Sheikh Saleh al Fauzan : ISIS (Daish) are the party of Shayatin
so Sheikh Fawzan is against Salafiyyah?
What really is Wahhabism?
- Thread starter Keep it a boqol
- Start date
so Sheikh Fawzan is against Salafiyyah?
What is a Salafi? A Salafi is someone who follows the way of the Salaf, the pious predecessors.
The whole concept of Salafiyyah is to follow Islam as it was originally understood by the earliest generations. So not everyone who says they are Salafi is really a Salafi.
The Salafi scholars have a lot of prestige and so the khawarij will try to attribute themselves to Salafiyyah or they'll do things like quote Salafi scholars to try to make it seem that Salafiyyah supports their views but the people who are khawarij yet pretend to be Salafis are imposters.
Takfiris who go and takfir a bunch of people without justification- they can be referred to as takfiris, they're probably khawarij. As for saying things are bid'ah..... well it depends on whether what they're calling bid'ah is actually bid'ah. Some Sufis will object if you say mawlid, saint-worship, grave-worship, etc. are bid'ah. I don't know a term specifically for people call things bid'ah without them actually being bid'ah. But the types like ISIS and them are the khawarij.
Shaykh Abdul Aziz Bin Baz - Refutation Of Those Who Associate Salafiyah With The Khawarij.
Djokovic
Somali Arab
Brudda these people are ignorant they will even call these great scholars khawarij they are insane it’s sad to see
At one point he mentioned that he was a Sufi whatever that means to him and studied under sheikh Hamza Yusuf. He also said that all the Sahaba were sufis snd that wahabbbis hate sufis and branded all sufis as kufr because of deviant sects and groups performing grave worship
I don’t think he knew I was SomaliD but he mentioned this Somali majority masjid I regularly go to and he claimed some people there are Wahhabis. Ngl that pmo and he kept saying he studied under Hamza Yusuf and how in learned Imams and sheiks are today and that his sheik would run circles around them. My sheik can beat up your sheik lmao
Al Muslim
الموت لامريكا الموت لإسرائيل
Hamza yusuf is extremely deviant. Here are a couple samples of his deviance.
Here he is saying he's against the implementation of sharia. He says this at 1:50
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
Yes it's true ibn taymiyyah was the first one who categorised it and claimed that asharis knew only about tawheed rububiyyah but at the same time he also states in his other work that pagans of quraysh were guilty of shirk rububiyyah. The major difference is that despite what ibn taymiyyah claimed
1). it never became formalised as a point of creed by either his students or even in the hanbali madhab
2.) He never carried out takfir due to it
What Miaw did was to adopt ibn taymiyyah's categorization and use it in his takfir of muslims who disagreed with him. Between ibn taymiyyah and miaw there's no mention ( that i know of) where this categorization formed the core understanding of tawheed in the hanbali madhab. It was only after miaw that it becomes a point of creed in understanding tawheed. For a people who claim to follow the salaf how is it that they don't quote the salaf regarding their understanding of tawheed ? if the salaf didn't divide tawheed into parts how can today's salafis claim that they're following them on this point ?
What you stated above is a good example of the kind of takfir rhetoric that's prevalent in the salafi dawah. You're accusing me of promoting praying to the dead & worshipping the dead as a result of your deviated understanding of what shirk is. More importantly seeking intercession with the deceased has been allowed since the time of salaf especially with the Prophet SAW. We've hadith where sahaba acted on it and even encouraged others to do so.
All 4 madhabs allow it , i mean did they not know or even understand what shirk is ? whose understanding should we accept ? classical scholars across all the madhab throughout the centuries or miaw ? Even albani concedes that tawassul was done with the Prophet SAW( in his book about tawassul ) despite disagreeing with the practice. Now tell me was imam Ahmad promoting worshipping the Prophet SAW when he allowed tawassul with Him ?
I already warned you before not to rush into topics that you completely lack knowledge in, throwing accusations of shirk on innocent muslims will only come back to you. So i suggest that you repent and amend your ways before it's too late for you to do so.
Woke1.4rm.Shibis
VIP
Wahhabism is cancer from Saudi arabia to destroy the Muslim ummah , they consider everyone as infidels who dont subscribe to their teachings .
100% of al shabaab and other terrorists organizations consider themselfs as the followers of wahhabism.
100% of al shabaab and other terrorists organizations consider themselfs as the followers of wahhabism.
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
Lol my sheikh can beat up yours
Hamza yusuf is another problematic one albeit from the ashari camp. Despite their differences in aqeedah they nonetheless fall into the same mistakes.
Take whatever is khayr and ignore the rest.
To be fair though, let’s represent Salafis accurately. If i’m not mistaken, Salafis see a difference between Tawwasul and Istigatha. What Salafis are against isn’t only Tawwasul (Modern Salafis consider that to be a bid’ah) but what they make Takfir over is Istigatha, calling directly upon the saints with the belief that help comes from Allah alone.Yes it's true ibn taymiyyah was the first one who categorised it and claimed that asharis knew only about tawheed rububiyyah but at the same time he also states in his other work that pagans of quraysh were guilty of shirk rububiyyah. The major difference is that despite what ibn taymiyyah claimed
1). it never became formalised as a point of creed by either his students or even in the hanbali madhab
2.) He never carried out takfir due to it
What Miaw did was to adopt ibn taymiyyah's categorization and use it in his takfir of muslims who disagreed with him. Between ibn taymiyyah and miaw there's no mention ( that i know of) where this categorization formed the core understanding of tawheed in the hanbali madhab. It was only after miaw that it becomes a point of creed in understanding tawheed. For a people who claim to follow the salaf how is it that they don't quote the salaf regarding their understanding of tawheed ? if the salaf didn't divide tawheed into parts how can today's salafis claim that they're following them on this point ?
What you stated above is a good example of the kind of takfir rhetoric that's prevalent in the salafi dawah. You're accusing me of promoting praying to the dead & worshipping the dead as a result of your deviated understanding of what shirk is. More importantly seeking intercession with the deceased has been allowed since the time of salaf especially with the Prophet SAW. We've hadith where sahaba acted on it and even encouraged others to do so.
All 4 madhabs allow it , i mean did they not know or even understand what shirk is ? whose understanding should we accept ? classical scholars across all the madhab throughout the centuries or miaw ? Even albani concedes that tawassul was done with the Prophet SAW( in his book about tawassul ) despite disagreeing with the practice. Now tell me was imam Ahmad promoting worshipping the Prophet SAW when he allowed tawassul with Him ?
I already warned you before not to rush into topics that you completely lack knowledge in, throwing accusations of shirk on innocent muslims will only come back to you. So i suggest that you repent and amend your ways before it's too late for you to do so.
Two points regarding your post:
1. Your first claim is that the division of Tawheed to these three categories is the invention of MIAW, which is demonstrably false. In a subsequent post you say that Ibn Taymiyyah preceded him in that division. Did you know that major scholars before him made the exact same categorisation?
See, for example, Ibn Battah Al-'Ukburi (d. 387 AH) and what he said in his book "Al-Ibaanah", which is a major work wherein he collected the creed of the Sahaabah, Taabi'een, and their followers. He says: "The basic belief in Allah that the creation needs to adhere to in regard to their faith in Him is three things:
First: That the slave should believe in His Lordship (...)
Second: That he should believe in his sole right to worship,so te not be as the mushrikeen that affirmed a creator but prayed to other along side Him.
Third: That he believes in the characteristics and attributes of Him (...)
If you want the arabic text, I have it ready for you.
2. You are strawmanning the Imams position. He does not say that we all necessarily ascribe to Tawheed Rubuubiyyah verbally (although it is the natural disposition, and even the most staunch denier raises his hands in supplication to Allah in times of disaster). What he says is that one can ascribe to Tawheed Rubuubiyyah (i.e. affirming that Allah is the creator, sustainer, etc) and still be a Mushrik. This was, in essence, the situation of Quraysh and the other polytheists at that time. See, for instance, Surah Az-Zukhruf, verse 9:
If you ask them ˹O Prophet˺ who created the heavens and the earth, they will certainly say, “The Almighty, All-Knowing did.”
See, next, the verse in Surah Yuusuf:
And most of them do not believe in Allah without associating others with Him ˹in worship˺.
Ibn Jariir At-Tabaree explained the verse in his tafseer by saying: "(Allah) says, whos praise is the most high: most of those mentioned in Allahs words (Surah Yuusuf, verse 105), do not believe in that Allah is their creator, sustainer, and the creator of all things except that they are simultaneously mushrikeen in their 'Ibaadah to Allah by praying to statues (...) And along what I have mentioned is what the scholars of Tafseer have said." And he then relates the narrations from Ibn 'Abbas and others that they explained how the mushrikeen believed in Allah being the creator, all-powerful, etc, but that their grave mistake was in praying to others they knew did not possess those qualities.
The word jar33r has been so overused here that when I wrote Ibn Jar33r At-Tabari, the post automatically altered the name to "Ibn Madow At-Tabari"
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
I wasn’t referring to istighatha but tawassul. Some of the salafis consider it to be bidah while others consider to major shirk like ibn baz.
Miaw considered it to be major shirk for one to ask for intercession from the deceased. His followers did the same and they killed Muslims for it. In his book kashaf shubuhat he compares intercession of muslims with the deceased to that of the pagans and says they're guilty of shirk.
Tawassul is of different types
1.) Making dua to Allah while using the Prophet SAW as a means. Like hadith of blind man. This can be done from anywhere
2.) Asking for intercession at the grave of the deceased
Now here is where it gets murky for salafis as you'll find among them those who consider both to be major shirk, only 1st one to bidah while 2nd is major shirk. From what i can tell i've never seen those who consider both to be just bidah. When they say it's just bidah they're only referring to one type.
If you look at umar's comment on my post regarding intercession, you'll notice he makes no distinction and considers it to be shirk. That's why he accuses me of promoting worshipping & praying to the dead.
A practice that was never deemed to bidah or shirk by classical scholars is bidah & shirk to them, this itself is an indication that there's a major problems with salafi understanding of this issue all together.
Okay. You don't want to call it "worshipping graves". You want to call it "seeking intercession of the deceased".
Whatever terminology you want to use, it brings us back to the crux of the matter. Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab lived at a time where those kinds of deviations were common in the Arabian peninsula- I read people were even worshipping rocks and trees. And so he called people to Tawheed- only worship God.
"Bro, don't worship dead people" is not some radical new idea Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab came up with. I know amongst the extreme Sufis who seem to be practicing some form of Hinduism it may seem radical but- praying to dead people is not part of Islam.
You don't need a PHD or "Sheikh" in front of your name to know worshipping graves is haraam.
So for those wanting to know about this subject- yes, the Sheikh appears as this big evil supervillain if you're some Sufi borderline Hindu going around looking for some pious person's grave to worship.
But if you're following proper Islam and you're not into praying to saints, dead people, etc.... the Sheikh's teachings are not really shocking or controversial. He has a lot of historical significance for helping to reduce extreme Sufism in the Arabian peninsula but his views aren't really anything out of the ordinary- don't seek blessing from amulets, don't worship graves, etc.
I was speaking about wahhabis specifically. Abdulwahhab made a deal with house of Saudi to be their religious shield while the house handles the political side. Don’t know if you see them as only salafis.
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
1. Even in that statements of ibn battah that you bring where does he state that the entire of bani adam have affirmed tawheed rububiyyah ? What you fail to realise is that there's a difference between rububiyyah & tawheed rububiyyah. The former is a term used even by the asharis it may refer to single or multiple attribute of lordship while tawheed rububiyyah means to Unify all the attributes of Lordship. What salafis usually do is to affirm tawheed rububiyyah on the basis of just a few select attributes like Allah being creator etc but complete ignore all the other attributes of lordship that the mushrikeen have affirmed to other than Allah like Protector, ability to harm & benefit, able to prevent Allah's punishement, victory etc.
The issue is not just categorization but also how it's used to affirm beliefs to mushriks who're guilty of shirk in Rububiyyah. That's why i stated it was ibn taymiyyah who first stated that you can have part tawheed by claiming that asharis only knew about tawheed rububiyyah just like the pagans. You won't find any scholar before him claiming such a thing,
Worship is a result of having a belief in Rububiyyah, if i were to ask you why do you worship Allah ? You would answer because He is the Rabb of everything that's why Only He deserves to be worshipped Alone. Meaning what makes Him worthy of worship is His Rububiyyah, so when people worship others beside Allah they're guilty of shirk Rububiyyah. It's because they didn't single out Allah alone in His Rububiyyah that led them to worship others besides Allah. So it's impossible to have tawheed Rububiyyah and be guilty of shirk Uluhiyyah.
2. I'm not straw manning miaw at all, he explicitly states that pagans of quraysh, jews, christians basically all the disbelievers affirm tawheed rububiyyah that no one denied this aspect of tawheed including us muslims. Just have a read on kashf shubuhat, his treatise on the meaning of kalimah, the nullifiers of islam etc it's all there. Like i said above it's impossible to affirm tawheed rububiyyah to mushrik because
a) Worship is the result of having a belief in Rububiyyah so if one has the correct belief in Allah's Rububiyyah they will worship Him alone & vice versa
b) Shirk negates tawheed in it's entirety (ie all categories): if we assume for the sake of argument that one has tawheed rububiyyah then how come the shirk they commit in uluhiyyah doesn't negate their tawheed completely. I mean you label them as mushriks so how come they've any tawheed after committing shirk ? Shirk can't coexist with tawheed
3. Using imam tabari to give support to the salafi division of tawheed is very problematic because the imam tabari in his definition of worship he includes the meaning of rububiyyah. Secondly in his tafsir he explains in numerous ayat that the pagans took other rabbs besides Allah and denied His rububiyyah
Take for instance the ayah you quoted 12:106
And most of them believe not in Allah except while they associate others with Him.(106)
{Except they are polytheist } in their worship of idols, and taking them as LORDS besides Him, and claiming that he has a child.... As you can see whoever translated that explanation from the imam completely left out the the bit where tabari states that they took rabbs besides Allah. The reason why they intentionally leave out that part is because it completely negates the salafi claim that the pagans didn't commit shirk in Rububiyyah.
Next Look at how he defines the 1:5
It is You we worship and You we ask for help
{You alone do we worship} you alone do we submit, humble ourselves and affirm rububiyyah to you alone our rabb.
As you can see the imam clearly includes rububiyyah when explaining the meaning of worship. Laakin salafis exclude rububiyyah from their definition of worship so as to maintain their division of tawheed into categories. They cite the imam taking his explanation either out of context like in the case of worship or completely distort it by leaving out the parts that negate their tawheed categories like in 12:106 above. They do this to all the major tafsirs out there citing the bits that they believe support their claims etc
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
Miaw and his dawah resulted in the takfir of muslim masses, spilling their blood, they were labelled as khawarij by scholars from the 4 madhabs. One of the most fiercest opponent of the najdi dawah was the hanbali scholar ibn fayruz who also labelled them as khawarij.
Just imagine miaw claimed that christians and us muslims share the same belief regarding Allah's Lordship. You being a former christian know that christians don't have tawheed rububiyyah because they believe Jesus AS to be their Lord besides Allah. Now how can you take knowledge from such an individual or even adhere to his teachings ?
His takfir wasn't limited to anyone he deemed to guilty of shirk but also to anyone that didn't agree with him. didn't join him even former allies who refused to partake in his so called wars were not spared. You literary have no idea about the history of miaw and his dawah other than what you're spoon fed.
This is a problem. The Salafis go by what is actually in the Sheikh's books and the Sufis go with these unverified claims of him doing this and him doing that in history.
Can you refute him on the basis of what is actually in his books?
Trending
-
-
-
Somali guy: "I love Arabs even if they mistreat me as an abeed"
- Started by Araabi
- Replies: 46
