This was my days in Salafism. It brings back memory. These brothers think I am joking when i said i was in salafism. I enjoyed those days. However, this sheik is considered extremist by Saudi and UK govt. He vehemently against Saudi Shuyuk and kings. I reject some of his idea but he still fine.

If Faisal's ideology was what you practiced thinking you did salafiyyah, then sorry you did rubbish, and you saying that faisal is still fine with his extremism speak volumes on the ideology you practiced thinking its salafiyyah.

Can you remember underwear bomber? Farooq Abdulmuttalab that Nigerian guy that trained in Yemen al Qaeda, that wanted to blow up a US plane but he made a mistake and he was caught? Who radicalized him? Isnt it Faisal and Anwar Al Awlaki? Remember Micheal adebalajo and Michael adebowale, how bout the British Muslims that beheaded a soldier in UK in broad daylight? Remember 7/7 London bombers? They also had connections with Faisal! So keep saying Faisal is fine.

Empiree:
I am not gonna waste my time about Shi'a thing. They are recognised as muslims. If not, they wont be allowed to perform Hajj for 1400 yrs and counting. If there is any questionable activities within them, that can easily be dissolved ONLY if all sides would put their ego aside. There is ALWAYS a way around differences

@underline, you sound apologetic for Shi'a. Wallahi my head is boiling here. Please avoid that though I understand your good intentions.

# Waiting your answer to his question(s)! "Sunni" vs Wahabi discussing Shi'ism

Bnladan:

What's ur take on cursing, abusing and saying ill things about d khulafa arraashideen

We discussed that many times btw me and him and his fellow shi'a. I believe it is islamically wrong. One not supposed to do that even with non-muslims. However, I have read on their Ayatollah issuing fatwa against cursing sahaba. Again, sunni should not used this constantly against them to cause strive. Not all of them do this now. I also presented ahadith frowning at cursing any of the companions. It is a matter of adhab not faith. And the punishment(if any) they get is with Allah. We can take religion aside for a minute and let them know it is islamically unacceptable to curse people for no reason especially the dead.

AlBaqir:


@underline, you sound apologetic for Shi'a. Wallahi my head is boiling here. Please avoid that though I understand your good intentions.

Well, as you know, i am not into sect. I have learned long ago it i a very stup!d thing. It does not allow common sense to take its course. One simply gets soft spot for the side he/she belongs. Thats partisan. Islam against all this bs

I started growing sympathy for the Shia in 2006 when "Sunni awakening" turned back on their heels in iraq. Saw a dead body with no head and i asked what the heck is this?. The brother replied, this is a shia dog. we will continue killing them for $$$ bcus they are jews in islam bla bla bla. Even after that, i still debated shia bcus i was a full blown salafi that time. Have realized that that this whole bs sectarianism is solvable ONLY IF all sides STOP their boolsh!t and focus on what unite muslims. And SHia have gotta stop cursing Sahaba. That's the issue i have been raising since. If differences would be solve by constantly attacking each other, it would have been solved long ago by that. All sides have problems. BIG PROBLEM whether salafis, Sufis, Shia, Sunni u name it.

My approach is very simple ONLY if everyone would put down their boxing gloves. When i analysed my approach few yrs ago on how to solve differences, a sister said "as beautiful as it sounds, Salafi will NEVER get along with anyone who is not salafi". Obviously and unfortunately it is very true. That's why you see me against them in most cases bcus I wont let them breath until they put their boxing gloves down.

lexiconkabir:


If Faisal's ideology was what you practiced thinking you did salafiyyah, then sorry you did rubbish, and you saying that faisal is still fine with his extremism speak volumes on the ideology you practiced thinking its salafiyyah.

Can you remember underwear bomber? Farooq Abdulmuttalab that Nigerian guy that trained in Yemen al Qaeda, that wanted to blow up a US plane but he made a mistake and he was caught? Who radicalized him? Isnt it Faisal and Anwar Al Awlaki? Remember Micheal adebalajo and Michael adebowale, how bout the British Muslims that beheaded a soldier in UK in broad daylight? Remember 7/7 London bombers? They also had connections with Faisal! So keep saying Faisal is fine.

shaking my head. You may never understand

Empiree:
Well, as you know, i am not into sect. I have learned long ago it i a very stup!d thing! It does not allow common sense to take its course. One simply gets soft spot for the side he/she belongs. Thats partisan. Islam against all this bs

I started growing sympathy for the Shia in 2006 when "Sunni awakening" turned back on their heels in iraq. Saw a dead body with no head and i asked what the heck is this?. The brother replied, this is a shia dog. we will continue killing them for $$$ bcus they are jews in islam bla bla bla. Even after that, i still debated shia bcus i was a full blown salafi that time. Have realized that that this whole bs sectarianism is solvable ONLY IF all sides STOP their boolsh!t and focus on what unite muslims. And SHia have gotta stop cursing Sahaba. That's the issue i have been raising since. If differences would be solve by constantly attacking each other, it would have been solved long ago by that. All sides have problems. BIG PROBLEM whether salafis, Sufis, Shia, Sunni u name it.

My approach is very simple ONLY if everyone would put down their boxing gloves. When i analysed my approach few yrs ago on how to solve differences, a sister said "as beautiful as it sounds, Salafi will NEVER get along with anyone who is not salafi". Obviously and unfortunately it is very true. That's why you see me against them in most cases bcus I wont let them breath until they put their boxing gloves down.

# Sahabah themselves laid the foundation of sectarianism. It is no news, except you are being hypocritical, that Aishah, Talha, Zubair and Mu'awiyyah engineered the first and second civil war among the Muslims. Hundreds if not thousands died. So what you see today, be it theological or political was their creation. And like it or not, the hadith of Muslims dividing into "73" sects stands.

# I believe so much in unity and I (as many Shi'i Ulama and Talabes) do call for it. But its only useful when others are ready to embrace others. Besides, pretending and hiding our core differences can never unite Muslims. We only need to mature to respect our differences, avoid what can bring about attacks and focus only on what connect us. Only then we can unite.

# I am totally disappointed with the second underlined statement. "Sahabah" sounds "ALL" of them!

* Allah himself cursed the hypocrites among the Sahabah and promised them double chastisements in His glorious book. How is it a crime that Shia curse these Munafiqun?

* Nabi himself cursed al-Hakam whom Sunni considered a Sahabi, and Nabi cursed his descendants. How is this a crime if Shia curse this "Sahabi"?

* Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, a Sahabi not only continue to curse Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib till his death but also enjoined and mandate people to curse Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib whom Nabi, salallahu alayhi wa ahli says, "whoever cursed Ali has cursed me". Do you or can you or you dare accuse Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan and all his Tabi'in followers of this kufr? Why do you single out Shia for cursing?!

# Please answer faithfully the question posed to you by your co-debater who alleged that Shia curses the "Khulafau rashidun". I'd like you to ask on my behalf who these Khulafau who were Rashidin and Mahdiyyin were. Does it include Ali ibn Abi Talib? If yes, then do Shia curse him also?

* Lastly, I'd like to see Shi'a sihah hadith(s) or athar that says sahabah or Khulafau rashidun are or should be cursed. If you (or your co-debater) however judge by the doings of a fraction Shi'a, then I have no choice than judging the whole Sunni by the actions of Boko Haram, Isis, Isil etc.

Wa Salam alaykum

lexiconkabir:


@Underlined, so you know this, yet you said this earlier on;



don't you think you are being hypocritical and biased because of hatred towards saudi shuyuk?

Let's see what hypocrisy is......

And about Hakimiyyah, these scholars didnt oppose it because of the term itself, but because of the motive behind that term, when the khawaarij a.k.a Al-muhajiroon and Faisal groupies started their nonsense, they were only being political and hell-bent on establishing an islamic caliphate through violence, it was the salafis that tried to put pressure on them so they put their focus on tawheed and forget about the nonsense they were doing, so due to constant pressure that the salafis placed on the muhajiroon regarding the importance of calling to tawheed in the 1990s, this ultimately caused them to succumb to the primary obligation of calling to tawheed. However, still hell-bent on maintaining their political objectives, they adopted an innovated concept of tawheed and its categories, which opposed the classical defintion. thus in their rhetoric related tawheed it can be observed that in most cases they give reference to "Hakimiyyah"(rulership and sovereignty), which in itself is not a category, rather a facet of one of the main categories. This should provoke the question: why the need to extract a part of tawheed which is found in one of its main categories and then promote it as one of its main categories? their lectures proves their aim clearly, seeing the opportunity which lies within the force of tawheed, they cunningly recognized the political potential this term has and it is very powerful IN RADICALIZING THE YOUTHS, this is why they are hell-bent on making Hakimiyyah a category on its own.

Well, this is old story and am not getting back to that. The era was long gone. What i can tell you for fact is, the reason they raged with anger was bcus of their (Royals) role in dismantling caliphate in 1924. That's open secret. It has nothing to do with faisal alone. Sufis raised the same concern. You just brushed it aside now like Khilaf is nothing. Exactly why it was unable to resurface again bcus the Royals got monthly $$$$ to violate Allah's Law and Command. Yes, King AbdulAziz was paid by the British to violate SPECIFIC Law in the Quran by the British. That's the position of Sufis. That's exactly what Faisal was doing. Just did it differently. Faisal and salafis have the same traits. How about all those people i mentioned days earlier in the US and UK. They are salafis.

shaykh ibn uthaymeen said; 'What does 'al-Haakimiyyah' mean?' It does not mean except their saying that judgement/decree is for Allaah alone ' and that is Tawheedur-Ruboobiyyah. So Allaah, He is the Lord, the Creator, the Sovereign Owner, the One in control of the affairs.

and that perfectly make sense, so apart from their evil motives, extracting Haakimiyyah from Ruboobiyyah makes Ruboobiyyah itself empty, because Rulership and sovereignty is an integral part of Allaah's LORDSHIP(ruboobiyyah).

maybe u should watch his video up there again with nigerian salafi. The brother was asked direct question but he mumbled

shaykh Albanee has already made it clear he opposed the idea because of their political motive behind it, i hope you read that too.

Yes, i read it.

now Empire.e if you dont have a dodgy motive, you should see the sense in what i'm saying, and i give you the benefit of doubt.

What is gine is gone. I am not going back strives bt wsheik faisal and saudi royals. He was extreme at some point but it is understood why. Now, Faisal, despite his strong argument against Shi'a, he said in his ecture back then that muslim can still pray behind or with some shi'a. But here on NL, non of you salafi brotehr want to hear anything about shia. You brush them off like they are bunch of kufar.. Same with Sufis. Sheik Fiasal only against "grave worshipers" not essense of sufism. But here, the so called salafis people are ready to wage war on sufi and shia. And yu here telling me yui are better than Faisal?. At least he is considerate but not any of you here.

Now, I am personally not against Saudi Shuyuk. And whatever their royals are doing is their business. I have a lot to worry about than them. My point is and the reason i go against them sometimes is bcus your their students......YOU YOU YOU and YOU. You think if a sheik from other parts of the world speaks, it is nonsense. You already did the same here when i posted their videos. You dont believe them unless you hear from Saudi Shuyuk. Isnt that hypocrisy too?. Did Rosullulah(saw) behaved like that?. This is partisan and discrimination. It is a sign of bad student if you just copy and paste what they said without objection if it is necessary. That's called "taqlid".

I take from them and other from any parts of the world. And you did not address why they had to innovate bunch of Tawheed after Ibn Tayimmiyah brought two categories?. They innovated 3 or 2 more. Isnt Allah's Names and Attributes not enough to understand that Allah ALONE is Law Giver, Sovereign, Lordship etc?. Now just bcus they replied Sheik Faisal back then doesnt mean they were right.

Sheik Imran raised same issue. I told you that. WHich means, contrary to what you said that the One who is worshiped is also Law Giver. Everyone understands they worship Allah but what Sheik Imran also had problem with them is "Law Giver" which they violated when the British paid King Abdul Aziz to VIOLATE ayah of Allah for worldly gain. It is on the net. Go and read it. Yes, Faisal had ulterior motives but he was saying the same thing. It was the same rejection of "Hakimiyah" was the reason Sheik Bn Baz(ra) gave fatwa for US military presence in the land of Muhammad ibn Abdullah(saw) till today. That was faisal's argument. Many people know but they dont want to criticize Sheik bin Baz. That's just the right thing for them to do out of respect for him. It iwasa mistake. And some said he might made tauba before he passed. (May Allah forgive him)


I am done talking on this cus it is old.

Bnladan:

What's ur take on cursing, abusing and saying ill things about d khulafa arraashideen

If you are civil enough, there is no need for further derailing of this thread (which unfortunately I myself have participated in doing), ready-made threads exist on your submissions:

Identifying the Khulafau rashidun:
https://www.nairaland.com/3038732/identifying-khulafau-rashidun-rightly-guided

About cursing the "sahabah"
https://www.nairaland.com/1903995/religious-authority-sistani-condemns-cursing

AlBaqir:


# Sahabah themselves laid the foundation of sectarianism. It is no news, except you are being hypocritical, that Aishah, Talha, Zubair and Mu'awiyyah engineered the first and second civil war among the Muslims. Hundreds if not thousands died. So what you see today, be it theological or political was their creation. And like it or not, the hadith of Muslims dividing into "73" sects stands.

They are not here now. Their affairs lie with Allah. It is irrelevant to keep going back to them. Later generation only need to fix what they can rather than instigating it. Yes, the hadith stands but Quran 3:103 overrules.

# I believe so much in unity and I (as many Shi'i Ulama and Talabes) do call for it. But its only useful when others are ready to embrace others. Besides, pretending and hiding our core differences can never unite Muslims. We only need to mature to respect our differences, avoid what can bring about attacks and focus only on what connect us. Only then we can unite.

I dont think you are really. If you do, you wont bring up those sahaba into the picture again. They will see it and bum bum bum, they turn around to say shia are this and that....and the cycle of hatred goes on.

# I am totally disappointed with the second underlined statement. "Sahabah" sounds "ALL" of them!

I dont think u should be disappointed bcus at this point. you should already understood i meant NOT ALL.

* Allah himself cursed the hypocrites among the Sahabah and promised them double chastisements in His glorious book. How is it a crime that Shia curse these Munafiqun?

That is His right. Not us. Allow him to do that.

* Nabi himself cursed al-Hakam whom Sunni considered a Sahabi, and Nabi cursed his descendants. How is this a crime if Shia curse this "Sahabi"?

We can say the same of Jews. But does it make sense that i go out there cursing them just bcus Allah and his messanger did?. It is matter of adhab. Let them cursed them. It is not out duty to do that.

* Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, a Sahabi not only continue to curse Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib till his death but also enjoined and mandate people to curse Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib whom Nabi, salallahu alayhi wa ahli says, "whoever cursed Ali has cursed me". Do you or can you or you dare accuse Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan and all his Tabi'in followers of this kufr? Why do you single out Shia for cursing?!

Again, let's leave this matter with Allah. It Is not etiquettely sound for us to do that. I cant even cause pig right now.

# Please answer faithfully the question posed to you by your co-debater who alleged that Shia curses the "Khulafau rashidun". I'd like you to ask on my behalf who these Khulafau who were Rashidin and Mahdiyyin were. Does it include Ali ibn Abi Talib? If yes, then do Shia curse him also?

i think i have answered him politely in a way that would not drag controversies. You on the other hand are pretty much indifferent from what they are doing though. You see why differences will be difficult to solve?. My reply to him shut the door. But what you want me to do intensifies differences

* Lastly, I'd like to see Shi'a sihah hadith(s) or athar that says sahabah or Khulafau rashidun are or should be cursed. If you (or your co-debater) however judge by the doings of a fraction Shi'a, then I have no choice than judging the whole Sunni by the actions of Boko Haram, Isis, Isil etc.

But some Shi'a actions already proved this.

Mo ma de ti ke ran bayi o for trying to be "nice guy" solving differences. Cus of that, you too call me hypocrite .

lexiconkabir:
don't you think you are being hypocritical and biased because of hatred towards saudi shuyuk?

AlBaqir:
Sahabah themselves laid the foundation of sectarianism. It is no news, except you are being hypocritical, that Aishah, Talha, Zubair

Empiree:
They are not here now. Their affairs lie with Allah. It is irrelevant to keep going back to them. Later generation only need to fix what they can rather than instigating it. Yes, the hadith stands but Quran 3:103 overrules.

# Irrelevant to keep going back to them? So, what's the essence of Quran telling us the stories of people of the past - good, bad and ugly?

# For Allah's sake, if going back to them is irrelevant, then we need to remove high percentage of hadiths, athars reported by these same people that revealed their handiworks.

# Explain to us how exactly does Quran 3: 103 abrogate the hadith? I bet you don't know the command of the ayah and the choice that man has. Only one out of that 73 sects fits the description of the Quran. The hadith and the ayah are in perfect harmony.

Empiree:

I dont think you are really. If you do, you wont bring up those sahaba into the picture again. They will see it and bum bum bum, they turn around to say shia are this and that....and the cycle of hatred goes on.

# When you accuse and label me of being sectarian, I gave you brief account of sectarianism of your beloved sahabah who you will die for and emulate! Is there a crime here? Why did you people like hypocrisy?

# Let it go in cycle please. You can be indifferent by choice and those who will learn will and we who wish to debate the issue will.

Empiree:

I dont think u should be disappointed bcus at this point. you should already understood i meant NOT ALL.

You know how sensitive I am to words, so you should be the last person using that.

Empiree:

That is His right. Not us. Allow him to do that.

Can you show me a verse in the Quran to support that - that only Him can curse the evil ones and no one else?

Empiree:

We can say the same of Jews. But does it make sense that i go out there cursing them just bcus Allah and his messanger did?. It is matter of adhab. Let them cursed them. It is not out duty to do that.

# So much is your "Obey Allah and His Messenger", "if you love Allah, then follow me"

Empiree:

Again, let's leave this matter with Allah. It Is not etiquettely sound for us to do that. I cant even cause pig right now.

# Leave what for Allah when Allah and His Messenger have decided that whoever curse Ali has cursed Nabi?!

# Even Imam Ali himself prayed against Mu'awiyah and his baghi group.

# Your concept of al-walaa wal baraa (loving whom Allah loves and hating who He hates)?!

# I doubt you ever believe in several ayah of the Quran, "Indeed Allah does not love the transgressors," "Indeed Allah does not love the oppressors", "Indeed Allah does not love the unjusts" etc etc.

Empiree:

But some Shi'a actions already proved this.

So, does that judge millions of Shia? Has Sheik ibn Taymiyyah did bad cursing the oppressors of Ashura'

"As to those who killed al-Husayn or assisted in that act or was pleased with it, may the curse (la’n) of God, the angels, and all the people be upon them No deed or righteous act will be accepted from these people from God as compensation for their heinous crime”

Source: Majmū‘ al-Fatāwa 4: 487

Empiree:
We discussed that many times btw me and him and his fellow shi'a. I believe it is islamically wrong. One not supposed to do that even with non-muslims. However, I have read on their Ayatollah issuing fatwa against cursing sahaba. Again, sunni should not used this constantly against them to cause strive. Not all of them do this now. I also presented ahadith frowning at cursing any of the companions. It is a matter of adhab not faith. And the punishment(if any) they get is with Allah. We can take religion aside for a minute and let them know it is islamically unacceptable to curse people for no reason especially the dead.

Hadaakallah

Empiree:
Lol....I cant believe you would greet him knowing fully well the way you talked before he came?. You talked like he's subhuman. Now you so cool. I hail thee

By allaah, I actually thought it was Empiree who replied me, dat was y I said d taslim...and I'm just coming online now, just seeing dat it was that 'albaqir'.. Sub-human or not, shias are worst people. Keep ur hail thee, or better still hail Nigeria!!!!!

I just dey laugh as i read you r comment. It's funny

AlBaqir:


# Irrelevant to keep going back to them? So, what's the essence of Quran telling us the stories of people of the past - good, bad and ugly?

# For Allah's sake, if going back to them is irrelevant, then we need to remove high percentage of hadiths, athars reported by these same people that revealed their handiworks.

i understand how you feel. Sunni Ulama did great job by adding after names of every sahaba (RA) as a form of respect. This is good adhab. In the Sunni theology they do not teach muslims specific character of any sahaba save few. Even those we know of questionable character we still add (RTA) after their mentions. We only know they could make mistake bcus they were human beings. It is best and save to respect them especially since you agree Sahaba are muslims.

# Explain to us how exactly does Quran 3: 103 abrogate the hadith? I bet you don't know the command of the ayah and the choice that man has. Only one out of that 73 sects fits the description of the Quran. The hadith and the ayah are in perfect harmony.

No, it does not abrogate the hadith for obvious reason. The ayah can be explained in at least 3 ways i know of:


*** All our obligatory practices >>Salat, Zakat, Ramada and Hajj are foundation that fall under "wahatasimu bi abdil lahi gami ha". We should not deviate or discard them. They are the foundations to success.


***It could mean all muslims must not divided themselves and break up into different faction. And that rope is Allah's Book. And hold on to Jam'ah This is a common meaning.


***It could also mean ALL believers in Allah who strive to uphold His Laws whether Muslims, Jews, or Christians who fight side by side against common enemy.

# When you accuse and label me of being sectarian, I gave you brief account of sectarianism of your beloved sahabah who you will die for and emulate! Is there a crime here? Why did you people like hypocrisy?

And I am saying Sahabat are long gone 1400yrs ago. What sense does it make by pointing at their differences when we can move on together diligently in 21 century?. It is a command of Allah that we hold on to His rope and not be divided. When i was debating lexicon on permissibly of group dhikr, i said leave sufi people alone. He said we not gonna leave them alone. And you are not ready to leave some of these sahaba you deemed 'hypocrites' alone. Hence, cycle of bs continues.

Can you show me a verse in the Quran to support that - that only Him can curse the evil ones and no one else?

well, we are talking about adhab here. Muslims (all of us) know Allah cursed jews and kufar. That doesn't mean we should be cursing them for that. But these sahaba you want to curse are muslims. Remember Ayatollah pled to you not to curse anymore?

# So much is your "Obey Allah and His Messenger", "if you love Allah, then follow me"


# Leave what for Allah when Allah and His Messenger have decided that whoever curse Ali has cursed Nabi?!

# Even Imam Ali himself prayed against Mu'awiyah and his baghi group.

# Your concept of al-walaa wal baraa (loving whom Allah loves and hating who He hates)?!

# I doubt you ever believe in several ayah of the Quran, "Indeed Allah does not love the transgressors," "Indeed Allah does not love the oppressors", "Indeed Allah does not love the unjusts" etc etc.

i dont disbelieve in any ayat in the Quran. Those we are free to curse are plain and clear without consequences: Shaytan, Firaun etc. Sahaba are muslim. They deserve our respect regardless.



[/quote]

RABIUSHILE04:


By allaah, I actually thought it was Empiree who replied me, dat was y I said d taslim...and I'm just coming online now, just seeing dat it was that 'albaqir'.. Sub-human or not, shias are worst people. Keep ur hail thee, or better still hail Nigeria!!!!!

lol. ....you probably just woke up that time

Bnladan:

Afwan ya akhee, hal anta Sufiy?

نعم

أنا صوفي طالما التصوف يعني عدم الاكتراث إلى ما هو مع الناس و التوق إلى ما هو مع الله . و أنا صوفي إلا إذا التصوف يدل على إزاحة الستار عن حقائق الغيب و المعرفة مستوحاة من الله الخالق

Also, yes, And I am a salafi

و أنا السلفي طالما تشير السلفية ل عقد لقانون المقدس مع الممارسات القائمة على ما هو مرنة و متطورة بدلا من تلك التي هي جامدة و ضيقة

lexiconkabir:


he will tell you no....

Lol... you read my mind?

I see you peeped through all the time Demmzy15. It is crazy recently right?

Resembles what I am having telling my Salafi brothers. Their copy paste and literal inter[retation of religion is "protestant Islam" brought by the British . I forgot to use the phrase long time


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovi8WgXqHkA

Well, i dont have any business with what you wrote up there, my aim was to burst your lie that salafis deny that Allaah is the law giver which they coined as "haakimiyyah" rather what the salafis reject is the idea behind it, but the only thing i will address tomorrow will be your blaming of ibn baaz for signing the fatwa of seeking help from the mushriks(USA), its not wrong and I'll prove it tomorrow as time permits me insha Allaah.

I could imagine your hatred for salafis, the thread was to advice salafis about some wrongs, but you hijacked the thread and derailed it.

^
Lol, "hatred"?. Dont you do the same with other non-Saudi scholars?. Respect must be '2 way street'. Non-Saudi scholars usually respect Saudi scholars but not the other way round.

You not ready to take knowledge from non-Saudi scholars cus you consider them "bida't and shirk".

But now that i descended hard on you, you want to turn table on me. I dont hate salafi bcus i still pretty much share the ideology to certain extent. Stop saying that. I only detest their idea that they are the only way to Jannah. Simple as that.

As for evidence you want to bring about Sheikh Bin Baz, It is something i already read few years ago. Yes, you gonna bring me their excuses instead of you to just admit he made mistakes. And you can do that without being rude. Many already admitted he made mistakes but now you want to implicate him further like he is mistakes free. Let him rest in peace. You should rather focus on asking Allah for his forgiveness.

You can bring your "evidences" on and you will realize eventually why the same mushrik that yourself agreed are now funding is!s.

The fatwa was simply mistake base on his miscalculated opinion. That's what's hunting Muslims till today. They can manipulate Quran all they want to justify his fatwa. You said in christian thread not long ago that seeking help from mushrik makes one part of them and you cited Maidah 51 as reference. Now you want to defend this by bringing a defense?. It is old.

On Hakimiyah, fact remains that they violated Allah's law which is still hunting Muslims today. And that's what ended Kilafa to begin with. That's what some Sufis are saying. Faisal might have ulterior motives, but he was accusing them of the same thing but he did it differently.

I dont have any problem with Sheik Bin Baz at all. Rather you his students making them you Lord and patron like anything they said was final NOTING ELSE. That's all am against.

lexiconkabir:
Well, i dont have any business with what you wrote up there, my aim was to burst your lie that salafis deny that Allaah is the law giver which they coined as "haakimiyyah" rather what the salafis reject is the idea behind it, but the only thing i will address tomorrow will be your blaming of ibn baaz for signing the fatwa of seeking help from the mushriks(USA), its not wrong and I'll prove it tomorrow as time permits me insha Allaah.

I could imagine your hatred for salafis, the thread was to advice salafis about some wrongs, but you hijacked the thread and derailed it.

Quietly following but not understanding this part

RABIUSHILE04:


By allaah, I actually thought it was Empiree who replied me, dat was y I said d taslim...and I'm just coming online now, just seeing dat it was that 'albaqir'.. Sub-human or not, shias are worst people. Keep ur hail thee, or better still hail Nigeria!!!!!

Obviously you (and people of your likes) are very ignorant of this deen.

"And when you are greeted with a greeting, greet with a better (greeting) than it or return it; surely Allah takes account of all things. {surah an-Nisa:86}

Imam Bukhari documents:

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

Regarding the Verse: "And say not to anyone who offers you peace, You are not a believer." There was a man amidst his sheep. The Muslims pursued him, and he said (to them) "Peace be on you." But they killed him and took over his sheep. Thereupon Allah revealed in that concern, the above Verse up to:-- "...seeking the perishable good of this life." (4.94) i.e. those sheep.

USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 115
Arabic reference : Book 65, Hadith 4591
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/65

ayinba1:


Quietly following but not understanding this part

Here is what he said about ibn baaz

It was the same rejection of "Hakimiyah" was the reason Sheik Bn Baz(ra) gave fatwa for US military presence in the land of Muhammad ibn Abdullah(saw) till today.

Firstly, he claims ibn baaz rejected Haakimiyyah after i have given Empiree proof that he only objected that Hakimiyyah cant be separate, it enters ruboobiyah, plus the dangers it might cause if it is allowed to be separate, yet Empiree is being adamant that even if they didnt reject it doesn't mean they are right, who does that?

Now Empiree goes on to say it was because he rejected haakimiyyah(which he did not as ive shown), this was why ibn baaz signed a fatwa SEEKING HELP from US military to help fight the army of Saddām Hussain that invaded Kuwait and had threatened the Kingdom, which by principle is not wrong. Does that make sense? How does rejection of haakimiyyah(which he didn't even reject) comes to play here?

What i wanted to do is proof that ibn baaz fatwa wasn't wrong, but as it seems, empiree already read something about that and rejected it, so i won't waste my time on it again.

Empiree:
lol. ....you probably just woke up that time

LOOOOL baba!! I tell u!!!! Sleep sweet faaa

lexicon

Yup, i did lots of reading and listening those days. So it is not hidden what u wanted post in defense. I heard and read bunch of them. Thats why you not really telling me anything new except to refresh my brain. However, Saudi shuyuk or their Royals are not my problem. I have no reason to hate them. My problem is with people who only copy paste their fatwa and accept everything they said without using their brain. And also your ultimate rejection of any non-saudi shuyuk and hatred for them. Yet you consider me anti Saudi shuyuk when you did the very same thing.

Empiree:
^
Lol, "hatred"?. Dont you do the same with other non-Saudi scholars?. Respect must be '2 way street'. Non-Saudi scholars usually respect Saudi scholars but not the other way round.

You not ready to take knowledge from non-Saudi scholars cus you consider them "bida't and shirk".

But now that i descended hard on you, you want to turn table on me. I dont hate salafi bcus i still pretty much share the ideology to certain extent. Stop saying that. I only detest their idea that they are the only way to Jannah. Simple as that.

As for evidence you want to bring about Sheikh Bin Baz, It is something i already read few years ago. Yes, you gonna bring me their excuses instead of you to just admit he made mistakes. And you can do that without being rude. Many already admitted he made mistakes but now you want to implicate him further like he is mistakes free. Let him rest in peace. You should rather focus on asking Allah for his forgiveness.

You can bring your "evidences" on and you will realize eventually why the same mushrik that yourself agreed are now funding is!s.

The fatwa was simply mistake base on his miscalculated opinion. That's what's hunting Muslims till today. They can manipulate Quran all they want to justify his fatwa. You said in christian thread not long ago that seeking help from mushrik makes one part of them and you cited Maidah 51 as reference. Now you want to defend this by bringing a defense?. It is old.

On Hakimiyah, fact remains that they violated Allah's law which is still hunting Muslims today. And that's what ended Kilafa to begin with. That's what some Sufis are saying. Faisal might have ulterior motives, but he was accusing them of the same thing but he did it differently.

I dont have any problem with Sheik Bin Baz at all. Rather you his students making them you Lord and patron like anything they said was final NOTING ELSE. That's all am against.

The only thing i would address once and for all is your accusations that i stick to ONLY SAUDI SHUYUK, this is wrong, I follow the scholars of salafiyyah and not saudi shuyuk, the reason why i quote ibn uthaymeen, ibn baaz and Fawzaan mostly is because people are more familiar with them, and their works are easily verifiable, moreover i do listen to Nigerian shaykhs too that are salafs the likes of Alaro, Sharafdeen, Sarumi, Bawa, and somr others i cant remember their names, i do quote albani alot, is he from saudi? I listen to menk, bilal philips, are they from Saudi? I know your problem, because i dont listen to your sufi shaykhs right? Of course i wont listen to them and i will never listen to them, abadan!

Imam maalik says in the masjid of Muhammad(s.a.w) where he studied, he saw not less than 70 people who were offering to give out hadith to who needs them, but he said he didnt collect even one hadith from any of them, why? Imam maalik said, he didnt do that because he hated them or that they dont know what they were doing, but because he saw that they were not upon the sunnah of the prophet pbuh, so what can we learn from this? Knowledge about the deen is very important and when acquiring it, get it from the right sources, if you learn from a bid'atic shaykh, when he starts passing down his bid'ah to you, you wont even know, which i think is the Genesis of your problem, LEARN FROM THE RIGHT SOURCES, NOT JUST AMYBODY THAT CALLS HIMSELF A SHAYKH! I have cleared the accusation, i listen to other shaykhs AS FAR AS THEY ARE UPON THE SUNNAH! I hope you dont bring this up aagain.

*********

Empiree:
lexicon

Yup, i did lots of reading and listening those days. So it is not hidden what u wanted post in defense. I heard and read bunch of them. Thats why you not really telling me anything new except to refresh my brain. However, Saudi shuyuk or their Royals are not my problem. I have no reason to hate them. My problem is with people who only copy paste their fatwa and accept everything they said without using their brain. And also your ultimate rejection of any non-saudi shuyuk and hatred for them. Yet you consider me anti Saudi shuyuk when you did the very same thing.

I have already replied this, and i will like to add that, i will keep quoting them as far as they provide valid proofs and that was the way the sahabas and the predecessors understood it, imam maalik says:

فكلّ خيرٍ في اتِّباع مَن سلف و كلّ شرٍ في ابتداع مِن جلف

"There is every good in following the salaf while there is every evil in the innovations of the khalaf"

AlBaqir:


Obviously you (and people of your likes) are very ignorant of this deen.

"And when you are greeted with a greeting, greet with a better (greeting) than it or return it; surely Allah takes account of all things. {surah an-Nisa:86}

Imam Bukhari documents:

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

Regarding the Verse: "And say not to anyone who offers you peace, You are not a believer." There was a man amidst his sheep. The Muslims pursued him, and he said (to them) "Peace be on you." But they killed him and took over his sheep. Thereupon Allah revealed in that concern, the above Verse up to:-- "...seeking the perishable good of this life." (4.94) i.e. those sheep.

USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 115
Arabic reference : Book 65, Hadith 4591
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/65

Walaykumu salaam then!

All I know is...

^
That's it

[size=15pt]A Very Simple Solution To Sectarianism[/size]


There is no way of solving it if all sides aren't ready to swallow their ego and put down their fists. Differences will forever exist but there is a way around it. If we refuse to find a way around it, we become a laughing stock. We can see references from Kitab and Sunnah pointing at this - one way or the other. Qur'an however which is the only and absolute authority in islam deserves our respect. It orders all muslims to hold on to Allah's rope. Failure to do this by citing or relying on hadith to cause more strife will do us no good.

I don't care how authentic a hadith is if it says something like "73 sects", "do not pray behind innovators" or do not sit with them etc. Phrases like this MUST be understood in their wide context. A "73 sects" hadith is a mere prophecy. It is not approval sectarianism. I once met a muslim online some yrs back and he asked me which sect i belong?. I had no time for his bs other than to say i belong to none. He said "you have to bcus hadith said so".

I took my leave really cause he made my stomach turned. It is very simple to do away with sectarianism unless we want to be arrogant and selfish. Solution is, when you are in a masjid, there is no sufi, salafi, shi'a you name it. We all pray as legislated in Quran and Sunnah which is what it is really bcus i have not seen any muslim pray salat differently. We only follow Quran and universally accepted Sunnah in the masjid. Anything else like loud dhikr, congregational dua, mawlud etc which are not supported unanimously should be done individually. This would not mean it is bid'a. It is only to save unnecessary argument.


However, since masjid is open to the public, those who believe in congregational dua, dhikr, mawlid would have to organise their activities in a separate area. Congregational dhikr, dua or mawlud is not like zina or drinking beer. Now, if they are doing their thing and you are not invited and you show u shouting "bid'a bid'a bid'a, the committee have every right to throw you out bcus you are agent of fitna. "You" in the context above is not referring to any person. It means those who oppose the activities. As for those willing to curse sahaba they deem hypocrites, it is unislamic to do that inside masjid. If you so want to curse, do that in your privacy. Your affairs is with Allah. But in the Masjid, nothing will be allowed except Quran and UNIVERSALLY accepted sunnah. No other names is welcomed to describe anyone except MUSLIM. This is very simple.

Anyone who opposes this and feel like just have to curse the hell out of hypocrites or my sect is "saved sect" and everyone else is upon bid'a and shirk, will be reprimanded. This is what Saudi shuyuk failed to do rather than issuing fatwa which sect is better than others.




If we take Mekka and Medina out of the arabia, it becomes religiously empty. So by the virtues of these holy places is the reason many of us think that islamic knowledge starts and ends there which is false. Prophet (saw) did not give such criteria. There is a big difference btw reading text and practicing it. Ninety nine point nine nine percent of muslims only knew how to pray because we saw our parents, Shuyukh, waliy etc prayed. None of us read hadith on how to pray. We are just doing that now after we grew up for academic purposes. This brings to mind the reality of Salafi vs Sufi.


It is very easy to read text and point out bida', wrong, right etc. But if we truly want to follow Sunnah and sahaba, put to practice what you read. Don't just read prophet said, Ibn Abass said, this and that said. That's not what islam is all about.



Here are three (3) examples (analogies):


If I live amongst muslims, it is easy for me to act righteously. I would read text about not committing zina etc and at the same time easy for me to accuse or criticize others who commit zina. I am acting like that bcuz I am yet to be tested. If Allah so will, i find myself living alone in non-muslim area where fitna is all over me. That's where real test comes. If i can resist the temptation, alhamdulilah. It means i have been truthful when i was living amongst muslims. But it is quiet not easy when you living in fitna area. That's practical aspect of the text I read.


This is when one understands that practicing what you read is not as easy as thought. It is entirely different. But reading text is easy. This (text) is what Islam is now reduced to.


Another analogy is comparing a soccer player on the field to someone watching the game on tv. The one watching the match on tv can easily find faults with the one on the field doing the thing. If he makes mistakes he may not know. But the one watching the match will criticize a lot.


Another analogy is a car driver, he is active, practically controlling the steering and moving gear(s) at the same time. How in the world can that be compared to the one watching car race on tv or video game?. He is just watching and finding faults.


These three analogy is description of Sufis versus Salafi. One is just reading texts (theoretical approach). The other is reading and practicing at the same time (practical and spiritual approach). Hence, it is difficult for the former to understand the later.


I hope people reading this comprehend my analogies. That's all i can say.



This brings me back to "Group dhikr" once again even though i have said I wont touch the subject anytime soon. Last Jum'ah, i prayed at unusual masjid. Thanks to Imam for his handsome khutba on Eid adha's sunnatic instructions. However, he confidently said "congregational dhikr" is not Sunnah. That when you come to masjid on September 12, sit down and start making dhikr. You do not need to wait for others. He then contradicted himself over by saying thank God for our volunteered brothers who will be here to lead the dhikr with us so that everyone can say it.

Don't you all think we are deceiving ourselves with issue of group dhikr is not sunnah?. I wonder how those kids, laymen and women really learn the phrases if we all just sitting down silently looking at our faces. This is my reason against salafism for their literal interpretation of text and they will not accept otherwise unless their is Albanic stamp on it which is pretty pathetic. My point is, it is quite easy when you read text that group dhikr(for instance) is not allowed but when you want to practice dhikr loud with others, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you can avoid it 'unisonly'.


Allahu Alam