asad

@tobyasky you missed the crazy part which is under appreciated. Both teams went undefeated in the last 14 games and were toe to toe. I think that should be the best season Pep ever had.

In the 2018/19 season, Jurgen Klopp almost ran mad. He got 97 points and he did not win the league. Pep still found a way to get 98 points to win the league by a point. Let me give a bit of context. Prior to Pep & Klopp’s rivalry, Jose Mourinho’s Chelsea held the record of 95 points. In fact, 97 points would have won the league every season before Pep. In the history of premier league, only 4 teams have gotten 97 points or more. Two for Pep, two for Klopp. Klopp only won one premier league title in 9 years. You can imagine how crazy that is, especially when you think of that Liverpool’s team. Bro had to retire before Pep kills him, he’s even looking older than 58, thanks to Pep😂

@lfcsavvy nadal and Federer of Football. One is brute force other is style and lethal

Go and win that league for us Pep

@YasirAlHanafi and you should learn to stick with the aqeedah of Our Prophet and the Sahabah and not the greek philosophers.

Mishary has released a new Nasheed on his YouTube channel: “Perish the hands of Iran and those aligned with Iran; we are the people of Tawheed,” while depicting the leaders of the Gulf as heroes. I think he forgot to mention the Aqeedah of the Zionists and America, and who they stand with. Initially, I thought it was AI, but he’s actually gone this far. He should have stuck to the Quran & singing Nasheed.

@IKON1436 Ameen to shaykh Ruhayli's dua

The Shaykh himself replies to the clip and then Haqiqatjou says this. What more proof is needed to expose this liar? Why do people still take him seriously?

@Farid_0v @muftihamdard bro, our sunni concept of wali is completely different from shia concept of wali. We need not play their game. Allah knows our love for the sahaba.

@muftihamdard I mean, I say it too, and I'm the 2nd most sectarian guy on the internet.

I am a Sunni scholar, and I say: Ali is the Wali of Allah

@MrAdnanRashid My theory-the plan was actually the fall of GCC and thereby control the region's oil. GCC did not take the bait. If Iran is finished US does not have any business there.When Netanyahu says it was a 40 year old dream, it should be bigger than just finishing an already broken Iran

My prediction: The sectarian IRGC regime will not fall as a result of this conflict. That was never the plan/intention. This regime is necessary to keep the Sunni axis at bay. Weapons worth billions won’t sell if this regime falls. Keeping it is more profitable. Thoughts.

@Farid_0v Bro, his definition (attributes) of Allah is different to what is mentioned in the texts. So how can you come to a agreement on worship and shirk. They will play around with words and escape. Their put their Aql before the text. The have a hidden arrogance in them.

@YasirAlHanafi Let's do it! Muhammad Yasir: Another Creator for the Universe = Not Shirk Farid: Another Creator for the Universe = Shirk Also, I understand that you're upset, but don't pretend to be friendly while suggesting that I have Zionist motives.

Okay, I’ve watched this video titled ‘The Greatest Betrayal in Dawah Scene History’, with the thumbnail stating ‘Two Gods? Not Shirk’. To be honest, I am disappointed in my brother Farid for giving such a response. Considering we have had several respectful private conversations in the past and that he is someone I considered a friend (at least I did), I didn’t expect him to reply in such a sensational, clickbait manner. It’s like me making a video, “Wahhabism, The Greatest Betrayal to the Ummah”, and then making a slanderous claim. Everyone, including Farid, knows that I never once said that believing in two Gods is not Shirk—and Allah’s refuge is sought. But, unfortunately, he repeats this slander multiple times in this video. I will not address the ad hominem attacks or those against brother Daniel, as I believe that damages the unity of Muslims, especially in the current situation. Brother Farid didn’t respond to any of my evidence or to the numerous quotes I provided. Unfortunately, he didn’t even have the courtesy to tell his audience once that I believe this tenet is not part of Islam. He kept repeating that small clip, adding his sensational and, dare I say, dramatic commentary to it. He did not provide a clear, consistent definition of ‘Shirk’. In fact, he provided no definition at all. However, he did hint that more videos will be made where he will address the evidence. Also, the timing of this video's release is interesting: at a time when many, including myself, have been calling for Sunni & Shia unity against the Zionists, I believe the release of this video is unwise, to say the least. Only Allah knows best what the true motive behind it is. Therefore, dear brother Farid, I have no personal animosity toward you. So, instead of engaging in a back-and-forth, why don’t we have a live discussion on this topic? We can analyse our positions. If you genuinely believe I am defending ‘Shirk’ (and Allah’s refuge is sought), then this will be a good time to correct me. Because honestly, after watching your video, I saw only personal jibes and how shocked you were at what I said. There was nothing academic or substantive apart from some references to history. This discussion does not need to be immediate, as I am still travelling. Also, it will give you as much time as you need to prepare. But I think a live discussion would be beneficial for everyone, inshaAllah. May Allah bless you.

@AAbdx_ 3 juz. 1.5 to 2 juz after fajr. Then the rest divide into small parts of 10 mins before zuhr or max by asr. Then you can focus on the new portion hifz upto 1 hour before going to sleep

how many juz a day would you consider reasonable since we have work and other things to do throughout the day?

@YasirAlHanafi How would that army be when one group calls Allah for victory and other calls 'Ya Ali Madad'. Rafida are the warehouse of all shirk practices. Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with him) fought people who refused to pay zakah. I can guess what would have been your suggestion then.

My dear Sunni brethren, Our differences with the Shia are primarily theological—I am aware of this. In the past, I have made videos discussing some of these, such as their stance regarding the noble Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them all). However, everything has a time and place. Being wise in our Dawah is essential. We cannot underestimate the importance of timing. Discussing theological differences, especially in a volatile manner, during a time when the enemy does not distinguish between Sunni and Shia, only advances their cause and further weakens the Umma. Additionally, we need to be just and give credit where it is due. For several years, we have heard—and I have even read in some Urdu books—that the Shia and Israel are “secret” partners—they will never fight each other. This became clear when Iran first responded to Israel, as some were dismissing the response as mere “theatrical fireworks”. Of course, such a suggestion now is not only absurd but also insane. The truth is that Iran is the only country that has responded to the Zionist entity, regardless of whether they are doing it for themselves or for Gaza. Unfortunately, no Sunni country is responding to them for any reason at all. I have heard people reject this basic fact. This makes one insecure and unreasonable. In fact, if you try to tell people now that Iran is still performing some theatrical displays, or that they are not genuine due to their creed, it will make you look unreasonable, and people will genuinely laugh at you. There is a fear that such behaviour will push them away from Ahl al-Sunnah, rather than bringing them closer. We need to engage with real people rather than isolating ourselves within our limited circles. Then we will realise that most people are pleased that Israel is finally receiving some response, irrespective of who the responder is. This is not about justifying any creedal position or excusing certain crimes. Rather, it is about recognising the need of the time. And Allah knows best.

@AbuKhadeejahSP Assalamu alaikum shaykh. I heard from a salafi imam that Hijrah means that you make a permanent migration and that you dont return back. If that is valid, then how many muslim countries with correct aqeedah offer citizenship. so this becomes a constraint right?

Hijrah is wājib. A question about Hijrah from the Non-Muslim Countries to the Lands of Islam ―And the reality of life in the West for Muslims: abukhadeejah.com/question-about…

@Farid_0v Hope you watched the Abdur Rahman Hassan podcast in AMAU on Ashariyya. May Allah reward him, they are really dubious

I used to think that the main difference between Salafis and Ash'aris was in their understanding of attributes, but it seems like some Ash'aris undermine the worst form of polytheism.

@KnowledgeNorth I always felt, the other side's aim is usually to slander Islam and put doubts in muslims. Necessary debates should happen in closed setting and definitely without camera. Cameras are a fitna for daees, very difficult to control the niyyah.

Forced myself to watch a recent "Muhammad in the Bible" debate. Naturally, we don't expect much from the Christian evangelists, but the Muslim side also left a lot to be desired. Unprovoked ad hominins and childish insults right off the bat. "Am gonna bury you", "you're destroyed", "gonna crucify you", "you're on your period." Grow up already! 🙄 That's without even getting into the hours arguing over subjective interpretations of a few lines of a text lacking integrity and authority in the first place. Dawa is not just the argument (which seldom meets the bar of divine hujja in such debates), but the means with which you bring your argument. So even if you score your point, get your clips, and induce monkey cheers from fanboys, is it really worth it when you potentially loose the wider audience—anyone naturally put off by obnoxious and arrogant behaviour?

@MrAdnanRashid i laughed out loud watching this. Even qubooris will feel embarassed seeing this 😄

Be prepared for rafida doing this in the comments. Don’t be alarmed, this is normal for them.

It is over a 100 qualified Muslim scholars/muftis from 30 countries (including Palestine) against @mohammed_hijab. Choose. youtu.be/4Qt2PQfZpxo?si…

@FarisHammadi Atheist basically did public dawah and created doubts using simple words for lay people and our guy was trying to prove him wrong using kalam.Private dawah to him could have been better If the niyyah was to prove the intellect of indian muslims from madrasas,then it was a success

A person who adopts deviant beliefs cannot defend Islam correctly against atheists. Never promote or support such individuals, no matter how eloquent or persuasive they seem, because they end up confusing the truth and misleading others.

@abdul_now Usually debates create doubts in common people. Instead, dawah could have been given privately. How is it apt to talk about Allah without using His sifah the Quran. Use Allah's Kalam and fitrah instead of Greek kalam. We only need to convey the message. Guidance is by Allah.

THOUGHTS ON THE MUFTI SHAMAIL VS JAVED AKHTAR DEBATE What I’m about to say is not a critique of Mufti Shamail or his performance in the debate. On the contrary, may Allah reward him. He laid out the case for God with real clarity and kept the discussion focused, and he came out of that exchange with a very clear win. And I have no doubt the debate had a genuinely positive effect and that it will bring many people closer to Islam, inshaAllah. My only concern is about some of the commentary around the debate, not the debater himself. I’ve seen people react as if this debate is some kind of decisive showcase for the Islamic intellectual tradition, or as if it demonstrates the value of Kalam and what it brings to the table. A lot of the hype almost makes it sound like something brand new has just been reintroduced into the wider intellectual landscape, or like a genuinely formidable, philosophically trained atheist was just taken apart on his own turf, when that really isn’t what this was at all. Because if we’re being honest, the arguments on display were largely the standard, widely-known form of cosmological/contingency arguments: contingent things need an explanation, you can’t have an infinite regress of dependent causes, so you arrive at a necessary foundation. This is a classic argument, but it's also presented here in a very general, first-layer way that you’ll hear in one form or another from theists across the board, which is part of what makes it feel so familiar. And in the argument itself, that first layer is usually just where things start, because the discussion naturally opens up into deeper layers and a more detailed back-and-forth IF the other side actually knows how to push it there. With a more philosophically trained opponent, the conversation would have quickly moved into deeper questions and more intricate details. And that’s the key point: what made this debate look so decisive wasn’t that some unusually deep argument was introduced, or that the case was presented in a way that was distinctively rooted in the Islamic intellectual tradition, or that it was a head-to-head with a truly formidable, philosophically trained atheist. It’s that the other side wasn’t really in a position to push the discussion past that first, introductory layer into the deeper questions that would normally come next. So the exchange never really reached the part of the conversation where the strongest pushback and the more demanding back-and-forth usually happens. And I think this is where the hype becomes a bit strange. Our tradition has a lot more in it than what was ever going to be needed on that stage against that opponent. We have a long history of sustained, serious scholarship on these questions, and that tradition has layers that only really show up once the discussion gets pressed beyond the basics. When you put these arguments in front of an opponent who actually knows how to navigate them, you’re forced into those deeper layers, and the conversation naturally becomes longer, sharper, more intricate, and more demanding. So when people treat this particular debate, with its straightforward set of standard arguments and an unprepared opponent, as if it’s the kind of thing you can draw big conclusions from about our intellectual tradition, it ends up revealing how low our expectations have become. Not because the arguments are bad, and not because the brother did poorly, but because the bar we are celebrating feels very low compared to what we actually have. And that can be damaging in the long run. It can make us complacent, and it can leave Muslims less prepared for the more demanding discussions that come up today when people know the arguments, know the objections, and are ready to go further than the first layer. It can also give the impression that what is a fairly standard opening set of arguments is anywhere near the peak of what we have, when in reality our tradition is much deeper than that. I think the healthier response is to thank Allah for the benefit and the real good that came from it (especially since this debate has already spread far and will likely keep spreading insha’Allah), and to commend Mufti Shamail for a clear and strong performance. But we really need to tone it down with the over-the-top reactions and grand claims.

@cherokeeowl Simple keep it inside the fridge for few hours and you can slice it out. But it's 100% true. I have done this many times.

Removing Excess Oil From Food 😳

@Farid_0v Its time all duaat condemn this fellow and warn people not to follow this liar.

Quran 6:125 "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best." Haqiqatjou:

@abdul_now So basically corruption has gone into their hearts to an extent that they attributed weaknesses to Allah, but they are keeping Allah in the equation just to make sure they don't miss out on Jannah if and when the Day of judgement happens.

I’m in the middle of translating a Quranic tafsir work these days, and today I was working on verse 76 of Surah Al-Baqarah: “When they meet the believers they say, ‘We believe.’ But when they are alone with one another they say, ‘Will you disclose to the believers the knowledge Allah has revealed to you, so that they may use it against you before your Lord? Have you no sense?’” (2:76) The tafsir explains that this is talking about a specific group from the Jews of Madinah. Their mindset was basically: - They knew from their own scripture that Muhammad ﷺ was a true prophet. - In front of the Muslims they acted supportive and said “we believe”. - But in private they told each other: “Don’t tell the Muslims what is in our book about him, otherwise they’ll use it as proof against us in front of God on the Day of Judgement.” Think about how irrational that is. They’re dealing with the very God who revealed the Book, who knows what’s in their hearts, and who will judge them, yet they’re acting like they can control what He will be allowed to use as evidence against them based on what they reveal in public. You can only think like that if deep down, you’ve flipped the relationship in your head and forgotten who is Lord and who is servant. As I was translating this, I instantly remembered that post by @RabbiShmuley saying: “As we repent this Yom Kippur for our sins, will God repent for His ‘sins’ against the Jewish people?” Talking about God “repenting” for His “sins” against a people is the same upside-down logic we see in the verse: it turns the relationship with God into some kind of debate or court case between equals. Instead of creation standing guilty in front of a perfect Creator, it imagines God as if He were the one on trial, or as if it were a debate between equals. That’s very similar to the mentality exposed in 2:76: trying to manage information and to win arguments against God Himself, as if them keeping the info to themselves changes His knowledge of everything, including their innermost thoughts and intentions. The problem isn’t just theological, it’s basic common sense. And no, I’m not saying that “all Jews” are like this.

@TopDriverIndia more than helmets making sure rear mirrors are there on every bike would be a more proactive approach and it also to do with changing the driving philosophy which has gone beyond redemption in India.

Indian governments’ obsession to focus mainly on 2 road rules, helmet and seatbelt, is the reason why #RoadSafety in India is not progressing since the last two decades. Everyone, from top to bottom, at every Road Safety meet only talks about helmet and seat belt, 🤦🏽‍♂️ Spoiler alert: helmet and seatbelt do NOT prevent any accidents. They do not prevent traffic jams. They MAY prevent death after an accident. Whereas, Driver Education can PREVENT accidents from happening in the first place! Until people get this basic concept Indian road accidents & deaths will continue soaring. @nitin_gadkari #ArriveAliveTG

@fabriziohafizhb @Assimalhakeem True shukr is when you have taqwa. Allah says in Aal Imran 'فَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَ لَعَلَّكُمۡ تَشۡكُرُونَ '. Once you start to have taqwa, your sins reduce automatically and you do lot tawbah istighfar as part of that process, then you doing shukr

@Assimalhakeem السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته. أحسن الله إليكم يا شيخ. How does one strike the balance between shukr (without forgetting that one has many sins) and tawbah (without forgetting that Allāh has given many blessings)?