luciana lechineski

The Rape Gang Inquiry Report. bit.ly/4uE5odw

I was told by the Ikhwah before I came on X that “the K͟hawārij on there are very, very stupid” which is no different from the K͟hawārij that I deal with on the platforms that I am active on. They are all programmed to have the same responses to the proofs from the Salaf and even their own scholars against them, such as: “These are general at͟hār,” “not about legislation/man-made laws” etc. However, the tweets I am making are in chronological order to their copes: first, you show what the Salaf said, then you wait for their copes, then you respond to the copes. This approach stems from my Telegram channel: t.me/Khawarij1 And my book: ko-fi.com/s/e6cf166ec6 Both of which were made in a style of rudūd (refutations). However, we will respond to these copes biʾit͟hnillāh. Did the Salaf not speak about man-made laws and not view them as kufr dūna kufr? (Excerpt from my book Faṣlul Qaḍiyah fil-Ḥākimiyyah): “The third issue: The explicit statements of the Salaf that ruling by man-made laws is not disbelief in its origin. This narration breaks the backbone of the K͟hawārij. Ibn Abī Ḥātim narrated in his Tafsīr from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam regarding the statement of Allāh تعالى: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then they are the disbelievers}, that he said: ‘Whoever rules by a book that he wrote with his own hand, and leaves the Book of Allāh, and claims that this book of his is from Allāh – then he has disbelieved..’ So reflect on how he explicitly mentioned ‘writing a book by one’s hand’ — which is the very essence of man-made legislation — yet he did not declare it disbelief except with the condition of his statement: ‘and claims that this book is from Allāh.’ Therefore, the “fa” in ‘then he has disbelieved’ is causative according to the grammarians and uṣūl scholars, and it came as the response to the condition, which indicates that merely writing and replacing without this claim is not disbelief that expels one from the religion. Once again their scholar Abū ʿAlī al-Anbārī, after quoting this narration from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam, concedes and admits from the outset that the narration pertains to legislation and contains an explicit requirement of three conditions. He said: ‘Whoever writes a book with his own hand and abandons the Book of Allāh… Notice the conditions and restrictions they placed: the first condition is that he himself formulated legislation; the second condition is abandoning the Sharʿ of Allāh, Blessed and Exalted; the third condition is attributing what he wrote to Allāh and claiming that this is the ruling of Allāh, Blessed and Exalted. So when we came to these noble ones — al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, al-Suddī, and Ibn Zayd — they said that it is required that he write it and attribute what he wrote to Allāh, Blessed and Exalted.’ Then he said: ‘This statement contradicts the reason for the revelation of the verse.’ And in this admission is a profound proof, since their own scholar acknowledges that al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, al-Suddī, and Ibn Zayd — who are from the Imāms of the Salaf — were speaking on this issue with complete awareness and explicit conditions. Thus, the claim of the K͟hawārij falls apart that the Salaf were unaware of the issue of legislating man-made laws. Rather, their own scholar testifies against them that the Salaf understood this issue and established conditions and restrictions for. I’d love to see the response of the K͟hawārij to their scholar al-Anbārī admitting that the Salaf held the “Madk͟halī” position that attribution to Allāh is what constitutes kufr, and I truly hope it is not simply, “He’s wrong,” just to brush the doubt off.

@C_Reilly5 You still have time to delete this

Feels like a SCHWARBOMB(S) tonight. Here is my @betPARX pick of the day @WagerGames1