Originally posted by bint abee saeed: PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN WITH A SINCERE HEART. THIS MENHAJ IS CLEAR AND THE CREED OF THE SALAFI IS CLEAR. ARE YOU HONESTLY GOING TO REJECT THIS AND SAY YOU DONT WANT TO BE SALAFI/SUNNI/FOLLOWER OF THE SALAFUS SAALEEH? THE REALITY IS THAT THE UMMAH HAS SPLIT INTO DIFFERENT SECTS AND PARTIES. AND THE MESSENGER SAID THE SAVED SECT IS ONE AND THEY ARE THOSE WHO ARE UPON WHAT HIM AND HIS COMPANIONS ARE UPON. SO THIS IS THE SALAFI, HE IS A FOLLOWER OF THE SALAF. INSHALLAH, NOW YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO SALAFIYYAH, SO YOU HAVE TO GO AND SEARCH THE TRUTH, EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE SALAFIYYAH IS NOT THE TRUTH GO AND FIND WHAT TRUTH IS THEN. AND MAKE DU'AH THAT ALLAH AIDS YOU. IT IS ALLAAH WE WILL ALL HAVE TO RETURN TO. MAY ALLAAH SHOW US TRUTH AS TRUTH AND AID US IN ACCEPTING IT, AND SHOW US FALSEHOOD AS FALSEHOOD AND AID US IN ABANDONING IT. AMEEN As-salam 'alaykum, Jazaki Allah Khayran, you should of posted that earlier. For the record, as the sister posted a good article from Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan (translated, hafidhahulllah) I would like to clarify that those websites are good but one should not limit themselves to that, instead, learn arabic as well... Anyway, that is the LAST of my posts on this issue thread, so if somebody does not get a reply from me, It is because I said it is the LAST of my posts on this thread

Originally posted by Sakina: quote:They would say that he was like the ibn Abdul-Wahhab vs. Uthmani's situation. So Allah Knows best. Hasan al-Basree used to say, “Hajjaj is a calamity sent by Allaah, do not try to remove him by force but ask Allah Taa'la.†"The Messenger of Allaah (saaws) said, 'Whoever desires to advise the one with authority then he should not do so openly, rather he should take him by the hand and take him into seclusion (and then advise him). And if he accepts (the advice) from him then (he has achieved his objective) and if not, then he has fulfilled that which was a duty upon him.' Abu_toraab, according to this hadith Ibn Abdulwahhab had no right to revolt against the leader therefore he is in violation of the sharia. How can the salafi follow him then when he violated his own interpretation of the sharia? "Will you bid others to piety and forget yourselves, while you recite the Book? Do you not apply reason? (Qur'an 2:44) I am not asking you to issue a fatwa just what do you think? Are salafis allowed to have discussions after lectures or they just have to memorize what their thaught and never discuss about it? "When they are told, 'Follow what Allah has sent down,' they say , "We will rather follow what we found our fathers following.' What! Even if Satan be calling them to the punishment of the Blaze?" (Qur'an 31:21) Might i ask, what madhab do you follow?

Originally posted by mizz_S.lander: subxanallah, i see, the same people, fighting the same corners at all times, funny i under estimated the hearted felt for salafiya by some individuals on SOL. abu_toraab: i guess you have not figured it out yet; it does not matter what you say, they will always find something else to pick on, within salafiya, whether its there fatwa's, attitude, leaders, caqeeda; anything; don't get upset and annoyed about it, for whom so ever Allah guides, none can misguide, and whom so ever is misguided, no one can guide; in any case, as it is religion, you are all discussing, the basic islamic manners is respect for each other and for others who ur debating about; maca salamah Innamaa 'oreedo an aksheefa hatha ar-rajool. I only want to expose this man (sahal). By the way, Sahal, by any chance, would you be living in Alberta? (I have a relative there and he has similiar ideas, if so )

Originally posted by Sakina: quote:As for now Sakina and Abu Sahal, the point I was making about Abdul-Wahhab vs. Uthami empire should be re-written as As-Saud/Abdul-Wahhab vs Uthami empire. That is because the As-Saud family was there own nation fighting against the Uthamis Abu_toraab which nation are you talking about? Was Najd a nation? On what basis Abdul Wahhab supported the Saudi family according to the sharia? King Fahad's speech Muslims have been happy with the Sharia of Islam ever since it came to rule their affairs and daily lives. In modern history, the first Saudi State was founded on the basis of Islam more than two and a half centuries ago, when two pious reformers, Imam Mohammed Bin Saud and Sheikh Mohammed Bin Abdul-Wahhab (may God have mercy on their souls!) committed themselves to it. If it were not true that the Saud/Abdul Wahhab had an alliance then why the salafis are not condemning this speech and say that he is lying? Please just do an indipendent research on the alliance of the Saud/Abdul Wahhab with open mindedness. The reality is that the Saud needed Abdul Wahhab because people would accept a sheikh reformer easier than a dictator. "O you who have faith! If a profligate (person) should bring you some news, verify it, lest you should visit (harm) on some people out of ignorance, and then become regretful for what you have done." Qur'an (49:6) mizz_S.lander and those of u who are using the likes of Osama bin laden as a role model of what we should do: NB: that salafis have kept their mouth close about him, all they have said is that IF he did step11, then he was wrong and it was not from the sunnah and QUran. many of you should no this, there are guidelines for war and it does not including killing women and children and trees and those who are not fighting you. and a state of war has to be declared which has not been..... so what are u'll supporting him for.....] Have you checked what happened to the women and children of Medina and Makka etc. when the Saudi state supported by Abdul Wahhab waged war on them? What happened to the Uluma of Makka and Medina? And why is it wrong for Osama to wage war ( I do not support Osama at all) but it is alright for the Saudi/Abdul Wahhab to wage war? Don't you agree that Osama is doing the same thing that the Saud/Abdul Wahhab had done in the past? Why the salafi follow this rule only after taking over the cities of the Arabian Peninsula? And please just answer the questions and don't use the exuse that people hate the salafis etc. let's stick to the issues at hand. mizz_S.lander Many ullams have said that every hundred years Allah send someone to revive the sunnah, abdual wahab was one of those It is almost three centuries now who are the 3 reformers that are supposed to come after Abdul Wahhab. in any case, as it is religion, you are all discussing, the basic islamic manners is respect for each other and for others who ur debating about; I agree. We should refrain calling each others names and stick to the issue with proofs and quotations from reliable sources such as King Fahd's speech since it is a famous speech and people cannot deny it's authenticity or from books written by the Salafi or historical facts such as the alliance of the Saud/Abdul Wahhab etc. The answer for all of this lies in the biography of Imam 'Abdul-Wahhab. And I guess you never understood the concept of "husn adh-dhan" when you accuse the King As-Saud of being a dictator who needed Abdul-Wahhab since he was a shaykh. The people where worshipping other than Allah with there idea they call "tawassul" which I am sure the people on SOL would know about. Allah blessed King As-Saud with the acceptance of what Abdul-Wahhab was reminding people about and the ruler worked with the shaykh. And was for ones now, we have Shaykh Al-Albani who just passed away and nobody can deny the fact that he was an expert in Hadeeths and revived, by the permission of Allah, peoples interest in this science.

Originally posted by sahal: quote:As for the issue of Hajjaj, I have come to realize that my position to who was right is currently I DO NOT KNOW. Al-Hamdulillah, I know I have very LITTLE LITTLE knowledge of this deen and am able to admit that. when it comes the oppressor rulers you and yourgroup are too lean and their knowledege is too little to give fatwa and they don't know :mad: too blind :cool: etc. But when it comes the ULUMA, DUAAT you and your group are too strong , too hard , too angry too abusive etc. Which religion ypu're representing? 1) If you consider ME to be a muslim and not a kafir, you would apologize for your horrible remarks against me. You are asking me what religion I represent??!!!! Are you questioning that I am a Muslim?? You are asking, May Allah give me some of your hasanaat because of your horrible question "what religion do you represent?" I say, FEAR ALLAH IN YOUR NAFS 2) About you and claiming "I" am too strong and too angry, and too abusive concerning ulama and duaat, incase you never read the hadith in the 40 hadeeth, the claim is upon the claimant, that means, you claim that I am like that, since you said, "you and your group" so bring your proof. Otherwise, I will just dismiss you as some guy that hates the saudi regime and thus accus us salafis of being haters etc.

I was told that at the time, the empire was split into three. So I was told there are some scholars that said Abdullah ibn Zubayr was wrong and some that say he wasn't. They would say that he was like the ibn Abdul-Wahhab vs. Uthmani's situation. So Allah Knows best. /QUOTE] Who told you? where are those who are saying HAJJAJ was RIGHT and Abdallah ZUbayr (Radhiyaalahu Canhu) was wrong? why don't they come forward and say publicly? why don't you COPY & PASTE their FATWAs as you do in other cases? we want to know them, because they're insulting our BELOVED RELIGION and suspecting it that it doesn't distingusih between RIGHT & WRONG. Between HAJJAJ & ABDULAAH BIN ZUBAYR, Between YAZID and OUR BELOVED PROPHETS GRAND CHILDREN between AL-SAUD REGIME and THOSE NOBLE ULUMA WHO ASKED THEM TO CHANGE THEIR EVIL BEHAVE. we want to know TELL US please? Otherwise we will SUE yoyr group for their MOCK to our RELIGION and descriping it as HANDICAP, IMPERFECT, BLIND, INJUSTICE etc. which cannot distinguish between WRONG & RIGHT. I'm Serious abou turab [/QB] As-salam 'alaykum, I will try my best to have sabr and say the worst I can by calling you disrespectful. 1) NO SALAFI (sabr Abu toraab, don't call sahal a shaytan) CAN SAY HAJJAJ WAS RIGHT IN KILLING ALL THOSE PEOPLE SAID. NO SALAFI CAN SAY THAT. In reality, I never said that. So I will give you the benefit of the doubt and NOT call you a filthy shaytan for trying to make it seem like I was saying Hajjaj was RIGHT. I will just say that maybe you misinterpeted my words. NEVER did I say that some Ulama say Hajjaj was RIGHT. I was saying about Abdullah ibn Zubayr fighting Hajjaj, some claim that he was rebelling. But where I got the thing about the empire was split in three at the time is from the dar-us-salam 3 volume set they have on History, get it if you want to read it for yourself. As for now Sakina and Abu Sahal, the point I was making about Abdul-Wahhab vs. Uthami empire should be re-written as As-Saud/Abdul-Wahhab vs Uthami empire. That is because the As-Saud family was there own nation fighting against the Uthamis. It is different then if I jumped myself, even though I am not the amir, against hte country. If you go to bush and try to kill him, it is different then having a caliphah and starting a jihad. Now for you sahal, I am serious, stop accusing us salafis for liking Hajjaj and Yazid... I am just THIS close for making dua' against you for your DISGUISTING insults... I mean, if you consider me a MUSLIM and not a KAFIR, what can POSSESS YOU (other than a shaytan from the jinn or ins) to accuse me of loving Hajjaj and Yazid? AND YOU, unless I misinterpreted, LIED when you said about the ulama asking the rulers asking the evil government to change their behavoir. That is what Salafiyyah teaches is allowed. For the people to SPEAK to the Muslim rulers and not to try to SHED blood thinking that will bring change....ALLAHU HOWA AL-MUSTA'AN 'AMAA Tasifoon

As-salam 'Alaykum As for the issue of Hajjaj, I have come to realize that my position to who was right is currently I DO NOT KNOW. Al-Hamdulillah, I know I have very LITTLE LITTLE knowledge of this deen and am able to admit that. The reason why is because when asking about and recalling hajjaaj was a tyrant and he murdered many etc. I was told that at the time, the empire was split into three. So I was told there are some scholars that said Abdullah ibn Zubayr was wrong and some that say he wasn't. They would say that he was like the ibn Abdul-Wahhab vs. Uthmani's situation. So Allah Knows best. Hasan al-Basree used to say, “Hajjaj is a calamity sent by Allaah, do not try to remove him by force but ask Allah Taa'la.†Therefore, the moment the news of the death of Hajjaj was reported Hasan al Basree and Umar bin Abdul Aziz bin Marwan fell in prostration to Allah and exclaimed,†The pharaoh of this nation is no more!" At the moment, I am forced to say I am unable to take a preference of the opinions out there on Abdullah ibn Az-Zubayr but about the rulers of saudi arabia currently, I am able to post: I t is authentically reported from the Messenger in the hadeeth of 'Iyaad ibn Ghunum who said, "The Messenger of Allaah (saaws) said, 'Whoever desires to advise the one with authority then he should not do so openly, rather he should take him by the hand and take him into seclusion (and then advise him). And if he accepts (the advice) from him then (he has achieved his objective) and if not, then he has fulfilled that which was a duty upon him.'

Originally posted by Sakina: quote:Shaikh Salih al-Fawzaan was asked, "Is Salafiyyah a hizb (party) from amongst the parties. And is ascribing to them (i.e. the Salafis) a blameworthy thing?" To which he replied, "As-Salafiyyah (i.e. the Salafis) is the Saved Sect, and they are Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. It is not a hizb (party) from amongst the various parties, those which are called "parties" today. Rather they are the Jamaa’ah, the Jamaa’ah upon the Sunnah and upon the Deen (religion). They are Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. The Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, "There will not cease to be a group from my Ummah manifest and upon the truth not being harmed by those who forsake them neither by those who oppose them" and he (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) also said, "And this Ummah will split into seventy-three sects, all of them in the Hellfire but one". They said, which one is this O Messenger of Allaah? He replied, "They are those who are upon what I and my companions are upon today". Hence Salafiyyah is a group of people (i.e. the Salafis) upon the madhhab of the Salaf, upon what the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) and his companions were upon and it is not a hizb from amongst the contemporary groups present today. Rather it is the very old Jamaa’ah, from the time of the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) which inherits (this way) and continues, and which never ceases to be upon the manifest truth until the establishment of the Hour, as he (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) has informed (us)." (Cassette: "at-Tahdheer min al-Bid’ah" second cassette, delivered as a lecture in Hawtah Sadeer, 1416H). Shaikh Saalih Aal ash-Shaikh, Minister of Islamic Affairs of Saudi Arabia, stated, "Muslims are of two groups: Salafis and Khalafis. As for the Salafis, then they are the followers of Salaf us-Saalih (first three generations of Muslims). And as for the Khalafis, then they are the followers of the understanding of the Khalaf and they are also called Innovators - since everyone who is not pleased and satisfied with the path of the Salaf us-Saalih, in knowledge and action, understanding and fiqh, then he is a khalafi, an innovator." Muslims have been happy with the Sharia of Islam ever since it came to rule their affairs and daily lives. In modern history, the first Saudi State was founded on the basis of Islam more than two and a half centuries ago, when two pious reformers, Imam Mohammed Bin Saud and Sheikh Mohammed Bin Abdul-Wahhab (may God have mercy on their souls!) committed themselves to it. (King Fahad's speech) Salafi Dawa, nobody is against Salafi. There is no compulsion in religion. My problem with them is when your leaders and Sheikhs make these type of statements. The Salafi preach that they are the saved sect as you can see from your own sheikhs's statement and lately they are trying to call themselves the Jamaa'ah and saying that the rest of us The Ahlulsunna are not Jamaa'ah. Salafi Dawa what is your reply to these two statements from your leaders one from the sheikhs and the other from the saudi family)? Since we are not following the Salafi (i.e. Abdul Wahhab) but the Ahlulsunna wa Jamaa'ah (i.e. Imam Shafi'i etc.) do we go to hell? In case you never noticed, the shaykh refered to As-salafiyah AS Ahlul-Sunnah wal-jama'ah. And you will not find a REAL salafi saying that Imam shafi'i etc. are not imam's of Ahlul-Sunnah wal-jama'ah...so don't think they are being seperated. Just nowadays, with all the groups, Sunni is just refered to as somebody not shia'. That is why you hear the term ahlul-hadeeth, and imam Ahmad made the statement which can be found in the book "Creed of the Pious Preceddors" by As-Sabooni, that "If Ahlul-Hadeeth are not the saved sect, I don't know what is"...

As-salam 'alaykum, For sister Sakina, I am not a scholar and still follow scholars. I just don't stick to one madhab. However, I already stated what the SCHOLAR ibn Taymiyyah said. The scholars discussed these issues WAY before I came, therefore, it is not befitting that somebody who is low as me in knowledge goes to make my OWN FATAWA, from my OWN mind. As for sahal, I will show you a hadeeth...be right back

The third view is that he was one of the kings of the Muslims, who did good deeds and bad deeds. He was not born until the caliphate of ‘Uthmaan. He was not a kaafir but it was because of him that the killing of al-Husayn happened, and he did what he did to the people of al-Harrah. He was not a Sahaabi, nor was he one of the righteous friends of Allaah. This is the view of most of the people of reason and knowledge and of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. I hope that answers your question sister Sakina, your brother, Abu Toraab

But, I don't expect you to agree with me. In fact, I expect you to try to post your refutation. Don't worry sahal, i don't expect you to agree, but notice how you said we say Hajjaj was right. JAHANNAM IS REAL! you shouldn't act like that...

Originally posted by sahal: quote: when Abdullah ibn Zubayr fought against Al-Hajjaj, the tabie'n that came after agreed that he was WRONG. So, if that is the case for that Salaf, one should really re-check their opinion before critizing the salafis. Allahu Musta'an One of their decieves is the comparison between the leaders of early Islam and Al-saud and their cronies. The early Islam leadrers, desbite their corruption and sometimes their cruelity like Hajaj, they were guarding Muslim borders and never collaberated or appointed by the enemies of ISLAM. Furthermore, who were the Tabiciin who wronged Abdulahi Ibn Zubayr? starnge, he died as a MAN and SHAHID his mother ASMAA BINT ABU BAKAR was with him until his martydom encouraging him not to surrender to the oppressor who killed thousands of MUSLIM population including hundreds of SAHABA and you're saying he was wronged by Taabiciin ! . One faced such TYRANY was wrong! which religion you're presenting for? abu turaab I know this group very well; their bigest enemy is the one who challenge the tyranny like Abdulah Ibnu subayr, Said ibn Jubair, Ibn Taymiyah, Sayid Qutub and many others. They don't like those who are in the prisons of the oppressors or being excuted. In sum, they HATE AWLIYAAULAAH and they love tyrannies like FAHAD, JAMAL BADINASIR, MUBARAK and their likes. WE ALL KNOW IMAM AHMAD ibn HANBAL, when the ruler was killing those that said the Qur'an was NOT created, since the Qur'an is the SPEECH of ALLAH (SWT), IMAM AHMAD never Fought him, and he never called him a kaafir. However, Sahal, there is no way I am going to convince you, I could bring the statement of Ibn Abbas on that ayah on surah in Al-Ma'idah, and many things, but you will probably think we said people like Hajjaj (who killed many sahabi) or Yazeed was right. Instead, this is what the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (WHO YOU THE KADHDHIB ACCUSE US OF HATING, WHEN I LOVE HIM, But still, I don't like your shaykh Qutb) about Yazeed: Shaykh al-Islam described people’s attitudes towards Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah, and said: The people differed concerning Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan, splitting into three groups, two extreme and one moderate. One of the two extremes said that he was a kaafir and a munaafiq, that he strove to kill the grandson of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to spite the Messenger of Allaah and to take revenge on him, and to avenge his grandfather ‘Utbah, his grandfather’s brother Shaybah and his maternal uncle al-Waleed ibn ‘Utbah and others who were killed by the companions of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), by ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and others on the day of Badr and in other battles – and things of that nature. To have such a view is easy for the Raafidis who regard Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmaan as kaafirs, so it is much easier for them to regard Yazeed as a kaafir. The second extreme group think that he was a righteous man and a just leader, that he was one of the Sahaabah who were born during the time of the Prophet and were carried and blessed by him. Some of them give him a higher status than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and some of them regard him as a prophet. Both views are obviously false to one who has the least common sense and who has any knowledge of the lives and times of the earliest Muslims. This view is not attributable to any of the scholars who are known for following the Sunnah or to any intelligent person who has reason and experience. The third view is that he was one of the kings of the Muslims, who did good deeds and bad deeds. He was not born until the caliphate of ‘Uthmaan. He was not a kaafir but it was because of him that the killing of al-Husayn happened, and he did what he did to the people of al-Harrah. He was not a Sahaabi, nor was he one of the righteous friends of Allaah. This is the view of most of the people of reason and knowledge and of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah.

Originally posted by sahal: quote: when Abdullah ibn Zubayr fought against Al-Hajjaj, the tabie'n that came after agreed that he was WRONG. So, if that is the case for that Salaf, one should really re-check their opinion before critizing the salafis. Allahu Musta'an One of their decieves is the comparison between the leaders of early Islam and Al-saud and their cronies. The early Islam leadrers, desbite their corruption and sometimes their cruelity like Hajaj, they were guarding Muslim borders and never collaberated or appointed by the enemies of ISLAM. Furthermore, who were the Tabiciin who wronged Abdulahi Ibn Zubayr? starnge, he died as a MAN and SHAHID his mother ASMAA BINT ABU BAKAR was with him until his martydom encouraging him not to surrender to the oppressor who killed thousands of MUSLIM population including hundreds of SAHABA and you're saying he was wronged by Taabiciin ! . One faced such TYRANY was wrong! which religion you're presenting for? abu turaab I know this group very well; their bigest enemy is the one who challenge the tyranny like Abdulah Ibnu subayr, Said ibn Jubair, Ibn Taymiyah, Sayid Qutub and many others. They don't like those who are in the prisons of the oppressors or being excuted. In sum, they HATE AWLIYAAULAAH and they love tyrannies like FAHAD, JAMAL BADINASIR, MUBARAK and their likes. Sahal, May Allah pardon you, Ameen

Originally posted by sahal: quote: when Abdullah ibn Zubayr fought against Al-Hajjaj, the tabie'n that came after agreed that he was WRONG. So, if that is the case for that Salaf, one should really re-check their opinion before critizing the salafis. Allahu Musta'an One of their decieves is the comparison between the leaders of early Islam and Al-saud and their cronies. The early Islam leadrers, desbite their corruption and sometimes their cruelity like Hajaj, they were guarding Muslim borders and never collaberated or appointed by the enemies of ISLAM. Furthermore, who were the Tabiciin who wronged Abdulahi Ibn Zubayr? starnge, he died as a MAN and SHAHID his mother ASMAA BINT ABU BAKAR was with him until his martydom encouraging him not to surrender to the oppressor who killed thousands of MUSLIM population including hundreds of SAHABA and you're saying he was wronged by Taabiciin ! . One faced such TYRANY was wrong! which religion you're presenting for? abu turaab I know this group very well; their bigest enemy is the one who challenge the tyranny like Abdulah Ibnu subayr, Said ibn Jubair, Ibn Taymiyah, Sayid Qutub and many others. They don't like those who are in the prisons of the oppressors or being excuted. In sum, they HATE AWLIYAAULAAH and they love tyrannies like FAHAD, JAMAL BADINASIR, MUBARAK and their likes. Astaghfirullah

As-salam Alaykum, One must know that Islam is not according to their own desires. One should not mock the salafis because they do not go against rulers. Rather, if anybody is to be mocked, it should be those that follow their opinion over the rules we have to follow in islam. Furthermore, while people are talkinga bout somalia and their dictator, and iran etc., when Abdullah ibn Zubayr fought against Al-Hajjaj, the tabie'n that came after agreed that he was WRONG. So, if that is the case for that Salaf, one should really re-check their opinion before critizing the salafis. Allahu Musta'an