[WrinnaArraple]

1. His "work" against Ikhwan al-Muslimeen is pretty much nothing but the concoction of lies against its leaders.

2. The ones who praised him did so unaware of his treachery, and would most likely have relinquished their support of him if Bakr abu Zayd's research on Sayyid Qutb was carried out before they died, for example.

3. I think you'd have to prove that he is a master of Hadith. I haven't heard of him doing much in the field after receiving his degree.

If Madkhalis are the best representation of Salafism, then may Allah end the Salafi movement.

What did Bakr Abu Zayd's research on Sayyid Qutb attempt to demonstrate?

[22CreessGah]

[COLOR="royalblue"]Hardstone I sorry for being too harsh, I was too angry regarding to your reply.

Your claim = Aqeedah of Deobandees & Salafees is the same

We live in a Democracy so you are free to believe in whatever you believe in, brother.



This is how much you actually know about the issue : - )

Who are the Madhkalie?

[FEti0TUI]

What did Bakr Abu Zayd's research on Sayyid Qutb attempt to demonstrate?

That Rabi` al-Madkhali was distorting the writings of Sayyid Qutb to the major Salafi scholars, which is why they criticized Sayyid Qutb and praised Rabi`.

[avodeinst]

Asalam Alykum brothers,

I too was waiting for a reply and I read the entire thread but didnt get anything ! What is the difference between Salafis and Wahabis? For a layman like me, its an important question so please could someone lay it down in 1.2.3 format for me.

JazakmAllah khair

[avodeinst]

Salafist - are people that does not follow a school of thought as they believe one can derive rule of Shariah by mere reading book of hadith. They are literalist and believe apart from them all scholars of the past are deviant and missguided. They are highly intolarent and believe there is no science of tassawuf. They are anti scholar and do not accept some of the islamic sciences as it renders their argument futile.
Wahaby- Some follow school of thought but simple minded overzealot. They also have a literal take on some issues and have revivied Imam Ibn Taimiyah controversial minority view on aqaid. They are almost similar to the salafist with the exception they follow a school of thought.
Both of them were and is being used to cause confusion.

JazakmAllah khair brother Nomadic.

[BalaGire]

Asalam Alykum brothers,

I too was waiting for a reply and I read the entire thread but didnt get anything ! What is the difference between Salafis and Wahabis? For a layman like me, its an important question so please could someone lay it down in 1.2.3 format for me.

JazakmAllah khair

brother,No difference between a salafi and wahabi. As far as the terminologies are concerned , the word salafi has been used to donate the blessed rightly guided group by many scholars of the past particularly Shaikh Ul Islam Ibn taymiyya Ra.The salafis are the result of an evolution in the strict hanbali school of thought which stands on more literal grounds of interpretation of Quran and hadith.The earlier hanbalies were mere scholars of high reputation but in the begining of the 12th century when the muslim world was under jolts from every side,Sheikh ul Islam Ibn taymiyya who was a hanbali, stood up against the oppression.He refuted the deviant groups of his time with pen and sword.The groups which he deemed as deviants were sufis,Wahdat al wajoodies,Asahari maturidies etc.U can say that this was the turning point of the hanbali school where it converted into a more vibrant salafi school.The salafis went into a movement of social and theological reformation of the arab land under the command of Imam Mohamad bin Abdul-Wahab in 18th century.Later they achieved achieved their goal and captured hijjaz , eliminating almost every sign of shirk and bidda'h from the holly land (castigating/eradicating shirk and Bidda' has always been the primary ambition of salafis) . After hijjaz was captured and the hanafi-sufi turks were repelled , salafi dominance was achieved but it also resulted into severe polarization with in the so called Ummah as the sufi-biddati deviant groups whose existence was in danger due to this salafi movement,started calling the salafis "wahabi" afte the name of their leader in their revival movement r Imam Mohamad bin Abdul Wahab ra. Salafi is what they call themselves and wahabi is what thier cretic would call them. The polarization i mentioned has escalated by thousands of folds due to the influential salafi dawah in the west and the marginalization of other sects in dawah so u hear the hatred oriented term "Wahabi" much often.
P.S , Salafi and deobandies are two different entities and differ on many matters of Aqeedah,usool and furu.

[WrinnaArraple]

That Rabi` al-Madkhali was distorting the writings of Sayyid Qutb to the major Salafi scholars, which is why they criticized Sayyid Qutb and praised Rabi`.

It is indeed interesting to see that the Salafi scholars criticize the Ikhwanis, when in fact, in fiqh and aqidah, they are both the same! Neither follow maddhabs, and reject the Ash'aris/Maturidis. Yusuf Al Qaradawi, the main figure head for the Ikhwanis today, is the prime example of the deviant Ikhwanis. He mentions in the introduction of his work Al Halal wal Haram fil Islam that by the grace of Allah, he was freed from the partisanship (ta'assub) of "blind following" of a maddhab. Sound familiar? Oh yeah, he is just echoing Albani, and his cohorts Salih al Fawzan, etc.

In addition, Sayyid Sabiq mentions in his introduction to his work Fiqh as Sunnah which is filled with all sorts of errors and impermissible talfiq that the founder of the Ikhwanis, Hasan Al Banna, was actually the one who encouraged him to write the work so that blind following of maddhahib could be disproved. I dont know why our akabir put up with these Ikhwanis, such as Qaradawi, instead of rejecting their deviations from some 1400 years of orthodox scholarship.

As for Qutb, then his ideas were like Jamaate Islami, which Deobandis criticize left and right. Why not do the same for Qutb? I must admit I am unable to answer these questions.

[BalaGire]

If you are ture Salafi than this not for you, if you are Ahle-Hadtih who originated from india, and mostly live in sub-continent than you better know this than me, or if you don't know then go and read the literature of hardcore Ahle-Hadtih, which mostly in Urdu.

However the new generation Ahle-Hadtih of sub-continent are slowly transforming into Salafis. Their predecessors were go to the Saudia Arabia for Dirham and Dinar but when they go back to their homeland they had got some sense of Quran and Hadith.

Anyways, to cut long story in short, Ahle-Hadith are slowly abandoning their illiteracy and transforming into Salafis which is good news.

brother u should be reading more. Since u have taken the seat of "classifier" then what if a person stands up,challenge your hanafiya-maturudiya claim for urself and call/classify you as a Jahmiya-gangohiya-thanviya-wajoodiya instead? It might sound harsh but i just wanted to explain your approach.

[BalaGire]

It is indeed interesting to see that the Salafi scholars criticize the Ikhwanis, when in fact, in fiqh and aqidah, they are both the same! Neither follow maddhabs, and reject the Ash'aris/Maturidis. Yusuf Al Qaradawi, the main figure head for the Ikhwanis today, is the prime example of the deviant Ikhwanis. He mentions in the introduction of his work Al Halal wal Haram fil Islam that by the grace of Allah, he was freed from the partisanship (ta'assub) of "blind following" of a maddhab. Sound familiar? Oh yeah, he is just echoing Albani, and his cohorts Salih al Fawzan, etc.

In addition, Sayyid Sabiq mentions in his introduction to his work Fiqh as Sunnah which is filled with all sorts of errors and impermissible talfiq that the founder of the Ikhwanis, Hasan Al Banna, was actually the one who encouraged him to write the work so that blind following of maddhahib could be disproved. I dont know why our akabir put up with these Ikhwanis, such as Qaradawi, instead of rejecting their deviations from some 1400 years of orthodox scholarship.

As for Qutb, then his ideas were like Jamaate Islami, which Deobandis criticize left and right. Why not do the same for Qutb? I must admit I am unable to answer these questions.

The deobandies criticized jamat e islami for obvious reasons.First, this dissenting school of thought emerged with in them and it effected its own people mostly.The Ikhwani movement did not have any impact as such on the deobandi school and their manpower.
Whenever a school of thought is more prevalent as widespread,standing of the same Aqeedah and furu, difference of opinion and approach arise as the scholars are human beings who can think and act to the different ongoing stimuli in the world.
Just for example, Ahsan Ul uloom and Ashraf ul madaris lie almost wall to wall ,both are deobandi institutes but Mufti zarwali khan Hifzahullah's views about Ashraf ul madaris are known to everyone who has been near to him.Mufti zarawai hifazahullah views about tablighi jamat and Tariq jameel hifzahullah are also on the record. The discord which occured inbetween Dar ul uloom karachi and other deobandi madaris during the peak of " Meezan bank rumble" is also well known. Then if u pick the digest of Sipah e sahaba, they severely criticized Moulana tariq jameel hifzahullah for some of his statements a few months back.

So it happens everywhere but still its just a difference of opinion and those who dissent, do it with a good intention. I think it should be referred to as ijtihadi Ikhtilaf.

[WrinnaArraple]

brother,No difference between a salafi and wahabi. As far as the terminologies are concerned , the word salafi has been used to donate the blessed rightly guided group by many scholars of the past particularly Shaikh Ul Islam Ibn taymiyya Ra.The salafis are the result of an evolution in the strict hanbali school of thought which stands on more literal grounds of interpretation of Quran and hadith.The earlier hanbalies were mere scholars of high reputation but in the begining of the 12th century when the muslim world was under jolts from every side,Sheikh ul Islam Ibn taymiyya who was a hanbali, stood up against the oppression.He refuted the deviant groups of his time with pen and sword.The groups which he deemed as deviants were sufis,Wahdat al wajoodies,Asahari maturidies etc.U can say that this was the turning point of the hanbali school where it converted into a more vibrant salafi school.The salafis went into a movement of social and theological reformation of the arab land under the command of Imam Mohamad bin Abdul-Wahab in 18th century.Later they achieved achieved their goal and captured hijjaz , eliminating almost every sign of shirk and bidda'h from the holly land (castigating/eradicating shirk and Bidda' has always been the primary ambition of salafis) . After hijjaz was captured and the hanafi-sufi turks were repelled , salafi dominance was achieved but it also resulted into severe polarization with in the so called Ummah as the sufi-biddati deviant groups whose existence was in danger due to this salafi movement,started calling the salafis "wahabi" afte the name of their leader in their revival movement r Imam Mohamad bin Abdul Wahab ra. Salafi is what they call themselves and wahabi is what thier cretic would call them. The polarization i mentioned has escalated by thousands of folds due to the influential salafi dawah in the west and the marginalization of other sects in dawah so u hear the hatred oriented term "Wahabi" much often.
P.S , Salafi and deobandies are two different entities and differ on many matters of Aqeedah,usool and furu.

Well, that is one way to put it. Another way to put it is that the Salafis, or pseudo-salafis as I like to call them, are simpletons who do not understand why there are differences in our ummah. They reject the opinions of the salaf (which is why they are not true salafis), such as the sahaba, tabi'in, and the mujtahid imams. They attempt to do ijtihad for themselves, even on issues that were deemed closed, such as touching the Quran without wudu, doing masah on normal socks, etc. And yes, they are the worst type of blind followers, since they follow their scholars such as Albani, with diehard fanaticism that you will not find in muqallids when following their maddhabs.

What is the difference between a Wahhabi and a Salafi. I thought both terms were synonymous, but people are saying that they are somewhat different.

Please help...

Thank you...

Salafi is a very broad term, which means different things to different people. I myself classify someone a salafi (or pseudo-salafi) if they reject the following of maddhabs and reject the aqidah of ahlus sunnah wal jam'ah (i.e. Ash'ari/Maturidi). By such a definition, Wahhabi and Salafi is the same.

For some people, however, they trace the historical origins of salafism, from the time of Ibn Taymiyyah to Shawkani. Historically, two groups arose--the Ahl al Hadith of India, and a group in Najd under the leadership of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. Ibn Abdul Wahhab was more interested in issues of aqa'id than fiqh, whereas the Ahl al Hadith of India were more interested in debunking the Hanafis in matters of fiqh. (As a result of the need to respond to the Ahl al Hadith of India, some of the Deobandi's greatest works, such as I'laa As Sunan were produced). Both have evolved somewhat. Albani came around somewhat later, and shifted the Najdi group to a more fiqh based approach, though they still focus heavily on aqidah, and criticizing the Ash'aris/Maturidis. The Ahl al Hadith of India were also affected by the Najdis, and began to focus more on aqidah as well, though fiqh is still their main focus.

So historically, the Wahhabis were only the group who followed Ibn Abdul wahhab. However, because of the evolution of the two groups, it is difficult to differentiate them anymore. In addition, many people use the term derogatorily for all salafis.

One difference that is sometimes mentioned is that the Wahhabis follow the Hanbali maddhab, and therefore are not opposed to following maddhabs, whereas the Ahl al Hadith of India are. That may have been the truth of Ibn Abdul Wahhab and his immediate followers, but is not true today. The Najdi Wahhabis reject following of maddhabs, considering it a bid'ah, derogatorily coining it "blind following." Many of their works show that they reject maddhabs, and their positions are not in accordance with the Hanbali maddhab.

[WrinnaArraple]

The deobandies criticized jamat e islami for obvious reasons.First, this dissenting school of thought emerged with in them and it effected its own people mostly.The Ikhwani movement did not have any impact as such on the deobandi school and their manpower.
Whenever a school of thought is more prevalent as widespread,standing of the same Aqeedah and furu, difference of opinion and approach arise as the scholars are human beings who can think and act to the different ongoing stimuli in the world.
Just for example, Ahsan Ul uloom and Ashraf ul madaris lie almost wall to wall ,both are deobandi institutes but Mufti zarwali khan Hifzahullah's views about Ashraf ul madaris are known to everyone who has been near to him.Mufti zarawai hifazahullah views about tablighi jamat and Tariq jameel hifzahullah are also on the record. The discord which occured inbetween Dar ul uloom karachi and other deobandi madaris during the peak of " Meezan bank rumble" is also well known. Then if u pick the digest of Sipah e sahaba, they severely criticized Moulana tariq jameel hifzahullah for some of his statements a few months back.

So it happens everywhere but still its just a difference of opinion and those who dissent, do it with a good intention. I think it should be referred to as ijtihadi Ikhtilaf.

I agree that there will always be difference of opinion; but issues that have been closed several hundred years ago should not be brought up and reconsidered. Consider the position of mu'tah. Although assumed to be the figment of Shia imagination, there are actually many sahaba and tabi'in who considered it permissible. Ibn Hazm mentions in his Muhalla that Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, Asma' bint Abi Bakr, Abu Sa'id, Salamah amongst the Sahaba and Tawuus, Ata', Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Ibn Jurayj, and indeed the entire Makkan school and its jurists considered mu'tah permissible. However, the Makkan school and Jariri school are defunct, and the ijma of the Muslims has since been that it is haram. Therefore no one today can do ijtihad and consider it halal.

The issues that you listed, where the a'immah of Deoband differ, are not differences on issues that have since been decided. They are differences of opinion in modern day phenomena, such as how to do tabligh, etc. What the Salafis differ about, there has since been ijma' about--such as number of raka'at of tarawih, which Hanafis, Shafi'is, Malikis, and Hanbalis all agree is twenty rak'ah. (There is a riwayah of Imam Malik that considers it 36). Then some people come along 1300 some years afterwards, and say, "Hey, Everyone for the last 1300 years has been committing bid'ah and it is actually 8 rakah." Do you see the problem?

[BalaGire]

Well, that is one way to put it. Another way to put it is that the Salafis, or pseudo-salafis as I like to call them, are simpletons who do not understand why there are differences in our ummah. They reject the opinions of the salaf (which is why they are not true salafis), such as the sahaba, tabi'in, and the mujtahid imams. They attempt to do ijtihad for themselves, even on issues that were deemed closed, such as touching the Quran without wudu, doing masah on normal socks, etc. And yes, they are the worst type of blind followers, since they follow their scholars such as Albani, with diehard fanaticism that you will not find in muqallids when following their maddhabs.





Salafi is a very broad term, which means different things to different people. I myself classify someone a salafi (or pseudo-salafi) if they reject a maddhab and reject the aqidah of ahlus sunnah wal jam'ah (i.e. Ash'ari/Maturidi). By such a definition, Wahhabi and Salafi is the same.

For some people, however, they trace the historical origins of salafism, from the time of Ibn Taymiyyah to Shawkani. Historically, two groups arose--the Ahl al Hadith of India, and a group in Najd under the leadership of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. Ibn Abdul Wahhab was more interested in issues of aqa'id than fiqh, whereas the Ahl al Hadith of India were more interested in debunking the Hanafis in matters of fiqh. (As a result of the need to respond to the Ahl al Hadith of India, some of the Deobandi's greatest works, such as I'laa As Sunan were produced). Both have evolved somewhat. Albani came around somewhat later, and shifted the Najdi group to a more fiqh based approach, though they still focus heavily on aqidah, and criticizing the Ash'aris/Maturidis. The Ahl al Hadith of India were also affected by the Najdis, and began to focus more on aqidah as well, though fiqh is still their main focus.

So historically, the Wahhabis were only the group who following Ibn Abdul wahhab. However, because of the evolution of the two groups, it is difficult to differentiate them anymore. In addition, many people use the term derogatorily for all salafis.

One difference that is sometimes mentioned is that the Wahhabis follow the Hanbali maddhab, and therefore are not opposed to following maddhabs, whereas the Ahl al Hadith of India are. That may have been the truth of Ibn Abdul Wahhab and his immediate followers, but is not true today. The Najdi Wahhabis reject following of maddhabs, considering it a bid'ah, derogatorily coining it "blind following." Many of their works show that they reject maddhabs, and their positions are not in accordance with the Hanbali maddhab.

The brother was asking about the difference between salafi and wahabi so i tried to cover the issue in a sort of blanket statement without going into the merits/demerits of salafis.Indeed everyone sect his own diffintion of Ahle sunnah wal jamaa'.As everyone has his own truth and will be questioned for that truth on the Judgment day.
I agree with the last part of your post but i would add that the hanbali school always had the perfect tendencies to evolve into salafi school.The arabs were mostly hanbalis and Imam Mohamad bin Abdul wahab Ra did not have to work against hanfiyat or any other school much. However, the Ahle hadith of indian subcontinent emerged into a different environment.They faced staunch hnafiyat around them in the end of 18th century unlike Mohamad bin Abdul wahab ra.So they reacted a bit more harshly towards and sat on the seat of pure ghair muqaladism to refute the staunch muqalids.
It would be interesting to note that Sanaullah Amrathsari ra , a prominent indian salafi, criticized Imam Mohamad Bin Abdul Wahab ra for his lenient aproach towards taqleed whose primary focus was on aqeedah.
Even if you look at the books which were translated in that era ,only those books were translated into urdu by the ahle hadiths which could be used to refute taqleed.like , only those parts of the 35 volumes of Tareekh e baghdad were translated which had the criticism of Imam Abu hanifa ra.
Still u can't find the major work shaikh ul Islam Ibn taymiyya ra in urdu.Shams ud din Afghani wrote a 3 volumes book "Al maturedeya" to refute the maturidi Aqeedah and even that has not been translated into urdu. The arab salafis have criticized this attitude and aproach of ahle hadiths of india off and on.

[WrinnaArraple]

The brother was asking about the difference between salafi and wahabi so i tried to cover the issue in a sort of blanket statement without going into the merits/demerits of salafis.Indeed everyone sect his own diffintion of Ahle sunnah wal jamaa'.As everyone has his own truth and will be questioned for that truth on the Judgment day.
I agree with the last part of your post but i would add that the hanbali school always had the perfect tendencies to evolve into salafi school.The arabs were mostly hanbalis and Imam Mohamad bin Abdul wahab Ra did not have to work against hanfiyat or any other school much. However, the Ahle hadith of indian subcontinent emerged into a different environment.They faced staunch hnafiyat around them in the end of 18th century unlike Mohamad bin Abdul wahab ra.So they reacted a bit more harshly towards and sat on the seat of pure ghair muqaladism to refute the staunch muqalids.
It would be interesting to note that Sanaullah Amrathsari ra , a prominent indian salafi, criticized Imam Mohamad Bin Abdul Wahab ra for his lenient aproach towards taqleed whose primary focus was on aqeedah.
Even if you look at the books which were translated in that era ,only those books were translated into urdu by the ahle hadiths which could be used to refute taqleed.like , only those parts of the 35 volumes of Tareekh e baghdad were translated which had the criticism of Imam Abu hanifa ra.
Still u can't find the major work shaikh ul Islam Ibn taymiyya ra in urdu.Shams ud din Afghani wrote a 3 volumes book "Al maturedeya" to refute the maturidi Aqeedah and even that has not been translated into urdu. The arab salafis have criticized this attitude and aproach of ahle hadiths of india off and on.

I agree that the Hanbali maddhab was perfect for developing into Salafism. I was just tracing the history of the two movements, which began independently, into something similar. I did not mean to imply that they are the same movements, as I stressed that the Najdi Wahhabis still focus more on aqidah, and the Indian subcontinent Ahl al Hadith focus on fiqh. However, regardless of what they focus on more, they still agree on the fundamentals of fiqh and aqidah.

I would disagree with you about the arabs being mostly Hanbali. In fact, most Arabs are either Shafi'i or Hanafi (the Arabs living in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine/Israel are mainly Shafi'i, and the Arabs in Syria and Iraq are split between the Hanafis and Shafi'is.) The Hanbalis seem to be focused only in Saudi Arabia, and it is possible that after ibn Abdul Wahhab, they became (loose) Hanbalis, since the Hanbalis had always had tajsimi leanings.

[BalaGire]

I agree that the Hanbali maddhab was perfect for developing into Salafism. I was just tracing the history of the two movements, which began independently, into something similar. I did not mean to imply that they are the same movements, as I stressed that the Najdi Wahhabis still focus more on aqidah, and the Indian subcontinent Ahl al Hadith focus on fiqh. However, regardless of what they focus on more, they still agree on the fundamentals of fiqh and aqidah.

I would disagree with you about the arabs being mostly Hanbali. In fact, most Arabs are either Shafi'i or Hanafi (the Arabs living in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine/Israel are mainly Shafi'i, and the Arabs in Syria and Iraq are split between the Hanafis and Shafi'is.) The Hanbalis seem to be focused only in Saudi Arabia, and it is possible that after ibn Abdul Wahhab, they became (loose) Hanbalis, since the Hanbalis had always had tajsimi leanings.

I was referring to Hijjaz while mentioning the "arab land". i think hanbalis have always been dominante in that area and its my personal observation that no other madhab and aqeedah can fit their mind better than hanbalism.
The issues of tajseem etc are though debatable but many interpret the revival movement of Imam Mohamad ibn abdul Wahab ra in the light of these hadiths.
Volume 3, Book 30, Number 100:
Narrated Abu Huraira ra:
Allah's Apostle said, "Verily, Belief returns and goes back to Medina as a snake returns and goes back to its hole (when in danger)."
The prophet PBUH said "Islam was initiated as something strange, and it would revert to its(old position) of being strange, and it would concentrate between the two mosques( mecca and madina) just as the serpent crawls back into its hole …(Sahih Muslim, 1.0270)

[paydayuscf]

Salafi is what they call themselves and Wahhabi is what critics call them.

bingo!

Salafi are ghair-muqallids (madhab rejectors) just like Ahle-Hadeeth. they call thsemselves "salafi" because they claim that "we dont follow madhab/imams, we follow salaf (original muslims)". this is because they believe that all muslims are following deviant or innovated ideologies, and only they are following the true islam/sunnah that the salaf practiced. hence why they call themselves "salafi".

wahhabi is a deregatory term used against them. some use it to describe all ghair-muqallids in general. the orginal wahhabis (followers of wahhab; who originally propagated the movement in arabia) still followed Hanbalism, but today not really. they have hanbali and athari beliefs since salafism is actually just an extremist-offshoot from hanbalism, but they in theory reject all madhabs in general.

salafis can be divided into various groups, due to ideological differences. but in essence i will describe them from political viewpoint to make it in a nutshell. the madkhalis are the ones who are pro-govt and support everything the "apostate" arab govts say, this includes fatwas on why jihad is forbidden or why the govt has the right to partner with US in stuff. the Ikhwanis (muslim brotherhood) are the ones who reject the govts mostly, but they only want to establish a democratic govt in which they are ones in power with their "islamic laws" (they basically want an islamisized democracy, if such a thing even exists).

and then there are the salafi-jihadis, they follow the same salafi religion as the other two. only they reject both. they consider the madkhalis and "talafis" (garbage; they dont consider them real salafis) to be apostates. and they consider ikhwanis to be just a political party and who dont rly wnat islam/sharia. they consider themselves to be the real salafis, who are following religion of salaf. this is why they do jihad. but nowadays there is increasingly number of salafascists salafi-jihadis who are also extremist and they are actively promoting killing of innocent christians/jews in the muslim countries like egypt and iraq (even tho they have nothing to do with the zionists and oppressors), and want to convert all muslims into salafism. these ones are the true neo-khawarij of our generation.

[Finkevannon]

the orginal wahhabis (followers of wahhab; who originally propagated the movement in arabia)

"Al-Wahhab" is one of the names of Allah.

The scholar name is Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

[paydayuscf]

"Al-Wahhab" is one of the names of Allah.

The scholar name is Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

which one do you think i was referring to??.. since i even specifically mentioned which one... "(followers of wahhab; who originally propagated the movement in arabia)"

if i was mixing up Allah's name with the sheikh's, i would have said Al-Wahhab and would have not mentioned the fact who propagated "the movement", since Allah (swt) is not of this world and certainly not arabia.

[Finkevannon]

which one do you think i was referring to??.. since i even specifically mentioned which one... "(followers of wahhab; who originally propagated the movement in arabia)"

if i was mixing up Allah's name with the sheikh's, i would have said Al-Wahhab and would have not mentioned the fact who propagated "the movement", since Allah (swt) is not of this world and certainly not arabia.

Bro it was just a correction not an attack..

The point is that the name is Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab, not Wahhab..

With love.

[22CreessGah]

I was referring to Hijjaz while mentioning the "arab land". i think hanbalis have always been dominante in that area and its my personal observation that no other madhab and aqeedah can fit their mind better than hanbalism.

Leaving aside Makkah/Madina Najd (that is the correct word and still used today) was an insignificant backwater in the Islamic world about which nobody really cared about.

Its oil (money) and their treachery against Islamic Caliphate (POST-1924) and their continued treachery against Islam which is of significance.

Makkah/Madina have always been the land of all 4 Madhabs because they occupy a central position in Islam. Petro-Dollars ensured that this was changed to "1-state-version of Islam" because thats what Saudia practises. To this Saudi Government continues to back-stab Islam and Muslims.

I believe that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahab (RA) was a sincere person whose movement got hijacked and then "Ahl-e-Hadeeth" mindset from India/Pakistan and Middle-East changed it further in the 1950's & 1960s.

If you live and work in Saudia and interact with Saudees, you will know that they are intellectually bankrupt & lazy people.

We only wish that these people followed in the foot-steps of great Ahmed Ibn Hanbal (RA); picking up bits and bobs from the Hanbali Madhab and over-emphasing them DOES NOT make someone a Hanbali!

To the best of my knowledge Hanbali Madhab neither calls for state-suppression of other Madhabs nor collusion with Kuffar.

[paydayuscf]

Bro it was just a correction not an attack..

The point is that the name is Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab, not Wahhab..

With love.

i dont know what his friends called him, but everyone else calls him wahhab. so i was using that to explain where the term "wahhabi" originated from.

and no, bro. no offense taken. when it comes to religious issues, the ppl of this site are experts. i only joined just to give my insights regarding some political issues. especially cuz ive seen alot of wrong information related to some j!had topics. but im wondering, if you have any sway over the site (or if someone else is seeing this). i still havent had two of my earliest posts pass through "mod approval". and no one's answerin me in feedback...