𝖓𝖆𝖇𝖊𝖊𝖑

Eid Mubarak everyone!

@Simsalabim23890 @wannabemuhadith wa feeka barakAllah

@_nqbeel @wannabemuhadith Ok Akhī Barak Allahu fiik for your time!

While I don’t agree with some of shaykh alwan’s takfiri tendencies, it seems wild to me that basically all the major huffadh amongst the hadith scholars in Saudi are in jail. It’s as if they don’t want those who are well versed in ahadith to be out there speaking to people 🤔🤔

@Simsalabim23890 @wannabemuhadith id recommend u go to someone like @_mohamedd24 on this issue of al-hakimiyyah its a complex topic and it seems to be diverting from the original discussion

@_nqbeel @wannabemuhadith Not praying 5x day, making lawful what is forbidden by ijma and making halal what is haram or haram what is halal, short answer their Religion is Democrasy their World view is Secularism and Democrasy.

@Simsalabim23890 @wannabemuhadith theres no ijma that hajj was a kafir, but what nawaqid do the hukkaam of today have?

@_nqbeel @wannabemuhadith Why did the Salaf made Takfir on Hajjāj him not for killing Sahaba, because killing someone who does not deserve to be killed is harām not kufr? He took jizyāh from non Arab Muslims, and this was for some kufr, so look at his kufr and the kufr of todays hukn They have 40 Naqid

@Simsalabim23890 @wannabemuhadith hajjaj ibn yusuf was an evil ruler who killed people from the salaf in the thousands, some of the salaf even made takfir of him yet the salaf reached ijma khuruj was haram after ibn al ash'ath rebelled against him

@_nqbeel @wannabemuhadith Akhī How can you compare the rulers who supported jihad and Mujahideen and Sharia, and amr bil maruf with todays rulers who most of the rulers who are secular?

@Simsalabim23890 @wannabemuhadith after ibn al ash'ath they reached ijma on this issue being haram and imam ahmad said those who rebel against the ruler are innovators even though the rulers at his time were oppressive, see nawawis sharh on sahih muslim

@_nqbeel @wannabemuhadith If Hussayn Rebelled against Umayyads and Abdallah bin Zubayr also fought against the Umayyads, and Abu Hanifa supported the Alides against Umayyads and Abbasids, then why we can not Rebell against the Family of Saud?

@Simsalabim23890 @wannabemuhadith cool, imam al-awza'i said they tolerated everything from imam abu hanifa except his opinion on khurooj... nawawi, ibn battal, ibn hajar, abu hatim and abu zur'ah, al-bukhari all said there was ijma on the topic of khurooj

@_nqbeel @wannabemuhadith Abu Hanifa supported Zayd bin Aliyy Abu Hanifa supported Muhammad Al-Nafs Al-Zakiyyah against Abbasids

@Simsalabim23890 @wannabemuhadith this doesnt have anything to do with what i said, if ur inciting violence against a muslim state theyre gonna arrest you, its not because they dont like scholars but because of the issue i just discussed

@_nqbeel @wannabemuhadith Hmm Okay, if you call to Violonce or make Violonce you have automatically Problem with the State, makes sense, what about the hadīth; "You will fight the Arabian Peninsula, then Persia, then Rome..." if you this whas when the Prophet conquert whole Arabia, afte Abu Bakr most Arab

@equipmenttree1 @wannabemuhadith he literally called the so-called jaamiyyah "jahmiyyah" he misrepresented the view of ibn 'abbas in hakimiyyah as well, the praise of any scholar doesnt change his views

@_nqbeel @wannabemuhadith Had Sulayman Alwan been takfiri , he would have not been praised by kibar scholars like Sh al Barrak , Sh al Rajihi , Sh Al Ghunaiman , Sh Abdulkarim al Khudair , Sh Ibn Jibrin and so many more ulema years after his jail time x.com/equipmenttree1…

@Simsalabim23890 @wannabemuhadith fawzan doesnt incite violence or support those organisations or takfir the rulers even some scholars with the "takfiri" view in hakimiyyah like sh. al barrak and sh. al umayri arent arrested because theyre still not actual takfiris who incite violence

@_nqbeel @wannabemuhadith Fawzān was also having takfiri, he was praising ikhwān? Why did the Saudi Kibg accept his change, even do i do not knos that he made a tawbah statement like Sh. Ali Al-Khudayr and Sh. Nasir Al-Fahd, has Fawzān privelege and why?

Christians often critique Muslims when pointing out passages in the OT&NT about the prophet Mohammed ﷺ because we “cherry pick”. If that is not an acceptable standard of prophecy, why does Matthew himself “cherry pick” Hosea to FORCE Biblical Jesus to fulfill messianic prophecy when the very next verse in Hosea states this son sacrifices to BAAL?!?! Christians, what’s up with the hypocrisy? 🤐

New video! Aisha's Age: Burying the Objection

“We aren’t allowed to criticize Islam” said the British man at the yearly Islam criticism rally.

Subhān Allāh, what kind of fiqh saqīm is this? Does ʿUthmān ibn Farooq seriously think that after over 1400 years of Islām, the Ummah was waiting for him to come along and make this “discovery” that the hadīth says “his brother,” and therefore striking a non-Muslim in the face is somehow free game? As if the scholars of Islām, the fuqahāʾ, the people of ḥadīth, the people of uṣūl never noticed the wording until he magically uncovered it? The prohibition of striking the face is not restricted only to the Muslim. There are multiple aḥādīth that prohibit striking the face in a general, unrestricted manner! They come with wording that is muṭlaq and ʿāmm, covering whoever is struck, whether Muslim or non-Muslim. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “If one of you fights, let him avoid the face.” And he (peace be upon him) said: “If one of you strikes, let him avoid the face.” And he (peace be upon him) said: “If one of you strikes, let him avoid the face, for Allāh created Ādam upon His image.” And he (peace be upon him) said: “If one of you strikes, let him avoid the face, and let him not say: May Allāh disfigure your face.” These narrations are all sahih, and are not restricted to “your Muslim brother.” They are general. They establish a broad prohibition against striking the face. Not only that, but the prohibition even applies to animals! It is narrated from Jābir that the Prophet (peace be upon him) passed by an animal that had been branded on its face, with smoke coming from its nostrils. The Prophet said: “May Allāh curse the one who did this. None of you should touch the face or strike it.” So if even an animal is not to be struck on the face, then how does someone come along and claim that if a human being is a non-Muslim, then his face is suddenly halāl to strike!? Subhān Allāh. And what does that even mean practically? Are we now saying that any non-Muslim can be punched, slapped, or struck in the face just because of the fact that he is not Muslim? Can people go around striking random non-Muslims in the street because “the hadīth only said brother”? Is this the kind of foolish logic being spread publicly? The fuqahāʾ are agreed that the face is generally not to be struck. Consensus has been transmitted by scholars such as al-Qurṭubī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Ibn Qudāmah, al-Shawkānī, and others that striking the face is prohibited. ʿUthmān needs to fear Allāh and know his limits. Not every person with a platform is qualified to speak in every matter. He has been making one blunder after another, spreading odd and outlandish verdicts that many layman may follow. And if people follow these reckless takes, then he must fear that their misguidance and harm will be placed on his scale of bad deeds until he retracts and repents from them. Fame is a fitna. Ever since he has been increasingly involved with influencers, public figures, and online personalities, he seems to keep compromising or making some of the mindless takes in fiqh and fatāwā. The religion is taken from the texts collectively, upon the understanding of the salaf, with uṣūl, .. and give me one legitimate scholar that ever preceded you with such a fatwa? May Allāh guide us and protect the Muslims from speaking about His religion without knowledge. - Abū Islām al-Salafī al-Misrī ___ @gemshaykhuthman @abu_kutub

@notbundlecandy @accounusername @abuatiyyah_ t and f both have crosses in them so it's like how in israel they don't write + cus it's a cross

@accounusername @abuatiyyah_ WhaT is The poinT oF Typing like This.

Shaykh al-ʾIslām, Qāḍī al-Quḍāḫ, Taqī al-Dīn ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-Kāfī ibn ʿAlī ibn Tammām al-Subkī al-Khazrajī al-ʾAnṣārī (d. 756 AH): “Tawassul, istiʿānaḫ, and tashaffuʿ by the Prophet (ﷺ) to his Lord is good, and none from the Salaf nor Khalaf have denounced it.”

@grok Omg @RichardDawkins

Our brother Mohamed (known as M24) has recently published a book that deals with all topics regarding hakimiyyah and comprehensively breaks the topic down. The book is available for purchasing using the link on the screen.

@RichardDawkins Looks at the universe, sees no God. Looks at a midwit opinion generator, thinks it's conscious.

@ARAH_Ashari @aymanvro 2/2 so you could say why is Allah X size and not Y but this goes nowhere, this is simply brute, and it couldnt have been otherwise

@ARAH_Ashari @aymanvro lol the salafi position is that Allah has all his sifaat dhaatiyyah necessarily, this is essential to Allah, Allah's reality could not have been otherwise as he said. simply being able to conceive of a deity of another size means nothing here 1/2

If Allah has a size, according to the wahhabiyah, it is any size as long as it is bigger than the throne, if that's the case, then that which has a size is reliant upon a specifier that made it have those sizes.