正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Shaykh al-Albani was a pious learned scholar who sought to create unity among Muslims. For this reason, he was diplomatic in how he spoke about Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Before al-Albani, major scholars outside Saudi Arabia typically insulted Ibn Abd al-Wahhab as a ignorant deviant khariji at war with Ahl...

Haqiqatjou's profile picture

Daniel Haqiqatjou

175,160 subscribers

59,935 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

教育喜剧新闻政治
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 条评论

Juxtaposition 的头像
Juxtaposition1 年前

Bro, I hope they don’t Khashoggi you. These people can do everything.

Daughters of Persia 的头像
Daughters of Persia1 年前

🚨 Unimaginable news from Iran: 10 Baha'i women have been sentenced to a combined 90 YEARS in PRISON for activities as innocent as teaching music, art, and language to kids. Their "crime"? Simply belonging to a faith the regime doesn't recognize. Women in Iran deserve freedom, not fear. Share their story. Let the world know. 💔 #womanlifefreedom #iranianwomen

Leader Squad 🇩🇿 的头像
Leader Squad 🇩🇿1 年前

That is one of the reasons Al Albani was asked to leave Saudi Arabia. His teachings opposed Wahhabi extremism, and he also criticized the Saudi rulers for allowing the American army onto the Arabian Peninsula during the Gulf War in the 1990s. Madkhalis will never tell you that.

Irfan Khan 的头像
Irfan Khan1 年前

Albani was a hired agent of the wahabies.

The elegant 🇵🇸 الأنيق 的头像
The elegant 🇵🇸 الأنيق1 年前

If y are lying on purpose my the Almighty Allah curse you and if you lucks Arabic language skills ask someone to explain you what Albani was talking about. Abdelwahab is the father of Mohamed Ibn Al wahab you dump.

Nasredin Khadrawi 的头像
Nasredin Khadrawi1 年前

You should read the letter addressed to the wahabis by the scholars of Tunisia in the time, a must read

Mizanur Rahman Numani 的头像
Mizanur Rahman Numani1 年前

Taliban Chief Justice Sheikh Abdul Hakim Haqqani said: MIAW is a Kharijite Terrorist.

السبط أبو عبد الله 的头像
السبط أبو عبد الله1 年前

Bros speaking facts mA keep going

محمد الشامي 的头像
محمد الشامي1 年前

اخ دانيالو مع اتفاقنا ان "الخطاب" السلفي الذي يقدمه هؤلاء اخف بكثير من خطاب ابن عبد الوهاب فالنتائج واحدة الشيخ العثيمين مثلا له كلام صريح في عدم كفر الاشاعرة. وله كلام يقترب من الصراحة في تكفيرهم هذا التناقض يدفع باتباعهم المخلصين للبحث في كتب السابقين حتى يصلوا للتكفيريين

Bumblebee 的头像
Bumblebee1 年前

Assalamualikum @Haqiqatjou . Have you read The Memoirs of Hempher? It's a memoir of a British Spy and his mission to recruit someone in their ploy against the Ottomans. The young man they recruited was the very own MIAW.

Mohammed🇵🇸 的头像
Mohammed🇵🇸1 年前

Albani has made lots of mistakes tho as hadith scholar he was great but he wasnt infallible.

相关视频

Here is a famous individual who has been influenced by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teachings. He clearly indicates that Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiiyya mistakenly endorsed a type shirk by believing in the permissibility of requesting things from angels and jinn. My aim is not to condemn this person. It is simply to point out that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teachings on istighatha and shirk are very different from Ibn Hanbal's and Ibn Taymiyya's. For those influenced by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya did not fully understand shirk and tawhid like Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Only dishonest people deny these facts.
1:09

Here is a famous individual who has been influenced by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teachings. He clearly indicates that Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiiyya mistakenly endorsed a type shirk by believing in the permissibility of requesting things from angels and jinn. My aim is not to condemn this person. It is simply to point out that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teachings on istighatha and shirk are very different from Ibn Hanbal's and Ibn Taymiyya's. For those influenced by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya did not fully understand shirk and tawhid like Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Only dishonest people deny these facts.

Daniel Haqiqatjou

54,818 次观看 • 1 年前

People who are saying: 1) “This Ibn Arabi criticism is just a Salafi talking point today that others have moved on from.” 2) “Non-Salafi scholars only differed on him in the distant past.” 3) “Anyone who made takfir/tabdi of Ibn Arabi just misunderstood him.” Here is Dr. Saeed Foudah, one of the leading, world-renowned Ashari scholars of today. He gives you a non-exhaustive list of scholars who either did Takfir or tabdi' of Ibn Arabi (or of his views) and asks how in the world you can call these people ignorant or misinformed. Scholars he mentions as having made takfir of Ibn Arabi: Ala al-Din al-Bukhari Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani Burhan al-Din Ibrahim ibn 'Umar al-Biqa'i Ibn al-Muqri Abdullah Bin Ahmed Bamakhramah Scholars he mentions as having strongly critiqued, made tabdi' of, or implicitly hinted at the takfir of Ibn Arabi and/or his views: Sa’d al-Din al-Taftazani Ala al-Dawla al-Simnani Imam Ahmad al-Sirhindi Ahmad Zarruq Zakariyya al-Ansari He also mentions that Ibn Arabi himself speaks dismissively about al-Ghazali and says that he’s "veiled" (mahjub) from this level of knowledge (this is found in al-Futuhat according to Foudah). He also points people to Imam al-Sakhawi’s work: “al-Qawl al-Munbi” (on Ibn Arabi), which lists hundreds of scholars across madhhabs and regions who either made takfir or tabdi' of Ibn Arabi and/or his views. He even mentions that some of Ibn Arabi’s defenders, like al-Sha‘rani, couldn't accept his views as they appear in his books, so they felt forced to claim the text wasn’t fully reliable and had been tampered with. So no, this isn’t “just a modern Salafi trend,” and it isn’t as simple as “they misunderstood him.”
4:59

People who are saying: 1) “This Ibn Arabi criticism is just a Salafi talking point today that others have moved on from.” 2) “Non-Salafi scholars only differed on him in the distant past.” 3) “Anyone who made takfir/tabdi of Ibn Arabi just misunderstood him.” Here is Dr. Saeed Foudah, one of the leading, world-renowned Ashari scholars of today. He gives you a non-exhaustive list of scholars who either did Takfir or tabdi' of Ibn Arabi (or of his views) and asks how in the world you can call these people ignorant or misinformed. Scholars he mentions as having made takfir of Ibn Arabi: Ala al-Din al-Bukhari Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani Burhan al-Din Ibrahim ibn 'Umar al-Biqa'i Ibn al-Muqri Abdullah Bin Ahmed Bamakhramah Scholars he mentions as having strongly critiqued, made tabdi' of, or implicitly hinted at the takfir of Ibn Arabi and/or his views: Sa’d al-Din al-Taftazani Ala al-Dawla al-Simnani Imam Ahmad al-Sirhindi Ahmad Zarruq Zakariyya al-Ansari He also mentions that Ibn Arabi himself speaks dismissively about al-Ghazali and says that he’s "veiled" (mahjub) from this level of knowledge (this is found in al-Futuhat according to Foudah). He also points people to Imam al-Sakhawi’s work: “al-Qawl al-Munbi” (on Ibn Arabi), which lists hundreds of scholars across madhhabs and regions who either made takfir or tabdi' of Ibn Arabi and/or his views. He even mentions that some of Ibn Arabi’s defenders, like al-Sha‘rani, couldn't accept his views as they appear in his books, so they felt forced to claim the text wasn’t fully reliable and had been tampered with. So no, this isn’t “just a modern Salafi trend,” and it isn’t as simple as “they misunderstood him.”

Abdul Rahman (TAP)

43,748 次观看 • 7 个月前

Shaykh Ahmad Jibreel Vs. ISIS (Part 2) Shaykh Muqbil “a scholar of the Tāghūt” Exhibit A) In Rumiyah Issue 4, page 17, ISIS Media lists the Yemeni scholar of Hadith Muqbil Ibn Hādī al-Wādi’ī as one of the deviant scholars of the Tāghūt: “Thus, the seeker of knowledge is not to be honored by his studying under the "scholars" of tāghūt and the callers of deviance including Ibn Baz, Ibn 'Uthaymin, Ibn Jibrin, Salih al-Fawzan, Salman al-'Awdah, Safar al-Hawali, Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni, Mustafa al-'Adawi, Rabi' al-Madkhali, Muqbil al-Wadi’i, Abu Qatadah al-Filistini, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, 'Umar al-Haddushi, Hani as-Sibai, and so on.” Exhibit B) In the attached video you can hear how greatly Shaykh Ahmad Jibreel respected Shaykh Muqbil - while alive and after his death. Exhibit C) In the attached post below, you can see that ISIS Media requires the takfīring of scholars of the Tāghūt - for one’s Ēmān to be valid.
1:24

Shaykh Ahmad Jibreel Vs. ISIS (Part 2) Shaykh Muqbil “a scholar of the Tāghūt” Exhibit A) In Rumiyah Issue 4, page 17, ISIS Media lists the Yemeni scholar of Hadith Muqbil Ibn Hādī al-Wādi’ī as one of the deviant scholars of the Tāghūt: “Thus, the seeker of knowledge is not to be honored by his studying under the "scholars" of tāghūt and the callers of deviance including Ibn Baz, Ibn 'Uthaymin, Ibn Jibrin, Salih al-Fawzan, Salman al-'Awdah, Safar al-Hawali, Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni, Mustafa al-'Adawi, Rabi' al-Madkhali, Muqbil al-Wadi’i, Abu Qatadah al-Filistini, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, 'Umar al-Haddushi, Hani as-Sibai, and so on.” Exhibit B) In the attached video you can hear how greatly Shaykh Ahmad Jibreel respected Shaykh Muqbil - while alive and after his death. Exhibit C) In the attached post below, you can see that ISIS Media requires the takfīring of scholars of the Tāghūt - for one’s Ēmān to be valid.

Abu ‘Ubaydah

12,261 次观看 • 1 年前

Although Wahhabis claim to follow Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya, they actually distort their views beyond recognition. This is a good short video of a lecture by Dr. Sayf bin Ali al-Asri. He reads from his book al-Bid'a al-Idafiyya. The lecture explains how Ibn Taymiyya (like many other Sufis of his era) had a permissive attitude towards the introduction of new rituals. According to Wahhabis, such an attitude is unacceptable in that it leads to the accumulation and spread of bid'as. Obviously, I agree it is very important for Muslims to be cautious about bid'a. But what did Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya consider to be bid'a and blameworthy innovation? We need to be honest with ourselves and others, and not simply lie and conceal things from the masses.
6:02

Although Wahhabis claim to follow Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya, they actually distort their views beyond recognition. This is a good short video of a lecture by Dr. Sayf bin Ali al-Asri. He reads from his book al-Bid'a al-Idafiyya. The lecture explains how Ibn Taymiyya (like many other Sufis of his era) had a permissive attitude towards the introduction of new rituals. According to Wahhabis, such an attitude is unacceptable in that it leads to the accumulation and spread of bid'as. Obviously, I agree it is very important for Muslims to be cautious about bid'a. But what did Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya consider to be bid'a and blameworthy innovation? We need to be honest with ourselves and others, and not simply lie and conceal things from the masses.

Daniel Haqiqatjou

42,575 次观看 • 1 年前

Historical examples: Scholars publicly criticising the rulers for their illegitimate treaties with the disbelievers When Sulṭān ʿAbd al-Raḥman of Morocco made an unislāmic peace deal with the French, he was criticised directly and openly by multiple scholars like Muḥammad ʿAlīsh and al-Tusūlī, both of whom were Mālikīs. When Muḥammad Ibn al-Mutawwakil signed a deal with the Portuguese for protection against his uncle ʿAbd al-Malik in the year 990H, he was criticised openly by the scholars of Morocco, as documented by al-Wafran al-Marrākishī. When al-Kāmil, the nephew of Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Ayyūbī, wanted to sign away Jerusalem to Fredrick II of Germany, al-Maqrīzī and Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī document how all the Muslims were publicly outspoken at that time against him. ~ Shaykh Faiṣal al-Jāsim
3:50

Historical examples: Scholars publicly criticising the rulers for their illegitimate treaties with the disbelievers When Sulṭān ʿAbd al-Raḥman of Morocco made an unislāmic peace deal with the French, he was criticised directly and openly by multiple scholars like Muḥammad ʿAlīsh and al-Tusūlī, both of whom were Mālikīs. When Muḥammad Ibn al-Mutawwakil signed a deal with the Portuguese for protection against his uncle ʿAbd al-Malik in the year 990H, he was criticised openly by the scholars of Morocco, as documented by al-Wafran al-Marrākishī. When al-Kāmil, the nephew of Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Ayyūbī, wanted to sign away Jerusalem to Fredrick II of Germany, al-Maqrīzī and Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī document how all the Muslims were publicly outspoken at that time against him. ~ Shaykh Faiṣal al-Jāsim

Ibrāhīm Ibn Maḥmūd

22,532 次观看 • 1 年前

With due respect to Shaykh al-Albānī رحمه الله رحمة واسعة, the ulama who studied the tarīkh of Fiqh and Usūl al-Fiqh will have easily refuted these claims and points and it shows the Shaykh’s lack of adequate knowledge on the formation and understanding of how the Madhāhib started. Shaykh Kamaluddīn Zafree al-Athari, the senior student of Shaykh Ibn Bāz explains that even the Sahāba had Madhabs, this was well known. The school of Kūfa which was built upon the Madhab and Fiqh of Ibn Mas’ūd and Alī for example, the Madhab of Madīna which was built upon the Fiqh of Ibn Umar and Zayd, the Madhab of Mecca which was built upon the Fiqh of Ibn Abbās, the Madhab of Shām which was built upon the Fiqh of Abū Saīd al-Khudrī, Abu Dharr, Amr Ibn al-Ās and Mu’āwiyyah Each of these Sahāba’s Fiqh and Madhāhib were the original schools which where built upon and extended by those Mujtahidūn that came after them who used the Fiqh of these Sahāba as a basis. Very rarely you will see for example Abu Hanīfah’s Fiqh differ from that of Ibrahīm al-Nakha’i or Alqama who followed the Fiqh of Ibn Masud, this is elobarated by Shah Walīullah Dihlawī in his Hujja al-Bālighah where he mentions the basis of Abu Hanīfah’s views are found in the statement of al-Nakha’ī
1:28

With due respect to Shaykh al-Albānī رحمه الله رحمة واسعة, the ulama who studied the tarīkh of Fiqh and Usūl al-Fiqh will have easily refuted these claims and points and it shows the Shaykh’s lack of adequate knowledge on the formation and understanding of how the Madhāhib started. Shaykh Kamaluddīn Zafree al-Athari, the senior student of Shaykh Ibn Bāz explains that even the Sahāba had Madhabs, this was well known. The school of Kūfa which was built upon the Madhab and Fiqh of Ibn Mas’ūd and Alī for example, the Madhab of Madīna which was built upon the Fiqh of Ibn Umar and Zayd, the Madhab of Mecca which was built upon the Fiqh of Ibn Abbās, the Madhab of Shām which was built upon the Fiqh of Abū Saīd al-Khudrī, Abu Dharr, Amr Ibn al-Ās and Mu’āwiyyah Each of these Sahāba’s Fiqh and Madhāhib were the original schools which where built upon and extended by those Mujtahidūn that came after them who used the Fiqh of these Sahāba as a basis. Very rarely you will see for example Abu Hanīfah’s Fiqh differ from that of Ibrahīm al-Nakha’i or Alqama who followed the Fiqh of Ibn Masud, this is elobarated by Shah Walīullah Dihlawī in his Hujja al-Bālighah where he mentions the basis of Abu Hanīfah’s views are found in the statement of al-Nakha’ī

ابن محبوب

12,153 次观看 • 1 年前

🤣 Farid is an ignorant Madkhali who deliberately lies about me. I never denied that it is shirk. This is what I said in the same livestream he is citing. But he is too dishonest to acknowledge this. No matter how many times I say it, low IQ Wahhabis will always misunderstand. Saying that something is not known with certainty to be shirk DOES NOT MEAN it is not shirk. Why it is so important to determine that something is known with certainty is that that is what is needed for takfir. According to the standards of Wahhabis, this is why not only all Shia are kuffar (even though most Shia don't accept this notion of wilaya takwiniyya), also all sufis and all barelwis. They are mushriks who deserve to be killed because they commit shirk akbar. This is the doctrine of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. But Farid does taqiyya on all this. He wants to declare all these groups as believing in shirk akbar, but he secretly hides what that means: that the blood of millions of Shia and Sunnis are halal and, as apostates, they deserve to be killed. That is what Ibn Abd al-Wahhab believed and him and his followers murdered countless Muslims. Farid praises Ibn abd al-Wahhab but stays quiet about these facts. It's called taqiyya. Also called grifting. BTW Farid, still waiting for you to tell us if building Hindu temples is shirk akbar, since you're such an expert. 🤡
1:14

🤣 Farid is an ignorant Madkhali who deliberately lies about me. I never denied that it is shirk. This is what I said in the same livestream he is citing. But he is too dishonest to acknowledge this. No matter how many times I say it, low IQ Wahhabis will always misunderstand. Saying that something is not known with certainty to be shirk DOES NOT MEAN it is not shirk. Why it is so important to determine that something is known with certainty is that that is what is needed for takfir. According to the standards of Wahhabis, this is why not only all Shia are kuffar (even though most Shia don't accept this notion of wilaya takwiniyya), also all sufis and all barelwis. They are mushriks who deserve to be killed because they commit shirk akbar. This is the doctrine of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. But Farid does taqiyya on all this. He wants to declare all these groups as believing in shirk akbar, but he secretly hides what that means: that the blood of millions of Shia and Sunnis are halal and, as apostates, they deserve to be killed. That is what Ibn Abd al-Wahhab believed and him and his followers murdered countless Muslims. Farid praises Ibn abd al-Wahhab but stays quiet about these facts. It's called taqiyya. Also called grifting. BTW Farid, still waiting for you to tell us if building Hindu temples is shirk akbar, since you're such an expert. 🤡

Daniel Haqiqatjou

77,090 次观看 • 1 年前

Shaykh Saīd al-Kamalī حفظه الله explains the lies of some Sufi’s who would lie about the Muslims in Saudi to Shaykh al-Shinqīti when he went Hajj - calling them Wahabbi’s and saying they’re killers etc. The Shaykh went there and found them to be a good group of Muslims upon Hanbali Fiqh and Salafi Aqīdah. Exactly as where the people in his home and many places in North Africa long before the books of Ibn Taymiyyah reached them “You guys follow Ibn Tayymiyyah and MIAW version of Islam” yeah - that’s why many North Africans where already known to be Salafi in Aqīdah I guess, and that’s why they wrote poems on their well known creed to.
0:45

Shaykh Saīd al-Kamalī حفظه الله explains the lies of some Sufi’s who would lie about the Muslims in Saudi to Shaykh al-Shinqīti when he went Hajj - calling them Wahabbi’s and saying they’re killers etc. The Shaykh went there and found them to be a good group of Muslims upon Hanbali Fiqh and Salafi Aqīdah. Exactly as where the people in his home and many places in North Africa long before the books of Ibn Taymiyyah reached them “You guys follow Ibn Tayymiyyah and MIAW version of Islam” yeah - that’s why many North Africans where already known to be Salafi in Aqīdah I guess, and that’s why they wrote poems on their well known creed to.

ابن محبوب

80,868 次观看 • 2 年前

Thread: 🧵 OBL Vs. ISIS Regarding Najdī Da’wah and the Ottomans Some people view Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb as “the Dajjāl of Najd”; while others treat him as though he is an infallible Imām who made no mistakes. Both are two extremes, and the truth is somewhere in between... It is well known that Usāmah Ibn Lādin respected and quoted Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb and Najdī Da’wah scholars in his speeches. But what most people don’t know, is that he was not a blind-follower of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb and the Najdī scholars. This is important to notice, when it is also well-established that ISIS views itself as a reincarnation of the Najdī Da’wah. This is clear in their writings, in how they view themselves. NOTE: I am not saying they are the true followers of the Najdī Da’wah - but I am saying that this is what they openly profess themselves to be. In this video clip, we highlight one of the major differences between Usāmah Ibn Lādin and the Najdī Movement, is the takfīr of the Ottoman Empire. But before that: We find one of the Najdī scholars was asked about the Ottoman Empire: “(Question) regarding those who do not consider the (Ottoman) State to be kuffār, and those who support them against the Muslims, and chooses loyalty to them and that they are obliged to wage Jihād alongside them; and (what about) the other different opinion, asserting that the (Ottoman) State and those who support them are rebels (bughāt)…? (The Najdī scholar) answered: Whoever does not do takfīr of the (Ottoman) State, and does not distinguish between them and the Muslim rebels - does not understand the meaning of “Lā Ilāha illā Allāh”; if he also believes that the (Ottoman) State is Muslim, this is even more severe and worse, and this is the doubt regarding the kufr of one who disbelieves in Allāh and commits shirk; and whoever supports them and assists them against the Muslims, in any form of assistance, it is clear apostasy.” - Ad-Durar As-Saniyyah 10/429 But Usāmah Ibn Lādin and the scholars of AQ disagreed. They considered the Ottoman Empire as the “Islamic State”, and that those who fought against them did khurūj (rebelled), and caused division in the Jamā’ah of the Muslims. The following audio clip is taken from a series called Tawjīhāt Manhajiyyah (Advises Regarding Manhaj), part 1 and 3. Likewise this approach of respecting the Najdī school, while acknowledging it is just like any other Islamic movement that has mistakes which should be abandoned as well as good contributions which should be benefited from, was stated by Shaykh Nasr Ibn ‘Alī al-Ānsi, of AQ Arabian Peninsula, when he was asked in an interview: “The question here is: Do you associate yourselves with Wahhabi Salafism, or do you have reservations about the Da’wah of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb? What is your view on the writings of the Najdi school?” “We are Muslims fighting in the way of Allāh; we understand Islam and evidence through the understanding of the Pious Predecessors, and we do not confine ourselves to a specific school but seek the evidence. Shaykh al-Islām Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb did not call anyone to attribute themselves to him nor to do taqlīd of him; rather, he called people to the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of His Prophet and to act upon them according to the understanding of the Pious Predecessors, as did all the Imāms of the Najdī Da’wah. As for the writings of the Najdī school, they are like any substantial and rich ‘ilmī output, from which one can take and reject, just like other leading ‘ilmī schools.” (Transcription of 3rd Meeting with Shaykh Nasr Ibn ‘Alī al-Ānsi, pg.10) (Arabic references in next post)
1:15

Thread: 🧵 OBL Vs. ISIS Regarding Najdī Da’wah and the Ottomans Some people view Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb as “the Dajjāl of Najd”; while others treat him as though he is an infallible Imām who made no mistakes. Both are two extremes, and the truth is somewhere in between... It is well known that Usāmah Ibn Lādin respected and quoted Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb and Najdī Da’wah scholars in his speeches. But what most people don’t know, is that he was not a blind-follower of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb and the Najdī scholars. This is important to notice, when it is also well-established that ISIS views itself as a reincarnation of the Najdī Da’wah. This is clear in their writings, in how they view themselves. NOTE: I am not saying they are the true followers of the Najdī Da’wah - but I am saying that this is what they openly profess themselves to be. In this video clip, we highlight one of the major differences between Usāmah Ibn Lādin and the Najdī Movement, is the takfīr of the Ottoman Empire. But before that: We find one of the Najdī scholars was asked about the Ottoman Empire: “(Question) regarding those who do not consider the (Ottoman) State to be kuffār, and those who support them against the Muslims, and chooses loyalty to them and that they are obliged to wage Jihād alongside them; and (what about) the other different opinion, asserting that the (Ottoman) State and those who support them are rebels (bughāt)…? (The Najdī scholar) answered: Whoever does not do takfīr of the (Ottoman) State, and does not distinguish between them and the Muslim rebels - does not understand the meaning of “Lā Ilāha illā Allāh”; if he also believes that the (Ottoman) State is Muslim, this is even more severe and worse, and this is the doubt regarding the kufr of one who disbelieves in Allāh and commits shirk; and whoever supports them and assists them against the Muslims, in any form of assistance, it is clear apostasy.” - Ad-Durar As-Saniyyah 10/429 But Usāmah Ibn Lādin and the scholars of AQ disagreed. They considered the Ottoman Empire as the “Islamic State”, and that those who fought against them did khurūj (rebelled), and caused division in the Jamā’ah of the Muslims. The following audio clip is taken from a series called Tawjīhāt Manhajiyyah (Advises Regarding Manhaj), part 1 and 3. Likewise this approach of respecting the Najdī school, while acknowledging it is just like any other Islamic movement that has mistakes which should be abandoned as well as good contributions which should be benefited from, was stated by Shaykh Nasr Ibn ‘Alī al-Ānsi, of AQ Arabian Peninsula, when he was asked in an interview: “The question here is: Do you associate yourselves with Wahhabi Salafism, or do you have reservations about the Da’wah of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb? What is your view on the writings of the Najdi school?” “We are Muslims fighting in the way of Allāh; we understand Islam and evidence through the understanding of the Pious Predecessors, and we do not confine ourselves to a specific school but seek the evidence. Shaykh al-Islām Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb did not call anyone to attribute themselves to him nor to do taqlīd of him; rather, he called people to the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of His Prophet and to act upon them according to the understanding of the Pious Predecessors, as did all the Imāms of the Najdī Da’wah. As for the writings of the Najdī school, they are like any substantial and rich ‘ilmī output, from which one can take and reject, just like other leading ‘ilmī schools.” (Transcription of 3rd Meeting with Shaykh Nasr Ibn ‘Alī al-Ānsi, pg.10) (Arabic references in next post)

Abu ‘Ubaydah

64,786 次观看 • 1 年前

Most people have no idea about the real history of Al-Aqsa Mosque, because they’ve only been fed the Islamic Palestinian propaganda version of events. They believe that Al-Aqsa has always been Islam’s third holiest site, that it has belonged to Muslims since the dawn of time, and that Israel is the oppressor for merely existing near it. None of that is true. The Temple Mount in Jerusalem was the holiest site in Judaism for over a thousand years before Islam even appeared in history. It housed the First and Second Jewish Temples, the center of Jewish worship and pilgrimage. When the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in 70 AD, they built pagan shrines over it, but its Jewish identity never disappeared. In the 7th century Islam emerges and expands through conquest, and begins hijacking Jewish and Christian sites, prophets, and narratives. At first, Jerusalem had no major significance in Islam. Muhammad never set foot there. There was no mosque. There was no pilgrimage. There was no Islamic history tied to the city. But that changed during the brutal power struggle between Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan and Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr. By the late 7th century, Islam was deeply divided. Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr controlled Mecca and Medina, the two holiest cities in Islam. And Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, the Umayyad Caliph, controlled the Levant. But Abd al-Malik had a problem, he didn’t want the people of the Levant traveling to Mecca for pilgrimage, because that would give power to his rival. Abd al-Malik declared the Temple Mount as Alaqsa mosque that was mentioned in the quran, and he made it an alternative place of pilgrimage. He ordered the construction of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque to divert attention from Mecca. And just like that, Islam manufactured a holy site for political gain. The real Masjid Al-Aqsa referred to in the Quran was not in Jerusalem, it was between Mecca and Ta’if. There was no mosque in Jerusalem at the time. There was no Islamic presence there. Yet, centuries later, after Islam had conquered the city, the Islamic narrative retroactively applied this Quranic verse to Jerusalem, again, for political convenience. If Israel wanted to act like Islamic conquerors, it could have easily done to Al-Aqsa what Turkey did to the Hagia Sophia. It could have converted the mosque into the Third Temple, banned Muslim prayer on the site, erased any trace of Islamic history, as Muslims did to Christian and Jewish sites throughout history. But Israel didn’t do that. Israel allows Muslims to pray there freely. Israel protects Al-Aqsa, even as it is used to spread anti-Semitic propaganda and incite violence. Yet, despite this, the world condemns Israel for merely existing in its own capital.
1:05

Most people have no idea about the real history of Al-Aqsa Mosque, because they’ve only been fed the Islamic Palestinian propaganda version of events. They believe that Al-Aqsa has always been Islam’s third holiest site, that it has belonged to Muslims since the dawn of time, and that Israel is the oppressor for merely existing near it. None of that is true. The Temple Mount in Jerusalem was the holiest site in Judaism for over a thousand years before Islam even appeared in history. It housed the First and Second Jewish Temples, the center of Jewish worship and pilgrimage. When the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in 70 AD, they built pagan shrines over it, but its Jewish identity never disappeared. In the 7th century Islam emerges and expands through conquest, and begins hijacking Jewish and Christian sites, prophets, and narratives. At first, Jerusalem had no major significance in Islam. Muhammad never set foot there. There was no mosque. There was no pilgrimage. There was no Islamic history tied to the city. But that changed during the brutal power struggle between Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan and Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr. By the late 7th century, Islam was deeply divided. Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr controlled Mecca and Medina, the two holiest cities in Islam. And Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, the Umayyad Caliph, controlled the Levant. But Abd al-Malik had a problem, he didn’t want the people of the Levant traveling to Mecca for pilgrimage, because that would give power to his rival. Abd al-Malik declared the Temple Mount as Alaqsa mosque that was mentioned in the quran, and he made it an alternative place of pilgrimage. He ordered the construction of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque to divert attention from Mecca. And just like that, Islam manufactured a holy site for political gain. The real Masjid Al-Aqsa referred to in the Quran was not in Jerusalem, it was between Mecca and Ta’if. There was no mosque in Jerusalem at the time. There was no Islamic presence there. Yet, centuries later, after Islam had conquered the city, the Islamic narrative retroactively applied this Quranic verse to Jerusalem, again, for political convenience. If Israel wanted to act like Islamic conquerors, it could have easily done to Al-Aqsa what Turkey did to the Hagia Sophia. It could have converted the mosque into the Third Temple, banned Muslim prayer on the site, erased any trace of Islamic history, as Muslims did to Christian and Jewish sites throughout history. But Israel didn’t do that. Israel allows Muslims to pray there freely. Israel protects Al-Aqsa, even as it is used to spread anti-Semitic propaganda and incite violence. Yet, despite this, the world condemns Israel for merely existing in its own capital.

Dan Burmawi

119,186 次观看 • 2 个月前

These guys are now attacking each other and that’s how Haddaadiyyah works. Abu Iayd translated what Ali Al-Hudhayfi said about Arafat that he is a Liar and Ali al-Hudhayfi has spoke the truth here… Everything Shaykh Muhammad ibn Hadi criticized them for, then the are now criticizing each other for. May Allah preserve Shaykh Muhammad ibn Hadi. This part in his lecture wherein he says he is going to put this in the books الجرح والتعديل and allow the people to be the judge hits even harder now that they are exposing each other for what Shaykh Muhammad said about them! May Allah protect us all from Fitan and keep us upon the straight path
2:43

These guys are now attacking each other and that’s how Haddaadiyyah works. Abu Iayd translated what Ali Al-Hudhayfi said about Arafat that he is a Liar and Ali al-Hudhayfi has spoke the truth here… Everything Shaykh Muhammad ibn Hadi criticized them for, then the are now criticizing each other for. May Allah preserve Shaykh Muhammad ibn Hadi. This part in his lecture wherein he says he is going to put this in the books الجرح والتعديل and allow the people to be the judge hits even harder now that they are exposing each other for what Shaykh Muhammad said about them! May Allah protect us all from Fitan and keep us upon the straight path

ناصر الحنبلي

12,780 次观看 • 7 个月前

Abu Obaida said in his speech yesterday: “Let the cowardly enemy know that the martyrdom of Zayd, Jaafar, and Ibn Rawaha, RA, was not a sign of the extinction of the Muslim leadership or the disappearance of their call. On the contrary, it marked the rise of The Unsheathed Sword of Allah. So rejoice in what will grieve you, O enemies of Allah. You have accomplished nothing. Leaders remain among us who are preparing for you. They have taken their guidance from the Quran and the Sunnah and were raised by their great martyr leaders, absorbing their knowledge and wisdom. Our journey to Allah Almighty will not stop, and the banner raised by the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, will not fall.” Here Abu Obaida referenced the Battle of Mautah in the Levant, fought between the Muslims against the Byzantine empire and their allied Arab tribes in the year 629 (8H) . The commander of the Muslim army in that battle was Zayd ibn Harithah RA, After he was killed, command passed to Jaafar ibn Abi Talib RA, After Jaafar was killed, command passed to Abdullah ibn Rawahah RA, as the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ had instructed: “If Zayd is killed, then Jaafar, and if Jaafar is killed, then Abdullah ibn Rawahah.” (Bukhari) When all three commanders were killed, the Muslim army chose Khalid ibn al-Walid RA to lead them. Khalid then took command of the army and became known as The Unsheathed Sword of Allah. Khalid ibn al-Walid RA went on to fight as the commander of Muslim armies against both the Byzantine Empire and the Sasanian Persian Empire, and did not lose a single battle throughout his military career.
1:27

Abu Obaida said in his speech yesterday: “Let the cowardly enemy know that the martyrdom of Zayd, Jaafar, and Ibn Rawaha, RA, was not a sign of the extinction of the Muslim leadership or the disappearance of their call. On the contrary, it marked the rise of The Unsheathed Sword of Allah. So rejoice in what will grieve you, O enemies of Allah. You have accomplished nothing. Leaders remain among us who are preparing for you. They have taken their guidance from the Quran and the Sunnah and were raised by their great martyr leaders, absorbing their knowledge and wisdom. Our journey to Allah Almighty will not stop, and the banner raised by the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, will not fall.” Here Abu Obaida referenced the Battle of Mautah in the Levant, fought between the Muslims against the Byzantine empire and their allied Arab tribes in the year 629 (8H) . The commander of the Muslim army in that battle was Zayd ibn Harithah RA, After he was killed, command passed to Jaafar ibn Abi Talib RA, After Jaafar was killed, command passed to Abdullah ibn Rawahah RA, as the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ had instructed: “If Zayd is killed, then Jaafar, and if Jaafar is killed, then Abdullah ibn Rawahah.” (Bukhari) When all three commanders were killed, the Muslim army chose Khalid ibn al-Walid RA to lead them. Khalid then took command of the army and became known as The Unsheathed Sword of Allah. Khalid ibn al-Walid RA went on to fight as the commander of Muslim armies against both the Byzantine Empire and the Sasanian Persian Empire, and did not lose a single battle throughout his military career.

Warfare Analysis

11,867 次观看 • 2 个月前

I’ve seen a lot of people accuse Saudi Arabia of fabricating the moon sighting. Below is proof that it wasn’t. The first video is the exact moment the moon was sighted. The second video is the official testifying before a judge about the set up and what he saw exactly. He says "At 6:11pm (precisely) we saw an opening in the sky, and we all saw the moon and around the opening was all clouds" There is also a picture but it is against the Sunnah to share proof when a testimony is given by a Muslim so I refuse to share it in case we set a precedent to always share a picture and that would be a big error. A testimony of a Muslim is enough as we see from the Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم It was narrated that Ibn 'Abbaas رضي الله عنه said: A Bedouin came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and said, I have seen the new moon tonight. He said, "Do you bear witness that there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah?" He said, Yes. He said, "Get up, O Bilaal, and announce to the people that they should fast tomorrow." [at Tirmidhi: 691 Abu Dawood: [2340], an Nasaa'i: [2112] Ibn Maajah: [1652]. Shaykh al Albaani رحمه الله said: So we see from the Hadith that he, صلى الله عليه وسلم، instructed Bilaal to announce to the people that they would fast the next day. So the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم was content with the testimony of this man, whom he did not know, on the basis that he bore witness that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, i.e. he knew that he was a Muslim, but he did not check on him any further and he did not try to find out how intelligent and smart he was, as was the case in the first Hadith in which the witness was 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar ibn al Khattab رضي الله عنه. Yet despite that he accepted his testimony. This Hadith makes things easier for people, and what this means is that the judge should be content with the witness as he appears to be, without needing to find people who know this man and can testify that he is of good character, as was the habit of judges since time immemorial. Rather it is sufficient to know that he is a Muslim. This man was a Bedouin of whom the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had no prior knowledge and he was content that he uttered the Shahaadatayn before him. So he was a Muslim with the same rights and duties as any other, and based on his testimony and the fact that he was a Muslim he said: O Bilaal, announced to the people that they should fast tomorrow. [At Ta laaq 'ala Kitaab Bulugh al Maraam, (audio tape), Hadith 5, Kitaab al Siyaam] This Hadith is evidence for the principle that a Muslim is to be regarded as being of good character unless proven otherwise. Al San'aani رحمه الله said concerning what we learn from the hadeeth of Ibn 'Abbaas رضي الله عنه: It indicates that the basic principle with regard to the Muslims is that they are of good character, because the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not ask the Bedouin for anything except the Shahaadah. [Subul as Salaam by as San'aani: 2/153] And Allah knows best.
0:30

I’ve seen a lot of people accuse Saudi Arabia of fabricating the moon sighting. Below is proof that it wasn’t. The first video is the exact moment the moon was sighted. The second video is the official testifying before a judge about the set up and what he saw exactly. He says "At 6:11pm (precisely) we saw an opening in the sky, and we all saw the moon and around the opening was all clouds" There is also a picture but it is against the Sunnah to share proof when a testimony is given by a Muslim so I refuse to share it in case we set a precedent to always share a picture and that would be a big error. A testimony of a Muslim is enough as we see from the Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم It was narrated that Ibn 'Abbaas رضي الله عنه said: A Bedouin came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and said, I have seen the new moon tonight. He said, "Do you bear witness that there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah?" He said, Yes. He said, "Get up, O Bilaal, and announce to the people that they should fast tomorrow." [at Tirmidhi: 691 Abu Dawood: [2340], an Nasaa'i: [2112] Ibn Maajah: [1652]. Shaykh al Albaani رحمه الله said: So we see from the Hadith that he, صلى الله عليه وسلم، instructed Bilaal to announce to the people that they would fast the next day. So the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم was content with the testimony of this man, whom he did not know, on the basis that he bore witness that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, i.e. he knew that he was a Muslim, but he did not check on him any further and he did not try to find out how intelligent and smart he was, as was the case in the first Hadith in which the witness was 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar ibn al Khattab رضي الله عنه. Yet despite that he accepted his testimony. This Hadith makes things easier for people, and what this means is that the judge should be content with the witness as he appears to be, without needing to find people who know this man and can testify that he is of good character, as was the habit of judges since time immemorial. Rather it is sufficient to know that he is a Muslim. This man was a Bedouin of whom the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had no prior knowledge and he was content that he uttered the Shahaadatayn before him. So he was a Muslim with the same rights and duties as any other, and based on his testimony and the fact that he was a Muslim he said: O Bilaal, announced to the people that they should fast tomorrow. [At Ta laaq 'ala Kitaab Bulugh al Maraam, (audio tape), Hadith 5, Kitaab al Siyaam] This Hadith is evidence for the principle that a Muslim is to be regarded as being of good character unless proven otherwise. Al San'aani رحمه الله said concerning what we learn from the hadeeth of Ibn 'Abbaas رضي الله عنه: It indicates that the basic principle with regard to the Muslims is that they are of good character, because the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not ask the Bedouin for anything except the Shahaadah. [Subul as Salaam by as San'aani: 2/153] And Allah knows best.

ابن البخاري

245,087 次观看 • 1 年前

Do Not Trust the Opinions of Those Youth Who Isolate Themselves from the Established Salafī Centres Al-ʿAllāmah Ḥasan ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Banná admonishes those who isolate themselves from the Salafī duʿat and elders. [Q]: Likewise Shaykh, when these students return from either Makkah, Riyāḍ or al-Madīnah, they return claiming salafiyyah but they isolate themselves from the established Salafīs (i.e. elders). For example, they isolate themselves from the likes of Abū Khadījah and Abū Ḥakīm, [and] in Canada they isolate themselves from the Salafīs at Masjid al-Furqān (TROID). [A]: Do you mean they speak ill of them? [Q]: Yes. [A]: The people of innovation speak ill about Ahl al-Sunnah. Abū Khadījah is from ʿAhl al-Sunnah, Abū Ḥakīm Bilāl is from Ahl al-Sunnah, and Ḥasan al-Ṣumālī is from Ahl al-Sunnah. They are from the callers of Ahl al-Sunnah — this is something which is well-known. If they err, we will tell them to retract their error, and they will retract. So why do you speak ill of them? Do you want to cause fitnah for them? Do you want to deter the people from them? The people of Sunnah are few in number, how can you speak ill about the people of Sunnah? Those who speak against the people of Sunnah are not from them. Rather, they concur with the people of innovation. So my dear brothers, do not speak ill of these Duʿāt, the likes of Abū Khadījah and other than him, because they are from the callers of Ahl al-Sunnah. If they err, we will tell them to retract. Do not try to discredit them and ruin their reputation because this is something that hurts the People of Sunnah. May Allāh reward you for listening to this advice, may Allāh bless you and may the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Translated by: Munīb al-Ṣumālī
4:00

Do Not Trust the Opinions of Those Youth Who Isolate Themselves from the Established Salafī Centres Al-ʿAllāmah Ḥasan ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Banná admonishes those who isolate themselves from the Salafī duʿat and elders. [Q]: Likewise Shaykh, when these students return from either Makkah, Riyāḍ or al-Madīnah, they return claiming salafiyyah but they isolate themselves from the established Salafīs (i.e. elders). For example, they isolate themselves from the likes of Abū Khadījah and Abū Ḥakīm, [and] in Canada they isolate themselves from the Salafīs at Masjid al-Furqān (TROID). [A]: Do you mean they speak ill of them? [Q]: Yes. [A]: The people of innovation speak ill about Ahl al-Sunnah. Abū Khadījah is from ʿAhl al-Sunnah, Abū Ḥakīm Bilāl is from Ahl al-Sunnah, and Ḥasan al-Ṣumālī is from Ahl al-Sunnah. They are from the callers of Ahl al-Sunnah — this is something which is well-known. If they err, we will tell them to retract their error, and they will retract. So why do you speak ill of them? Do you want to cause fitnah for them? Do you want to deter the people from them? The people of Sunnah are few in number, how can you speak ill about the people of Sunnah? Those who speak against the people of Sunnah are not from them. Rather, they concur with the people of innovation. So my dear brothers, do not speak ill of these Duʿāt, the likes of Abū Khadījah and other than him, because they are from the callers of Ahl al-Sunnah. If they err, we will tell them to retract. Do not try to discredit them and ruin their reputation because this is something that hurts the People of Sunnah. May Allāh reward you for listening to this advice, may Allāh bless you and may the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Translated by: Munīb al-Ṣumālī

𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐢𝐝.𝐨𝐫𝐠

16,708 次观看 • 1 年前

A 7 minute long video of a plethora of major of Salafi/Sunni scholars and their positions and stances on Hamas, al-Qassām, and the Gazzan Mujāhidīn fighting the Yahūd. From them are: • Shaykh Abdul Karīm al-Khudayr • Shaykh Uthmān al-Khamīs • Shaykh Mashūr Hassan Āl Salman • Shaykh Sālih Āl al-Shaykh • Shaykh Mutlaq al-Jāsir • Shaykh Hamid al-Uthmān • Shaykh Husām al-Humayda al-Atharī According to the fool below, he believes all these scholars have betrayed their Muslim brothers and betrayed the Sunnah for supporting Hamas over the Yahūd right now. Even tho they’ve made it clear they don’t agree with their politics and creed, but support them against their enemies as it is part of Imān to support Muslims over Kuffar. Shaykh Abdul Karīm al-Khudayr says the resistance in Gazza (Hamas) are doing the greatest form of Jihad (self defence) Shaykh Uthmān says that the war is between Islam and disbelief and even if it wasn’t we are still with Hamas because they are Muslims who are fighting the Kuffar Shaykh Hamid al-Uthmān says the worst of people are those who criticise the Muslims (Hamas) fighting the Jews Shaykh Mashūr says the people who criticise Muslims in times of war would’ve been ruled with apostasy in the times of old! Shaykh Sālih Āl al-Shaykh says the Mujahidīn and people of Palestine are the Martyrs of the Ummah and defenders of Quds! Do we support Hamas, no! Do we support their Jihad right now over the transgressing Jews. Yes!
7:20

A 7 minute long video of a plethora of major of Salafi/Sunni scholars and their positions and stances on Hamas, al-Qassām, and the Gazzan Mujāhidīn fighting the Yahūd. From them are: • Shaykh Abdul Karīm al-Khudayr • Shaykh Uthmān al-Khamīs • Shaykh Mashūr Hassan Āl Salman • Shaykh Sālih Āl al-Shaykh • Shaykh Mutlaq al-Jāsir • Shaykh Hamid al-Uthmān • Shaykh Husām al-Humayda al-Atharī According to the fool below, he believes all these scholars have betrayed their Muslim brothers and betrayed the Sunnah for supporting Hamas over the Yahūd right now. Even tho they’ve made it clear they don’t agree with their politics and creed, but support them against their enemies as it is part of Imān to support Muslims over Kuffar. Shaykh Abdul Karīm al-Khudayr says the resistance in Gazza (Hamas) are doing the greatest form of Jihad (self defence) Shaykh Uthmān says that the war is between Islam and disbelief and even if it wasn’t we are still with Hamas because they are Muslims who are fighting the Kuffar Shaykh Hamid al-Uthmān says the worst of people are those who criticise the Muslims (Hamas) fighting the Jews Shaykh Mashūr says the people who criticise Muslims in times of war would’ve been ruled with apostasy in the times of old! Shaykh Sālih Āl al-Shaykh says the Mujahidīn and people of Palestine are the Martyrs of the Ummah and defenders of Quds! Do we support Hamas, no! Do we support their Jihad right now over the transgressing Jews. Yes!

ابن محبوب

36,533 次观看 • 1 年前