SomaliNet Forums

Grant wrote:Including the Prophet, it was a clear early Muslim tradition to bury rel igious figures within the structures with which they were most closely associated. There is no necessary connection here to associating them with God in the matter of prayer.

You ignorant fool!

Rasulallah Salalaahu aleyhi wa salam was buried in his room because every Prophet aleyhi salaam is buried were he dies.

As for the "saints" sufi bull

Sahih Muslim Book 4, Number 1083:
Jundub reported: I heard from the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) five days before his death and he said: I stand acquitted before Allah that I took any one of you as friend, for Allah has taken me as His friend, as he took Ibrahim as His friend. Had I taken any one of my Ummah as a friend, I would have taken Abu Bakr as a friend. Beware of those who preceded you and used to take the graves of their prophets and righteous men as places of worship, but you must not take graves as mosques; I forbid you to do that.

The original Mosque of the Prophet was open air and was built of mud-brick and palm logs, right next to his house. At his own request, he was buried inside his house, followed by Abu Bakr and Cumar. The entire area, from the backwall of his house to his pulpit at the far side of the mosque, was included within an enlarged mosque by the Kaliph al-Walid in AD 707.

The huge structure that is the Mosque of the Prophet today did not get that way because the prophet is burried somewhere else. You can find the location of the House of Mohammed in some pictures, as it has a green dome over it, higher than the white domes over the rest of the mosque. It is in the center, squarely at the back, furthest from the entrance to the mosque, in the position of honor.

I have to wonder what Shayk Jaylaani thought when he read that hadith about not making graveyards into mosques. He certainly must not have found it very credible, or at least not applicable.

It gets very strained if you try to fit that kind of theology around the historic sites.

^ Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani was a Hanbali Scholar the same Fiqhi Madhaab of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Abdulwahab.... which is the most conservative in Ahlul Sunnah ....

Jeeylaani was Athari in Creed like his predecessor Imam Ahmad and they all believe only supplication to Allah and not to saints and men....

It was deviants like you and your ancestors who introduced greek rationalism and paganism which corrupted these sufis.



Second of all Sahih MUSLIM HAS NO DA"EEF Hadiths... Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani never questioned any hadiths in Sahahiyn (BUKHARI AND MUSLIM) like all the pious scholars before and after... only sufis do that... deviant sufis.

Are we made now to believe that our ancestors had worshipped graves and saints?
Well said Shilling.

Unclebin- wrote:^ Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani was a Hanbali Scholar the same Fiqhi Madhaab of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Abdulwahab.... which is the most conservative in Ahlul Sunnah ....

You shouldn't reveal this sort of shocking information. I mean, snet's Suufis are now shocked at knowing Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani was "Wahhabi."

It is wrong to brand every Somali as Sufi prior to the rise of Wahabists. I think that is blur our line of critical thinking and analysis by dividing our society into two competing forces on religiosity. There were the sufis aka TimaWayn, there were the Saalixiya, there were the Wahabists, and there were those claiming to be independent of all of these groups.

[quote="eternauta"][quote="Unclebin-"]^ Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani was a Hanbali Scholar the same Fiqhi Madhaab of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Abdulwahab.... which is the most conservative in Ahlul Sunnah ....[/quote]

You shouldn't reveal this sort of shocking information. I mean, snet's Suufis are now shocked at knowing Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani was "Wahhabi."[/quote]


That would be anachronic

Unclebin wrote:Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani was a Hanbali Scholar the same Fiqhi Madhaab of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Abdulwahab.... which is the most conservative in Ahlul Sunnah.

Your mistaken brother, Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab Islamic "knowledge", as well as "aqeeda," was derived from the Mu'tazila and Khawarij sect, while he claimed to be a Hanbali in Fiqh, but his thinking, ideology, and belief was such that only he alone was Muslim, and everyone else was a mushrik (polytheist). So let's not compare Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani to such a man since he never called Ahlu Sunnah polytheists.

It seem your ignorant about this fact so I suggest your read the mans writing, he specifically titled ALL of the Ahl as-Sunnah wal Jamaa'at as being polytheists (mushrik). Under this guise, he said (and all Wahhabis still BELIEVE) that the killing of the Ahlus-Sunnah was permissible.

I happen to be Ahlu Sunnah, a typical Muslim who prays five times a day, who fasts during Ramadan, who doesn't associate anyone with Allah and who loves his prophet yet Wahaabis would love nothing but to see my head roll; very un-Islamic if you ask me.

Second of all Sahih MUSLIM HAS NO DA"EEF Hadiths... Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani never questioned any hadiths in Sahahiyn (BUKHARI AND MUSLIM) like all the pious scholars before and after... only sufis do that... deviant sufis.

I really hate it when Wahaabis try to exploite the Muslims love for Islam by overexaggerating the phrase "Qur'an and Sunnah" in their senseless rhetoric. If you don't mind I like to know where you get your source from Unclebin?

eternauta wrote:

Unclebin- wrote:^ Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani was a Hanbali Scholar the same Fiqhi Madhaab of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Abdulwahab.... which is the most conservative in Ahlul Sunnah ....

You shouldn't reveal this sort of shocking information. I mean, snet's Suufis are now shocked at knowing Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani was "Wahhabi."

are you saying that Abdulwahab from 18th century najd represents all the great scholars of the hanbali madhab?

you are disrespecting ibn taymiyyah if you call hima wahabi,
and now abdulqadir jiilani?

Unclebin- wrote:^ Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani was a Hanbali Scholar the same Fiqhi Madhaab of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Abdulwahab.... which is the most conservative in Ahlul Sunnah ....

Jeeylaani was Athari in Creed like his predecessor Imam Ahmad and they all believe only supplication to Allah and not to saints and men....

It was deviants like you and your ancestors who introduced greek rationalism and paganism which corrupted these sufis.



Second of all Sahih MUSLIM HAS NO DA"EEF Hadiths... Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani never questioned any hadiths in Sahahiyn (BUKHARI AND MUSLIM) like all the pious scholars before and after... only sufis do that... deviant sufis.

how the hell is that possible if the holl wahabaiya sect started in the 18 centry and Sheikh abdulqadir jilani was around 900 years ago

Wareer wrote:Are we made now to believe that our ancestors had worshipped graves and saints?
Well said Shilling.

no ur ancestors worhsiped allah not graves just becous they visited graves and did siyaara doesent mean they worship graves come one guys

islam is about the oness of allah how can some one believe in something else

what?

why was it allowed to be put up for bidding?? this is a disgrace walahi. reer al sacuudi baa ka dambeeya sheekadaa... God i hate those bovines.

There is a political significance of stopping Mowlid, and Siyaaro.

At a Siyaaro, it is the one time that all members of a group can get together and meet. The Saudis banned the Mowlidka Nabiga (SCW) to prevent Rer Qureysh from meeting together and plotting the overthrow of the House of Saud.

[quote="Shilling"][quote="Unclebin"]Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani was a Hanbali Scholar the same Fiqhi Madhaab of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Abdulwahab.... which is the most conservative in Ahlul Sunnah.[/quote]

Your mistaken brother, Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab Islamic "knowledge", as well as "aqeeda," was derived from the Mu'tazila and Khawarij sect, while he claimed to be a Hanbali in Fiqh, but his thinking, ideology, and belief was such that only he alone was Muslim, and everyone else was a mushrik (polytheist). So let's not compare Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani to such a man since he never called Ahlu Sunnah polytheists.

It seem your ignorant about this fact so I suggest your read the mans writing, he specifically titled ALL of the Ahl as-Sunnah wal Jamaa'at as being polytheists (mushrik). Under this guise, he said (and all Wahhabis still BELIEVE) that the killing of the Ahlus-Sunnah was permissible.

I happen to be Ahlu Sunnah, a typical Muslim who prays five times a day, who fasts during Ramadan, who doesn't associate anyone with Allah and who loves his prophet yet Wahaabis would love nothing but to see my head roll; very un-Islamic if you ask me.

[quote]Second of all Sahih MUSLIM HAS NO DA"EEF Hadiths... Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani never questioned any hadiths in Sahahiyn (BUKHARI AND MUSLIM) like all the pious scholars before and after... only sufis do that... deviant sufis.[/quote]

I really hate it when Wahaabis try to exploite the Muslims love for Islam by overexaggerating the phrase "Qur'an and Sunnah" in their senseless rhetoric. If you don't mind I like to know where you get your source from Unclebin?[/quote]


Mutuazilah were a group of people who existed in the second century of islam. They believed the quran was created by god denying infact that the quran is the speech of God aka the words of God... The words of God are not created they are part of his speech...

Fear allah you are slandering a sheik Subhanallah...

Have you read Kitab at tawheed?

Have you read his biography?

Here is his biography....

http://abdurrahman.org/seerah/wahhabism.pdf

[quote="The_Emperior5"][quote="Unclebin-"]^ Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani was a Hanbali Scholar the same Fiqhi Madhaab of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Abdulwahab.... which is the most conservative in Ahlul Sunnah ....

Jeeylaani was Athari in Creed like his predecessor Imam Ahmad and they all believe only supplication to Allah and not to saints and men....

It was deviants like you and your ancestors who introduced greek rationalism and paganism which corrupted these sufis.



Second of all Sahih MUSLIM HAS NO DA"EEF Hadiths... Abdul Qadir Jeeylaani never questioned any hadiths in Sahahiyn (BUKHARI AND MUSLIM) like all the pious scholars before and after... only sufis do that... deviant sufis.[/quote]





how the hell is that possible if the holl wahabaiya sect started in the 18 centry and Sheikh abdulqadir jilani was around 900 years ago[/quote]


There is no sect called wahabbi... This is a pejorative term created by the enemies of islam....