Jazak’Allaah Khair akhiy AllahKaBanda, you have more knowledge and patience than me. :k:
Ukhtiy I normally like your other posts but I don’t agree with your views on this subject.
As for your question, I’m not well versed in politics but I think the Saudi monarchy is like any other Muslim goverment nowadays (I’m not very fond of any of them), ideally we should have a Caliphate over the Muslim world or something like the European Union because Muslims should be one Ummah, if not in Aqeedah and spirituality then atleast we should unite politically for our own individual sakes to protect our rights..
I know you’re probably thinking “Wahhabi Wahhabi” because our people are brainwashed by money grabbing Peer Faqeers to hate on anyone who calls to abandoning intermediatories but just because I’m against tomb-shrines and praying to other than Allah Ta’ala doesn’t mean I identify as Wahhabi, I’m just a Muslim, plain simple freelance Muslim but I’ll agree with anyone who does something in conformity with the Qur’aan and Sunnah whether they are labelled Wahhabi or Sufi, and similarly I’ll disagree with anyone who practices things against Qur’aan and Sunnah.
I believe the four Imams of Fiqh’ (May Allah be pleased with them) and the likes of Sheikh 'Abd Al-Qaadir Geelani (May Allah be pleased with him) were great scholars as was Imam Muhammed Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab (May Allah be pleased with him) but I don’t believe in doing blind Taqleed (following) of any of them, without doubt they were fountains of knowledge and our teachers but only the Prophet (S.A.W) has the right to be blindly followed.
If the Saudi’s or anyone else claiming to be “Wahhabi” does something against Islam then I’ll also be against their practices.
The elders say my own family and village folk were originally Barelvi (about 30 yrs ago), they hardly visited Mosques but would rather make Mannat at the shrine of the “patron saint” of our village who was called Mullah Surkhu Baba, if they were ill they would make Tawaaf of his tomb, if cattle were barren they would be taken to his shrine for a cure, my dad says every Thursday the mothers would send their children to the Tomb to light Diya/Chriaagh/Ghee-Lamp there…
Then the Tablighi Jamaat came and introduced the Deobandi understanding of Islam, the high priest (mufti) of our village accepted the new ideas and the village followed.
I don’t agreee with the Deobandis in everything but they’ve been great in teaching the five pillars of Islam to our village people and turning the shrines into simple graveyards.
I identify simply as a Muslim, not Deobandi, not Barelvi, not Tauheedi, not Ahle-Hadees/Salafi. Just a Muslim.
My dear hari pagrri waaley jannat ke totey, you have comprehension problems.
There is a difference between the actual grave (qabr) and the mausoleum built over it, I want the latter removed not the former.
Since many on here claim to be followers of Imam Abu Haneefah (Rehmatullah alaih), here are some Hanafi sources I googled.
Imaam Muhammed (rahmatullahi alaih) – one of the senior students of Imaam Abu Hanifah (radhiAllaahu anhu) – states:
“We do not deem as correct (and permissible) to cover the grave with more sand than what was taken out therefrom. We regard as Makrooh the building up of graves and plastering them. Indeed Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) had forbidden the building up of and solidifying graves. This is our Mathhab and this is Imaam Abu Hanifah's view also.” [Kitaabul Aathaar, page 96]
^jazakAllah bro, that was the point of the article i posted by Shaykh Haddad that building over graves is only makruh not haram according to 4 madhahib.
Also, i would like to qoute from his article again, please read.
The Ulema cited two reasons for the permissibility of building up the grave or plastering it with gypsum: to protect it frShaykh Ismail Haqqi said in his Qur'anic commentary *Ruh al-Bayan* under the verse "*The mosques of Allah may only be built and maintained by those who believe in Allah and the Day of Judgement, perform the prayers and give zakat, and are afraid of none other than Allah and they are those who are guided"* (9:18):
ShaykhAbd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi said in Kashf al-Nur an Ashab al-Qubur *("The Unveiling of Light from the Occupants of the Graves") the sum of which is that a good innovation that agrees with the objectives of the Sacred Law is called a sunna. Thus, building domes over the graves of Scholars, friends of Allah (awliya') and the righteous and placing covers, turbans and cloth over them is permissible if the objective therein is to create reverence in the eyes of ordinary people so that they will not disdain the occupant of that grave.
If the above were not the case, or if it were not in conformity with the Sunna, then ponder the statement of our MotherA'isha in Abu Dawud's *Sunan: "When the Negus died, we were told * that a light would be seen perpetually at his grave."
[size=4]May Allah enlighten our understandings, our hearts, and our graves with His kindness and forgiveness. Amin.om collapse generally speaking, and to keep it in the public view if it is the grave of a Shaykh, a Scholar, or someone from the family of the Prophet (saws) as mentioned in Ibn `Abidin's Hashiya (1:601).[/size]*
If you think Abdul Wahab was an Imam then you are a “wahabi”. I would like to know why no wahabi ever accepts of being one. Let see if you agree with the following statements
When reading all these books which describe all these vices the Saudi elite are infamously indulging in, my question is why does the religious police not stop them? e.g Prince Bandar enjoys a drink here and there right? Say no more.
If this "Islam" means peace why does only apply to the poor and not the influential of Saudi?
If this "Islam" means peace why does only apply to the poor and not the influential of Saudi?
That's because Saudi Wahabis get to rape little 8 year old girls and drink cognac and do lines and lines of cocaine and they still are true Muslims in the eyes of those of who rant against "people worshipping graves."
Also lets not be to eager to dismiss the spiritual side of Islam. Islam without spirtuality becomes a series of only Rakooh's and Sajood and surely there is more to a religion then a series of actions!
.....
There is a difference between the actual grave (qabr) and the mausoleum built over it, I want the latter removed not the former.
Go back to your original post. You! if given a chance will remove the dome, the grave and everything around it. You want to flatten any sign of the current structure.
If anyone is in doubt about the true intentions of the likes of Nosherwan, they should go see the utter destruction of graves in Jannatul Baqih. The whole area is walled off but at some places you can peak through small holes or through the side of the gates.
People who may not know, that Jannatul baqih refers to the graveyard where many sahaba, tabi-een, and taba-tabeen are burred.
Nosherwan professes to the neo-Imam Abdul Wahab's teachings. And this neo-Imam's uncouth followers desecrated and destroyed all the graves in Jannatul Baqih. It is a horrible scene of destruction. You gotta see it to believe it.
Luckily the tomb of our Messenger survived that destruction. And now Mr. Nosherwan is after that too. We all know how utterly despicable, loathsome that stance is.
Nosherwan at least be honest about your intentions OK!
I’ll get back to your previous post later, once I’ve some free time on my hand. but you see sister many of the early 'ulama used the word makrooh to mean, makrooh-e-tahreemi (unlawful). This is very common trait found among the Salaf as they were cautious about using the term “haram/unlawful” due to the saying of Allah:
“**And do not speak with that which your tongues describe falsely, ‘This is lawful and this is unlawful,’ so as to invent lies against Allah. **Indeed, those who invent lies against Allah will never be successful. They will have a passing brief enjoyment, and they will have a painful torment.” [Sooratun-Nahl 16:116-117 - interpretation of the meaning]
Therefore, some of the Salaf (may Allah be pleased with them) used to say Let each of you fear from saying, ‘Allah has declared such and such lawful and He has declared such and such unlawful’. Similarlay, ibn Wahb said:
“I heard [Imaam] Malik [rahimahullah] saying, 'There was not from the affair of the people, nor from amongst those who have passed from our Salaf, nor from anyone who I have known as an example saying about something, ‘This is lawful and this is unlawful’. And they were not bold upon that. They would only say, ‘We dislike this and we see this as good’. So this is befitting and we do not hold this”
the same narration was also narrted through the route of 'Ateeq Ibn Ya’qoob in which there was the addition, “And they did not say lawful, nor did they say unlawful”.
However, this doesn’t mean that they didn’t consider certain matters as haram as for example in the case of Imaam Ahlus Sunnah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah), when he said concerning combining between two sisters who were right-hand possessions, “I dislike it, and I do not say that it is unlawful”. And his madhhab was that it was unlawful. He only observed caution against using the term ‘unlawful’ due to the statement of 'Uthmaan.
Note: the above narrations are my notes, excerpt, from the book of Imaam ibn Qayyim (rahimahullah)
rest is later
btw, people lacking adab, typical “wahabi” bashing won’t help you to prove your point.
I totally agree with you....if the great ulema didn't use the term "haram" or "unlawful" then we should be more careful in declaring things halal or haram.
^ you got me wrong. No reason to be sad. Its a comparison for the ritual at baba mazaar grave. We know what happens there don't we? Besides people think and strongly believe that babagi will bring good things to them and do sajdah there with all other things..
Off course they don't say they are worshiping grave or babagi/pir sahab but so do hindus. Hindus do not say the actual idol is their god or whatever and will bring them good things.
Sister, at least we agree that Makrooh (Disliked) or Haraam (forbidden), none of them can be a good thing.
BTW I heard in the olden days the scholars used Makrooh to mean forbidden rather than just disliked.
If you think Abdul Wahab was an Imam then you are a "wahabi". I would like to know why no wahabi ever accepts of being one. Let see if you agree with the following statements
1. Quran is only to be taken literallly
2. There is no need of intermediation.
3. Intercession is shirk
4. Shias are Kafir
5. Barelvis are almost kafir
If you do then you are a Wahabi/Takfeeri/Salafi
Cheers
Anyone who follows the Qur'aan and Sunnah is a Wahhabi in the eyes of the people who follow their DESIRES (Ahl ul-Ahwa) instead of Qur'aan and Sunnah, so I don't care what the likes of you label me.
I don't like to label myself a Wahhabi because Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhaab (R) was only a mortal, just one of the many scholars, he wasn't a Prophet or Messenger who started a new religion that I should identify with, he might have been wrong on many things but I agree with him on his stance against grave-shrines.
Allah Ta'ala and His Rasool (S) called us Muslims so I call myself a Muslim, you can call me whatever you want, I don't care, if believing in the Book of Allah and Sunnah of Rasool (S) makes me a Wahhabi in your eyes then so be it.
FYI yes I do believe that saying "Ya Ali Madad!" or "Ya Ghaus-e-Azam Madad!" is shirk (polytheism), people who say such things are Mushrik, help from the unseen should only be seeked from Allah so Muslims should say "Ya Allah Madad!" instead. Allah is not deaf and He is by far higher in status and mightier in Power than either Hazrat Ali (R) or Hazrat Al-Jeelani (R). I respect Ali (R), he has a great and honourable status in our eyes, he's part of our Salaaf, our 4th Caliph, our Maula and one of the heroes of our religion but we do not direct our Dua or Munajat towards him because that's only for Allaah, I also respect Sheikh 'Abd Al-Qaadir Jeelaani (R) because he was a great scholar of the religion, I might not agree with everything the latter said but he gave us more good than anything else.
I'm also against building over graves for the simple reason that our Aqa-o-Maula Nabi Muhammad (S) forbid it, it's worse when the grave is inside a Mosque because that is also forbidden by him.
A grave in a Mosque is combining the two evils of building over a grave and having a grave inside a place of worship, both of which forbidden by the Prophet (S).
It amounts to Shirk when people start doing Dua to those buried in the graves, make Sajdah and prostrations at the graves etc.
People like you are brainwashed by dirty Peer Faqeers who leech of ignorants like you, and you let them thinking they're your passport to Jannah without having to pray or fast yourselves, they keep you dillusioned.
The dirty Peer Faqeers who brainwash you and teach you the "Wahhabi Wahhabi" rant are anything but holy, they don't know nothing about purity laws or worship, they just get high on drugs and listen to Shirk (polytheism) filled Qawwaalis all day whilst ignorants like you feed their stomachs and sponsor them to go on world tours.
If this "Islam" means peace why does only apply to the poor and not the influential of Saudi?
You get Darbaari-Mullah's (sold for money) in every sect and religion but they don't represent the entire group.
In our village the Barelvi Mullah's charges money for teaching Qur'aan, I showed him an old traditional Hanafi fatwa saying it's haraam to charge money for teaching Qur'aan, Hadees, Fiqah etc. but he told me to shut up.
Hypocrites in every religion and sect, I know Catholic priests preach against sexual sin and then go molest little alter boys (FILM: The Boys of St. Vincent), I know Turkish people who tell me about child-molestation by Sufi brotherhoods, heard similar incidents of Hindu and Buddhist monks.
The Saudi monarchy like any other Muslim goverment today are SCUM of the earth, no wonder Muslims (Pakistani Kashmiris and Arab Palestinians) are getting shafted left right and center.
Just because Saudis are right when they're against grave-worship doesn't mean they're right on every issue.
Did you get Ilhaam or Wahi that said people who are against grave worship are in favour of the Saudi monarchy and that they never condemn them?
Just because Sheikh Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab (R) sought the help of the Saud family out of neccesity and for the betterment of Islam in the olden days doesn't mean the Saud's hold a sacred status in our eyes or that they're perfect or that the Sauds of today are some holy leaders. Even those claiming to be the Prophet's (S) children (Prince Agha-Khan) is far from holy or perfect, Saud kaun tha?
[quote]
Also lets not be to eager to dismiss the spiritual side of Islam. Islam without spirtuality becomes a series of only Rakooh's and Sajood and surely there is more to a religion then a series of actions!
[/quote]
Agreed! Khushoo, Taqwa etc. are very important but they're achieved by following Shari'at. Islam doesn't need Bid'ah and Shirk in the name of spirituality, it's spiritual enough for those who see it, we don't need Hindu or Greek influences.
Maybe not in Mecca-the-Holy or Medina-the-Radiant because the Saudis are atleast good for one thing but in our country Pak I've seen it many times at a local Mela, ignorants calling upon the occupants of graves, prostrating there and doing Tawaaf, that's worship.
If anyone is in doubt about the true intentions of the likes of Nosherwan, they should go see the utter destruction of graves in Jannatul Baqih. The whole area is walled off but at some places you can peak through small holes or through the side of the gates.
People who may not know, that Jannatul baqih refers to the graveyard where many sahaba, tabi-een, and taba-tabeen are burred.
Nosherwan professes to the neo-Imam Abdul Wahab's teachings. And this neo-Imam's uncouth followers desecrated and destroyed all the graves in Jannatul Baqih. It is a horrible scene of destruction. You gotta see it to believe it.
Luckily the tomb of our Messenger survived that destruction. And now Mr. Nosherwan is after that too. We all know how utterly despicable, loathsome that stance is.
Nosherwan at least be honest about your intentions OK!
My original post is there for everyone to see.
You have comprehension problems.
I was talking about removing the part of the Mosque structure which covers the graves of our Nabi (S), Al-Sideeq (R) and Al-Faarooq (R), also if the graves themselves were plastered by later generations then the plaster should be removed because graves in Islam should be simple (just a mound of earth that is left over after the grave was filled). Nowhere did I say that Naoozobillah the graves should be dug up, just the green dome and building over them removed and if the graves themselves are plastered then that too removed so that it's a simple graveyard, seperate from the Mosque.
The graves in Jannat ul-Baqi are how graves should be (simple heaps of earth marking every grave), the extravagnt golden structures over graves is against Islam.
You make it sound like the Saudis dug up the graves or something, they simply destroyed the buildings over them which is a good thing.
Graves should be simple heaps of earth, plastering them and building structures over them is forbidden.
^ you got me wrong. No reason to be sad. Its a comparison for the ritual at baba mazaar grave. We know what happens there don't we? Besides people think and strongly believe that babagi will bring good things to them and do sajdah there with all other things..
Off course they don't say they are worshiping grave or babagi/pir sahab but so do hindus. Hindus do not say the actual idol is their god or whatever and will bring them good things.
Not only the Hindus give the same excuse but even the Mushrikeen-e-Makkah in the times of our Prophet (S) would say that the idols they pray to are simply a Waseelah to Allaah Ta'aala, this is even mentioned the Qur'aan.
Same with Catholics who pray to idols of Bibi Maryam (Alaiha Salaam) saying she's only their Waseelah to Allah.
......... Off course they don't say they are worshiping grave or babagi/pir sahab but so do hindus. .....
This argument is plane and simple even in your first post.
The problem with such thinking by "self-styled" Muslims is that they are trying to look into the hearts of other people.
Secondly, for Hindus, their temples are "places of worship",
While no tomb is "place of worship" for Muslims. Not even the staunchest "pri-faqir" types. They always bow in front of Allah saw.
So it is time for the "self-styled" Muslims to worry about "THEIR OWN worship", tomb or no tomb. And let Allah decide the matter of hearts.
