what does the term "wahhabi" imply?

[gag order]

the term 'wahhabi' seems to imply different things to different people in different regions.

opponents of 'wahhabism' are of a great variety and they seem to level this accusation at anyone who resembles a 'wahhabi' and quite often in non-arab lands hanafis of the jihadi type are singled out for this accusation

discuss

[Samira]

I thought bin Laden was a qutbi?

[gag order]

this is news to me! we all know he is typical veteran jihadi brought up in the hanbali fiqh and aqeeda (as is common in saudi).

but

qutubis and jihadis isnt that like comparing night with day? i would be interested in knowing the similarities if any between the 2 methodologies.

[ibn abbas]

The wahabies are the followers of ibn taymiya and ibn abdul wahab who are deviant.

The wahabi qutubies follow the above and sayid qutub the kharijite who did takfeer of a lot of muslims and insulted Prophet Musa (as).

Beware from these 2 'khawarij' groups. They are not from ahlul Sunna.

[Abu Ilyas]

Ibn Abbas Said:


The wahabies are the followers of ibn taymiya and ibn abdul wahab who are deviant.

In reality there is no such group as the Wahaabis, and it is a term which means different things to different people. Practically, all educated, non deviant Muslims have read and praised the works of Ibn Taiymiyah..so according to you the following people must all be deviant aswell....Ibn al Qayyim al Jawziyaah, Ibn Kathir who produced the most famous Tafseer of Quraan and the monumental book of history, Imaam adh Dhahabi..what about Ibn Hajar al Asqalani or Ibn Rajab al Hanbali (deviants too?), ok how about Imaam as Suyootee or Mullah Alee al Qaree, Shibli Numani, Shah Wali Ullah adh Dehlawi, Ash Shawkani or as Sanani perhaps or practically anyone else who had some knowledge and fairness who ever lived after Ibn Taiymiyah!! For all these scholars highly praised Ibn Taiymiyah!! According to you brother, you have totally re written Islamic history of the last 800 years, looks like according to you most of the Muslim Ummahs scholars were deviants in the last 800 years or so for highly praising a 'deviant'Looks like you have got big plans for bonfire night this year Ibn Abass, I mean all these volumes of books you will be burning of the Scholars of the last 800 years.I seek refuge in Allah from such talk.

Anyone who says Ibn Taiymiyah or Ibn Abdul Wahaab were deviants is either a deviant himself or a blind ignorant, probably following blindly a bigoted sufi or a misguided fool who does not understand his religon.

Ibn Abbas you should fear Allah, to call a Muslim a deviant when it is not true is a mightly sin, to call the Inheritors of the Prophets deviants is an even greater sin. The thing you have in common with others who criticise these two great scholars is you furnish not one bit of evidence from their writings...I cannot recall anyone who has dared to raise his head and criticise scholars such as these to have quoted from their books in order to do so, rather it is all hearsay criticism...if you were to read the books of Ibn Taiymiyah or Ibn Abdul Wahaab then you would find it to be in conformity with the Aqidah of the founder of their Madhab , the great , Imaam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, or do you have something against him aswell? Infact as Ibn Kathir reports, when some scholars tried to put Ibn Taiymiyah and his books like Tadmuriyah or al Waasitiyah on trial , after discussing with Ibn Taiymiyah they all ended up agreeing to everything in his books.

I suggest you read the book 'Kashf ash shubuhaat' by Imaam Ibn Abdul Wahaab, translated into english as 'Critical study of shirk', in it the Shaykh refutes those who accuse him of khawarij traits very well indeed.

Abu Ilyas

[ibn abbas]

Abu Ilyas you are mistaken on a lot of things you wrote.

Firstly, Imam ibn Katheer's tafseer doesn't contain any tashbeeh and tajseem as he did not adopt the aqeeda of ibn taymiya. Tafseer at-Tabari is the most famous book on tafseer and highly recommended.

Secondly, Al-Hafidh Imam ibn Hajar al-Asqalani refuted ibn taymiya and described his imprisonment. Check "Al-Durer al-Kamina fe Ayan al-Ma'a al-Thamina"(1/144,151,153) & "Lisan al-Meezan" & "Fath al-Bari"

Thirdly, Imam ad-Dhahabi also refuted ibn taymiya on a lot of issues. He said " .... I disagree with ibn taymiya on aqeeda and fiqh issues". Look at the following books by Imam Dhahabi "Bayan zaghil al-ilm wal talab" and "An-Naseeha Adh-Dhahabiya"

Other Sunni scholars who refuted him were Imam as-Subki, Imam as-Sakhawi, ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Mulla Ali al-Qari, and many other fuqaha and qudhat whom you have not heard of.

And the list goes on ...... I can name over 80 Sunni Scholars who refuted and wrote books against ibn taymiya, outlining his deviant aqeeda.

ibn al-qayim and ibn abdul wahab were blind followers of ibn taymiya, also ibn abdul wahab killed and massacred many Sunni muslims in the Arabian peninsula and revolted against the Uthmani Khilafa with the help of the English Kafirs.

So the wahabies only have 3 individuals to follow, while we the ahlul Sunna follow hundreds of Imams and Scholars and are in the majority.

I have been polite discussing with you, so please dont remove me from the forums.

thank you

[Abu Ilyas]

Ibn Abbas,

Brother you are really getting on my nerves. You are really talking a lot of nonsense. And what is irritating about it is that I am 90% certain that you are just blindly following certain articles, as is apparent from the sources you provide.

You said :

Firstly, Imam ibn Katheer's tafseer doesn't contain any tashbeeh and tajseem as he did not adopt the aqeeda of ibn taymiya

Ibn Katheers Tafseer does not do Tashbeeh and Tajseem because his teacher Ibn Taiymiyah did not do Tajseem and Tasbeeh...I have provided you with much material to disprove your accusation on Ibn Taiymiyah, which you couldn't prove in the first place!

Tafseer at-Tabari is the most famous book on tafseer and highly recommended.

True.

You said:

Secondly, Al-Hafidh Imam ibn Hajar al-Asqalani refuted ibn taymiya and described his imprisonment.


Nobody is saying Ibn Taiymiyah was perfect, and Im not saying scholars did not criticise some of his Ijtihaad, and you wll find many examples throughout Islamic history of great Scholars criticising each others works.
But Ibn Hajar certainly did not regard Ibn Taiymiyah to be a deviant, on the contrary in the book you reference to Ibn Hajar he used it to praise Ibn Taiymiyah quite a lot...and Ibn Hajar himserlf refuted the accusation that Ibn Taiymiyah did Tajseem when he said :

", "…those of his stances that were rejected from him were not said by him due to mere whims and desires and neither did he obstinately and deliberately persist in them after the evidence was established against him. Here are his works overflowing with refutations of those who held to tajseem yet despite this he is a man who makes mistakes and is also correct. So that which he is correct in – and that is the majority – is to benefited from and Allaah’s Mercy should be sought for him due to it, and that which he is incorrect in should not be blindly followed. Indeed he is excused for his mistakes because he is one of the Imaams of his time and it has been witnessed that he fulfilled the conditions of ijtihaad…

Again, Imaam adh Dhahabi, praised Ibn Taiymiyah much, there is absolutely no problem with differing with his shaykh on fiqhi or Aqueeda Issues, Scholars have always done this. Even the Sahabah differed on Issues of Aqidah. But , without doubt, Imaam adh Dhahabi regarded Ibn Taiymiyah to be an Imaam to be followed and never a deviant!!!!

And the list goes on .

The list does not go on..the only people who really had it in for Ibn Taiymiyah were the hardcore Sufis/Asharias..people like Subki the Junior for example had it in for Ibn Taiymiyah, but you would expect that from someone llike him....but ALL the main Scholars after Ibn Taiymiyah did praise Ibn Taiymiyah..and this will be proved.

I can name over 80 Sunni Scholars who refuted and wrote books against ibn taymiya, outlining his deviant aqeeda.

Please don't waste your time . The list of 80 scholars refuting Ibn Taiymiyah thing is old news, and probably appeared on some devious website some time ago,. Some other bigot tried to use it on the old discussion board and it was thoroughly rubbished, so please don't embarrass yourself further. Infact that thread might be in the Archives.

ibn al-qayim and ibn abdul wahab were blind followers of ibn taymiya, also ibn abdul wahab killed and massacred many Sunni muslims in the Arabian peninsula and revolted against the Uthmani Khilafa with the help of the English Kafirs.

More nonsense!

I will not bother replying to your posts anymore iif all you are doing is jumping from one accusation to another. For example, in the other thread you started off by declaring Ibn Taiymiyah to be guilty of Tajseem, then when I provided you with a whole list of articles disproving that, then you moved onto accusing him of saying Allah has a Jism! It seems you are not willing to read and digest what has been provided to you !

I will censor anymore of your posts which simply blindly accuse any Shaykh . You are very welcome to continue posting questions about the material I have provided you..but if you can't be bothered to read it and so continue to accuse the shaykh of already refuted accusations..then there is no futre in this discussion.

Abu Ilyas

[Abu Ilyas]

The Praise of the Scholars of him
Abu Rumaysah

Many of the scholars of his time and after his time praised Shaykh al-Islaam for his knowledge, asceticism, piety, and following closely the way of the salaf. Many of these statements of praise were collected in a book written by al-Haafidh ibn Naasir ad-Deen entitled ‘Radd al-Waafir’ refuting the extreme claim of the one that said calling ibn Taymiyyah, ‘Shaykh al-Islaam’, was unbelief.

Al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee said, "It was amazing when he mentioned an issue over which there was a difference of opinion, and when he gave evidence and decided the strongest opinion - and he could perform ijtihaad due to his fulfilling it’s conditions. I have not seen one who was quicker than he at recalling a verse which pertained to the issue that he derived from it, nor a man who was more strong in recalling texts and referring them to their sources. The Sunnah was in front of his eyes and upon the tip of his tongue with eloquent phrases and an open eye.

He was a sign from the signs of Allaah in tafseer and expounding upon it. With regards to the foundation of the religion and knowledge of the differing opinions (on an issue) then he was unequalled - this alongside his generosity, courage and lack of attention to the joys of the soul.

And maybe his legal rulings in the various sciences reached three hundred volumes, rather more and he was always saying the truth for the sake of Allaah, not caring for the blame that came to him.

Whosoever associates with him and knows him well accuses me of deficiency/slackness with regards to him. Whosoever opposes him and differs with him accuses me of exaggeration, and I have been wronged by both parties - his companions and his opponents.

He was white skinned with black hair and a black beard with a few grey hairs. His hair reached his earlobes. His eyes were eloquent tongues, and had broad shoulders and a loud, clear voice with a fast recitation. He was quick to anger but overcame it with patience and forbearance.

I have not seen his like for supplications (to Allaah) and seeking succour with Him, and his abundant concern for others. However I do not believe him to be infallible, rather I differ with him on both fundamental and subsidiary matters for he - despite his vast learning, extreme courage, fluid mind, and regard for the sanctity of the religion - was a man from amongst men. He could be overcome with sharpness and anger in discussion, and attack his opponents (verbally) hence planting enmity in their souls towards him.

If only he were gentle to his opponents then there would have been a word of agreement over him - for indeed their great scholars bowed to his learning, acknowledged his ability and lack of mistakes, and conceded that he was an ocean having no limits and a treasure having no equivalent. However they harboured ill feeling against him….and every person’s saying can be taken or left

He used to preserve the prayers and fasts, glorifying the laws outwardly and inwardly. He did not give fatwa out of poor understanding for he was extremely intelligent, nor out of lack of knowledge for he was an overflowing ocean. Neither did he play with the religion but derived evidence from the Qur`aan, Sunnah and Qiyaas (analogy) and proved and argued following the footsteps of the Imaams who preceded him, so he has a reward if he erred and two rewards if he was correct.

He fell ill in the castle (in which he was imprisoned) with a serious disease until he died on the night of Monday 20th Dhul Qa`dah, and they prayed over him in the mosque of Damascus. And afterwards many talked about the number that attended his funeral prayer, and the least number given was fifty thousand." [‘ad-Durar al-Kaaminah’ of ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee under the biography of ibn Taymiyyah]

Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee said, "the shaykh of our shaykhs, al-Haafidh Abu al-Yu`maree (ibn Sayyid an-Naas) said in his biography of ibn Taymiyyah: ‘al-Mizzi encouraged me to express my opinion on Shaykh al-Islaam Taqi ad-Deen. I found him to be from those who had acquired a fortunate of knowledge in the sciences that he had. He used to completely memorise and implement the Sunan and Aathaar (narrations). Should he speak about tafseer then he would carry its flag, and should he pass a fatwa in fiqh then he knew its limits. Should he speak about a hadeeth then he was the companion of its knowledge and fully cognisant of its narrations. Should he give a lecture on Religions and Sects then none was seen who was more comprehensive or meticulous than he, he surpassed his contemporaries in every science, and you would not see one like him, and his own eye did not see one like himself.

He used to speak on tafseer and a large number of people would attend his gatherings, and an agreeable number would return (having drunk) from his sweet, rich ocean. It continued in this way until the sickness of envy crept (into the hearts) of the people of his city. The people given to faultfinding gathered together and picked out anything that could be disapproved of in his beliefs, and they memorised certain of his statements with respect to this. They undermined him due to this and laid traps for him by which they could declare him to be an innovator. They thought that he had left their way, and split off from their sect. So they argued with him, and he with them, and some of them cut relations with him, and he with them.

Then he argued with another group who was attributed to the Fuqaraa (a group of the Sufis) who thought that they were on the minute details of the inner reality and upon its truth. And he exposed these Orders….

Then this reached the first group and they sought help from those who cut relations with him and harboured malice towards him. So they took the matter to the rulers, each of them having decided that he was a disbeliever. And they prepared a meeting and inspired the ignorant people to spread the word amongst the great scholars. And they took steps to transfer the matter to the king of Egypt and as a result he (ibn Taymiyyah) was arrested and put in prison. And gatherings were convened to discuss the spilling of his blood, calling for this purpose the people from the small mosques and students - those people who would argue to make others happy, and those who would argue to show their cleverness, and those who declared takfeer and called for disassociation. And your Lord Knows what is in their hearts and what they proclaim. And the one who announced his kufr was no better than the one who argued to make others happy.

And the sting of their plots crept up on him, and Allaah made futile every plot, and rescued him at the hands of those who He chose…

Then he continuously moved from one trial to another and in all his life he did not move from trouble except into trouble. Then there followed what followed in the matter of his arrest and he stayed there in prison until he died, and to Allaah all matters return. On the day of his funeral the streets were crowded, and the Muslims came from every roadway…’" [ibid]

Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee also said, "I read in the handwriting of al-Haafidh Silaah ad-Deen al-Balaa`ee in endorsement of the shaykh of our shaykhs al-Haafidh Bahaa ad-Deen Abdullaah bin Muhammad bin Khaleel: ‘Our shaykh and master and Imaam in matters that are between Allaah and us, the Shaykh of research (tahqeeq), traversing, with those that followed him, the best way. Possessor of many excellent qualities and radiant proofs that all the nations have acknowledged are beyond enumeration. May Allaah make us benefit from his outstanding knowledge, and make us benefit from him in this life and the hereafter. He is the Shaykh, the Imaam, the Aalim who understands the affairs, the deeply devoted, the ocean (of knowledge), the pole of light, the Imaam of Imaams, the blessing to the Muslim nation, the sign of the scholars, the inheritor of the Prophets, the last of the Mujtahids, unique amongst the scholars of the Religion - Shaykh al-Islaam, proof of the scholars, the example for the creatures, proof for the learned ones, effacer of the innovators, sword of the disputers, ocean of knowledge, beneficial treasure, the interpreter of the Qur`aan, the amazement of the times, unique in this age and others. Indeed Taqi ad-Deen (ibn Taymiyyah) is the Imaam of the Muslims, the proof of Allaah against the creation, the joiner of the righteous, the one who is like those who have preceded, the mufti of the sect, helper of the truth, the sign of guidance, the pillar of the Huffaadh, Knight of the meanings of words, cornerstone of the Sharee`ah, originator of new sciences Abu al-Abbaas ibn Taymiyyah." [Ibid. From this book taken on it’s own it is very difficult to discern ibn Hajr’s own opinion on ibn Taymiyyah was. For all he did was to gather all the material he could find on the Shaykh and then start off the account with all those scholars who wrote against him, and end with all those scholars who supported him. It would seem likely that ibn Hajr’s own stance would be in line with those whom he finished off his biography with, due to their being his Shaykhs. This reasoning is supported with the next quote from ibn Hajr. Allaah knows best.]

Ibn Hajr said, "…those of his stances that were rejected from him were not said by him due to mere whims and desires and neither did he obstinately and deliberately persist in them after the evidence was established against him. Here are his works overflowing with refutations of those who held to tajseem yet despite this he is a man who makes mistakes and is also correct. So that which he is correct in – and that is the majority – is to benefited from and Allaah’s Mercy should be sought for him due to it, and that which he is incorrect in should not be blindly followed. Indeed he is excused for his mistakes because he is one of the Imaams of his time and it has been witnessed that he fulfilled the conditions of ijtihaad…

From the astonishing qualities of this man was that he was the strongest amongst men against the People of Innovation, the Rawaafidah, and the Hululiyyah, and the Ittihaadiyyah, and his works on this are many and famous, and his fataawaa on them cannot be counted, so how the eyes of these innovators must have found joy when they heard those who declared him to be a kaafir! And how delighted they must have been when they saw those who did not declare him to be a kaafir in turn being labelled kaafir! It is obligatory upon the one who has donned the robe of knowledge and possesses intelligence that he consider the words of a man based upon his well-known books or from the tongues of those who are trusted to accurately convey his words – then to isolate from all of this what is rejected and warn from them with the intention of giving sincere advice and to praise him for his excellent qualities and for what he was correct in as is the way of the scholars.

If there were no virtues of Shaykh Taqi ad-Deen except for his famous student Shaykh Shams ad-Deen ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, writer of many works, from which both his opponents and supporters benefited from then this would be a sufficient indication of his (ibn Taymiyyah’s) great position. And how could it be otherwise when the Shaafi`ee Imaams and others, not to speak of the Hanbalees, of his time testified to his prominence in the (Islamic) sciences…" [From Ibn Hajr’s endorsement of ‘Radd al-Waafir’ contained at the end of the book.]

Ibn Katheer said, "the least he would do when he heard something was to memorise it and then busy himself with learning it. He was intelligent and had much committed to memory, and he became an Imaam in tafseer and everything linked to it and knowledgeable in fiqh. Indeed it was said he was more knowledgeable of the fiqh of the madhabs then the followers of those very same madhabs in his time and other than his time. He was a scholar in Usul and the branches of the religion and grammar and the language and other textual and intellectual sciences…no scholar of a science would speak to him except that he thought that that science was the speciality of ibn Taymiyyah. As for hadeeth then he was the carrier of its flag, a haafidh and able to distinguish the weak from the strong, fully acquainted with the narrators…" [‘al-Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’ (14/118-119) of ibn Katheer.]

He also said, "He was, may Allaah have mercy upon him, from the greatest of scholars, also from those who err and are correct. However his errors with respect to his correct rulings were like a drop in a huge ocean and they are forgiven him as is authentically reported by Bukhaaree, ‘when a ruler makes a ruling, and he is correct then he has two rewards, and if he has erred then he has one reward.’"

He also mentioned that when the scholars of his time gathered for a sitting with ibn Taymiyyah to discuss his work ‘Aqueedah al-Hamawiyyah’ that his replies to their accusations could not be rebutted. [‘al-Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’ (14/5)]

Similarly he mentioned that when the scholars sat to argue with him with regards to his Aqueedah al-Waasitiyyah the argument ended with them accepting all that was contained in the book as in vol. 14 of ‘al-Bidaayah’ under the heading ‘Aqd al-Majaalis ath-Thalaatha’

Al-Haafidh al-Mizzi said, "I have not seen the likes of him, and his own eye had not seen the likes of himself. And I have not seen one who was more knowledgeable than him of the Book and the Sunnah of His Messenger, nor one who followed them more closely." [‘Hayaat Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah’ (pg. 21) of Shaykh Bahjatul Baitaar.]

Al-Haafidh ibn Daqeeq al-Eid said, "when I met ibn Taymiyyah I saw a man with all the sciences in front of his eyes, he took from them what he wished and he left what he wished." [ ‘Min Mashaheer al-Mujaddidayn’ (pg.26) of Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan] This after he had said, "by Allaah I did not think that there remained the likes of you." [ ‘al-Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’ (14/27) of ibn Katheer and ‘Dhail `alaa Tabaqaat al-Hanabilaa’ (2/392) of ibn Rajab.]

The Qaadee of Qaadees ibn al-Hureeree said, "if ibn Taymiyyah was not Shaykh al-Islaam than who is?" [‘Hayaat Shaykh al-Islaam’ (pg.26)]

Al-Haafidh al-Bazzaar said, "I have not seen him mention any of the pleasures and attractions of this world, he did not delve into worldly conversations and he never asked for any of its livelihood. Instead he directed his attentions and conversations to seeking the Hereafter and what could get him closer to Allaah." [‘al-A`laam al-Uliyyah’ (pg.52) of al-Bazzaar.]

Al-Shaykh Mullaa Alee al-Qaaree said, "it will become clear to the one who studies ‘Madaarij as-Saalikeen’ (of ibn al-Qayyim) that these two (ibn Taymiyyah and ibn al-Qayyim) are from the greatest of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa`ah, and from the Awliyaa of this nation." [‘Mirqaat al-Mafaateeh’ (8/251-252) his commentary to ‘Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh’, as quoted from in ‘Shubuhaat Ahl al-Fitna’ (pg. 442) of Abdurrahmaan Dimisqiyyah.]

Muhammad bin Abdul Barr as-Subkee said, "by Allaah no one hates ibn Taymiyyah except for an ignoramus or the possessor of desires which have diverted him from the truth after he has come to know it." [‘Radd al-Waafir’ (pg.95) of ibn Naasir ad-Deen]

Al-Haafidh Abdurrahmaan ibn Rajab al-Hanbalee said, "he is the Imaam, the legal Jurist, the Mujtahid, the Scholar of Hadeeth, the Haafidh, the Explainer of the Qur`aan, the Ascetic, Taqee ad-Deen Abu al-Abbaas Shaykh al-Islaam, the most knowledgeable of the knowledgeable, it is not possible to exaggerate his renown when he is mentioned….he, may Allaah have mercy upon him, was unique in his time with respect to understanding the Qur`aan and knowledge of the realities of faith." [‘adh-Dhail `alaa Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilaa’ (2/387-392) of ibn Rajab]

The Imaam of the Hanafees, Badr ad-Deen (Mahmud bin Ahmad) al-`Ainee said, "whosoever says ibn Taymiyyah is a kaafir the he is in reality himself a kaafir, and the one who accuses him of heresy is himself a heretic. How is this possible when his works are widely available and there is no hint of deviation or dissension contained therein." [‘Radd al-Waafir’ (pg. 245)]

As-Suyutee quotes from az-Zamlakaanee that he said, "our Master, our Shaykh, the Imaam, the Scholar, the Unique (al-Awhad), the Haafidh, the Mujtahid, the Ascetic, the Worshipper (Aabid), the Example, the Imaam of the Imaams, the example for the Nation, the sign of the scholars, the inheritor of the Prophets, the Last of the Mujtahids, unique (Awhad) scholar of the Religion, the Blessing for Islaam, the Proof of the Scholars (A`laam), the proof of the Mutakallimeen, the effacer of the innovators, endowed with exalted and amazing sciences, the Reviver of the Sunnah. The one by whom Allaah has greatly favoured us with, and established the proof with against His enemies. …Taqee ad-Deen ibn Taymiyyah…"

Then as-Suyutee follows this up by saying, "I have quoted this biography from the handwriting of the Allaamah, the unique individual of his time, Shaykh Kamaal ad-Deen az-Zamlakaanee, may Allaah have mercy on him who used to say, ‘one who had more memorised than him has not been seen in the last five hundred years.’" [‘al-Ashbaah wa an-Nadhaa’ir an-Nahwiyyah’ (3/681), see also ‘Dhail alaa Tabaqaat al-Hanaabila’ (2/392-393)]

As-Suyutee said in the course of discussing his biography, "Shaykh al-Islaam, the Haafidh, the Faqeeh, the Mujtahid, the distinguished Mufassir, the rarity of his time, Scholar of the Ascetics" [‘Tabaqaat al-Huffaadh’ (pg. 516 no. 1144), and ‘al-Asbaah wa al-Nadhaa’ir’ (3/683) of as-Suyutee.]

We could mention many more scholars who praised him but insha’Allaah what we have quoted above is sufficient to paint a more just and true picture of this Imaam. As for those scholars that applied the title ‘Shaykh al-Islaam’ to him then they are numerous and would require a separate volume to list them [As has been done by some scholars, from amongst them ibn Naasir ad-Deen in the aforementioned book ‘ar-Radd al-Waafir’]

[Abuz Zubair]

Abu Abbas

You said:
Secondly, Al-Hafidh Imam ibn Hajar al-Asqalani refuted ibn taymiya and described his imprisonment. Check "Al-Durer al-Kamina fe Ayan al-Ma'a al-Thamina"(1/144,151,153) & "Lisan al-Meezan" & "Fath al-Bari"

Perhaps you are referring to Ibn Hajar's statement in al-Durar al-Kamina that: "An investigation of Ibn Taymiya's views was conducted with several scholars in Cairo and a written statement was drawn, in which he said: ' I am Ash'ari… etc…'"

This is in reference to what Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali mentions in Dhail Tabaqat al-Hanabilah, that when Ibn Taymiyah was threatened with murder, and was forced into writing those words; but as Allah says: "…except the one who is forced, while his heart is settled on faith…"

But this tells us how the Ash'ari Madhab was spread and the madhab of the four Imams, represented by the Hanbalis was kept at bay. The Ash'aris have been spreading their beliefs via intellectual terrorism, by accusing their opponents of Kufr, apostasy, Tashbeeh and Tajseem etc, such that they would not even feel ashamed of inventing lies upon their opponents, as they did with Sheikh al-Islam al-Harawi when they complained to the ruler Arsalan about him saying that he is a mujassim, and that he worships an idol in his mosque. (See Dhail Tabaqat al-Hanabilah). This is how Ash'ari beliefs spread, not by wisdom and intellectual conviction, rather by having good contacts with corrupt rulers, and history is a witness to that.

As for Zaghl al-Ilm by al-Dhahabi, then the book is full of praise for Ibn taymiyah, even though he points out frequently that he does not agree with him in all issues (without differentiating between Aqeeda and Fiqh). Rather, at the end of the chapter on Usul al-Din, he says that Ibn Taymiyah is the flag-bearer of Islam and its defender, and a reviver of Sunnah amongst his companions (Hanabilah), and ends by saying: "This is what I say to you too!"

As for al-Naseehah al-Dhahabiyah, then its not even from al-Dhahabis works, and that has been proven time and time again.

You said:
ibn al-qayim and ibn abdul wahab were blind followers of ibn taymiya

That is not true, for Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his entire Najdi following differed with Ibn Taymiyah in many issues and stayed with the Hanbali madhab, such as the issue of Talaq 3 times in one sitting, they regarded it to be 3 Talaqs like the Jamhoor, contrary to Ibn Taymiyah who regarded to be one Talaq.

You said:
ibn abdul wahab killed and massacred many Sunni muslims in the Arabian peninsula

No, he only fought and killed grave worshippers, those who call upon other than Allah from the Mushrikeen, the way the Prophet fought the Mushrikeen at his time. No difference between the two.

You said:
revolted against the Uthmani Khilafa with the help of the English Kafirs

Uthmani Khilafa had no influence over Najd in that time. Rather, that area was divided up amongst local Ameers who fought each other for anything. The English were not even there at the time of Sh Muhammad, and in fact the first mention of the English as far as I remember, is when Muhammad Ali Pasha destroyed the entire Dariyah town and returned to Egypt, the English congratulated him on destroying the Wahhabis. You need to brush up on your history a bit.

wasalam

[ibn abbas]

Firstly, I would like to thank you Abu Zubair for allowing me to send posts on these 'forums'. It is good to have a healthy discussion.

Secondly, I have been a member of as-sahwah.com for a long time, nearly ever since it started. I used to go to www.azzam.com for great news but then the kuffar banned that webpage.
It is only recently that I have entered the forums for a healthy discussion.

Thirdly, some of your posts Abu Zubair and Abu Ilyas are very long, so please give me time to read them and digest them and vomit that which is not from the ahlul Sunna. I will reply point by point but please give me some time, as I have a 9 to 5 job in west london.

[ali]

Akhee Ibn Abbass

if u had to vomit what is not according to ahlu-sunnah then your "dhalaal" has o be vomited

I will kep this brief.

How can u claim Ibn taymiyyah a deviant and he is regarded as the Shaykhul-Islam from all the Imaams of ahlu-sunnah after him till this day in age and probably to yaumul-qiyaama.

He was from al-ulamatul-rabaniyyoon, those scholars who master all the feilds in the Islamic sciences and from those who revived the religion POINT BLANK.

The criticisms of the scholars concerning their views against Ibn Taymiyyah is not a jarh upon Ibn Taymiyyah. Many Scholars differ from one another in many issues even aqeedah but they differ in the fiqh of it, they do not hold different aqeeda's which is something u tried to imply between (i forgot who u said) and Ibn aymiyyah may Allah have mercy on all of them.

All of them have held the madhaab of the salaf and they stuck to one way. I remember how the salaf used to defend each other from the vile thoughts and sayings of ahlu-bid'a. So hey would say "whoever says anything about Imam Ahmad then he is an innovator" and many other statements of the salaf regarding one another.

So when Abu Ilyas stated that someone is weither ignorant or a muqalid to some madhaab or some one with some jacked up info then this is 100% correct with no baatil (in the statement itself)

asalamu alikum

[gag order]

ibn taymiyyah and ibn al qayyim are not "wahhabis"

the topic is what does wahhabi imply? this has no connection to the aforementioned imams of ahl us sunnah, who were on the scene well before muhammad ibn abdul wahhab !!!

i have shown that in most cases "wahhabis" are often hanafis who are strict about their aqeeda, will not take part in biddah and have aggressive sometimes violent tendencies towards the cultists.

do not judge the aforementioned imams on account of the behaviour of al-saud and the neo-salafis - the difference between them and al-saud and his cronies should be apparent to all.

ibn abdul wahhab fought against the apparent deviancy of the uthmanis similarly today there are hanafis who go round attacking barelvi gatherings so these hanafis are as much "wahhabi" as muhammad ibn abdul wahhab!

[gag order]

wahhabi also implies the house of saud and the "salafis" who support american occupation i mean support king fahd.

people who oppose king fahd and his cronies are labelled as either sufi if the opposition is from the ibadah angle or khawarij if it is from a political angle.

ironically they say to oppose the king then that is bieng a kharijite but was it not bieng a kharijite to oppose the ottoman khalifah? what a dilemma!

though the ottoman khalifah deserved to be overthrown because they stopped dawah and jihad whats the point of replacing them ottomans in hijaz with a al-saud ruler who also does not believe in jihad either?

according to these fahdis there is no valid jihad anywhere today they knowingly contradict the hadith where the rasool says that a group will continue to arise to make jihad an unbroken continuity from badr to the final battle at the gates of lod.

because bin laden opposes the king he is no longer a wahhabi so is he a kharijee or jihadi? note that the difference between the two is like the deference between night and day.

(he cant be a sufi either becuase he fights jihad and follows hanbali fiqh)

[ali]

I must point out akhee was not the one who revolted against the uthmaanis, it was the turkish ruler governing the hijaaz that revolted. And this is where Saud saw the advantage of gaining territory which a lot of hizbu-tahrir's and others say say that it was saud who revolted against the khilaafa

[gag order]

"saud saw the advantage of gaining territory"

this is also considered a revolt and its worse than what the governor of hijaz did because the most succesful attack on the uthmanis was led by Lt col. lawrence the amir of the saudi ""jihad""

how pathetic is that? al saud deserves to be replaced by alqaida by force because al saud is suffering from the same stupidity as the ottomans:

picking and choosing from the sharia!

[ak47]

[quote="gag order"]
in afghanistan wahhabi often means taliban because of their anti shia and anti deobandi methodology.
quote]

anti deobandi methodology???

<edited> taliban were deobandi!

in fact taliban were trained and raised in deoband affiliated madaaris.

indeed one of their battle cries back in the good old days was "SAR BULUND SAR BULUND, DEOBAND DEOBAND!"

aaah those were the days. inshallah soon to return. ameen.

[gag order]

some of his recruits were recommended by teachers from deobandi schools that does not mean mullah omar is deobandi !

deoband does not recruit for jihad!

some deobandi teachers who sympathise with jihadis make personal recommendations to students to learn jihad.

establishing a sharia based state through dawah and war is a methidology not endorsed by deoband

most of his troops were ex-gulbuddin foot soldiers ie people who were likely to have been taught by teachers affiliated to deoband

finally mullah omar is not a deobandi becuase deoband has never been considered a political and jihadi organisation like taliban consider the fact that deoband teachers often say that jihad of the soul is greater than the battlefield im sure that is enough to throw mullah omar in to furious anger!

i have read in azzam.com that the taliban battle cry against the UScoalition is allahu akbar!!!

[ak47]

as for deoband not being jihadi, i think you are getting confused with tablighi who are nowadays very much against jihad although they did not start out like this. i was a tablighi for 10 years and feel i know enough about them to understand them.

the majority of taliban were educated in deobandi thinking pakistani madaris and took the same back to afghanistan with them. believe me they are deobandi. and so is ameerul mumineen.

as for deobandi scholars not recruiting.........i am lost for words.....

mufti yusuf ludyanvi (R)
mufti rashee ludyanvi (r)
mufti nizamuddin (r)
hakeem akhtar
mufti abdur raheem
moulana haq

to name just a few, were at the fore fron of recruiting, financing and training for jihad. they are all deobandi.

im not looking for a fight or argument but it is good to get your facts straight. i am not trying to prove that i am better than you by being right or anything like that.

only Allah knows my true weekness are such that i would be embarassed to post them on these boards.

[gag order]

bro ak47 no offence taken!

i was a tablighi as well, they would tell me hadith about zakah but none of them ever paid the annual tax cos they couldnt tell me who should pay who should recieve and how much is nisab in pound sterling and how to calculate 2.5% :lol:

[>mqs18<]

Anyone who says Ibn Taiymiyah or Ibn Abdul Wahaab were deviants is either a deviant himself or a blind ignorant, probably following blindly a bigoted sufi or a misguided fool who does not understand his religon.


couldnt have put it better myself.

the term Wahhabi began as a derogotary term by the opponents of sheikh muhammad bin abdul wahhab. it was given by the sufi leaders and Brits who tried to prevent the masses from accepting his daw'ah as it was proving popular (as the haqq always does alhamdulillah). ofcourse the brits had taken all sorts of kufr and deviant ideologies and implanted them into the ummah, and erected false leaders among them. this shaikh and his followers were a threat to its new imperialism.

their plots can be seen clearly as the name 'Wahhab' was his father's name, they used this instead of 'muhammadi' as this would have had people flocking to his da'wah. so they called him and his followers 'wahhabis' and this has been used since to shun any people or persons who oppose anything relating to the Deen of the leaders and governments of these 'modern' muslims. astaghfirullah!

however when they use the term for the Salafees, this is because Ibn Wahhab (Raheemahullah) is one of the many scholars of the Salafiyyah. however although 'Al-Wahhab' is one of the glorious attributes of Allahu ta'la, and means the 'Giver of glad tidings' no muslim on the aqeedah and manhaj of the sahabas and the salafus saaliheen can ascribe to being a 'wahhabi'. so to this day it is still used as a derogatory term, although not very effective to anyone that knows its meaning!!!

for further information refer to www.thewahhabimyth.com or read the biographies of the shaikh and his works such as 'kitab at-tawhid'.

[terrorthreat]

As for the Taliban being all deobandis I found the following on this site:

http://islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=665

[gag order]

like i said before just becos the average taliban had a deobandi education and many used to belong to gulbuddin hikmatyar that does not mean taliban is deobandi on the contrary, their association with hanbali al qaida and their like for all things puritanical is telling, the stance of mullah omar is more synonymous with the stance of imam ibn taymiyyah towards the tartars.

the taliban ruling class the inner circle are NOT sufis or barelvis they seem puritanical almost salafi like they are pakh hanafis not influenced by philosophy/kalam which is probably why bin laden-as-salafi has such a strong alliance with them.

[asharee_salafi]

Assalaamulekum,

I was just reading the discussion of of ibn taymiyyah,

very good, but what happend to ibn abbas? did his 9-5 job not stop him in the first place from using copy and paste jobs from habashi websites?

The people of innovation are also called the people of desires. This is because they like to beleive something first THEN justify, this is common not with just ibn abbas, but everyother person who practises innovation

check it out next time, theyw ill take one quote- they will lie, cheat, twist it from its original meaning.

brother abu zubair was write in one of his talks when he said (parafrasing in my own words) that people use guises to do their attacks

e.g sufis always talk about leaving the dunya and purifying their soul...but where is there spiritual purification when they attack ibn taymiyyah through lies and say that he worships an idol?

its the same with hizb ut tahrir, may Allah guide those muatizilah, they use 'unity' and islamic 'revivalism' to spread there FALSE aqeedah

if you look at past cults liek the shia and khwarij they also did things in the name of 'reformation'


If you look at ahl sunnah. despite them the scholars refuting each other, there is so much respect (with most of them anyway) for isnatnce imam nawawi despite being ashari in some sense is so respected by ahl sunnah, no one dare calll him deviant, and his mistakes are explained away without saying that he was deviant, this is unlike the sufi-ashari behaviour we find today.

[ghuraba]

YES, I AM WAHHĀBĪ !


By 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?!

[Jawad]

The term Wahhabi is used by USA and its dog allies to define Muslims who don't pray to graves or don't kissing their feet...</p>