Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
سیرت النبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کے ابتدائی واقعات کی تاریخ اور ہماری محرومی ۔ ڈاکٹر اسرار احمد رحمہ اللہ کی گفتگو کا اہم حصہ ۔ Seerat-un-Nabi ﷺ Ke Waqiat Ki Tareekh Aur Hamari Mehroomi | Dr. Israr Ahmed In this thought-provoking short clip, Dr. Israr Ahmed highlights our... show more
51,880 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen •via X (Twitter)
0 Kommentare
Keine Kommentare verfügbar
Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt
![I’m sure whoever has watched my videos on free mixing knows my stance on this matter. Ali Dawah is once again oversimplifying the issue by using his usual rabbinical Talmudic loopholes. He wanted to insinuate, based on the hadith in which ʿUmar رضي الله عنه advised the Prophet ﷺ: O Messenger of Allah, let your wives be veiled.” But the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not do so. Ali then goes on a rant asking, Do you have more ghayrah than the Prophet ﷺ? while completely missing the context of the hadith. He conveniently left out the very next part of the narration: قَدْ عَرَفْنَاكِ يَا سَوْدَةُ. حِرْصًا عَلَى أَنْ يَنْزِلَ الْحِجَابُ، فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ آيَةَ الْحِجَابِ I recognised you, O Sawdah. He said this because he eagerly desired that the verses of hijab be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of hijab. This emphasises that Umar رضي الله عنه was waiting for revelation from the Qur’an. The reason the Prophet ﷺ did not command hijab before that point was simple: it had not yet been revealed to him by Allah. It’s that simple. Let me educate this fool even further. When the Muslims were being persecuted, tortured, and killed in Makkah, the Prophet ﷺ did not command his followers to fight. Why? Do you think the Prophet ﷺ was afraid? Astaghfirullah. Rather, he was waiting for revelation from Allah. The permission to fight came after the migration to Madinah, not before. Ibn Kathir, in his tafisr, mentions: قال العوفي، عن ابن عباس: نزلت في محمد وأصحابه حين أخرجوا من مكة. وقال غير واحد من السلف: هذه أول آية نزلت في الجهاد، واستدل بهذه الآية بعضهم على أن السورة مدنية، وقاله مجاهد، والضحاك، وقتادة، وغير واحد. Al-Awfi narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās that he said: This verse was revealed concerning Muhammad ﷺ and his companions when they were expelled from Makkah. A number of the early scholars said: “This was the first verse revealed concerning jihad.” Some of them used this verse as evidence that this sūrah is Madinan. This was also the view of Mujāhid, al-Ḍaḥḥāk, Qatādah, and a number of other scholars. Ibn Kathir then explains: وإن الله على نصرهم لقدير ) وقد . وإنما شرع [ الله ] تعالى الجهاد في الوقت الأليق به; لأنهم لما كانوا بمكة كان المشركون أكثر عددا ، فلو أمر المسلمين ، وهم أقل من العشر ، بقتال الباقين لشق عليهم; ولهذا لما بايع أهل يثرب ليلة العقبة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وكانوا نيفا وثمانين ، قالوا : يا رسول الله ، ألا نميل على أهل الوادي يعنون أهل منى ليالي منى فنقتلهم؟ Allahonly legislated jihad at the time most appropriate for it. While the Muslims were in Makkah, the polytheists greatly outnumbered them. Had Allah commanded the Muslims who were fewer than one-tenth of their enemies to fight at that stage, it would have been an unbearable hardship for them. For this reason, when the people of Yathrib pledged allegiance to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ on the night of al-ʿAqabah, and they numbered a little over eighty, they said: O Messenger of Allah, shall we attack the people of the valley? meaning the people of Mina during the nights of Mina and kill them?” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ replied: إني لم أؤمر بهذا I have not been commanded to do that. The Prophet ﷺ made it absolutely clear: “I have not been commanded to do that. Likewise, in the case of hijab, he did not do so as per the hadith until Allah revealed it. The principle is exactly the same: the Prophet ﷺ acted upon revelation, not personal preference or public pressure. That completely destroys Ali Dawah’s argument, the idiot Ali dawah](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2097083417057952069/amplify_video_thumb/2097083297511735297/img/-Pz5nrc2T1XHGMVU.jpg)
![A fascinating discussion by his Excellency Sayyid Ahmed Al-Shara regarding his strategic philosophy; focusing on self-reliance, institution building, and military preparation. Interviewer: "Why do you think God allowed for victory to be on your hands?" His Excellency Sayyid Ahmed Al-Shara: "[Laughs] The secret remains with God. No, look... Regarding the issue that occurred... true, it is one of those rare historical occurrences. However, God Almighty says in the Quran: "And you will not find in the way of Allah any change, and you will not find in the way of Allah any alteration." Usually, worldly situations and challenges have a logical explanation. We have inherited, across generations, a wrong culture. It is the culture of passive reliance (Ittikal). The possessor of "Right"—even if he is on the side of truth, and even if he is oppressed—if he does not take the necessary means to support himself, then the universal laws do not show favoritism. He will be defeated. So, we inherited ideas that put us in a sort of state of anesthesia. We sing about our past, but we lack a present. And we read history like a smooth, entertaining novel that always has happy endings. So we believe that this is how things will just resolve themselves for us. Facts confront facts. I do not submit to the philosophy that says, "Because you are on the side of Right, you will win without effort." The philosophy of victory and facing heavy challenges requires correct preparation. That is why... there were nations before us where God Almighty only asked the Prophets for worship, and He supported them with miracles. The Prophet Ibrahim, the Prophet Musa... they were not ordered to fight. In our religious philosophy, God Almighty gave permission to Muslims to fight. Consequently, He demanded preparation from them. Right? "And prepare against them whatever you are able of power..." etc. The theory is making the punishment of the oppressors happen at the hands of the believers. So, victory does not come to you via a miracle. The time of miracles is gone. The "miracle" lies in the fact that you prepare—a massive and strong preparation—and you utilize material means to the very last drop, exerting maximum effort. Then, you release that arrow and rely on God. God will grant success. But it is impossible... our problems will not be solved by us sitting at home worshipping God Almighty and that’s it. Our problems aren't solved by [passive waiting]. There is a surgical operation needed. You have a pain? sometimes it must be resolved. You must have the courage to perform the excision. You cannot suffer from cancer and content yourself only with prayer. That is why God created science and knowledge and pushed people to urge for it. Today, if you ask: "What are the reasons for the retreat of our regions and the advancement of other regions?" The answer is knowledge. Whoever reached knowledge first, and worked on it seriously, overcame the other. Quite simply. One was fighting with an arrow, while the other invented a cannon. If your maximum capability is to make an arrow, perhaps you will be supported through it. But if you still have the capability to make something greater than that, and you did not expend your capacity for it—relying only on [faith]—then you are the loser in the battle. So, compare the battle. We did not look at the battle as merely military. We realized we had to build institutions within it. We built industry in it. We built an economy in it. From the sweat of our brow, we were able to build a military force. A military force that we built autonomously. We manufactured our own weapons. Today, the missile exhibition... [contains] locally manufactured weapons. They may not match the enemy's weapons, but we expended the maximum of what we could. We worked day and night. We tried to serve the people with the maximum energy possible, and at the same time, build a military force.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1999222242605936736/ext_tw_video_thumb/1999221944634273792/pu/img/6714KHVIVBjZVzcT.jpg)
![In preparation for this, I checked out Dr. Jordan Cooper's (Dr Jordan B. Cooper) video on Chemnitz's examination of traditions and he made the remark that the Catholic Church contradicts the consensus of the Fathers on communion in both kinds, and that there is "no example of" communion in one kind in the Fathers. Respectfully, I think this is a messy critique which misses what is going on at the Reformation and what the precise claim of the Reformers was. I have already made a video extensively citing examples of communion in one kind starting in the 3rd century, through Tertullian, Ss. Jerome, Basil, etc, such as the widespread practice of private communion at home with the Eucharistic bread only. I will link it below. These are usually dismissed as "extraordinary instances," but this only shows that the Fathers did not actually agree with the Reformers. Remember, the Reformers (specifically the Lutheran orthodox) said that communion in one kind can NEVER happen. Johann Adam Scherzer, for example, said that if someone cannot receive wine, “[he] should be kept away from the whole, than that he should not receive the whole” (Anti-Bellarmine, disp. 11, th. 6, obj. 9). To demonstrate that the Catholic Church "contradicts" the Fathers on communion in both kinds (which is Dr. Cooper's internal critique), one needs to show that the Fathers of any age unanimously (at least morally) taught that it was a matter of faith to hold that both kinds must be received. Certainly, no consensus ever existed. On the contrary, we know they often did make the exception and allowed Christians to receive only one kind, which shows they did not agree with the Lutherans that this is a divine precept (to receive both). Dr. Cooper conflates the ordinary liturgical practice with what Catholics mean by a "consensus on the Fathers." For more, I recommend reading St. Robert Bellarmine who has a really good response to Martin Chemnitz. Here is a helpful example. It was truly a unanimous practice to preserve the Eucharist after the liturgy and treat the elements as consecrated. The Reformed (to my knowledge) unanimously deny this is the case, and the Lutherans (from my reading of Chemnitz and Gerhard) admit that Christ's presence persists but only for taking the Eucharist to the sick. The early Church affirmed Christ's presence in the Eucharist in the Catholic sense; they preserved it even for reasons which were not for the sick and nevertheless affirmed its lasting consecration (Ss. Irenaeus, Ambrose, Jerome, to name a few). The Catholic view of tradition tells us that this practice/belief (that Christ is still present post-liturgy) must be valid and true (since the universal church cannot err), but it does not establish a precept i.e. just because the whole Church often preserved the Eucharist, it does not mean we actually have to do it; it just means we can do so validly and licitly; it also means this is a certain rule which Protestants contradicted (from a Catholic POV). Even if communion in both kinds was the universal practice (which it was not), this would not suffice to say the Tridentine Church is in contradiction, since this would only tell us it is valid (duh, so does Scripture). There would need to be a unanimous testimony from the Fathers of, let's say, the fourth century, that communion in both kinds is the only way and that to oppose this is heresy; a testimony which does not exist and is even contradicted.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2081096782948213085/amplify_video_thumb/2081092202709553152/img/a8TxxtUS50pmGBfu.jpg)
![This is an incredibly damning piece of historical evidence: This is Davyd Arakhamia, parliamentary leader of Zelensky's ''Servant of the People'' party. He led the Ukrainian delegation at peace talks with the Russians in Belarus and Türkiye in 2022, a few weeks into the war. Here’s what he says: - He confirms that Russia’s principal goal for the war wasn’t to invade the whole of Ukraine but to force Ukraine to become a neutral country that would not be part of NATO: “[Russia] really hoped almost to the last moment that they would force us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality. It was the most important thing for them. They were prepared to end the war if we agreed to, – as Finland once did, – neutrality, and committed that we would not join NATO. In fact, this was the key point. Everything else was simply rhetoric and political ‘seasoning’ about denazification, the Russian-speaking population and blah-blah-blah." - When asked why Ukraine did not agree to this, here’s what he says: “First, in order to agree to this point, it is necessary to change the Constitution. Our path to NATO is written in the Constitution. Secondly, there was no confidence in the Russians that they would do it. This could only be done if there were security guarantees. We could not sign something, step away, everyone would relax there, and then they would [invade] even more prepared – because they had, in fact, gone in unprepared for such a resistance. Therefore, we could only explore this route when there is absolute certainty that this will not happen again. There is no such certainty. Moreover, when we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let's just fight.” He’s actually not being very forthright about the “no confidence in the Russians so this could only be done if there were security guarantees” claim, because from the media reports at the time in early 2022, this aspect of the deal was getting concretized. It’s even still up on Ukraine’s official presidency website: The concept was that permanent members of the UN Security Council would be the guarantors of the deal, alongside Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland and Israel. The issue seems to have been that those security guarantees were “greeted with skepticism” by “Western officials”, as highlighted in this WSJ piece from back then: So this, combined with Arakhamia’s confirmation that what really killed the deal was “Boris Johnson [coming] to Kyiv and [saying] that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let's just fight” shows that it is unequivocally the West that killed the peace deal. Which confirms the extremely damning responsibility of the West in this war because we’re at a stage, 20 months later, when not only has Ukraine lost a horrifying amount of men (likely hundreds of thousands of deaths) but they couldn’t dream of getting such favorable conditions in a peace deal that the West is NOW pressuring them to make. And I won’t even get into the responsibility of the West in triggering this conflict in the first place with the expansion of NATO and the transformation of Ukraine into a Western bulwark on Russia’s border… Will there be any reckoning? Any admission of this responsibility? Any accountability? Any change, any rethinking in order to avoid such catastrophic failures in the future? Sadly I don’t even see the first inkling of the beginning of this, especially in Europe. And this is what makes me most depressed: it shows we're institutionally set in our erroneous ways with no capability to learn, adapt and change.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1728288101725089908/amplify_video_thumb/1728167311784214528/img/_Uz_0dyL_oT8TFHb.jpg)
