The War Within
Posted on January 25, 2007 by Tariq Nelson
For those that have not seen it, below is CNN’s special “The War Within” about the Battle between Moderate Muslims and Extremists such as Anjem Chaudry and Omar Brooks who grab UK media attention with their insane rants
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Previously by Amir: The Battle Within Islam
Filed under: Muslim Isolation, The Culture of Denial and Pretense
Dont be surprised if, after 10 or 15 years from now, we all learn that Omar Bakri, Chawdhury, Omar Brooks, and these characters are all agent provocateurs working for British Intelligence. I have no doubt in my mind of that. Yes, there are people who are foolish enough to believe in what they espouse, but they are allowed to roam freely and spew their venom because of a plan with those in power.
I would be very surprised if they were British agents, but a belief such as that is common amongst Muslims who believe everything they dislike is a conspiracy. More so then showing that these guys are mentally deficient I think it also shows the tabloid nature of the British media.
Ever wonder why these people (Omar Bakri, Chawdhury, Omar Brooks) appear the right place where media is present?
I don’t believe that everything I dislike is a conspiracy, but I would invite you to look at the details about Omar Bakri that were brought up some years ago by other (more balanced) salafis. I believe that their followers are definitely deficient in their Aql, but I have serious suspicions about their leaders like Bakri and Brooks. They are very useful for the UK government. I will look for an old article about Bakri that was put out by Azzam publications some years ago and post it here for you to take a look at.
It is not beyond the realms of possibility to say these people have contact with British intelligence services.
Two men held in Guantanamo were apparently in contact with British security services, before they were abandoned in West Africa and finally kidnapped and incacerated by the Americans. They are said to have been go-betweens to Abu Qatada, the so-called “spiritual leader” of “al-Qa’ida in Europe”, was in contact with the British too.
“Agents” is too strong a word. Bakri et al. are as genuine as we can ascertain them to be (it is pure unfounded speculation to say otherwise). But it is silly to say these men moved without the security services knowing who they met, and where they moved. In fact, one could argue that the British policy of ‘containment’ (that is ‘preach what you like as long you do don’t anything on our turf’
and ‘keeping enemies close to one’s chest’ allowed these men to spread their ’cause’.
Umar Lee,
You’d be amazed what money can buy.
COINTELPRO is not that old. You are right perhaps, maybe agent is too strong a word. A more fitting word would be asset.
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,
The “Rangers/Celtic Muslim” joke that “Muslim comedienne” told in one of those videos is so old! For anyone not familiar with the situation in Glasgow, Rangers is the local football (soccer) team associated with the Protestant community and Celtic are associated with the Catholics, and matches between the two are often accompanied by sectarian singing and chanting.
The joke actually went “are you a Catholic Muslim or a Protestant Muslim”, meaning that nobody they know isn’t either one or the other. It’s also been said that someone, when asked what “Protestant and Catholic” meant, replied “Rangers and Celtic”.
http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_Saudi.pdf
See pp.29-31 above
That PDF is trash put together by another branch of Salafis that are woefully ignorant of the reality of the Najdi movement. …*sigh*
Let’s discuss the women who were denied to enter mosques. Clearly, Islam does not prohibit women to attend mosque. Where does it come from?
My mother is member of women organization who helps to build the first mosque in Denmark, and this organization raised money, almost 1/5 of donation, also did campaigning.
Imagine, you are not allowed to attend the mosque you have build with your own money.
The reason why the women are not allowed in the Masajid there, has to do with a Hanafi ruling stating such (and im not a Hanafi myself, so im not aware of the ruling and if it is the relied upon position in the school or not). It would be worth exploring. I am aware however, that many of the leading Hanafi jurists such as Mufti Taqi Usmani dont hold that view.
well, just after I posted above, I came across a discussion of this by one Hanafi Mufti in the UK. I cant find the original source for this, so I hope brother Tariq doesnt mind me posting it here in its entirety;
====================================
In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,
Generally, the major Fatawa books of the Indian Subcontinent Hanafi jurists (fuqaha) discourage (quite vehemently at times) women from attending and praying at Mosques. They base their understanding on the fact that a woman is encouraged by Allah Most High to remain within the confines of her home unless there is a need for her to emerge outside. Allah Most High says:
“And stay in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former times of ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, O members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.” (Surah al-Ahzab, V: 33)
Similarly, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) in many Hadiths encouraged women to offer their prayers at home:
Sayyida Umm Salama (Allah be pleased with her) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “The best Mosque for a woman is the inner part of her home.” (Musnad Ahmad & Tabrani)
Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Do not prevent your womenfolk from attending the Mosque, even though their houses are better for them.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)
Sayyida Umm Salama (Allah be pleased with her) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “A woman’s prayer in her inner room is better than her prayer in the outside room, and her prayer in the outside room is better than her prayer in the courtyard, and her prayer in the courtyard is better than her prayer in the Mosque.” (Mu’jam of Imam Tabrani)
Indeed, women in the time of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) did attend congregational prayers in the Mosque, and they were not prevented from doing so. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) himself advised against preventing women from attending congregational prayers, for example:
Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “If your wives seek permission from you to go to the Mosque at night, let them.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 827)
And:
Salim narrates from his father that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “If the wife of any one of you seeks permission to go to the Mosque, he may not prevent her.” (Sahih Muslim, no: 442)
However, the understanding of the various classical and contemporary Hanafi Fuqaha is that women in the time of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) had the unique opportunity of praying behind the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) himself- an act that cannot be paralleled today. Secondly, they used to observe all the requirements of Shariah including those of proper covering (hijab), hence they were not prohibited from attending the congregational prayers. Despite this, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) still advised and encouraged them to pray in their homes.
Sayyiduna Umar ibn al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) in his time felt that the concession given to women for attending the congregational prayers in the Mosque is sometimes being misused and could be misused even more in the future. He felt that women were no longer taking care of the Shariah requirements as they used to in the time of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), and he was also aware of the fact that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) advised women to offer their prayers at home. Hence, keeping all of the above in mind, he issued a verdict that women should no longer attend congregational prayers in the Masjid, and this decision of his was collectively accepted by the other Companions. (See: Ayni, Umdat al-Qari, 3/22
Similarly, Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud (Allah be pleased with him) used to refuse women entry to the Mosque for Friday prayers and would say: “Go, your homes are better for you.” (Recorded by Imam Tabrani. See: al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib, 1/190)
Sayyida A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) said:
“If the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was alive to see what women are doing now (in A’isha’s time), he would surely have prevented them from attending the prayers in the Mosque just as the women of Banu Isra’il were prevented.” (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)
The renowned Hadith scholar and Hanafi jurist, Imam Badr al-Din al-Ayni (Allah have mercy on him) states whilst commentating on the above statement of Sayyida A’isha:
“Had A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) witnessed what women are involved in the various types of innovations and wrongdoings these days, she would have been even more extreme in her preventing women from entering the Mosques……Also the fact that there had not been a long time between her statement and the demise of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), and also the fact that women in her time were not involved in even one portion of a thousand of what women are up to these days.” (Umdat al-Qari, 3/230)
Based on the above, the various classical Hanafi Fuqaha (and also the majority of the contemporary Hanafi Ulama of the Subcontinent) state that it is disliked (makruh) for women, whether married or single, to go to the Mosque for congregational prayers.
Imam al-Kasani (Allah have mercy on him) states:
“It will not be permitted for young women to go to the Mosque for congregational prayers due to the fact that Sayyiduna Umar (Allah be pleased with him) prevented women from doing so. Moreover, women’s going to the Masjid is a cause of mischief (between men and women) and mischief (fitna) is Haram, and that which leads to something Haram will also be unlawful.” (Bada’i al-Sana’i, 1/157)
Another classical Hanafi jurist, Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states:
“It is disliked for women to attend congregational prayers in the Mosque even for the Eid and Jumu’a prayers, and even for old women attending night prayers, according to the more reliable position in the Hanafi School, due to the corruption of the time.” (Radd al-Muhtar ala al-Durr, 1/566)
It is stated in al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya:
“The Fatwa these days is that it is disliked for women to go to the Mosque for all prayers, due to widespread corruption.” (al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 1/56)
Based on all of the above evidences, and based on what the classical Hanafi Fuqaha have stated in their respective works, the majority of the contemporary Hanafi Fuqaha of the Subcontinent consider women attending the congregational prayers in the Mosque to be disliked if not disallowed. Their stance is not based on any cultural values or customs (as some people wrongfully believe); rather, they are merely reinforcing what the classical Hanafi jurists have stated. Thus, to point fingers at them saying they are culturally oriented is indeed doing injustice to them.
Having said all of the above, the following is worth considering:
In my humble view (and who am I to have a viewpoint, hence what I intend to mention is merely through the blessings of my teachers), the main reasoning behind the classical Fuqaha’s dislike of women going to the Mosques for congregational prayers is the fear of what they term as “Fitna”. The term Fitna means: mischief, harm, corruption and generally the non-observance of the Shariah rulings. Almost all of the classical jurists state that due to widespread mischief and corruption, women no longer should be going for congregational prayers. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) himself never forbade women from attending the Mosques; rather, he said that women should not be prevented from entering the Mosques. Hence, the jurists (fuqaha) have based their ruling on the position of Sayyiduna Umar and Sayyida A’isha (Allah be pleased with them both), and their position was based on the fear of mischief and harm.
They saw that corruption was rife and widespread in their time; hence, women may be harmed by immoral and corrupt people if they emerged out of their homes. They feared that if women are encouraged to go to the Mosques, it could open the door for unlawful intermingling of the two sexes. The main reason, however, was the fear of women being harmed, as pointed out by Imam Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) in his renowned Radd al-Muhtar and other classical Fuqaha. This is the very reason why some classical Fuqaha permitted old women to attend the Fajr and Eisha prayers, for the immoral and wicked people are asleep at that time. Some even allowed them to go for Maghrib prayers, for the immoral people are normally busy eating at that time. Imam Ibn Abidin then states that if there is a fear of the wicked people loitering around in these prayers times, then it will be disliked for women to go for these prayers also. (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/566)
One should always keep in mind the context in which the Fuqaha were giving such verdicts. Life was very plain and simple. Women in Muslim countries and Islamic societies would normally not emerge out of their homes unless absolutely necessary. The need to emerge out of the house was not like the need we have in today’s complicated world. Hence, Muslim women would remain within the confines of their homes, and emerge outside only in certain unavoidable situations.
Keeping this context in mind, one can easily understand why the classical Fuqaha gave such verdicts. By allowing women to frequent the Mosques, they would be giving women permission to emerge out of their homes - women who would have otherwise not emerged outside. Thus, they feared that Muslim women normally do not come out of their homes, and in allowing (and encouraging) them to go to the Mosque, there is a possibility that evil and wicked people may jump at the chance of harming them.
If we were to apply this context to the modern era - where women are all over the market areas, shopping malls, shopping centres, streets and roads - it seems unfair to completely shun them from entering the Mosques. As one scholar of piety and knowledge once said: “We don’t mind women frequenting the most disliked of places in the sight of Allah (abghad al-Bilad) which are the bazaars (aswaq), but we have a major problem with women coming to the most beloved of places (ahab al-Bilad) in the sight of Allah, which are the Mosques!
Therefore, when women are allowed to go to the Bazaars, markets, shopping malls and other such places (and justifiably in many cases), then it does not seem right to completely shun them from coming to the Mosques. The main wisdom behind the position of the classical jurists was the fear of harm and corruption, and in the modern times women (Muslim, non-Muslim, practising and non-practising) are all over the place, hence if evil and wicked people would want to cause any harm to them, they would surely look out for them at other places rather than the Mosques. Also, women generally would be safe in our times from being harmed whilst going to the Mosques.
Secondly, at times there may be a genuine need for women to go to the Mosques, such as when travelling and the prayer time is about to come to an end. There have been many cases where a sister had to miss her prayer, for there were no facilities for women to pray in the Mosque. At times, women may need to go to the Mosque to learn sacred knowledge, attend a spiritual gathering and other such matters, hence she may need to pray her Salat in the Mosque.
Keeping the above in mind, and given the times we are living in, I believe that both of the following two extremist approaches should be avoided with regards to women going to Mosques, and we should adopt the middle way, as “the best of ways is the middle way”:
Some people are quite extreme in their support and encouragement for women attending congregational prayers to the point that they consider women who wish to pray at home to be deprived of the blessings and benefits of praying in the Mosque. At times, men and women are seen praying in the Mosque in such an informal and casual manner that the rules of Shariah are overlooked. The rules of Hijab are violated and men and women are quite willing to intermingle freely and openly in the Mosque. They think that actions are according to their intentions; hence, even if the means taken are unsound, it seems not matter to them. In some Mosques, on the occasion of Eid and other celebrations, women and men dress like they are attending some sort of a fashion show, with the women dressed up in all their make up and powerful fragrance.
This was actually what Sayyiduna Umar and Sayyida A’isha (Allah be pleased with them both) were thinking of when they prevented women from going to the Mosques. One should always remember that “ends don’t justify the means” hence it is vital that in order to do an act of good, one must take means that are sound also. Open and casual intermingling of the sexes is prohibited in Shariah; hence, it will not be permitted for women to go to the Mosque in such a context.
On the other hand, we see that some people are quite extreme in preventing women from attending the Mosques that they don’t even have a designated place for women to pray. If a sister was travelling and was out of the house due to a need, and the time for prayer came in, what would she do? In many cases, women are forced into knocking on people’s doors to allow them to pray. If they are unsuccessful, they have no choice but to miss their prayers. This is another form of extremism which I believe should be avoided.
The middle way is that women should be encouraged to offer their regular prayers at home, and not come to the Mosque habitually without having a need to do so. At the same time, every Masjid should have facilities for a woman’s prayer area, so that if a sister is travelling she is able to make Wudu and offer her prayers without having to miss her prayers altogether. In the case of women coming to the Mosque, extreme care and precaution should be taken of observing the rules of Hijab, so that there is no fear of any Fitna. Both brothers and sisters should have separate entrances, and open intermingling of the two genders must be avoided. Sisters should also be wary that going to the Mosque should not lead to the non-fulfilment of their other household duties.
I believe this is the balanced approach that may be adopted in the west given the times we live in. Ultimately, the main objective of the slave, male or female, is to seek the pleasure of Allah Most High and not satisfy one’s own desire and wish. Hence, one should be content with the command of Allah Most High and His beloved Messenger (Allah bless him & give him peace) whether it suits one or otherwise. Therefore, Muslim women should understand that praying at home is just as equal in the sight of Allah to men praying in the Mosque. May Allah Almighty give us all the true understanding of Deen, Ameen
And Allah knows best
Muhammad ibn Adam
Darul Iftaa
Leicester , UK
alkashif Says:
“That PDF is trash put together by another branch of Salafis that are woefully ignorant of the reality of the Najdi movement. …*sigh*”
And we should believe you because? I mean your blog doesn’t place you in the greatest realm of objectivity either… Your extreme sufi positions would put you at odds to what this article is saying for sure. Note that I am not saying anything about the article’s objectivity or content (I have not researched it yet), but I think your comments should be taken with a BIG bottle of salt.
Instead, why not let the readers decide as to the merit of the article based on its content, references, and arguments, instead of being discouraged by your ad hominem attack.
Funny, you say ad hominem attack, and then case in point you refer to my blog. I say that this PDF is trash because it is poorly researched, full of misconceptions, ad hominem attacks, sources non muslim works on Muslims, and attempts to cover up the ideological traces that have indeed been a cause for the antics of people like Bakri, Chawdhury, et al. And on top of all that, they cant even be profesional enough to spell peoples names correctly. Last time I checked, it was Zaid Shakir and not Ziyad Shakir. It was Hamza Yusuf and not Hamza Yoosuf.
The biggest grievance I have with that PDF is that is intellectually ignorant or dishonest regarding the nature and beliefs of the Najdi state. They try to argue that the Najdis never rebelled against the Ottoman Khilafah or made Takfir of it. They did make Takfir of it and rebel against it, and to suggest otherwise is completely disingenuous.
The collection of Najdi essays and Fatwas are crammed full with outright Takfir of the Ottoman state-all found in al-Durar al-Saniyyah and Mujmu Muallafat al-Shaikh.
And it is not true that the Najdis were not ruled by the Ottomans at that time-contrary to what is claimed in that PDF.
So, while I dont belive in the fear mongering of people like Shwartz or Kabbani, I do believe that there is a Najdi influence among these ”radicalized” youth there in the UK. It is an undeniable influence, and those who are salafi and dont take that path, Ill be blunt with my opinion and say that this is despite the actual teachings of the Najdis (im speaking of the ideology of Takfir, not violent actions which is another level).
I dont believe every claim made against the early Najdi movement, but at the same time, I do not for one minute believed in the lily white sanitized version that it presented in salafi apologetic works published in Saudia
was salam.
Asalaamu ‘alaykum
I have to agree with Umar Lee, Muslims are too quick to jump on the bandwagon of conspiracies. As Muslims we need to deal with hard substantiated facts and not conjecture. Indeed, it was conjecture that Allaah condemns in the Qur’an concerning the very crucifixion of Jesus, son of Mary.
And Allaah says: “Do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, sight and feelings of the heart will be inquired into (on the Day of Judgment).”
And He says: “Truly conjecture cannot avail against the Truth.”
It has to be said that to postulate Najd (Saudi Arabia) having some influence over the radicalisation of these youth is preposterous. Anyone that knows the background of Bakri, Brooks et al. knows that there is no connection to be made whatsoever.
The ideology of Takfeer is something that was popularised by none other than Sayyid Qutb whilst fomented by his predecessor and founder of the Muslim Brotherhood Hasan al-Banna. To say that the prevalent ideology of takfeer stems from Najd is ludicrous.
For one thing, the very shuroot and qawaa.id of takfeer differ so remarkably between the two strains, if you will, that they are mutually exclusive. Take the single most grievious distinction - the issuing of mass takfeer upon a whole ummah. Where in ad-Durar as-Saniyyah was this alluded to?
It is because of this mass takfeer and the corrupt idea that there exist absolutely NO MUSLIM COUNTRIES that has led to the spread of this poisonous extremism of takfeeri thought by the neo-kharijites.
Hence, alkashif’s “opinion” is merely hot air. It is a case of a lie hidden between two truths, and he needs to go read into this vast subject with a fine tooth comb before forwarding vacuous “opinions”.
Wa salaam
Incidentally, Hasan al-Banna and his predecessor Sayyid Qutb definitely weren’t “Wahhabis” were they? Hasan al-Banna in fact has more in common with alkashif’s cohorts than he does with Salafism. As is well known, Al-Banna was a grave-worshipping Sufi who used to call upon the dead for aid and assistence and gave his bay’ah to the Husaafi Shadhilee tariqah (path):
http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/banna.htm
http://al-ibaanah.com/cms/pdf_files/15.pdf
Hence, it is ironic that alkashif audaciously attempts to make a connection between Salafism and these extremists, when the reality is that their radicalisation stems from none other than the father of the neo-kharijites - a Sufi - something alkashif is a staunch promoter and supporter of.
Furthermore, Sayyid Qutb’s ‘aqeedah had more in common with Sufism who believe in wahdatul wujood, hulool, kashf, bakaa, fanaa, etc. than it did with Salafism. Thus one could quite convincingly argue that Qutb’s radicalisation was because he had an errant understanding of the fundamentals of Islam due to him holding a corrupt Sufi-oriented understanding. Such an argument would be much stronger than alkashif’s hot-headed “opinions”.
What do they say about throwing stones at others when living in glass houses yourself?
a) bakri is charlatan…no body actually knows of his history.
b) these guys are a bunch of inane idiotic youth who are pawns in the hands of govt.
c) hassan al banna wasnt a takfiri
niqab is more about culture? hmmmm
Salam Alaikum al-Kashif,
“The collection of Najdi essays and Fatwas are crammed full with outright Takfir of the Ottoman state-all found in al-Durar al-Saniyyah and Mujmu Muallafat al-Shaikh.”
Some of this is true, although there was a difference amongst the scholars of the Najdi call (Aimmah al-Dawah al-Nadiyyah) as to whether they were to be made khuruj on or not. Obviously though certain political goals would override any objectivity in variant opinions when it comes to application. see below.
“And it is not true that the Najdis were not ruled by the Ottomans at that time-contrary to what is claimed in that PDF.”
This point however is one of contention. Those of Hail and several northern cities of Qasim and those of Najd that were closer to Qasim and under the allegiance of al-Rashid were. Other farther into Najd and several of the Gulf lying areas were not, as well as the arid lands outside of Taif (Those not under the authority of the Yemen). In general it wasnt much of a place to rule anyways, being mostly barren desert land, as much of it is today.
Additionally, it is important to differentiate between the time period in which Muhammad Ibn AbdulWahhab appeared and allied with Muhammad ibn Saud, the positions taken in that period towards the Ottomans (and their allies) and those of the later periods of in-fighting between the Sons and grandsons of Muhammad ibn Saud and the scholars that supported them.
It is in this latter period that (if memory serves me correctly) more incendiary literature against the Ottomans developed, and then were later “toned down” when they went into wide circulation.
It is definitely an interesting period of history, and one that needs to be studied more objectively both in its religious, cultural, and historical contexts.
Those contexts however should never blind a person from coming to terms with the theological truths when they become self-evident.
Wa alaykum as salam Hood wa jazakum Allah khaira.
I will respond to brother Abu Adeebah after a while in sha Allah. I think you of all people are aware of the strong connection many of the Takfiris make with the works of the A’imah al-Dawah. This can not be denied. There are too many details twists and turns to warrant one group saying that they were the epitome of evil, while another group says that they were the greatest thing the Ummah has seen since sliced khubz. There is blood on there hands and there is an unmistakable influence from the Ikhwan man Ata’ Allah (not the ikhwan al-Muslimun)
http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_Saudi.pdf
See pp.29-31 of the above with regards to the reality of Bakri et al.
As for the claims of “alKashif”, then they have all been dealt with objectively by the researchers of the paper above.
Bismillah,
Okay, first of all, we should understand that this issue is multi faceted and there are lots of details that could be discussed, but I will suffice with this:
1. Did the Najdi scholars make Takfir of the Ottoman Khilafah? The facts show that indeed they did, contrary to what is being stated by the brothers who authored that PDF. There are tons of quotes to establish this, but I will suffice with a few here (and these are not my translations, although I have the original Arabic with me-i hate double A’s, E’s and O’s):
A. Shaykh ‘Abd al-Lateef ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Hasan (died 1293H):
In one of his letter to Shaykh Hamad ibn ‘Ateeq regarding the case of ‘Abdullaah ibn Faysal, the imaam at that time, seeking help from the ‘Uthmaaniyyoon against his brother Sa’ood ibn Faysal, when the latter defeated him in the battle of Joodah during the events around the year 1289H, he said:
“And ‘Abdullaah had a legitimate rule and bay’ah in general, but later on I found out that he had corresponded with the kaafir state (i.e. the ‘Uthmaani state), sought help from it and brought it to the lands of the Muslims. So he became like the one about whom it is said [poetry]:
And the one who seeks protection with ‘Amr in his difficulty,
Is like the one who seeks protection with fire from the burning heat.
So I spoke to him verbally, objecting to his action and declaring my disassociation from it, and I spoke harshly to him, telling him that this is destruction of the fundamentals of al-Islaam and uprooting of its bases, and that it was this and that and the other… the details of which conversation I cannot remember right now, so he expressed repentance and regret, and he made much istighfaar. And I wrote, at his dictation, to the governor of Baghdaad: “Allaah has sufficed, made easy, and arranged for the people of Najd and the bedouins that which has fulfilled our need, in shaa’ Allaah. So we are no longer in need of the army of the state,” and words to that effect. And I believe he sent the letter and disassociated himself from what had occurred, and it was a long letter.”[End of quote.]
[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/184, and Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa wal-'Irfaan, events of the year 1289H, from the first volume.]
Shaykh ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Abd al-Lateef (died 1339H):
He was asked – rahimahullaahu ta’aalaa – about the one who did not make takfeer of the state – i.e. the ‘Uthmaani state – and the one who brought them to fight against the Muslims, and chose their wilaayah (authority) and that it was obligatory to wage jihaad alongside them, and about another who did not have that view but rather said that the state and those who brought them were Muslim transgressors (bughaat), and it is not lawful do deal with them except in the way that the Muslim transgressors are dealt with, and that what was taken as booty from the bedouins is haraam. So he replied:
“Whoever does not know the kufr of the state, and does not differentiate between them and the Muslim transgressors, then he does not know the meaning of “laa ilaaha illallaah”. So if he believes, along with that, that the state are Muslims, then this is even worse and severe, because it is doubting the kufr of one who has committed kufr in Allaah and shirk with Him. And whoever brought them and aided them against the Muslims with any form of aid, then this is clear apostasy (riddah).” [End of quote.]
[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 8/242.]
Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn Sahmaan (died 1349H):
He said in one of his poems:
And what is said of the description of the Turks regarding their kufr,
Then it is true, for they are the most disbelieving of the people (akfar an-naas) in the religions.
And their enmity towards the Muslims and their evil,
Grows and increases in the deviation, more than the other sects.
And whoever takes the kaafiroon as awliyaa’ then he is like them,
And there is no doubt regarding his takfeer for anyone with intelligence.
And whoever might ally with them or go towards them for support,
Then there is no doubt as to declaring him a faasiq, and he is in a shaky position.
[Deewaan ibn Sahmaan, page 191.]
And ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn ‘Abd al-Lateef ibn ‘Abdillaah ibn ‘Abd al-Lateef Aal ash-Shaykh said:
“And it is well-known that the Turkish state was an idol-worshipping state, whose religion was shirk and bid’ah, and which used to defend such things…” [End of quote.]
['Ulamaa' ad-Da'wah, written by him, page 56.]
likewise Shaykh Hamad Ibn Atiq wrote a book entitled Sabeel an-Najaah wal-Fikaak min Muwaalaat al-Murtaddeen wal-Atraak (The Path of Salvation and Release from the Alliance with the Apostates and the Turks), regarding the takfeer of whoever aided these armies that were called “Islaamic”!!
[This book is well-known by the name Sabeel an-Najaah wal-Fikaak min Muwaalaat al-Murtaddeen wa-Ahl al-Ishraak (The Path of Salvation and Release from the Alliance with the Apostates and the People of Shirk) instead of wal-Atraak (and the Turks), and the correct name is the one we have mentioned for the following reasons:
a] The original written copy was of this title, and it was from the time of the Shaykh. See Sabeel an-Najaah with the editing of al-Faryaan, page 12.
b] The Shaykh himself mentioned this title in the introductory khutbah of his book Sabeel an-Najaah, page 24.
c] The time of the book’s writing and also its contents point to this title, such as his saying on page 35: “O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and Christians as awliyaa’…” And likewise whoever allies with the Turks becomes a Turki.” And Allaah knows better.]
—–
End of citation
Now, this is the same Hamad Ibn Atiq who said that Makkah was Dar al-Kufr during the rule of the Ottomans, although to my knowledge, that Fatwa is not found in the editions of al-Durar al-Saniyyah that were printed after the 1950s.
2. Did the Najdis rebel against the Ottomans? This depends on if we consider the Ottomans to have ruled the areas of Najd. I agree with brother Hood that it is disputed, mostly among the supporters of the Najdi Dawah itself.
It is said that it was indeed under Ottoman authority for three reasons:
The first is that the ‘Uthmaani state did have nominal rule over Najd, because it ruled al-Hijaaz, al-Yemen, al-Ahsaa’, al-’Iraaq and ash-Shaam, and the taxes of the ameers of Najd used to come to the state via some of these countries.
[See ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah... 1/20, and 'Unwaan al-Majd, 1/97 onwards.]
The second is that even if we were to assume that Najd was independent, the da’wah of the Shaykh had entered al-Hijaaz, al-Yemen, al-Ahsaa’, al-Khaleej, and the outlying areas of al-’Iraaq and ash-Shaam. They attacked Karbalaa’ and besieged Dimashq, and all of these were indisputably under the control of the ‘Uthmaani state.
The third is that the sayings of the imaams of the da’wah are in agreement that the ‘Uthmaani state was dar al-harb
Even if for arguments sake we say that the Ottomans did not rule Najd, they still made mass Takfir of it and fought it.
Now, in brief response to some of what was brought up by brother Abu Adeebah:
You said:
It has to be said that to postulate Najd (Saudi Arabia) having some influence over the radicalisation of these youth is preposterous. Anyone that knows the background of Bakri, Brooks et al. knows that there is no connection to be made whatsoever.
Response:
I respectfully disagree. If you are aware of the literature that is produced by the ”takfiris” who call themselves ”al-Jihadiyah al-Salafiyah”, you know that one of the main sources for many of their views is al-Durar al-Saniyyah. The Najdi scholars made Takfir of the Ottoman state, and on top of that, they made takfir on those Muslims of the Arab tribes that sided with the Ottomans against the Najdis. The Takfiris are quick to point out that the modern day nations are far more evil than the Ottomans, thus the Najdi Fatwa provides them with ample evidence that not only are the rulers Kuffar, but also those that support them.
When the Takfiris speak of Kufr bil Taghut, they almost exclusively quote from the Najdi scholars on this point, so yes, the influence is there.
Now the debate is also extended to the position of the late Najdi scholars (many of whom they quote) vis a vis the beduin tribes that were settled called the ”Ikhwan man Ata” Allah (the brothers of those who obey Allah), who were seen as the cream of the Najdi movement. There is alot of dispute and history regarding this group that was eventually wiped out by King Abdul Aziz, but it is plain to see that the modern salafi jihadi groups get their inspiration from the Ikhwan man Ata” Allah.
Now brother Abu Adeebah, if you are saying that Bakri, Brookes, et al did not get influenced by the Najdis, and by that you mean the modern day Salafi scholars in the kingdom, then I will be the first to agree with you on that. But the facts show, through their own literature, that the Najdis scholars (referred to as the Imams of the Dawah) before them definitely did influence them.
Now some might argue that the Ikhwan Man Ata” Allah were given to extremes and for that reason, they were fought by King Abdul Aziz. This is probably the case, however, we are still presented with the clear Takfir the Najdi scholars made on the Ottoman state and those Muslims that supported it over the Najdis-not to mention their Takfir of common Muslims (but that is a whole different can of worms).
That is one thing, then there are other examples of extremism in Takfir emanating from the Najdi scholars. For example, al-Sahman himself, made blanket Takfir on the Ikhwan Man Ata” Allah movement, even though their crime was rebelling against the Najdi authority (which is not Kufr as you know), as well as some other brigandage and killing of innocents (which as horrible as that is, it still not Kufr). On top of that, al-Sahman said that those who left the Ikhwan and came under the authority of the Najdi rulers, were still Kuffar and their repentance was still not accepted, until they also make Takfir on the Ikhwan and participate in fighting against them. This is in al-Durar al-Sanniyah as well.
You said:
The ideology of Takfeer is something that was popularised by none other than Sayyid Qutb whilst fomented by his predecessor and founder of the Muslim Brotherhood Hasan al-Banna. To say that the prevalent ideology of takfeer stems from Najd is ludicrous.
Response:
You might be surprised to hear that most salafi jihadi literature, quotes very little from Sayyid Qutb. As I stated previously, most of the quotes they use to defend their positions are coming from the works of the Najdi scholars.
I would also be curious if you could provide an example of how Hasan al-Banna was extreme in Takfir.
You said:
For one thing, the very shuroot and qawaa.id of takfeer differ so remarkably between the two strains, if you will, that they are mutually exclusive. Take the single most grievious distinction - the issuing of mass takfeer upon a whole ummah. Where in ad-Durar as-Saniyyah was this alluded to?
Response:
I have no idea what you are saying here. As for the Shurut and Mawani of Takfir used by the salafis jihadis, I assure you, they are no different than that of the Najdi scholars (which in general is not disputed by anyone-meaning those Shurut and Mawani are not the point of contention-although your own particular branch of Salafiyah might contend with the Najdi scholars and their position on al-Udhr bil Jahl). If you are referring to the Shurut and Mawani mentioned by the al-Muhajiroun and other such groups in the UK, im afraid that I would have to agree with you there. I have read some of their writings on that in English, and it is horrendous. As for blanket Takfir, are you sure that the likes of Bakri do that? I dont think they do.
You said:
It is because of this mass takfeer and the corrupt idea that there exist absolutely NO MUSLIM COUNTRIES that has led to the spread of this poisonous extremism of takfeeri thought by the neo-kharijites.
Hence, alkashif’s “opinion” is merely hot air. It is a case of a lie hidden between two truths, and he needs to go read into this vast subject with a fine tooth comb before forwarding vacuous “opinions”.
Response:
Well, perhaps we should make a distinction between saying: ”no Muslim countries”, and saying: ”no Islamic countries”. I dont recall anyone saying the former, while many scholars says the latter-even if only in principle. Salih al al-Shaikh says that-while excluding Saudia of course. To say that there are no Islamic countries is in no way a blanket Takfir of the inhabitants of that country. It is rather a statement of fact that those countries do not rule by the Shariah of Allah-which is the deciding factor for a Dar being Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Kufr according to the Jamhur.
you said:
Incidentally, Hasan al-Banna and his predecessor Sayyid Qutb definitely weren’t “Wahhabis” were they? Hasan al-Banna in fact has more in common with alkashif’s cohorts than he does with Salafism. As is well known, Al-Banna was a grave-worshipping Sufi who used to call upon the dead for aid and assistence and gave his bay’ah to the Husaafi Shadhilee tariqah (path):
response:
You should then be consistent and make Takfir on him (or at least say that he is a Mushrik although withholding Takfir-which seems to be a position of a large number of the Najdi scholars), for there is no excuse for ignorance in matters of clear Shirk-which is the position of the Ash’aris as well as the Najdi scholars themselves. But you wont make Takfir on him though, nor will the Salafi scholars that you follow. If it was the case that the ”kharijites” views stemmed from Tasawwuf, then why arent there Sufis blowing themselves up in Madrid, London, Baghdad, etc? Surely, the Asl would be more prone to do that than the Fara’.
I am not making a connection between Salafism as a large modern group and extremism. I am making a connection between the extreme views of the Najdi scholars of old and todays extremism. If modern Salafi scholars choose to reject those views, then that is very good.
I also say what I say bearing in mind that the Salafis are not monolithic. Of course, you dont see it that way, because in your belief, your group are the only real Salafis.
You said:
Furthermore, Sayyid Qutb’s ‘aqeedah had more in common with Sufism who believe in wahdatul wujood, hulool, kashf, bakaa, fanaa, etc. than it did with Salafism. Thus one could quite convincingly argue that Qutb’s radicalisation was because he had an errant understanding of the fundamentals of Islam due to him holding a corrupt Sufi-oriented understanding. Such an argument would be much stronger than alkashif’s hot-headed “opinions”.
Response:
Just be honest brother and admit that you have absolutely no idea what the mainstream Sufi view is regarding matters such as Wahdtul Wujud, Kashf, Baqa, Fana, etc (with the previous three being expounded upon by none other than Ibn al-Qayyim in his Madarij al-Salikin). Sayyid Qutb was not a Sufi, as much as you would have people believe otherwise.
I know of many Salafi brothers that you would refer to as Qutubis/Sururis et al, yet they have put forward far more convincing arguements against the Takfiris than your sub group of Salafis. I dont discourage you from countering their venom, for surely all of us get affected by it in these countries where we live, but we should also be intellectually honest as much as we can. Yes, you might differ with me, but I do have solid facts to back up what I assert.
was salam.
Kashif, I find your use of the “Najdi” term interesting… I am sure you seek to express some connotations here… that in itself drives much credibility from arguments, because it shows some of your own contempt for anything that comes from that region.
You are right indeed that salafis are not monolithic… the silent majority of those who are upon the Aqeedah of the salaf us saleh is slowly but surely emerging.
Well, all you have to do is ask. When I say Najdi, I refer to the those who are referred to as the A’aimmah al-Dawah of Najd from all 3 of the Dawlahs that ruled. As far as connotations, I suppose you are alluding to the narrations regarding Najd. That didn’t cross my mind, but yes, I believe that they apply to Najd as well as Iraq, even though there are great scholars and people from those regions as well. Do you agree or disagree with the points I brought up in my previous comment?
One point that is important to remember is that whatever was said and whoever has said it, statements of the scholars cannot be lifted to the level of the Sacred texts.
Anytime texts other than the Quran and Sunnah are used, they must be quantified by the former. One of the biggest problems with the modern Takfiri movement is that they wish to take the statements of scholars such as the Aimmah al-Dawah al-Najdiyyah and raise them to the level of being sacrosanct.
They are not the only ones doing this (i.e. almost every group, modern and otherwise is guilty of this) but one thing that you will find is that even though those modern takfiri movements use the statements of the Najdi scholars to legitimize their positions, they have no real connection to them as far as tutelage goes, at least to those that are seen as the “Kibar” from amongst them, nor even those that are seen as moderately “high” in the student hierarchy.
Several scholars of Najd have told me that one problem that emerges when people read the works of Aimmah al-Dawah is the lack of contextualizing the statements made, and they thus raise the implications of those statements to the level of sacrosanct, when in fact they may not or are not be applicable at all.
As for this back and forth of comments, in summary the type of water that you say I cant make Wudhu with, I don’t even call water. If you’ve studied fiqh I think you’ll get what I mean.
Jazakum Allah Khairan
You said:
They are not the only ones doing this (i.e. almost every group, modern and otherwise is guilty of this) but one thing that you will find is that even though those modern takfiri movements use the statements of the Najdi scholars to legitimize their positions, they have no real connection to them as far as tutelage goes, at least to those that are seen as the “Kibar” from amongst them, nor even those that are seen as moderately “high” in the student hierarchy.
I see what you are saying, but then again, what does one make out of Shaikh Hamud al-Uqla’ who was one of the direct students of Muhammad ibn Ibrahim? Not to mention his student al-Khudair and Nasir al-Fahd. They do seem to have a connection with the tutelage so it seems. What are your views on this?
Those mentioned were largely seen, by both official and unofficial religious authorities, as being isolationist and of a certain “fringe” of society. I had actually forgot about them.
They are the main Marja’ for the Takfiris (besides Abu Qatadah, and al-Maqdisi-all of whom were given tazkiyah by Shaikh Hamud.
If thats true that would seem to establish a connection between them.
However one of the reasons behind the (mis)interpretations of the Najdi treatises that they held may be their being effected by ideas foreign to their own tradition. al-Uqla was known to speak very highly of Sayyid Qutb. Reading Qutb’s writings then may have had a role in radicalizing some of the more nascent ideas of takfir found in some of those writings.
This wouldn’t be because of Sufi methodology as one commentor mentioned above, but instead from Qutb’s socialist background, and Voltaire-esque view of revolution and revolt.
These views would then be legitimatized by their connection to “tradition” in the form of Najdi treatises. I alluded to some in the last of a series that I wrote on ambiguity.
So the problem remains, and we do have to address it. Those writings are not sacrosanct and of the level of infallibility of the Quran, and as such should be analyzed and critiqued. Those of ambiguity would then come under the scrutiny of correct scholarly interpretation, relation to sacred tradition, and coherence of the theory that is being presented.
Allah knows best.
And JazakAllahu Khairan alKashif
I appreciate the manner in which you have carried yourself and replied.
Thanks as well for repping the Prophetic model of discussion and debate which I do hope that we all can be blessed with when comment and speaking amongst brothers.
Wa Iyyak brother, I do wish that I had chosen my words more carefully when I called the PDF ”trash”. I do have serious problems with it of course, but I value being objective as much as I can. There are no doubt differences among the Muslims, but we must all come together to work for the greater good of the Ummah. A part of that should be coming together to counter the mutilation of our Din by those that have taken the path of extreme liberalism (pro-regressives), and extreme Takfir and nihilism-which I honestly feel are two sides of the same coin.
I second Hood on his last comment…and I second you on your last line of your last comment. Those 2 are the real challenges in Islamic refutation, and let us not forget the many, many Muslims who are simply Muslims by name.
And Alkashif, while we are talking about coming together against common adversaries, let us not forget the Shias… those who would build shrines for the murderer of Umar (RD).
Abu Lulu: The Shrine of the Umar’s (RD) Murderer
And somewhat relevant to many of the topics here, Wahhabi Myth: Debunking the Bogeyman
One of the students od knowledge has just completed a PHD at the Islamic University of Madinah on the a’imatu Da’wah from Najd and the doubts regarding linking them to open takfeer leading to tafjeer and so on. Abu Salah Muhammad Hisham mashaallaah has just completed this research and an answer to Kashif’s quotes above.
Inshaallaah, i pray i have time to translate some of the replies to these doubts. We ask Allaah to guide us to the truth, Indeed Allaah is the beneficent , the Merciful.
I asked Sheikh Ubayd al-Jaabiree and he says that it was a known fact that during the last years of the Ottoman rule, the rule of Islam was not being applied in fact shirk was widespread. I even have photos of Baqee’ before the da’wah of Muhammad Abdulwahhab rahimahllaah and how it looked. Tombs of companions being worshipped besides Allaah.
If the takfeeris have taken some quotes from the Aimatu Da’wah to establish their takfeer then they also do that with the Qur’an as you all well know, they misquote verses from the Quran and ahadeeth. I even remember one Hizbutahreeri who used Muhammad Abdulwahaab’s Nawaaqid al-Islam to establish his own understanding of takfeer. Whereas if he read his Usool 6 then he will see that Muhammad Abdulwahhab is not saying what he desires with regards the rulers.
Kashif, may Allaah guide me and you to the truth, your quotes regarding some of the scholars such as Sheikh Abdullateef ibn Abdulrahman ibn Hasan does not give a clear picture on these scholars position on Takfeer. since, for example, Sheikh Abdullateef ibn Abdulrahman ibn Hasan himself goes against “takfeer that is Islamically illegitamate without a clear proof for this goes against what the scholars of Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah were upon and this way (of illegitamate takfeer) is the way of ahlul Bida’ah and misguidance and also from not having fear and piety from what eminates from their speech and action.”[Ar-Risaail wal Masaail an-Najdiyyah (3/20)]
The takfeer that was made was not like sayid qutb who made takfeer of whole societies but rather takfeer of particular individuals based upon the above quote. A mistake could have been made but the overall methodology of establishing the proof before making takfeer was established and ascertained by the aimatu Da’wah.
This shows that a little knowledge can be dangerous without understanding and sitting with Ahlu Ilm to clarify matters before rushing to put them out on the internet causing confusions. These are characteristics of Isolationists.
It is known that sayid Qutb’s influence with regards takfeer is an established fact and those who went out against the rulers in Saudi had used his quotes and he was praised amongst their youth. Salman al-Awdah himself called Sayid Qutb Imam of guidance. Safar Hawali in his book Dhaahirat al-Irjaa praises Sayid Qutb and calls him shaheed.
I will ask you sincerely, who from the scholars alive today say what you are saying and hold your methodology? Many shy away from this question as i have seen from many who raise their head to speak without knowledge. Why? because that way their roots will be known. and is is said ‘from their fruits you shall know them.’
Alhamdulillaah, we do not shy away from this question for truth is clear its night is like its day none strays from it except that they are destroyed. Our beloved sholars, the likes of Sheikh ibn Baz, Sheikh al-Albaani, Sheikh Ibn Uthaimeen rahimahumAllaah and none of them said what you are saying. So name your men and their understanding of these issues.
Im sorry Akhi, I did not see your comments until today, so I hope you still come around here to read my response.
You said:
I asked Sheikh Ubayd al-Jaabiree and he says that it was a known fact that during the last years of the Ottoman rule, the rule of Islam was not being applied in fact shirk was widespread. I even have photos of Baqee’ before the da’wah of Muhammad Abdulwahhab rahimahllaah and how it looked. Tombs of companions being worshipped besides Allaah.
Well, if major Shirk was in fact being applied in the last years of Ottoman rule without dispute, then everything the Najdi scholars wrote about them would be correct and on point wouldn’t it. If it was an established fact that Shirk was widespread, and that I was condoned, called to, and supported by the leaders of the Ottomans, then I don’t see what is so incorrect about what the Najdis said. There is no excuse for ignorance in matters that are major Shirk-as is the established and dominant opinion of the Najdi scholars.
So here we have a bit of a dilemma. There are some Salafis going around saying that the followers of Ibn Abdil Wahab did not make Takfir of the Ottoman Dawlah, and some are saying that they did. There is no doubt that the Najdi scholars did make Takfir of the Ottomans in my mind-as the evidence is overwhelming, so your average salafi will have to either:
1. Concede that what the Najdis said is true, and thus as a consequence, stop going around saying that the followers of Ibn Abdil Wahhab didn’t make Takfir of the Ottomans
2. Openly come out and say that the Najdi scholars were clearly incorrect in their judgment upon the Ottoman state.
Regarding Baqi’ and what you term “tombs of companions being worshiped besides Allah’’, may I kindly ask, how you were able to ascertain from these photos that the people were actually worshiping the companions?
You then said:
If the takfeeris have taken some quotes from the Aimatu Da’wah to establish their takfeer then they also do that with the Qur’an as you all well know, they misquote verses from the Quran and ahadeeth. I even remember one Hizbutahreeri who used Muhammad Abdulwahaab’s Nawaaqid al-Islam to establish his own understanding of takfeer. Whereas if he read his Usool 6 then he will see that Muhammad Abdulwahhab is not saying what he desires with regards the rulers.
True, but let us be clear here, when a Khariji or any other innovator quotes the Qur’an, they are not speaking falsehood. It is the meaning that they are giving to the Ayat that are incorrect-as Imam Ali –karram Allah Wajhahu said to the Khawarij: ‘’Kalimat Haqq urida biha Batil.’’- A word of truth used where falsehood is intended.
On the other hand, many of the statements from the Najdi scholars are considered to be false in and of themselves by scholars of another persuasion, so I don’t see there being a parallel here between their words, and the words of Allah , in terms of how they are misused. I get what you are trying to say, however, all of us concedes that the Quran is the truth, but not all of us concede that all of the words of the Najdi scholars is the truth.
You said:
Kashif, may Allaah guide me and you to the truth, your quotes regarding some of the scholars such as Sheikh Abdullateef ibn Abdulrahman ibn Hasan does not give a clear picture on these scholars position on Takfeer. since, for example, Sheikh Abdullateef ibn Abdulrahman ibn Hasan himself goes against “takfeer that is Islamically illegitamate without a clear proof for this goes against what the scholars of Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah were upon and this way (of illegitamate takfeer) is the way of ahlul Bida’ah and misguidance and also from not having fear and piety from what eminates from their speech and action.”[Ar-Risaail wal Masaail an-Najdiyyah (3/20)]
Amin,…
There are those that choose to understand his harsh words in light of that small essay of his, and then there are those that choose to understand that essay in light of his other, more numerous works. I don’t know of a single Takfiri that disagrees with that essay in its content. We can go back and fourth with who said what among them, but it would be much more honest if Salafis actually had the courage to say that many of these Najdi scholars were wrong, and correct some of the excess that they made in Takfir. The fact that they do not do so, only gives fuel to the Takfirs to continue using their works to legitimize their innovations.
You said:
The takfeer that was made was not like sayid qutb who made takfeer of whole societies but rather takfeer of particular individuals based upon the above quote. A mistake could have been made but the overall methodology of establishing the proof before making takfeer was established and ascertained by the aimatu Da’wah.
This shows that a little knowledge can be dangerous without understanding and sitting with Ahlu Ilm to clarify matters before rushing to put them out on the internet causing confusions. These are characteristics of Isolationists.
That’s up for debate. One could very easily understand that the Najdis made wholesale Takfir of the Ottoman society. They called it a land of Shirk, Dar al-Harb, and called their armies armies of shirk and Qubab.
Now, if you want to interpret their words to mean something other than wholesale Takfir that is strikingly similar to that of Sayyid Qutb, by all means do so. But if you do that, do not be so quick to discount those who would offer a similar interpretation to the words of Sayyid Qutb.
You said:
It is known that sayid Qutb’s influence with regards takfeer is an established fact and those who went out against the rulers in Saudi had used his quotes and he was praised amongst their youth. Salman al-Awdah himself called Sayid Qutb Imam of guidance. Safar Hawali in his book Dhaahirat al-Irjaa praises Sayid Qutb and calls him shaheed.
Yes, there is an influence, but I believe that most salafis over emphasize his influence on the Takfiris. Much/Most of the literature of theirs that seeks to justify their innovations comes from the works of the Najdi scholars and not Sayyid Qutb. In fact, there is only a paltry amount of material devoted to the ideas of Sayyid Qutb, and most of those works are pieces written in defense of him, and not expounding upon his ideas.
You said:
I will ask you sincerely, who from the scholars alive today say what you are saying and hold your methodology? Many shy away from this question as i have seen from many who raise their head to speak without knowledge. Why? because that way their roots will be known. and is is said ‘from their fruits you shall know them.’
Did you read my other comments Akhi? Im not a Salafi at all, so im not coming from a certain faction of salafis.
You said:
Alhamdulillaah, we do not shy away from this question for truth is clear its night is like its day none strays from it except that they are destroyed. Our beloved sholars, the likes of Sheikh ibn Baz, Sheikh al-Albaani, Sheikh Ibn Uthaimeen rahimahumAllaah and none of them said what you are saying. So name your men and their understanding of these issues.
Again, im not a salafi, so when you ask me to “name my men”, its irrelevant because you probably wouldn’t know who they are to begin with. From what I gather from your comment, you are from the salafis who don’t believe there are any real scholars outside of Saudia Arabia. Please correct me if you don’t believe that and forgive me for being forward with you.
very judgemental indeed. To correct you, sheikh al-Albaani was not from Saudi Arabia. He is Albanian who lived in Syria and Jordan and was one of the great scholars of hadeeth and fiqh of this time. So your presumption is wrong that i would only refer to Saudi scholars. The foundation is to go back to Allaah and His Messenger sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPANIONS.
I only mentioned these three not to limit the scholars in other parts such as Sheikh Muqbil of Yemen rahimahullaah but these three were no doubt the revivers of this deen this century for they revived the correct belief and worship of the Messenger sallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam. Knowing Arabic would help as you can clearly see that they revived the books of the scholars of the past, from the first three generations.
Many Muslims do not follow this blessed path but fall into, though they maybe sincere, following the understanding of a sufi sheikh who may claim to know the unseen etc. I know you know what i mean after looking at your profile and the numerous sufi sheikhs you have on there and the various innovations they practise such as celebrating the Prophet’s birthday and various strange beliefs such as your sheikh Hamza Yusuf saying:
“The black stone was defined as the “right hand of Allah” as per Ibn `Abbas, which the Muslims kissed the same way a person kisses the hand of a King when entering his home.” [c blogg of kaschif]
Where did he get this statement from and what is its authenticity? Very different from Umar ibn Khattab radiallaahu ‘anhu’s account that he knew the stone was only a stone and he kissed it because the Messenger sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam kissed it. [agreed upon.] It seems you have all this to sort out and you throw a stone at the Aimatu Da’wa without proper research.
What caught my attention was your lack of research in the affair of the aimatu da’wah as you yourself say you relied only on translations and this is dangerous as some translations maybe incorrect for you to use as proof.
In reply, i mentioned the methodology of sheikh Abdullateef ibn Abdulrahman ibn Hasan in takfeer which you should have checked since the foundations of ones belief is what is important. And it is correct, if said, that a group of grave worshippers are mushrikeen for their shirk they are commiting as for specific ruling on individuals then that requires establishing the proof on them. There is a distinction between the two.
Sayid Qutb was not talkning about grave-worshippers was he???? he was talking about
societies mass people not because of shirk they did was it! see the difference. I quoted you political activist who quoted him and praised him.
I know you are not salafi, as for naming your scholars then i know where you are coming from. Scholars are known in everytime and place as they are like the full moon on the night of Badr.
“At the head of every century Allaah will send those who will revive for the UMMAH the affairs of their DEEN.” Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawud
An example Sheikh Al-Albaani revived a manuscript of Iwho mam Ahmed Usool Sunnah in the year 1399h Allaahu Akbar. That is what i mean reviving the correct aqeedah not the sufi liars who call to themselves and say they can help you on the sirat. Clear shirk in Lordship!!
So I pray you see the light of truth based upon authentic knowledge revived by the ulama ahli sunnah wal jama’ah not the likes of Hamza, nuh, ghumari, abu ghuda, hasan saqaf etc. From their fruits you shall know them.
As for the graves being built into tombs and saying that it doesn’t mean that the people were worshipping them. Then a simple answer as if you studied Usool al-Fiqh that what leads to haram is in itself haram. For indeed Abi Hayyaj al-Asdi said Ali radiallaahu ‘anhu said “Shall i not show you what the Messenger sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam sent me with, that you do not leave a picture/idol except that you disfigure it and nor do you leave a grave that is raised except that you level it.” Saheeh Muslim
Compare this to the graves that had domes over them. They didn’t do that just to make it look nice. They did opposite to what the Messenger sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam called them to hence falling into shirk.
Also the pictures you have on your profile is totally contradicting the hadeeth above. And remember the picture makers will be the severest of the ones punished on the day of judgement. I pray Allaah enlightens you to the correct path based upon proof from the Qurana in the Sunnah in the understanding of the companions.
I ask Allaah to give me the strength and knowledge and understanding to root out all of these false arguments, innovations, shirk etc and establish the religion of ALLAH.
These relpies are indeed brief and inshaallaah i am working on some translations of scholarly work past and present to finish off these weak arguments by the help of Allaah.