مدونة الجزيرة العربية : Yes I Am Wahabi

الثلاثاء، 13 سبتمبر 2016

Yes I Am Wahabi

View Full Version :

muwahid

27-08-07, 07:10 PM

Shaykh Abū Basīr At-Tartūsī

Despite my resistance to new labels which separate Muslims and do not unite them… I must announce openly and clearly – without any biasness or partisanship: That I am a Wahhabist, amongst those who love Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb (may Allāh have mercy upon him) and his Da’wah.

If Wahhabism means Da’wah (Calling) to Tawhīd (Pure Monotheism)… and to the correct ‘Aqīdah (creed)… and abandoning shirk and Barā’ah (disassociating) from it and its people… as the Da’wah of the Shaykh was… Then, yes! I am a Wahhabist!

If Wahhabism means Da’wah to the Qur’ān and Sunnah… and holding on to the foundations, guidance, and understanding of As-Salaf As-Sālih (the Pious Predecessors)… and forsaking biasness towards a Math’hab… as the Da’wah of the Shaykh was… Then, yes! I am a Wahhabist!

If Wahhabism means waging Jihād (Holy War) against the oppressive Tawāghīt (false governments which have claimed to be gods)… and to wage Jihād against shirk and the pagans… as the Da’wah of the Shaykh was… Then, yes! I am a Wahhabist!

If Wahhabism means the middle-path… not leaning towards extremism nor deficiency… … as the Da’wah of the Shaykh was… Then, yes! I am a Wahhabist!

Indeed I have pondered over the situation of those who attack the Shaykh and his Da’wah, and I found them to be:

a) a) Either a kāfir (infidel, disbeliever)

b) b) Or a Shī’ī, Rāfidhī

c) c) Or an extremist Sūfī

d) d) Or a deviant heretic

e) e) Or a jāhil (ignorant) who repeats what he hears without knowing anything regarding the Shaykh and his Da’wah.

And this is an evil wretchedness… destroyed is the one who is satisfied of standing there (against the Da’wah of Tawhīd), or being from the numbers of those people… or even merely increases their numbers by anything whatsoever!

Why are they attacking the Shaykh… and indeed how many are these attackers in this era… We have been hearing for a while now from these types of people which were just mentioned… slandering, sensationalizing, and reviling the Shaykh and his Da’wah… till such a point, that the terms, “Wahhabist” and “Wahhabism” have become curse words and insults in the usage of many people! Without them even bringing a single, small, authentic, evidence which would justify all those oppressions, revilement, and curses… and hatred!?

Here are the sayings of the Shaykh, and his writings in between our hands in front of us… easy to reach for whosoever wants it… all of it speaks the truth, and calls to the truth, and commands the truth… Bring us one mistake which contradicts the Qur’ān or Sunnah which is directly from the Shaykh and his Da’wah- which would justify all your hatred, abuse, and sensationalism … If you are indeed truthful!

But if you cannot find anything - and you can never find anything – Then we will know that the reason for which you abused the Shaykh and his Da’wah, was due to what he was upon of the truth which did not please you nor did it please your Tawāghīt and your Shayātīn!

And if it is said: “Look at the oppression and mistakes of those who ascribe themselves to the Shaykh and his Da’wah these days!”

I say: The Shaykh and his Da’wah are not hurt if there are those in this era – according to their claim of being ascribed to the Shaykh and his Da’wah – who give a bad name to the Shaykh and his Da’wah… for they are only sinning against their ownselves, not against others. It is not permissible for a man to be held accountable and responsible for the crimes of others… and if that was permissible… then who in the world today would be safe from being taken to account and punished?!

al faqeer

28-08-07, 07:50 AM

My condolences :D .

saifah

28-08-07, 07:58 AM

salams

i get called a wahabi all the time and i dont have a problem with it but people say it as to mean im a blind follower of imaan ibn abdul wahab and imnot i accept his teachings but he made mistakes just like everyone else so i take the authentic and leave the daueef and that doesnt make me a blind follower
and them idiots that say we are wahabi are making fun of a schollar and who are they to do such a thing
aoothubillah
may Allah have mercy on him and increase his compfort in the akhirah and make his knowledge to be a bennifit for him now Allahumma Ameen

wassalams

HelpingHand

28-08-07, 11:04 AM

Asslamo Allaikum,

Yes, I am a "Muslim" & a follower of Muhammad (Sallaho Alaihe Wassallam), & the Nabi (Sallaho Alaihe Wassallam) didn't use any labels!

luqman-haqq

29-08-07, 08:37 AM

Despite my resistance to new labels which separate Muslims and do not unite them… I must announce openly and clearly – without any biasness or partisanship: That I am a Wahhabist, amongst those who love Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb (may Allāh have mercy upon him) and his Da’wah.

If Wahhabism means Da’wah (Calling) to Tawhīd (Pure Monotheism)… and to the correct ‘Aqīdah (creed)… and abandoning shirk and Barā’ah (disassociating) from it and its people… as the Da’wah of the Shaykh was… Then, yes! I am a Wahhabist!

If Wahhabism means Da’wah to the Qur’ān and Sunnah… and holding on to the foundations, guidance, and understanding of As-Salaf As-Sālih (the Pious Predecessors)… and forsaking biasness towards a Math’hab… as the Da’wah of the Shaykh was… Then, yes! I am a Wahhabist!

If Wahhabism means waging Jihād (Holy War) against the oppressive Tawāghīt (false governments which have claimed to be gods)… and to wage Jihād against shirk and the pagans… as the Da’wah of the Shaykh was… Then, yes! I am a Wahhabist!

If Wahhabism means the middle-path… not leaning towards extremism nor deficiency… … as the Da’wah of the Shaykh was… Then, yes! I am a Wahhabist!

you wish. the wahhabis are called wahhabis because they follow the deviant teachings of Abdul Wahhab of Najd. Period. Whether you like it or not.

Cashew

29-08-07, 05:02 PM

$HugoBoss$

29-08-07, 11:13 PM

Whats a wahabi :confused:

Cashew

29-08-07, 11:24 PM

Whats a wahabi :confused:

It's the same as a wahhabi, only different.

aboosait

30-08-07, 02:39 PM

My condolences

If you are condoling this:

[QUOTE]Indeed I have pondered over the situation of those who attack the Shaykh and his Da’wah, and I found them to be:

a) a) Either a kāfir (infidel, disbeliever)

b) b) Or a Shī’ī, Rāfidhī

c) c) Or an extremist Sūfī

d) d) Or a deviant heretic

e) e) Or a jāhil (ignorant) who repeats what he hears without knowing anything regarding the Shaykh and his Da’wah.

You are talking sense again.

Islamiyyah

30-08-07, 04:18 PM

you wish. the wahhabis are called wahhabis because they follow the deviant teachings of Abdul Wahhab of Najd. Period. Whether you like it or not.

Oh please, making Takfeer on scholars are we now? That calls for a ban maybe? Hmm....

Watch what you say and the filth you spread.

JazakAllahu Khayr akhi Muwahid for this thread, InshAllah those who have a large enough brain to comprehend this, will do so.

Ibn Sina

30-08-07, 04:52 PM

You people are driving me nuts.

It used to be that Wahabis had the habit of doubling vowels when transliterating Arabic words into English.

Now you've moved into a completely different direction and have started doubling consonants...WahHabi, wasSalLam, etc.

WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS???

lol, the 'doubling consonants' have nothing to do with Salafis/Wahhabis. Most Muslims do it, but the doubling up of vowels is kinda of a Salafi/Wahhabi thing :coolbro:

Desipower

30-08-07, 04:59 PM

Lone Wolf

30-08-07, 06:58 PM

The very fact that this thread is of the nature of someone who is 'admitting' something in the way we would admit guilt is enough.

His words and the form this thread and his post took speaks volumes!

Skilly

31-08-07, 12:19 AM

Assalamu alaikum wr wb.

I wrote this lenghty response concerning this topic. I accidently pressed "Ctrl and W" and I lost everything.

Well I give you a short answer the article is quite straightforward and is show's tobe true that those who use call other Muslim Wahhabi fall under those heading.

Go read "Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, Kitab-at Tawheed". An excellent book.

Than show me the fault in it?

Lone Wolf

31-08-07, 12:49 AM

Than show me the fault in it?

Read the name of the author again, that should be enough for you.

I wrote this lenghty response concerning this topic. I accidently pressed "Ctrl and W" and I lost everything.

Subhan Allah

Desipower

31-08-07, 01:17 AM

Read the name of the author again, that should be enough for you.

The shia's started calling those who follow the Quran and sunnah as "sunni" to make them stand out. The british started calling the followers of Quran and sunnah as "wahabi" cuz their shiek ibn wahab called for jihad against the british and their imperial invasions of the muslim world. Most anti-wahabi hate you will see from indian subcontinent since they were first to be brainwashed into hating anyone who listend to ibn wahab. It's very ignorant of many muslims to label others wahabi and hate "wahabis" because of what their mullahs taught them or their cultural islam washed with colonization.

Lone Wolf

31-08-07, 01:27 AM

The shia's started calling those who follow the Quran and sunnah as "sunni" to make them stand out. The british started calling the followers of Quran and sunnah as "wahabi" cuz their shiek ibn wahab called for jihad against the british and their imperial invasions of the muslim world. Most anti-wahabi hate you will see from indian subcontinent since they were first to be brainwashed into hating anyone who listend to ibn wahab. It's very ignorant of many muslims to label others wahabi and hate "wahabis" because of what their mullahs taught them or their cultural islam washed with colonization.

That's about right, in my experience Wahabais/Salafis seem to love the word hate ;)

.: Anna :.

31-08-07, 11:57 AM

You people are driving me nuts.

It used to be that Wahabis had the habit of doubling vowels when transliterating Arabic words into English.

Now you've moved into a completely different direction and have started doubling consonants...WahHabi, wasSalLam, etc.

WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS???

Cashew its most accurately transliterated as wahhaabi, it has a shadda and it has an alif.. but it looks a bit much so i guess ppl jst pick either the h or the a :p

erm but wassallam is wrong, the s is correct the l should b only 1 if u want u cn have a double a there tho :cool: :nerdsis:

salahuldin786

31-08-07, 12:03 PM

one question did abdul wahhab get help from the british and saudi bandits to beat the khalifah at the time. no going around in circle's, simply answer with proof. and dont close the thread.

another question was abdul wahhab father a sufi like ibn Ibn Tamiya father fact.

Abu.Bakr

31-08-07, 12:06 PM

InshaAllaah one day the Muslims can put the 10% of differences they have aside and remember the 90% they have in common and work together. Sometimes we forget that we are brothers and not enemies

Lone Wolf

31-08-07, 04:44 PM

I think it's enough to see how embarassed people are to admit that they are wahabi/salafi, that tells it's own story

I've never been embarassed to be known as a Pakistani or a Muslim. I'm quite open about what I believe and I'm always willing to talk about it.

I used to work with a guy who kept getting asked (by others) are you a Salafi?

He would always reply and say no, no I'm not a Salafi.

Then one day when it was just me and him, he told me. This is between us, I am a Salafi.

So I told him, yeah I know you are.

He seemed a bit surprised and said why does everyone seem to think I'm a Salafi when I never say it myself.

So I told him.

You're intolerant to any view but your own, you have no hesitation in calling Muslims kaffir without knowing much about them and in general you seem to be full of hate for anyone who doesnt do everything exactly the same way you do.

So it's quite obvious you're a Salafi.

Suffice to say he wouldnt talk to me for quite a while after that!

ummbilal

31-08-07, 04:59 PM

I am a Muslim.

salahuldin786

31-08-07, 04:59 PM

InshaAllaah one day the Muslims can put the 10% of differences they have aside and remember the 90% they have in common and work together. Sometimes we forget that we are brothers and not enemies

your right again brother but when people start calling you a kafir that is out of bounds just because i dont follow the salafi way.

Desipower

31-08-07, 05:12 PM

So I told him.

You're intolerant to any view but your own, you have no hesitation in calling Muslims kaffir without knowing much about them and in general you seem to be full of hate for anyone who doesnt do everything exactly the same way you do.

So it's quite obvious you're a Salafi.

Suffice to say he wouldnt talk to me for quite a while after that!

That was very ignorant of you to say. You are blinded by your own hate against them to hold such views. You are a typical paki born and bred in paki land with its cultural ignorance and british colonial after effects lingering your land. I have met many many br/sr who are salafi but are 1000 times better than pakis in their manner, behavior, treatment of others, etc. There's good and bad in all groups. There's good paki and bad ones and there's good salafi and bad ones. So get off your high chair of righteousness, quit judging others and worry about yourself. Sharing your hatred for others won't help you on Judgment day.

Lone Wolf

31-08-07, 05:16 PM

That was very ignorant of you to say. You are blinded by your own hate against them to hold such views. You are a typical paki born and bred in paki land with its cultural ignorance and british colonial after effects lingering your land. I have met many many br/sr who are salafi but are 1000 times better than pakis in their manner, behavior, treatment of others, etc. There's good and bad in all groups. There's good paki and bad ones and there's good salafi and bad ones. So get off your high chair of righteousness, quit judging others and worry about yourself. Sharing your hatred for others won't help you on Judgment day.

This forum is a prime example of what I've said. There's a lot of hate, intolerance and calling Muslims Kaffir.

And we know where it mainly comes from ;)

Tooba

31-08-07, 05:16 PM

I am a Muslim.

Same here :up:, am muslim all that matters is the adherence to the quran and sunnah.......I dont have much knowledge what Wahabi/salafi is, i read it in couple of threads but never heard of it in life so i can't say anything about them allah knows the best swt.

salahuldin786

31-08-07, 07:49 PM

That was very ignorant of you to say. You are blinded by your own hate against them to hold such views. You are a typical paki born and bred in paki land with its cultural ignorance and british colonial after effects lingering your land. I have met many many br/sr who are salafi but are 1000 times better than pakis in their manner, behavior, treatment of others, etc. There's good and bad in all groups. There's good paki and bad ones and there's good salafi and bad ones. So get off your high chair of righteousness, quit judging others and worry about yourself. Sharing your hatred for others won't help you on Judgment day.

have you had some problem's at home with your paki family or something.

im a proud pakistani and i love my nation with all my heart my pakiness make's me who i am today, and if wasnt for the paki elder's islam would not of spread in this country of the u.k, u.s.a, denmark, holland, some stop using that word to make us look bad. pakistan a wondful country and the most powerful muslim nation in the word so stop hating.

Omar

31-08-07, 08:05 PM

Not being rude or nutin but this thread almost sounded like you were coming out the closet

Saeed Al-Muslim

31-08-07, 08:40 PM

Desipower

31-08-07, 08:53 PM

have you had some problem's at home with your paki family or something.

im a proud pakistani and i love my nation with all my heart my pakiness make's me who i am today, and if wasnt for the paki elder's islam would not of spread in this country of the u.k, u.s.a, denmark, holland, some stop using that word to make us look bad. pakistan a wondful country and the most powerful muslim nation in the word so stop hating.

I'm pakistani too buddy and quite frankly i'm embarrassed to say i'm pakistani. The found fathers did good to make a country for muslims and the current pakis did great job to ruin that nation. it no longer is a "pak"-istan. You are proud to be paki, good for you. Now be a good paki and go look up what islam says about nationalism.

Btw, this is your pakistan. nothing but a filthy nation of oppressors.

Pakistan Ki Betian Aur Pakistan Keh Begeraat PART 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiuRioCIvZ8

Pakistan Ki Betian Aur Pakistan Keh Begeraat PART 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7mwkIUgrLY

This forum is a prime example of what I've said. There's a lot of hate, intolerance and calling Muslims Kaffir.

And we know where it mainly comes from ;)

ignorantly cultural people who think of themselves as alims :torture:

Lone Wolf

31-08-07, 09:07 PM

ignorantly cultural people who think of themselves as alims :torture:

you can pretend to me but you cant pretend to yourself, we both know what I'm saying is right ;)

Lone Wolf

31-08-07, 09:54 PM

Not being rude or nutin but this thread almost sounded like you were coming out the closet

No I think it sounded more like someone at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting.

My name is Dawud, Im 40 years and old and I'm a Wahabi :o

(this is the bit where all the other people in the group say it's ok, its ok we can beat this together) :D

Bubble

31-08-07, 11:49 PM

Alhamdulillah.....well said Abu bakr:up::o

muwahid

01-09-07, 09:48 AM

The author named the article "yes i am a wahabi", im not exactly gonnah change the article am i ? As for all you haters bring forth you evidence instead of repeating these empty statements.

al faqeer

01-09-07, 10:02 AM

The author named the article "yes i am a wahabi", im not exactly gonnah change the article am i ? As for all you haters bring forth you evidence instead of repeating these empty statements.

I think thats what you should do , since they already presented theirs :) .

aboosait

01-09-07, 10:23 AM

I think thats what you should do , since they already presented theirs :) .

Ibn Abdul Wahhab, who reintroduced Shariah (Islamic law) to the Arabian peninsula, was influenced by the writings of scholars such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya.

This theology is the dominant form found in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, as well as some pockets of Somalia, Algeria, Palestine and Mauritania.

The term "Wahhabi" (Wahhābīya) is rarely used by the people it is used to describe.

Some use Wahhabism and Salafism interchangeably, though "Wahhabism" is considered derogatory. [1]

Others consider Wahhabism to be an ultra-conservative form of Salafism. [2][3]
Ingrid Mattson, a professor of Islamic Studies from Hartford Seminary, calls Wahhabism a reform movement, rather than a sect. [4]

Foot notes:

1. GlobalSecurity.org Salafi Islam
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090401107_2.html
3. John L. Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, p.50
4. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/18/mattson.cnna//

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabbi

Abu.Bakr

01-09-07, 10:44 AM

your right again brother but when people start calling you a kafir that is out of bounds just because i dont follow the salafi way.
Akhi I am from Melbourne, Australia and I do follow the Salafi scholars. The majority of the practising Muslims here are Salafis but I have never in my life heard anyone make takfir of anyone. Down here it is a huge no, no. We believe that only Allaah can judge what is in the hearts of his believers. So this concept of Salafis making takfir on people is very foreign to me and the Muslims in Melbourne. If I heard any Muslim, whether they were 'Salafi' or not making takfir, I would be very upset but give them sincere naseeha InshaAllaah because it's just not right SubhaanAllaah

And even though I follow the Salafi scholars, I would not call myself a Salafi because I believe the correct term is a Muslim InshaAllaah

And believe me akhi, whoever calls you a kaafir just because you are not a Salafi is a misguided idiot

al faqeer

01-09-07, 11:55 AM

Ibn Abdul Wahhab, who reintroduced Shariah (Islamic law) to the Arabian peninsula, was influenced by the writings of scholars such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya.

This theology is the dominant form found in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, as well as some pockets of Somalia, Algeria, Palestine and Mauritania.

The term "Wahhabi" (Wahhābīya) is rarely used by the people it is used to describe.

Some use Wahhabism and Salafism interchangeably, though "Wahhabism" is considered derogatory. [1]

Others consider Wahhabism to be an ultra-conservative form of Salafism. [2][3]
Ingrid Mattson, a professor of Islamic Studies from Hartford Seminary, calls Wahhabism a reform movement, rather than a sect. [4]

Foot notes:

1. GlobalSecurity.org Salafi Islam
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090401107_2.html
3. John L. Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, p.50
4. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/18/mattson.cnna//

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabbi

Compare it then :) bring Al Fiqh al akbar and lets do a comparison .

Hekmaa

01-09-07, 12:24 PM

These threads have no benefit and according to Islamic Shariah, those of us who are responsible for monitoring and moderating these threads should never allow them. If they are going to allow them, they should moderate them heavily to assure that they keep in lime and some form of conclusion is reached.

There are two reasons for this 1. People develop hate towards each other because of being from two different corners. 2. Most people are not educated enough on the topic details to be able to address the issue fairly, hence a lot of the information is personal views. Hence the outcome is always negative, either the thread is closed, or fighting and abusing starts.

Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, was a scholar from a typical family of the Arabian Peninsula. The Peninsula at that time was under the Uthmani Khilaf, and the Uthmani Khilafa was weening and losing its Islamic footing. Many foreign practices were coming into the lives of the Muslims, because over the past 1000 years the Islamic perimeter had expanded very rapidly and there was little consolidation in Islamic knowledge and practices of the general Muslim Masses. Therefore the people had either reverted to Islam because of Islamic dominance and were not well trained and educated in Islam and its practices. Those who were born in to the religion were also in a similar condition.

The general condition of the Muslim's Eeman was on the down. This was not to be blamed on the Khilafa directly, because there were many forces at work against the Khilafa. Also as per the Hadith of the Prophet SAW "your leaders will be a reflection of you", so the general masses were weak, hence the leaders were weak. However to the outside world they were still very strong khalifs and stood for ever bit of Islam. For example the Jews came to the Last Uthmani Khalif, and brought with themselves caravans of Gold, and told the Khalif, "we will pay off all your debts, and we will set your Khilafa rich, give us Palestine" the Khaleef replied "If I have only the land that expands the area of my feet, I will not go down in Islamic history as someone who sold Islams lands".

To this background, and to the forces working against Khilafa, one such force was Europe's religious arm preaching nationalism in Arabia using the likes of Laurence of Arabia, and the French using their icons and the Italians theirs. All in an effort to rally Arab nationalism against Islam. This worked very successfully, because they did not only rally nationalism in the Arabian Peninsula but also in Turkey and other places. They also pushed amongst the Muslims the ideas that "the Khalifs are not Muslim and they are not serving Islam". By this note many countries under the Khurasan, were being controlled by their own ameers who had contacted with the Khalif, but did not accept direct control, as they were much more firm on deen.

In this climate came about 2 forces, one the force of Islamic revival, and one the force of Arab and Turkish nationalism. The force of Islamic revival in the Arab Peninsula was started by Imam Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. Like most leaders he himself was a very understanding and righteous person. Yes like any human he made mistakes but none by which he can be condemned to have had bad intentions for Islam. There were also Islamic revival in Turkey but in the country side. At the same time there were the Al Saud and Atta Turks of the world being made.

Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab's dawah effort was hijacked by one wrong decision he made, and that was to unite the forces of righteousness that he was leading with the nationalist forces that Al Saud was leading, but he was tricked into this. As Abdul Aziz told the Shaiykh "I am not learned about the deen, but i want to work for the deen and rid it of forgein heretics" . Since that time, his teachings have been twisted, bent and used by the Al Saud to push there own agenda. Also it was an agreement that the Mufti of Saudi will always be from Al Ashaiykh, meaning the "the family of the Shaiykh" Shaiykn being Imam Abdul Wahhab.

Therefore today there are two groups of people who follow the message that he revived which was the message of Ibn Taymiyyah, ones that follow it based on clear proof and text. The other group that follows it does so by name and from the sources that the Al Saud propagate.

The original teachings of the Shaiykh do not have major problems, he himself even commends the Ma Shaiykh of Tazkiyatun nafs, Tassawuf. He condemned bida'ah in that were introduced in Tassawuf by heretics which also the revivalists in Turkey who were Sufi's also condemned.

It is very important to know what someone stood for before one condemns them. There is a whole royal family that uses the 'teachings' of the Shaiykh to legitimizes its existance and by doing so it creates itself a climate of difference and in that it can hide. There are amongst the ma shaiykh from the family of the Shaiykh, even today and they clearly speak out against these so called "wahabis" and "salafis" because in reality there is one Islam and the famous Arabic quote comes to mind "Qatallahul Ahzab" "Allah destroys(kills) sects". Those people who cling onto "I am wahhabi" and "I am salafi" do so out of ignorance to the Ayah of Allah "Wa radeetu lakumul Islama deena". I have sat with many prominent scholar from the peninsula and none of them say "I am salafi" or "I am wahabi", though outside the pseudo salafis and wahhabis like to say that those shaiykhs are wahhabi or salafi. They are Muslim.

salahuldin786

01-09-07, 06:48 PM

can someone answer my question did the british help abdul wahhab and the saudi bandits against the khalifa at the time. did abdul wahhab attack mecca and madina and at one point set a blaze the kiswa of the kaba.

and another question was abdul wahhab father a sufi like ibn Tamiya

Skilly

01-09-07, 06:48 PM

Well the degatory term Wahhabi used to label other's has nothing got to to do with Saudi Nationalism.

The whole arab nationalism started under the influence of foreign imperialism.

Wahhabi = Saudi. Who ever sing that tune is clearly ignorant of the Islam.

I heard lot of statement made by lay Muslim, that border's ignorance and not only that but has utter disregard of truth and Justice, when they utter these statement.

Naturally When people make statement,

1. either they are so stupid that or ignorance show's in their statement it can be completely disregarded.

2. When somone utter something that is sound one should alway's check it up, or/and go to the primary source. If you don't know how to check it up than ask someone knowledgable.

You will be suprised how much lies are uttered.

I don't know why people lie. I honestly hate liars except for those who make honest mistake. And for those who are layman and don't know what they are saying, than have some fear of Allah(swt), and that goes same for speaking about any of your sister and brother's.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is never a man who brings some goodness to this world but he has enemies among mankind and the jinn. Even the Prophets of Allaah were not safe from that.

The enmity of people was directed against the scholars in the past, especially the proponents of the true call (of Islam). They were met with intense hostility from the people. An example of that is Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him); some of those who were jealous of him regarded it as permissible to shed his blood, others accused him of being misguided and of going beyond the pale of Islam and becoming an apostate.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab was simply another of these wronged scholars who were falsely accused by people, in an attempt to cause trouble (fitnah). People’s only motives for doing that were jealousy and hatred, along with the fact that bid’ah was so firmly entrenched in their hearts, or they were ignorant and were blindly imitating the people of whims and desires.

We will mention some of the false accusations that were made against the Shaykh, and will refute them.

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

He said:

‘Abd al-Qadeem Zalloom claims that the emergence of the Wahhaabis and their call was a cause of the fall of the Caliphate. It was said that the Wahhaabis formed a state within the Islamic state, under the leadership of Muhammad ibn Sa’ood and subsequently his son ‘Abd al-‘Azeez, which was supplied with weapons and money by the British, and they set out to gain control of other lands that were under the rule of Caliphate, motivated by the urge to spread their beliefs, i.e., they raised their swords against the Caliph and fought the Muslim army, the army of the Ameer al-Mu’mineen, with the encouragement and support of the British.

Kayfa hudimat al-Khilaafah, p. 10.

Before we respond to the false accusation that Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebelled against the Caliphate, we should mention the fact that the Shaykh believed that hearing and obeying the imams (leaders) of the Muslims was obligatory, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they did not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah, because obedience is only with regard to what is right and proper.

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

And he also said:

One of the main principles of unity is to hear and obey whoever is appointed over us even if he is an Abyssinian slave…”

Majmoo’ah Mu’allafaat al-Shaykh, 1/394; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 233-234.

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

After stating these facts which explain that the Shaykh believed it was 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, we may refer to an important issue in response to that false accusation. There is an important question which is: was Najd, where this call originated and first developed, under the sovereignty of the Ottoman state?

Dr Saalih al-‘Abood answered this by saying:

Najd never came under Ottoman rule, because the rule of the Ottoman state never reached that far, no Ottoman governor was appointed over that region and the Turkish soldiers never marched through its land during the period that preceded the emergence of the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him). This fact is indicated by the fact that the Ottoman state was divided into administrative provinces. This is known from a Turkish document entitled Qawaaneen Aal ‘Uthmaan Mudaameen Daftar al-Deewaan (Laws of the Ottomans concerning what is contained in the Legislation), which was written by Yameen ‘Ali Effendi who was in charge of the Constitution in 1018 AH/1609 CE. This document indicates that from the beginning of the eleventh century AH the Ottoman state was divided into 23 provinces, of which 14 were Arabic provinces, and the land of Najd was not one of them, with the except of al-Ihsa’, if we count al-Ihsa’ as part of Najd.

‘Aqeedat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab wa atharuha fi’l-‘Aalam al-Islami (unpublished), 1/27

And Dr ‘Abd-Allaah al-‘Uthaymeen said:

Whatever the case, Najd never experienced direct Ottoman rule before the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab emerged, just as it never experienced any strong influence that could have an impact on events inside Najd. No one had any such influence, and the influence of Bani Jabr or Bani Khaalid in some parts, or the Ashraaf in other parts, was limited. None of them were able to bring about political stability, so wars between the various regions of Najd continued and there were ongoing violent conflicts between its various tribes.

Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab Hayaatuhu wa Fikruhu, p. 11; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 234-235.

We will complete this discussion by quoting what Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz said in response to this false accusation. He said (may Allaah have mercy on him):

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab did not rebel against the Ottoman Caliphate as far as I know, because there was no area in Najd that was under Turkish rule. Rather Najd consisted of small emirates and scattered villages, and each town or village, no matter how small, was ruled by an independent emir. These were emirates between which there were fighting, wars and disputes. So Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab did not rebel against the Ottoman state, rather he rebelled against the corrupt situation in his own land, and he strove in jihad for the sake of Allaah and persisted until the light of this call spread to other lands…

Conversation recorded on tape; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, p. 237

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.

If the above is a reflection of the Shaykh’s attitude towards the Caliphate, how did the Caliphate view the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab?

Dr. al-Nashmi said, answering this question:

The view that the Caliphate had of the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab was very distorted and confused, because the Caliphate only listened to those who were hostile towards the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, whether that was via reports sent by their governors in the Hijaaz, Baghdad and elsewhere, or via some individuals who reached Istanbul bearing news.

Al-Mujtama’, issue #504; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, p. 238-239.

With regard to Zalloum’s claims that the Shaykh’s call was one of the reasons for the fall of the Caliphate and that the English helped the Wahhaabis to topple it, Mahmoud Mahdi al-Istanbuli says concerning this ridiculous claim:

This writer should be expected to produce proof and evidence for his opinion. Long ago the poet said:

If claims are not supported by proof, they are used only by the fools as evidence.

We should also note that history tells us that the English were opposed to this call from the outset, fearing that it might wake the Muslim world up.

Al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab fi Mar’aat al-Sharq wa’l-Gharb, p. 240

And he says:

The ironic fact is that this professor accuses the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab of being one of the factors that led to the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate, even though this movement began in 1811 CE and the Caliphate was abolished in 1922 CE.

Op. cit., p. 64

What indicates that the English were opposed to the Wahhabi movement is the fact that they sent Captain Foster Sadler to congratulate Ibrahim Pasha on his success against the Wahhabis – during the war of Ibrahim Pasha in Dar’iyyah – and also to find out to what extent he was prepared to cooperate with the British authorities to reduce what they called Wahhabi piracy in the Arabian Gulf.

Indeed, this letter clearly expressed a desire to establish an agreement between the British government and Ibrahim Pasha with the aim of destroying the Wahhabis completely.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Manzoor al-Nu’maani said:

The English made the most of the hostility that existed in India towards Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab and they accused everyone who opposed them and stood in their way, or whom they regarded as dangerous, of being Wahhabis… Similarly the English called the scholars of Deoband – in India – Wahhaabis, because of their blunt opposition to the English and their putting pressure on them.

Di’aaya Mukaththafah Didd al- Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, p. 105-106

From these various quotations we can see the falseness of these flawed arguments when compared to the clear academic proofs in the essays and books of the Shaykh; that falseness is also obvious when compared to the historical facts are recorded by fair-minded writers.

Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 239, 240.

Finally, we advise everyone who has slandered the Shaykh to restrain his tongue and to fear Allaah with regard to him. Perhaps Allaah will accept their repentance and guide them to the straight path.

And Allaah knows best.

salahuldin786

01-09-07, 06:52 PM

salahuldin786

01-09-07, 06:55 PM

Al-Albani Unveiled
Some Observations about the Salafi/Wahhabi sect

Many of us who are practising Muslims or otherwise, are familiar with the epithet 'Wahhabi'. The founder of this sect was Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab (d. 1206 AH), from the Najd area of 'Saudi' Arabia. He is also known as Shaykh an-Najdi by his opponents and his followers have been labelled as either 'Najdi's' or 'Wahhabi's' by the Ahl al-Sunnah. He claimed to be a Hanbali in Fiqh. It is well known that he fully digested the aqeedah and ideas of Ibn Taymiyya. The scholars of his time warned the Muslims to be on their guard from accepting his 'reformatory' ideas; and this work is still existent among the scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah even today. The neo- 'Salafi's' of today respect Ibn Abdal Wahhab quite highly by bestowing upon him such great titles like 'Shaykh al-Islam'. I do not want to say much about his movement and activities, but a few quotes from three well known scholars should suffice for now.
(1) The foremost Hanafi scholar of his time, Imam Muhammad Amin ibn Abidin (d. 1252/1836 Rahimahullah) said in his celebrated work Hashiyya radd al-Mukhtar (vol. 3, pg. 309): "In our time Ibn Abdal Wahhab (Najdi) appeared, and attacked the two noble sanctuaries (Makkah and Madinah). He claimed to be a Hanbali, but his thinking was such that only he alone was a Muslim, and everyone else was a polytheist! Under this guise, he said that killing the Ahl as-Sunnah was permissible, until Allah destroyed them (Wahhabi's) in the year 1233 AH by way of the Muslim army."

(2) Shaykh Zayni Dahlan (Rahimahullah) said in his book Futuhat al-Islamiyya (vol. 2, pg. 268): "The sign of the Khawarij (the first deviant sect that appeared in the time of the Companions) concerning the shaving of the head, was not found in the Khawarij of the past, but only in the Najdi's of our time!"

(3) Shaykh al-Islam Hussain Ahmad al-Madani (Rahimahullah) said in his book ash-Shihab as-saqib (pg. 42): "Ibn Abdal Wahhab arose in the beginning of the thirteenth Islamic century in the Najd. His thinking was false, and his beliefs were corruptional; on these grounds he opened the way for killing the Ahl as-Sunnah."

(4) A more contemporary view on the Wahhabite sect has been expressed by Abdal-Hakim Murad in the journal Islamica (pg. 9): "Ibn Abdal Wahhab, however, went far beyond this (i.e; of Ibn Taymiyya). Raised in the wastelands of Najd in Central Arabia, he had little access to mainstream Muslim scholarship (I say: This may be disputed by his supporters). In fact, when his da'wah appeared and became notorious, the scholars and muftis of the day applied to it the famous hadith of Najd: Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) reported the Prophet (Peace be upon him) as saying: "Oh God, bless us in our Syria; O God, bless us in our Yemen." Those present said: "And in our Najd, O Messenger of God!" But he said, "O God, bless us in our Syria; O God, bless us in our Yemen." Those present said, "And in our Najd, O Messenger of God!" Ibn Umar said that he thought that he said on the third occasion: "Earthquakes and dissensions (fitnah) are there, and there shall arise the horn of the devil." (Sahih al-Bukhari). And it is significant that almost uniquely among the lands of Islam, Najd has never produced scholars of any repute.

The Najd-based da'wah of the Wahhabi's, however, began to be heard more loudly following the explosion of Saudi oil wealth. Many, even most, Islamic publishing houses in Cairo and Beirut are now subsidised by Wahhabi organisations, which prevent them from publishing traditional works on Sufism, and remove passages in other works considered unnacceptable to Wahhabist doctrine.

The neo-Kharijite nature of Wahhabism makes it intolerant of all other forms of Islamic expression. However, because it has no coherent fiqh of its own - it rejects the orthodox madhhabs - and has only the most basic and primitively anthropomorphic 'aqidah, it has a fluid, amoebalike tendency to produce divisions and subdivisions among those who profess it. No longer are the Islamic groups essentially united by a consistent madhhab and the Ash'ari 'aqidah (see later). Instead, they are all trying to derive the Shari'ah and the 'aqidah from the Qur'an and the Sunnah by themselves. The result is the appaling state of division and conflict which disfigures the modern salafi condition."

Another person who is a reference for today's neo-"Salafi's", is Muhammad ibn Ali al-Shawkani (d. 1250/1834). He was a leading scholar of the Zaydi (Shi'ah) sect found mainly in the Yemen. He claimed to have departed from his old Shi'ite ways and joined the Ahl al-Sunnah. He was attacked by the scholars of his day for saying Taqleed was completely haram, as well as other important issues. Some scholars had accused him of still holding on to his deviant Zaydiyyah-Mu'tazilite (rationalistic thinking that was propounded by one of the first deviant sects of Islam) thinking, while pretending to be within the fold of orthodox Sunni Islam; but Allah knows best! It is a well known fact that he denied the consensus of the Companions (Ijma as-Sahaba), as well as rejecting the validity of the Fatwa of a Companion! One may refer to Anwar Ahmad Qadri's book Islamic Jurisprudence in the Modern World (pg. 142) for a lenghthier discussion.

Many scholars have noticed the extreme tendencies within the "Salafiyya" sect around the world, for its lack of respect for the scholars of the four Madhhabs, its Aqeedah and some untenable juristic positions it has produced over a short period of Islam's history. The scholars have not been afraid of declaring the neo- "Salafi's" to be neo-Kharijites in their behaviour and attitude to other Muslims. Note, the scholars are not saying that the neo-"Salafi's" are Kharijites, but rather they seem to have certain traits which were only found amongst the Kharijites of the past. One of the most striking things I have noticed amongst these 'neo-Kharijites', is their direction of Qur'anic verses that were revealed specifically for the unbelievers, as referring to the believers who do not seem to have their way of thinking! This was a well known practise of the Kharijites of old; as we shall see below.

A well known scholar of the "Salafiyya", Dr. Yusuf al-Qardawi (who has himself been attacked by other members of the "Salafiyya", especially for holding some untenable positions in his book al-Halal wal Haram fil Islam) said in his book Islamic awakening between Rejection and Extremism (pg. 41-3): "Imam al-Shatibi (Rahimahullah) wrote (in his book al-I'tisam, 2. 182-4): 'Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) was right. When a person knows the reason behind a certain verse or surah, he knows how to interpret it and what its objectives are. However, ignorance of that leads people to misinterpret it and to have different opinions, without an insight and knowledge which could lead them to the truth, and prevent them from indulging ignorantly in such matters with no support or evidence from al Shari'ah, and therefore go astray and lead people astray. This can be demonstrated by what is reported by Ibn Wahab from Bakir who asked Nafi': What does Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) think of al-Haruriyyah (i.e; al-Khawarij who were also called al-Haruriyyah after the place -Harawra- where they gathered and were found by Ali ibn Abu Talib and the Companions of the Prophet [may Allah be pleased with them all] who supported him)? Nafi' answered: He thinks they are the most evil of people. They applied the verses which pertain to the kuffar on the believers.' (NB- Imam al-Bukhari has recorded Ibn Umar as saying in his Sahih [vol.9, pg.50; English edn]: These people (the Khawarij and heretics ) took some verses that had been revealed concerning the disbelievers and interpreted them as describing the believers ).

Al-Qardawi also said (pg. 42): One of the causes of such shallowness is that extremists never listen to people who hold different views (and I can personally testify to that), never accept any dialogue with them or imagine that their own views could be tested in the light of others, and may thereby be either accepted or rejected. Most of them have not been taught by reliable Muslim ulama who are specialised in the field. Rather, they have received semi-knowledge directly from books and newspapers without any opportunity for revision or discussion which could test the learner's understanding and analyze the depth of his knowledge. They simply read, 'understand', then deduce what they wish. However, their reading, understanding, and deduction may well be wrong or deficient. There might be someone somewhere who opposes their opinions on stronger and more valid bases, but they are not aware of that because nobody has drawn their attention to such a possibility. These devout young people have ignored the facts that if they want to study al Shari'ah, they must seek the help of reliable Muslim scholars. They cannot venture into this extensive and entangled discipline without the guidance of reliable Muslim scholars who can interpret and explain obscurities, define terms, and point out the relationships between the parts and the whole and also equate similarities. Those who venture into it alone will meet with the same catastrophic results which could certainly befall the unskilled swimmer who ventures into dangerous waters. Proper knowledge of al Shari'ah cannot be perfected without practice and close contact with the experts, especially in those areas where opinions diverge, evidences seem to contradict each other, and certain matters seem to be under suspicion. This is why our venerable 'ulama' have warned us not to seek to study and understand al Qur'an al Karim through a person who has only memorized it without any knowledge of its contents, nor to seek knowledge through a person who has acquired his own "knowledge" from reading newspapers and journals only, without being properly instructed by reputable and qualified scholars."

This topic began with a brief discussion on Taqleed and I would like to finish with the following two questions for you to ponder over. (A) Would it not be classified as being Taqleed if one were to accept the classifications of Hadiths, exegesis of the Qur'an etc; by a renowned Islamic scholar, if one was not to go back to the original sources which are used to authenticate the Hadith and so on? (For example, if a scholar claimed that a Hadith found in the Sunan of Imam Abu Dawood was Sahih and you accepted it as being Sahih - since you trust him, then are you not practising Taqleed; if you, yourself do not go back to the original sources used to classify the Hadith in question, since sometimes a Hadith classified to be Sahih by one scholar can be classified as being Da'eef by another!). (B) Is it not true that those who are calling for the abandonment of Taqleed, are calling for the Taqleed of their own books and speeches; hence creating their own little 'Madhhabs'?

Skilly

01-09-07, 07:11 PM

what's this hadith about, The Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said,

"O Allaah bestow your blessings on our Shaam. O Allaah bestow your blessings on our Yemen." The people said, "O Messenger of Allaah, and our Najd." I think the third time the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said, "There (in Najd) will occur earthquakes, trials and tribulations, and from their appears the Horn of Satan."

Assalamu alaikum

This is basicly a hadith opponent used against Muhhamad ibn Abdul Wahhab.

I detail discussion can be found here:

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=251&highlight=Najd

Abu Mus'ab

01-09-07, 07:12 PM

What's with all the copy & paste? :rolleyes:

Fudhayl

01-09-07, 07:25 PM

Al-Albani Unveiled
Some Observations about the Salafi/Wahhabi sect

Dude this has been refuted years back, are you and your friends still circulating this still? :rolleyes:

Here is a copy and paste for you to add to your collection:

A Response to the Book of Falsehood 'Al-Albaanee unveiled' and about Saqqaaf - Second Edition
by Brother Abû Rumaysah

The Background

This article is based around an extremely abreviated translation of 'al-Anwaar al-Kaashifah' of Shaykh Ali Hasan, his refutation of 'at-Tanaaqudaat' of Saqqaaf, prepared by brother Dawood Burbank. In this article I have added many more examples of the lies and concoctions of Hasan Ali as-Saqqaaf not only against Shaykh al-Albaanee but against other scholars as well, on top of this adding more detail to various points that brother Dawood, may Allaah reward him, only translated briefly. Furthermore I have replied to all of the 'counter refutations' by Saqqaaf to Shaykh Ali that reached me via the means of his followers in this country. To date Hasan Saqqaaf still persists in his lies and has refused to retract them, instead he continues to add lies on top of more lies and we pray that Allaah grants him the tawfeeq to repent for his slander and hatred of Ahlus Sunnah before he dies.

I have stated more than once in the article that any reader who still has doubt in what we write, then let him recourse to the work 'at-Tanaaqudaat' of Hasan Saqqaaf and compare his claims to the written words of al-Albaanee and by the Grace of Allaah the truth will become clear to him. The point of this article is not to show that al-Albaanee is error free or even contradiction free for by the grace of Allaah, He has given Shaykh al-Albaanee the quality of readily accepting and correcting himself when his errors are shown to him. Throughout the works of al-Albaanee we find that he corrects himself, asks others to correct him and supplicates for them when they do so. On many occasions we find him, during the course of replying to attacks directed against him by his opponents, accepting some of their points as genuine and correcting himself.

Many of the students of Shaykh al-Albaanee have, with his permission, outlined his mistakes within their own works or in separate volumes devoted to this, examples of this lie with Shaykh Mashur Salmaan and Abu Ishaaq al-Huwaynee.

Therefore in conclusion, the purpose of replying to Hasan Saqqaaf is not because he has written a work outlining the mistakes of al-Albaanee. The purpose in replying is because of his filling the book with lies, slanders and concoctions, his incredibly rude and arrogant attitude, his total blindness to justice and his ignorance of the Science of Hadeeth.

I ask Allaah to guide us all to the straight Path and that He forgive any of my mistakes for they are from myself and Shaytaan.

Introduction

Truly all praise belongs to Allaah, we praise Him, we seek His aid and we seek his forgiveness. And we seek refuge with Allaah from the evils of our souls and from our wicked actions. He whom Allaah guides then no-one can misguide him, and he whom Allaah misguides then no-one can guide. I bear witness that there is no true god except Allaah, and I bear witness that Muhammad (SAW) is His Slave and Messenger. [1]
Allaah says (translation of the meaning of):

"Why do you mix truth with falsehood, and conceal the truth knowingly?" [Family of Imraan (3):71]

And the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam said,

"Truly it is from the signs of the hour that knowledge will be sought from the small ones" (i.e the people of innovation, those on other than the path of the companions.) [2]
He, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam also said,

"He who defends his brother in his absence, Allaah will defend him in this world and in the Hereafter." [ 3]

Throughout history it has always been the case that the great pillars of Ahlus Sunnah have been slandered, abused and hated by the people of misguidance and innovation. Thus fulfilling the truth of the hadeeth of the Messenger, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam,

"There will always remain a group of my nation, manifest upon the truth. They will not be harmed by those that oppose them until the affair of Allaah comes about and they are like that." [4]

So of old Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee (RH) was accused of being a Raafidee Shee'a. Ibn Khuzaimah, Abu Ya'la, ibn Taymiyyah and others were accused of being mujassima and had lies heaped around them. And in this day and age the shaykh and muhaddith Muhammad Naasir ad-Deen al-Albaanee has had a similar attack launched against him by those that would obstruct the call to the sunnah of the Best of Creation, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, and would do all that they can to make their innovations widespread in the world. And we seek refuge with Allaah from them and their innovations.

Amongst these individuals is the Jordanian writer Hasan Ali as-Saqqaaf who wrote a three volume treatise entitled 'Tanaaqudaat al-Albaanee' (The Self-Contradictions of al-Albaanee) based upon which a work in the English Language was written entitled 'al-Albani Unveiled'

Unfortunately both of these books have conveyed many lies and distortions, and through these means have confused and misguided many people. Because of this we felt it our duty, as sincere advice to the Muslims, to produce this treatise outlining the lies of the liars and warning from the deviations that have polluted the pure sunnah of the Messenger, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam.

We know that when the supporters of Hasan Saqqaaf in this country see the following treatise many accusations of 'lies', 'mistranslation' and 'distortions' will fly about. Due to this reason we have included, at the end, all the Arabic sections in the works of al-Albaanee that we have translated from so that any person who doubts what follows may recourse to an Arabic speaking person and verify all that we have translated.
And we ask Allaah that he guide us to the truth, and make us firm in following the footsteps of our righteous predecessors.

Footnotes:

{1} From the Khutbah al-Haajah (Speech of Need) which the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, would often start his lectures and khutbas by, as is related in Saheeh Muslim and others. {2} Related by at-Tabaraanee in 'al-Kabeer' from the relation of Abu Umayyah. See 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no. 2207). The commentary (in brackets) is from the words of Abdullaah bin Mubaarak related by ibn Mandah in 'al-Ma'rifah' (2/220/1) with a good sanad. The hadeeth is also related as mawqoof as the saying of ibn Mas'ud (RA) by al-Harawee in 'Dham al-Kalaam' (2/137). See 'as-Saheehah' (no.695) for detailed documentation.
{3} Related by al-Bayhaqi from the relation of Anas (RA), and it is hasan. See 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no. 6575), and 'as-Saheehah' (no.1217) for detailed documentation.
{4} Related by Muslim, Abu Daawood, Tirmidhee and others from the narration of Thawbaan (RA) and it is saheeh.

Skilly

01-09-07, 07:26 PM

What's with all the copy & paste? :rolleyes:

That is because our bromey brother is a layman who does not what he is copy and pasting, without checking any validity of those claim.

I advise the brother to learn how to check up, or go and bring something concrete.

Saeed Al-Muslim

01-09-07, 07:26 PM

‘Abd al-Qadeem Zalloom claims that the emergence of the Wahhaabis and their call was a cause of the fall of the Caliphate. It was said that the Wahhaabis formed a state within the Islamic state, under the leadership of Muhammad ibn Sa’ood and subsequently his son ‘Abd al-‘Azeez, which was supplied with weapons and money by the British, and they set out to gain control of other lands that were under the rule of Caliphate, motivated by the urge to spread their beliefs, i.e., they raised their swords against the Caliph and fought the Muslim army, the army of the Ameer al-Mu’mineen, with the encouragement and support of the British. ‘Abd al-Qadeem Zalloom is a "scholar" who's Isnaad/Ijaza is in dispute, and he is a people of the Ahlul-Kalam and the dimised leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir. His literary works have much that is evident to be incorrect and a great deviation from the Ahlus Sunnah Wal-Jamaa'. Pick up any scholarly work from the great Imaams of the past and you will find that much of what he and his likes say is in stark contradiction with them.

Ma'aSalaama

Fudhayl

01-09-07, 07:29 PM

Al-Albani Unveiled
Some Observations about the Salafi/Wahhabi sect

Seen as you like copy and paste I thought I'd be helpful and provide some more insha'allah.

Unveiling the Lies of Saqqaaf
by Brother Abû Rumaysah

The following is a point by point analysis of the slanders contained in 'al-Albani Unveiled'. The format is as follows: The first number given is the numbering of this article, the second number given is the number of the point in question as found in the book 'Albani Unveiled'. The point begins by the claims of Hasan Saqqaaf, followed by the actual quotes as found in the works of al-Albaanee, followed by a conclusion.

About Shaykh Al-Albaani's Weakening of Ahadith In Shaeeh Al-Bukhari and Muslim

Saqqaaf states that the very fact of al-Albaanee weakening these ahaadeeth contradicts his statement in his takhreej of 'Sharh Aqueedah at-Tahaawiyyah' (pp.'s 27-28) "that any hadeeth coming from the Sahih collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim is Sahih, not because they were narrated by Bukhari and Muslim, but because the Ahadith are in fact correct." (See 'Albani Unveiled' pg.7) This is not what the shaykh says, rather he explains on those pages that whenever he says in takhreej to a hadeeth that is related by Bukhaaree or Muslim, "saheeh", this is not a new ruling from him, but rather informing of the reality of that hadeeth. Five pages before this he explains that the basic principle used by the scholars of hadeeth is that the statement, 'related by the Two Shaykhs (Bukhaaree and Muslim)' or 'related by Bukhaaree' or 'related by Muslim' is sufficient in saying that the hadeeth is authentic.

Then the Shaykh continues, "but this does not mean that every word and letter or sentence in the Two Saheehs is of the station of the Qur`aan and that it is not possible that there be an error or misinterpretation in there from the part of the narrators. And we do not believe, in principle, that any book after the Book of Allaah is perfect...."

Not only this but a few pages after the quote from 'al-Albani Unveiled', in the same introduction, Shaykh al-Albaanee defends his weakening of the isnaad of a hadeeth related by Bukhaaree!

So with this it will become clear to the reader that the first eight examples of 'self-contradiction' in 'al-Albani Unveiled' are actually not contradictions at all, but are in total conformity with what the shaykh writes in his introduction to 'Sharh Aqueedah at-Tahaawiyyah'. It will also become clear to the reader how Saqqaaf plays around, and distorts the statements of al-Albaanee to suit his own ends, and this will become concrete in what follows.

All there remains now is to quote examples from the first eight points mentioned in 'al-Albani Unveiled' to show other types of errors that Saqqaaf falls into, and to show to the reader that al-Albaanee has not done anything new by weakening ahaadeeth in Bukhaaree and Muslim, but that in each and every case he has a precedent in the great scholars of the past.
For example:
1/2: The hadeeth of Abu Zubair from Jaabir,

"Do not sacrifice except a grown animal, unless it is difficult for you in which case sacrifice a ram" [Muslim, Eng. trans. vol. 3 no. 4836]
Saqqaaf merely says that Shaykh al-Albaanee declares it weak in 'Da`eef al-Jaami` al-Sagheer'[1] He fails to mention that he also quotes it in 'as-Silsilah al-Da`eefah' (1/160), since here the shaykh fully discusses its chain and text and quotes Ibn Hazm's declaration of its weakness. [2]
2/3: The hadeeth of Abu Sa`eed al-Khudri,

"The most wicked of people before Allaah on the Day of Resurrection is a man who goes to his wife and she to him, then he divulges her secret." [Muslim, Eng. trans. vol. 2 no.3369]
Saqqaaf, in order to increase his total of the shaykh's alleged errors repeats this hadeeth on following pages, then again later in the book. He again quotes the reference as only 'Da`eef al-Jaami`', and avoids mentioning where shaykh al-Albaanee speaks about it in detail, i.e. 'Aadaab az-Zifaaf' (p. 63, 142), where he explains its weakness at length and shows that al-Dhahabee declared its weakness due to the narrator `Umar bin Hamzah an-Nukri.
3/5: Part of the hadeeth,

"You will be the ones distinguished by white marks and blazes on the Day of Resurrection due to completion of the ablution, [so whoever amongst you can increase his mark and blaze then let him do so]." [Al-Bukhaaree Eng. trans. 1/102 no. 138, Muslim nos. 477-8.]
Saqqaaf again merely quotes 'Da`eef al-Jaami`' and fails to indicate that shaykh al-Albaanee fully explains in 'ad-Da`eefah' (1030) that scholars of the past (e.g. Ibn Hajr, al-Mundhiri, Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibraaheem an-Naaji) have shown how the last part (i.e. in []) is mudraj, i.e. the interpolated words of the narrator only. The rest of the ahaadeeth that Saqqaaf quotes in this section - not to mention other sections - are quoted in a manner involving twisting of wordings and falsification.
4/7: The hadeeth related by Muslim,

"One who reads the last ten verses of Surah al-Kahf he will be saved from the mischief of the Dajjaal." [Muslim no.809]
Saqqaaf states al-Albaanee made a mistake in the narration of the hadeeth, in his 'Da`eef Jaami` as-Sagheer' (no.5772), and the correct wording is "One who memorises the last ten verses".
But if one were to refer to 'Da`eef al-Jaami` as-Sagheer' then the deception of Saqqaaf would become clear for the mistake here seems to lie with as-Suyuti, the original compiler of 'Jaami` as-Sagheer', not al-Albaanee. For al-Albaanee brings a footnote, "and I say: what is preserved is the wording, 'The one who memorises the first ten verses of Surah al-Kahf....' and it is in 'Saheeh al-Jaami`' (no.6021)" [3]
5/11: Under the heading, "Shortcomings of al-Albaanee in his research in innumerable places and examples of this", he attacks shaykh al-Albaanee's saying concerning the narration of Ibn Mas`ood in marfoo` [5] form,
"The Qur`aan was sent down upon seven modes, each verse of them having an inner and an outer meaning ..."
It is quoted by the compiler of al-Mishkaat (1/80) as being reported by al-Baghawee[6] in 'Sharh-us Sunnah', so Shaykh al-Albaanee added the footnote, "It should be looked into as to where he reports it in 'Sharh-us-Sunnah', since I have searched through the chapters of Knowledge and Virtues of the Qur`aan and have not seen it."
Saqqaaf attacks this saying (p. 22 of the Arabic) with, "This is what you say!! But if you had really checked the chapters of knowledge you would have found it in the 'Chapter of Argumentation about the Qur`aan' in 'Sharh-us-Sunnah' (1/262), and it is reported by Ibn Hibbaan in his 'Saheeh' (no. 74), Abu Ya`laa in his 'Musnad' (5403), at-Tahaawi in 'Sharh Mushkil al-Aathaar' (4/172) and al-Bazzaar (3/90 of 'Kashf al-Astaar') ..."
Thus spoke this ignorant person, making it seem as if he has come up with valuable research, and hiding the truth:
i) He gives the impression that when the shaykh referred to 'Sharh-us-Sunnah', it was in printed form, but this is not the case for it was still in manuscript form then, as shown by a number of his quotes from it in the footnotes.
ii) The hadeeth is NOT REPORTED by al-Baghawi in 'Sharh-us-Sunnah', as our shaykh al-Albaanee indeed said. As for the chapter and page number quoted by Saqqaaf, it is again from his falsehood, since all that is reported there is a mursal narration of al-Hasan al-Basri, with similar wording to the hadeeth of Ibn Mas`ud !
iii) He gives the impression that the shaykh could not find any reference for the hadeeth and therefore himself quotes a list of references, whereas shaykh al-Albaani has fully researched it in 'ad-Da`eefah' (no. 2989 ms.), as he indicated in 'Da`eef al-Jaami`' (no. 1338), and the shaykh attributes to a whole list of reference works, many of which I'm sure Saqqaaf has never even heard of, let alone seen!
The shaykh, may Allaah protect him, said, "... It is reported by Ibn Jareer in his 'Tafseer' (1/23), Abu Umar ar-Raqqi in 'Ahaadeeth of Zaid bin Abi Unaisah' (32/2), Abul Fadl al-Raazi in 'Meanings of Revelation of the Qur'aan in Seven Modes' (64/1), Abu Ya`laa in his 'Musnad' (3/1309), Ibn Hibbaan (1781), al-Bazzaar in his 'Musnad' (226), Ibn Makhlad in 'Al-Muntaqaa' (2/81/2) and Abu Bakr al-Kalaabaadhi in 'Miftaah al-Ma`aani' (297/2)." {7 - important fn!}
6/13: The hadeeth,

"Abu Bakr is from me, holding the position of my hearing".
Al-Albaanee states in as-Saheehah (2/476) that he could not find this hadeeth in the indexes of 'Hilya al-Awliyaa'. Saqqaaf states that this hadeeth is in the indexes and in the book (4/73).
Shaikh Khaalid al-Inbareee says in reply to this point in his, "Iftiraa`aat as-Saqqaaf al-Atheem" (pg.18), "and the Shaykh is truthful and precise in his saying, 'I did not see it in the indexes of 'al-Hilya'.' For I, by Allaah, did not find this hadeeth in the three indexes of 'al-Hilya'. And Saqqaaf lied in affirming (its presence) for what is in 'al-Hilya' in the place which he indicates, and is also present in the indexes, is the hadeeth, 'Abu Bakr and Umar are indispensable to me. Indeed Abu Bakr and Umar are in Islaam of the station of the hearing and seeing of man.'
Shaykh al-Albaanee discusses both the above narrations in 'as-Saheehah' (2/476) and declares the first to be irregular or rejected due to the fact that a group of narrators relate the second hadeeth in which is the mention of both Abu Bakr and Umar.
So in trying to criticise al-Albaanee, Saqqaaf has actually outlined one of the excellent qualities of al-Albaanee, and that is his extreme precision in his takhreej of ahaadeeth!
I do not have the necessary references to crosscheck the rest of the points (9-14 excluding 11,13) which contain the accusation of insufficient research on the part of al-Albaanee. But in the two examples mentioned so far should be sufficient for the open-minded reader. And Allaah is the One Who grants success.
/15: Saqqaaf states that al-Albaanee criticised Ghumaari for mentioning a hadeeth in his book 'al-Kanz al Thameen' from Abu Hurayra,

'Spread the salaam and feed the poor...'.
He says in 'ad-Da`eefah' (3/492) after referring the hadeeth to Ahmad (2/295)....'I say this is a weak sanad....' and contradicts himself in 'al-Irwaa'{8} (3/238) where he authenticates the same sanad.
al-Albaanee said in 'ad-Da`eefah' (3/492), ".....the hadeeth has another route related from Qataadah from Abu Maymoonah from Abu Hurayra.....I say, this isnaad is da`eef. Daaruqutni said, 'Qataadah from Maymoonah from Abu Hurayra, it is unknown and to be left'...."
And he said in 'al-Irwaa' (3/238), "...from Qataadah from Abu Maymoonah from Abu Hurayra... I say, the isnaad is saheeh, its narrators are the narrators of the Two Shaikhs except for Abu Maymoonah and he is thiqah (trustworthy) as occurs in 'at-Taqreeb'. And al-Haakim said, 'saheeh sanad' and adh-Dhahabi agreed."
So the criticism here seems to be correct, in that al-Albaanee has changed his verdict on the isnaad without indicating that he has done so. Allaah knows best.
7/17: Saqqaaf claimed that al-Albaanee contradicted himself regarding the hadeeth,

'Is he playing with Allaahs Book whilst I am still amongst you?...'
by saying in 'Mishkaat' (2/981) that it is da`eef and in 'Ghayatul Maraam'{9} (no.261 pg. 164) that it is saheeh.
al-Albaanee said in 'al-Mishkaat' (2/981 fn.1), "its narrators are trustworthy, but it is from the narration of Mukhrima from his father, and he did not hear from him." (Note that the shaykh does not say the isnaad is da`eef and neither does he give a verdict to the hadeeth!!)
And he said in 'Ghayatul Maraam' (no.261), "Saheeh...I say its narrators are trustworthy despite the difference over the hearing of Mukhkrima, and he is ibn Bakeer, from his father..."
(There occurs a footnote: 'Shaykh Naasir retracted this saying and declared it weak as in 'Da`eef Sunan an-Nasa`ee' no.221, pg122)
So even if we were to concede the point, then there still could not be a contradiction as al-Albaanee himself retracts the saying.
8/18: Saqqaaf said that al-Albaanee contradicts himself about the hadeeth,

'If one of you was sleeping under the sun, and the shadow covering him shrank, and part of him was in the shadow and the other part in the sun, he should get up.'
by saying "Saheeh" in 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (1/266/761) and saying "da`eef" in 'Mishkaat' (3/1337 no.4725)
Albaanee said in 'Saheeh al-Jaami ' (no.748) [not 761 as claimed above]: "Saheeh, related by Abu Daawood from Abu Hurayra" and refers it to as 'Saheehah' (no.737.)
And in 'Mishkaat' (no.4725): "its isnaad (i.e. of Abu Daawood) is weak."
Note that the shaykh has not declared the hadeeth to be da`eef but rather the isnaad, so observe the way that Saqqaaf seeks to deceive the reader!
And this deception becomes all the more apparent if we were to actually refer to 'as-Saheehah' as directed by the shaykh: "Related by Abu Daawood (4822)...via the route ibn Munkadir... who said: 'someone who heard Abu Hurayra informed me...'. This isnaad is saheeh were it not for the unnamed man."
Then he mentions the same hadeeth in Ahmad with his sanad, which omits the unnamed man, states that the isnaad is still linked, and then declares this sanad saheeh according to the criteria of the Two Shaykhs (Bukhaaree and Muslim).
So where is the contradiction?
9/19: Saqqaaf claims yet again that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over a hadeeth,

'Friday prayer is an obligatory duty upon every Muslim '[10]
by saying "da`eef" in 'Mishkaat' (1/434) and says, 'its narrators are discontinuous[11] as is indicated by Abu Daawood' and by saying "saheeh" in 'al-Irwaa' (no.592)
al-Albaanee says in 'Mishkaat' (1/434), "its narrators are trustworthy being the narrators of Muslim, except that Abu Daawood indicated its being Munqati` by saying, 'Taariq bin Shihaab saw the Messenger (SAW) but did not hear anything from him.'"
And yet again nowhere has the shaykh said that the hadeeth is da`eef!
And in 'Irwaa' (no.592), "Saheeh...Abu Daawood said, (1067),...'Taariq bin Shihaab saw the Messenger but did not hear anything from him.' az-Zayla`i said, 'an-Nawawee said: this does not make it inauthentic, for it is the mursal[12] of the Companion and constitutes a proof, and the hadeeth fulfils the criteria of the Two Shaykhs.'"
So again where is the contradiction as al-Albaanee merely reiterates what he stated briefly in 'Mishkaat' and adds to it in 'al-Irwaa' and then gives a verdict.
/20: Saqqaaf said al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the narrator Muharrar ibn Abu Hurayra because in 'Irwaa' (4/301) he declares him "thiqah" {13} and in 'Saheehah' (4/156) he declares him "maqbool" {14}
al-Albaanee said in 'Irwaa' (4/301), "and its narrators are trustworthy, the narrators are of the Two Shaykhs except al-Muharrar bin Abu Hurayra, and ibn Hibbaan in 'ath-Thiqaat'....and he is thiqah insha`Allaah and the saying of al-Haafidh, 'maqbool' is not maqbool (accepted)."
And in 'as-Saheehah' (4/156), "Muharrar ibn Abu Hurayra is from the narrators of ibn Majah and an-Nasa`ee only. He was not declared thiqah except by ibn Hibbaan....and ibn Hajr said, 'maqbool' i.e. accepted with follow-ups....and the isnaad has another defect...."
So here the criticism seems to be correct. Allaah knows best.
11/21: Saqqaaf quotes the hadeeth of 'Abdullaah ibn 'Amr,

"Friday Prayer is upon the one who hears the call"
and claims that shaykh al-Albaani's declaration of its being hasan in 'al-Irwaa' contradicts his declaring its isnaad weak in 'al-Mishkaat'.
In Mishkaat (no.1375) al-Albaanee says to the hadeeth, whose source is given as Abu Daawood, "its isnaad (i.e. of Abu Daawood) is da'eef, in it is Qudaama bin Wabra, and he is unknown."
In 'al-Irwaa' (no.593) the shaykh declares that its isnaad is weak, giving the same reason as in 'Mishkaat' but he quotes further support for it and says, "therefore, the hadeeth is hasan if Allaah wills." [15]
So where is the contradiction for saying that the isnaad is weak is different from saying that the hadeeth is weak!
12/22: Saqqaaf quotes the hadeeth of Anas,

"Do not make things difficult for yourselves, lest Allaah makes them difficult for you When a people were hard on themselves, Allaah was hard on them."
and declares that the shaykh has contradicted himself by declaring it da`eef in 'Mishkaat' but hasan elsewhere (e.g. 'Ghayat al-Maraam')
Again, there is no contradiction since he begins his note in 'Ghaayat al-Maraam' (no. 207) by giving it the ruling: da`eef, but then he quotes a mursal narration in support of it and says that it is perhaps hasan due to this. Later, he found a further support that affirms its authenticity (Silsilah as-Saheehah, 3694 ms.)
13/23: About the hadeeth of Aa`ishah,

"Whoever narrates to you that the Prophet, may Allaah bless him and grant him peace, used to urinate standing then do not believe him..."
Saqqaaf claims that the shaykh declared its isnaad weak in 'Mishkaat', but declared the hadeeth saheeh in 'as-Saheehah'.
In 'Mishkaat' (1/117 no.365), the shaykh declared the narration of at-Tirmidhi weak due to the poor memory of Shareek an-Nakha`i, and he did the same in 'as-Saheehah' (no.201), except that he found a further support for it and so authenticated it.
The shaykh himself explains in 'as-Saheehah' that the notes in 'Mishkaat' were done in haste as has preceded and that he had depended upon the words of at-Tirmidhi, al-I`raaqi, al-Suyooti and others in declaring it weak due to Shareek. [16] Then, when he found that the supporting narration was from other than Shareek, he declared it authentic.
This example (let alone many others), is enough to show the fallacy of what Saqqaaf says as quoted on (page 150) of 'al-Albani Unveiled', "We have left out whatever he had indicated that he previously declared weak and then declared authentic, for example, and we have considered him to be excused with regard to those ahaadeeth, and have overlooked them..." !!
14/24: The hadeeth of `Ammaar,

"There are three whom the angels will not approach: the infidel, the one smeared with dye and the one requiring purification due to intercourse until he makes ablution."
Saqqaaf claims contradiction between the shaykh's declaring it hasan in 'Saheeh al Jaami' and his declaring its isnaad weak in 'Mishkaat'.
The shaykh referred it in both cases to 'at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb' of al-Mundhiri, except that in the case of declaring it weak in 'Mishkaat' (no.464), he was following al-Mundhiri in that, then when he himself did a checking of 'at-Targheeb', he agreed to al-Mundhiri's saying that its isnaad was munqati` (broken), but he also found two supports to strengthen it. [17] And therefore he declared it hasan in 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no. 3061).
15/25: The report from Ibn `Abbaas "that he used to shorten Prayer for the like of the distance between Makkah and Taa`if."
Saqqaaf claims contradiction between the shaykh's saying in 'Mishkaat' (no.1351), "It is a report without an isnad, and so is not authentic", and what he reports in 'al-Irwaa' (3/14 under no.525) from the 'Musannaf' of Ibn Abi Shaybah from Ibn 'Abbaas that he said, "Do not shorten up to `Arafah and the valley of Nakhlah, but shorten when going to 'Usfaan..."
These are two different texts!
One is a report of Ibn `Abbaas' action while the second is his saying!
16/26: Saqqaaf claimed that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth,

"Leave the Ethiopians alone as long as they leave you. For none will take out the treasure of the Ka`ba except for Dhul Sawayqayain from Ethiopia" [18]
by weakening the hadeeth in 'Mishkaat' (3/1495 no.5429) saying, "the sanad is da`eef" and by authenticating in 'as-Saheehah' (no.772)
al-Albaanee said in 'Mishkaat', after the hadeeth is referred to Abu Daawood, (4/1495 no.5429:), "....with a da`eef sanad" and gives no verdict on the hadeeth.
And in 'Saheehah' (no.882), "related by Abu Daawood...al-Haakim said, 'saheeh sanad' and adh-Dhahabee agreed. I say they erred for Zaheer (a narrator) has weakness as will follow, and Abdul Haqq referred this in 'al-Ahkaam al-Kubraa' (1/110) to ibn Abee Shaybah, then he said, 'Zaheer bin Muhammad has bad memory - he is not depended upon' I say: Musa bin Khabeer (another narrator) has some anonymity...."
See how yet again Saqqaaf tries to deceive the reader by giving only half the story! For al-Albaanee gives the same verdict on the isnaad of the hadeeth in 'Mishkaat' as he does in 'as-Saheehah'. And in 'as-Saheehah' he gives the verdict of the hadeeth to be authentic due to witnesses.
17/27: About criticism that shaykh al-Albaani sometimes praises a person and yet elsewhere attacks them, e.g. Habeeb-ur- Rahmaan al-A`zami al-Hanafi
The shaykh had previously spoken in his favour due to his work in the field of Hadeeth and based upon the principle of assuming good about one's brother until one knows otherwise. Later, when it became clear that this person was a blind-follower who distorts and plays with texts, the shaykh criticised him, so where is the contradiction?! However, the people of innovation ignore each others errors and flatter one another so that the tie of innovation remains between them!
18/28: Saqqaaf claims that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth of Abu Barza,

"By Allaah you will not find a man more just than me."
By saying "saheeh" in 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no.6978), and by saying "da`eef" in 'Da`eef Sunan an-Nasaa`ee' (pg.164 no.287)
al-Albaanee declares the hadeeth of Abu Barza saheeh in 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no.7101) and refers the reader to 'as-Saheehah' (no.2406)
In 'Da`eef Sunan an-Nasaa'ee' (no. 278 not 287 as above) he says 'da`eef' to a long hadeeth related by Shareek bin Shihaab in which this statement occurs, although the wording of the two is different.
In 'Saheeh al-Jaami' the wording is (transliteration), "wallaahee laa tajidoonee ba`dee a`dala alaykum minnee", and in 'Da`eef Sunan an-Nasaa'ee', "wallaahee laa tajidoonee ba`dee rajulun huwa a`dalu minnee."
In 'as-Saheehah' (no.2406) he declares the hadeeth saheeh, and in his discussion relates another hadeeth from Shareeq bin Shihaab, also related in 'Sunan an-Nasaa`ee' which is similar in wording to the one in 'Da`eef Sunan an-Nasaa`ee', containing the same wording as that of 'Saheeh al-Jaami' and declares it saheeh.
So again there is no contradiction here, just deception on the part of Saqqaaf, may Allaah cure him.
19/29: Saqqaaf claims that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth,

'Throw pebbles at the Jimar by putting the extremity of the thumb on the forefinger.'
by saying in 'Ibn Khuzaimah', "da`eef sanad" and by saying "saheeh" in 'Saheeh al-Jaami'
al-Albaanee said in 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no.910) to the hadeeth,"throw pebbles at the Jimar of the size of a sling shot" [This is the closest wording to the above quoted hadeeth that I could find.]
"saheeh - (related by) Ahmad, ibn Khuzaimah and ad-Diyaa" and refers to 'as-Saheehah' (no.1437).
In 'as-Saheehah' (no.1437) al-Albaanee brings five isnaads to the hadeeth. The first isnaad he declares da`eef. The second, fourth and fifth saheeh, and the third hasan.

Conclusion

20/32: Saqqaaf claims that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth,
"Let each one of you ask Allaah for all his needs, even for his sandal thong if it gets cut"
by saying "Hasan" in 'Mishkaat' (no. 2251,2252) and saying "da`eef" in 'al-Jaami' (no.4947, 4948)
al-Albaanee state in 'Mishkaat' (no.2252 fn.3), "and it is a hasan hadeeth"
In 'Da`eef al-Jaami' (no. 4945, 4946) [not 4947, 4948] he says, "da`eef" and refers the reader to 'ad-Da`eefah' (no.1362)
Again Saqqaaf is guilty of quoting only half the story for if we were to refer to 'ad-Da`eefah' as directed we find the following words, "da`eef, related by at- Tirmidhee...and I declared this hadeeth hasan in my checking to Mishkaat (2251, 2252), and the checking was hurried due to little time...and Allaah is the One that is asked to forgive me my mistakes, and all of them are from me!"
So where is the contradiction if the shaykh himself retracts his verdict on the hadeeth?

Footnotes:

{1} This is his checking to as-Suyuti's 'al-Jaami as-Sagheer', being divided into two sections, 'Da`eef' and 'Saheeh' {2} Most of the ahaadeeth that are declared da`eef in Muslim are due to the narrator Abu Zubair, upon whom there is a difference of opinion over. Shaykh al-Albaanee says in 'ad-Da`eefah' (1/160) while explaining the weakness of the above hadeeth, "this (i.e. the weakness) is because Abu Zubair is a Mudallis and he has related via an`ana. And it is established in the science of hadeeth that the ahaadeeth of a mudallis are not depended upon when he does not make clear who he is narrating from. As was done by Abu Zubair here, for he relates via an`ana and does not make clear who he is narrating from...... al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee says in the biography of Abu Zubair - and his name is Muhammad bin Muslim bin Tadrus - after mentioning the defamation of some of the Imaams of him which does not impair his integrity, '....and as for Muhammad ibn Hazm, then he rejects his ahaadeeth in which he said "from (an) Jaabir" and the likes. Because he is from those who do tadlees. So if he said, "I heard" and "he related to us (akhbaranaa)" then he is depended upon. And ibn Hazm depended upon him when he said, "from (an) Laith bin Sa'd specifically. And that is because Laith bin Abu Maryam said, 'Laith bin Sa`d narrated to us, "I went to Abu Zubair and he presented to me two books (of hadeeth). So I scrutinised them and I said to myself: maybe I should verify them with him, So I asked him, 'did you hear these from Jaabir?' and he replied, 'some of them I heard and some of them I narrate (haddathtu).' I said, 'let me know which ones you heard' so he told me."'
Then adh-Dhahabee said, "and in Saheeh Muslim are a number of ahaadeeth in which Abu Zubair did not make clear his hearing from Jaabir, and neither are they via the route of Laith bin Sa`d. So there occurs in the heart some (aversion to them)."
Ibn Hajr said in 'at-Taqreeb', about Abu Zubair, "trustworthy, except that he was a mudallis". And he lists him amongst the third degree of mudalliseen in his book, 'Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen' (pg.15) and said, "famous for tadlees....and an-Nasaa`ee and others declared him as a mudallis." And in the introduction to this book he said, in explanation of the categories, "third: those who frequently relate via tadlees. So the Imaams do not rely upon their ahaadeeth except when they make clear that they heard what they narrate. And from the Imaams of hadeeth are those that reject their ahaadeeth altogether, and from them are those that accept all of their ahaadeeth. For example, Abu Zubair."
I say: and what is correct is the first opinion, and that is accepting what they make clear that they heard, and upon this are the majority of the scholars....
So in conclusion: every hadeeth that Abu Zubair narrates from Jaabir or others with the wording 'an' and the likes, and it is not from the relation of Laith bin Sa`d - then it is necessary to stop depending upon it, until his hearing of the hadeeth is made clear, or we find a witness to the hadeeth in which case it is depended upon."
Then while reading the biography of Imaam Ahmad in 'Siyar A`laam an-Nubalaa' (11/234) with its footnotes by the Muhaddith Shu`ayb al-Arna`oot, he comments on an isnaad containing Abu Zubair, "Its narrators are trustworthy, but in it is the tadlees of Muhammad bin Muslim Abu Zubair....and despite this al-Haakim declared it saheeh (4/96) and adh-Dhahabee agreed."

{3} After what had preceded I would like to make clear to the readers the hypocrisy of Hasan Saqqaaf, where he criticises Shaykh al-Albaanee for weakening ahaadeeth in Bukhaaree and Muslim, even though he has a precedent in this from the early muhadditheen., and then goes and himself weakens tens of ahaadeeth in Bukhaaree and Muslim, which contradict his corrupt belief, having no precedent in most of them except with his shaykh in misguidance, Zaahid al-Kawtharee. Many of these ahaadeeth are related by both Bukhaaree and Muslim! These type of ahaadeeth being considered by the Scholars of Hadeeth as being the most authentic type of hadeeth. Not only this but he goes to the added length of declaring 3 ahaadeeth in Muslim maudu' (fabricated)! So here are examples taken from Saqqaafs footnotes to 'Daf` Shubah at-Tashbeeh':
"1) The hadeeth of the slave girl related by Muslim in which the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, asks the question, 'where is Allaah?'. Saqqaaf states (pg.187), 'I am totally sure and supremely confident that the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, did not say, "where is Allaah?"'
The hadeeth of Abu Musa (RA) related by Muslim, 'Indeed Allaah does not sleep and does not need to sleep' uptil the point the he, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said, 'his veil is light, if he were to unveil it....'. Saqqaaf says (pg.102), 'this is a shaadh (irregular) relation.'
The hadeeth of Abu Hurayra in Saheeh Muslim, "Allaah created the dirt on Saturday...". Saqqaaf says (pg.51), 'and this hadeeth contains these feeble sentences which indicate that our Master, the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, did not speak them.'!
The hadeeth of ibn Mas`ud in Bukhaaree and Muslim, 'a man from the Jews came to the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, and said, "O Muhammad! Indeed Allaah will place the heavens upon one Finger...."' And in some of it's wording, 'so the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, laughed in amazement and affirmation of what he said.' Saqqaaf says, 'this is an invalid mistake' (wahm baatil)
The hadeeth of ibn Umar in the Two Saheehs, 'Allaah, Azza wa Jal, will fold up the the heavens on the Day of Judgement with His Hand...' And the hadeeth of Abdullaah bin Umru in Muslim, '...and Both His Hands are Right Hands...'. Saqqaaf says (pg. 208), 'These two narrations destroy each other, because they are from the work of the narrator.'
The hadeeth of Abu Sa`eed al-Kudree (in Bukhaaree), 'Allaah says, "O Adam!" So he says, "Labbaik wa Sa`daik". So He calls with a Voice.....' Saqqaaf says (pg.250), 'it is from the work of the narrator' and discredits it because it is 'a singularly narrated hadeeth (khabr aahaad)'
The hadeeth of ibn Abbaas in Saheeh Muslim, 'the Muslims did not use to look at Abu Sufyaan or sit with him.' Saqqaaf says, 'this is a fabricated hadeeth, and is one of three fabricated ahaadeeth in Saheeh Muslim'!
The hadeeth in the Two Saheehs, 'until The Lord of Honour/Glory places His Foot (on the Hellfire)' Saqqaaf says, 'from those that have been ruled to be irregular (shaadh) and the rejected wording, "until He place His Foot"'
The hadeeth of Anas in Saheeh Muslim, 'a man asked the Prophet: O Messenger of Allaah! Where is my father? He said, "in the Fire" So when the man made ready to leave the Prophet called him and said, "indeed your father and my father are in the fire.' Saqqaaf says in 'Ilqaam al-Hujr' (pg. 74), 'this hadeeth with this wording is shaadh'
The hadeeth of Abu Hurayra in Saheeh Muslim, 'I sought permission from my Lord that I may seek forgiveness for my mother, but He did not allow me....' Saqqaaf says in 'Ilhaam al-Hujr' (pg.71), 'it is not possible from any perspective to seek evidence with this shaadh hadeeth,'"
[Taken from "as-Sawaa`iq wa ash-Shuhub" (pg. 199+) of Shaikh Abu Wadaa`ah al-Atharee, summarised]
So beware of these people that play about with the religion of Allaah, and twist and distort the texts to suit there own deviant desires. And we seek refuge with Allaah from them, and their recompense lies with Him.

{5} Marfoo' (raised) - it means a hadeeth that attributed back to the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, as opposed to Mawqoof - meaning a hadeeth attributed back to the Companion only.
{6} He is...
{7} At this point I would like to make clear a very subtle point in the Science of Hadeeth. And that is that a hadeeth which is related as mu`allaq in a book of hadeeth (i.e without an isnaad, or with the isnaad at the end of the collector missing) is not said to be 'reported' by that collector. So the above hadeeth in question IS found in 'Sharhus Sunnah' (1/263), but it is found as a mu`allaq narration with the isnaad at the end of the collector missing, so it is not 'reported' in Sharhus Sunnah' as Shaykh al-Albaanee originally said and Shaykh Ali endorses above. All that is 'reported' in 'Sharhus Sunnah' is the mursal hadeeth of Hasan al-Basri as mentioned above. For this reason Shaykh Ali Hasan says in 'al-Eeqaaf' (pg.11), "...so how is it said for something that does not have an isnaad: 'reported by (rawaahu)..'?" and then adds a footnote,
"And in this is a reply to what has troubled some of the brothers, over the hadeeth of ibn Mas`ud: 'and every verse has an inward and outward aspect' where I made clear in 'al-Anwaar al-Kaashifah' (pg.45) over the issue of it being reported in 'Sharhus Sunnah', and our Shaikh not coming across it, that this was correct. For he (al-Baghawee) mentions it without his isnaad, so is this called 'reporting' (riwaaya)? And as for the ta`leeq of Bukhaaree then its condition is different...
And Allaah the Most High knows best.

{8} This is his in depth checking to the ahaadeeth contained in 'Manar as-Sabeel' one of the standard works of Hanbali fiqh. Printed in 9 volumes.
{9} This is his checking to the ahaadeeth contained in 'the Lawful and Prohibited in Islam' by Yusuf al-Qaradhawi which contains many da`eef ahaadeeth.
{10} The full hadeeth is, "The Friday prayer is an obligatory duty upon every Muslim in congregation, except for four: a slave, a woman, a child, and an ill person." And it is saheeh as stated in 'al-Irwaa' (3/54 no.592). See also 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no.3111) and 'Saheeh Abu Daawood' (no.978).

{11} Munqati` (discontinuous) - that type of isnaad in which a link is missing, usually the missing link being before a Taabi`ee.
{12} Mursal - that type of isnaad in which a link is missing, usually the missing link is between the Taabi`ee and the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam.
{13} Thiqah - refers to that type of narrator who is both precise and reliable.
{14} Maqbool (accepted) - refers to that type of narrator whose narration is accepted only of what he narrates is supported by other narrations, or isnaads.
{15} See 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no.3112) where al-Albaanee gives the hadeeth the verdict of hasan, and refers the reader to 'Mishkaat' (no.1375) and 'al-Irwaa' (no.593)!!
{16} See 'as-Saheehah' (no. 201) where he says, "and I got deceived by their verdicts on this hadeeth when I did the ta`leeq upon 'Mishkaat' - and the ta`leeq was done in haste..."
{17}See 'Adaab az-Zifaaf' (pg.43 fn.1) where Shaikh al-Albaanee says while discussing this hadeeth, "Hasan hadeeth, related by Abu Daawood in his 'Sunan' (2/192-193) via two routes. And Ahmad, at-Tahaawee, and al-Bayhaqi relate one of them, and at-Tirmidhee and others authenticate it. And in this is a problem as I have explained in 'Da`eef Sunan Abu Daawood' (no.29). But the text of the first hadeeth, and it is this one, has two witnesses which al-Haythami relates in 'al-Majma`' (5/156), and due to this I declared it hasan...."
{18}And it is saheeh. See 'as-Saheehah' (no.772) for detailed documentation.

Fudhayl

01-09-07, 07:32 PM

Al-Albani Unveiled
Some Observations about the Salafi/Wahhabi sect

If you want yet more refutations on the that trash let me know and I'll shower you with them, then all will see Shaykh Albani (rahimullah) was free from the lies and errors stated against him.

aboosait

02-09-07, 12:57 AM

Compare it then :) bring Al Fiqh al akbar and lets do a comparison .

I thought you said you have read that book.

I have already provided the link to this book in Arabic with translation in English twice on this forum. If you are unable to open it, I shall pm a copy for you.

aboosait

02-09-07, 01:18 AM

What's with all the copy & paste? :rolleyes:

I suppose at least they know what they are copying and pasting. Unlike as you copied and pasted something about "Cupping" as a cure for forgetfulness and ran away when I asked you how it is done.

Please go back to post #28 in the following thread:

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2089052#post2089052

aboosait

02-09-07, 01:52 AM

[QUOTE]These threads have no benefit and according to Islamic Shariah, those of us who are responsible for monitoring and moderating these threads should never allow them.

If they are going to allow them, they should moderate them heavily to assure that they keep in lime and some form of conclusion is reached.

Have the moderators followed these instructions before allowing the remaining portion of this post to be displayed?

At the outset you say
These threads have no benefit......should never allow them... but then you move on to submit a long post.

1. People develop hate towards each other because of being from two different corners.

On the contrary we learn from each other and correct our mistakes.

2. Most people are not educated enough on the topic details to be able to address the issue fairly, hence a lot of the information is personal views.

This is not a forum for fight between scholars. It is an interaction among us whereby we express views, ask questions........for mutual benefit and to remove the barrier of dicord.

Hence the outcome is always negative, either the thread is closed, or fighting and abusing starts.

You are wrong again. I dont deny that there are some stray cases of this kind.

al faqeer

02-09-07, 05:32 AM

I thought you said you have read that book.

I have already provided the link to this book in Arabic with translation in English twice on this forum. If you are unable to open it, I shall pm a copy for you.

I have read it , but i want you to compare whats in it with your Aqeedah :) .

salahuldin786

02-09-07, 12:19 PM

o.k im copy and paste guy and you were all quick to answer my post so why is no one answering a simply 2 question's im asking

1 did the british help abdul wahhab and the saudi bandits start a war again the khalifah of the time.

2 was abdul wahhab father a sufi.

simply question's i need answering, you all talk so much and you cant answer these 2 question's and stop changeing the story.

aboosait

02-09-07, 03:46 PM

I have read it , but i want you to compare whats in it with your Aqeedah :) .

What for?

aboosait

02-09-07, 03:48 PM

[edited]

aboosait

02-09-07, 03:59 PM

[QUOTE]so why is no one answering a simply 2 question's im asking

1. Your Shia connection has been exposed from your own post in another thread here.

2. Your question was also answered by one of our noble sisters Alhamdu Lillah in another thread. Here is a copy and paste.

people have come from families of brelavies, sufis,deobandis, shia etc. and have come to the haqq so what is your point if his father was a sufi that means HE is an unreliable source? have you ever read his work? where are the sufi tendancies in it?

ps I come from a family that has about 5 generations (that i know of) of sufis including my grandfather and a little in my father's current beliefs but i am not upon what they are upon coz I am looking for the haqq not just following in the footsteps of my family! that should be the case for everyone subhanallah some ppl are just plain stupid.

Desipower

02-09-07, 09:18 PM

ok this thread's gotten boring, time to unsubscribe...

al faqeer

03-09-07, 05:31 AM

What for?

trying to drag it out and waste time is not going to get u away from it aboosait .

I woll prove to you that the salaf is not what you follow :) .

salahuldin786

05-09-07, 10:41 AM

[QUOTE=salahuldin786;2110952]

1. Your Shia connection has been exposed from your own post in another thread here.

2. Your question was also answered by one of our noble sisters Alhamdu Lillah in another thread. Here is a copy and paste.

listen here you bihari im not a shia you maggi im a sufi

Abu 'Abdullaah

05-09-07, 02:04 PM

Talking to yourself? LOL!

al faqeer

05-09-07, 02:43 PM

Talking to yourself? LOL!

Not everyone is salafi .

Abu 'Abdullaah

05-09-07, 02:53 PM

No, you're a khalafi. And stupid.

al faqeer

05-09-07, 02:56 PM

No, you're a khalafi. And stupid.

Name calling already :D

Hot under the collar Khalafi Abu Helen .

H u m i l i a t i o n is on its way to u buddy .

Abu 'Abdullaah

05-09-07, 02:59 PM

just calling it how I see it. And after a quick browse through the forum, it seems many agree with me.

al faqeer

05-09-07, 03:03 PM

just calling it how I see it. And after a quick browse through the forum, it seems many agree with me.

Who cares what people think Abu Helen , I p*** salafis AKA khalafis off .

what else would you expect ?

You wasting web space dude like the space is between your ears :) .

Abu 'Abdullaah

05-09-07, 03:06 PM

You still live in Madinah?

al faqeer

05-09-07, 03:09 PM

You still live in Madinah?

Whats it to you khalaf breath ? :)

Abu 'Abdullaah

05-09-07, 03:16 PM

I can just picture you. 35 years old, no wife, sitting alone on the internet thinking you are a big man of knowledge. Why don't you walk out of your door 'expose' and 'humiliate' your Salafi neighbours? Why don't you give ''Da'wah'' to the people who live around you since you have so much knowledge?

al faqeer

05-09-07, 03:19 PM

Abu 'Abdullaah

05-09-07, 03:20 PM

Yeah, in your dreams.

al faqeer

05-09-07, 03:23 PM

Yeah, in your dreams.

:D most salafis around me are on hypertension medication now :D .

Abu 'Abdullaah

05-09-07, 03:25 PM

Go on, step out the door, I dare you. COWARD!

al faqeer

05-09-07, 03:29 PM

Go on, step out the door, I dare you. COWARD!

Why do i sense you are insecure Abu helen ?

could it be due to the fact that your manhaj is loosing turf ? :D .

Saeed Al-Muslim

05-09-07, 03:38 PM

Is this the sort of Adab that Sufism has taught you? If it is not then it is better for you to not act so lowly, under the disguise of Sufism.

Ma'aSalaama

al faqeer

05-09-07, 03:39 PM

Is this the sort of Adab that Sufism has taught you? If it is not then it is better for you to not act so lowly, under the disguise of Sufism.

Ma'aSalaama

Sufism ? Who says I m sufi ? :D

Keep on guessing amigo ?

Saeed Al-Muslim

05-09-07, 03:42 PM

You have really out done yourself this time. Calls for a celebration.

...And the prize for Village Idiot goes to... Al-Faker. For everything is only an illusion, nothing is real, actually I am not really here. Nor have I just said what I just said.

Ma'aSalaama

Abu 'Abdullaah

05-09-07, 03:43 PM

Hmmm... al faqeer, I see how your mind works now. You act like a child and continually insult someone. The person becomes upset and responds. You continue this tactic until the person becomes so bored/tired/annoyed/disgusted with you that they leave. You then (in your own warped mind) claim 'victory' and brag about how you 'defeated' them.

Pathetic.

al faqeer

05-09-07, 03:43 PM

مدونة الجزيرة العربية

الثلاثاء، 13 سبتمبر 2016

Yes I Am Wahabi

ليست هناك تعليقات:

إرسال تعليق