[i]Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab [ra] was a reputable and God-fearing Aalim of the eighteenth century aligned to the Hanbali Madhab. Sheikh enjoyed unique acceptance and love across the spectrum of social class. Sheikh, in conjunction with the royal family of the time, was responsible for rekindling the love for the Qur’aan and Sunnah in the populace of the Arabian peninsula. Unfortunately, subsequent to the death of the Sheikh, his opponents embarked on a vehement campaign of concocting erroneous beliefs and views and attributed them to the Sheikh. This, in an attempt to discredit the Sheikh and to bring about discord between his followers.
When these attempts failed miserably, these opponents rescinded and capitalized on the influence that Sheikh’s name enjoyed and the love of the masses. By hijacking his movement and using it as a vehicle to spread their incorrect views and beliefs. For more information, refer to ‘The Life of Shaykh Abdul Wahhaab’ by Sheykh Muhammad Abu Bakr Ghazipuri.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai[/i]
Who are 'these opponents'?
How did they change Wahab's 'original' views?
ooooohhhhh...i was just about to take a rest from the forums....and then u post this! so u believe in the above. u follow and respect muhammad bin abdul wahab? u follow the same beliefs as he does? do your shaykhs and your madrassah also follow him and see him as a' God-fearing Aalim of the eighteenth century'.? Do you agree with his book Kitab-ut-tawheed? Regarding aqeedah do you know how it compares to the aqeedah of majority of the classical scholars of Islam? Do you see him as a reformer?
i have an awful lot to say on this issue...but first i will wait for your reply but i will not start a debate or argument...
now everything is starting to make sense....
Indeed.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
Nothing make sense on this forum nowadays. I starting to think that people are making character up. Anyway, on this topic, I thing it would be wrong to speak ill of the dead. Alot of people look up too this bloke and we should leave it at that.
"A true Muslim is thankful to Allah in prosperity, and resigned to His will in adversity."
[url=http//www.guidancemedia.com/videostream.php?id=Burda.mov]Quran[/url]
I've heard it said by others that the "salafi manhaj" of today is not simply a carbon copy of what Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab preached.
whats so wrong about the sheikh ED?
why is the word wahaabi used as a negative point
so if u respect the sheikh like true monotheists they class u as wahabi,
as for his kitaab, kitaab at tawheed is nothing more than verses of the quran and sayings of the prophet p.b.u.h
His followers are named after him, his name is wahab najdi and his followers are known as wahabi's orignating from his name wahab.
THROUGH LOVE all that is bitter will be sweet.
Through Love all that is copper will be gold.
Through Love all dregs will turn to purest wine.
Through Love all pain will turn to medicine.
Through Love the king will turn into a slave!
The modern day salafiyyah are by and large not true followers of Shaykh. It is not the case that we agree with everything Hadrat Shaykh believed but it is true that his major contribution was driving out of innovation and polytheism from the lives of the arabs he came across.
Hadrat Shaykh has difference of opinion with the opinions that I follow but alhamdulillah I have the courage to accept his difference of opinion and still hold respect for Hadrat Shaykh.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
what i dont understand is why sheikh is disliked so much..
and why is it that when proof taken from quran sunnah the person gets labelled as a wahabi
im not a wahabi myself actually i dont know what i am but i still have respect for the sheikh
salaam
ok, im thinking shall i go into great detail about muhammad bin abdul wahhab, highlight his beliefs, what he has done, how majority of classical islam disagrees with him, what damage he has caused...... if i do , there will be a big massive debate, some will get upset, it might get heated...and as yuit said, dont speak against the dead.
I was only going to give a constructive argument without any backbiting or accusations and try to back up my arguments.
But i'm not sure...
i will see how the topic develops and get involved if i think i need to.
wasalaam
From what i have heard about this guy, he killed many muslims in the name of "shirk" and bulldozed many mosques and resting places of ihle-bait...his own father wasnt in agreement of his beliefs!
thats what i really want to know as i've alwayz heard the good in him
There are so many misinterpretations and distorted interpretations of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, his principles, and his thought,” he said, noting that most academics that criticized his work had not consulted ibn Abdul Wahab’s writings or the sources on him in English or Arabic. “They are confused between what is part of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab’s legacy and the views of those they wrongly identify as his followers and advocates.”
Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab was a religious and social reformer in the first Saudi State of the 18th Century who aimed to purify the faith of superstitious practices and bring Muslims back to a true expression of Islam. His name is often used negatively to describe current political events and the violent actions of those who claim to be Muslim.
agree or diagree with muhammad bin abdul wahhab...but REFORMER...i dont think so. A reformer is what we call a mujaddid. One who arrives every 100 years, a reviver....this is what i will dispute no matter what. This is a massive statement and to elevate someone who disagreed with the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the incredible classical scholars in ISLAM to that level, to me thats an insult.
I wonder wht the likes of Imam Asqalani, nawawi, suyuti, ibn katheer, imam shaami, imam qurtubi, imam shawkani and so on would have made of him by going aginst their views and teachings regarding islamic doctrine.
i follow classical scholars. i follow ijmaa. i follow majority of our elders - not someone who came over a 100 years or so ago and refuted and rejected out classical scholars and instead labelled an awful lot of things as shirk and bidah which the previous 1000 years of scholars did not. The Islam we see today especially amongst the youth today, where everything is seen as bidah and shirk- the most responsible person for this 'confusion' and 'division' (i'm being kind here) is muhammad bin abdul wahaab. And people have the audacity to call him a reformer!
Hadrat Shaykh Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab purified the arabs in his region from the polytheistic and superstitious acts that they engaged in. He was a Hambali, he was also close in aqeedah to Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah. Those whom I follow do not follow the aqeedah of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah but we respect him for his knowledge.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab was a reformer in the sense that he reformed the people once again and refreshed their imaan. No-one i think is saying that Shaykh Muhammad Sahib was an ordinary scholar in the sense of being a committed follower of the major aqaaid, he no doubt had difference of opinion but his contribution to once again making the people cling to tawheed and be free from shirk and innovation is much to Hadrat's credit.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
But how did molvi wahab come about to do this and moreover why? It is said clearly in the hadith mubarak of the Holy Prophet
that he 
did not fear for his 
ummah to commit shirk, so if Holy Prophet 
has said this how can one commit shirk. Also thousands were killed in claim of committin shirk how is that possible?
This hadeeth regarding not fearing the shirk being spread in the ummah did not pass over the head of Shaykh Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab. Perhaps if it was understood in entirety it would be noted that shirk exists in many forms.
Using this hadeeth to justify the shirk that takes place in the ummah by saying shirk wont occur is not really sensible. The Bahais were former muslims. They became a sect out of islam because they worhsipped their Bab and made another a Prophet. So just because initially they were muslim this doesnt mean they cant commit shirk and then go into deviancy.
It is true this ummah will not commit shirk in majority. But I dont believe this ummah does shirk that widespread, alhamdulillah one could even argue that Shaykh was fulfilling that hadeeth by guarding the people against the erroneous beliefs and acts that we taking place.
If this was a matter so light that we could just put one hadeeth forward and then use that to knock away a whole reformation then I would be seriously worried. I could also say that it has been stated to the effect that towards the end times imaan will return to Madinah Munawwarh like a snake returns to its hole.
Using just one hadeeth out of context and without full backing does not achieve anything except confusion.
We know that anyone who reads the kalima once with faith will enter the garden eventually. Does that mean we should be laid back and think we have read the kalima with sincerity, our abode is guaranteed? No. No-one uses ahadeeth regarding the virtue of the kalima to take a laid back approach, rather ppl still have a concern to save themselves from sins and to progress in piety.
Similarly just because a hadeeth states to the effect that shirk will not be widespread amongst the ummah is not a licence for us to take a laid back approach and think that we are protected from shirk so lets chill. Rather it is because the ulama kept and keep warning the people against the wrong beliefs that alhamdulillah we are by and large stilll on tawheed. I would argue that ulama such as Shaykh Muhammad are fulfilling and bearing fruit to the words of Nabi salallahu alayhi wa sallam.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
Salaam
i have respect for shaykh ibn taymiyyah and his knowledge even though i disagree with him on alot of things.
i think you're missing my point, he [b]didnt[/b] free the world of bidah and shirk but the opposite. he made things bidah that were not seen as bidah by the classical scholars. he made things shirk which were not seen as shirk by the classical scholars. he came out with fatwas and rulings which were COMPLETELY new in islamic history. He did not reform anything. He introduced a false image of Islam, incorrect interpetaion of islam, rejected classical scholars and created a NEW understanding of Islam which was alien to our most respected scholars of Islam in the last 1000 years!
You have Ibn taymiyyah, his student and muhammaad bin abdul wahab on one side and the rest of islamic classical scholars on the other side. muhammad abdul wahabb went an awful lot further than even ibn taymiyyah and ibn qayyim jawzi.
i think i will need to post detailed articles on this issue to clarify the matter, which I will do soon inshallah
wasalaam
yes plz
The full hadith mubarak is:
Hazrat Uqbah bin Amr (RA) also narrates that the Holy Prophet (SAW) said: "In regards to you I have no fear that you will commit shirk after me but I have the fear that you will be caught up in the love of the world and that you will fight amongst yourelves and be destroyed lik those before you."
and the reference is: Muslim, as-Sahih, vol: 4, p/1796, hadith no: 2296
The fact is "why did the Holy Prophet
state that"? cuz he knew some ppl in his ummah will scream shirk 24/7..it was to leave a message behind and say that "shirk" wasnt part of the ummah nor was it a fear....before i said molvi wahab najdi killed thousands of ppl who he claimed were commitin shirk,
Ok if there was only one person (commiting shirk) maybe but thousands, then that is goin completely against the Hadith mubarak quoted.
I thought polytheism was driven out some centuries before, with a guarantee it will not return by the Prophet
himself?
(oh and why hadhrat shaykh, and not molvi? equality brother, even though it would be an insult to the term molvi...)
And the dodginess of this character is also implied in confessions of a british spy... where the spy meets this geezer.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
When was this guy a spy!?
someone asked why did Holy Prophet salallahu alayhi wa sallam say that and then the person positted an answer. I am sorry but that is unacceptable to say because He salallahu alayhi wa sallam knew that there would be ppl screaming shirk 24/7. People cannot ask questions about Holy Prophet salallahu alayhi wa sallam like that and then give their own opinions as to what the answer is.
Secondly Shaykh TahirulQadri Sahib is from pakistan. In Pakistan it is the urf (some people make everything into urf but thats another topic) in pakistan for ulama to be called Molvi in punjabispeakers, Mawlana by urdu speakers, Mullah by pathan, MolvySai by sindhi etc. So I referred to Shaykh Tahir ul Qadri as the people of his locality would refer to him.
By the arabs the ulama are referred to as Shaykh so I refer to Shaykh Muhammad Sahib as Shaykh. Already I have called Shaykh Tahiru ul Qadri a shaykh because you objected to him being a molvy, now on the other side you dont want me to even call Shaykh Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab a molvy?
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
No that book I was looking to buy.
There is a snall section of that available online (chapters 1-7). here that spy (hempher) meets a muhammad bin Abdul Wahaab of Najd.
He finds him arrogant, and uses him as a tool.
[url=http://www.therevival.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=460]My Thread[/url]
[url=http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/spy1-7.html]First 7 chapters[/url]
I would advise you to read them seven chapters.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
u spk to me about equality. It is established that I started to refer to Tahir Ul Qadir Sahib as shaykh because some found the term molvy offensive. Hence equality would be for me to refer to Shaykh Muhammad Sahib just as you requested I refer to Shaykh Tahir ul Qadri Sahib.
However it is clear you wish to debase Shaykh Muhammad Ibn AbdulWahhab and make hollow claims to equality.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
Good answer.
btw I do not see 'molvi' as an offensive term. If I did, I would have asked you to change it earlier.
equality of title, not of my opinion. That I cannot change due to my studies...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
salam
Every scholar who is a scholar speaks against shirk, tells people not to commit shirk as it is the biggest sin in the sight of God. Only some jahil will promote this.[b]Mohammad bin Abdul Wahabb made things shirk that no classical scholar ever said was shirk!!!!!![/b]
Example: Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah was the first man in Islamic history to say tawassul is bidah. [b]Muhammad ibn wahabb was the FIRST man in islamic history to say tawassul is SHIRK! [/b]To say O Allah for the sake of the prophet forgive my sin, for the sake of the awliyah etc forgive my sin, asking Allah, not a human, but [u]through[/u] the prophets and pious.
[b]The following great scholars of our history said tawassul is allowed and muhammad ibn wahabb said its shirk (astagfirullah)[/b]:
a list of some of the many illustrious CLASSICAL SCHOLRAS of the past who had practised upon Tawassul through the rank of the pious, deceased or alive:
[b]
1. Imaam Hasan ibn Ibrahim al-Hallal [ra] [/b]has stated that whenever he had any urgent need, he would go to the grave of Imaam Moosa ibn Ja'far [ra] and make Tawassul through him. Allah Ta'ala would fulfil his need. (refer Taarikh Baghdaad)
[b]
2. Imaam Shaafi'ee [ra][/b] would make Tawassul at the grave of Imaam Abu Hanifa [ra]. (Taarikh Baghdaad). Allaamah al-Kawthari has classified this incident as authentic. (Maqaalaatul Kawthari pg.381)
[b]3. Allaamah Taajuddeen al-Subki [ra][/b] has mentioned that the people would go to the grave of Imaam ibn Foorak(ra), the teacher of Imaam Bayhaqi [ra] and make Du'aa and their Du'aas would get accepted.
[b]
4. Hafiz Al-Zarkashi [ra][/b] has made Tawassul in the introduction to his commentary to Sahih al-Bukhari entitled, 'al-Tanqeeh'.
[b]5. Hafiz Taqi-u-ddin al-Subki [ra][/b], the father of Taajuddin al-Subki [ra], has approved of this firm of Tawassul and he has written a detailed treatise on this topic. (See his book: Shifaa-u-Siqaam pgs.293-318)
[b]6. Imam Nawawi [ra][/b] has mentioned that from among the etiquettes of visiting the grave of Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] one should make Tawassul through Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] to Allah Ta'ala to accept his Du'aas. Thereafter, Allamah Nawawi states, '…and one of the best things that one should do is what has been related by [b]Allaamah al-Mawardi [ra], al-Qaadhi Abu Teeb [ra] and all our Ulama and they have all regarded it as commendable[/b], and that is the incident of Imaam al-Utabi [ra] that he said, 'I was once seated by the grave of Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam], when a Bedouin came and said, 'Peace be upon you, oh, Messenger of Allah. O Messenger of Allah, I have heard Almighty Allah say in the Qur'aan "And if they, when they had been unjust to themselves, had come to you (Muhammad Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and begged Allah's forgiveness and the messenger had begged forgiveness for them, indeed they would have found Allah All-Forgiving. Most merciful.(Al-Nisaa:64) hence, I have come to you in a state that I seek forgiveness of my sins by seeking your intercession by my Lord', thereafter he recited a few couplets and departed. Imaam al-Utabi [ra] states, 'I then fell asleep and I saw Rasulullah [sallallahu alayhi wasallam] instructing me by the words, 'O Utabi, go to that Bedouin and give him the glad tidings that Almighty Allah has forgiven him.' (Refer al-Majmoo vol.8 pg.456 - Cairo and Manaasikul-Imaam-Al-Nawawi pg.498-499 Maktabah Salafia). This incident has been related by many Ulama in their respective compilations. Some of them are: Haafiz Ibn-Katheer in his Tafseer, Allamah Abu-Muhammad ibn Qudaamah in Al-Mughni vol.3 pg.556, Imaam Abul-Faraj in Al-Sharhul-Kabeervol.3 pg.495, etc.)
[b]7. Imaam Ahmad bin Hambal(RA)[/b] has also encouraged making Tawassul through Rasulullah [sallallahu alayhi wasallam] in ones duas. (Fataawa ibn Taimiyyah vol.1 pg.140, Also see Mafaaheem pg.137)
[b]
8. Haafiz Shamsud-Deen Al-Sakhawi (RA),[/b] the grand student of Haafiz ibn Hajr Al-Asqalaani(RA) made Tawassul on many occasions through Rasulullah [Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam] in his books, see for example Al-Tuhfatul-Lateefah vol.1 pg.3, 17; al-Ibtihaaj bi azkaaril musaafiril haaj
[b]
9. Allamah Muhammad ibn-ul-Jazri(RA)[/b] the famous Muhaddith and Master of Qira'aat has mentioned that from amongst the Aadaab etiquettes of dua is that one makes Tawassul with the Ambiyaa and the pious ones.(Al-Hisnul Haseen)
[b]
10. Imaam Al-Shawkaani Al-Salafi(RA)[/b] has also permitted Tawassul. (Tuhfatu-Zaakireen pg.50)
[u]
[b]Muhammad ibn wahhab is accusing all of the above GREAT ILLUMINOUS CLASSICAL SCHOLARS OF ISLAM of Shirk because they believe in tawassul of the prophet and the pious and believe in going to the tomb of the prophet and pious and making tawassul.[/b] [/u]ASTAGFIRULLAH- and you call this man a reformer. Now do you understand the damage he has caused? [b]Who understands the deen better? the giant classical scholars i have mentioned or a man who came a 100 or so years ago?[/b]
Every scholar denounces and speaks against bidah that will lead to the hell fire. [b]The only problem is muhammad ibn wahaab created his own criteria of bidah and rejected what the likes of Imam shafi, Imam Al-Ghazaali, Imam ibn al-Atheer, Imam Abdul Haqq al-Dahlaawi, al-Izz ibn Abdul Salaam, imam al-Nawawi, Imam Abu Shaaamah etc etc. [/b]They categorised bidah in to good and bad, praiseworthy and balameworthy etc but [b]ibn wahabb said EVRYTHING new is bidah[/b] an dtook th ehadith literally, and said every act of bidah will take you to the hellfire.
[b] Again. who understands the deen better? the giant classical scholars i have mentioned or a man who came a 100 or so years ago?[/b] so if the classical scholars say a good bidah is allowed in the deen but muhammad bin abdul wahab is saying there is no good bidah and anyone who commits any kind of bidah will go to the hell fire! [b]Again what is he saying about our beloved classical scholars?[/b]
So this my bro and sisters is not job of a reformer , this is going against 1000 years of islamic history. how many times do i have to say this? People seem to ignore this point again and again. muhammad ibn wahaab has gone AGAINST out islamic history of scholars on almost all spects of islamic doctrine.
wasalaam
Some people will come out with lies about Shaykh Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab, just as people before made lies against him.
It should be noted by those who note that a number of the rulings of Shaykh Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab are not entirely new, he followed Imam Ahmad bin Hambal in some issues, Imam ibn Taymiyyah in other issues, Imam Dawud az-Zahiri and the Zahiriyyah in others.
MashaALLAH Shaykh might have had some erroneous beliefs but they were not as erroneous as the ones who built domes over graves, the ones who directly asked the inmates of the graves for sons and camels. His beliefs may have been unique but it was better than the belief of those women who broke of twigs from 'holy' trees and tied them around the stomach, he atleast prevented the graves from becoming mosques and the inmates from becoming gods other than ALLAH. Atleast he prevented the people from doing sajdah on the graves, go to pakistan and you still see the people doing sajdah on the graves of ALLAH Wali. Atleast he demolished the shrines at Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah and made the graves level and desolate as they are meant to be.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
SO he prevented idolatory.
how?
he did n othing of the sort.
he just declared mundane tasks as shirk.
How is destroying shrines an achievement?
the residents were not being worshipped. if they were, the detroying would have not made any difference.
Tawassul and Istighasa are Islamic concepts which called shirk! occasonal previous scholars did have some issues, but none called them shirk.
He was the first. he was a great fitnah that still plaguing the ummah.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Yes tru
so Med....that means u dont go to Darbaar's?
i knw sum here dont....but do u do milaad un nabi?
jus wonderin
if u do....were bound to differ on this Abdul Ibn Wahab man
The Lover is ever drunk with love;
He is free, he is mad,
He dances with ecstasy and delight.
Caught by our own thoughts,
We worry about every little thing,
But once we get drunk on that love,
Whatever will be, will be.
ɐɥɐɥ
Pages