[AbeldeldepBug]

Link to source

وليست الوهابية حسب تعبير الكاتب بدعاً في إنكار مثل هذه الأمور البدعية، بل عقيدة الوهابية: هي التمسك بكتاب الله وسنة رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم، والسير على هديه، وهدي خلفائه الراشدين، والتابعين لهم بإحسان، وما كان عليه السلف الصالح، وأئمة الدين والهدى، أهل الفقه والفتوى في باب معرفة الله، وإثبات صفات كماله ونعوت جلاله


“The Wahhabiyyah, according to the terms of the writer, are not innovators in rejecting such matters of innovation. Rather! The creed of the wahhabiyya is holding fast with the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger, traversing upon His guidance, and the guidance of his rightly guided Caliphs, and those who follow them in good, and whatever the righteous forefathers were upon, and whatever the Imams of the Religions were upon, and the people of fiqh and fatwa in regards the gnosis of Allah, and affirming the attributes of Allah etc etc etc….”

All lies, but the point here is that he clearly professes the “Creed of the Wahabiyyah!”

Source the very site of binbaz in Saudi Arabia: http://www.binbaz.org.sa/mat/8159

[TiepayWrary]

Very interesting, so much for the commotion then. If you don't mind i am going to share this.

[AgowlSown]

Link to source

وليست الوهابية حسب تعبير الكاتب بدعاً في إنكار مثل هذه الأمور البدعية، بل عقيدة الوهابية: هي التمسك بكتاب الله وسنة رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم، والسير على هديه، وهدي خلفائه الراشدين، والتابعين لهم بإحسان، وما كان عليه السلف الصالح، وأئمة الدين والهدى، أهل الفقه والفتوى في باب معرفة الله، وإثبات صفات كماله ونعوت جلاله


“… Rather! The creed of the wahhabiyya is holding fast with the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger, traversing upon His guidance, and the guidance of his rightly guided Caliphs, and those who follow them in good, and whatever the righteous forefathers were upon, and whatever the Imams of the Religions were upon, and the people of fiqh and fatwa in regards the gnosis of Allah, and affirming the attributes of Allah etc etc etc….”

All lies, but the point here is that he clearly professes the “Creed of the Wahabiyyah!”

Source the very site of binbaz in Saudi Arabia: http://www.binbaz.org.sa/mat/8159

He was not agreeing with the usage of the term "Wahhabiyyah." The part of the Arabic above left untranslated clarifies this, where he said: "The 'Wahhabiyyah,' according to the terms of the writer, are not innovators in rejecting such matters of innovation." In context, bin Baz is replying to an article printed in India against the Saudis, who used this term, which is why he responded to it "according to the terms of the writer," not that he believed the usage is sound.

[mikeydesignzinc]

This is a very dishonest attack against a Muslim who has passed away. May Allah forgive us.

[addisonnicogel]

He was not agreeing with the usage of the term "Wahhabiyyah." The part of the Arabic above left untranslated clarifies this, where he said: "The 'Wahhabiyyah,' according to the terms of the writer, are not innovators in rejecting such matters of innovation." In context, bin Baz is replying to an article printed in India against the Saudis, who used this term, which is why he responded to it "according to the terms of the writer," not that he believed the usage is sound.

So, he is explaining what wahhabiyat is to someone ? means he is just representing them ?

No offense intended plz. just clarifying.

[nTDsD0aU]

In short, he is responding to a polemic by reorienting the term used as an insult.

[ClapekDodki]

He was not agreeing with the usage of the term "Wahhabiyyah." The part of the Arabic above left untranslated clarifies this, where he said: "The 'Wahhabiyyah,' according to the terms of the writer, are not innovators in rejecting such matters of innovation." In context, bin Baz is replying to an article printed in India against the Saudis, who used this term, which is why he responded to it "according to the terms of the writer," not that he believed the usage is sound.

Are you aware of the Indian article? Who wrote it and when and in which publication did it appear?

[rockboyzaza]

Either way they are followers of Ibn Abdul Wahab. The quote of Ibn Baz will come in handy in debates as he recognises "whatever the righteous forefathers were upon, and whatever the Imams of the Religions were upon, and the people of fiqh and fatwa in regards the gnosis of Allah, and affirming the attributes of Allah etc etc etc….” as it becomes enough to show that the imams were upon our path. Usually they jump here and there sometimes quoting Imams sometimes claiming Imams are not proof and only salaf is proof, sometimes claiming only sahabah is proof and not salaf, sometimes claiming even sahabah is not proof and only the Prophet saas and sometimes even rejecting the Prophet saas by spurious weakening of hadith and saying only Quran is proof.

[AgowlSown]

Are you aware of the Indian article? Who wrote it and when and in which publication did it appear?

Bin Baz refers to it as follows:

قد اطلعت على المقال الذي نشر بجريدة (إدارة) الأردوية الأسبوعية، الصادرة في مدينة كانفور الصناعية بولاية أترابراديش
"I read an article which was published in a weekly Urdu newspaper Idarah, issued in the industrial city of Kanpur in the province Uttar Pradesh."

[ClapekDodki]

Bin Baz refers to it as follows:

قد اطلعت على المقال الذي نشر بجريدة (إدارة) الأردوية الأسبوعية، الصادرة في مدينة كانفور الصناعية بولاية أترابراديش
"I read an article which was published in a weekly Urdu newspaper Idarah, issued in the industrial city of Kanpur in the province Uttar Pradesh."

[AbeldeldepBug]

He was not agreeing with the usage of the term "Wahhabiyyah." The part of the Arabic above left untranslated clarifies this, where he said: "The 'Wahhabiyyah,' according to the terms of the writer, are not innovators in rejecting such matters of innovation." In context, bin Baz is replying to an article printed in India against the Saudis, who used this term, which is why he responded to it "according to the terms of the writer," not that he believed the usage is sound.

Yes, I agree. However, he does clearly go on to use the phrase to clarify its meaning as he sees it. As such, he should have no objection to others using it

This usage has also been seen from other prominent Wahhabi scholars like Abu Baseer al-Tartoosee in this translated article who states:

"I must announce openly and clearly – without any biasness or partisanship: That I am a Wahhabist, amongst those who love Shaykh Muhammadibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb (may Allāh have mercy upon him) and his Da’wah"

On the pseudo-Salafi Islamic Awakening website we also see reference to this terminology from Dr. Ja'far Shaikh Idris in the article on the main site entitled: The Islamic Fundamentalism of the Wahhabi Movement.

And this terminology is not new, of course. In some other articles published by 'Wahhabis' we see some early references quoted by them whereupon they are being referred to as "Wahhaabiyyah" and "Wahhaabiyyoon" by others. For example, see: THE 'UTHMAANI STATE AND THE STANDPOINT OF THE DA'WAH OF SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN 'ABD AL-WAHHAAB CONCERNING IT. In this where Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's takfiri tendencies were highlighted there are further references to usage of this terminology by others.

At the end of the day, call them Wahhabi, pseudo-salafi or what have you - it makes no difference

[EbrsaRynleot]

Yes, I agree. However, he does clearly go on to use the phrase to clarify its meaning as he sees it. As such, he should have no objection to others using it

Leave it Faqir, you have lost the game

[ReggieRed]

Salam 'Aleykum,

I thank brother Muzzammil for clarifying this to the others, I remember not too long ago a very similar thread was opened attacking either Ibn Baz or Ibn 'Uthaymeen in which it was said "And the term 'Wahhabi' is a rank of honour for us" And this was taken completely out of context as the scholar was criticizing those who called them "Wahhabi".

I see no purpose to these threads.

[EbrsaRynleot]

Shaikh Bin Baz (RAH) was scholar of high repute and it does not mean everyone agrees with every statment of his. He was a blind scholar and based on what he was exposed to wrote. He retracted many of statment later in his life.

It doesn't work Bro Faqir is blind, not Abne Baz , he tampered his statement. Faqir needs to repent not Abne Baz

[AbeldeldepBug]

try not to be an idiot 'junfrared'. there is no tampering here but plenty of tampering for your perusal at this link. and just so fools like you don't get too confused I have added the first line to the translation in the first post - as if it makes any difference

Mod Note: Please do not post links to banned websites using tinyurl etc - and re-post when they have been removed once. It takes time to remove them and if it is done again it will result in an immediate ban.

[EbrsaRynleot]

try not to be an idiot 'junfrared'. there is no tampering here but plenty of tampering for your perusal here. and just so fools like you don't get too confused I have added the first line to the translation in the first post - as if it makes any difference

Now this thread doesn't have any point. Try another

[AbeldeldepBug]

neither do you but we won't hold that against you

[Liaiskelile]

Bismillah
Br. Faqir
I have loathing for people who dissrespect scholars in general! Hence my views generally directed towards La madhabi and psuod sufis. So please give credit where it is due. Have you ever sat with the students of shaikh bin Bazz! I have and found them very friendly and tolarent. It is also dissrespectful and verging on ghibat to dig something up from the past when the shaikh expressed his view based on what was presented to him (intentionally or intentionally).
Allahualam

[ClapekDodki]

Since the matter was already settled the natural thing would be to head for the coffee house.

[b3JOkwXL]

the good thing about these discussions is it really shows peoples character on the forums. Some people just make you completely respect tehm dispite not agreeing on everything, due to teh justice and fairness and even good manners etc. otehr people seemed to have been only too keen to rush off to spread the "good news" as soon as it was posted without waiting to read otehr peoples posts and check the authenticity of the statement etc. We will never build an understanding between muslims if we are always looking to score cheap points against ecah other