LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 09-03-2012, 11:21 PM   #21
smokeberly

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
392
Senior Member
Default
Maybe, i had always heard of them destroying shrines and tombs, leveling the ground, but never heard them digging up the body itself from the grave. But i guess i was missing out. But do all the different shades of salafis endorse these actions?

i haven't been looking but has there been any salafi condemnation of this?
I would be interested in knowing Green Lane Masjid's view since it is one of the 'leading' Salafi institutions in the country.
smokeberly is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:21 PM   #22
Marlboro-oroblraM

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
376
Senior Member
Default
there are no 'original' salafis or prototype of salafis that give a template that others follow.

you also got the name wrong.
You may be right but you'd have to acknowledge that the latter share distinguishing characteristics of those who came before them.

@Brother Abu Zakir, it's Muhammad Ibn 'Abdul Wahhab.
Marlboro-oroblraM is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:21 PM   #23
GarryPaterson

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
354
Senior Member
Default
Salafis aren't a monolithic group so you'd probably have some who would disagree or object to those action on different levels.

Besides other reasons, it's sad because Shaikh Ahmad Zarruq rahimahullah was/is considered a wali by Ulama' so they might be making war with Allah 'Azza wa Jall.
Indeed, with such a qutb, i fear for the kind of end they themselves will face after this cowardly action and then the halat of their own grave after death.
GarryPaterson is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:21 PM   #24
Fosavoa

Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
424
Senior Member
Default
Corrected the name....however the wahabis did kill and do takfir of Muslims in Arabia they said they were indulging in grave worship and shirk.



there are no 'original' salafis or prototype of salafis that give a template that others follow.

you also got the name wrong.
Fosavoa is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:21 PM   #25
plantBanceper

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
375
Senior Member
Default
Corrected the name....however the wahabis did kill and do takfir of Muslims in Arabia they said they were indulging in grave worship and shirk.
Generally its true wahabis were very strict and harsh in approach, but there is also alot of ghuloo about them and fabricated tales, because a lot of pure bidatis got upset and demonzied them completely.
plantBanceper is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:21 PM   #26
MauroDarudo

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
290
Senior Member
Default
Maybe, i had always heard of them destroying shrines and tombs, leveling the ground, but never heard them digging up the body itself from the grave. But i guess i was missing out. But do all the different shades of salafis endorse these actions?
Brother i am unable to understand why they burnt classical texts of fiqh that where present at another wali Allah Azza wa Jall mazar rahimullah, (in tripoli, that was also demolished) these where manuscripts of Malilki fiqh etc.
This is the destruction of the collective heritage of the umma, (if verified) what justifies this?
MauroDarudo is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:21 PM   #27
Enjoymmsq

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
380
Senior Member
Default
You may be right but you'd have to acknowledge that the latter share distinguishing characteristics of those who came before them.
there are actually very few things that are common between najdis of 18th century and different salafis now. its not as though the teachings were modified over time in different places because in some movements there is no evidence of najdism of ibn abdul wahhab being an influence. salafism, as is generally understood today, has been present before the time of ibn abdul wahhab actually. then as pir baba said there are many many lies fed about them by bidatis.

i recently had a talk with some very angry malikis who were trying to prove salafis (as a whole) were khawarij. in the end all they managed to prove was that current saudi rulers and their supporters were khawarij. while the libyan salafis they were saying were khawarij would actually made takfeer of the people they proved as khawarij. yet they insisted on branding 'salafis' as khawarij. it is basically the error of thinking the entire salafi community is like the ones in our neighborhood.
Enjoymmsq is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:21 PM   #28
Eagevawax

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
572
Senior Member
Default
Brother i am unable to understand why they burnt classical texts of fiqh that where present at another wali Allah Azza wa Jall mazar rahimullah, (in tripoli, that was also demolished) these where manuscripts of Malilki fiqh etc.
This is the destruction of the collective heritage of the umma, (if verified) what justifies this?
there is no justification. (if verified) they were wrong.
Eagevawax is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:21 PM   #29
LoisCampon

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
393
Senior Member
Default
Brother i am unable to understand why they burnt classical texts of fiqh that where present at another wali Allah Azza wa Jall mazar rahimullah, (in tripoli, that was also demolished) these where manuscripts of Malilki fiqh etc.
This is the destruction of the collective heritage of the umma, (if verified) what justifies this?
Brother whoever tries to destroy or vanish this Deen of Allah Tala, will get destroyed/burned and vanished himself. If they burned Haq, then remember Haq will never disappear or burn, they just ignited fire and destruction for their ownself.

As far as what the reason could be, it can be many, from an enemy of islam's conspiracy to start sectarian violence to being Jahil about the deen. Allah hu alam what exactly is the reason. And nuthing justifies such an act.
LoisCampon is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:21 PM   #30
PhillipHer

Join Date
Jun 2008
Age
57
Posts
4,481
Senior Member
Default
there are actually very few things that are common between najdis of 18th century and different salafis now. its not as though the teachings were modified over time in different places because in some movements there is no evidence of najdism of ibn abdul wahhab being an influence. salafism, as is generally understood today, has been present before the time of ibn abdul wahhab actually. then as pir baba said there are many many lies fed about them by bidatis.

i recently had a talk with some very angry malikis who were trying to prove salafis (as a whole) were khawarij. in the end all they managed to prove was that current saudi rulers and their supporters were khawarij. while the libyan salafis they were saying were khawarij would actually made takfeer of the people they proved as khawarij. yet they insisted on branding 'salafis' as khawarij. it is basically the error of thinking the entire salafi community is like the ones in our neighborhood.
Whose interpretation of Islam is an inspiration for them?
PhillipHer is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:22 PM   #31
bQXHsKzS

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
494
Senior Member
Default
Whose interpretation of Islam is an inspiration for them?
one may say imam ibn taymiyyah (rh). but not for all. the inspiration or driving force for some is basically the idea of 'reformation' and that of 'purification' regardless of whether any scholar said or not.
bQXHsKzS is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:22 PM   #32
Haftdrarp

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
427
Senior Member
Default
there are actually very few things that are common between najdis of 18th century and different salafis now. its not as though the teachings were modified over time in different places because in some movements there is no evidence of najdism of ibn abdul wahhab being an influence. salafism, as is generally understood today, has been present before the time of ibn abdul wahhab actually. then as pir baba said there are many many lies fed about them by bidatis.
Yes, I understand some things that have been said about them as a whole (which is a wrong approach anyway because they're not all the same) are exaggerated in certain circles but, the similarity thatt I see between the former and latter is the redefining/reinterpreting of fiqhi positions and terminologies, which is a result of generally separating from the postions of the 4 Madhahib. These actions are just symptoms of a much deeper problem.



i recently had a talk with some very angry malikis who were trying to prove salafis (as a whole) were khawarij. in the end all they managed to prove was that current saudi rulers and their supporters were khawarij. while the libyan salafis they were saying were khawarij would actually made takfeer of the people they proved as khawarij. yet they insisted on branding 'salafis' as khawarij. it is basically the error of thinking the entire salafi community is like the ones in our neighborhood.
Over the years of reading books and inquiring from Ulama', I'm beginning to understand how our Ulama' were balanced and didn't get into ghulu when criticizing or differing with others.

I have got lots to learn I must say...
Haftdrarp is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:22 PM   #33
SaamanthaSterlyng

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
362
Senior Member
Default
Yes, I understand some things that have been said about them as a whole (which is a wrong approach anyway because they're not all the same) are exaggerated in certain circles but, the similarity thatt I see between the former and latter is the redefining/reinterpreting of fiqhi positions and terminologies, which is a result of generally separating from the postions of the 4 Madhahib. These actions are just symptoms of a much deeper problem.
i think the major unification point for them is not re-interpretation of fiqh but rather eradication of bid'ah and reformation of Islam. this is their beef with tareeqahs though I found out recently there are sufi salafis as well.

reformation is not itself a problem. it is in fact required to purge the religion of reprehensible bid'ahs and kufr. however the process has to be undertaken with academic weight which I believe the salafi scholars may not exactly have. their over-emphasis on sahih hadith over normative understanding of scholars is the thing which is problematic which means their path to reformation isn't exactly correct.




Over the years of reading books and inquiring from Ulama', I'm beginning to understand how our Ulama' were balanced and didn't get into ghulu when criticizing or differing with others.

I have got lots to learn I must say...
true. i recently learnt about hadra. i do not think i like it or would do it but it is a genuine matter of difference of opinion over which laymen must hold our tongues.
SaamanthaSterlyng is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:22 PM   #34
Poreponko

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
486
Senior Member
Default
there are actually very few things that are common between najdis of 18th century and different salafis now. its not as though the teachings were modified over time in different places because in some movements there is no evidence of najdism of ibn abdul wahhab being an influence. salafism, as is generally understood today, has been present before the time of ibn abdul wahhab actually. then as pir baba said there are many many lies fed about them by bidatis.

i recently had a talk with some very angry malikis who were trying to prove salafis (as a whole) were khawarij. in the end all they managed to prove was that current saudi rulers and their supporters were khawarij. while the libyan salafis they were saying were khawarij would actually made takfeer of the people they proved as khawarij. yet they insisted on branding 'salafis' as khawarij. it is basically the error of thinking the entire salafi community is like the ones in our neighborhood.
Not really. Wahhabis simply evolved into several splinter groups. Some groups of anti-state wahhabis still consider the early hardcore takfiri najdies as the right ones while the third Saudi state as deviated from the early najdism. Some instead follow the watered down taqiyya-takfirism of third Saudi State funded through oil. Some follow the wahhabism that got mixed with political takfirsm of Sayyid Qutb and Mawdudi, when MB took refuge in Saudi. Some Wahhabis follow the wahhabism that mixes with la madhabism of Rashid Rida, Abduh, al-afghani, etc modernist revisionist wahabism now passed on through Ibn baz and Albani. And then further modern day splinter cults like sahwis, madhkalis and hundreds more. Their essence is all the same with minor changes here and there. Just like the khawarij of the past were divided into several ggroups each formulating their takfiri argument in slight modified patterns, some more extreme than the other. Similarily the consequnces of their takfir and the methodology to treat the Muslims whom they put takfir upon or accused guilt upon, were treated in different ways by each khawarij group of the past, as do the Wahhabism of today. The diversity among the khawarij did not make the khawarij not be khawarij anymore. And the diversity among Wahhabsim does not negate Wahhabism from being the khawarij. They always are, as the pious scholars of the past and present all declared the wahhabi movement to be.

Hope your maliki friends rise up and get rid of their cancer of wahhabism before it wrecks their society.
Poreponko is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:22 PM   #35
Zvssxstw

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
481
Senior Member
Default
Not really. Wahhabis simply evolved into several splinter groups. Some groups of anti-state wahhabis still consider the early hardcore takfiri najdies as the right ones while the third Saudi state as deviated from the early najdism. Some instead follow the watered down taqiyya-takfirism of third Saudi State funded through oil. Some follow the wahhabism that got mixed with political takfirsm of Sayyid Qutb and Mawdudi, when MB took refuge in Saudi. Some Wahhabis follow the wahhabism that mixes with la madhabism of Rashid Rida, Abduh, al-afghani, etc modernist revisionist wahabism now passed on through Ibn baz and Albani. And then further modern day splinter cults like sahwis, madhkalis and hundreds more. Their essence is all the same with minor changes here and there. Just like the khawarij of the past were divided into several ggroups each formulating their takfiri argument in slight modified patterns, some more extreme than the other. Similarily the consequnces of their takfir and the methodology to treat the Muslims whom they put takfir upon or accused guilt upon, were treated in different ways by each khawarij group of the past, as do the Wahhabism of today. The diversity among the khawarij did not make the khawarij not be khawarij anymore. And the diversity among Wahhabsim does not negate Wahhabism from being the khawarij. They always are, as the pious scholars of the past and present all declared the wahhabi movement to be.

Hope your maliki friends rise up and get rid of their cancer of wahhabism before it wrecks their society.
you have missed out the influence of ibn taymiyyah predating ibn abdul wahhab and presence of groups such as ahl e hadith which are not influenced by najdism but perhaps more by reformation as a theory and ibn taymiyyah. also you have equated bin baaz and albani as part of a similar movement which is incorrect. and your assumed influence of najdis on many of the groups is also incorrect.

also again there are scholars who have not declared najdis to be khawarij. many ulema are okay with ibn abdul wahhab some actually praise him. just because the actual khawarij split into different groups does not mean each and every salafi group is a khawarij in its own way. i have studied the conditions of the khawarij in detail and my opinion is pretty much the same of the opinions of ulema who don't call all of them khawarij.

many ulema who declared najdis to be khawarij were later shown to have been fed lies (eg mufti dahlan). many who give this ruling today on the 'salafis' as a whole are also fed incorrect information about some groups based on conspiracy theories of anti-J!had, pro-sufism lot who neither have much knowledge of J!had, rely on media for their information (or other conspiracy theorists), lack knowledge of contemporary history, live in self-denial , are mostly pro-democracy and generally okay with their governments allied with non-Muslims against Muslims, and in their ignorance and blind burning hatred for salafis they end up calling ulema such as imam qurtubi, tabari, and many prominent ulema of deoband (past and present) as 'takfeeri'.
Zvssxstw is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:22 PM   #36
Bletlemof

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
417
Senior Member
Default
many ulema are okay with ibn abdul wahhab some actually praise him.
this is true, even of Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah, who is as far from the harshness of the Wahhabis as you can get.
Bletlemof is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:22 PM   #37
dubballey

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
441
Senior Member
Default
there are sufi salafis as well.
even back when the Wahhabis first took Makkah there were, such as Sheikh Ahmed ibn Idris (ra) whose heirs are the Idrisiyya.

Unlike many Sufis who ran away before the Wahhabis got there he stayed and got on well with their leaders who treated him with the greatest respect even though he was a Sufi - this being the case because the original Wahhabis were not against Sufism as such - but rather were against what they saw as the harmful innovations associated with it.

the fact that he was a Salafi-Sufi (in the sense that he was a back to basics man whose fiqh was based directly upon Qur'an, Sunnah and consensus of the Sahaba - something that is seen amongst some Salafis today) no doubt increased his accord with them

i recently learnt about hadra. i do not think i like it or would do it but it is a genuine matter of difference of opinion over which laymen must hold our tongues. if there was a nodding head smiley I would put one here.
dubballey is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:22 PM   #38
itepearce

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
420
Senior Member
Default
you have missed out the influence of ibn taymiyyah predating ibn abdul wahhab and presence of groups such as ahl e hadith which are not influenced by najdism but perhaps more by reformation as a theory and ibn taymiyyah. also you have equated bin baaz and albani as part of a similar movement which is incorrect. and your assumed influence of najdis on many of the groups is also incorrect.

also again there are scholars who have not declared najdis to be khawarij. many ulema are okay with ibn abdul wahhab some actually praise him. just because the actual khawarij split into different groups does not mean each and every salafi group is a khawarij in its own way. i have studied the conditions of the khawarij in detail and my opinion is pretty much the same of the opinions of ulema who don't call all of them khawarij.

many ulema who declared najdis to be khawarij were later shown to have been fed lies (eg mufti dahlan). many who give this ruling today on the 'salafis' as a whole are also fed incorrect information about some groups based on conspiracy theories of anti-J!had, pro-sufism lot who neither have much knowledge of J!had, rely on media for their information (or other conspiracy theorists), lack knowledge of contemporary history, live in self-denial , are mostly pro-democracy and generally okay with their governments allied with non-Muslims against Muslims, and in their ignorance and blind burning hatred for salafis they end up calling ulema such as imam qurtubi, tabari, and many prominent ulema of deoband (past and present) as 'takfeeri'.
IT differd with muslims on around 15 issues. The Wahhabis differ in more than 100 different issues. IT is just a coverup and a tool for the revisionism of salafism. Or IT is a seed and the several hundred cults of wahhabism are like its various fruits.

Ibn baz and albani are major players of the wahhabi movement today. To say otherwise is be in denial..

Rest of what you say is mere salafi claims. To say that mufti of Mecca, was being fed with lies and ignorant of the reality of wahhabism, is just plain ridiculous with no rational would accept. He is the mufti of Mecca for heavens sake and his works are enough to show the calibre of and credibility of his research and opinions. Those who make these arguments that Muslims are all being fed with lies have nothing to defend themsleves with other than by giving complete trust to a couple Wahhabi apolegetic historians say about wahhabi history, which is a flawed methodology in and of itself.

Besides, digging up the works of wahhabi historians and ulema itself, there are enough evidences to support what the ulema of ahlus sunnah said about wahabism. So the argument that they were being fed with lies can be proved wrong by the books of wahhabis themselves.

Furthermore, it is impossible that these high calibre imams are so stupid to accept lies and declare their fellow muslims all of sudden as khawarij. And this was not a opinion that was even restricted. This was a opinion that is widesspread and found among everypart of the muslim world foremost from the ulemas najd and the areas surrounding najd including the ulema of hijaz, Iraq, to the ulemas in Yemen, Misr, Sham, Maghrib and wherever you name a Muslim nation.. To say that all of them couldnt distinguish lies is just silly and equivalent to the conspiracy theories of the shias. Finally, the condition upon which they were declared khawarij existed then and now. So even if you point out some bits and pieces of information that might be false, it's irrelevent to the basis upon which wahhbaism was declared as khawarij.
itepearce is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:22 PM   #39
VUzgOhgv

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
508
Senior Member
Default
By the time the Wahhabis clashed with the Ottomans the Ottomans were in a very sick and degenerated state Islamically.

Just read the history of the Ottoman Caliphs in this period and you will see what I mean.
VUzgOhgv is offline


Old 09-03-2012, 11:22 PM   #40
Efonukmp

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
461
Senior Member
Default
IT differd with muslims on around 15 issues. The Wahhabis differ in more than 100 different issues. IT is just a coverup and a tool for the revisionism of salafism. Or IT is a seed and the several hundred cults of wahhabism are like its various fruits.

Ibn baz and albani are major players of the wahhabi movement today. To say otherwise is be in denial..

Rest of what you say is mere salafi claims. To say that mufti of Mecca, was being fed with lies and ignorant of the reality of wahhabism, is just plain ridiculous with no rational would accept. He is the mufti of Mecca for heavens sake and his works are enough to show the calibre of and credibility of his research and opinions. Those who make these arguments that Muslims are all being fed with lies have nothing to defend themsleves with other than by giving complete trust to a couple Wahhabi apolegetic historians say about wahhabi history, which is a flawed methodology in and of itself.

Besides, digging up the works of wahhabi historians and ulema itself, there are enough evidences to support what the ulema of ahlus sunnah said about wahabism. So the argument that they were being fed with lies can be proved wrong by the books of wahhabis themselves.

Furthermore, it is impossible that these high calibre imams are so stupid to accept lies and declare their fellow muslims all of sudden as khawarij. And this was not a opinion that was even restricted. This was a opinion that is widesspread and found among everypart of the muslim world foremost from the ulemas najd and the areas surrounding najd including the ulema of hijaz, Iraq, to the ulemas in Yemen, Misr, Sham, Maghrib and wherever you name a Muslim nation.. To say that all of them couldnt distinguish lies is just silly and equivalent to the conspiracy theories of the shias. Finally, the condition upon which they were declared khawarij existed then and now. So even if you point out some bits and pieces of information that might be false, it's irrelevent to the basis upon which wahhbaism was declared as khawarij.


So the issue is quite simple Blind hatred of salaafis who ares who are Khwaarij and Sufi who are Takfiris neither is due any respect.
Efonukmp is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:39 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity