I attended IlmFest | 2009 at Baltimore, MD this past weekend and was blown away by this one lecture that captivated the hearts and minds of about 1000 attendees. Shaykh Waleed Basyouni, PhD. spoke this last Saturday about some of those who according to him, misunderstood Islam and specifically the matter of Jihad.
I will not discuss that halal and haram of this matter, since I am not a scholar or even an advance student of knowledge, rather I will discuss the attitude of those who attacked the shaykh and show their ignorance and lack of manners.
First though, I must say it is clear that those who are of this misguided group are not on the right path under the impression that they are heading to Jannah by killing innocent people. They are in a matter of confusion and I believe what they are doing is not correct nor is it from this divine religion. They have lost their chance by going in to this path regardless of their intentions. Allah said in Surat AlKahf verse 103 and 104, ” Say, should we tell you about those who lost their deeds? they are those whose efforts have been wasted in this life while they thought that they were acquiring good by their deeds.”
Continue reading here.
56 Responses for "“Reclaiming Islam from the Jihadists” – Bro. Haytham"
I agree.
Really good article – thanks for linking it.
Great article mA. highlights some really important points.
Great, now we just need Al-Maghrib to stop selling Anwar Awlaki’s pro-Al-Qaeda tapes to the kids! You see, Al-Maghrib really supports the Jihadist ideology, they simply disagree with their tactics. That is why they will condemn “psuedo-Jihadists” but at the same time sell Awlaki’s tapes which endorse the pseudo-Jihadist ideology.
Muhammad Shareef is quite an admirer of Abdullah Azzam, founder of al-Qaeda. He told the kids to go to qoqaz.net, a pro-Al-Qaeda website.
Here are some questions for the al-Maghrib staff which they will not answer:
1) Are the governments of the world Kuffar/Taghoot etc.? I am sure al-Maghrib would agree with Anwar Awlaki when he says all the governments in the world are kuffar.
2) Is there room for democracy in Islam? I am sure al-Maghrib would agree with Abu Muhammad Maqdisi when he says that anyone who admires something from democracy is a Kaafir.
Furqan….how are you sure of all that you mentioned above?
Actually .. to be more specific…please read this http://bit.ly/bEml3
sorry wrong url.. here it is again http://bit.ly/hehy5
Al-Maghrib is a Wahabi/Salafi Institution. In the US, Canada, etc, they cannot come out openly & say what they truely believe. It does not mean that every Salafi/Wahabi is going to kill innocent people, but they will be the first “recruits” for this path. Coincidentally, I was just having a discussion with a brother who was influenced by the Salafi/Wahabi style of dawah through al-Maghrib. He said his friends were going to these programs and going back to their families and telling their mothers who don’t wear hijab that they are kaffirs, telling their fathers they are working at haram jobs, causing strife between families, etc, all b/c of the “great knowledge” they gained at a weekend al-Maghrib course. If they become like this with their own families, how do you think they will treat others? May Allah guide all of us on the straight path.
I’m glad you don’t just cuss me out like the other guys.
I accuse al-Maghrib of supporting Al-Qaeda through their support of Anwar Awlaki. I would be more than happy to be refuted by Al-Maghrib staff, but they just continue to ignore me and hope their students are too naive to connect the dots.
The Salafi scene right now is pretty volatile. Damned if you support the government. Damned if you rebel against them. Damned if you stay neutral. It is a political nightmare. No wonder you have Muslims calmoring for Secularism.
I WANT TO HEAR IT FROM THE MOUTH OF YASIR QADHI THAT HE DOES NOT ACCEPT ANWAR AWLAKI’S SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM! BUT HE WILL NEVER SAY IT BECAUSE IN HIS HEART HE CHEERS ON BIN LADEN AND HE WANTS ANOTHER 9/11!
PROVE ME WRONG MR. QADHI!
PROVE ME WRONG MR. SHAREEF!
PROVE ME WRONG MR. BIRJAS!
Calm down Furqan.
I was talking with my little sister a few weeks ago around 9/11 when they were doing all the memorials and remembrances and crap about how I hate all this crap every year. I live in NYC area btw. She said why do you think the attacks on 9/11 were right? I said innocent people died it’s true, BUT when the U.S. and the west stops killing Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakistanis, and most important stops using Israel to control Palestine and kill Palestinians, the millions of Muslims that the west and U.S. has killed compared to a handful that died in 9/11, then maybe I might feel a little pity for them for 9/11. But all that happened on 9/11 was the U.S. got a tiny little taste of what they deserved for what they have done for so long to Muslims, for their war on Muslims both directly and indirectly through control of all the kaffir governments of Muslim countries.
So for Furqan or Dr. Baysouni to sit here and condemn “jihadists” for going against the West and the Western-backed Arab governments, while being silent about the death, destruction, imperialism, and just overall negative domination of the Muslim world by the U.S. and the West over the last 100 years I wonder are you so worried about “jihadists” that you’re more concerned with the potential tiny impact on the west or kaffir govts of the mid east than the death and destruction of millions of Muslims lives? A house negro would be more concerned for his master’s welfare than the welfare of his fellow slaves.
When the U.S. cares about the MILLIONS of Muslim deaths and the control of the Middle East by corrupt traitor governments that they are responsible for, and hold some memorials for those deaths that they caused, then maybe we should acknowledge their memorials. BUT not only do they not acknowledge the turmoil that they caused, they actually say our deaths were justified in a “War on Terror” or “bringing freedom” or some other bullcrap. But their tiny little number of deaths, the whole world needs to weep for. Like I said, all that happened on 9/11 was that America got a tiny, little, miniscule taste of what the whole Muslim world deals with on a regular basis.
And yet people are worried about stopping the “jihadists.” Better get your priorities straight son.
I do not understand you people. You claims to be good Muslims yet you cheer on a group (Al-Qaeda) whose policy is to kill innocent women and children. Blowing up markets and civilian areas is not Jihad, it is murder; it is not defending Islam, it is hurting Islam.
You listen to too much Jihadist propoganda.
@ Furqan,
get a life.
More self-righteous psuedo-Jihadists strike again, killing mostly civilians as per their policy.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/10/2009101282730478891.html
“More than 40 people have been killed and dozens more wounded in an attack on the Pakistani military… Although the attack targeted the army, most of the casualties were civilians.”
Explain to me again where the Quran says I can blow myself up and kill women and children?
As the (modified) saying goes: “IT’S THE `AQIDAH, STUPID!!!
AlMaghrib is a face-lifted WAHHABI (so-called “salafi”) indocrination program. AlMaghrib (and i am not saying all the people affiliated with the organization–but the main thrust of it) teaches the Wahhabi-literalist-corporealist doctrine. I don’t see why people are having such a hard time with grasping this. The Wahhabis take certain Verses/Hadiths pertaining to Allah (and some don’t pertain to Allah at all) literally that shouldn’t be taken as such. Consequently, they think Allah is a corporeal/spatial entity with real-actual-literal fingers, hands, feet, a shin, and a face mounted upon the `Arsh in the day and down inside the First Heaven at night. Muslims believe Allah is the Creator of space, time, and bodies. Allah is not a body, not in space, and not in time. The scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah discredited the Wahhabi/”Wahhabiesque” creed (of the quasi-Hanbalis) loooooong ago and said that such a belief is blasphemous-kufr.
The Wahhabis (so-called salafis) historically deemed the masses of Muslims to be mushriks/kaafirs. This is why the Wahhabis revolted against the Ottoman Sultan. This is why the Wahhabis seiged Mecca and starved its people, ransacked the Mosque of the Prophet, and slaughtered the Muslims of Ta’if in the early 19th century. This is why the Wahhabis today go about bombing women and babies in the markets. This is simply who these people are. Follow their isnaad!!! From the Wahhabi inception, they were extremists/terrorists. You can check the Mufti of Mecca, Zayn Ad-Dahlan’s book, “Fitnatul-Wahhabiyya” to get more details.
It makes perfect sense to me that a people with such a with their literalists MISunderstanding of `aqidah would also have a literalist MISunderstanding of fiqh. The Wahhabis (so-called salafis) read Verses and Hadiths about Jihaad–and run with them. They have no knowledge of the rules of Islamic warfare–and they certainly don’t have any notion of political discretion or wisdom.
Among the tragedies (and hypocrises) in this mess is that you have people claiming to represent Ahlus-Sunnah and traditional scholarship, but they don’t put these Wahhabis on FULL BLAST. In the name of “unity”–they are virtually silent about the kufr of the Wahhabi doctrine. The menace of the Wahhabis/their doctrine should be used as an opportunity to TEACH THE CORRECT `AQIDAH! This would fortify the Muslim youth with the traditional `Aqidah and the knowledge and proofs against the Wahhabi (so-called salafi) doctrine.
Allah knows, but in all likelihood, it is simply a matter of time before some of these Wahhabis commit an act of serious terrorism here in the States (and keep an eye on the Somali community–’cause Wahhabism is spreading like a virus in it (for the Wahhabi missionaries are getting to the refugees in Kenya). When that happens, many of the Muslims will do the usual shuckin’ and jivin’ routine about how Islam doesn’t promote terrorism–all the while these Muslims were too lazy to investigate or cowardly to warn against a genuine terrorist ideology that exists in MANY Islamic centers around the country.
With Allah is the success.
Swarth,
I have learnt something new from you that I did not know.
May Allah reward you for enlightening the Muslim community.
I have disagreed with you on other occasions but this time I am solidly behind you.
Refutation of Anwar Al-Awlaki
http://aa.trinimuslims.com/showthread.php?t=1678
@swarth moor
Why do you keep repeating yourself in every single post?
Salafi’s > traditional > wannabe sufi’s
http://www.anwar-alawlaki.com/?p=222
@Furqan:
Do you really, honestly and truly believe that 9/11 was carried out by al-Qaeda without the knowledge of, and direct / indirect assisstance of the US Govt.?
What a fool.
@ Mustafa,
Thanks for the compliment.
@ Wat Wat,
Many people are confused about who’s who. Until we get to the bottom of things, then there will be no (genuine) unity, and the Muslims will remain ignorant and weak. As for warning against the Wahhabis (although i see in some ways the quasi-traditionalists/pseudo-sufis more threatening), the Wahhabis (so-called salafis) are VERY active in their propaganda campaign. Many Muslims are confused about who the Wahhabis are, and they are not familiar with the history of the movement. The Wahhabis spread kufr in the name of Islam. The Wahhabis commit acts of terror. Terrorism is an enormity. Terrorism poses a threat to the safety of Muslims and non-Muslims. Terrorism makes da`wah to non-Muslims more difficult. Wahhabi terrorism gives the opponents of Islam more excuses to attack and oppress Muslims. By warning against the Wahhabis, if something does jump off, you can demonstrate to the authorities that you have been active combatting extremism (hence, you won’t find yourself as prime canidates for Gitmo or the likes). Lastly, ordering the good and forbidding the evil is an OBLIGATION.
With Allah is the success.
So basically Swarth is trying to pre-emptively insulate himself against unwanted attention from government authorities? Mad hilarious.
Swarth, wake up and smell the coffee. You’re grossly delusional if you think your endless rants are educating people. All you do is use smear tactics, unsourced allegations and exagerrations.
A lot of people just don’t give a damn about your hot air.
@PaliZak, I feel sorry for you bro. Your understanding of Islam is warped. We need to purify/educate ourselves as Muslims. You are saying that if X Kaffir did wrong or thinks wrong, only until then we should change as Muslims & have the “right” attitude towards them? Wow, who did you study Seerah with?
@ Maverick,
Al-Qaeda members have repeatedly claimed responsibility for 9/11. If they didn’t do it, why are so many of them claiming they did?
I am amazed how many of Mujahideen Ryder’s readers are apologists for terrorists. None of them seem to care about the thousands of Muslims Al-Qaeda has killed in bombings. None of them seem to care that the Taliban finances their war with illegal drug money. This fanatic cult is the reason Muslims are weak and backwards. Allah knows if He gave them power they would be just as oppressive as the big powers or even more. At least in the United States we have freedom to practice Islam and to protest against the government. Al-Qaeda has brought Muslims nothing but more suffering and humiliation and has made the whole world think Islam is a religion of petty tribal violence. You cannot deny the crimes of Al-Qaeda but you choose to ignore them. We can see through the propoganda tricks of Al-Qaeda. Why can’t you?
Swath is right.
Furqan,
I’m not sure which planet you live on, but here on Earth, when the 9/11 attacks happened, PLENTY of terrorist groups loudly claimed responsibility for them at that time. Both before and after 9/11, even up until teh present day, its very common for multiple claims of responsibility to surface whenever a major terrorist attack happens anywhere in the world. Furthermore, OBL himself is on the record DENYING responsibility for 9/11.
My point here is not to debate who’s claims of responsibility are credible or not. I’m simply pointing out that IF you’ve swallowed – hook, line, and sinker – the official story from the US Gov’t about 9/11, THEN you’re just not someone I take seriously, at all.
Furthermore, I do NOT find it insulting or bothersome that you are implying I am some sort of apologist for terrorists. What I DO find insulting and quite distatsteful is that you jumped to such a conclusion without due diligence.
So instead of spewing out old and tired hyperbolic accusations, why not try challenging these assumptions you hold about your own co-religionists? Educate yourself a little so that you can claim, with a straight face, that you actually know who you’re talking to, and what you’re talking about.
Thanks.
“Furthermore, OBL himself is on the record DENYING responsibility for 9/11. ”
Really? Can I see proof of this like a vid or a transcript? Because I’ve never heard of this and it’d change things a lot because almost all of his supporters glorify 9/11. To see him denying it (or even the possibility since it hasn’t been publicized before) might cause a huge shift
@suyuufi –
Why is this a surprise to you? Just Google for it or go here:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
I personally know a bro who works at AJ. I can ask him if he can supply a copy of the actual, original statement as received by the network – if you want to analyze it further.
It simply underlines what I said a bit earlier, that its standard practice for many groups to claim responsibility for various attacks. Either all of them except one is lying, on each occasion, or they all collaborated jointly. It doesn’t matter to me anyways when my objective is to denounce senseless violence and attacks against civilians and non-combatants and to reiterate what Prophet Muhammad [saws] said about rules of engagement.
I’m not taking sides or anything, I’m just surprised because I always assumed he was proud of that ‘achievement’.
And yeah, I know how multiple groups take responsibility for things, as a strategy of war. But lying in the context of war isn’t immoral or wrong (unless you lie in a treaty or something, which is wrong) because of the Hadith, “War is deception.”
I’m aware of the allowance for lying during wartime but I don’t think this is the case when multiple terrorist groups claim responsibility for a single large attack – I always viewed many of these groups as opportunistic mobs, claiming all sorts of things just to try and boost their image.
Lame.
Mav,
Insulation from govt. authorities was one of SEVERAL reasons for warning against Wahhabis/extremists. The most important reason for warning against them is that they call people to an corporeal/anthropomorphic/kufr doctrine in the name of Islam–Sunni Islam. Many Sunnis, especially the youth in the West (and their parents if they didn’t learn), are confused about Wahhabism and might adopt its kufri `aqidah. I warn against the Wahhabis because THEY ARE WRONG and they ACTIVELY propagate their misguidance.
I understand that many in the govt. do not love Muslims. Nonetheless, if a terrorist event jumps off, some of us are going to get visits from the security forces. Now if you have a bunch of revolutionary propaganda, OBL T-shirts, and Taliban stickers at your house or in your Islamic center, you might not only get a visit, you might find yourself in a six-by-ten for a minute. On the other hand, if you hip folks–Muslims and non-Muslims–to what is what, and let the security forces know that these Qutubis and Wahhabis pose a threat not only to non-Muslims, but that these characters have been terrorizing Muslims for decades (or in the case of the Wahhabi for more than two centuries), then this is likely to REDUCE (not eliminate) the level of harassment you might face from the authorities. It’s called speaking the Truth and being politically astute.
With Allah is the success.
@ SM:
First off, just an FYI for some background information on me since a lot of what you’re saying to me is just way off-target – through no fault of yours, you don’t know what you don’t know –
First off, you don’t have to tell me about getting visits, because I’ve been getting visits now for plenty of years. I’ve had long conversations over several years with officers and agents from RCMP, CSIS, FBI, Homeland Security, US Dept. of Defense, and French security personnel [when I was in France, visiting a few years back]. Its all really old stuff to me. They have my name, my number, my fingerprints, everything. BIG WOOP. Sometimes they come talk to me with my lawyer present, and sometimes without. They come talk to me about me, whats in my head, where I’ve been, what I think about this or that, can I come do some consulting gigs for them, yada yada yada. And my story isnt unique, there are plenty of other Muslim guys in the Toronto area who have been approached and harassed.
That being said, I can’t help but laugh at your statement mixing up two polar opposites – speaking the truth and being politically astute. If you’re afraid of being locked up in a jail cell then you’ve got a really long way to go before you’re actually speaking any kind of truth, since fear of jailtime and the desire to be politically astute is NOT going to lead you towards speaking the “Truth”. And trust me, you don’t know what the mukhaabarat are looking for. So if you think you’re putting on a show just so that you can try to maintain a squeaky clean record if and when they come knocking, then you’re in for a little surprise.
Secondly, the reason why I dont take your anti-Wahabbi rants seriously [at all] is because most of it is cut and paste and / or long, repeated blasts of hot air. I’ve dealt with Wahabbies, SPubers, and plenty of other types.
And what I do know is that for all your claims about their beliefs in a corporeal entity, you’ve provided ZERO evidence to back up your statements from THEIR canon. I’ve spoken with them plenty of times, and they’ve said the exact same thing you said – that they affirm that God has Hands and a Face as He himself states in the Qur’an, but that it is UNLIKE anything we know, and that He has these attributes in a manner best befitting Him.
So either you’re more like the Wahabbies than you care to admit, or they’re more like you than you care to admit, or you’re just creating a straw man and blowing a lot of hot air in a shaky attempt to be “politically astute”.
Which one is it?
@ Maverick:
Thank you Maverick, that was a great rebuttal of Swarth Moor.
By the way what exactly do you mean by “Wahhabi?” Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab did not create a mathhab and nobody claims to follow him in any way, he is simply a respected scholar and that is all. The people who I assume you are referring to simply want to follow the Quran and Sunnah as all Muslims should want to do, and follow the wisdom of ulamaa who are more knowledgeable than us about the details of the Quran and Sunnah.
The “Wahhabis” or “Salafis” or whatever else you want to call them, are simply Muslims and because I am simply a Muslim and like all Muslims want to follow the Quran and Sunnah of the prophet now I too am a wahhabi or salafi? Or is it because I reject bid’ah practices that either came out of integration of culture or deviant ways of thought and appeasement or just plain ignorance into an already complete religion. And don’t talk about the Saudi government or any other Arab government that claims to be Islamic because they have American troops stationed on their soil and support western countries, including Israel, politically and financially against their own muslim people, so they are hypocrites.
Palizak, just to clarify (and Swarth this goes for you too) –
I’m not here to rebut someone’s statements or arguments. This isn’t a “debate” for me, I’m not looking to prove or disprove anything in particular. I have nothing against Swarth in particular, since I don’t even know the guy – he probably has many good traits about him i’idhnellah. My sarcasm is as native to me as salt is to ocean water. But don’t mistake that sarcasm for malice or enmity.
I’m here having a conversation, its a marketplace of ideas, there’s an exchange going on and we’re simply airing opinions on all sorts of topics under the Sun.
I dislike it when someone makes tall claims about another group of people, or about anything, and then provides no solid eveidence to back it up. Even when people come and say crap about America or Israel, I tell them to bring the money or else sit down. You could come say a whole bucnh of stuff about George Bush – and I don’t like the guy at all – but if you lie about him, or make exaggerrated claims, I’ll drag you over the coals. People call me all sorts of names, they call me a Jew, and whatever, but man … who cares? Call me a baby-eater for all I care. Like they say in Iraqi 3ameya, a man who’s already wet isn’t afraid of the rain.
I demand integrity from those I’m conversing with and if they can’t provide it, or they refuse to, then I’m just not inclined to take them seriously. Its like the boy who cried wolf – eventually you stop listening to the kid and tune him out.
How about reclaiming Islam from the Wahhabis?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/15/mecca-hotel-against-hajj-spirit
I understand your opposition to the major powers. I am asking you to understand my opposition to terrorist groups which use Islam to justify suicide bombings, takfeer, and other enormities.
There is no justification for suicide attacks in Islam. This is why we must be opposed to the dangerous groups that make suicide bombings part of their policy. I does not matter what their ends are, what matters is the means. The ends DO NOT justify the means. The Prophet never compromised his ethical principles for political convenience.
The best thing for Muslims is to adopt the moderate stance of the majority of Ulema. This means we need to be patient with our rulers and to work from within to effect positive change. This is Wisdom but the psuedo-jihadists do not listen to Wisdom.
Furqan, who are you talking to?
I oppose criminals masquerading-as-mujahideen [a.k.a terrorists], I oppose the killings of innocents and non-combatants, I oppose the takfeeries, etc. I never said or implied that Muslims should use their ends to justify the means.
Like, please – instead of jumping to conclusions why not try actually understanding who you’re talking to?
If you are a true Muslim, pass on the word of Allah and Rasool to all people that you know they believe Islam allowes killing of innocent human beings who have not physically attacked you or your property:
Allah/God says in Holy Quran:
“If any one killed a person, it would be as if he killed all mankind; and if any one saved the life of a person, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.” (Quran V: 32).
According to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) “Murdering a human being is one of the biggest sins.” He adds: “Be kind to all living beings so that Allah may be kind to you. Allah does not shows His mercy to whosoever shows no mercy to fellow humans.
This shows how valuable is the life of a single human being.
Mark the word “humans” that include all mankind……not just Muslims only.
Adapted from http://members.aol.com/khananis/coexistence.html
Mav,
1) The government authorities are concerned about “Islamic” (or quasi-Islamic) extremists. I, as a Muslim, am concerned about it–afterall, the Muslims have suffered more at their hands than the kuffaar. Secondly, when you warn against the Wahhabis, they tend to get violent with you. If the Wahhabi menace can be reduced, then that protects the Muslims, and it makes it easier to give da`wah.
2) I don’t believe i have EVER cut and pasted here on this site. The fact of the matter is that the Wahhabis DO pray to a giant (imaginary) corporeal and spatial entity that they think is above their heads. They believe Allah is a literal direction and in a literal location. Hence, they are talking about something that takes up space. That which takes up space is a body. That which is a body is a spatial/corporeal entity. I’ve already produced quotes from their books to prove that. They don’t deny what i am saying–they just don’t like the way i say (because it exposes how utterly gross their doctrine is.)
It seems that you, too, are not understanding the issue. “Hands” and “Face”–as in real-actual-literal hands and face are BODY PARTS–they belong to corporeal entites that take up space. That’s what i’ve been saying the WHOLE TIME, and that’s what the Wahhabis say. The Qur’an, however, NEVER ascribes “Hands” and “Face” to Allah. The Qur’an is in Arabic. The Qur’an ascribes “Yad” and “Wajh.” The literal/primary meaning of these words refers to body parts. However, these words also have a multitude of OTHER meanings–some of which are appropriate to attribute to Allah and some are not, so when you translate, you translate in a manner that BEFITS ALLAH and complies with the languages involved. In summary words have meanings. If a person believes Allah has a literal “Face” or literal “Hands,” then he is talking about the “front part of the head” and the “end of the arm beginnging at the wrist.” If he believes as such, then he is a mujassimah/kaafir. If he doesn’t believe as such, then he doesn’t believe Allah has a literal “Face” or literal “Hands.” You can’t have it both ways.
With Allah is the success.
Palizak,
The Wahhabis are called as such, because that is the name given to them by Ahlus-Sunnah. The famous Hanafi, Ibn `Abideen, for instance, referred to them as the “Khawaarij of the era.” The father of Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab, who was a Hanbali scholar, warned against him. The brother of Sulayman ibn `Abdul-Wahhab wrote two treatises refuting him (Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab). “Fitnatul-Wahhabiyyah” contains the history (and refutation) of the early Wahhabi movement. It was written by the Mufti of Mecca at the time, Zayd Ad-Dahlaan. Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab considered the Muslims at large to be mushriks, so he ordered his followers to pillage and slaughter. Among the most infamous of these acts were the Wahhabis seige of Mecca, ransacking of the Prophet’s Mosque, and the slaughter of the Muslims in the early 1800′s.
The other problem with the Wahhabis is their literalist/anthropomorphic doctrine–which is mentioned in the above post.
With Allah is the success.
Omar,
That is suppose to be a joke or parody?!?!?!? Are they seriously thinking about building that thing next to the Masjidul-Haraam?!?!?
Mav,
I had to go back and retrieve this–and this is, i believe, the first time i’ve done a cut/paste here (which is a c/p of my own post). This was a response to a person who asked about a Sister who asked about what the Wahhabis actually teach. This was something i did ad hoc, but it does include references.
Swarth Moor
September 26th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
@ Sara
I appreciate your request. Let’s start by saying that the Wahhabis do NOT say Allah is a man. They will (unequivocally) say that such a belief is outright kufr (good for them). What the Wahhabis do, however, is whether knowinginly or unknowingly ascribe to Allah human-like attributes, and as At-Tahawi says:
“Whoever ascribes to Allah a human characteristic blasphemes.”
Furthermore, At-Tahawi said:
“Allah is supremely glorified from having boundaries, extremities, sides, organs, appendages, and devices. NONE of the six directions contain Allah, as is the case with all created things.”
Now, even if the Wahhabis say that Allah has various limbs, organs, appendages but… they are “not like our’s,” it is enough that they say Allah is a spatial entity in one location or another (usually they’ll say on or above the `Arsh or in the First Heaven) that renders them among the Mushabbihah–that is, those disbelievers who resemble Allah to the creations. Allah was before the existence of space and place. Allah does not change or need the creations; Allah exists without being in space or place. This is the belief of the Muslims. Now on to sayings absurdities of the Wahhabis.
In the book called The Muslim’s Belief (from Uthaimeen) it says on page 13 (and these are blasphemous statements):
“We believe that Allah has a glorious and dignified face.”
“We believe that Allah has two generous hands…. The whole earth will be his handful [which implies that His (alleged) hand is relatively small] on the Day of resurrection.”
“We believe that Allah possesses two real eyes.”
On page 11, the book says:
“…He [allegedly Allah] settled Himself on the Throne. His ’settling on the Throne’ means that HE IS SITTING IN PERSON on His Throne.”
In the translation of the so-called Sharhul-Aqeedat-il-Wasitiyah from Dar-us-Salam, it says in the chapter (wrongly) entitled: “Affirmation of the Face, the Eyes, and the Hand for Allah” (p. 76):
“Everything will perish save His [allegedly Allah's] Face.”
This distortion of Al-Qasas, 88 runs absolutely contrary to the explanation given by Al-Bukhari in his section on Tafseer wherein, he said that Wajh (what the Wahhabis claim is “Face”) means the Allah’s Dominion. If the verse were taken at its “face value,” it would mean that Allah’s alleged feet, fingers, tibia, hands, and eyes would all be annihilated–and only the face would remain.
In the chapter entitled, “Affirmation for the Foot and Step [to Allah],” it says on page 135:
“Thus, Allah the Lord of Might will put His Foot in it [i.e., Hellfire]….”
Again, another literalist Wahhabi distortion. Although i don’t see the source now, i know that the Wahhabis say that Allah [allegedly] places both of His Feet on the Kursiyy. Given that the Kursiyy’s size to the `Arsh (where Allah is allegedly located according to the Wahhabis) is like a drop of water in comparison to a lake, you can see the absurdities that their claim leads to.
In the Wahhabi distortions of the Qur’an by Muhsin Khan or the “Sahih” International, they both claim that the phrase in Al-Qalam, 42:
“yukshafu `an saaq”
means that Allah has a “Shin,” and that on the Judgment Day, it will be exposed. The phrase “showing of the shin” has a meaning in Arabic akin (although not exactly) of “rolling up your sleeves” in English–the Arabic phrase means: “a time of hardship”–and even Hans Wehr confirms this in his definition of the word “saaq.”
Lastly, here is an example from a lecture of Bilal Philips on You Tube wherein he tries to prove that Allah is located above your head. This is verbatim he said:
“When we say He [Allah] is beyond His creation, we are not putting Him in a LOCATION because location came into existence with creation. Allah is where He was before He created. He’s in the same PLACE.”
If the guy had any sense, he’d know that “location” and “place” are the same thing. It is true that Allah existed before location (and place). And after Allah created place (and location) Allah did not transform and materialize inside of a location or place. Allah is Perfect and Eternal and DOES NOT CHANGE! Idol worshippers pray to something inside of a place. Muslims worship the the One Who created place/space and everything that exists within place/space. Muslims do not worship something in place/space. Ma-sha’ Allah, i have plenty of other references. If you need more, i am willing to help.
With Allah is the success.
Swarth, my thoughts on your recent comments:
1.) You spoke about “Governments worrying about extremists.” Not really. Its more an issue of the need for a security threat to publicly justify all sorts of heavy handed measures and greater portions of the annual budget. There’s plenty of evidence in broad daylight, from all matters of sources, that governments need bogeymen to justify many of their policies that wouldn’t hold water otherwise. It’s just a big game, that’s all. A dance. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m sure you know and accept this, and if you’re unsure about it, just ask and I’ll deliver some material for your further consideration.
2.) You said Wahabbis tend to get violent when you argue with them. What kind of violence? Physical violence? Or just online flame wars and endless personal attacks or takfeeri shots? What kind of violence? Do you have any actual evidence for this? Stats? Recorded incidents?
3.) Thanks for the refresher course on the aqeedatul wasitiyyah doc. I have it in my collection of various reading material, and I’m familiar with it. Do I believe that God is a corporeal entity somewhere above my head, no, of course not. Nor did I get the impression after reading that book that the authors and its fans believe Allah ta3ala is some corporeal alien in outer space. Its very common for two people to walk away with two different interpretations of the same test or statement by a 3rd party, and that seems to be the case here.
4.) Some of the languages my parents read / speak / write include Urdu and Farsi, with Urdu itself drawing substantially from Arabiy, as you may [or may not] know.
We also have the word Wajh and yes it refers to “face” as well as other meanings depending on context. So, further to the point I just made about two different interpretations, if someone says only and just the following statement: “Everything will be destroyed except Allah’s Face” – I personally don’t take it to mean that the person is saying He has an ACTUAL, TANGIBLE and CORPOREAL FACE like you and I do as humans. Contextually, to me it means raison d’etre, i.e. substance of existence [as best I can translate it]. Not unlike what you just quoted about His dominion.
So again, either Wahabbies are more like you than you care to admit, or the other way around, or maybe you made an honest mistake. Who knows. Maybe Santa Claus does. Oh well, we’ll all just believe whatever we want and find out whats really going on when we’re all standing there on Judgement Day.
By the way, since you’re such a big fan of Tahawi, could you please explain the asbaab, and actual meaning, of that riwayah where Prophet Muhammad [saws] asked a slave-girl where Allah ta3ala was, and she pointed up towards the sky, and so the Rasulallah told someone else to free her, since she was a Believer.
I must confess, I really never fully understood that narration. Maybe you can help me out.
@ Maverick
The multiple claims for responsibility of the 9/11 attacks happened within a short time frame after 9/11. The denial by bin Laden and then subsequent and continuous plethora of claims (audio, video, communiques) weigh overwhelmingly against the idea that OBL didn’t do it.
His letter of denial is obviously a war tactic because he and Al-Qaeda (as-Sahab) have produced so many forms of claims it is ridiculous to argue that he is responsible. And then there are the videos of the “glorious” martyrs of 9/11. Their “martyrdom” can be seen in the 9/11 anniversary videos that Al-Qaeda has brought out in the past about the attacks. And if the US gov. knew about the attacks, it doesn’t change the fact that Al-Qaeda was responsible. What about the “glorious” attacks in Kenya? FAR MORE Africans than American died for the sake of an al-Qaeda “painful hit on the Americans”.
The argument that 9/11 can be justified because of the US support for Israel only justifies the times that the US (accidentally) bombs Afghan civilians.
Wake up people, spend some time, nay, days on end reading as many sources as you can. Do you really think that the US military just load up planes and orders them to fly randomly around Muslim countries to offload their bombloads? Even the US knows that strategy is counter productive and stupid. It seem Al-Qaeda doesn’t know that, which is why you have mosque bombings on Jumuah in Waziristan, though Alhumdulillah that seems to have stopped for now. The interesting thing is, the Taliban released a code of conduct for their forces earlier this year which expressly prohibited suicide bombings in civilian areas and also to restrict suicide bombings to a bare minimum. Why?
Because if you look at the majority of the Taliban they are not avid, hardcore salafi jihadis. They are often Hanafi and they never used suicide bombings as a tactic before Al-Qaeda set up shop in Afghanistan after the soviets were defeated. If the Taliban want to take control again they will have to earn the trust of Muslims again by discarding the fitan of al-Qaeda.
@ Wake up:
The challenge for many people in this conversation is to ask and verify their assumptions first, instead of the knee-jerk reaction of “shoot first. ask later.”
Are you familiar with the Reichstag fire and what it led to? Have you examined false-flag operations in America’s history? Are you familiar with the US military’s relationship with corporate interests?
Do you know that US entered WW2 by forcing Japan to attack Pearl Harbor and yet, it was the US that fired the first shot at Pearl Harbor – thereby making them the instigator of hostilities, and not the actual story that has been claimed for over 60 years.
Are you familiar with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was used as a pretext for Vietnam?
Are you familiar with the deliberate catalysts that were employed to allow the US military to take part in the first Gulf War?
affirming Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala has divine Hands, Shin, etc. because Allah said so. But the manner of those divine Hands, Shin, etc. is beyond our knowledge. They are not human.
if we do not say that Allah is for example above the Throne – because He said so – then we are denying what Allah said. Second, we are possibly going in the direction of claiming Allah is everywhere, or in everything – by quick extension, possibly in certain “divine” humans – which is the shirk-ish, untrue direction humans tend to go in, and which we are called to avoid (i.e. monotheism and tawheed).
Mav,
I know that what is called “Islamic extremism” is used as an excuse in some sectors to keep the military industrial complex alive (and to give the West and these tin pot rulers of Muslim nations an excuse to employ heavy-handed tactics against extremists who wish to tople governments–AND the Muslims who unapologetically wish to follow the Sunnah). I’m with ya on that. Nonetheless, it doesn’t preclude that we do have extremists ideologies being promoted that need to be purged. My preferred method of purging is to expose their creed.
Wahhabi violence? Just look at their early (or contemporary history). I can give you anecdotal accounts, and i can suggest to you to ask genuine Sunnis about their run-ins with the Wahhabis in the prison system. You can ask the American Sunnis on the streets of NY, New Jersey, and Philly, and they can give you stories about the Wahhabis.
I am not saying that YOU think that Allah is a giant corporeal/spatial being sitting above your head. But the Wahhabis do. They may not like the WAY in which i am saying things (because it is so grossly anthropomorphic), but they don’t DENY what i am saying.
Give you a clear case that the Wahhabis pray to an anthropomorphic (or at least corporeal/spatial) entity–besides the fact that they say Allah is located above the `Arsh. The Wahhabi will say: “Allah has a ‘Hand.’” Now, the word “hand” in English has at least 20 different meanings, such as, control, power, care, pledge of marriage, assistance, manual laborer, applause, etc. (As the word “Yad” has a MULTITUDE of meanings in the Arabic language.) “Hand” in the literal/primary sense, of course, means that body part at the end of the arm beginning at the wrist and including the fingers, thumb, and palm. When you say to the Wahhabi, “Don’t say that Allah has a ‘hand,’ because this could confuse people and make some people fall into tashbih/resembling Allah to the creations. Say that the word “Yad” means, for instance, ‘Control,’ ‘Power,’ or another meaning that would be befitting of Allah.” The Wahhabi will say–”No, Allah said He has a ‘Hand’ [aside: the Qur'an says: "Yad"--not hand]–therefore Allah has a ‘Hand.’” And they are not shy to say a “literal Hand.” This is where their contradiction comes in–you can’t say that Allah has literal “Hand” and then say that that literal hand is not a body part. You can say that the word “Hand” has many meanings (and i would NOT advocate a person to say “Hand”–even if he means a non-literal meaning, for it can lead to confusion), and some of them don’t refer to body parts–some of the meanings would be appropriate to ascribe to Allah–while others CLEARLY are not.
Regarding the Hadith of the slave woman, there are SEVERAL riwayah of the Hadith. If we want to take one the Wahhabis usually use–wherein they say “Allah is fis-samaa’,” it doesn’t work as a proof for their doctrine on several accounts. One, a Companion (or a group of them–i’d have to review the reference, and i am doing this under the duress of time) said in the presence of the Prophet, “We have reached the ‘Samaa” and we hope to attain a higher status.” The phrase “in the Samaa’” or (literally) in the Heavens, is a reference to “greatness of status,” and not necessarily of a location. (Just as in English, the kings would be refered to as “Royal Highness.”) Furthermore a person doesn’t become Muslim by saying “Allah is in the Heavens; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” Pointing with the finger or saying “Allah is above,” means that Allah is the One with the Sublime, Perfect, Holy, and Lofty Attributes. It is not a reference to a location.
Furthermore, the Heavens are MUCH MUCH SMALLER than the Kursiyy and the `Arsh. So to say (or imply) Allah is Fi-as-samaa’ (literally), and the Wahhabis say we must take things literally, means Allah is INSIDE Heavens, which would mean Allah is contained by the things He created. (Keep in mind many of the Wahhabis will say Allah is “above the Heavens”… except in the last third of the night). Add to that that the Heavens are PACKED full with Malaa’ikah (Angels), and you see all the more how absurd such a claim is.
The point is that the Wahhabis do believe Allah is a spatial entity. They don’t like the phrase “spatial entity”–because they know folks would be put off by such a statement, so they use various phraseology to confuse folks. Nonetheless, the Wahhabis don’t deny–but assert–Allah has a location and occupies space. Hence, they are claiming Allah is a spatial/corporeal being. Some go to the point of saying, “If you deny Allah exists in a place, then you are denying His existence. ” That isn’t the case at all. We are saying that the Creator of space was before and without space and after creating space and Allah is as He was. Allah is not in need of any of the creations. This is what Muhammad ibn Hibah Al-Makki wrote in the Creed of Salahud-Deen (Al-Ayyubi):
“Qad kaana mawjoodan wa laa makaana
Wa hukumhul-aana `alaa maa kaana.
“Allah was [before the creation] and place was not.
And the judgment about Allah’s existence is now as He was [i.e., without space/place].”
I hope what i said was (relatively) clear. In-shaa’ Allah, i hope this makes things easier for people to understand.
With Allah is the success.
@ Swarth Moor
In both cases it appears to me that you’re arguing over interpretation about the same ayaat – so if Allah says He has a Hand, people like me take it and leave it at just that. I’m fully cognizant of the fact that words in arabiy have much more meanings than those in English. But you’re insisting that in this case Yad is referring to His capacity, His power, etc etc etc and based on what authoritative mufassireen have mentioned, you’re probably right. And the Wahabbis are insisting that it means he has a literal Hand. They’re probably wrong.
But have you ever asked them to bring actual tafseer backing up their assertions? Your experience may be different, but I find it a lot easier to let someone expose the flaws in their own argument rather than trying to get them to accept external evidence. Or maybe I’m just lazy.
And by the way, I have indeed spoken to people from places you’ve mentioned. [I've lived all over the USA and Canada] and I still dont recall “Wahabbies” as a group showing such intolerance for other points of view, or resorting to violence if you disagree with them. That’s just a symptom of character flaws within individual persons, and is unrelated to their aqeedah. You and I both know plenty of non-Wahabbies who become flustered and incoherent when someone disagrees with what they said, and it really seems like they’ll fall into violence. People like those extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, ultra-nationalists and super-patriots, etc.
Maverick you say I’m shooting first and asking later but you do the exact same by “presenting” what appear to be your personal choice of highly likely realities. Let’s not beat up Bush, eh, I mean, beat around the bush.
Since you’re also interested in military and asymmetrical warfare, why not consider the highly possible reality that bin Laden deliberately denied responsibility for 9/11 and then later said he did do it for strategic purposes? I’ve watched a doccie called “Loose Change” and although very insightful, I feel it doesn’t really emphasize al-Qaeda’s involvement. There are endless possibilities, but I do also feel that the US must have known something. I think the dual interests of the US gov. and al-Qaeda for 9/11 meant that even if one party knew of the others plans, the mission (and the non-reaction by the US) was still “a go”, because both would benefit from 9/11. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with David Icke. Interesting ideas on 9/11, but be careful; some really weird ideas about Islam in his books.
Al-Qaeda never said they used a plane on the Pentagon and once again, even if the US knew about al-Qaeda’s plot, then we have TWO guilty parties.
The Wahhabi debate/issue: I actually really enjoyed Kitab at-Tawheed, because the approach was simple enough for a layperson like myself. I also think that when one discusses the whole Wahhabi issue one should, nay, MUST study the origins and the initial influence of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd’ al-Wahhab, because from what I could fathom (Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad by Natana J DeLong Bas) the Shaykh and his efforts as well as his views are sometimes significantly different to the actions and views of his later admirers.
So I don’t think it’s wise to paint everyone, every theory and every world event with one brush. I wouldn’t say I’ve had problems with Wahabbies, it’s just that as someone who returned to untarnished and prophetically guided monotheism, I did find that people who were identified as following Traditional Islam and/or Sufis, were far more inclined to answer my questions about specific evolutionary events (which is a theory) and so on, compared to the two sentence maximum replies I have received from Salafiyah/Wahhabies.
Perhaps difference between Wahhabism/Salafism (pardon the layman’s terms) and Traditional Islam (mathhabs, etc) is that Salafis focus more on Aqeedah and Ahadeeth and how it’s understanding can be refined and better understood (not a bad idea).
Thoughts please anyone!
http://madkhalisexposed.wordpress.com/
This is it seems, is the kind of Salafiyah that some Muslims find abhorrent and totally splintering. I don’t know, what’s the best way forward?
Perhaps Mujahideen Ryder can start a topic on this? I assume it’s been done before. I kinda new to Islam.
Wasalaam
@Wide Awake:
Past and present behavior is highly indicative of future behavior.
If one country has an established track record of using false-flag operations as pretexts to launch wars of aggression, then its highly probable that such behavior will continue, and new straw-men will continue to be manufactured at the PR mills in order to justify the same.
This is why the discussion of “whether it’s al-Qaeda’s responsibility for 9/11 or not”, is largely superficial. For all I care, they could have painted Santa Claus and his band of elves as the guilty party. I mean, hey Santa Claus is flying around in a big fat sleigh going on a test run for Christmas Eve and WOOPS!! WRONG TURN!! bye-bye Twin Towers!!
…
When you get down to examining the physical evidence [or lack of it] then such a story is just as ridiculous as the official one.
al-Qaeda is just a catch-all phrase used by the media to refer to a formless bogeyman, because the masses demand some definition as to who their enemy is. Make no mistake, I am not denying that there are extremists out there who are messed up in the head. But in their entirety, the threat they presented wasn’t substantial enough to justify invasion and war. Otherwise it would be like sending the US Army to go after domestic terrorists like Hells Angels, or the Crips and the Bloods.
- – “US Army to go after domestic terrorists like Hells Angels, or the Crips and the Bloods.”
Hehehe…Imagine that!
@ believer (in Wahhabism)
You are guilty of several fallacies. Let’s start by saying that words have meanings, and that TRANSLATION necessarily entails INTEPRETATION. If we understand this, then we can understand why it is not permissible to say that Allah has “Hands” or a “Shin.” First, let’s start with fundamental principles of `Aqidah:
1. Allah ABSOLUTELY does not resemble the creations.
2. Allah ABSOLUTELY does not need the creations.
When we understand the above, we know that Allah is not a corporeal/spatial being (for we are corporeal/spatial beings); Allah is not similar to us. And Allah is not dependent upon the creations; hence, Allah is not in a place. This is understood from the Hadith of the Prophet:
Kaan-Allahu wa lam yakun shay’un ghayruh.” (Bukhari, et al.)
(Allah was [before the creations] and there was NOTHING other than Him.”)
The Prophet did NOT say: “Allah was [before the creation] and there was nothing except the space He [allegedly] occupied.”
Regarding meanings, the word “Hand” is NEVER used in reference to Allah. “Hand” is an English word. It has MANY meanings. The word in Arabic that the Wahhabis use to say Allah has a “Hand” is “Yad.” The word “yad,” like the word “hand” has MANY meanings. Some of the meanings of the word “yad” are befitting of Allah–and some are not. The LITERAL meaning of “yad” (“hand”)is NOT befitting of Allah–for it refers to a body part. When we translate the word “Yad” (in reference to Allah), we translate in a manner that is appropriate according to the languages involved AND does not conflict in the correct `Aqidah.
The term “saaq,” which the Wahhabis refer to as “Shin,” actually does not refer to Allah, but to the Judgment Day (Al-Qalam, 42). The phrase: “Kashafa `an saaq” (literally, “the showing of the shin”) means: “a time of hardship” and is an example of idomatic usage–this definition is mentioned by Hans Wehr (ref. saaq)–and it is the meaning mentioned by `Abdullah ibn `Abbas.
The “Aboveness” of Allah refers to greatness of status, and not to altitude or location. Allah is “above” being blemished by any of the attributes of created beings, such as, being contained by space, place, or direction. The example was given previously about the English kings being referred to as “royal highnesses.” Saying, for example, a pious person is “above” such-and-such trifling behavior does not mean he is in a location higher than where such behavior occurs, but that he is higher IN STATUS than to engage in such actions.
The Muslims are not denying the Attributes of Allah. The Muslims are DENYING a literalist INTERPRETATION of the Attributes of Allah. Afterall, it is absurd to claim that Allah has a literal “Shin,” but that literal “Shin” is not a bone in the lower leg. If a person believes Allah has a literal bone in the lower leg, then he is an anthropomorphist/kaafir. He he does not believe Allah has a bone in the lower leg, then he does not believe Allah has a “shin.” (That’s besides the fact that the Verse refers to the Judgment Day and NOT Allah.)
Lastly, denying that Allah is above the `Arsh does not mean that Allah is everywhere–or in a particular where. As it is shirk to believe that Allah dwells inside of a particular person, it is shirk to believe Allah dwells in ANY place or direction. Allah was before places and directions existed–Allah has no associates–Allah is not inside of a place or a direction. Allah exists without being in a place or direction (or in all places and directions).
I hope this clarifies the matter.
With Allah is the success.
@ Mav,
No one is saying that the “general ta’weel” isn’t the safer thing to do. We say Allah is atributed with “Yad”–and that the Yad of Allah is unlike the creations; i.e., it is not of a body and does not occupy space. Nonetheless, once we TRANSLATE we are giving an INTERPRETATION. We are choosing from the multitude of lexically possible meanings for “Yad” and giving one particular meaning over other lexically possible meanings. It is easier (and safer) to simply say Allah is attributed with “Yad” (without translating or interpreting the word), and that Allah’s Yad is not like that of the creations. The problem is that you have people INSISTING on taking the literal meaning of these terms, such as, Yad and `Ayn. Furthermore, these people do literally believe that Allah occupies space, has a location, and is of a size. This is in itself tashbih/kufr.
The problem with quoting Wahhabi sources is that they tend to lie and distort. They will outright tamper with classical texts. On the other hand, you can’t lie on or distort the rational proof. Also, the Salaf, whom the Wahhabis claim to follow USUALLY did not engage in giving specific interpretations of the muhkam Verses. There was no great need to do so: the people (really) knew the Arabic language and they knew Allah REALLY does not resemble the creations. Nonethless, there are ample cases in which the Salaf did make specific non-literal interpretations.
I’ll give you an example of when i was in a local prison. A young Wahhabi was getting belligerent about this issue (of making specific ta’weel). I told him Al-Bukhari made specific ta’weel in his Sahih (Al-Qasas, 88). This only made him more belligerent–until an older Wahhabi inmate grudgingly acknowledged that what i said was true. You can point to Ibn Katheer’s Tafseer (someone the Wahhabis are very fond of), and you can see NUMEROUS cases where he reports the earlier scholars making ta’weel.
The Wahhabis are utterly defeated intellectually–even from their own sources. But because they have dominated the discourse here in the West for the past generation–and MANY Muslims here (and in the old countries) are so horrendously ignorant in the matters of Doctrine–the Wahhabis have had a chance to spread their ideology with little resistance from the general Muslim population. Also, it does not help that those who profess traditional knowledge/`aqidah are virtually silent about the issue of Wahhabism. Last point: the Wahhabis historically speaking, have considered the Ummah itself to be a nation of mushriks. And as a result, they considered it “open season” on those who didn’t follow their ideology. This thinking, along with a refusal to use common sense, is the source of their violent behavior. That’s just a fact of history.
With Allah is the success.
The Whahabies believe Allah is a big man with a tibia bone with no legs two right feet no arms two right hands without a head but with a face that is both located above the Arsh and in the 3rd part of the night, and sitting in your throat. The whahabies believe the universe is uncreated, and by implication, everything in the universe, because the universe is nothing but a collection of creations. All of this is in any Whahbie book on creed. They believe all of this in the utmost strict literal sense. They believe it verbatim. And in some cases their kids would draw a picture of this thing and call it Allah. Whahabies are mushriks, through and through.
Aothubilah
When you defend any whahabie, you defend this belief. Khalas.
I may have discovered the origin of the saying “one foot in the door”. Could it be the saying of the wahhabis that “Allah is outside of the universe but on the Day of Judgment he will put his foot in hellfire”??? So according to the wahhabis “Allah will have one foot in the universe”.
I think I need a barf bag!!!
http://www.asharis.com
The asharis and habashis are a cult. The habashis even kiss the arse of the alawites in Syria. When I was a Muslim I went to some of their classes, that is where Swarth Moor gets all this “Allah exist without a place” and “don’t throw religious pamplets in the trash” crap too. They will even pick up pennies because it has the word “God” on it. Their belief wont put them in hell though, because Islam is faker then a $3 dollar bill.