zandiq and a heretic

 

[المهندس]

@Dawo

Just forgot to add another important point about the classification of tawheed as understood by salafis.

When talking about the definitions of Rabb (Lord) & Ilah (God) they make a separation between the 2 by stating that ilah simply means "object of worship" and Rabb means Lord. They claim that they're not inclusive of each other ie not synonymous.

In the Quran however Allah doesn't distinguish between the worship of Him as sn Ilah and as a Rabb. Just think about it for a min, is there any difference between worshipping Allah as a God and as a Lord ? Your God is Your Lord they are one and the same

The reason why they make the separation is so that they can claim that the makan pagans worshipped their statues etc as gods but not as lords. This separation is absurd from an islamic point of view since when we worship Allah as our Ilah this means we worship Him as our Rabb at the same time. In fact worship is but a result of Allah being the Rabb, meaning Rabb is also Al mabood ( The one worthy of Worship), both Ilah & Rabb are Al mabood

Allah says in surah 2:21

O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous

If you happen to have a discussion with them just ask when we worship Allah do we worship Him as Ilah only or as Ilah & Rabb ?

Ok jazakallah sxb you have informed me well using quran and sunnah, to summarise then issue with modern day claimants of the salaf followers is the tawassul and chain takfir,

I found some quotes earlier regarding Imam Abu Hanifa from a website


" Al-Nawawi later says that the pilgrim should face Mecca (al-qiblah) when making supplication, indicating that the supplication is for Allah and not to the Prophet (ṣ) himself.

Scholars like Al-Nawawi permitted such tawassul using specific formulas that were free of idolatry, although other scholars considered this tawassul to be discouraged or prohibited.

Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

لَا يَنْبَغِي لِأَحَدٍ أَنْ يَدْعُوَ اللَّهَ إلَّا بِهِ
No one should call upon Allah except by Him.
Source: al-Durr al-Mukhtār 6/396 "

I mean it seems to me theres a fine line regarding tawassul that earlier ulemah of aswj referred to it seems like some extreme and i mean extreme individuals crossed the fine line and gone onto fully commiting shirk.

So this must of caused some people to takfir anyone who endorses tawassul even the tawassul is not the issue itself rather its the people who abuse tawassul similar to those who abuse takfir...

This is what i am assuming at the end of the day this is a very massive topic and requires fluency in arabic, fiqh, tafsir, hadiths etc

I made this thread to understand the viewpoints people had against Abdul wahhab using quran and sunnan and to not come using emotion so jazakallah sxb

and as i mentioned before it looks like its the chain takfir and completely denying tawassul altogether which to me seems like a valid argument

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Ok jazakallah sxb you have informed me well using quran and sunnah, to summarise then issue with modern day claimants of the salaf followers is the tawassul and chain takfir,

I found some quotes earlier regarding Imam Abu Hanifa from a website


" Al-Nawawi later says that the pilgrim should face Mecca (al-qiblah) when making supplication, indicating that the supplication is for Allah and not to the Prophet (ṣ) himself.

Scholars like Al-Nawawi permitted such tawassul using specific formulas that were free of idolatry, although other scholars considered this tawassul to be discouraged or prohibited.

Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

لَا يَنْبَغِي لِأَحَدٍ أَنْ يَدْعُوَ اللَّهَ إلَّا بِهِ
No one should call upon Allah except by Him.
Source: al-Durr al-Mukhtār 6/396 "

I mean it seems to me theres a fine line regarding tawassul that earlier ulemah of aswj referred to it seems like some extreme and i mean extreme individuals crossed the fine line and gone onto fully commiting shirk.

So this must of caused some people to takfir anyone who endorses tawassul even the tawassul is not the issue itself rather its the people who abuse tawassul similar to those who abuse takfir...

This is what i am assuming at the end of the day this is a very massive topic and requires fluency in arabic, fiqh, tafsir, hadiths etc

I made this thread to understand the viewpoints people had against Abdul wahhab using quran and sunnan and to not come using emotion so jazakallah sxb

and as i mentioned before it looks like its the chain takfir and completely denying tawassul altogether which to me seems like a valid argument

It's not about tawassul and chain takfir those are just some of the issues, all of their problems arise as a result of having a different understanding of tawheed & shirk. They then use this understanding of theirs to interpret the Quran & Sunnah and issue rulings based thereafter.

It's their understanding which forces them to accuse muslims of calling to other than Allah i.e shirk akbar when they seem them performing tawassul at the grave sites, they refer to them as grave worshippers

Then he (i.e. the one visiting the grave of the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) should return to his original position facing the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, and he should make him a mean for himself and seek intercession through him unto his Lord subhanahu wa ta'ala.
And the best what can be said [here] is what al-Mawardi (d. 450 AH) and al-Qadhi Abu al-Tayyib (d. 450 AH) and the rest of our [Shafi'i] companions narrated from al-'Utbi and they regarded it as good. He said:

"As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Beduin Arab came and said: "Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: "If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful" (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord."

That's the statement of imam nawawi advising people what to say when visiting the Prophet's peace be upon him grave.

If the disagreement salafis had with tawassul been simply about the choice of words or even transgressing the limits then they would not have problems with it to begin with. They would've differentiated between the lawful & unlawful tawassul with the deceased but they don't, ask yourself when was the last time you listened to a talk by salafi where they mention this ?. There is a reason why wrote the following as a response to @ReerVanCadde

Tawassul ( invoking intermediaries through Allah)
Tabarruk ( seeking blessings through people)
Ziyarat Qubur ( grave visting)

The person you quoted believed in tawassul via dead people calling them for help aka grave worshipping.


Allah mentions many times in the quran invoke him only and no one else

Allaah says of the people of Hell (interpretation of the meaning): [They say:] By Allaah, we were truly in a manifest error when we held you (false gods) as equals (in worship) with the Lord of the Worlds. [al-Shuara 26:96-97]

So why are they visiting saints and asking for intercession is this not shirk ?

The response you gave is exactly what salafis teach ie tawassul with the deceased is shirk akbar laakin when they're confronted with daleel showing that this was a matter that is prescribed and classical ulama allowed it they're left in a difficult positions and the only way to reconcile is to read in their bias into the statements of the classical scholars.

When salafis talk about valid tawassul they only allow it with the living anything else for them is shirk or not allowed. Imam ahmad acted on the hadith of seeking help from angles when one is lost etc

Imaam Ahmad by his son ‘Abdullah; the wording of which is as follows: ‘Abdullah the son of Imam Ahmad said: "I heard my father say: 'I performed Hajj five times, twice riding and three times walking, or twice walking and three times riding. I lost my way during one Hajj and I was walking, so I began to call out: O slaves of Allah show me the way. I kept doing that until I found the road.' or as my father had said."

Just let it sink for a sec, a scholar the likes of imam ahmad is calling on Angles to help him, can we even claim that he's unaware of what invoking other than Allah means ?

This is why i mentioned that it's the mis-understanding of salafis regarding issues of tawheed & shirk which is leading them to accuse muslims of shirk, calling them grave worshippers etc. I mean how can you know if an individual is performing the lawful tawassul with the deceased when you don't view such tawassul to be valid at all ? do you see how easy it becomes to then issue takfir etc


Biggest issues from classification of tawheed

1. Separating between ilah and rabb
2. Affirming tawheed rububiyah to makan pagans
3. Claiming that majority of bani adam are equal in affirming tawheed rububiyyah

With due i'll can explain a bit more in detail inshallah

 

[Ismail99]

When salafis talk about valid tawassul they only allow it with the living anything else for them is shirk or not allowed. Imam ahmad acted on the hadith of seeking help from angles when one is lost etc

Imaam Ahmad by his son ‘Abdullah; the wording of which is as follows: ‘Abdullah the son of Imam Ahmad said: "I heard my father say: 'I performed Hajj five times, twice riding and three times walking, or twice walking and three times riding. I lost my way during one Hajj and I was walking, so I began to call out: O slaves of Allah show me the way. I kept doing that until I found the road.' or as my father had said."

Just let it sink for a sec, a scholar the likes of imam ahmad is calling on Angles to help him, can we even claim that he's unaware of what invoking other than Allah means

Firstly

Al-Bazzaar (4922) narrated via Usaamah ibn Zayd al-Laythi, from Abaan ibn Saalih, from Mujaahid, from Ibn ‘Abbaas, in a marfoo‘ report: “Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, has angels on earth other than the recording angels who write down how many leaves fall from the trees. If one of you gets lost in the wilderness, let him call out, ‘Help me, O slaves of Allah.’”

Secondly

One of the important matters to which attention must be paid is that the guideline on the kind of seeking help that constitutes shirk is “asking of anyone other than Allah for that which no one can do except Allah.”

As for seeking help from other created beings in matters that they are able to do, that has nothing to do with shirk at all.

The report mentioned states that there is a type of angels, who are alive, in the sense of a life that is natural and appropriate for them. Allah has put them on earth to help those who are lost and guide them to the correct route, so whoever asks them for help is asking for help from a created being regarding something that he is able to do, and Allah has created him for this role

Quoting as evidence for seeking the help of someone other than Allah being permissible the hadeeth, “If one of you gets lost in the wilderness, let him call out, “Help me, O slaves of Allah.’” - Islam Question & Answer

www.google.com

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Firstly

Al-Bazzaar (4922) narrated via Usaamah ibn Zayd al-Laythi, from Abaan ibn Saalih, from Mujaahid, from Ibn ‘Abbaas, in a marfoo‘ report: “Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, has angels on earth other than the recording angels who write down how many leaves fall from the trees. If one of you gets lost in the wilderness, let him call out, ‘Help me, O slaves of Allah.’”

Secondly

One of the important matters to which attention must be paid is that the guideline on the kind of seeking help that constitutes shirk is “asking of anyone other than Allah for that which no one can do except Allah.”

As for seeking help from other created beings in matters that they are able to do, that has nothing to do with shirk at all.

The report mentioned states that there is a type of angels, who are alive, in the sense of a life that is natural and appropriate for them. Allah has put them on earth to help those who are lost and guide them to the correct route, so whoever asks them for help is asking for help from a created being regarding something that he is able to do, and Allah has created him for this role

Quoting as evidence for seeking the help of someone other than Allah being permissible the hadeeth, “If one of you gets lost in the wilderness, let him call out, “Help me, O slaves of Allah.’” - Islam Question & Answer

www.google.com

The Sunnah is that the living person may be asked to offer du‘aa’ (supplication), just as he may be asked for anything else that he is able to do. As for created beings who are absent or dead, they are not to be asked for anything

.

With regard to that which created beings are able to do, there is nothing wrong with asking for it from those who are able to do it, or seeking their help with regard to it, subject to two conditions: that the one whose help is sought is alive and present, and that he is able to do that thing.

The fatwa puts the following conditions on those we're seeking help from

1. The individual has to be alive
2. The individual has to have the ability
3. The individual needs to be present

Since we're not able to see the angels how are we able to determine if they are present with us or not ? When imam ahmad sought the help of the angels he didn't see them nor was he be able to determine if they were near or far away from him but he still called them . This fact alone contradicts the explanation given that the one whose help is sought has to be present. If anything i don't believe it's possible to meet this condition when seeking help from angels as they're not visible to us.

 

[Ismail99]

The fatwa puts the following conditions on those we're seeking help from

1. The individual has to be alive
2. The individual has to have the ability
3. The individual needs to be present

Since we're not able to see the angels how are we able to determine if they are present with us or not ? When imam ahmad sought the help of the angels he didn't see them nor was he be able to determine if they were near or far away from him but he still called them . This fact alone contradicts the explanation given that the one whose help is sought has to be present. If anything i don't believe it's possible to meet this condition when seeking help from angels as they're not visible to us.

The hadith says to call out to them so logic dictates that they can help us and hear us, they're also on earth.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

The hadith says to call out to them so logic dictates that they can help us and hear us, they're also on earth.

Yes the hadith says that but what i was questioning was the conditions that were stipulated before one can ask them

that the one whose help is sought is alive and present, and that he is able to do that thing.

You can only tell someone is present if you're able to see, hear them etc but in the case of angels this isn't possible, how does this affect the hadith in question ? Since the condition can't be met this means one is not able to seek their help.

Even though they say that the help of angels can be sought they stipulate a condition that can never be met, why is that ? do they really consider it to be a permissible action ? The only reason i can think of why they would concede seeking help from angels is that we've ulama like imam ahmed who acted on it.

You see for salafis this act of seeking help from the deceased, angels etc goes against their understanding and the problem facing them is that we've classical ulama from all the madhabs permitting actions which they consider to be shirk akbar or bidah.

 

[Hali]

You see for salafis this act of seeking help from the deceased, angels etc goes against their understanding and the problem facing them is that we've classical ulama from all the madhabs permitting actions which they consider to be shirk akbar or bidah.
[/QUOTE]
Just say you’re Sufi and keep it moving

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Just say you’re Sufi and keep it moving

you mean sufi like imam ahmad, imam nawawi, imam ibn qudama, imam al jilani the list is long walaal. Inshallah with due time when you get the chance to actually study the opinions of classical ulama would you realise the truth of this matter.

 

[Ismail99]

Yes the hadith says that but what i was questioning was the conditions that were stipulated before one can ask them



You can only tell someone is present if you're able to see, hear them etc but in the case of angels this isn't possible, how does this affect the hadith in question ? Since the condition can't be met this means one is not able to seek their help.

Even though they say that the help of angels can be sought they stipulate a condition that can never be met, why is that ? do they really consider it to be a permissible action ? The only reason i can think of why they would concede seeking help from angels is that we've ulama like imam ahmed who acted on it.

You see for salafis this act of seeking help from the deceased, angels etc goes against their understanding and the problem facing them is that we've classical ulama from all the madhabs permitting actions which they consider to be shirk akbar or bidah.

The hadith is saying they're here and can help me I don't need to see them.

 

[Hali]

you mean sufi like imam ahmad, imam nawawi, imam ibn qudama, imam al jilani the list is long walaal. Inshallah with due time when you get the chance to actually study the opinions of classical ulama would you realise the truth of this matter.

You seem knowledgeable so I know you know they were not sufi. You can only fool the layman.

 

[Hali]

Firstly

Al-Bazzaar (4922) narrated via Usaamah ibn Zayd al-Laythi, from Abaan ibn Saalih, from Mujaahid, from Ibn ‘Abbaas, in a marfoo‘ report: “Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, has angels on earth other than the recording angels who write down how many leaves fall from the trees. If one of you gets lost in the wilderness, let him call out, ‘Help me, O slaves of Allah.’”

Secondly

One of the important matters to which attention must be paid is that the guideline on the kind of seeking help that constitutes shirk is “asking of anyone other than Allah for that which no one can do except Allah.”

As for seeking help from other created beings in matters that they are able to do, that has nothing to do with shirk at all.

The report mentioned states that there is a type of angels, who are alive, in the sense of a life that is natural and appropriate for them. Allah has put them on earth to help those who are lost and guide them to the correct route, so whoever asks them for help is asking for help from a created being regarding something that he is able to do, and Allah has created him for this role

Quoting as evidence for seeking the help of someone other than Allah being permissible the hadeeth, “If one of you gets lost in the wilderness, let him call out, “Help me, O slaves of Allah.’” - Islam Question & Answer

www.google.com

By any chance what is the source of this Hadith , what is the isnaad and what has it been graded as in Hassan, sahih, Hassan sahih daeef etc