Arabs spreading Islam in Sub-Sahara Africa

Samaalic Era

QurboExit
true they were getting the kids to dress like arabs with the khamiis and the dum towel very unnecessary
most of thses ibn wahabis are nothing more then arab nationalists they give out clues like "i am a pan arab" "somali history began with islam" i am a ibn darood arabi or ibn shiekh isaaq arab" or in this case we must adopt arabic language rabic clothing and have an arab leader
Its amazing how they accuse people of being nationalists and yet demand we have an Arab leader and wear khamiis even tho khamiis was also worn by Arab pagans and today even some Arab gaalo still wear it. It is not a religious garment.
 
Its chaotic. Everyone having at the quran and hadith while disregarding the four imams saying dont be shafi'i nor maliki nor hanafi nor hanbali but follow the salaf. Were not the imams following the salaf? Is not guidance by the guided, guidance? In truth they wish to create division and fitna is all.
Excellent question bro.

I think this is a big misconception about Salafis. In reality, almost all Salafi ulema followed madhaahib and don't warn against Madhaahib. Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was a hanbali and came from a long line of hanbali scholars, Imam al Dhahabi was a shafi'i, Al Shatibi was a Maliki. In fact, some of the biggest ulema who salafis follow are the four imams of the madhaahib themselves, as have many many statements telling people to follow Qur'an and Sunnah and leave innovations.

Where the issue comes up is the fact that
1. Imams of the Madhaahib are not infallible
2. Many of the opinions considered to be the "Madhab's" stance on an issue were opinions held by students and later followers of the Imam, and not by the Imam of the madhab, himself.

Why some salafis are considered to be anti-madhab is because they press attention to these two issues. That 1, there are some opinions in this madhab where the opinion of another madhab or a minority opinion is really the stronger one and more supported by the evidence. 2. That some things which people are attributing to Imam Malik, or Imam Ahmed, were opinions they never actually held and which students added in later. But these judgements are only able to be made by people of knowledge, not every jahil.

In terms of studying fiqh though, its absolutely necessary to start in a madhab and then branch out, so one can get a good understanding.
 

madaxweyne

madaxweyne
VIP
Its amazing how they accuse people of being nationalists and yet demand we have an Arab leader and wear khamiis even tho khamiis was also worn by Arab pagans and today even some Arab gaalo still wear it. It is not a religious garment.
notice how they randomly attack you this is how salafis work they cant comprehend that the majority of muslims dont follow their made up interpretation of islam by ibn wahabi, getting people to wear khamiis speak arabic is not part of the deen that we practise the sunnnah of the prohet muhammed sallahu alayhi wassalam
 

Samaalic Era

QurboExit
The Prophet ﷺ said:
Al-Bukhaari (3500) narrated that Mu‘aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “Verily this matter belongs to Quraysh and no one opposes them but Allah will throw him onto his face (in the Fire), so long as they uphold the faith.”


narrated by Ahmad (12307) from Anas ibn Maalik, according to which the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The imams (rulers) are to be from Quraysh.”

It's absurd to say Islam has nothing to do with Arabs when the Qur'an and Hadeeths are in Arabic. So many subtle meanings can't be extracted from both unless someone has a good understanding of Arabic. And the Righteous Khulafaa and Companions, ra, who we are commanded to imitate, were Arabs.

As for giving yourself "Arab Names." Theres nothing wrong with having a non-Arab name, or any name, as long as it is not contrary to the teaching of Islam. But considering that many of those who have a praiseworthy status in our religion such as the Companions were Arab, it is only natural that many Muslims in general, forget Salafis, would have Arab names.

As for loving Arabs, if they are Muslims, its obligatory for a Muslim to love and support his Muslim brother, no matter what race, nationality, ethnicity he is. But if he is a kafir, and there are many kuffar in the Arab world, then of course one should not love them.
It was a Qurayshi who lost Jerusalem and the Holy Land twice, the Fatimids in 1099 and the Sharifate of Makkah 1916-1917:mjlol:
Leadership is about merit, not bloodline.
 
notice how they randomly attack you this is how salafis work they cant comprehend that the majority of muslims dont follow their made up interpretation of islam by ibn wahabi, getting people to wear khamiis speak arabic is not part of the deen that we practise the sunnnah of the prohet muhammed sallahu alayhi wassalam
How can you practice the sunnah when you can't understand it, you're gonna need Arabic for that lol.
 
It was a Qurayshi who lost Jerusalem and the Holy Land twice, the Fatimids in 1099 and the Sharifate of Makkah 1916-1917:mjlol:
Leadership is about merit, not bloodline.
There was a condition in the hadeeth of the Prophet ﷺ, he said as long as they uphold the faith. So if Qurayshis don't uphold the faith, leadership will doubtless be taken away from them.

My point was that the brother who said that Ottomans were not a caliphate because they were not qurayshis is correct, True imaamah(khilaafa) is for Quraysh, as the Prophet ﷺ said.
 
quran can be translated to a language i speak sahib, am not intrested in debating you know just keep youre ibn wahabi beliefs
Not really. I didn't realize until after I learned Arabic and started reading different tafseers how much these translations distort and alter the meaning of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Some of them are simply complete tahreef...So many benefits and fiqh issues which can't be understood unless you know Arabic and have an understanding of different sciences in the language like nahw, sarf and balagha.

Also, I don't want a debate, I am just curious about your viewpoints honestly.
 

madaxweyne

madaxweyne
VIP
There was a condition in the hadeeth of the Prophet ﷺ, he said as long as they uphold the faith. So if Qurayshis don't uphold the faith, leadership will doubtless be taken away from them.

My point was that the brother who said that Ottomans were not a caliphate because they were not qurayshis is correct, True imaamah(khilaafa) is for Quraysh, as the Prophet ﷺ said.
Ahmad (4380) narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ood that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “O Quraysh, you are in charge of this matter, so long as you do not disobey Allah; but if you disobey Allah, He will send against you people who will strip you (of your authority) like this twig” – referring to a twig he had in his hand, which he stripped of its bark and cast aside, and it was shining white.

Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in as-Saheehah (1552), who then said:

This hadith is one of the signs of his Prophethood (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) because the caliphate remained with Quraysh for several centuries, then their state came to an end, because they disobeyed their Lord and followed their whims and desires. So Allah gave the non-Arabs power over them, and they seized power from them. End quote.



the quraish disobeyed allah subhana watallah thous they were no longer conciderd to rule they opressed the non arabs untill the people rose up against them you lack basic islamic history sahib
if a muslim empire like the ottomans seizes the position of caliph and rules in accordance with the Book of Allah, and he is more beneficial to the Muslims, his rule is legitimate and valid, and it is obligatory to hear and obey in his case.
 
Ahmad (4380) narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ood that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “O Quraysh, you are in charge of this matter, so long as you do not disobey Allah; but if you disobey Allah, He will send against you people who will strip you (of your authority) like this twig” – referring to a twig he had in his hand, which he stripped of its bark and cast aside, and it was shining white.

Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in as-Saheehah (1552), who then said:

This hadith is one of the signs of his Prophethood (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) because the caliphate remained with Quraysh for several centuries, then their state came to an end, because they disobeyed their Lord and followed their whims and desires. So Allah gave the non-Arabs power over them, and they seized power from them. End quote.



the quraish disobeyed allah subhana watallah thous they were no longer conciderd to rule they opressed the non arabs untill the people rose up against them you lack basic islamic history sahib
if a muslim empire like the ottomans seizes the position of caliph and rules in accordance with the Book of Allah, and he is more beneficial to the Muslims, his rule is legitimate and valid, and it is obligatory to hear and obey in his case.
Yes, this is an opinion held by the ulemaa, but the strongest opinion is that the khilaafa(like the prophesized one which is to come towards the end times, one where the leader can call himself "ameer ul mu'mineen") must be led by a Qurayshi

As for just being a leader who has authority over people, yes, anyone, whether Arab or 'Ajami can hold this position.

Lol, you know Shaykh Al-Albani who classed that hadeeth as saheeh was a big Salafi scholar, right? I thought salafis were heretics, how can you follow his tasheeh or tad'eef of ahadith?
 
Excellent question bro.

I think this is a big misconception about Salafis. In reality, almost all Salafi ulema followed madhaahib and don't warn against Madhaahib. Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was a hanbali and came from a long line of hanbali scholars, Imam al Dhahabi was a shafi'i, Al Shatibi was a Maliki. In fact, some of the biggest ulema who salafis follow are the four imams of the madhaahib themselves, as have many many statements telling people to follow Qur'an and Sunnah and leave innovations.

Where the issue comes up is the fact that
1. Imams of the Madhaahib are not infallible
2. Many of the opinions considered to be the "Madhab's" stance on an issue were opinions held by students and later followers of the Imam, and not by the Imam of the madhab, himself.

Why some salafis are considered to be anti-madhab is because they press attention to these two issues. That 1, there are some opinions in this madhab where the opinion of another madhab or a minority opinion is really the stronger one and more supported by the evidence. 2. That some things which people are attributing to Imam Malik, or Imam Ahmed, were opinions they never actually held and which students added in later. But these judgements are only able to be made by people of knowledge, not every jahil.

In terms of studying fiqh though, its absolutely necessary to start in a madhab and then branch out, so one can get a good understanding.
Salafism today is nothing more than a cultural exportation of a bastardised Saudi version of Islam that is incompatible with the rest of the Muslim World except for the deserts of the Najd plateau in Saudi Arabia.

They often tend to monpolise the works of a few scholars and brandish them as the only holders of authentic Islam when the reality indicates that is absolute bullshit. The vast majority of Islamic scholars and Muslims past and present were NOT Salafis, they did NOT subscribe to the puritanical fanatic Wahhabi Salafist ideology.

Modern day Salafism is a concoction of the combined works of anarchist ideologues such as Muhammad Abduh, Jalaluddin Afghani, Muhammad Rashid Rida mixed with the toxic theological viewpoints of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and his children mixed with a distorted interpretation of the works of scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah.

Salafism is a dangerous ideology that should be banned from every Muslim country. Salafism in any country apart from Saudi Arabia = bombings, assassinations and conflict.
 
Salafism today is nothing more than a cultural exportation of a bastardised Saudi version of Islam that is incompatible with the rest of the Muslim World except for the deserts of the Najd plateau in Saudi Arabia.

They often tend to monpolise the works of a few scholars and brandish them as the only holders of authentic Islam when the reality indicates that is absolute bullshit. The vast majority of Islamic scholars and Muslims past and present were NOT Salafis, they did NOT subscribe to the puritanical fanatic Wahhabi Salafist ideology.

Modern day Salafism is a concoction of the combined works of anarchist ideologues such as Muhammad Abduh, Jalaluddin Afghani, Muhammad Rashid Rida mixed with the toxic theological viewpoints of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and his children mixed with a distorted interpretation of the works of scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah.

Salafism is a dangerous ideology that should be banned rom every Muslim country or bombings, assassinations and war will follow.
Strange comment, considering Salafis today usually warn against these 3 who you mentioned. Especially the second, Afghani, who was a shi'i and not even sunni to begin with.

To be honest, I am not a fan of discussing these matters in terms of names and labels. Can you cite some actual positions/beliefs held by salafis, and explain how these beliefs are contradictory to the Qur'an and Sunnah? Even just one?
 

madaxweyne

madaxweyne
VIP
Yes, this is an opinion held by the ulemaa, but the strongest opinion is that the khilaafa(like the prophesized one which is to come towards the end times, one where the leader can call himself "ameer ul mu'mineen") must be led by a Qurayshi

As for just being a leader who has authority over people, yes, anyone, whether Arab or 'Ajami can hold this position.

Lol, you know Shaykh Al-Albani who classed that hadeeth as saheeh was a big Salafi scholar, right? I thought salafis were heretics, how can you follow his tasheeh or tad'eef of ahadith?
so why are you claiming the leader has to only be a quraish, the quraishes lost that power to rule and govern when they opressed the non muslim arabs like the berbers persians and turks often enslavinng them and encreasinng taxes on them even youre own salafi scholars comfirm this thats why i used it

also muslim horn of africa was never ruled by the qurashies they ruled themseves ie sultanate of shewa makhzumi walashma adal ajuraan , we converted when the abysinian king armah invited the sahaba
 
Strange comment, considering Salafis today usually warn against these 3 who you mentioned. Especially the second, Afghani, who was a shi'i and not even sunni to begin with.

To be honest, I am not a fan of discussing these matters in terms of names and labels. Can you cite some actual positions/beliefs held by salafis, and explain how these beliefs are contradictory to the Qur'an and Sunnah? Even just one?
Sxb don't argue with them that's what happens when you low understanding of the Deen plus racism
 
so why are you claiming the leader has to only be a quraish, the quraishes lost that power to rule and govern when they opressed the non muslim arabs like the berbers persians and turks often enslavinng them and encreasinng taxes on them even youre own salafi scholars comfirm this thats why i used it

also muslim horn of africa was never ruled by the qurashies they ruled themseves ie sultanate of shewa makhzumi walashma adal ajuraan , we converted when the abysinian king armah invited the sahaba
Akhi I said

Yes, this is an opinion held by the ulemaa, but the strongest opinion is that the khilaafa(like the prophesized one which is to come towards the end times, one where the leader can call himself "ameer ul mu'mineen") must be led by a Qurayshi

As for just being a leader who has authority over people, yes, anyone, whether Arab or 'Ajami can hold this position.
I am referring to the khilaafa, which had and in shaa Allah when it returns, will have authority over most if not all Muslim countries. As for just being the ruler of an area of the Muslim world, no, as long as the ruler rules by the Qur'an and Sunnah, it is not a condition that he be Qurayshi
 
Sxb don't argue with them that's what happens when you low understanding of the Deen plus racism
Lol yeah maybe you're right. Its just interesting to read this stuff. They are talking about the religion of Allah swt, and in Ramadan on top of that. You would think they would care more about what they are saying, because they will certainly be asked about it yawmul qiyamah.
 
Strange comment, considering Salafis today usually warn against these 3 who you mentioned. Especially the second, Afghani, who was a shi'i and not even sunni to begin with.

To be honest, I am not a fan of discussing these matters in terms of names and labels. Can you cite some actual positions/beliefs held by salafis, and explain how these beliefs are contradictory to the Qur'an and Sunnah? Even just one?
Salafis rebel against their own predecessors and bite the hands that feed them. That's extremely normal. The self studied hadith scholar Albani inherited his anti Madhab stance from the medieval Sufi Spanish scholar Ibn Arabi. Yet Salafis almost unanimously ex-communicate and declare people like Ibn Arabi to be disbelievers.
Salafis have also inherited their core principles in Jurisprudence from another medieval Spanish scholar, Ibn Hazm who was a proponent of the literalist school yet slander Ibn Hazm and call him many things. The Saudi Salafis were the ones who mixed these principles with the Hanbali school.

Coming back to your question...

The Salafis subscribe to an anthropomorphic view of God. Which goes against the theology of all the mainstream Muslims in Sunni Islam.
 

Abdullnur

Logic over everything
What else would they be doing with their time. Its not they have a job . And look at this dirty Arab indoctrinating these bushmen, with trinkets.
 
There was a condition in the hadeeth of the Prophet ﷺ, he said as long as they uphold the faith. So if Qurayshis don't uphold the faith, leadership will doubtless be taken away from them.

My point was that the brother who said that Ottomans were not a caliphate because they were not qurayshis is correct, True imaamah(khilaafa) is for Quraysh, as the Prophet ﷺ said.

You contradicted yourself. If the Hadeeth has a condition on Quraish leadership, leadership can be taken away right? but when leadership was taken away, according to your statement here, the khilaafah in the hands of the Turks then was not legitimate because the leaders were not Arabs. What kind of religion is this? Judaism?

Saxib, Islam does not recognize race and ethnicity as a measure of character. Deeds and beliefs matter.

Majority of Muslims are non-arabs and were non-Arabs. If they viewed Islam as inherently racist religion, they wouldn't accept Islam.

A quraish individual is no different from others. People are judged by their deeds and that is the religion of Allah. You can't say God created all men equal then make some exceptions to the rule.

Just as it is wrong to hate someone for being Arab, you can't love them for being Arabs. Makes no sense to rational human beings.
 

Trending

Top