Mazhab Wahabi

 Salaam,

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Br Hamzah

This is not a Saudi version, actually this is something historians try to hide as it shows the people of Najd (the central part of Saudi Arabia) in a bad way because they look upon themslevs as the carries of the tourch of the Umma,

Your logic seem to be that becouse the people of Najd think of themselfs as protecters of the faith the rest of the Ummah became jealous of what they "think" and changed history?

Br Saudi historical record does not date back that far i am talking about documented history from the time of the events. Does it make sence to you that the people of mecca and madinah where all Kufar and becouse the people of najd tried to stop this kufar the Khalifah and the rest of the ummah tried to stop the people of najd becouse they [the khalif and the rest of the Ummah] too where all kufar and didnt want to see Islam implemented.

so to sum things up the entire Ummah where kufar except the people of najd?

as for forms of shirk, i have spoken to old people who have told me people used to seek help from the Jin, i have seen in many arabic and islamic countries people asking the dead, i have heard people with my own ears saying things like (Touch wood),

brother this was never a systemised beliefe [i can elaborate on what i mean by this if you like becouse this is the crux of the argument] the most this can ammount to is misguided indaviduals.

the prophet said in one hadeeth: the most i fear on my Umma was the small shirk (Riya) which is when you do good to show off, are these not acts of Shirk?

This is shirk al saghir its called shirk becouse by falling into it you are indirectly chalanging allahs power or authority [depending on which it is] you dont become a kafir becouse of it. The hadith was referring to shirk al Akbar brother.

Sulaiman Ibn Abdul Wahhab [Muhammads brother] adressed his brother in one of his books regarding this hadith "My brother asks: 'A hadith sharif says: "Of all that will befall you, shirk is what I fear more." Is not this a dalil of the fact that a part of this Ummah will be engaged in shirk?'

"I say: It is inferred by many other hadiths that this hadith refers to shirku-l-asghar. There are similar ahadith, narrated by Shaddad Ibn 'Aws, Abu Hurayrah and Mahmud Ibn Labid (may Allah be pleased with all of them), according to which the Prophet (sall-Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) feared that shirku-l-asghar would be committed by his Ummah. It has exactly happened as it was foretold in the hadith, and many Muslims are guilty of shirku-l-asghar.

dear brother, can you kindly write the hadeeth down in Aranic or give me the narrator of the hadeeth so i can look it up, i trust you that the hadeeth exists, i just want to see it for my self and see how it fits with things i have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears.

I couldnt find the exact hadith i was referring to brother which is the one where Allah directly promises rasul allah [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] that his Ummah will not fall into shirk [al akbar] but here is another clear hadith which says the same thing.

The Hadith ash-Sharif written in Sahihayn, the two genuine Hadith books, one by al-Bukhari and the other by Muslim  states that the Holy Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam)  visited the graves of the martyrs of Uhud exactly one year after they died. A minbar was built in the graveyard for him to deliver  a sermon. 'Uqba ibn Amir (radi-Allahu `anh), the relater of the Hadith ash-Sharif, said, 'Rasulullah (sall-Allahu Ta`ala `alaihi wa sallam), ascended the minbar. It was the last time I saw him on the minbar.  He declared: "I do not fear whether you will become polytheists after I die. I fear that you, because of worldly interests, will  kill one another and thus be destroyed like ancient tribes."
 

Edited by rami - 15 June 2008 at 6:55am

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

I didnt have time to reply to the following yesterday so khair insha allah.

Chrysalis

On a slightly separate note i always found the term "self-righteous" to be an entirely Christian [its roots are in christian society and a by-product of peoples rejection of that faith as i understand] phenomena it goes along with other phrases [in the behavioral aspects] such as "im not a saint....." to put it into perspective was rasul allah [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] self righteous was Isa [hs] are moral people.

These terms have no place in the islamic framework muslims are obliged to right the wrongs. nowadays it has a much wider [general] meaning and is simply used as a means to stop anyone from correcting you on anything [i dont think this is what you are doing just speaking generally about the term itself and its coruption].

It also is in accordance with us being ONE Ummah, with ONE label, to enforce the brotherhood. Very humbly my own opinion.

Then you are trying to do what the sahabah could never do sister, the difference between the madhhabs primarily come from the different opinions they had about matters. The word Ummah is not a nationalistic one on the day of judgment Allah will raise up all the muslims as One ummah irrespective of what madhhab, group, sect they followed you see by Allahs estimation the Ummah of muhammad are those who believe in Allah and his prophet. there is no Wahabi/salafi ummah, Hanafi ummah, Shafii ummah, Habashi Ummah, Deobandi Ummah....etc

we are one Ummah now, this isnt why we are divided as a people, Those who call them self Hanafi have different hanafi groups, those who call themselfs Wahabi and or salafi have different groups, those who call themselfs Shafii or hanbali they all have different groups simply becouse you want to enforce the one name rule does not mean it will stop people from having different groups. People will always think differently and some people will agree with one point and disagree with another so since when in the entire history of man has that ever not happened.

Allah created us as different nations so we can know one another he literally says HE created differences in human kind its in our Fitrah sister.

With all due respect Brother, this example seems to go off on a tangent for me.

Your right sister these are weak examples, it was just the first thing that popped into my head i think its enough to say the prophet at times did not try to stop difference between people and there are clear examples of him choosing to stay silent rather than to set people right [out of wisdom].

What confusion is faced by a person that refuses to attach himself to a group versus one who does?

This is what you dont understand i personnel am Hanafi in my fiqh, i am attached to no group hanafi or otherwise it simply means i get my fiqh from Hanafi legal texts or Ulumah which ever happens to be available. If someone starts a Hanafi fan club i am not obliged to go join, that is there prerogative and has nothing to with the deen....Yet my fiqh is still known as hanafi and to someone who actually knows the differences between madhhabs to any extent will automatically know what i practice just by knowing that word.

The only confusion I see will be faced by other ppl who are curious about which Imam we 'follow',

this is politics mixed with the madhhabs you can easily leave the politics out and still have the madhhab, NO imam is the madhhab sister people can know the ruling of a madhhab without attaching them selfs to any imam its simply peoples choices to do so. i realise in pakitan that many people do  this but we should separate the issues so we can see them more clearly.


Saladin

First, nowhere in the Quran or hadeeth can we find muslims being addressed as anything else than Muslims or Mu'mins.

What does the word muslim mean, what does the word mu'min mean, All Ulumah and i mean ALL Uluma know that when allah calls someone by a name he is highlighting the fact that  this person is the embodiment of what that word means. For example he calls a group of people Sidiqun [extremely truthfull] not to label them with a hip new name that means nothing but to say they ARE sidiqun. He calls other people munafiqun why?.....or other people Ahl al Kitab why?....what about the people of the right hand or the left and the people of nearness are these just word that represent nothing.

This tells us that right and wrong is known according to what the LABEL means.....so what does the word madhhab mean what does the word hanafi, shafii or salafi mean. Its ironic that the ones who started this anti madhhab phenomenon chose to LABEL themselfs salafi's is that label wrong also.

Which Imam ever told his disciples to follow "his" teachings to be in the right path?

Muhammad Ibn Abdul wahhab, he was no more wrong in saying this is my opinion than Imam Abu hanifah said this is my opinion people are free to choose which they prefer to follow the LABEL attached to both does not stop the fact that a body of work based on each respective imams teachings exist and different people follow each....according to what you  are saying we should make it taboo to LABEL this body of work becouse that will magically stop people from disagreeing?

Rather we see them telling muslims to " follow the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet" and to "put aside their opinions for a saheeh hadith". Were not their opinions made in the absence of hadith?

And the Quran and sunnah say to follow those whom Allah gave knowledge to and put in authority the two quotes are not separable brother.

there opinions explained the sahih hadith and ijtihad was used in its absence, you may think you know what a hadith is talking about but when you read the explanation of an expert in tafsir you will admit you knew nothing. Do all people have the same level of intelligence....NO....so some people Allah himself made it obligatory for them to follow others he says it clearly in the Quran.

What does the act of following look like....or entail?


Edited by rami - 16 June 2008 at 12:44am

rami wrote: Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem On a slightly separate note i always found the term "self-righteous" to be an entirely Christian [its roots are in christian society and a by-product of peoples rejection of that faith as i understand] phenomena it goes along with other phrases [in the behavioral aspects] such as "im not a saint....." to put it into perspective was rasul allah [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] self righteous was Isa [hs] are moral people. These terms have no place in the islamic framework muslims are obliged to right the wrongs. nowadays it has a much wider [general] meaning and is simply used as a means to stop anyone from correcting you on anything [i dont think this is what you are doing just speaking generally about the term itself and its coruption].

Edited by Chrysalis - 16 June 2008 at 3:46am