Muhammad ibn Abd'Wahhab

[Assad91]

I used to besalafi. I know all about the "minhaj".

 

[Sakeenah]

I used to besalafi. I know all about the "minhaj".

Okay so do you used to be those salafis who don't know anything about the basics of islam and tawheed..but just talk about who's of and on the manhaj?

 

[Assad91]

Okay so do you used to be those salafis who don't know anything about the basics of islam and tawheed..but just talk about who's of and on the manhaj?

No, I read books. The basics by Jamil Zeeno, (not actual tittle or authors full name, can get that later). I read some of ibn abd al wahhabs book on salat. I have read plenty of books with the salafi stamp. Including a book on aqidah. Though the athari aqida is another subject and wasn't written by ibn abd wahhab.

But why? Whats the point? I already said I agree with the bulk of his teachings on tawheed but disagree on certain issues that the four madhabs approved but he didn't.

 

[Assad91]

Do I know the basics? Are you trying to accuse me of ignorance?

 

[Sakeenah]

No brother I wasn't accusing you of ignorance. But because you said you were a 'salafi' and knew all about the ' manhaj' I was just wondering if you were referring to a certain type of salafis who occupy themselves with 'manhaj issues'

khair inshaAllah

 

[kiwimac]

Could you provide us with sources about when he founded his sect and general information about it? Thank you.

I hope this helps

 

[TashaN]

Before we go any further, Assad, i would like to know briefly what are your thoughts about Ibn Taymiyyah if you don't mind so my next posts becomes more relevant.


Thanks in advance.

 

[Gharib]

What are your thought on the man from Najd who created the Salafi sect, Muhammad ibn Abd'Wahhab?

I believe he created something that at times contradicts the teachings of Islam.

Unlike the Madhhabs who differ on some issue, however, their differences are still in line with the Qur'an and Sunnah. It's like looking at a house from each side. They are all looking at the same house and are seeing something different than the other. But come MUhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, he is looking at a totally different house that looks the same from the outside but not the inside.

Personally I do not follow his teachings nor would I advise anyone else to do so. The Madhhabs are sufficient. To say that he came to revive Islam or the Sunnah implies that everyone has been wrong and now he is right. Which is what I have been saying about the views of most Salafi's that those other than them are all wrong and either worship graves, indulge in bidah or have completely committed shirk and they themselves are the only people on the right path.

A hadith of the Prophet says that the majority of the Ummah will never agree on what is false/haram/bidah.

 

[Gharib]

Another thing about his teachings and of those who follow him is this following statement, it is very common about all things deen:

'If the Prophet didn't do it, if the Sahaba didn't do it and if the Tabi'in didn't do it then we shouldn't do it. Anyone who does it is either a deviant or an innovator.'


According to that mindset, either Umar was an innovator who came up with witr salah being prayed together or Abu Bakr was a deviant who didn't enforce it during his leadership.

Same with the birthday of the Prophet. There is a hadith where the Prophet says he used to fast on Mondays because it was on a Monday that he was born and on a Monday that he was given Prophet-hood. The hadith is from Muslim in his Sahih.

 

[Assad91]

Before we go any further, Assad, i would like to know briefly what are your thoughts about Ibn Taymiyyah if you don't mind so my next posts becomes more relevant.


Thanks in advance.

I know some of what he did was ok, but again he went against the Ummah. He is like one of the most depended on for salafis.

 

[Assad91]

Unlike the Madhhabs who differ on some issue, however, their differences are still in line with the Qur'an and Sunnah. It's like looking at a house from each side. They are all looking at the same house and are seeing something different than the other. But come MUhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, he is looking at a totally different house that looks the same from the outside but not the inside.

Beautifully put brother. It's like the beautiful diversity of Islam is bad, and they have come to force upon all of the Ummah something strange. I think Hamza Yusuf put it very nicely in regads to tawassul through the Prophet, which was in a sense, if you don't believe in it, then fine, but don't tell me I can't. The evidence of its use by even the founders of all 4 madhabs is sufficient to pronounce it was a practice of the salaf.

Personally I do not follow his teachings nor would I advise anyone else to do so. The Madhhabs are sufficient. To say that he came to revive Islam or the Sunnah implies that everyone has been wrong and now he is right.

Sadly, in this day and age, we hav ethose who belittle the madhabs. They say "we don't follow Haneefa, Shafi'i, Maliki or Ibn Hanbal. We follow the Prophet (saws) and the Salaf!". Yet the irony is, the madab founders were part of salaf (except Ibn Hanbal, if I remember correctly, who was right after).

Another thing about his teachings and of those who follow him is this following statement, it is very common about all things deen:

'If the Prophet didn't do it, if the Sahaba didn't do it and if the Tabi'in didn't do it then we shouldn't do it. Anyone who does it is either a deviant or an innovator.'


According to that mindset, either Umar was an innovator who came up with witr salah being prayed together or Abu Bakr was a deviant who didn't enforce it during his leadership.

Same with the birthday of the Prophet. There is a hadith where the Prophet says he used to fast on Mondays because it was on a Monday that he was born and on a Monday that he was given Prophet-hood. The hadith is from Muslim in his Sahih.

Yet we commit bidah, are not muslims, and our blood is okay to take.

 

[kiwimac]

These kinds of renewal movements occur in all faiths, the problem is that they become the 'new orthodoxy' for those who follow them, they invest so much time and effort into being the perfect Wahabbi or whatever that they simply cannot allow others any kind of legitimacy because it devalues their efforts.

 

[Alulu]

The main problem of Muhamed ibn AbdelWahabs teachings lies in his new definition of shirk (idolatry) that makes one an idolator. Instead of still having common ground despite differences with other Sunnis his teachings actually considers many Sunnis that oppose his understanding as idolaters and disbelievers. Based on his principle that "not recognizing idolatry as such nullifies your Islam" (nawaaqidh al islam). And thats why you have subgroups nowadays that adhere to his teachings in the same uncompromozing manner that he did when he fought Sunni's and the Ottoman empire accusing them of being idolaters.
His applying of Quranic verses meant for disbelievers to fellow Muslims and twisted understanding of shirk (al akbar) leads even nowadays to groups being able to kill fellow Muslims in the name of having become "idolaters" by voting in elections, visiting graves of the awliyaa or working for a secular or democratic government. Either by arguing you comit idolatry, your Islam is nullified because you do not consider it idolatry (nawaaqidh al islam), or a combination of it. And when you actually read the first letters of the Wahabi scholars after Muhammed ibn Abdelwahhab died...you'll be able to dot the nots and see where this line of reasoning against fellow Muslims came from. Modern day salafi scholars have taken a different and softer approach, due to government interference. However if you go back to the first Wahabi scholars or read the history book written by one of his followers Ibn Bishr by the title Unwan al Majd fi tarikh Najd you soon find out that history speaks for itself. His teachings are revivalist or neo-orthodox so to say and can be compared to literalist Protestant groups that appeared around 1600/1700 in Europe.

 

[TashaN]

Sorry for being late. I really got busy and the little time i had, i read about the issues you posted and most of the time scholars just had a split opinion about it. So my question is, when do we say someone has changed the religion? and when do we say he had a different interpretation?

 

[Nehustan]

I already said I agree with the bulk of his teachings on tawheed

I have only read his book on Tawheed and found it coincided with my own belief which brought me to Islam. I do however know something of the foundation of the KSA, and a certain fellow called St. John Philby sold their case as them [The Saud] being the most likely to maintain order on the peninsula; read that as you will but brutality is what he meant, figuratively, literally, and thus psychologically.

 

[Assad91]

Sorry for being late. I really got busy and the little time i had, i read about the issues you posted and most of the time scholars just had a split opinion about it. So my question is, when do we say someone has changed the religion? and when do we say he had a different interpretation?

Which issues were split?

 

[TashaN]

Which issues were split?

Everything!

 

[Assad91]

Everything!

Well, lets discuss one by one

 

[TashaN]

Well, lets discuss one by one

Fine by me. Which one do you prefer to start with?

 

[Assad91]

Fine by me. Which one do you prefer to start with?

Well, we can start with the list I compiled between your link. So how about Tawassul?