Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗳 𝗶𝗻 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱 - 𝗦𝗵. 𝗔𝗯𝘂 𝗜𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗾 𝗮𝗹-𝗛𝘂𝘄𝗮𝘆𝗻𝗶 Books mentioned by the Shaykh: - Sharḥ Uṣūl Iʿtiqād Ahl as-Sunnah (al-Lālakāʾiyy 418H) - Al-ʾIbānah al-Kubrā (Ibn Baṭṭah 387H) - Ash-Sharīʿah (al-Ājurriyy 360H) - Kitāb at-Tawḥīd (Ibn Khuzaymah (311H) - Kitāb at-Tawḥīd (Ibn... show more

Rachid Abu Khuzaymah

4,906 subscribers

14,189 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

Education News & Politics Arts

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

6 Comments

Elise Oyin1 year ago

All in Christ Jesus for all ages, every efs each using sap on eaic decree with their living spirits, souls, faiths, wills, efs that is not under Moroccan man connected to Atiku Abubakar is not Elise Oyinkromeineifa's master even 0.1% ever by Yahweh's word

𝐌𝐔𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐁𝐈'1 year ago

Ruqyah-List for Crypto-Jahmites mashaAllah ... ☝️

Ipin1 year ago

as-Sunnah by al Khallal ?

Rachid Abu Khuzaymah1 year ago

Of course, there are many other books. It's not a comprehensive list.

Abu Abdullah1 year ago

السلام علیکم ورحمة الله وبركاته Do you give permission for me to spread this onto my YouTube sheikh? بارك الله فيك

Moravid1 year ago

Literally none of those books are from the salaf...It's clear salaf means Hanbalis and not early Muslims

Related Videos

New YouTube Video: Shaykh Abdur Rahman Hassan mentions his ijāzah in the Kitāb Wuqūt al-Salah of Imām Mālik’s Muwatta received from the Noble Musnid and Muhaddith of Mecca, the Musnid of Hijāz, Shaykh Abdul Wakīl Ibn Abdul Haqq al-Hāshimī al-Makki Full video in replies below - The shaykh also mentions a benefit about Salah in the books of Fiqh and Hadīth

New YouTube Video: Shaykh Abdur Rahman Hassan mentions his ijāzah in the Kitāb Wuqūt al-Salah of Imām Mālik’s Muwatta received from the Noble Musnid and Muhaddith of Mecca, the Musnid of Hijāz, Shaykh Abdul Wakīl Ibn Abdul Haqq al-Hāshimī al-Makki Full video in replies below - The shaykh also mentions a benefit about Salah in the books of Fiqh and Hadīth

ابن محبوب

27,686 views • 1 year ago

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 al-Sunna (e.g., Ibn Abidin, al-Sawi, al-San'ani, Ahmad Zayni Dahlan). Following Rashid Rida, al-Albani was much more respectful of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab because he did not want to antagonize scholars in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, he criticized Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teachings on multiple occasions. He correctly states that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab is limited in knowledge - lacking in understanding of fiqh and not knowing the difference between weak and sound hadiths. He also states that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab took extremist positions in matters of aqida, leading him to mass takfir Muslims without reason. Alhamdulillah, al-Albani's sensible views influenced other Salafis scholars like Ibn Uthaymin and Uthman al-Khamis, such that they tacitly distanced themselves from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's errors. Today, due to the influence of al-Albani and others, most Salafis do not even read the deviant works of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Their notion of Salafism is simply al-Albani, Bin Baz, and Ibn Uthaymin. They don't even know the names of major traditional Wahhabi scholars like Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al al-Shaykh (1752-1826), Hamad ibn Atiq (1813-1884), and Sulayman ibn Sihman (1850-1930) (that some write Sahman). They don't study the deviant books of these figures alhamdulillah. There would be no problem if all Salafis were simply followers of al-Albani, Ibn Uthaymin, and Uthman al-Khamis. However, unfortunately, among Salafis there are still significant subgroups like ISIS, Madkhalis, and other sectarians, who are still heavily influenced by Ibn Abd al-Wahhabi deviant ideas. These deviant ideas center on calling for hatred, killing, and takfir/or targeting the general Muslim masses, subjecting them to endless aqida checks in order to shun them. Groups like ISIS want to kill every Muslim outside their small group. Meanwhile, Madkhalis want to kill every Muslim who has not pledged allegiance to a Gulf dictator.

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 al-Sunna (e.g., Ibn Abidin, al-Sawi, al-San'ani, Ahmad Zayni Dahlan). Following Rashid Rida, al-Albani was much more respectful of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab because he did not want to antagonize scholars in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, he criticized Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teachings on multiple occasions. He correctly states that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab is limited in knowledge - lacking in understanding of fiqh and not knowing the difference between weak and sound hadiths. He also states that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab took extremist positions in matters of aqida, leading him to mass takfir Muslims without reason. Alhamdulillah, al-Albani's sensible views influenced other Salafis scholars like Ibn Uthaymin and Uthman al-Khamis, such that they tacitly distanced themselves from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's errors. Today, due to the influence of al-Albani and others, most Salafis do not even read the deviant works of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Their notion of Salafism is simply al-Albani, Bin Baz, and Ibn Uthaymin. They don't even know the names of major traditional Wahhabi scholars like Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al al-Shaykh (1752-1826), Hamad ibn Atiq (1813-1884), and Sulayman ibn Sihman (1850-1930) (that some write Sahman). They don't study the deviant books of these figures alhamdulillah. There would be no problem if all Salafis were simply followers of al-Albani, Ibn Uthaymin, and Uthman al-Khamis. However, unfortunately, among Salafis there are still significant subgroups like ISIS, Madkhalis, and other sectarians, who are still heavily influenced by Ibn Abd al-Wahhabi deviant ideas. These deviant ideas center on calling for hatred, killing, and takfir/or targeting the general Muslim masses, subjecting them to endless aqida checks in order to shun them. Groups like ISIS want to kill every Muslim outside their small group. Meanwhile, Madkhalis want to kill every Muslim who has not pledged allegiance to a Gulf dictator.

Daniel Haqiqatjou

59,935 views • 1 year ago

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.”

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 views • 7 months ago

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

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 views • 1 year ago

𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻….. (final thoughts on the controversy) When will we move beyond the 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 & 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝘁𝘆 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗲'𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗳𝘀? (Take a look at those in the video). When will we begin 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗲𝘀 to arrive at conclusions that align with what is most pleasing to Allah? (Take a look at those in the video). 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 between groups, so that we can focus on the greater enemy, especially in testing & challenging times like the one we are living in here in the west? (𝗔𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗔𝗹𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗶 & others and of course، 𝗻𝗼𝘁 undermining the continues importance of theology). When are we going to arrange conferences in the West, similar to the one in the video, 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 so that the sincere can reach what is most pleasing to Allah? 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗼𝘄 (who have been slandered for years) have done and 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜𝗯𝗻 𝗧𝗮𝘆𝗺𝗶𝘆𝘆𝗮𝗵 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲, someone who hinged the concept of 𝗺𝗶𝘅𝗶𝗻𝗴/𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴/𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 with those from different theologies to pros and cons. 𝗧𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲: The following was uttered by the shaykh of the Atharis in Aqeedah in modern day era, Shaykh Al-Alaama Abdallah Al Qunaiman: “𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀, 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆. This is evident from the fact that Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, رحمه الله, 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗔𝘀𝗵'𝗮𝗿𝗶 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀. 𝗜𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁, 𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗺𝗹𝘂𝗸 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, the majority of whom were Ash’ari. Furthermore, the heroic leader and martyr Nur ad-Din Zangi, as well as Salah ad-Din al-Ayyubi, were also Ash'ari, as stated by al-Dhahabi in his "Siyar A'lam al-Nubala." P.S. - 𝗜 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲 with every detail and statement in this video; I shared it to highlight how many of the scholars today operate. Let’s save the same energy.

𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻….. (final thoughts on the controversy) When will we move beyond the 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 & 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝘁𝘆 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗲'𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗳𝘀? (Take a look at those in the video). When will we begin 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗲𝘀 to arrive at conclusions that align with what is most pleasing to Allah? (Take a look at those in the video). 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 between groups, so that we can focus on the greater enemy, especially in testing & challenging times like the one we are living in here in the west? (𝗔𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗔𝗹𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗶 & others and of course، 𝗻𝗼𝘁 undermining the continues importance of theology). When are we going to arrange conferences in the West, similar to the one in the video, 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 so that the sincere can reach what is most pleasing to Allah? 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗼𝘄 (who have been slandered for years) have done and 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜𝗯𝗻 𝗧𝗮𝘆𝗺𝗶𝘆𝘆𝗮𝗵 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲, someone who hinged the concept of 𝗺𝗶𝘅𝗶𝗻𝗴/𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴/𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 with those from different theologies to pros and cons. 𝗧𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲: The following was uttered by the shaykh of the Atharis in Aqeedah in modern day era, Shaykh Al-Alaama Abdallah Al Qunaiman: “𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀, 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆. This is evident from the fact that Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, رحمه الله, 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗔𝘀𝗵'𝗮𝗿𝗶 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀. 𝗜𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁, 𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗺𝗹𝘂𝗸 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, the majority of whom were Ash’ari. Furthermore, the heroic leader and martyr Nur ad-Din Zangi, as well as Salah ad-Din al-Ayyubi, were also Ash'ari, as stated by al-Dhahabi in his "Siyar A'lam al-Nubala." P.S. - 𝗜 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲 with every detail and statement in this video; I shared it to highlight how many of the scholars today operate. Let’s save the same energy.

MJ - Abu Taymiyyah

118,230 views • 1 year ago

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.

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 views • 2 months ago

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)

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 views • 1 year ago

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.

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 views • 1 year ago

Reflections on Waadil Aqeeq: A Blessed Valley in Madinah While in Madinah, I had the privilege of visiting Waadil Aqeeq once again yesterday, Friday, the 3rd of Dhul-Hijjah, 1446AH. Waadil Aqeeq is a blessed valley, as stated by Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him). The valley is approximately 52 kilometres long, beginning from Taa'if and running through Madinah before ending in Khulaly. Furthermore, Umar ibn Khattab and other companions reported that the Prophet said, "Someone came to me tonight from my Lord" (referring to Angel Jibril) while I was in the 'Aqiq (valley), and said to me: "Offer prayer in this blessed valley" (Bukhari: 5507 and 7343). The valley is also known for its pure and blessed water, which used to be transported by some pilgrims to other countries. The valley was once abundant with trees and vegetation, and they still exist today. Due to its blessed nature, some of the Prophet's companions lived on its banks, including Abu Hurairah (RA) and Saeed ibn Al-Ass (RA), when he was the governor of Madinah. Among the early generations after the companions, Urwah ibn Az-Zubair and Sukaynah Bint Hussein ibn Aliyy bn Abi Talib (RH) also lived on the bank of the valley. In fact, the palaces of Urwah and Sukaynah were built along the bank of the valley, and parts of the palaces and their gardens are still standing. In the tradition of our pious predecessors, while I was appointed as a professor at the International University of Madinah in 2014G, Allah blessed me to stay in Faysaliyah, and my house was close to the blessed valley. All praises and thanks are due to Allah. Historically, when His Eminence AbdulAzeez ibn Abdillah ibn Baz was consulted by King Saud ibn Abdulazeez in 1961G on where to build the international University of Madinah, he recommended it to be built along the bank of the blessed valley of Aqeeq. It is an interesting and blessed place to visit while in the city of Madinah. Shaykh AbdulKareem Bn Abdillah bn Khubair stated that some sources from the early generations attributed that the valley originated from paradise. We always ask Allah for more blessings. Madinah is a blessed city. The city is also blessed with the valley of Aqeeq, among others. Blessings upon blessings. As the blessed valley of Aqeeq is one of the blessings of Allah in this world. We supplicate to Allah to continue to bless us. Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami. From the city of Madinah (4/12/1446AH)

Reflections on Waadil Aqeeq: A Blessed Valley in Madinah While in Madinah, I had the privilege of visiting Waadil Aqeeq once again yesterday, Friday, the 3rd of Dhul-Hijjah, 1446AH. Waadil Aqeeq is a blessed valley, as stated by Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him). The valley is approximately 52 kilometres long, beginning from Taa'if and running through Madinah before ending in Khulaly. Furthermore, Umar ibn Khattab and other companions reported that the Prophet said, "Someone came to me tonight from my Lord" (referring to Angel Jibril) while I was in the 'Aqiq (valley), and said to me: "Offer prayer in this blessed valley" (Bukhari: 5507 and 7343). The valley is also known for its pure and blessed water, which used to be transported by some pilgrims to other countries. The valley was once abundant with trees and vegetation, and they still exist today. Due to its blessed nature, some of the Prophet's companions lived on its banks, including Abu Hurairah (RA) and Saeed ibn Al-Ass (RA), when he was the governor of Madinah. Among the early generations after the companions, Urwah ibn Az-Zubair and Sukaynah Bint Hussein ibn Aliyy bn Abi Talib (RH) also lived on the bank of the valley. In fact, the palaces of Urwah and Sukaynah were built along the bank of the valley, and parts of the palaces and their gardens are still standing. In the tradition of our pious predecessors, while I was appointed as a professor at the International University of Madinah in 2014G, Allah blessed me to stay in Faysaliyah, and my house was close to the blessed valley. All praises and thanks are due to Allah. Historically, when His Eminence AbdulAzeez ibn Abdillah ibn Baz was consulted by King Saud ibn Abdulazeez in 1961G on where to build the international University of Madinah, he recommended it to be built along the bank of the blessed valley of Aqeeq. It is an interesting and blessed place to visit while in the city of Madinah. Shaykh AbdulKareem Bn Abdillah bn Khubair stated that some sources from the early generations attributed that the valley originated from paradise. We always ask Allah for more blessings. Madinah is a blessed city. The city is also blessed with the valley of Aqeeq, among others. Blessings upon blessings. As the blessed valley of Aqeeq is one of the blessings of Allah in this world. We supplicate to Allah to continue to bless us. Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami. From the city of Madinah (4/12/1446AH)

Prof. Isa Ali Ibrahim, CON

14,994 views • 1 year ago

𝐉𝐢𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐞, 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐌𝐞 𝑌𝑜𝑢 𝐷𝑜𝑛'𝑡 𝑁𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑀𝑢𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝐼 𝑁𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑇̣𝑎𝑤𝑎̄𝑔̇𝑖̄𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎 This is the hypocritical principle of the Khārajī Ahmed Musa Jibril. We should remember a certain type of Khārijī that the ʿUlemāʾ of the past recognized and classified into their own sect, and they are the 𝗞𝗵𝗮𝘄𝗮̄𝗿𝗶𝗷 𝗮𝗹 𝗤𝗮ʿ𝗱𝗶𝘆𝘆𝗮𝗵 [𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝗞𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗷𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀], who are, as defined by al Sakhāwī and Ibn Hajr, those who incite the people with words by mentioning the faults of Muslim leaders and governments, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁. During the height of ISIS there were two infamous western social media “tough guys” who were popular amongst ISIS fighters and online Takfīrīs. Ahmed Musa Jibril based in Dearborn, MI & Musa Cerantonio based in Australia. At that time they took advantage of the anger of Muslim youth at the suffering of Muslims in various Muslim countries especially Syria, to turn them into Takfīris who would join groups that, ironically, were killing those same Muslims. But these two “tough guys” themselves never went overseas to fight, they were content to stay in comfort in the West tweeting whilst naive youth, some just young teenage girls, went to Syria and either died there or are wasting away in foreign prisons. Musa Cerantonio actually claimed he did join ISIS overseas, but that was later proven to be false when he was later arrested in the Philippines. He is now an apostate, after making Takfīr of Muslims he himself became a kafir. From the Sunnah of Allah in dealing with his creation is the principle: الجزاء من جنس العمل The recompense for a deed is similar to the deed. Similar to the saying: “You reap what you sow.” He made Takfīr unjustly and was forsaken by Allah and is now a Kafir himself. As for Ahmed Musa Jibril his fanboys will defend him tooth to nail, even though he has a criminal record of defrauding people and banks. A few years ago I encountered a group of people who were taking lessons from him online, and they all held it permissible to steal from and defraud non-Muslims in America because this is Dar al Harb. If you want to see how brave their “Mujāhid Shaykh” is just watch him run away from a Kāfir reporter. Even the Kafir reporter recognizes that he is just an internet troll that no one should fear, he literally chases him down a street. If AMJ is sincere in his claims why doesn’t he go and fight overseas!? Oh, that’s right. It’s because he needs permission from the Ṭawāġīt authorities in America, but only him—not the 14-year-old girl in the UK. She can run away, but he can’t. In contrast the Salafi Mashāykh have only ever been brave against opposition and faced it like men and true Mujāhidīn. Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī fought the Soviets in Afghanistan with Shaykh Jamīl ar-Rahmān al Afghanī. He climbed those steep Afghani mountain tops and fired at the enemies of Allah with his own weapon. Shaykh Jamīl ar-Rahmān al Afghanī another Salafi Shaykh fought the Soviets and gave Dawah and established the Islamic Emirate of Kunar upon Salafiyyah, but was assassinated by the Ikhwan al Muslimūn and Kunar was conquered by drug dealing Ikhwanīs. Shaykh Muqbil al-Wādiʿī gave Dawah in Yemen for decades and faced a number of assassination attempts by various deviant sects. Shaykh Yāsīn al-ʿAdanī who bravely spoke the truth against the Ikhwan al Muslimūn, the Houthis, and al Qaeda up until they assassinated him. Do not be deceived by these keyboard warriors, nor allow them to portray Ahlus Sunnah, who they label to be “Madkhalis”, as cowards, while our Mashāykh have a proven track record of bravery and implementing what they preach and their “Shaykhs” are nothing but internet trolls who radicalize youth and lead them to their destruction.

𝐉𝐢𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐞, 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐌𝐞 𝑌𝑜𝑢 𝐷𝑜𝑛'𝑡 𝑁𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑀𝑢𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝐼 𝑁𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑇̣𝑎𝑤𝑎̄𝑔̇𝑖̄𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎 This is the hypocritical principle of the Khārajī Ahmed Musa Jibril. We should remember a certain type of Khārijī that the ʿUlemāʾ of the past recognized and classified into their own sect, and they are the 𝗞𝗵𝗮𝘄𝗮̄𝗿𝗶𝗷 𝗮𝗹 𝗤𝗮ʿ𝗱𝗶𝘆𝘆𝗮𝗵 [𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝗞𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗷𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀], who are, as defined by al Sakhāwī and Ibn Hajr, those who incite the people with words by mentioning the faults of Muslim leaders and governments, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁. During the height of ISIS there were two infamous western social media “tough guys” who were popular amongst ISIS fighters and online Takfīrīs. Ahmed Musa Jibril based in Dearborn, MI & Musa Cerantonio based in Australia. At that time they took advantage of the anger of Muslim youth at the suffering of Muslims in various Muslim countries especially Syria, to turn them into Takfīris who would join groups that, ironically, were killing those same Muslims. But these two “tough guys” themselves never went overseas to fight, they were content to stay in comfort in the West tweeting whilst naive youth, some just young teenage girls, went to Syria and either died there or are wasting away in foreign prisons. Musa Cerantonio actually claimed he did join ISIS overseas, but that was later proven to be false when he was later arrested in the Philippines. He is now an apostate, after making Takfīr of Muslims he himself became a kafir. From the Sunnah of Allah in dealing with his creation is the principle: الجزاء من جنس العمل The recompense for a deed is similar to the deed. Similar to the saying: “You reap what you sow.” He made Takfīr unjustly and was forsaken by Allah and is now a Kafir himself. As for Ahmed Musa Jibril his fanboys will defend him tooth to nail, even though he has a criminal record of defrauding people and banks. A few years ago I encountered a group of people who were taking lessons from him online, and they all held it permissible to steal from and defraud non-Muslims in America because this is Dar al Harb. If you want to see how brave their “Mujāhid Shaykh” is just watch him run away from a Kāfir reporter. Even the Kafir reporter recognizes that he is just an internet troll that no one should fear, he literally chases him down a street. If AMJ is sincere in his claims why doesn’t he go and fight overseas!? Oh, that’s right. It’s because he needs permission from the Ṭawāġīt authorities in America, but only him—not the 14-year-old girl in the UK. She can run away, but he can’t. In contrast the Salafi Mashāykh have only ever been brave against opposition and faced it like men and true Mujāhidīn. Shaykh Rabīʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī fought the Soviets in Afghanistan with Shaykh Jamīl ar-Rahmān al Afghanī. He climbed those steep Afghani mountain tops and fired at the enemies of Allah with his own weapon. Shaykh Jamīl ar-Rahmān al Afghanī another Salafi Shaykh fought the Soviets and gave Dawah and established the Islamic Emirate of Kunar upon Salafiyyah, but was assassinated by the Ikhwan al Muslimūn and Kunar was conquered by drug dealing Ikhwanīs. Shaykh Muqbil al-Wādiʿī gave Dawah in Yemen for decades and faced a number of assassination attempts by various deviant sects. Shaykh Yāsīn al-ʿAdanī who bravely spoke the truth against the Ikhwan al Muslimūn, the Houthis, and al Qaeda up until they assassinated him. Do not be deceived by these keyboard warriors, nor allow them to portray Ahlus Sunnah, who they label to be “Madkhalis”, as cowards, while our Mashāykh have a proven track record of bravery and implementing what they preach and their “Shaykhs” are nothing but internet trolls who radicalize youth and lead them to their destruction.

Islamic Center of North Sacramento

69,264 views • 2 years ago

NEW: Important Advice to Maḏhab Fanatics by Shaykh Sulaymān al-Ruḥaylī 1. We study the fiqh that was known to the Companions, and known to the Tābiʿīn, and known to the Imāms. 2. We study fiqh that is connected to evidence and built upon proof. This is the legitimate Sharʿī fiqh—the fiqh whose practitioner is praised, whose action is commended, and which is true understanding of the religion of Allāh. 3. As for binding people to a single Maḏhab from which they may not depart, and obligating them to adhere to everything stated within it, then this is an innovation—an innovation that did not exist in the time of the Companions. Rather, the Companions used to forbid it. It did not exist in the time of the Tābiʿīn, nor in the time of the four Imāms. In fact, the four Imāms were united upon forbidding the sanctification of people’s statements; rather, matters are to be examined in light of their evidence. 4. It is authentically reported from the four Imāms that they said: "If the Ḥadīth is authentic, then it is my Maḏhab." 5. Evidence for this is that the students who were raised upon the teachings of the four Imāms did not sanctify the Imām's opinion; rather, they would sometimes differ with the Imām's opinion. Anyone with even minimal exposure to the books of jurisprudence will find this clear and evident. 6. The four Imāms did not teach their students to sanctify their opinions. Rather, they taught them to look to the evidence and to support the evidence. Whoever examines the books of the Maḏhabs will find this plainly evident. 7. If you look into the books of the Ḥanafīs, you will find that Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan sometimes differed with Abū Ḥanīfah, and that Abū Yusuf sometimes differed, and that Zufar sometimes differed. 8. If you look at the statements of ibn al-ʿArabī al-Malikī, and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, you will find this clearly evident. This is how Imām Mālik nurtured his students. Imām Mālik would sometimes not hold a particular view, but when a Ḥadīth reached him, he deemed it sound and adopted it. The same applies to al-Shāfiʿī when you look at his students, and likewise Imām Aḥmad. 9. The strict obligation to adhere to Maḏhabs in such a way that one may not depart from them only arose among the later scholars. We, in reality, do not condemn following a Maḏhab or affiliating oneself with a Maḏhab —this is a permissible matter according to what is well known among the scholars. Rather, what is blameworthy is fanaticism to Maḏhabs, and tying fiqh to Maḏhabs in such a way that one does not go beyond them and does not consider the evidence at all. Instead, issues are decided solely by the statements of the scholars of the Maḏhabs. 10. Following a Maḏhab, according to the scholars, if taken as a path to fiqh and not as fiqh itself, they do not condemn it. But if it is taken as the fiqh itself, and one restricts himself to it—indeed, even casting doubt upon what people know of rulings established upon evidence—then this is not permissible, and it is not the praiseworthy fiqh.

NEW: Important Advice to Maḏhab Fanatics by Shaykh Sulaymān al-Ruḥaylī 1. We study the fiqh that was known to the Companions, and known to the Tābiʿīn, and known to the Imāms. 2. We study fiqh that is connected to evidence and built upon proof. This is the legitimate Sharʿī fiqh—the fiqh whose practitioner is praised, whose action is commended, and which is true understanding of the religion of Allāh. 3. As for binding people to a single Maḏhab from which they may not depart, and obligating them to adhere to everything stated within it, then this is an innovation—an innovation that did not exist in the time of the Companions. Rather, the Companions used to forbid it. It did not exist in the time of the Tābiʿīn, nor in the time of the four Imāms. In fact, the four Imāms were united upon forbidding the sanctification of people’s statements; rather, matters are to be examined in light of their evidence. 4. It is authentically reported from the four Imāms that they said: "If the Ḥadīth is authentic, then it is my Maḏhab." 5. Evidence for this is that the students who were raised upon the teachings of the four Imāms did not sanctify the Imām's opinion; rather, they would sometimes differ with the Imām's opinion. Anyone with even minimal exposure to the books of jurisprudence will find this clear and evident. 6. The four Imāms did not teach their students to sanctify their opinions. Rather, they taught them to look to the evidence and to support the evidence. Whoever examines the books of the Maḏhabs will find this plainly evident. 7. If you look into the books of the Ḥanafīs, you will find that Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan sometimes differed with Abū Ḥanīfah, and that Abū Yusuf sometimes differed, and that Zufar sometimes differed. 8. If you look at the statements of ibn al-ʿArabī al-Malikī, and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, you will find this clearly evident. This is how Imām Mālik nurtured his students. Imām Mālik would sometimes not hold a particular view, but when a Ḥadīth reached him, he deemed it sound and adopted it. The same applies to al-Shāfiʿī when you look at his students, and likewise Imām Aḥmad. 9. The strict obligation to adhere to Maḏhabs in such a way that one may not depart from them only arose among the later scholars. We, in reality, do not condemn following a Maḏhab or affiliating oneself with a Maḏhab —this is a permissible matter according to what is well known among the scholars. Rather, what is blameworthy is fanaticism to Maḏhabs, and tying fiqh to Maḏhabs in such a way that one does not go beyond them and does not consider the evidence at all. Instead, issues are decided solely by the statements of the scholars of the Maḏhabs. 10. Following a Maḏhab, according to the scholars, if taken as a path to fiqh and not as fiqh itself, they do not condemn it. But if it is taken as the fiqh itself, and one restricts himself to it—indeed, even casting doubt upon what people know of rulings established upon evidence—then this is not permissible, and it is not the praiseworthy fiqh.

Yasar A Rahman

16,413 views • 6 months ago

WATCH | Al-Qassam Fighter Storms Israeli APC in Khan Younis, Kills 7 Soldiers in Close-Range Ambush In a dramatic ambush captured on video, resistance fighters from Hamas’s military wing carried out a complex operation against two Israeli armored personnel carriers (APCs) near the Ali Ibn Abi Talib Mosque in Khan Younis, southern Gaza. Israeli authorities acknowledged that the attack, part of the “David’s Stones” campaign (Hijarat Dawud), has killed 7 soldiers, including an officer. Some 15 others were reportedly injured. Footage released by Al-Qassam shows one of its fighters running toward an APC packed with Israeli troops, climbing aboard under fire, and dropping a Shuwaz explosive device directly into the command cabin before withdrawing safely—all while filming himself with a cellphone in the other hand. According to Al-Qassam, the attack was followed by a second ambush targeting Israeli military rescue efforts, reportedly resulting in additional casualties. The operation has been widely circulated across Arabic media and pro-resistance channels, hailed as one of the most direct and high-risk strikes carried out at point-blank range since the conflict began. It marks the single largest loss for the Israeli military in Gaza since it renewed its genocidal assault in March this year.

WATCH | Al-Qassam Fighter Storms Israeli APC in Khan Younis, Kills 7 Soldiers in Close-Range Ambush In a dramatic ambush captured on video, resistance fighters from Hamas’s military wing carried out a complex operation against two Israeli armored personnel carriers (APCs) near the Ali Ibn Abi Talib Mosque in Khan Younis, southern Gaza. Israeli authorities acknowledged that the attack, part of the “David’s Stones” campaign (Hijarat Dawud), has killed 7 soldiers, including an officer. Some 15 others were reportedly injured. Footage released by Al-Qassam shows one of its fighters running toward an APC packed with Israeli troops, climbing aboard under fire, and dropping a Shuwaz explosive device directly into the command cabin before withdrawing safely—all while filming himself with a cellphone in the other hand. According to Al-Qassam, the attack was followed by a second ambush targeting Israeli military rescue efforts, reportedly resulting in additional casualties. The operation has been widely circulated across Arabic media and pro-resistance channels, hailed as one of the most direct and high-risk strikes carried out at point-blank range since the conflict began. It marks the single largest loss for the Israeli military in Gaza since it renewed its genocidal assault in March this year.

Drop Site

171,776 views • 1 year ago

𝗦𝗵. 𝗜𝗯𝗻 𝗕𝗮𝘇 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 (𝗶𝗻 𝗧𝗮'𝗶𝗳): 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝘀𝗵𝗮'𝗶𝗿𝗮𝗵 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱. 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Someone who holds the statement of the Ash‘aris, i.e. that the Qur’an is the word of Jibril? 𝗜𝗯𝗻 𝗕𝗮𝘇: This is false. This is false. 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Is prayer behind him valid? 𝗜𝗯𝗻 𝗕𝗮𝘇: No, because the one who says this is a disbeliever. Whoever denies that it is the Word of Allah and claims that it is the word of Jibril, or that it is merely a narration (hikayah), and that the Word of Allah is 'the meaning that exists within Allah,' then this means that he denies the Qur’an. Source: Sharh al-‘Aqidah at-Tahawiyyah – ash-Sharh al-Jadid fi at-Ta’if – Lesson 07 ( Click the source above for the full audio and transcribed text on the website of Sh. Ibn Baz. Unfortunately, some individuals have omitted the question in which the term "Ash‘aris" was mentioned and have only included the Shaykh’s response. Sadly, this is not the only distortion found on the Shaykh’s website. On one hand, this is futile, as the Shaykh clearly describes the Ash‘aris in his answer. The Ash‘aris believe that the Qur’an, which we read in the Mushaf and recite, is the created word of Jibril, or the created word of the Prophet, or simply something created. The belief that the Qur’an is a created narration (Hikayah) of 'the real Qur’an, which is a meaning that exists within Allah,' is the creed of the Kullabiyyah, the predecessors of the Ash‘aris. The Ash‘aris believe the same thing but instead say that the Qur’an is a created expression (‘Ibarah) rather than a created narration (Hikayah), which amounts to the same thing. On the other hand, many people are ignorant and need to hear the word 'Ash‘aris'; these distorters are cleverly exploiting this fact. The fatwa of the Shaykh is fully in line with the methodology of the Salaf, who declared as disbelievers anyone who said that the Qur’an is created. But unfortunately, this is a reality that some try to obscure for political or ideological reasons. How many people have been labeled as extreme or “Haddadi” simply for saying the exact same thing as the Shaykh in this fatwa?

𝗦𝗵. 𝗜𝗯𝗻 𝗕𝗮𝘇 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 (𝗶𝗻 𝗧𝗮'𝗶𝗳): 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝘀𝗵𝗮'𝗶𝗿𝗮𝗵 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱. 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Someone who holds the statement of the Ash‘aris, i.e. that the Qur’an is the word of Jibril? 𝗜𝗯𝗻 𝗕𝗮𝘇: This is false. This is false. 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Is prayer behind him valid? 𝗜𝗯𝗻 𝗕𝗮𝘇: No, because the one who says this is a disbeliever. Whoever denies that it is the Word of Allah and claims that it is the word of Jibril, or that it is merely a narration (hikayah), and that the Word of Allah is 'the meaning that exists within Allah,' then this means that he denies the Qur’an. Source: Sharh al-‘Aqidah at-Tahawiyyah – ash-Sharh al-Jadid fi at-Ta’if – Lesson 07 ( Click the source above for the full audio and transcribed text on the website of Sh. Ibn Baz. Unfortunately, some individuals have omitted the question in which the term "Ash‘aris" was mentioned and have only included the Shaykh’s response. Sadly, this is not the only distortion found on the Shaykh’s website. On one hand, this is futile, as the Shaykh clearly describes the Ash‘aris in his answer. The Ash‘aris believe that the Qur’an, which we read in the Mushaf and recite, is the created word of Jibril, or the created word of the Prophet, or simply something created. The belief that the Qur’an is a created narration (Hikayah) of 'the real Qur’an, which is a meaning that exists within Allah,' is the creed of the Kullabiyyah, the predecessors of the Ash‘aris. The Ash‘aris believe the same thing but instead say that the Qur’an is a created expression (‘Ibarah) rather than a created narration (Hikayah), which amounts to the same thing. On the other hand, many people are ignorant and need to hear the word 'Ash‘aris'; these distorters are cleverly exploiting this fact. The fatwa of the Shaykh is fully in line with the methodology of the Salaf, who declared as disbelievers anyone who said that the Qur’an is created. But unfortunately, this is a reality that some try to obscure for political or ideological reasons. How many people have been labeled as extreme or “Haddadi” simply for saying the exact same thing as the Shaykh in this fatwa?

Rachid Bouabid

31,312 views • 1 year ago

Daniel Daniel Haqiqatjou Gives "Shirk Apologist" Unique Significance DH finally answers the question he's been asked about for months regarding his beloved shaykh Salek. According to DH, it's possible that Salek's statements and beliefs expressed in the video below are NOT shirk akbar. DH says, "When I read scholars influenced by Taqi al-Din al-Subki, and they talk about the Prophet ﷺ controlling the universe, I consider the possibility that this might mean control through their dua, even if they don't mention it explicitly. Rather, I only rule this interpretation out if they themselves say that the control exercised by the prophets and saints is not through their dua. This is how I interpret statements made by Taj al-Din al-Subki, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Suyuti, Sh Salek, and others. I know all of them have read the works of Taqi al-Din and other similar thinkers, and likely share their views." According to DH, it's possible that Salek merely means that the Prophet can make dua to Allah for certain things to happen and for our duas to be answered by Allah. This is the limit of the Prophet’s "control of the universe." DH says that he only rules out this interpretation if someone like Salek himself explicitly says that the "control of the universe" by the Prophet is NOT exercised through du'a to Allah. Guess what? Salek himself explicitly does just that! The video below starts by Salek addressing the topic of making istighatha and asking the Prophet DIRECTLY for things. Salek contrasts this with asking THROUGH the Prophet or asking the Prophet to make du'a for us. Salek explicitly says that we can ask the Prophet DIRECTLY for whatever we want without restrictions. This is because Salek believes that Allah gave all of His dominion to the Prophet for him to do with it whatever he pleases. The entire universe is under the direct authority and control of the Prophet. Salek explicitly says that the Prophet gives us whatever he wants FROM HIMSELF, not by making du'a to Allah or by Allah providing it because Allah already gave it to the Prophet to do with it whatever he pleases. Some examples of what Salek explicity says that we can ask the Prophet for DIRECTLY and that he can provide DIRECTLY FROM HIMSELF: Religious guidance of the heart, ANYTHING from the dunya or akhirah, knowledge, wealth, etc. Salek says that everything in the entire universe is his slave, including space and time and that the Prophet went BEYOND space (La Makaan) and time. Salek says that anyone who accuses him of committing shirk or kufr by making these statements becomes a kafir himself according to Imam al-Shafi'i. QUESTION: According to DH, how could anyone possibly express the shirki understanding of istighatha or al-wilayat at-takwiniyyah in clearer terms than his beloved shaykh Salek in the videos below? QUESTION: Why would DH desperately attempt to make ta'wil of his shaykh's statements when his shaykh explicitly denies DH's interpretation in the videos below? I'll let you all be the judge. Dan, you've cemented yourself as a shirk apologist. Enjoy.

Daniel Daniel Haqiqatjou Gives "Shirk Apologist" Unique Significance DH finally answers the question he's been asked about for months regarding his beloved shaykh Salek. According to DH, it's possible that Salek's statements and beliefs expressed in the video below are NOT shirk akbar. DH says, "When I read scholars influenced by Taqi al-Din al-Subki, and they talk about the Prophet ﷺ controlling the universe, I consider the possibility that this might mean control through their dua, even if they don't mention it explicitly. Rather, I only rule this interpretation out if they themselves say that the control exercised by the prophets and saints is not through their dua. This is how I interpret statements made by Taj al-Din al-Subki, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Suyuti, Sh Salek, and others. I know all of them have read the works of Taqi al-Din and other similar thinkers, and likely share their views." According to DH, it's possible that Salek merely means that the Prophet can make dua to Allah for certain things to happen and for our duas to be answered by Allah. This is the limit of the Prophet’s "control of the universe." DH says that he only rules out this interpretation if someone like Salek himself explicitly says that the "control of the universe" by the Prophet is NOT exercised through du'a to Allah. Guess what? Salek himself explicitly does just that! The video below starts by Salek addressing the topic of making istighatha and asking the Prophet DIRECTLY for things. Salek contrasts this with asking THROUGH the Prophet or asking the Prophet to make du'a for us. Salek explicitly says that we can ask the Prophet DIRECTLY for whatever we want without restrictions. This is because Salek believes that Allah gave all of His dominion to the Prophet for him to do with it whatever he pleases. The entire universe is under the direct authority and control of the Prophet. Salek explicitly says that the Prophet gives us whatever he wants FROM HIMSELF, not by making du'a to Allah or by Allah providing it because Allah already gave it to the Prophet to do with it whatever he pleases. Some examples of what Salek explicity says that we can ask the Prophet for DIRECTLY and that he can provide DIRECTLY FROM HIMSELF: Religious guidance of the heart, ANYTHING from the dunya or akhirah, knowledge, wealth, etc. Salek says that everything in the entire universe is his slave, including space and time and that the Prophet went BEYOND space (La Makaan) and time. Salek says that anyone who accuses him of committing shirk or kufr by making these statements becomes a kafir himself according to Imam al-Shafi'i. QUESTION: According to DH, how could anyone possibly express the shirki understanding of istighatha or al-wilayat at-takwiniyyah in clearer terms than his beloved shaykh Salek in the videos below? QUESTION: Why would DH desperately attempt to make ta'wil of his shaykh's statements when his shaykh explicitly denies DH's interpretation in the videos below? I'll let you all be the judge. Dan, you've cemented yourself as a shirk apologist. Enjoy.

Jake Brancatella

42,968 views • 1 year ago

Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Ibn Abbas, the only man Allah ever blessed with all knowledge of the Quran. Ibn Abbas, full of Allah's wisdom, said that Maryam 19:71 means EVERY Muslim, even the righteous, even himself, will enter Hellfire. Ibn Abbas is still considered the single greatest scholar of Islam, and is called Tarjuman al-Quran, or THE interpreter of the Quran. Maryam 19:71-72 (Sarwar): "It is the inevitable decree of your Lord that every one of you will be taken to Hell. Then We shall rescue those who kept from evil, and leave the evil-doers kneeling there." Maryam 19:71-72 (Dawood) "There is not one of you who shall not pass through the confines of Hell. Then We shall save those who fear God, and leave the wrongdoers there kneeling on their knees." No prophet of God was ever accosted by the angel sent to him, they always said "fear not" and we're kind and gracious, yet Muhammad was beaten and left in a state of terror; utterly convinced Gibril was really a devil. Even Muhammad's contemporaries were convinced he wasn't a prophet of God but rather a man possessed, so much so that the Quran had to refute this multiple times. Surah Al-Qalam (68:2) Thou art not, by the Grace of thy Lord, mad or possessed Surah At-Takwir (81:22) And (O people!) your companion is not one possessed Surah At-Tur (52:29) Therefore proclaim thou the praises (of thy Lord): for by the Grace of thy Lord, thou art no (vulgar) soothsayer, nor art thou one possessed Surah Al-Hijr (15:6) They say: 'O thou to whom the Message is being revealed! truly thou art mad (or possessed)!' Long before Muhammad was ever born, the true God, the God of the Bible, foresaw Muhammad's deception and gave us a stern warning: Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed Muhammad certainly preached another gospel, a gospel that denied the entire Bible which prophesied Jesus's crucifixion over 1500 years before it ever happened. That's why he had to write the Quran, because even a basic reading of the Old Testament proves that God has a Son (Proverbs 30:4, Isaiah 9:6) and that His Son would be crucified for the sins of the world (Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 2:7-12) Muhammad even told you to judge him by the Bible: Surah Al-Maidah (5:47) "And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient" Yet it utterly refutes their Quran and proves Muhammad is a false prophet, so they have to claim the Bible was different back then, yet we have both Old and New Testaments, written long before Muhammad, and they agree entirely with what we have today. Muslims seem to think an omnipotent God is incapable of preserving His words to mankind, even though He promised to do just that: Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. They truly believe God chose an Ishmaelite pedophile warlord to reveal the "true gospel" via a wicked angel that beat the "prophet" senseless, only for him to die the exact death Allah vowed would befall a false prophet. Surah Al-Haqqah (69:44–46) And if he [Muhammad] had made up about Us some [false] sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand; then We would have cut from him the aorta Sahih al-Bukhari 4428: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, 'O Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison. Sunan Ibn Majah 1622: I never saw anyone suffer more pain than the Messenger of Allah."

Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Ibn Abbas, the only man Allah ever blessed with all knowledge of the Quran. Ibn Abbas, full of Allah's wisdom, said that Maryam 19:71 means EVERY Muslim, even the righteous, even himself, will enter Hellfire. Ibn Abbas is still considered the single greatest scholar of Islam, and is called Tarjuman al-Quran, or THE interpreter of the Quran. Maryam 19:71-72 (Sarwar): "It is the inevitable decree of your Lord that every one of you will be taken to Hell. Then We shall rescue those who kept from evil, and leave the evil-doers kneeling there." Maryam 19:71-72 (Dawood) "There is not one of you who shall not pass through the confines of Hell. Then We shall save those who fear God, and leave the wrongdoers there kneeling on their knees." No prophet of God was ever accosted by the angel sent to him, they always said "fear not" and we're kind and gracious, yet Muhammad was beaten and left in a state of terror; utterly convinced Gibril was really a devil. Even Muhammad's contemporaries were convinced he wasn't a prophet of God but rather a man possessed, so much so that the Quran had to refute this multiple times. Surah Al-Qalam (68:2) Thou art not, by the Grace of thy Lord, mad or possessed Surah At-Takwir (81:22) And (O people!) your companion is not one possessed Surah At-Tur (52:29) Therefore proclaim thou the praises (of thy Lord): for by the Grace of thy Lord, thou art no (vulgar) soothsayer, nor art thou one possessed Surah Al-Hijr (15:6) They say: 'O thou to whom the Message is being revealed! truly thou art mad (or possessed)!' Long before Muhammad was ever born, the true God, the God of the Bible, foresaw Muhammad's deception and gave us a stern warning: Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed Muhammad certainly preached another gospel, a gospel that denied the entire Bible which prophesied Jesus's crucifixion over 1500 years before it ever happened. That's why he had to write the Quran, because even a basic reading of the Old Testament proves that God has a Son (Proverbs 30:4, Isaiah 9:6) and that His Son would be crucified for the sins of the world (Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 2:7-12) Muhammad even told you to judge him by the Bible: Surah Al-Maidah (5:47) "And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient" Yet it utterly refutes their Quran and proves Muhammad is a false prophet, so they have to claim the Bible was different back then, yet we have both Old and New Testaments, written long before Muhammad, and they agree entirely with what we have today. Muslims seem to think an omnipotent God is incapable of preserving His words to mankind, even though He promised to do just that: Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. They truly believe God chose an Ishmaelite pedophile warlord to reveal the "true gospel" via a wicked angel that beat the "prophet" senseless, only for him to die the exact death Allah vowed would befall a false prophet. Surah Al-Haqqah (69:44–46) And if he [Muhammad] had made up about Us some [false] sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand; then We would have cut from him the aorta Sahih al-Bukhari 4428: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, 'O Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison. Sunan Ibn Majah 1622: I never saw anyone suffer more pain than the Messenger of Allah."

Politics Is Masonic Theater: 🍞 & 🎪

27,667 views • 8 months ago