Memuari britanskogo shpiona protiv Islama! [Archive] - Uzbekistan Online Forum

Black

06-22-2005, 10:46 PM

Confessions of a British spy and British enmity against Islam

Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East is the title of a document that was published in series (episodes) in the German paper Spiegel and later on in a prominent French paper. A Lebanese doctor translated the document to the Arabic language and from there on it was translated to English and other languages. Waqf Ikhlas publications put out and circulated the document in English in hard copy and electronically under the title: Confessions of a British spy and British enmity against Islam. This document reveals the true background of the Wahhabi movement which was innovated by Mohammad bin abdul Wahhab and explains the numerous falsehood they spread in the name of Islam and exposes their role of enmity towards the religion of Islam and towards prophet Mohammad sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam and towards Muslims at large. No wonder the Wahhabis today stand as the backbone of terrorism allowing and financing and planning shedding the blood of Muslims and other innocent people. Their well known history of terrorism as documented in Fitnatul Wahhabiyyah by the mufti of Makkah, Sheikh Ahmad Zayni Dahlan, and their current assassinations and contravention is due to their ill belief that all are blasphemers save themselves. May Allah protect our nation from their evils.

Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East

I did not read so called "memoirs of hempher". I am neither "wahhabi" (as you like to call it), nor the salafiy. I am just a muslim.
But, I do believe that all he wrote is Big Bull shit. Nothing else. Why should muslims believe a kafir??? Did you read a single book written by ibn Abdul Wahhab??? can you prove anything wrong on them? Just coping pasting some kafirs' propoganda articles??? So can anybody tell me what is wrong with "wahhabies" belief and practice? Don't they do namaz? Don't they fast? Don't they belief in Allah swt, His books and Messengers a.s.??? Can you give an example from their texts instead of giving link to some kafir's article?
By the way, can you djigit read arabic, do you speak arabic to critisize "wahhabies". How it becomes that you realize that "wahhabism" is bad, of what the whole arabia can not realize so far??? Bull shit. Arabs read Qur'an and Hadis, while you guys read and believe some kafirs books and articles which aimed to divide muslims.
If you are so sure that so called "wahhabies" are bad then give me a single example (which contradicts Qur'an and Sunnah) from their statements which they said, or from their books, or from their deeds.
I prefer believing muslims rather than kafirs.
I repeat for those who with difficult understandings that I am neither "wahhaby" nor anybody else. I am just a muslim, and I do trust muslims, not kafirs.

And Allat Ta'ala knows the best.

May Allah swt guide you to the right path.

P.S. Btw, this "memories" have been posted here several times by different people. We in Islam accept proofs only from Islamic sources-Qur'an and Hadis, and from islamic scholars of Ahli Sunnah. Anything else and anybody else worth nothing!

Alouddin

06-22-2005, 11:00 PM

You are ever a sceptic, aren't you, bro Black?

Black

06-22-2005, 11:41 PM

You are ever a sceptic, aren't you, bro Black?
I just fed up muslim divisions among themselves because of some unchecked stupid info and anti-muslim propoganda.
As for my scepticism, since when we (muslims) have to believe to non muslims on relegious matters?? I do believe muslims (not all though). With knowledge and with proofs. Not artificial memories-- "I did so blah, blah, then he did so blah, blah,,, etc"

Alouddin

06-23-2005, 12:12 AM

Black

06-23-2005, 12:46 AM

indeed, bro, am not propagating the idea of believing and relying on a non-Muslim when religious - Islamic of course - matters are concerned.

However, one could understand this - the aforeposted memoirs - as a true story as well. I mean don't you think that this could be true? Don't you know (of course you do) the Great Britain indeed had its spies out in Central Asia trying to occupy this part of the world before the Russians did? (Well, the Brits eventually lost the battle)

In this contest, this story could a very true one. Touching upon the doctrines, approaches etc etc in the story - this is a different matter. All I'm saying is that the very story of a British spy could be true, since history has proof for that. All I'm saying is that the very story of a British spy could be true, bro.
:salam:

Well Bro. he (the spy) says:

"The Ministry has devised a subtle scheme for Muhammad of Najd to carry out, as follows:
"1- He is to declare all Muslims as disbelievers and announce that it is halaal to kill them, to seize their property, to violate their chastity, to make their men slaves and their women concubines and to sell them at slave markets.
"2- He is to state that Ka'ba is an idol and therefore it must be demolished. In order to do away with the worship of hajj, he is to provoke tribes to raid groups of hadjis (Muslim pilgrims), to plunder their belongings and to kill them.
"3- He is to strive to dissuade Muslims from obeying the Khaleefa. He is to provoke them to revolt against him. He is to prepare armies for this purpose. He is to exploit every opportunity to spread the conviction that it is necessary to fight against the notables of Hedjaz and bring disgrace on them.
"4- He is to allege that the mausoleums, domes and sacred places in Muslim countries are idols and polytheistic milieus and must therefore be demolished. He is to do his best to produce occasions for insulting Prophet Muhammad, his Khaleefas, and all prominent scholars of madh-habs.
"5- He is to do his utmost to encourage insurrections, oppressions and anarchy in Muslim countries.
"6- He is to try to publish a copy of the Qur'aan interpolated with additions and excisions, as is the case with hadeeths."

If we take out 2nd and 6th points (because as the spy said "those two was impossible to implement") which one of the 4 remaining is done or are being carried out by "wahhabies"??? If the story is true then "wahhabies", i.e. the scholars of Maccah and Madinah of the last two centuries would have denounced all 4 imams of madhabs (according to 4th) insult our Prophet :saws: (according to 4th), Khaleefs (according to 4th), provoke muslims to revolt against their rulers (according to 3rd ), declare all muslims as disbelievers and kill them (according to 1st) and etc. etc. But I don't see and hear any of them. Can you give me examples?

Black

06-23-2005, 01:27 AM

to continiue, he says in Part One

3- We were very anxious that the Ottomans and Iranians might notice our plots and foil them. Despite the fact that these two States had already been debilitated considerably, we still did not feel certain because they had a central government with property, weaponry, and authority.

and says in Part Seven

Having enjoyed the first secret, I was looking forward to knowing the second secret. Eventually one day the secretary explained the second secret he had promised. The second secret was a fifty page scheme prepared for the high ranking officials working in the Ministry for annihilating Islam altogether within a century's time.

How can he open a secret which is designed for a century time while they (British Empire) were anxious that Ottomans and Iranians might notice their plots and foil them? One can assume that he (the spy) lived one more century after he got the order or he lived at least up until 1920s (the end of the Ottoman Empire) so that it was safe by that time to reveal all secrets. Do you agree with me? The British spy who lived more than 250 years revealed his secrets. Well good argument, I am going to believe that.

I am not saying that the British Empire did not have or does not have such spies. Every superpower had and has such spies, but it does not mean we have to believe such "memories". If we need to check out who was Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and what he preached there are a lot of other ways and sources.

ДЖИГИТ

06-26-2005, 10:07 AM

I did not read so called "memoirs of hempher". I am neither "wahhabi" (as you like to call it), nor the salafiy. I am just a muslim.
But, I do believe that all he wrote is Big Bull shit. Nothing else. Why should muslims believe a kafir??? Did you read a single book written by ibn Abdul Wahhab??? can you prove anything wrong on them? Just coping pasting some kafirs' propoganda articles??? So can anybody tell me what is wrong with "wahhabies" belief and practice? Don't they do namaz? Don't they fast? Don't they belief in Allah swt, His books and Messengers a.s.??? Can you give an example from their texts instead of giving link to some kafir's article?
By the way, can you djigit read arabic, do you speak arabic to critisize "wahhabies". How it becomes that you realize that "wahhabism" is bad, of what the whole arabia can not realize so far??? Bull shit. Arabs read Qur'an and Hadis, while you guys read and believe some kafirs books and articles which aimed to divide muslims.
If you are so sure that so called "wahhabies" are bad then give me a single example (which contradicts Qur'an and Sunnah) from their statements which they said, or from their books, or from their deeds.
I prefer believing muslims rather than kafirs.
I repeat for those who with difficult understandings that I am neither "wahhaby" nor anybody else. I am just a muslim, and I do trust muslims, not kafirs.

And Allat Ta'ala knows the best.

May Allah swt guide you to the right path.

P.S. Btw, this "memories" have been posted here several times by different people. We in Islam accept proofs only from Islamic sources-Qur'an and Hadis, and from islamic scholars of Ahli Sunnah. Anything else and anybody else worth nothing!

Mr. Black, here's the proof that Wahhabism is prohibited, it comes from ijtihad of Ahli sunna va ljamaa ulamaa: Bizning Payg'ambarimiz Muhammad (saw) "ohiri zamonda 73 firqa chiqadi va ularning bittasigina jannatga sazovor boladi" degan gaplari!!! Endi demak faqat ahli sunna tog'ri yol demakdir, agar mabodo kimda-kim yangi firqa ochib uni ahli sunna waljamaa dan boshqa nom bilan atasa demak u ahli sunnadan boshqa, agar Abdul Wahhab ahli sunnani ilg'or surgan bo'lsa, demak bu harakat ahli sunna deb atalishi kerak edi, ammo u Wahhabizm deb ataladi, liderni nomiga bag'ishlanib. Demak bu ahli sunnadan chetlanish, uni ustiga aynan wahhabism kabi harakatlar musulmon dunyosida bo'linishga sabab bo'lgan harakatlardir, va ular "bizga bo'yinsunmagan musulmonlar munofiq" deb ularni ham o'ldirishni maqsad deb bilgan, waholanki barcha musulmonlar birodar. Bunga misol tolibon harakatining olib borgan siyosati, bunaqa firqalar hozirda juda ko'p bundan shubha yo'q.

originally posted by Black
Why should muslims believe a kafir???

Uning ustiga ahli sunnada birovni bilmasdan kafir deb bo'lmaydi, qattan bilasiz balki islomga o'tgan bolsachi, odamlarning qalbi faqat Allohga ayyon, bilmasdan o'zingiz achchig'iz chiqib gapirib yubormang!

Originallu posted by Black
I am neither "wahhabi" (as you like to call it), nor the salafiy. I am just a muslim.

Islom tarihi o'rgansak, biz Payg'ambarimiz Muhammad (saw) vafotlaridan kegin ulardan kegin kelgan va payg'ambarimizno ko'rib or'gangan 4-ta katta ulamaa o'tgan. barcha musulmon ahli va ulamo tomonidan shu 4 ta ulamaaning har biri ishnonchli deb tanlangan. Endi siz o'zizdan o'zingiz Quroni Karimni va Hadisu Sharifni tavsir qilishga bormasez kerak???
Unaqa takabbur, tajang g'ofil inson bo'lmang mr. Black!

Gareeb

06-26-2005, 04:51 PM

DJIGIT, siz bilib bilmay , ehtiroslarga nihoyatda berilgan holatda shoshqaloqlik bilan fikrlayapsiz? Haqiqatda ham nima uchun siz qaerdagi bir nottayin, yozgan narsalaridan Islomga dushmanligi anqi bo'lib turgan shahsga ishonib, noto'gri ma'lumotlarni tarqatyapsiz? Uzbeklarda aytishadiku b...qa kesak otsang o'zingga sachraydi deb. Huddi shunday siz shu shubhali, fitnali mavzuni ochish bilan huddi shunday ish qilyapsi. Undan keyin hech kim to'rtta imomga ergashmayman de da'vo qilmadi . O'zizdan o'ziz birovni ayblayvermang. O'tib ketgan mussulmonlar haqida bunday yomon gumon qilmasdan ularga rahmat, magfirat tilasangiz yahshi bo'lar edi. Hech kim o'zini wahhobiy deb da'vo qilmagan, unday oqim mavjud emas. Bu Islom dushmanlari tarafidan to'qilgan uydirma. Tushunchalarizni to;grilab oling, har hil safsatalarga berilmang, uning o'rniga ilm o'rganing, Qurr'on o'qishni o'rganing, agar bilsangiz boshqalarga o'rgating. Alloh qalblarimizni tavhid bilan ulfat qilsin, oramizdagi kelishmovchiliklarni ko'tarsin..

Akhee-Abdullah

06-26-2005, 05:18 PM

Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab was a Hanbali scholar, how would he not be from Ahlussunnah wal jamaah then?? Ajib...

As well, who are those Ulama of Ahlusunnah wal Jamaah who explelled Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab with their ijtihad?? If you are referring to the Hanafi muqallidoon, the stopped making ijtihad after the invasion of the Mongols, rather they prohibited it...

Towba...luttibozlar kupayib ketidaa

Gareeb

06-26-2005, 06:41 PM

Hayronman moderatorlar nima uchun bunday asossiz narsalarning din bo'limida paydo bo'lishiga yo'l qo'yishmoqda. Bundaylarga nisbatan chora ko'rish kerak..

Royal

06-26-2005, 08:00 PM

Hayronman moderatorlar nima uchun bunday asossiz narsalarning din bo'limida paydo bo'lishiga yo'l qo'yishmoqda. Bundaylarga nisbatan chora ko'rish kerak..
DJIGITni gapida jon bor lekin Angliya juda kop yillardan beri Musulmonla ortasida har hil dinie uydirmalar, fisqi-fasod tarqatish va har hil bolar-bolmas dinie tashkilotlar tuzilishiga komlaklashish bilan musulmonlarni oz manfaatlari uchun boshqarishga intiladi, Hiziblar ham shundoqlardan biri bunga asoso bola oladi.

Mana buni bir korilachi, nima fikr berasila:

http://www.crackingdavinci.co.uk/forum1/
http://www.crackingdavinci.com/

Black

06-27-2005, 06:33 AM

Unlike most of you here guys, my point is not to blame or to advocate anybody. Any of you can read my posts, I am not doing any of that. The only thing I am calling you is to use comprehensive thinking and to use reliable source for your research, not whatever may satisfy your arguments.
As I muslim I advice you brothers to seek for the truth not to win the argumentation.
I am not saying Muhammab ibn Abdul Wahhab was a good or bad person. In fact I don't know very well what he preached. But unlike you guys I don't accuse him on everything of what I heard about him and bring any kafir's article to prove my arguments. In religion (Islam) we can only accept Islamic sources, nothing else. As soon as you start to believe or to rely on some unbelievers words you are in wrong path. Even if your argument is right, your belief of to unbelievers' words makes your proofs and words invalid. All your blah, blah becomes cheap crap. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO REMIND YOU GUYS!
I have no intention to offend any of your guys as long as you are my brothers in Islam, but my duty is to tell you what I know. (Do'st achitib gapirar dushman kuldirib) Other things are up to you, follow to my advice or not.

Mr. Black, here's the proof that Wahhabism is prohibited, it comes from ijtihad of Ahli sunna va ljamaa ulamaa: Bizning Payg'ambarimiz Muhammad (saw) "ohiri zamonda 73 firqa chiqadi va ularning bittasigina jannatga sazovor boladi" degan gaplari!!! Endi demak faqat ahli sunna tog'ri yol demakdir, agar mabodo kimda-kim yangi firqa ochib uni ahli sunna waljamaa dan boshqa nom bilan atasa demak u ahli sunnadan boshqa, agar Abdul Wahhab ahli sunnani ilg'or surgan bo'lsa, demak bu harakat ahli sunna deb atalishi kerak edi, ammo u Wahhabizm deb ataladi, liderni nomiga bag'ishlanib.

This is not proof, this is just your words. I said bring proofs from islamic sources. As for the 73 firqas, how can your prove that "wahhabism" is not from ahli sunnah wal jamaat???? Pls don't reply just because you think they are so, or some kafir said so. Give us some proofs pls. (I think I should clearify for you what is proof. For example bring the text of the book written by "wahhabis" or quote from their words which contradicts to the aqidah ahli sunnah wal jamaat. You said that they are one of the firqas which went astray. Ok, according to what you say so? Can you explain me how do you know that somebody went astray? According what princples or rules?? Please, if you are serious on your intentions of seeking the truth then give us PROOFS PLEASE, NOT BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Wahhabism deb atalishiga kelsak bu ularning o'zlarining qo'yib olgan nomi emas, huddi ayrim Islomdan habari yoq odamlarning musulmonlarni "muhammedians" degan nomi bilan atashiga ohshaydi. Ahir musulmonlarni bunday deb atalishida Payg'ambarimiz :saws: ning hech qanday aybi yoqku. Yoki ayrim savodsizlarning Islomni "muhammedianism" deb ataganliklari uchun Muhammad saw ni ayblash, yangi yo'l paydo qildi deyish kerakmi? Wahhabism masalasi ham shunday. Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhabni boshqalar qilgan ishi uchun ayblash (ya'ni unga ergashganlarni "wahhobiylar" deyish) bu g'irt savodsizlikdan boshqa narsa emas. Balki hurmatli Yigit Siz bizga isbotlab berarsiz ibn Abdul Wahhobning "Mening dinim Wahhabismdir" degan gaplarni aytganini? A labbay?
Demak bu ahli sunnadan chetlanish, uni ustiga aynan wahhabism kabi harakatlar musulmon dunyosida bo'linishga sabab bo'lgan harakatlardir, va ular "bizga bo'yinsunmagan musulmonlar munofiq" deb ularni ham o'ldirishni maqsad deb bilgan, waholanki barcha musulmonlar birodar.

Iltimos Yigit bizga dalil keltiring, qachon, qaerda, nimaga, kim bilan, qanaqa sharoitda, kim "Bizga bo'ysunmagan musulmonlar munofiq" degan gapni aytgan wa shu gaplarga kimlar guvoh bo'lgan wa bu haqda qaysi kitobda, kim tomonidan yozib qoldirilgan wa buni kimlar tasdiqlaydi. Ana shu savollarga javob bera olasizmi? Agar (qisman bo'lsa ham) javob bera olmasangiz aytgan gaplaringizni hammasi, hafa bo'lmangu, bir pulga qimmat, oddiy bir cho'pchakdan farqi yoq.
Bunga misol tolibon harakatining olib borgan siyosati, bunaqa firqalar hozirda juda ko'p bundan shubha yo'q.

Ilimos kulgimni qistamang Yigit, tolibonni wahhobiylarga yoki Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhabga nima aloqasi bor? LOL. Bu gapni qaerdan oldingiz birodari aziz? Kamroq cnn, fox, bbc wa/yoki boshqa channellarni ko'rish kerak, yoki ularning quloqqa osadigan lag'monlariga ishonavermaslik kerak. Biror marta tolibon bizlar wahhobiylarga aloqamiz bir yoki bizlar wahhobiymiz deyishganmi? O'zi tolibon qachon, qaerda, nima sabadan, kim tomonidan tashkil qilinganini bilasizmi birodar? Balki Bin Ladin ham wahhobiydir? Hizbut tahrirchi, ular ham wahhobiy emasmi mabodo?

Uning ustiga ahli sunnada birovni bilmasdan kafir deb bo'lmaydi, qattan bilasiz balki islomga o'tgan bolsachi, odamlarning qalbi faqat Allohga ayyon, bilmasdan o'zingiz achchig'iz chiqib gapirib yubormang!

Endi bu, hafa bo'lmangu, yosh bollarni gapi bo'libdi. Agar keyin o'tgan bo'lsa ham (mabodo) u ana o'sha siz keltirgan "ishonchli" hotiralari yozganda hech ham musulmon bo'lgan emas! (o'zi umuman bu narsa qandaydir bir Britaniyalik agent yozgan deb ishonish g'irt omilik bo'lsa kerak. Provakatsion narsa ekanligi shunday ko'rinib turibdiku)
Umuman birodarlar musulmon odam unaqa bo'lmaydi: nimani o'qisa shunga ishonib ketavermaydi. Ayniqsa kofirlarni gapiga, shundog'am ular musulmonlarni burnidan ip o'tkazib olishgan. Musulmonlar kofirlar nima desa laqqa ishonib bir birini qonini ichib bo'lishdiku ahir. Birodarlar ozgina Hudo bergan miyaniyam ishlatishimiz kerakmi ahir???

Islom tarihi o'rgansak, biz Payg'ambarimiz Muhammad (saw) vafotlaridan kegin ulardan kegin kelgan va payg'ambarimizno ko'rib or'gangan 4-ta katta ulamaa o'tgan. barcha musulmon ahli va ulamo tomonidan shu 4 ta ulamaaning har biri ishnonchli deb tanlangan. Endi siz o'zizdan o'zingiz Quroni Karimni va Hadisu Sharifni tavsir qilishga bormasez kerak???

Albatta, hafa bo'lmangku, bu gapingiz bilan sizda mantiq tushunchasi qay darajada ekanligini ko'rsatib berdingiz. Men I am neither "wahhabi" (as you like to call it), nor the salafiy. I am just a muslim. deyishimga sabab ayrim odamlar "ha buyam wahhobiy ekan, shuning uchun ularning tarafini olayapti" deb o'ylamasligi uchun, o'zimni bir chetdan turib, iloji boricha holis fikr bildirayotganimni bildirish uchun aytgandim, albatta yosh bola ham buni tushunardi. Mening bu haplarimga Payg'ambarimiz :saws: dan keyin o'tgan to'rtta ulamo haqida wa/yoki ularga qarshi birorta gap aytganim yoq. Ma'lumotingiz uchun Hurmatli Yigit hazratlari ana shu 4 ta ulamolardan (to'g'rirog'i imomlardan ) hech qaysi biri Payg'ambarimiz :saws: ko'rmaganlar. Bu narsani bilmasliginiz meni juda hayratda qoldirdi. Hammaga jar solib "fitnalar" dan ogohlantirasizu 4 ta imomdan hech qaysinisi Payg'ambar :saws: ni ko'rmaganligini bilmaysiz. Yoki siz ilmning eng yuqori cho'qqilarida yuribsizmi, bizday oddiy fuqarolarga ohshab bunday oddiy narsalarni bilishingiz shart emasdir balki. Siz uchun eng asosiysi musulmon ummatini "fitnalar"dan saqlash sizning bo'yningizdagi eng asosiy ishku ahir. BUndoq olib qarasak "isbot" wa "dalillar" bor. Bechora o'zi Allohga ishonmaydiyu lekin musulmonlarni "fitnalar"dan ogoh qilishni maqsad qilib qo'ygan Britaniyalik agentning hotiralari borku ahir. Boshqa narsa nimaga kerak. Qur'on, hadisga to'g'ri keladimi yoki yoqmi nima farqi bor, shunday emasmi??? O'sha Makkayu Madinadagi arablargayam, ularning shayhlarigayam hayronsan kishi. Bir umr arabcha o'rganishadi, Qur'on wa hadislarni yod olishadi, tarihda o'tgan ulamolarni o'rganishadiyu, shu bitta Britaniyalik shpionning hotiralarni o'qimaganliklari uchun hech narsani farqiga borishmaydi. Ehh, yahshiyam Britaniyaliklar bor ekan musulmonlarga Islom haqida ma'lumot berib turishadi. Makkaliklarga kelsak ular Qur'on bilan Hadisni o'qib yuraverishsin "haqiqat"ni bilmasdan. Shunday emasmi Yigit ? A nima deysiz Royal aka ?
(Mening Qur'on wa Hadisni tafsir qilishimni nima aloqasi bor bu mavzuga? Men biror narsni tafsir qilaman deganmidim? He yoq be yoq osmondan tushganday gapirilgan bu gaplarga umuman tushunmadim. Balki bizlar har hil olamlardan bo'lsak kerak hurmmatli Yigit , yoki bu duskisiya qilishning yangicha usulimi? Kutilmaganda mavzuga aloqasi yo'q tarafdan luqma tashab qolish, opponent gap nimadaligi tushunib olmasdan oldin uni mot qip tashlash.)

Unaqa takabbur, tajang g'ofil inson bo'lmang mr. Black!

Hudodan qo'rqing birovni takabbur deyishga birodar. Qiyomatda har bir gapingizga javob berasiz. Takabburlik bu shaytonning ishi, meni shaytonga tenglashtirayapsizmi? Nima bu ham bahslashishning yangi usulimi, kutilmaganda opponentni turli so'zlar bilan yer bilan bir qilib tashlash wa uni mot qilish, shunaqamikan a? Birovga tuhmat qilish juda oson ekanda. Ha mayli kim tajang, kim g'ofil buni Qiyomatda Hudodan so'rab bilib olamiz. Uning O'zi Odil Hukmdor, O'zi odil hukm chiqaradi kim tajangu kim g'ofil, kim fitnachi, kimga ishonish kerak, hamma hammasiga javob olamiz.

Ha bo'pti mayli, o'zlaringiz bilasizlar. Men faqat eslatib qoyayapman holos. Kimga ishonish, nimaga ishonish ihtiyor o'zlaringizda.

Black

06-27-2005, 06:51 AM

DJIGITni gapida jon bor lekin Angliya juda kop yillardan beri Musulmonla ortasida har hil dinie uydirmalar, fisqi-fasod tarqatish va har hil bolar-bolmas dinie tashkilotlar tuzilishiga komlaklashish bilan musulmonlarni oz manfaatlari uchun boshqarishga intiladi, Hiziblar ham shundoqlardan biri bunga asoso bola oladi.

Mana buni bir korilachi, nima fikr berasila:

http://www.crackingdavinci.co.uk/forum1/
http://www.crackingdavinci.com/

Royal Angilyami Amerikami musulmonlarga qarshi ko'p narsa qilishgan wa qilishayapti. Buni hech kim inkor etmaydi. Lekin bu degani har kim har kimga ishonib ketish mumkin degani emas. Masalaga musulmoncha, Islomiy nuqtai nazardan yondoshish kerak! Qani ibn Abdul Wahhabning gaplari, harakatlari Islomga to'g'ri kelmasligini aniq faktlar bilan isbotlang, sizni gapingizni 4 ta qo'limiz bilan qo'llab quvvatlaymiz. Lekin har hil Americanes Britaneslarning gapi bilan emas.

Linklaringizni ko'rdim. Umuman mavzuga aloqasi yo'q. Oddiy bir forum, bunaqa forumlar son mingta.

Royal

06-27-2005, 10:17 AM

.....O'sha Makkayu Madinadagi arablargayam, ularning shayhlarigayam hayronsan kishi. Bir umr arabcha o'rganishadi,

Oz ona tillari bolgandan keyin boshqa ilojlari ham yoq.
Qur'on wa hadislarni yod olishadi, tarihda o'tgan ulamolarni o'rganishadiyu,
Hammasiyammas, hamma oz oldiga, arabcha bilishi demak quronni yod biladi degan gapmas.
shu bitta Britaniyalik shpionning hotiralarni o'qimaganliklari uchun hech narsani farqiga borishmaydi.
qattan oqiydi ? Arabistinga borish uchun Angliya fuqorolaridan tashqari butun dunyo halqlari uchun viza muammosi bor .
Ozini davrida Angliyani Arabsiton va Orta Osiyoni bosib olinishida qilingan "koz boylash" ni korib (buni TVda korsatib etib otishgandi rasimlari orqali) :
Urishib-urishib yutqazishlariga oz qoganda Angliyaliklar kelishim qilamiz deyishganakan arablarga shunda arablar kelishishga keganida: englizlar bir sandiqni korsatib shuni biz ocholiymiza lekin sila ochomiysila, chunki bizda Olloh bergan kuch bor (Towba qildim) deyishib , ozlari ocholganakan, lekin arablar borib nechta odam bolibam sandiqni qopqogini ochomaganakan.
Lekin bu bir uydirma gap bolishiyam mumkin. man buni na tasdiqlash yoki rad etishga biror bir asosim yoq.
.... Ehh, yahshiyam Britaniyaliklar bor ekan musulmonlarga Islom haqida ma'lumot berib turishadi.
Nima uchun englizlarga tayanishingiz kerak bu masalada ?
Nima uchun ozlarimiz shu masalani kotarib chiqib, bilganimizcha, iloji boricha koproq malumotni togri ravishda berolmiymiza ???
Ahir har bir insonni oz bilganini keyingi avlodga va yonidagilarga orgatishi bu farz va qarzmasmi dinimizda a?
Makkaliklarga kelsak ular Qur'on bilan Hadisni o'qib yuraverishsin "haqiqat"ni bilmasdan. Shunday emasmi ?
Yoq, gapingiz judayam notogri. Ular oz yoliga har bir inson oz yoliga.
Kim nima qilsa ozi uchun qiladi.
Tarihdan, yanai odamlardan oz payitlaridayam eshitganmizki:
yani bir mulla boganakan va shuncha yillar davomida domlalik qilib oziga judayam muridlar ortirganakan, keyin ketganakan va oz yurtida esdaliklar chiqarganakan oshanda ozini tanishtirganakan: man edim osha palonchi domla dib. bula endi odamlarni gapi qanchalik rost qanchalik fitna buniyam sorab surishtirsa tegi chiqadi.
Botta hech kim sizni yoki boshqasini ayiblavotgani yoq, san u san yoki san bu san dib. bu hammani oz hohishi va tanlagan yoli.
Ollohni togri yolidan adashtirmasin ilohim.

Lekin kotarilgan masalada palonchi "yonalishga" palonchilarni aloqai va/yoki tasiri bolgan dib. buni inkor etish yoki qabul qilishga ancha ilmlik nafaqat ilmlik ancha tarihdan habardor bolgan odamgina etishi mumkin.

man bergan linklarda , chunki bu togrisidayam otgan kuni korib qoldim 2-3soatlik bir "peredacha" boldi TVda, shunda korsattiki Iso paygambardan qolgan yozuvlar boganakan va bu qogozlar malum bir guruhni qolida saqlangan, bu guruhlarni kottalari bu qogozlarni ochib oqishib CHERKOVni qorqitisharkan ("shantaj" manosida) : bu qogozdagilarni halqga tarqatamiza dib, shunda Fransiya va Italiyadan podsho va PAPA "qotillari" hamma joydan osha guruh odamlarini oldirib chiqisharkan , baribir bu guruhni odamlari ilojini qilib avloddan avlodga otkazar ekanlar - Leonardo Da Vinci ham osha guruh avlodlaridan biri boganakan (hozirgi kun analizi boyicha) va "Ohirgi otirish" degan rasimni osha qogozlar boyicha chizilganakan.
Demak CHERKOV biladi ozlarini qanchalik notogri ekanliklarini va bunday infoni tarqalishiga judayam qattiq qarshilik qilishadi va ozlarini bu ayiblarini yopish uchun Islomni ichidan yemirishga (towba qildim) harakat qilishadi har doim.

Gareeb

06-27-2005, 04:51 PM

Royal

06-27-2005, 07:33 PM

Royal aka Blackni postini yahshi tushunmapsiz.Yana bir bor o'qib chiqing. Musulmonlar haqida ayniqsa o'tganlar to'grisida tilni tiyish kerak. Harhil kofirlarning nayranglariga uchmasdan.Men hattoki MI6 boshligi Mr Scarlet chiqib bu haqda guvohlik bersa ham ishonmagan bo'lar edim. Chunki ular kkim bo'ptiki biz ularni gapini ko'tarib o'z birodarlarimizga loy chaplasak. Nimaga zarur bo'b qoldi qayoqdagi najaslarning gapiga ishonish? Men ham oldin bu haqda huddi sizdek fikrlardim keyin bir olimning suhbatini eshitib tamoman fikrim o'zgardi, musulmonlar ayniqsa olimlar haqida gap ketganda yomon gumonlardan o'zimni tiyadigan bo'ldim.Mana shu yolgon habarlarni tarqatishning o'zi musulmonlar o'rtasiga adovat urugini sochadi, birodarchilik ruhini ko'tarib tashlaydi.
Gareeb gapingiz togri albatta, lekin hech eshitganmisiz yoki borganmisiz Pokistonu Hindistonga ?
Bir tanishim bilan tepadagi savol tariqasida gaplashib otirsak etib qoldi: bilasmi shularni dastidan omie halq Hindostonu va Pokistonda shuncha kop firqalar ochishganki yani biror bir machitga kirsayiz huddi (towba qildim) "diskotegkaga" kirganday bolasiz va machitni ortasida doppayib turgan gorni korasiz, ha bunisi nima desa bu Paygambarimiz [s.a.w)niki deydilar (towba qildim): hey insonla ahir ulaniki Madinada bosa, sanla na botga qoyasanla desa ha endi bu oshandan kopiya deydi. (towba qildim)
Osha payitda tanishimni yahshilab urishib bergandim, endi maynavozchilik ham evi bilan, jaaa quloqqayam tepvordim endi devdim, lekin keyinchalik yana 3-4 odamdan buni tasdigini eshitdim. Nasib qilsa uniyam korarmiz.
NYda yani Queensda Ahmadielar va Jamaicada ularni machitlariyam bor shundoq juhudlarni kolesosi bilan qoshni qurilgan. Kirib namoz oqib chishgandi, lekin kirgan odam namozdan keyin hayrooon bolin yurdi bula qandoqakan , tushunmadim dib.

ma oz postimda birortani yo ayiblash yoki yomonlash yoki biror bir sozim bilan hafa qilishni kozlganamasman. Har doim shundoq ishlar bolganakan, ulardan habarimiz bolsinkim bundan keyin shundoqlarni har hil uydirmalariga uchmaslik uchun. Chunki "kechani korganda , kunduzni farqini biladi, yahshilik korganda yomonlikni qandoqligini biladi".
Sherali akani ashulalarida ham borku: "otmishi yoqning kelajagi yoq" dib.
Chunki Yigitni postini asosini tushunilmasa hamma osha Heziblarni gapini maqullab qolishi ham bor.
Olloh togri yolidan adashtirmasin, Olloh lanatiga uchragan va ming bor lanatlar bolguvchi shaytoni-layin vas-vasasidan Olloh oz panohida asrasin.

id'est

06-27-2005, 07:48 PM

Assalomu alaykum

Wahhobiylik ma'lum bir davlat ideologiyasidan boshqa bir narsa emas. Lekin juda kup kuchli olimlar har hil sabalarga kura bu ideologiyaning tuzogiga ilingan va ularning ijtihodi qanchalik yahshi va aniq bulmasin, wahhobilyar yulida hizmat qiladi ba'zi vaqtlar. Demak, bu yulning tugri hamda notugri tomonlari juda kup. Makkadagi universitetni tugatgan, uzi Hoshimiylar avlodidan bulgan tanishimiz aytishicha Saudiya Arabistonida ikkita hadisni uqimaydilar va uqitmaydilar, bittasi amir yoki shohlarning Hoshimiylarlardan bulishi kerakligi haqida, ikkinchisi esa Najddan (ar-Riyod regioni) katta shayton chiqishi haqida.
mna bir olimning wahhobiylik haqidagi fikri - aniq manbalar va aniq voqealar asosida - bu ishlar haqiqatda bulgan bulsa, demak biz bundan uzimizni yiroq tutishimiz kerak. Chunki narsaning aslligi uning ildizi, tarihi va asosiga qarab baholanadi, hozirgi holatiga qarab emas.

Question:
To my mind it is pretty clear, given the extreme violence from groups like Al Qaeda and the extreme repression found in Saudi Arabia, that Wahhabism can be an ideology of evil. ... Since most of the posters here know much more about the history of Islam than I do, I would like to learn from what you know

Answer:
The Wahhabiyya are the most important sect of latter-day Islam. The late great Scholar of al-Azhar and specialist of Juridical principles (Usul), Imam Muhammad Abu Zahra, wrote in his book on the history of the madhahib (Schools) in Islam titled Tarikh al-Madhahib al-Islamiyya ("History of the Islamic Schools"):
"The Wahhabis appeared in the Arabian desert [...] and revived the School of Ibn Taymiyya. The founder of the Wahhabiyya is Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab who died in 1786CE. He had studied the books of Ibn Taymiyya which became inestimable in his sight, deepening his involvement in them until he brought them out from the realm of opinion into the realm of practice. [...] The Wahhabis exaggerated [and bowdlerized] Ibn Taymiyya's positions and instituted practical matters that can be summarized thus:

"I. They did not restrain themselves to view worship (`ibada) in the same way that Islam had stipulated in the Qur'an and Sunna and as Ibn Taymiyya had mentioned, but they wished to include customs (`adat) also into the province of Islam so that Muslims would be bound by them. Thus they declared cigarette smoking haram and exaggerated this ruling to the point that their general public considered the smoker a mushrik [idolater]. As a result they resembled the Khawarij who used to declare apostate whoever committed a sin.

"II. In the beginning of their sway they would also declare coffee and whatever resembled it as haram [categorically prohibited] to themselves but it seems that they became more lenient on this point as time went by.

"III. The Wahhabis did not restrain themselves to proselytism only, but resorted to warmongering against whoever disagreed with them on the grounds that they were fighting innovation (bid`a), and innovations are an evil that must be fought, and it is obligatory to command good and forbid evil.1 [...] The leader of Wahhabi thought in the field of war and battle was Muhammad ibn Sa`ud, the ancestor of the ruling Sa`udi family in the Arabian lands. He was a brother-in-law to Shaykh Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab and embraced his madhhab, defending it fervently and calling unto it by force of arms. He announced that he was doing this so as to uphold the Sunna and eradicate bid`a. Perhaps, this religious mission that took a violent turn was carrying with itself a rebellion against Ottoman rule. [...]

Until the governor of Egypt, Muhammad `Ali Basha al-Albani, faced them and pounced on the Wahhabis with his strong army, routing them in the course of several battles. At that time their military force was reduced and confined to the Arabian tribes. Ryad and its vicinity was the center for this permanent da`wa that would turn violent whenever they found the strength and then lie still whenever they found violent opposition.

"IV. Whenever they were able to seize a town or city they would come to the tombs and turn them into ruins and destruction [...] and they would destroy whatever mosques were with the tombs also. [...]

"V. Their brutality did not stop there but they also came to whatever graves were visible and destroyed them also. And when the ruler of the Hijaz regions caved in to them they destroyed all the graves of the Companions and razed them to the ground [...]

id'est

06-27-2005, 07:51 PM

"VI. They would cling to small matters which they condemned although they had nothing to do with idolatry nor with whatever leads to idolatry, such as photography. We found this in their fatwas and epistles at the hands of their Ulema, although their rulers ignore this saying of theirs completely and cast it by the wayside.

"VII. They expanded the meaning of bid`a [innovation] to strange proportions, to the point that they actually claimed that draping the walls of the noble Rawda [near the Prophet's chamber in Madina] is an innovated matter. Hence they forbade the renewal of the drapes that were in it, until they fell in tatters and became unsightly, were it not for the light that pours out to all that are in the presence of the Prophet - upon him peace - or feels that in this place was the abode of Revelation on the Master of Messengers. In fact, we find among them, on top of this, those who consider that the Muslim's expression "our Master Muhammad" (sayyiduna Muhammad) is an impermissible bid`a / and they show true extremism about this and, for the sake of their mission, use foul and furious language until most people actually flee from them as fast as they can.

"VIII. In truth, the Wahhabis have actualized the opinions of Ibn Taymiyya and are extremely zealous followers and supporters of those views. They adopted the positions of Ibn Taymiyya that we explained in our discussion of those who call themselves "Salafiyya." However, they expanded the meaning of bid`a and construed as innovations things that have no relation to worship. [...] In fact, it has been noticed that the Ulema of the Wahhabis consider their own opinions correct and not possibly wrong, while they consider the opinions of others wrong and not possibly correct. More than that, they consider what others than themselves do in the way of erecting tombs and circumambulating them, as near to idolatry.2 In this respect they are near the Khawarij who used to declare those who dissented with them apostate and fight them as we already mentioned. This was a relatively harmless matter in the days when they were cloistered in the desert and not trespassing its boundaries; but when they mixed with others until the Hijaz country was in the hand of the Sa`ud family,3 the matter became of the utmost gravity. This is why the late King `Abd al-`Aziz of the Sa`ud family opposed them, and treated their opinions as confined to themselves and irrelevant to others."4 [End of the text quoted from Imam Abu Zahra's book Tarikh al-Madhahib al-Islamiyya ("History of the Islamic Schools").]

Among the titles Wahhabis gave themselves are the names Muwahhidun ("Monotheists"), Islahiyyun ("Reformists"), and Salafiyyun ("Followers of the Pious Predecessors") while their opponents name them Hashwiyya ("Illiterates" lit. "Visceralists"), Mujassima ("Anthropomorphists") and Khawarij ("Seceders"). They name Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab "Shaykh al-Islam" - although he is by his own Hanbali Madhhab's account a minor figure - and name his descendants Al al-Shaykh [House of the Shaykh] while his brother Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab declares him an heretic in his fatwa printed under the title Fasl al-Khitab min Kitab Allah wa-Hadith al-Rasul (Sallallahu `alayhi wa-Sallam) wa-Kalam Uli al-Albab fi Madhhab Ibni `Abd al-Wahhab ("The Final Word from the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sayings of the Scholars Concerning the School of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab"), also known as al-Sawa`iq al-Ilahiyya fi Madhhab al-Wahhabiyya ("The Divine Thunderbolts Concerning the Wahhabi School").

This book is the earliest refutation of the Wahhabi sect in print, consisting in over forty-five concise chapters spanning 120 pages that show beyond doubt the fundamental divergence of the Wahhabi school, not only from the Consensus and Usul of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jama`a and the fiqh of the Hanbali madhhab, but also from their putative Imams, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim on most or all the issues reviewed.5 The last point shows the fundamental dishonesty of Salafism toward the very Imams they claim as their true link to the Salaf.

Other reliable literature on that sect includes:

- The Yemeni contemporary of Muhammad Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab: Sayyid `Alawi ibn Ahmad ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Qutb `Abd Allah al-Haddad's Misbah al-Anam fi Radd Shubuhat al-Bid`i al-Najdi al-Ladhi Adalla biha al-`Awamm ("The Lamp of Mankind in Refuting the Insinuations Used by the Innovator from Najd to Misguide the Public" 1216); I have translated the introduction and outline of this important book in full and it is available in the UK appended to Sayyid Yusuf al-Rifa`i's 1999CE pamphlet: "Advice to our brethren the Scholars of Najd"

- Sayyid `Abd Allah ibn Hasan ibn Fadl Ba `Alawi's Sidq al-Khabar fi Khawarij al-Qarn al-Thani `Ashar ("The Truthful News Concerning the Kharijis of the Twelfth Century");

- Hasan ibn `Umar ibn Ma`ruf al-Shatti al-Hanbali's (1205-1274) al-Nuqul al-Shar`iyya fil-Radd `alal-Wahhabiyya ("The Legal Texts that Refute the Wahhabis");

- Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zayni Dahlan's (d 1304) al-Durar al-Saniyya fil-Radd `ala al-Wahhabiyya ("The Resplendent Pearls in Refuting the Wahhabis");

- Ibrahim al-Samannudi al-Mansuri's (d 1314) Sa`adat al-Darayn fil-Radd `ala al-Firqatayn al-Wahhabiyya wal-Zahiriyya ("The Bliss of the Two Abodes in the Refutation of the Two Sects: Wahhabis and Zahiris");

- Shaykh Salamat al-`Azzami's (d 1376) al-Barahin al-Sati`a fi Radd Ba`d al-Bida` al-Sha'i`a ("The Radiant Proofs in Refuting Certain Widespread Innovations");

- and the esteemed contemporary Yemeni Shaykh of Jeddah, al-Habib Zayn al-`Abidin Al Sumayt al-`Alawi's al-Ajwiba al-Ghaliya fi `Aqidat al-Firqat al-Najiya ("The Precious Replies Concerning the Doctrine of the Saved Group [= mainstream Sunnis]").

NOTES

1To this day, the Khawarij include al-amr bil-ma`ruf wal-nahi `an al-munkar in their books of fiqh.

2Ironically, the Wahhabis do not consider it idolatry to plaster pictures of their kings, set up kingdoms, and name a land after a king.

3Through non-Muslim money and arms.

4Abu Zahra, Tarikh al-Madhahib al-Islamiyya (p. 235-238).

5The Fasl/Sawa`iq received the following editions: [1] Bombay: Matba`a Nukhbat al-Akhbar, 1306/1889; [2] Cairo; [3] Istanbul: Ishik reprints at Wakf Ihlas, 1399/1979; [4] (Unannotated) Damascus, 1418/1997 (al-Sawa`iq); [5] (Annotated) Damascus, 1420/1999 (Fasl).

Allah knows best.

Hajj Gibril
--
GF Haddad

Gareeb

06-27-2005, 07:51 PM

Ha aytib qo'ya qolmaysizmi men antihizbman deb. :D
Har gapizga "hezb" qo'shmasayiz ko'ngil joyiga tushmaydimi deyman :)
Umuman olganda gapiz toppa togri. Habariz bo'lsa Muhammad ibn Abdulwahhob ana shu siz aytayotgan Hindiston va Pokistondagi kabi bid'atlarga qarshi kurashgan, bu haqda kitoblar yozgan. Sof Islomni asrab, hurofotlardan saqlanishga chaqirgan. Kofirlar haqiqiy Islomni ko'rishni hohlamaydi, bu ular uchun tahdid, shuning uchun ham mana shunday odamlar haqida uydirma -bo'htonlar tarqatib ularni omi musulmonlar oldida qadrini bir pul qilishga harakat qilishadi. Bunaqa narsalarga sizu bizga o'hshagan va muhtaram Yigitaliga o'hshaganlar laqqa tushamiz. Hullas o'z dinimiz uchun o'zimiz qaygurishimiz kerak, kofirlar emas.

id'est

06-27-2005, 08:00 PM

Nuh Ha Mim Keller fikri:

The word salafi or "early Muslim" in traditional Islamic scholarship means someone who died within the first four hundred years after the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including scholars such as Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Anyone who died after this is one of the khalaf or "latter-day Muslims".

The term "Salafi" was revived as a slogan and movement, among latter-day Muslims, by the followers of Muhammad Abduh (the student of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani) some thirteen centuries after the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), approximately a hundred years ago. Like similar movements that have historically appeared in Islam, its basic claim was that the religion had not been properly understood by anyone since the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the early Muslims--and themselves.

In terms of ideals, the movement advocated a return to a shari'a-minded orthodoxy that would purify Islam from unwarranted accretions, the criteria for judging which would be the Qur'an and hadith. Now, these ideals are noble, and I don't think anyone would disagree with their importance. The only points of disagreement are how these objectives are to be defined, and how the program is to be carried out. It is difficult in a few words to properly deal with all the aspects of the movement and the issues involved, but I hope to publish a fuller treatment later this year, insha'Allah, in a collection of essays called "The Re-Formers of Islam".

As for its validity, one may note that the Salafi approach is an interpretation of the texts of the Qur'an and sunna, or rather a body of interpretation, and as such, those who advance its claims are subject to the same rigorous criteria of the Islamic sciences as anyone else who makes interpretive claims about the Qur'an and sunna; namely, they must show: [size=2]1. that their interpretations are acceptable in terms of Arabic language;

[size=2]2. that they have exhaustive mastery of all the primary texts that relate to each question, and

[size=2]3. that they have full familiarity of the methodology of usul al-fiqh or "fundamentals of jurisprudence" needed to comprehensively join between all the primary texts.

[size=2]Only when one has these qualifications can one legitimately produce a valid interpretive claim about the texts, which is called ijtihad or "deduction of shari'a" from the primary sources. Without these qualifications, the most one can legitimately claim is to reproduce such an interpretive claim from someone who definitely has these qualifications; namely, one of those unanimously recognized by the Umma as such since the times of the true salaf, at their forefront the mujtahid Imams of the four madhhabs or "schools of jurisprudence".

[size=2]As for scholars today who do not have the qualifications of a mujtahid, it is not clear to me why they should be considered mujtahids by default, such as when it is said that someone is "the greatest living scholar of the sunna" any more than we could qualify a school-child on the playground as a physicist by saying, "He is the greatest physicist on the playground". Claims to Islamic knowledge do not come about by default. Slogans about "following the Qur'an and sunna" sound good in theory, but in practice it comes down to a question of scholarship, and who will sort out for the Muslim the thousands of shari'a questions that arise in his life. One eventually realizes that one has to choose between following the ijtihad of a real mujtahid, or the ijtihad of some or another "movement leader", whose qualifications may simply be a matter of reputation, something which is often made and circulated among people without a grasp of the issues.

[size=2]What comes to many peoples minds these days when one says "Salafis" is bearded young men arguing about din. The basic hope of these youthful reformers seems to be that argument and conflict will eventually wear down any resistance or disagreement to their positions, which will thus result in purifying Islam. Here, I think education, on all sides, could do much to improve the situation. [

[size=2]The reality of the case is that the mujtahid Imams, those whose task it was to deduce the Islamic shari'a from the Qur'an and hadith, were in agreement about most rulings; while those they disagreed about, they had good reason to, whether because the Arabic could be understood in more than one way, or because the particular Qur'an or hadith text admitted of qualifications given in other texts (some of them acceptable for reasons of legal methodology to one mujtahid but not another), and so forth.

[size=2]Because of the lack of hard information in English, the legitimacy of scholarly difference on shari'a rulings is often lost sight of among Muslims in the West. For example, the work Fiqh al-sunna by the author Sayyid Sabiq, recently translated into English, presents hadith evidences for rulings corresponding to about 95 percent of those of the Shafi'i school. Which is a welcome contribution, but by no means a "final word" about these rulings, for each of the four schools has a large literature of hadith evidences, and not just the Shafi'i school reflected by Sabiq's work. The Maliki school has the Mudawwana of Imam Malik, for example, and the Hanafi school has the Sharh ma'ani al-athar [Explanation of meanings of hadith] and Sharh mushkil al-athar [Explanation of problematic hadiths], both by the great hadith Imam Abu Jafar al-Tahawi, the latter work of which has recently been published in sixteen volumes by Mu'assasa al-Risala in Beirut. Whoever has not read these and does not know what is in them is condemned to be ignorant of the hadith evidence for a great many Hanafi positions.

[size=2]What I am trying to say is that there is a large fictional element involved when someone comes to the Muslims and says, "No one has understood Islam properly except the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and early Muslims, and our sheikh". This is not valid, for the enduring works of first-rank Imams of hadith, jurisprudence, Qur'anic exegesis, and other shari'a disciplines impose upon Muslims the obligation to know and understand their work, in the same way that serious comprehension of any other scholarly field obliges one to have studied the works of its major scholars who have dealt with its issues and solved its questions. Without such study, one is doomed to repeat mistakes already made and rebutted in the past. [

[size=2]Most of us have acquaintances among this Umma who hardly acknowledge another scholar on the face of the earth besides the Imam of their madhhab, the Sheikh of their Islam, or some contemporary scholar or other. And this sort of enthusiasm is understandable, even acceptable (at a human level) in a non-scholar. But only to the degree that it does not become ta'assub or bigotry, meaning that one believes one may put down Muslims who follow other qualified scholars. At that point it is haram, because it is part of the sectarianism (tafarruq) among Muslims that Islam condemns. [size=2]When one gains Islamic knowledge and puts fiction aside, one sees that superlatives about particular scholars such as "the greatest" are untenable; that each of the four schools of classical Islamic jurisprudence has had many many luminaries. To imagine that all preceding scholarship should be evaluated in terms of this or that "Great Reformer" is to ready oneself for a big letdown, because intellectually it cannot be supported. I remember once hearing a law student at the University of Chicago say: "I'm not saying that Chicago has everything. Its just that no place else has anything." Nothing justifies transposing this kind of attitude onto our scholarly resources in Islam, whether it is called "Islamic Movement", "Salafism", or something else, and the sooner we leave it behind, the better it will be for our Islamic scholarship, our sense of reality, and for our din.

Akhee-Abdullah

06-27-2005, 08:59 PM

al-Hamdu-Lillaahi Rabbil-'Aalameen was-Salaatu was-Salaamu 'alaa
Ashrafil-Anbiyaa’e wal-Mursaleen, wa ba'd: :info:

as-Salaam 'alaykum wa-Rahmatullaahi :!:

Ya Ikhwaan (Black and Ghareeb), these days people who stick to the Quraan and Sunnaah have been labelled "Wahhabis"...Do not waste your time on the people of hawaa/desires, they decided to follow their whims not the Quraan and Sunnah.

May Allah subahanahu wa ta'ala curse those who cursed the people of Quraan and Sunnah with the noble name of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala Al-Wahhab, ameen.

Id'est-As for you, you have quoted this Jahmee "No Huh Moon Killer", all of his false accusations along with yours have been refuted here with a 21 page reply from the Quraan and Sunnah with the proofs A Reply to a Jahmee : Keller Unveiled (http://www.salafibookstore.com/sps/downloads/pdf/AQD060009.pdf) Before barking why do not you read the proofs yaa Zaleem!!! Have Allah subhana ta'ala made the flesh of the Muslimeen halal for you?????

May Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala rid the Earth of the inheritors of the innovating heretical Zindeeqs (like Nuh Ha Mim Killer) and protect the Ummah from their hidden evil! Ameen.

Akhee-Abdullah

06-27-2005, 10:00 PM

Humphrey’s ‘Memoirs’-refuted

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 18th Century. He went through training in adopting an Islaamic 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.

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.

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.

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. [31] 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. [32]

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 Imaam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab ‘ the victory of the Salafi method’, ‘I discussed this with Sheikh ibn Baaz, who denied the journey to Kurdistan and Iran. Sheikh Ibn Baaz 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’. [33]

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.

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. 34

It is historically inaccurate to place these events at the beginning of the 18th Century. India at the time was not a colony; the East India Company began trading in the 17th Century but had no political hold until 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 19th 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.

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.

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.

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 Allaah knows best the intentions.

Source: http://www.allaahuakbar.net/scholars/ibn_abdul_wahhaab/a_correction_of_misunderstanding.htm

id'est

06-27-2005, 10:04 PM

Brother,

I never said that those are my thoughts. If search for truth is barking, then you are calling many and many traditional scholars to be dogs or jahmites. This is sign of ignorance when you start attacking people rahter than their ideas. I would never say someone is wrong, someone is ... etc. Allahs knows best.

Qur'an and hadith is our way. No doubt in it. Tell me how many ways there exist for just as simple as reading the Qur'an. Seven ways and seven posssible differing meanings. Understanding Qur'an and hadith together and applying in scholarly way would suggest mirriads of meanings and interpretations. Which one is right?

We have to know most of them, compare, understand and then to draw a conclusion, even here just for ourselves and not for others, and without any anger or emotion. By calling me dog and slanderer you have just ruined all the rules of discussion. I have read all Sahih al-Buhari where hadith narrate that the prophet SAV made ablution in at least 5 or 6 different ways, who could tell me which way to follow? did not the prophet SAV himself suggest in that way that there should be minor differences within the unity and it is the way of islam, being tolerant and being soft in character.

It is not just the problem with Keller. How about other great scholars in both inside Arabia and outside who claim that something is wrong with the salafi school? Do you just read few sources you like and ignore the other biggest part?

You are praising some people that their on the right path, sorry, even the greatest scholars were not sure in the rightness, as they would say I do not know, Allah knows best, but my opinion on this issue is such and such...

We are all muslims, but we may differ in opinion and we have to respect each other. So please do not insult others. if you have more knowledge, what do you say to the following information

id'est

06-27-2005, 10:09 PM

Al-Albani Unveiled
An Exposition of His Errors
and other important issues
Compiled by Sayf ad-Din Ahmed ibn Muhammad

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

PREFACE
All praise be to Allahu ta'ala. Peace and blessings be on His final Messenger, Sayyidina Muhammad. Auspicious salutations be on his pure Ahl al-Bayt (people of the Prophet's House) and on all his just and devoted Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all); and last but not least praise be upon the glorious pious predecessors (Salaf as-Salihin) and their successors who are the Ahl-as-Sunnah wa'l Jama'ah (People of the Sunnah and Community) of the four existing schools of Sacred Law (Fiqh).

O you who believe! What you are about to read is of dire importance to the believer who accepts the authority of the Noble Hadith, second only to the Holy Qur'an al-Karim. I here present to the open minded believer an exposition of the mistakes and contradictions of probably the foremost Hadith Shaykh of the 'Salafiyya' sect, by the name of Shaykh Muhammad Nasiruddeen al-Albani. I was asked by some brothers on the status and rank of al-Albani, and fearing the declaration of Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him): "He who is asked something he knows and conceals it will have a bridle of fire put on him on the Day of Resurrection" (Sunan Abu Dawood, 3/3650, English ed'n); I decided to compile this short work. Let me stress at the outset, this work was primarily compiled to correct some notions held by al-Albani and secondarily the "Salafi" sect; hence the last part of this work has been entitled: "and Other Important issues."

This short piece of work has been edited and abridged from the four volume set which emphatically and clearly outlines al-Albani's mistakes, contradictions, slanders and even lies in the honourable and sacred Islamic Science of Hadith (Uloom al Hadith), by the well known scholar, Al-Shaykh Hasan ibn Ali al-Saqqaf (may Allah reward him for his effort) of Amman, Jordan; from his work entitled: "Tanaqadat al-Albani al-Wadihat" (The Clear Contradictions of al-Albani).

Shaykh Saqqaf is a contemporary Shafi'i scholar of Hadith and Fiqh. His Shaykh's include Hashim Majdhub of Damascus in Shafi'i Fiqh, Muti' Hammami in estate division, Muhammad Hulayyil of Amman in Arabic Grammar, and he has been given written authorization (Ijaza) in the field of Hadith from one of the greatest Hadith scholars of our time - Shaykh Abdullah Muhammad al-Ghimari (may the Mercy of Allah be upon him) of Tangiers, Morocco [born 1910 C.E; died Feb. 1413/1993 C.E]; an ex-Professor of Hadith at Al-Azhar University, author of nearly 150 works, his late brother: Ahmad ibn Muhammad (Allah's mercy be upon him) was a great Hafiz of Hadith, (see later for the definition of Hafiz of Hadith). Shaykh Ghimari has declared in one of his published Fatwa's that al-Albani is an innovator (mubtadi) in Islam, (al-Albani has criticised Shaykh Ghimari's classifications of Hadith in some of his works; but then contradicted himself in others - see the quotes from Shaykh Saqqaf later). Shaykh Saqqaf presently teaches a circle of students in Amman and has published over forty five books and treatises on Hadith, tenets of faith (Aqeeda), Fiqh and heresiology.

So as to enlighten the reader who is unaware of al-Albani's status, the following is a short biography as given in the inside back cover of the English translation of al-Albani's booklet by the title 'Adaab uz Zufaaf' (The Etiquettes of Marriage and Wedding) as published by his followers in England (viz.: "Jami'at Ihyaa Minhaj al Sunnah") :- "Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albani was born in the city of Ashkodera, capital of Albania in 1914 CE. While he was young his parents migrated with him to Damascus, Syria. From an early age he became fascinated by the science of Hadith and thereafter spent his time devoted to seeking knowledge. In later life he was given Professorship of Hadith at the Islamic University of Madinah. He is well known to students and scholars for his knowledge and writings. He has many well known students and has visited places through out the Middle East and Europe. He was forced to migrate from Syria to Jordan. He has been of enormous service to the Prophetic Hadith, taking great pains to check and sort out the authentic from the weak and fabricated narrations. He has produced many pamphlets and books, some of them running into many volumes - on topics of great importance to the Muslims - and has fully checked many of the famous books of Hadith - the Sunan of Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, An-Nasai and Ibn Majah, along with Suyooti's huge "Jami-us-Sagheer" and "Mishkat-ul Masabih". He is the foremost scholar of Hadith and related sciences of this age."

It is this last statement which is highly far-fetched, and it is the predominantly imaginary belief of his misguided followers in certain parts of the world. Since only Allah knows who is the "foremost scholar of Hadith and related sciences of this age." I say this because there are others who may well be the 'foremost scholar'. One thing that may be noticed from the above biography, is that al-Albani does not seem to have been given any authorization (ijaza) in Hadith from any recognised scholar of Hadith. I have read other biographies and asked some of his supporters in England to give me the name of al-Albani's Hadith Shaykh; but to no avail. It seems that al-Albani "taught" himself the science of Hadith by spending many hours in the famous library of Damascus - al-Maktabatuz Zahiriyyah. In the biography written in the preface of the English edition of his work - "Sifah salah an-Nabee", it was also stated that he was: "influenced by articles in 'al-Manaar' magazine." The last named magazine was edited by the notorious freemason - Muhammad Rashid Ridah (d.1935 CE)!

Al-Albani has not made a handful of forgivable errors, but rather well over 1200, which are only forgivable if he himself admits and corrects his mistakes by repenting in front of the People of Knowledge, as well as the sincere believers who may have been relying on his 'classifications of Hadith'. The selected contradictions from "Tanaqadat al-Albani al-Wadihat" have been derived for sake of brevity from volume's one and two only, and whenever the symbol * is indicated, this corresponds to the original reference to the Arabic edition. The reader should also remember that whenever anything appears in brackets, then these are usually my words and not that of Shaykh Saqqaf. It should also be said that Volume 1 of the original contains 250 ahadith, in which al-Albani has said Sahih (an authentic Hadith) in one of his books and then contradicted himself by saying Daeef (a weak Hadith) in another of his books, or similar mistakes and contradictions. Volume 2 contains 652 Ahadith of the same description as the above, or similar contradictions in individual rijal (biography of a Hadith narrator) of the Sanad (the chain of transmission of a specific Hadith) of the Hadiths in question. In some instances (e.g. Vol.2, pp. 63-64), Shaykh Saqqaf shows how a Hadith narrator is 'trustworthy' when al-Albani wants to use a Hadith to prove something, but becomes 'untrustworthy' when in a Hadith used by the person al-Albani is arguing against; an extremely embarrassing mistake for anyone of any scholarly integrity. These books by Shaykh Saqqaf have already done much to pull the rug from under 'Salafiyyism' in Jordan and even in 'Saudi' Arabia, where the first volume alone has seen no less than SIX reprints in a single year alone! These books are extremely hot property that any 'Salafi' (or anti-Salafi) who reads Arabic will want to buy. I ask you, how many times does an inept student of Hadith like al-Albani have to contradict himself before he ceases to be of authority? Can you find even ten such contradictions in the works of the traditional memorizers of Hadith (Huffaz), those who had memorized at least 100,000 Ahadith with their sanad's? The great scholars like Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafi'i, Ibn Hanbal, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Ibn Maja, al-Nasai, Daraqutni, Hakim, Asqalani and so on . . . . Allah's mercy be upon them. The discerning believer should know that al-Albani has not in his memory anywhere near a 100,000 Ahadith in his memory, in fact as far as we know there is no one who is a Hafiz of Hadith today! If there is, we say please come forward and prove it, and only Allah knows best!

id'est

06-27-2005, 10:10 PM

During the course of examining various Hadiths, Shaykh Saqqaf compared them to the written opinion of al-Albani. Eventually Shaykh Saqqaf began a compilation of al-Albani's mistakes. He came across contradictions, supposition, inadequate research and the blatant perversion of sayings quoted from the great scholars of Islam. He was especially worried by the fact that many students and members of the youth who do not have enough or no knowledge are simply not bothering to investigate the Hadiths classified by al-Albani, are being misled into blind ignorance; even though these very people are the one's calling staunchly and vociferously for the complete abandonment of taqleed (usually translated as "blind following" by the opponents, but in reality it is the following of qualified and verified scholarship of a Mujtahid Mutlaq [an absolutely independent scholar of the highest calibre] like the Imam's Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafi'i, Ibn Hanbal (Allah's mercy be upon them) and the like, as well as the scholars who adhered to and promulgated a particular school of fiqh [Madhhab] for the greater part of Islam's history; taqleed in simple language is the following of one of the four existing schools of fiqh). These people seem to contradict themselves, as well as displaying hypocrisy when they go around making it a priority to attack the followers of the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i or Hanbali schools of Sacred Law; even though they themselves are practising taqleed of an individual(s)!

Bearing in mind the Hadith reported by Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Holy Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him): "Whoever sees an evil, he must prevent it with his hand, and if he has no power for this action, then he should prevent it with his tongue, and if he cannot do this, then he should at least consider it a vice in his heart, and this is a very low level of one's Iman (faith)." [see Sahih Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Nasai - as recorded in Targheeb Wa'l-Tarheeb by Al-Hafiz Mundhiri, d. 1258 C.E; Rahimahumullah],

and even more explicitly from Imam al-Darimi (Rahimahullah) who reported Ziyad Ibn Hudair (Rahimahullah) saying: "Umar (Allah be pleased with him) said to me: Do you know what can destroy Islam?" I said: "No." He said: "It is destroyed by the mistakes of scholars, the argument of the hypocrites about the book (of Allah), and the opinions of the misguided leaders." (see Mishkatul Masabih, 1/269, Trans. A.H. Siddiqui).

We took the liberty to forewarn and guide the many sincere believers who are turning to their faith from blundering into miscomprehension and wrong by translating selectively from Shaykh Saqqaf's books.

In order to safe keep today's youth from falling into heresy, Shaykh Saqqaf has embarked upon a quest to expose such a person who considers himself to be among the great scholars of Hadith like, Imam's al-Bukhari and Muslim (Rahimahumullah), to the extent that one of his deluded followers considered him to be in the rank of the Amir al-Mu'minin fil Hadith, Shaykh al-Islam al-Hafiz Ahmad Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (the Shafi'i Imam who authored the most famous commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari and many other books, d. 852/1449 C.E; Rahimahullah).

As for Shaykh Saqqaf, the respected reader may get the impression that he has an uncompromising demeanour in some of his comments made straight after he exposes an error of al-Albani. I make no apology for his style of exposition, since many Allah fearing scholars have been uncompromising in the past when it comes to enjoining the Good and Forbidding the Evil as has been prescribed in the Qur'an and Sunnah (e.g. in the refutations against the heretical sects like the Khawarij, Mu'tazila, Shi'ah . . . . ), so long as it forewarns the general masses from accepting the falsities of the heretics and other like minded "scholars". May be Shaykh Saqqaf considers al-Albani to be an innovator, just as his late teacher - Shaykh Ghimari (Rahimahullah) considered him to be. There are many Hadith which command us to detest the Heretics. For example, Ibrahim ibn Maisara reported Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) as saying: "He who showed respect to an innovator he in fact aided in the demolishing of Islam." (Bayhaqi - see Mishkatul Masabih, 1/189, English ed'n).

I hope the esteemed reader will read this short piece of work with vigilance and an open mind, especially those who have been loyal readers and supporters of al-Albani's books and decrees. I sincerely hope that this work will be of great benefit to all who read it and pray that Allah accept it as a good deed done purely for His pleasure. I would also like to thank all those brothers who assisted me in the compilation of this work, especially to the brother who supplied me with Shaykh Saqqaf's books. May Allah forgive us for any shortcomings and errors. Amin.

id'est

06-27-2005, 10:16 PM

Al-Albani Unveiled

Al-Albani's Weakening of Someof Imam Bukhari's and Muslim's Ahadith.

Al-Albani has said in "Sharh al-Aqeedah at-Tahaweeah, pg. 27-28" (8th edition, Maktab al-Islami) by Shaykh Ibn Abi al-Izz al-Hanafi (Rahimahullah), that any Hadith coming from the Sahih collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim is Sahih, not because they were narrated by Bukhari and Muslim, but because the Ahadith are in fact correct. But he clearly contradicts himself, since he has weakened Ahadith from Bukhari and Muslim himself! Now let us consider this information in the light of elaboration :-

SELECTED TRANSLATIONS FROM VOLUME 1

No. 1: (*Pg. 10 No.1)

Hadith: The Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Allah says I will be an opponent to 3 persons on the day of resurrection: (a) One who makes a covenant in my Name but he proves treacherous, (b) One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price (c) And one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him, but doesn't pay him his wages." .

Al-Albani said that this Hadith was DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 4-111 No.4054". Little does he know that this Hadith has been narrated by Ahmad and Bukhari from Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him)!!

No. 2: (*Pg. 10 No.2)

Hadith: "Sacrifice only a grown up cow unless it is difficult for you, in which case sacrifice a ram." [Muslim No.1963-Arabic edition, or see the English version 3-4836 pg. 1086].

Al-Albani said that this Hadith was DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 6-64 No.6222." Although this Hadith has been narrated by Imam's Ahmad, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Nisai and Ibn Majah from Jaabir (Allah be pleased with him)!!

No. 3: (*Pg. 10 No.3)

Hadith: "Amongst the worst people in Allah's sight on the Day of Judgement will be the man who makes love to his wife and she to him, and he divulges her secret." [Muslim No.1437- Arabic edition].

Al-Albani claims that this Hadith is DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 2-197 No.2005." Although it has been narrated by Muslim from Abi Sayyed (Allah be pleased with him)!!

No. 4: (*Pg. 10 No.4)

Hadith: "If someone woke up at night (for prayers) let him begin his prayers with 2 light rak'ats." [Muslim No.768].

[size=2][b]Al-Albani stated that this Hadith was DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 1-213 No.718." Although it is narrated by Muslim and Ahmad from Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him)!!

[size=2]No. 5: (*Pg. 11 No.5)

Hadith: "You will rise with shining foreheads and shining hands and feet on the Day of Judgement by completing Wudhu properly. . . . . . . ." [Muslim No.246].

[size=2]Al-Albani claims it is DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 2-14 No.1425." Although it has been narrated by Muslim from Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him)!!

[size=2]No. 6: (*Pg. 11 No.6)

Hadith: "The greatest trust in the sight of Allah on the Day of Judgement is the man who doesn't divulge the secrets between him and his wife." [Muslim no's 124 and 1437]

[size=2]Al-Albani claims it is DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 2-192 No.1986." Although it has been narrated by Muslim, Ahmad and Abu Dawood from Abi Sayyed (Allah be pleased with him)!!

[size=2]No. 7: (*Pg. 11 No.7)

Hadith: "If anyone READS the last ten verses of Surah al-Kahf he will be saved from the mischief of the Dajjal." [Muslim No.809].

[size=2]Al-Albani said that this Hadith was DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 5-233 No.5772." NB- The word used by Muslim is MEMORIZED and not READ as al-Albani claimed; what an awful mistake! This Hadith has been narrated by Muslim, Ahmad and Nisai from Abi Darda (Allah be pleased with him)!! (Also recorded by Imam Nawawi in "Riyadh us-Saliheen, 2-1021" of the English ed'n).

[size=2]No. 8: (*Pg. 11 No.8)

Hadith: "The Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him) had a horse called al-Laheef." . [size=2][b]But Al-Albani said that this Hadith was DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 4-208 No.4489." Although it has been narrated by Bukhari from Sahl ibn Sa'ad (Allah be pleased with him)!!! [size=2]Shaykh Saqqaf said: "This is only anger from anguish, little from a lot and if it wasn't for the fear of lengthening and boring the reader, I would have mentioned many other examples from al-Albani's books whilst reading them. Imagine what I would have found if I had traced everything he wrote?"

id'est

06-27-2005, 10:31 PM

If you are right to yourself why change the literature as Christians did to the Bible. Do they wanted to portrey Imam Nawawi as a salafi? Is it your way when you like someone you make him salafi, when you do not like him make him Jahmite?

by Moin Shaheed, President, Ahlus Sunnah Muslim Association of Sri Lanka and GF Haddad

Warning: Avoid this English translation of Riyad al-Salihin !

A review of the translation of al-Nawawi's Riyad al-Salihin published in 1999 by Darussalam Publishing House, Riyad

A team of unprincipled editors and translators out of a Ryad publishing house by the name of Darussalam was commissioned to produce a glossy 2-volume English edition of Imam al-Nawawi's Riyad al-Salihin - being distributed for free to Islamic schools around the world - designed to propagate "Salafi" ideology to the unwary English-speaking Muslim students of Islamic knowledge. This ideology is couched within a thoroughly unscrupulous "commentary" inserted into the book chapters and authored by an unknown or spurious "Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf of Pakistan," "revised and edited by Mahmud Rida Murad" (1:7). Following are some examples of what is contained in this brand new "Salafi" product:

(a) The work is laced with unabashed eulogy of Nasir Albani whom it calls "the leading authority in the science of hadith" (1:88). The fact is that the only agreed-upon title Albani has been able to earn from the verifying Ulema of the Umma from East to West, is that of erratic innovator.

(b) Declaring that "in case of breach of ablution, the wiping over the socks is sufficient, and there is no need for washing the feet" (1:31). This ruling invalidates one of the conditions of wudu' spelled out in the Qur'an and the Sunna, making salât prayed with such a wiping null and void according to the Four Schools, which prohibit wiping over non-waterproof footwear.

(c) Declaring that "ours should not be the belief that the dead do hear and reply [to our greeting]" (1:515). The Jumhur differs.

(d) Declaring that expressing the intention (niyya) verbally before salât "is a Bid`ah (innovation in religion) because no proof of it is found in Shar'`ah" (1:14). This is not only a wanton attack on the Shafi`i School but an ignorant violation of the criteria of calling something an innovation in the Religion.

(e) "Prohibition [of kissing] is only effective if the kissing of hands is also involved." (2:721). Note that Imam Sufyan al-Thawri called the kissing of the hands of the Ulema a Sunna and that the majority of the scholars concur on its permissibility!

(f) Saying "unapproved hadith" - an invented classification! - for the sahih hadith of the two Jews who kissed the Prophet's - Allah bless and greet him - hands and feet as narrated by al-Tirmidhi (sah'h) and others.

(g) The weakening of the hasan hadith whereby the Prophet SAV kissed Zayd ibn Haritha as narrated by al-Tirmidhi (hasan).

(h) Declaring "the hadiths about the kissing of hands are weak and deficient from the viewpoint of authenticity," an outright lie.

(i) Declaring after the hadith stating: "I suffer like two men of you": "This Hadith... throws light on the fact that the Prophet SAV was merely a human being." (2:737) This discourse is that of the disbelievers mentioned in many places of the Qur'an: {They said: You are but mortals like us} (14:10), {Shall we put faith in two mortals like ourselves?} (23:47), {They said: You are but mortals like unto us} 36:15, {Shall mere mortals guide us?} (64:6).

(j) Claiming: "We are uncertain that after saying a funeral prayer, the Prophet SAV and his Companions ever stood around the bier and supplicated for the dead body. It is an innovation and must be abolished"! (2:755) This is flatly contradicted by the sound narrations ordering the Companions to make du`â for the deceased directly after burial. The commentor(s) go on to say: "It looks strange that believers should persist in reciting supplications in their own self-styled way after the funeral prayer, but desist from them during the funeral prayer to which they have relevance. It implies that prayer is not the object of their pursuit, otherwise they would have prayed in accordance with the Sunna. In fact, they cherish their self-fabricated line of action and seem determined to pursue it." Yet the commentator(s) a few pages later (2:760) state: "The Prophet SAV has instructed his followers that after a Muslim's burial, they should keep standing beside his grave for some time and pray for his firmness"!

(k) Omitting (2:760) to translate the words of Imam al-Shafi`i related by al-Nawawi in Chapter 161 ("Supplication for the Deceased after his Burial"): ""It is desirable (yustahabb) that they recite something of the Qur'an at the graveside, and if they recite the entire Qur'an it would be fine." Omitting to translate these words which are in the original text of Riyad al-Salihin is deceit and a grave betrayal of the trust (amâna) of the translation of one the mother books of knowledge in Islam.

(l) As if the above were not enough, the "commentary" goes on to state: "The reference made to Imam al-Shafi`i about the recitation of Qur'an beside a Muslim's grave is in disagreement with the Prophet's SAV practice... the reference made to Imam al-Shafi`i seems to be of doubtful authenticity"! However, al-Za`farani said: "I asked al-Shafi`i about reciting Qur'an at the graveside and he said: la ba'sa bihi - There is no harm in it." This is narrated by Imam Ahmad's student al-Khallal (d. 311) in his book al-Amr bi al-Ma`ruf (p. 123 #243). Similar fatwas are reported from al-Sha`bi, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishaq ibn Rahuyah, and others of the Salaf by no less than Ibn al-Qayyim and al-Shawkani in their books - the putative authorities of the "Salafi" movement.1

(m) Stating (2:761): "Qur'an reading meant to transmit reward to the dead man's soul is against the Prophet's SAV example. All such observances are of no use to the dead." This is the exact same position as the Mu`tazila on the issue, who went so far as to deny the benefit of the Prophet's SAV intercession. It should be noted that the manipulative editors /commentators of Riyad al-Salihin deliberately omit any mention of the Companions' practice, as it is authentically recorded from Ibn `Umar that he ordered that Qur'an be read over his grave, which has the status of the Sunna of the Prophet SAVas this particular Companion was known to be the staunchest of all people in his adherence to the Prophet's SAVexample.

(n) Stating (2:761): "For further detail, one can refer to Shaykh al-Albani's Ahkam al-Jana'iz." This is the book in which this man lists among the innovations of misguidance the fact that the Prophet's SAVgrave is inside his Mosque in Madina and the fact that it has a dome built over it, and he asks for both of them to be removed.

(o) Stating (2:791-792): "If a woman has no husband or Mahram, Hajj is not obligatory on her. Neither can she go for Hajj with a group of women, whether for Hajj or any other purposes.... Under no circumstances a woman may travel alone." This contradicts the fatwa of the majority of the Ulema as well as the principle that when there is scholarly disagreement over an issue, it becomes automatically impermissible to declare it prohibited.

id'est

06-27-2005, 10:32 PM

(p) Rephrasing a hadith (2:810-811) by omitting key words which invalidate their position. In chapter 184 of Riyad al-Salihin titled "Desirability of Assembling for Qur'an-Recitation," al-Nawawi cites the hadith of Muslim whereby the Prophet SAVsaid: "No group of people assemble in one of the Houses of Allah, all of them reciting [plural pronoun] the Book of Allah (yatlِna kitâb Allâh) and studying It among themselves except Serenity (al-sak'na) shall descend upon them, etc." The editor/ commentator(s) of Riyad al-Salihin rephrased the hadith thus: "Any group of people that assemble in one of the Houses of Allâh to study the Qur'ân, tranquillity will descend upon them, etc." omitting the key words: "all of them reciting the Book of Allah." Then the same editor/ commentator(s) had the gall to comment: "This Hadith... does not tell us in any way that this group of people recite the Qur'an all at once. This is Bid`ah for this was not the practice of the Messenger of Allah SAV." This is tampering compounded with a shameless lie. This misinterpretation and false claim of bid`a is, of course, directed at the Maghribi style of Qur'anic recitation that relies heavily on collective tilâwa in order to strengthen memorization.

(q) The statement (2:848) concerning the Prophet's SAVmiracle of seeing behind his back: "It must be borne in mind that a miracle happens with the will of Allah only. It is not at all in the power of the Prophet SAV. Had he been capable of working a miracle on his own, he would have shown it at his own pleasure. But no Prophet was ever capable of it, nor was the Prophet SAVan exception to this rule." In truth this speech comes directly from books such as Isma`il Dehlvi's Taqwyatul Iman concerning which Abu al-Hasan al-Thanvi said: "The words used by Isma`il Dehlvi are, of course, disrespectful and insolent. These words may never be used." (Imdaad-ul-Fataawa 4:115)

(r) The statement (2:861): "The right number of rak`ats in the Tarawih prayers is eight because the Prophet SAVnever offered more than eight rak`ats... It is not in any case twenty rak`ats. Authentic Ahâdith prove this pont abundantly." This is a transgressive innovation (bid`a mufassiqa) as it rejects the command of the Prophet SAVto "obey the Sunna of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs after me" and also kufr as it violates the passive Consensus (ijmâ` sukut') of the Companions over twenty rak`ats.

(s) The statement (2:905): "Twenty rak`at Tarawih is not confirmed from any authentic hadith, nor its ascription to `Umar ( is proved from any muttasil (connected) hadith." This is a blatant lie, as the number of hadith masters who graded as sah'h the connected chains back to `Umar establishing twenty rak`at Tarawih are too numerous to count. They provided the basis on which the Ulema concur in declaring that Consensus formed on the matter among the Companions as stated by al-Qari, al-Zayla`i, al-Haytami, Ibn al-Humam, Ibn Qudama, and a number of other major jurists of the Four Schools.2

(t) The statement (2:1025): "In the present age Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Albani has done a very remarkable work in this field [hadith]. He has separated the weak Ahadith found in the four famous volumes of Ahadith (Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, and Ibn Majah) from the authentic and prepared separate volumes of authentic and weak ahadith. This work of Albani has made it easy for the ordinary Ulema to identify the weak Ahadith. Only a man of Shaykh Albani's caliber can do research on it. The ordinary Ulema and religious scholars of the Muslims are heavily indebted to him for this great work and they should keep it in view before mentioning any hadith. They should mention only the authentic Ahadith and refrain from quoting the weak ones. It is wrong to ignore this work on the ground that Shaykh Albani is not the last word on the subject.... As Muhaddithin have done a great service to the Muslim Umma by collecting and compiling the Ahadith, similarly in the style of Muhaddithin, and in keeping with the principles laid down by them, the research carried out to separate the authentic Ahadith from the weak is in fact an effort to complete their mission. In this age, Almighty Allah has bestowed this honor on Shaykh Albani." All this fawning will not hide the facts that al-Albani has been exposed as the innovator of this age par excellence and that his splitting of the books of Sunan into Sahih al-Tirmidhi and Da`if al-Tirmidhi and so forth is an unprecedented attack on the Motherbooks of Islam for which, undoubtedly, he shall be brought to account on the Day of Judgment as he was rejected for it by the Ulema of the Umma from East to West.

(u) Another systematic mistranslation for the Chapter-title 338 (2:1294) states: "Prohibition of placing the hands on the sides during Salat" when the Arabic clearly states al-khâsira which means "waist" or "hip" rather than "sides." The same mistranslation is then repeated in the body of the chapter, then a third time in the commentary. This mistranslation is part of the "Salafi" campaign against the Maliki form of sadl consisting in letting the arms hang down by the sides during the standing part of Salât. In some places of North Africa today, such as Marrakech, certain people are paid to declare takfir and tadlil, in the name of the Sunna, of those who pray with their arms hanging by their sides although it is an established Sunna!

Truly we belong to Allah and to Him is our return, and there is no power nor might except in Allah the Exalted and Almighty Lord.

All sincere Muslims should consider themselves warned and warn others that this is NOT a Sunni translation of the great classic of Imam al-Nawawi but an innovative, deviant, and inauthentic translation which should never have been allowed. There are two other English translations of Riyad al-Salihin available in print, any one of which would be preferable to this one. And from Allah comes all success.

Akhee-Abdullah

06-27-2005, 10:52 PM

Akhee-Abdullah

06-27-2005, 10:56 PM

:info:What is the truth about Wahnabism?:info:

Recently, I have read an article Dr. Jaafar Shaykh Idris refuting accusations against him of being Wahhabi and dispelling the myth of Wahhabism. The article, in a nutshell goes on like this:

“The writer calls me an Imam, which I am not; I am a professor of philosophy. She groups me with what she calls salafi and Wahhabi groups (her definition of which is ridiculous) while I consider myself to be an independent scholar who is not a member of any group or party or a blind follower of any leader; my only ultimate leader is Prophet Muhammad. I am certainly not a Wahhabi, and do not know of any scholar even in Saudi Arabia who calls himself a Wahhabi. There is no sect in Islam called Wahhabism.
…
One might wonder why have the teachings of this man suddenly, and after more than two hundred years, become a threat to America? The answer is that what is now perceived by some to be a danger is not what is called Wahhabism. The epithet ‘Wahhabi’ is now being exploited by many in America to describe any Muslim who takes his religion seriously. If you are a serious adherent to Islam, you are Wahhabi; if you are Wahhabi you must be a terrorist; and if you are a terrorist you are a legitimate target.
…
Thus in Islam a distinction is made between beliefs and believers. As far as beliefs are concerned there is absolutely no compromise: any belief that contradicts Islam is false, and must be criticized. But those who adhere to such false beliefs are to be tolerated, nicely treated and invited to the truth in the best of ways. It is because of this that Jews and Christians found their safest haven in the Muslim world long before the West started to talk about human rights and freedom of religion. “Jews familiar with history might note that from Spain to Baghdad, it was the Islamic world that offered the Jews of the Middle Ages a fair degree of toleration -- not the Christian West’, so tells us Richard Cohen in an article in the Post.; non-Muslims continue to live peacefully among Muslims. Islamic teachings, corroborated by our historical experience, teach us that the best atmosphere for the spread of Islam is the peaceful atmosphere.”

Indeed, Wahahbism is a myth. It was a label first used by the English Colonialists against the Muslim insurgency in the Arabian Peninsula during the Colonial time. It has then been used by those who begrudge Islam and Sunnah of the Prophet to drive the common Muslim away from the true teachings of Sunnah and into the teachings of Sufism and the likes.

Sufis hate Ibn Taymiya because he completely exposed their practices and refuted every single claim they had. His writings are very clear and strong against Sufism as was demonstrated in this article (as a matter of fact, he was very strong in his refutation against all sects). Sufis hate and begrudge Mohamad ibn Abdal-Wahab because he revived the correct Sunnah in the Arabian Peninsula.

Ahl As-Sunnah scholars consider Mohamad ibn Abdal-Wahab a revivalist because of his effort to abolish all the Shirk acts of grave and awliya’a worshipping. He demolished domes and raised graves that were erected in the Arabian Peninsula to facilitate grave worship. In essence, he put an end to Sufism in Arabia. Sheikh Mohamad Rasheed Rida says “Sheikh Mohamad Abdal-Wahab, may Allah have mercy on him, was a revivalist of Islam on Najd (Arabia) because he saved its people from Shirk and Bida’a which had infected them in their Tawhid and Sunnah”.

He continues, “Sheikh Mohamad Abdal-Wahab, who was from Najd, was among the just revivalists [of Islam]. He established his Dawa to purify Tawhid and make Ibada sincere to Allah SWT alone based on what Allah SWT commanded in His Book and on the tongue of His final messenger PBUH, to leave Bida’a and sins, to establish the neglected rituals of Islam, and to glorify the sanctity of Allah which was abused and transgressed against.”

Black

06-28-2005, 01:29 AM

Royal aka nima bo'ldi sizga O'zbekchani tushunolmay qoldingizmi? Yokmi ko'chma ma'noda gapirganimni tushunmadingizmi????
Ha mayli shuncha gapirganim bekorga ketibdi shekilli.
Umuman hafa bo'lmangu gaplaringizning ma'nosi yo'q, sistematichniy emas. O'zingiz nimani hohlayotganingizni, nima haqida gapirayotganingizni unchalik tushunmasangiz kerak (hafa bo'lmangu menga shunday tuyuldi. Men bog'dan kelsam siz tog'dan kelasiz). Faqat ibn Abdul Wahhob haqida nimadir o'qigansizu yoki eshitgansizu (o'zingiz ham fariqiga bormasangiz kerak nimani o'qidingiz, nimaga o'qdingiz, kim uni yozgan, nimaga yozgan va h.k.) shuning uchun bir nimalarni yozib tashlaysiz siz ham, na tartib bor na topicga aloqasi bor.
Gareeb gapingiz togri albatta, lekin hech eshitganmisiz yoki borganmisiz Pokistonu Hindistonga ?
Bir tanishim bilan tepadagi savol tariqasida gaplashib otirsak etib qoldi: bilasmi shularni dastidan omie halq Hindostonu va Pokistonda shuncha kop firqalar ochishganki yani biror bir machitga kirsayiz huddi (towba qildim) "diskotegkaga" kirganday bolasiz va machitni ortasida doppayib turgan gorni korasiz, ha bunisi nima desa bu Paygambarimiz [s.a.w)niki deydilar (towba qildim): hey insonla ahir ulaniki Madinada bosa, sanla na botga qoyasanla desa ha endi bu oshandan kopiya deydi. (towba qildim)
Osha payitda tanishimni yahshilab urishib bergandim, endi maynavozchilik ham evi bilan, jaaa quloqqayam tepvordim endi devdim, lekin keyinchalik yana 3-4 odamdan buni tasdigini eshitdim. Nasib qilsa uniyam korarmiz.
NYda yani Queensda Ahmadielar va Jamaicada ularni machitlariyam bor shundoq juhudlarni kolesosi bilan qoshni qurilgan. Kirib namoz oqib chishgandi, lekin kirgan odam namozdan keyin hayrooon bolin yurdi bula qandoqakan , tushunmadim dib.

ma oz postimda birortani yo ayiblash yoki yomonlash yoki biror bir sozim bilan hafa qilishni kozlganamasman. Har doim shundoq ishlar bolganakan, ulardan habarimiz bolsinkim bundan keyin shundoqlarni har hil uydirmalariga uchmaslik uchun. Chunki "kechani korganda , kunduzni farqini biladi, yahshilik korganda yomonlikni qandoqligini biladi".
Sherali akani ashulalarida ham borku: "otmishi yoqning kelajagi yoq" dib.
Chunki Yigitni postini asosini tushunilmasa hamma osha Heziblarni gapini maqullab qolishi ham bor.
Olloh togri yolidan adashtirmasin, Olloh lanatiga uchragan va ming bor lanatlar bolguvchi shaytoni-layin vas-vasasidan Olloh oz panohida asrasin.

Bilmadim Pokistonu Hindistondagi bid'atlarni topicca nima aloqasi boru, lekin Muhammad ibn Abdulwahhob (bilishimcha) ana shunaqa qabrga sig'inadiganlarning shirk wa bid'at amallariga qarshi kurashgan, shuning uchun Pokistonu Hindistondagi qabrga sig'inadiganlar uni yomon ko'rishadi. Siz oldin o'zingiz aniqlab oling nimani hohlaysizu, nima haqida gapirmoqchisiz. Agar qabrga sig'inadiganlarga qarshi gapirmoqchi bo'lsangiz unda Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhabni maqtashingiz kerak. Ikkita qarama qarshi narsa haqida bir hil fikr yuritasiz.
Mayli sog' bo'ling.

P.S. Pokistonu Hindistondagi bid'atlaru shirklar haqida ozmi kopmi bilaman, Ahmadiylar haqida ham. Lekin ularning mavzuga aloqasi yo'q.

id'est

06-28-2005, 05:16 AM

Ha, bu uzini musulmon taroshlaydiganlar boshqalarni it deb hisoblaydi, shu uchun hech kimni fikriga etibor bermasdan uzinikini ma'qullaydi. Mard bulsa javob bersin, usha shaykhlari nima uchun kup kitoblarni buzib tuzatib tarjima qilishini. Faqat bir Nawawiyni kitobini emas, balki boshqa juda kup sonli kitoblarni moslashtirib uzgartirganlar, bunga misollar juda kup. Istagan hadisni olib bir vaqt uni sahih desang, boshqa erda uni zaif desang, bunda kerak bulsa ulamo u yoqda tursin halifai roshidinni ham kofirga chiqarish hech gap emas. Bular argumentasiya qilmiydi, balki insonni uzini haqorat qilishga utadi, san munofiq mushrik deb.
Salafiylikni hech kim yomon demoqchi emas, lekin haqiqat qaerda. Salafiy degani fikrini maqullamagani uchun birovni haqorat qilsa bu qanaqa Qur'on va sunnaga amal qilish bulsin. Ibn Taymiya sufiylarni haqiqatdan ham tanqid qilgan lekin sohta sufiylikni, biroq tariqatni ma'qullagan - ishonmasangiz Riyoddan chiqmagan Ibn Taymiyaning kitoblarini uqib kuringlar. Undan tashqari turt mazhab imomi ham tariqatni islomning ajralmas qismi sifatida tan olgan. He, bular uzi imom deb tan olgan kishilarni kitoblarni chappa qilib uqiydiyu, hali boshqalarning fikri... Haqiqiy ulamo yo bilmayman deydi, yo uz hatosini tan oladi, lekin sohtakorlik qilmaydi.

Bir narsa aniqki salafiylar orqsida kotta mablag, buning manbasi hamma musulmonlar mulkiyu lekin saudlar uziniki qilib olgan neftdir. Salafiylik davlat ideologiyasidir, aytingchi ularning katta targibot proektlarini kim moliyalashtiradi. Saudlarning esa 80 mlrd yaqinga dollari faqat AQshning uzida investsiya qilingan, bu fakt, shunda ham asosan neft va qurol- yaroq kompaniyalariga. demak iroqliklarni uldirayotgan amerikalilklar emas, balki salafiy maktabi qullayotgan Saudlarning pullaridir. Mard bulsalar shu haqiqatni aytsinlar usha buyuk shayxlari - eng kuncli jihod shu emasmi. Hamma biladi Iroqning asosiy kushandasi Saudiya ekanligini, bu milliardlar musulmonlar iqtisidoga investiiya qilinganda ahvol boshqacha bulardi. Puling bulsa kel fabrika zavod qur, Afrikada shuncha ochlar yordam ber, yuq bular faqat kotta kotta masjid quradi - u ham savob yulida emas balki propaganda markazi sifatida, keyin insonlarni fikrini zaharlashga utadi.

Kim aytdi oddiy musulmonlar qabrga siginadi deb, tugri, qabrlarga borib ziyorat qilinib Qur'on uqiladi, savobi utganlar ruhiga bagishlanadi, lekin bu siginish emasku. hech kim qabrni Hudo bilan alishtirmaydiku, 1-2 ta johil islomdan habari yuq kishining qilgan ishi uchun butun boshli mamlakatni mushriklar deb atashga kimning haqqi bor. Sahobalaru salaflarning qabrlarini tekislab yuborib, ustiga gostinisa qurish faqat shulardan kelib chiqadi. Qabrlarni ziyorat qilinglar degan hadis bor, sahobalaru ulamolar qabrini ziyorat qilmasdan, oisha holangning qabrini borib ziyorat qilasanmi, umuman olganda qarindosh urugni ham ziyorat qilish kerak-ov.

Sufiylar kimlar, sunnat va shariatni dunyoning ishlaridan ustun deb bilgan kishilar, mol-mulki va oilasini tashlab chul hiyobonda yurgan darveshlar. Shular sababli Urta Osiyo, mugullar, Sibir va Hitoyning bir qismi islomni qabul qilgan. Uzbek adabiyoti, tarihini qarang hammasi tasavvuf. lekin hech qaerda qabrga siginish degan gap yuq, balki Hudo yulida uzligidan bu dunyodan kechish bor - u ham kup hollarda qalbda - shu ham faqat shariat chegarasida.

Biz uchun salafiymi boshqasimi farqi yuq faqat ularning maqsadini bilish kerak, islomga kelsak shialar ham uz yulini Qur'on va hadislardan urab konfetka qilib berishi mumkin. Hamma ham Qur'on va hadisga tayanadi, lekin yaxshilik ildizi qaerda. Salafiylarni tarixi ham hoziri ham qonga buyalgan, kerak bulsa boshqa mamlakatlarni ham qonga botiradi. Yaxshilik qaerda? Albatta bunaqa kursavodlikda emas, yaxshilik qaerda bulsa haqiqiy iymon va islom usha yerda. Bularnign asosiy ulamolari falsafa doktorimish, islom falsafa kafedrasida emas, balki ustozdan shogirdga kuchadi. Ustoz shogird zanjiri Paygambarimiz SAVga borib taqaladi. Qiziqarlisi shuki, mazhab faqihlarini shunday zanjirlari bor, aniq, lekin kup salafiylarda bu tushuncha yuq. Ular yomgirdan keyin chiqqa quziqorinday hamma yerda, 4ta hadisni proof qilib yodlab olgan shuni olimlik deb biladi. Bolta bilan san'at yaratish mumkin, bolta bilan odam uldirish mumkin. Bular ustoz kurmaganlar bolta - hadislar bilan razmahivatsya qiladi, maqtalgan Albaniy hazratlarini ham aniq ustozi yuq ekan. Ustoz bulmaganda bir tekstni ming hil tushunish mumkin, salafiylarni tushungani yagona tugri tushunish deb kim ayta oladi.

Bular hammasi bir fikr holos, undan kura ertalab turib bomdod namozingni uqiysanmi deb surash kerak bulardan. Sahih hadisga kura, qalbida munofiqlik asari bulganlar bomdodni uqiy olmaydi. Shuni uzi eng yahshi mezon,

assalomu alaykum va rahmatillohi va barakatuh

val hamdillahi robbil olamin vassalotu vassalomu ala sayyidina Muhammadin va ala alahi vashabihi ajmain

P.S. eslarizgan chiqirmanglar arablarga arab tilini vatandoshimiz Az-Zamahshariy urgatgan

Black

06-28-2005, 06:30 AM

Aziz birodarlar, ozgina o'zimizni bosib olaylik. Shaytonga hay beringlar. Sal narsaga jahl otiga minib olish yahshimas. Tillarimizni ehtiyot qilaylik. Bir birimizni shahsimizga tegmasdan bahs yurutsak yahshi bo'lardi.
Ahir bizlar musulmonlarmizku, niyatimiz haqiqatni aniqlash, o'zimizni gapimizni ma'qullash emas (fikrimcha). Shuning uchun bosiqlik bilan gaplashganimiz ma'qul.

Ha, bu uzini musulmon taroshlaydiganlar boshqalarni it deb hisoblaydi, shu uchun hech kimni fikriga etibor bermasdan uzinikini ma'qullaydi. Mard bulsa javob bersin, usha shaykhlari nima uchun kup kitoblarni buzib tuzatib tarjima qilishini. Faqat bir Nawawiyni kitobini emas, balki boshqa juda kup sonli kitoblarni moslashtirib uzgartirganlar, bunga misollar juda kup. Istagan hadisni olib bir vaqt uni sahih desang, boshqa erda uni zaif desang, bunda kerak bulsa ulamo u yoqda tursin halifai roshidinni ham kofirga chiqarish hech gap emas. Bular argumentasiya qilmiydi, balki insonni uzini haqorat qilishga utadi, san munofiq mushrik deb.
Salafiylikni hech kim yomon demoqchi emas, lekin haqiqat qaerda. Salafiy degani fikrini maqullamagani uchun birovni haqorat qilsa bu qanaqa Qur'on va sunnaga amal qilish bulsin. Ibn Taymiya sufiylarni haqiqatdan ham tanqid qilgan lekin sohta sufiylikni, biroq tariqatni ma'qullagan - ishonmasangiz Riyoddan chiqmagan Ibn Taymiyaning kitoblarini uqib kuringlar. Undan tashqari turt mazhab imomi ham tariqatni islomning ajralmas qismi sifatida tan olgan. He, bular uzi imom deb tan olgan kishilarni kitoblarni chappa qilib uqiydiyu, hali boshqalarning fikri... Haqiqiy ulamo yo bilmayman deydi, yo uz hatosini tan oladi, lekin sohtakorlik qilmaydi.

Bir narsa aniqki salafiylar orqsida kotta mablag, buning manbasi hamma musulmonlar mulkiyu lekin saudlar uziniki qilib olgan neftdir. Salafiylik davlat ideologiyasidir, aytingchi ularning katta targibot proektlarini kim moliyalashtiradi. Saudlarning esa 80 mlrd yaqinga dollari faqat AQshning uzida investsiya qilingan, bu fakt, shunda ham asosan neft va qurol- yaroq kompaniyalariga. demak iroqliklarni uldirayotgan amerikalilklar emas, balki salafiy maktabi qullayotgan Saudlarning pullaridir. Mard bulsalar shu haqiqatni aytsinlar usha buyuk shayxlari - eng kuncli jihod shu emasmi. Hamma biladi Iroqning asosiy kushandasi Saudiya ekanligini, bu milliardlar musulmonlar iqtisidoga investiiya qilinganda ahvol boshqacha bulardi. Puling bulsa kel fabrika zavod qur, Afrikada shuncha ochlar yordam ber, yuq bular faqat kotta kotta masjid quradi - u ham savob yulida emas balki propaganda markazi sifatida, keyin insonlarni fikrini zaharlashga utadi.

Kim aytdi oddiy musulmonlar qabrga siginadi deb, tugri, qabrlarga borib ziyorat qilinib Qur'on uqiladi, savobi utganlar ruhiga bagishlanadi, lekin bu siginish emasku. hech kim qabrni Hudo bilan alishtirmaydiku, 1-2 ta johil islomdan habari yuq kishining qilgan ishi uchun butun boshli mamlakatni mushriklar deb atashga kimning haqqi bor. Sahobalaru salaflarning qabrlarini tekislab yuborib, ustiga gostinisa qurish faqat shulardan kelib chiqadi. Qabrlarni ziyorat qilinglar degan hadis bor, sahobalaru ulamolar qabrini ziyorat qilmasdan, oisha holangning qabrini borib ziyorat qilasanmi, umuman olganda qarindosh urugni ham ziyorat qilish kerak-ov.

Sufiylar kimlar, sunnat va shariatni dunyoning ishlaridan ustun deb bilgan kishilar, mol-mulki va oilasini tashlab chul hiyobonda yurgan darveshlar. Shular sababli Urta Osiyo, mugullar, Sibir va Hitoyning bir qismi islomni qabul qilgan. Uzbek adabiyoti, tarihini qarang hammasi tasavvuf. lekin hech qaerda qabrga siginish degan gap yuq, balki Hudo yulida uzligidan bu dunyodan kechish bor - u ham kup hollarda qalbda - shu ham faqat shariat chegarasida.

......
Bular hammasi bir fikr holos, undan kura ertalab turib bomdod namozingni uqiysanmi deb surash kerak bulardan . Sahih hadisga kura, qalbida munofiqlik asari bulganlar bomdodni uqiy olmaydi. Shuni uzi eng yahshi mezon,

assalomu alaykum va rahmatillohi va barakatuh

val hamdillahi robbil olamin vassalotu vassalomu ala sayyidina Muhammadin va ala alahi vashabihi ajmain

P.S. eslarizgan chiqirmanglar arablarga arab tilini vatandoshimiz Az-Zamahshariy urgatgan

Kechirasiz id'est siz bular deb kimlarni nazarda tutayapsiz??? Agar meni ham nazarda tutayorgan bo'lsangiz ochig'ini aytavering qaysi gapimga va nima uchun norozilik bildirayapsiz. Endi men ham to'g'risi Ahi Abdullahning qilgan muomalasini maqullamayman. Albatta bir birimizni gaplarimizga quloq solishimiz kerak, agar rozi bo'lmasak yahshilik bilan, birovlarni, ayniqsa umuman ko'rmagan va tanimaydigan odamlarimizni haqorat qilmasdan, har hil bo'lar bo'lmas maqolalarni copy-paste qilib tuhmat qilmasdan bahsimizni tohtatganimiz ma'qul.
Ayrim odamlarni muomalsiga yoki gaplariga qaramasdan salafiylarni wa salafiylikni ob'ektiv baholashga harakat qilaylik.
Shayh Alboniy masalasidagi fikrim.
1. Alboniyning umuman bu mavzuga aloqasi yo'q. U ham bir odam, balki (note I am saying probably, not exactly) hato qilgandir. Beayb parvardigor. Shuning uchun bir guruh odamlarni (i.e. salafiylarni) hatoga chiqarish bu mantiqsiz narsa.
2. Ahir sizning o'zingiz ham Alboniy haqidagi keltirgan maqolangizni qanchalik to'g'riligi bilmaysizku to'g'rimi? Yoki siz sahih hadis bilan zaif hadisni o'zingiz farqlay olasizmi? Yoki Alboniy yozgan yoki sharhlagan kitoblarni hammasini yoki hech bo'lmasa maqolada keltirilgan kitoblarini o'qiganmisiz??? Albatta yo'q, shunday ekan nima keragi bor o'zingiz tushunmaydigan narsalarga aralashib, balki siz keltirgan maqoladagi imom yoki ulamo hato aytayotgandir. Demak bu masala 50/50, o'zingiz bilmagan narsalarni keltirib birovni obro'sini, ayniqsa o'zini musulmon deb hisoblagan odamni obro'sini to'kish bu, kamida, yahshi narsa emas.
3. Hattoki Alboniy hato qilgan bo'lsa ham bu Muhammad Abdulwahhobga hech qanday aloqasi yoq. Bu huddi birorta Hanafiy mazhabidagi ulamoning qilgan hatosi uchun imom Hanifaning qilganishlarini noto'g'riga chiqarishga ohshaydi.

O'zingizni bosib oling birodar. Qolgan gaplaringiz faqat emotion dan, ya'ni his tuyg'ularingizdan kelib chiqib yozilgan. Ularga tohtalib otirsam to'g'ri bo'lmaydi.
Haqiqatni aniqlashga intilishingiz yahshi narsa, Alloh swt O'zi tavfiq bersin. Lekin buning uchun birovlarni shaniga, ayniqsa ulamo hisoblangan odamlarni obro'sini to'kish yaramaydi, bu haqiqatni izlashga kirmaydi. Ahir o'zingiz ham bilasizku hadis sharif bor "Ijtihod qilib to'g'ri topganga 2 ta savob, hato qilganga 1 ta." Oldin o'zingiz ana o'sha Alboniy darajasiga yetib oling keyin bemalol uni qilgan ishlarini analiz qilavering (maslahatim).

Salomat bo'ling, nohaq aytilgan gaplarimiz bo'lsa uzr va nimani qaerda nohaq aytganimizni ko'rsatib o'tarsiz degan umiddaman, faqat umumiy gaplarni aytmasdan.

P.S. Saudlar oilasi haqidagi gapingiz ham mavzuga taaluqli emas.