Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
ChristianVisitor

Is Hanbali = Wahhabism?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In terms of beliefs Hanbalis & Wahabis are similar to each other. In terms of fiqh they differ in some issues. The Wahabis emphasize on ijtehad i.e evaluating the circumstances regarding religious decisions irrespective of opinion the classical scholars held. I would not call wahabism a sect like u r doing.The returning to Quran and Sunnah and rejecting innovated beliefs didnt start with Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab. Many earlier scholars tried to do the same thing.It is very sad to see people say such non-sense. Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab did not start any religious movements. All the beliefs most Wahabis/Salafis hold are found in the Quran, Ahadith and the book of the salafu saleh and later scholars.The term Wahabi was coined by the French in a book titled "histoire de leu wahabis". Al Wahab is the name of Allah and it should not be misused like this.

Edited by Invoker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they are not the same thing, but as I understand it, Wahhabi/Salafi movement is derived partly from and deeply influenced by the Hanbaliyya madhab but take most of their hatred towards Shias and Sufism and literalism from Ibn Taymiyyah.

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of beliefs Hanbalis & Wahabis are similar to each other. In terms of fiqh they differ in some issues. The Wahabis emphasize on ijtehad i.e evaluating the circumstances regarding religious decisions irrespective of opinion the classical scholars held. I would not call wahabism a sect like u r doing.The returning to Quran and Sunnah and rejecting innovated beliefs didnt start with Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab. Many earlier scholars tried to do the same thing.It is very sad to see people say such non-sense. Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab did not start any religious movements. All the beliefs most Wahabis/Salafis hold are found in the Quran, Ahadith and the book of the salafu saleh and later scholars.The term Wahabi was coined by the French in a book titled "histoire de leu wahabis". Al Wahab is the name of Allah and it should not be misused like this.

You give a romantic depiction of Wahabbism but forgot to tell that it was considered to be a sect in the Sunni Realm of it's birth-time.

They rebelled against the Sunni Ottomans, sacked Karbala and killed 5000 of its Shia inhabitants, massacred the entire Sunni population of Ta'if and were close allies of the House of Saud who were installed as a puppet regime by the Britons to break Ottoman rule and to cause division in the Sunni world and deepen the gap between Sunni and Shia. 

All the efforts to come together and for peaceful co-existence are vanished because of these people. Tools of Imperialists and Zionists. Litteralists and allies of decadent despots.

 

Edited by Skanderbeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[REMOVED]

 

No one is saying Salafis do not follow the fundamentals of Islam, but what separates them from the general Sunni community is their general sentiment of attack upon other groups of Muslims. The Sunni community highly criticized Tamiyyah, and I'm sorry but al Wahhab follows Taymiyah's ideology, which straightup claims Christians and Shiites ought to be killed because they are apparently "kafir." 

Plus, your claim is Al Wahhab was a great man because he named his children x, y, z. So Saddam Hussein must be inherently great because Hussein is in his name

Edited by magma
Quoted post removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is saying Salafis do not follow the fundamentals of Islam, but what separates them from the general Sunni community is their general sentiment of attack upon other groups of Muslims. The Sunni community highly criticized Tamiyyah, 

 

Sorry, but which sunni community are u talking about? The sufis? Dont tell me they are the real sunnis cuz their history starts only a few hundred years back. Sunni community criticizing Ibn Taymiyyah does not make him controversial. Many shi'ites criticize Khomeini & Khamenei over religious disputes. I have seen Shias sending lanah on the supreme leader. I have seen Shias loyal to Khamenei fighting in the shrine of Hussain ra with shias following other marja so ur argument is absolutely wrong. 

 

 

and I'm sorry but al Wahhab follows Taymiyah's ideology, which straightup claims Christians and Shiites ought to be killed because they are apparently "kafir." 

 

 
 
I challenge u to bring forward any fatwa or ruling by these two scholars where they allow people to kill kafirs. If u fail than i would say [Edited out] U people have no sense when arguing on such topics. If they allowed to kill shias or christians just bcoz they are kafirs why did they ignore the jews? arent they kafir as well? 
Edited by Jaafar Al-Shibli
Derogatory Language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

U people have no sense when arguing on such topics. If they allowed to kill shias or christians just bcoz they are kafirs why did they ignore the jews? arent they kafir as well? 

 

No! It's because they're one and the same. They wont kill their masters.

It's however obvious that both Israel and the KSA with their Wahhabi-ideology as state religion were both founded by the Britons and look how both of them mess up the entire region.

Edited by Iskandarovich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No! It's because they're one and the same. They wont kill their masters.

 

 

So Imam e Kaba is a Jew? Or like a Jew? & that his masters are also Jews? Plz clarify.

 

It's however obvious that both Israel and the KSA with their Wahhabi-ideology as state religion were both founded by the Britons and look how both of them mess up the entire region.

 

 

 

Oh i didnt knew that Israel is also under the influence of "WAHABI IDEOLOGY". What an eye opening news. 

 

Congratulations! you have won the internet for today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, but which sunni community are u talking about? The sufis? Dont tell me they are the real sunnis cuz their history starts only a few hundred years back. Sunni community criticizing Ibn Taymiyyah does not make him controversial. Many shi'ites criticize Khomeini & Khamenei over religious disputes. I have seen Shias sending lanah on the supreme leader. I have seen Shias loyal to Khamenei fighting in the shrine of Hussain ra with shias following other marja so ur argument is absolutely wrong. 

 

 

 
 
I challenge u to bring forward any fatwa or ruling by these two scholars where they allow people to kill kafirs. If u fail than i would say lant ullahi alal kazibeen. U people have no sense when arguing on such topics. If they allowed to kill shias or christians just bcoz they are kafirs why did they ignore the jews? arent they kafir as well? 

 

At most, Wahhabism is a political movement. It's very dangerous grounds to declare who is a "real" Sunni and who is not. As long as a Muslim declares he/she believes Muhammad pbuh is the final messenger and that there is no God but Allah swt; then from the point of view of our shahada, he/she is a Muslim. Unfortunately this means that ISIS could technically be Muslim by their beliefs; however, it is one's action which truly demonstrates, or illustrates, whether he is a Muslim or not. I can say I am Muslim, but if I am nasty the poor, beat and degrade the elderly and children, then am I acting according to Islam? No. Am I still Muslim? Yes, by belief, but not by the most important standard--action. 

 

You are simply defaming my character, not my argument, you say I am senseless, yet where you can deny that Ibn Tamiyyah held these beliefs. Tamiyyah is essentially the figurehead of this movement. I am not so concerned with his beliefs on the matter/state of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, his beliefs on salat, etc., but his beliefs which have more profound effects on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In his text, on the Sunni belief (I think it was a retort to a scholar about the Shi'ite belief), he refused to acknowledge his brother in faith as a brother in faith, and declared that the worst of infidel, the cancer so to speak of Islam, and inherently the "kafir" were the Shi'ite. He also lead similar attacks on the Christians.  According to the belief of the Salafi, infidels should be rightly killed. And we can see this clearly as day currently; those which adhere to this belief, and the regimes that do so, do all they can to alienate, terrorize, and kill those they perceive as infidels--be it the Sufi, be it the Shi'ite. Historically, the Al Sunnah community essentially "ex communicated" him, and called upon the regimes of the time to bar him from entry in their countries and to spread his doctrine. One of the great leaders in Egypt even declared that any scholar whom declared visiting the graves of Muhammad (pbuh) to be shirk, should be barred and prevented with steadfastness from spreading this ideology. Just because of the political situation of the general Sunni community is aligned with his doctrine does not mean fundamentally it diverges, because it does and rightly so. The great scholars of Al Sunnah never acknowledged the legitimacy of his beliefs.

 

I am assuming you are Salafi or at least of the sort by your blatant support of this ideology.

Edited by ~ThePond~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[REMOVED]

 

And what if they do pray behind them [Edited out]? If a time comes when the Majoosis as you call the Shias become the custodians of the two holy mosques would you say that the people who would pray behind them are in the right simply because it just so happens that the Shias are the custodians of the two holy mosques in that hypothetical situation? May Allah have mercy on you! As a Sunni you fail to separate God from the people. Simply because a man is called caliph then he is immune from all criticism! Is that your logic!? Simply because a bunch of heretics, these remnants of the Khwaraj were allowed by the Kafir West to rule over the Hijaz now they are immune from all criticism. They should be worshiped because they are in control of Hijaz. That has been the Sunni mentality for a thousand years so what can I say?

 

Yes these people, these Wahhabis are heretics. But make no mistake. I'm not making Takfeer on Salafis, only Wahhabis. ISIS are Muslims but no way in hell would I accept the heretics of Najd as Muslims. They did not become Muslims during the conquests of the Prophet, they didn't become Muslims later either. They became the Khwaraj and one of the sources of the Fitnah in the Ummah. They were the first Nasibis and they were the ones who originally divided this Ummah by holding extreme sectarian views and hating on Ali and promoting hatred among Muslims especially in Sham. The horn of Satan appeared from Najd but it bore its fruits in Iraq and Sham. Yes these Wahhabis are dogs in my book.

 

[REMOVED]

 

To me this thread isn't about either of those two people although I believe both of them were Nasibis. Naming your children after different personalities doesn't mean much when in your heart you bear their hatred. If men were simply judged by what they do instead of why they do it, then many tyrants throughout history would have been among the people of Paradise. ibn Abdul Wahhab was a British agent. There were many British agents using Islam to further the colonialism goals in those times. The man who laid the foundations of Bahaism was a Twelver Shia Sayyid. He manipulated some SHIAS into believing that he was the Mahdi. You should know how hard it is to make some shias accept you as the Mahdi when Shias believe Mahdi has already been born. But he did it. He was a sayyid who used Shia Islam to damage Shia Islam! Ibn Abdul Wahhab did the same. Just because one was a Sayyid or a Shia or that he named his children after Sahaba doesn't make him immune to criticism. But I guess some people would rather worship the Kafirs and the Taghuts.

 

This is about associating yourself with Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Islam. Wahhabism is as much illegitimate as Bahaism is. Bahaists can claim to be the followers of the Shia thought and Islam but that doesn't make it true. Wahhabism and Bahaism are the byproducts of colonialism. For over a thousand years all the great Muslim scholars were counting sticks until the Messiah ibn Abdul Wahhab appeared! He revived the Ummah! No he was the horn of Satan as prophesied. Some attention [Edited Out] like ibn Taymiyyah comes and makes takfeers on many great people and the Wahhabi conclusion is that he was the Sheikh al Islam! Who is that filth ibn Taymiyyah compared to the shining star that is Gazali? But no. To Wahhabis Gazalli and pals were counting grains and it wasn't until ibn Taymiyyah that Islam was revived! Such insolence! Ibn Taymiyyah would have made takfeer on Ibn Hanbal too if he could.

 

I don't mind Wahhabis being Wahhabis and I'm not going to blow myself up in their mosques like they do to the Shias. But please don't associate your death cult with someone as great as Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

Edited by Jaafar Al-Shibli
Quotations & inappropriate words removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam, 

The sad thing about this all is that I can repeat things a thousand times and explain them over and over again but in the same time it isn't worth the time and energy when these people do not investigate and think for themselves. 

Edited by Skanderbeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread reported for filthy insultings. If you guys can't have a scholarly discussion, then you shouldn't speak at all.

 

As for the question, not all Hanbalis are Wahhabis and not all Wahhabis are Hanbalis. Though most Wahhabis follow the jurisprudential sect of Hanbalism because it is more of visual-superficial. And Wahhabis as the people who are of the Mujassima thought (i.e. who believe that God literally has a body, face, hands, legs and that He has movements) follow the jurisprudential sect Hanbalism which is more prone to visualistic-superficial rulings.

Edited by Jaafar Al-Shibli
Removed edited-out wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...