Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
[quote]
i wonder if abul wahab was a british agent,then wht abt the father of all the fitnas..Ahmed Ali Raza Khan Barelvi...
[/quote]
Do you have proof to show he was a fitna (likewise you wahabis ask for your "shaikh" wahab) ?
Sadiyah don't butt in now please..
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
Then faruk what is this rafeedi, barelve, shirki, zikri labes of? 
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
Hmm, your word or the Grand Mufti of Makkah? Not really a tough choice…
Aĥmed Riđā studied many sciences and fiqh (Sunni religious law) particularly in the Hanafi school. He earned many degrees of authorization in Hanafi. By his own affirmation, the most important one was from the Mufti of Makkah, Shaykh Ábd ar-Raĥmān as-Sirāj ibn Ábdullāh as-Sirāj. This chain of transmission is claimed to reach back to Abu Hanifah.
Aĥmed Riđā and his disciples were the main initiators of Movement of Pakistan. Along with other prominent Muslim religious personalities of the period such as Pir Sayyid Jama’at Ali Shah Naqshbandi, his sons Mawlana Hamid Riđā Khan and Grand Mufti Mustafa Riđā Khan, and student Mawlana Sayyid Naeemuddin Muradabadi, organized Sunni conferences and supported ideas about a separate state of Muslims.
Sadiyah, you are quick to censure us whereas Mr Salafi has questioned the term “innocent” and discretely advocates killing non-Muslims, or should I say Muslims who he doesn’t think qualify as Muslims (takfir at its best). Will you play fair now?
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
Another good link about Wahhabism, pls educate yourselves.
With respect, his daddy and brother disowned him. How can you believe he was a good man, when his own father and brother, religious scholars of the age, felt he was spreading falsehood. The contemporary scholars of his age also rejected his teachings. That’s an indisputable fact that nobody can change. Refute that.
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
TUMS, thank you for the links. I've reviewed some in the past and will review them all again as soon as I get a break from school. The reason why I asked you for a list of scholars is because it would've assisted me as to who exactly are the individuals that you hold in high esteem.
Also, the reason why I asked you this question was because of your initial post where everything started and ended with 'your sheikh.'
As for 'kill the innocent' post, please quote it, so that I can read (for the sake of interest) what it is that was written, as I believe I missed out on it.
Keep in mind I don't always get to read every single word that gets posted.
Soomro, you may wish to lid it. I haven't directed anything to you, nor have I bothered indulging in any sort of conversation with you.
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
read and try to understand post #39
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
Tums u r a joka! man u r 1 funny ignorant blindfollowing person who hasnt got enuff knowledge to quote from his mind rather he quotes from OTHER sites which shows that cant even follow a simple verse in the Qur’aan where Allaah(swt) ORDERS us to verify what we hear or read etc…Allaah(swt) said
O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with a news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done. (Al-Hujurat 49:
you see that Ayah bro?? stick it in yr head or As Allaah(swt) said u will regret what you have do!
i went on to that site u pasted which seems to be yr trademark “copy paste copy paste”
regarding Humphries Memoirs…read this
Humphrey’s ‘Memoirs’ Humphrey’s ‘Memoirs’
**This book 30 was translated into Urdu in India and it was claimed by its publishers that Humphrey was an English spy whose duty was to spy on the Ottoman caliphate in the 18 th Century. He went through training in adopting an Islamic identity and learning Arabic, and then travelled to Basra where he met Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, and a strong friendship developed between the two. The Publishers claim that these memoirs remained hidden until they fell into the hands of the Germans during World War II, who published it as a way of slandering the British government. It was translated into French, Arabic and Urdu. A perusal of this book makes it abundantly clear that it is an imaginary fictional narrative, coined deliberately to discredit Sheikh ibn Abdul Wahhab and his followers by the British. Our evidence to prove the book is a concoction is twofold: historical evidence from its contents, and our fruitless search to find the original English version.
**[ol]
[li]**We began with a trip to the British Library’s Rare Books Section, which contains books printed prior to 1975. There were 72 entries under Humphrey, but none related to our subject. We found one entry under Humphrey’s Memoirs (printed 1734), but these were the memoirs of the Duke of Gloucester who recorded his relations with the ruling family of the time.[/li]
The publishers of the offending book had also given a number of alternative titles such as ‘Colonisation Ideal’ and ‘The English spy in Islamic countries’. Needless to say we found no such book, and neither did our search under ‘spy’ reveal anything useful. The advent of computers has made access to rare and remote books very easy, and we have been forced to conclude after an intensive search that no such book exists and that we have a fabricated translation published by the enemies of the Sheikh ibn Abdul Wahhab. **
[li]Humphrey claims he travelled to Istanbul in 1710 at the age of 20. He returned to London and then travelled to Basrah in 1712 after a long sea journey lasting six months. This claim is irrational as sea travel between England and Gulf was not that long. He also claims to have met Shaikh At Taee, one of the Sheikhs of Basrah. He then met a carpenter of Iranian origins called Abdul Riza with whom he began working, and there he met a. young man who spoke Turkish, Persian and Arabic. He wore the garb of students and was known as Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. [Humphrey’s Memoirs, Colonisation Ideal, The English Spy in Islamic Countries p35) The claim of this acquaintance is clearly false. Sheikh ibn Abdul Wahhab was born in 1703, attaining majority at the age of twelve when his father arranged his marriage. After travelling to the Hijaz for the Hajj, he returned to Najd and stayed with his father to study. He did not travel to seek knowledge until 1722 when he travelled to Makkah, Madina and Basrah. There is thus no possibility of the Sheikh and the fictional Humphrey meeting in Basrah as the dates do not correspond. And all the scholars who have researched the biography of the Sheikh have rejected claims that the Sheikh travelled to Turkey and Persia. (Dr. S. A. Al-Abood, 1 : 188 )[/li]
[li]**The book claims that the Sheikh expressed a desire to travel to Istanbul, but was advised against it by Humphrey for fear of persecution from the Ottomans. He advised the Sheikh to travel to Isfahan instead, and the Sheikh did so. This too is a lie. Syyed Abdul Haleem al Jundi quotes in **‘Al Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab ‘ the victory of the Salafi method’, ‘I discussed this with Sheikh ibn Baz, who denied the journey to Kurdistan and Iran. Sheikh Ibn Baz told me he took this information from his Sheikhs, including the grandchildren of Sheikh Ibn Abdul Wahhab, and especially his own Sheikh, Muhammad ibn Ibrahim’. (Ibid, 1 : 186 )[/li]
[li]**Humphrey claims that the Sheikh declared his da’wah in 1143 AH. This is the only time he uses the hijrah calendar in his book. It also reveals his ignorance of historical facts, as the Sheikh returned to Huraymilah three years before the death of his father in 1153, and declared his da’wah after the death of his father. **[/li][li]**There is yet more evidence that Humphrey was devoid of historical knowledge. Humphrey travelled to Istanbul in 1710, giving the ostensible reason that the British Empire was assigning great importance to its established colonies. The Empire was so vast it was said that the sun did not set within its boundaries. Although the British Isles were themselves relatively small, the extended territories including India, China and the Middle East were extensive and required careful governance. The Ministry for Colonies decided to recruit spies to gather information from the territories, and so Humphrey became involved. ( Humphrey, p. 6 )It is historically inaccurate to place these events at the beginning of the 18 th Century. India at the time was not a colony; the East India Company began trading in the 17 th Century but had no political hold until.[/li]
1757 when Bengal was captured. It began expanding until the rule of the Company was transferred to direct rule from England in 1857. Therefore, there was no Indian colony in 1710. There was also no British colonial involvement in China at the time; Hong Kong did not fall to the British until the Treaty of 1898.
It is therefore clear that the inventor of the Memoirs has let his imagination run riot and abandon historical accuracy. He has set his story at the end of the 19 th Century in the heyday of the British Empire, when the sun truly did not set on its colonies. But in doing so, he has exposed himself to be a writer of fiction, not fact. **
[li]**The author attributes many actions and words to the Sheikh which are at clear odds with the beliefs, teachings and distinctly Islamic character of the Sheikh. There is no need to discuss these filthy slanders in any detail, as the authenticity of the facts in the book has been proven to be false. **[/li][li]In order to lend credibility to his ‘memoirs’, the author sprinkles the novel with stories of plots by the British government to disunite the Muslims; to create ideological and religious upheaval among them; to spread evil among their men and women; to distance them from Arabic, the language of the Qur’an; to encourage the use of national and social languages; to establish missionary schools; and to weaken the position of the Muslims politically and economically.[/li]
I have attempted to prove the fabrication of this book through its historical inaccuracy and doubtful authorship, as I believe that no one else has done so yet. In fact, a book as insignificant as this does not deserve even a second glance, let alone a serious critical study. But from a sense of duty and Amanah, I decided to shed light on the lies contained within it. And Allah knows best the intentions.[/ol]for a more comprehensive studies refer to the fulkl document on http://www.islaam.net/main/display.php?id=246&category=19
by the way this for those who are sincere in there deen. people like Tums hide behind scholars and havent got the brains to verify which we are commanded to do.
on that link there are come accusations against Shaykh al Islaam Ibn Taymeeyyah for more VERIFIED and AUTHENTIC info check out…
http://www.islaam.net/main/display.php?category=37
and just to show the ignorance of these people check out what this sufee said abt Ibn Taymeeyyah…
**Even Dr. Sa’eed Ramadaan al-Buti, who Kabbani happily quotes (pp. 117-134) because he wrote what was in Kabbani’s view a ‘landmark study of the ‘Salafi’ innovation’, is quick to point out the fallacy of the accusations against ibn Taymiyyah: **
**“We are amazed when we see the extremists declaring ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah have mercy upon him, to be an unbeliever. And also at them saying that he was one who held Allaah to be a body (mujassid), and I have studied long and hard as to where I could find a statement or a word from ibn Taymiyyah that he wrote or said which would indicate his holding Allaah to be a body as was quoted from him by as-Subki and others and I have not found anything from him like this. All I found was him saying in his legal rulings, ‘Indeed Allaah has a Hand as He said, and has risen over the Throne as He said, and He has an Eye as He said’.”
Al-Buti adds to this: ****“I referred to the last work written by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari, ‘al-Ibaanah’, and I found him saying exactly what ibn Taymiyyah said…” **
(Nadwa Ittjaahaat al-Fiqr al-Islaamee, pp. 264-265, of al-Buti)
even some of there shaykhs admitted that the accusations against Ibn Taymeeyyah were false.
What more do i need to say??
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
So I'm assuming all of that came from memory? 'Nuff said. Peace and have a good day.
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
no actually i pasted a link to the full file and other when i needed other to read the full document.
theres a difference between mine n yrs. i do it when i need to but you?? u do it everytime u give yr 'proof'!!
i will have a good day indeed. cos i follow the Haqq Insha'Allaah backed by qur'aan and Sunnah.
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
no actually i pasted a link to the full file just incase others need to read the full document..
theres a difference between mine n yrs. i do it when i need to but you?? u do it everytime u give yr 'proof' thers not been 1 time during this discussion where iv felt pressure from the opposition and that says something.
i will have a good day indeed. cos i follow the Haqq Insha'Allaah backed by Qur'aan and Sunnah.
you see bro on my bookshelf you will see many books but you will see a pattern, books against him and then i have books by The Shaykh himself, i have books and articles Against Ibn Taymeeyyah and books that he wrote... and i cross reference all the accusations which i dnt think you have the capability to do.
the arguements by his enemies are Funny, out of context and pure evil!
heres my advice......verirfy!!
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
Thank you for the reference. I don't agree with anything of such sort.
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
post 39 is my post and i asked someone to define to me an innocent from the Shareeah. was there something wrong with that??
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
^ If it's about blowing oneself up in a market place or in a public place, then I'm completely against it.
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
Time to close the thread Sadiyah.
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
yeh and the conclusion is that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhaab is free from the accusations put forward frm the ignorant.
Alhamdullilah!!
Wa Salla Allaahu ‘Ala Nabiyyina Muhammad wa ‘ala Aalihi Wa Sahbihi Wa Sallam
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
salafi, you can bring as much references you want and let us talk with common concerns about Ibne Wahab. You might be master on this topic, as some ppl have dedicated their lives to defend ppl like Ibne Wahab, Ahmed Raza and Ashraf Thanvi. I am not one of those, I just believe in One Allah, One Rasul saw, One Quran. Seerat e Nabi, Sahaba r.a and all four school of thoughts.
I don't think I am wrong as far as beliefs are concerned. Now let me know am I a non-beliver if I don't believe in Ibne Wahab and I dislike him for killing ppl and portraying Islam as a very rigid religion?
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
If you hate him for personal reasons then you may well be wrong because slandering a good person is sinful but it doesn’t make you a Kaafir, but if you hate him because he encouraged what Allaah :swt: ordered (such as Tawheed) and discouraged what Allaah :swt: forbid (such as Shirk) then that would make you a Kaafir, Allaah :swt: knows what’s in our hearts.
Don’t believe everything which comes from the local pulpit without verifying it first, in the end we’ll all go into our own graves alone, we wont have Peer Sahib or Sheikh Sahib to rely on after death and blame for our mistakes.
May Allaah forgive me if I’ve said something wrong.
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
So did he kill only those who were doing shirk? Or any opposer got perished (thats what it sounds like in history of both Ibne Wahab and his sugar daddy Ibne Saud)? There were several innocent people who also got killed in the conquest of other provinces.
Why bringing peer in my conversation, I don’t believe in any of them except Allah. But I don’t like the role Ibne Wahab and later on his followers played, be it fall of Ottoman Khilafa, the new Saudia Arabia and the hypocrites Wahabism has produced.
Ever thought how come die-hard Wahabiz (imam kaaba etc) never spoke against kameenay saudi rulers? Why they have a monsterous doors of Masjid al Haram named Baab-ul-Abdul Aziz etc on Saudi pirates, where as Baabe Umer and Siddque are tiny doors in the pathway b/w safa and marwa, barely readable.
Rest of the world does shirk and biddah and they are supreme authority on tauheed 
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
What is the difference between Deobandis and Wahabis?
Re: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab
firstly bro show proof he killed people.
yr right abt saudis and i totally agree with u n let me tell u sumfin if he was alive, he would have rebelled against the saudis that reckon they agree with him and the Taghoots of Saudi would have been first.
Look at Shaykhs Like Abu Muhammad Al Maqdisi, Nasir bin Hamad al Fahd. they read the Shaykhs books and openly oppose the saudis!!
bro did u not read the letters he wrote?? i provided them as proof that the accusations against him are false. i dont dedicate my life trying to defend him. i simply clear any accusations against him.
by u sayin ‘peer B*****d’ shows u r really following the sunah rnt u??
so show proof he killed or stay silent. and please make sure its solid proof and not a copy paste job from other blindfollowing sites.