Salaf Corner

@AbuTankeel Aren't you the same guy who couldn't negate genetalia for Allāh?

For those who don’t know, Farid is a madkhali, But the sururis love madkhalism and then larping on being on the correct manhaj at the same time?

This the guy that got ruined by me making him say Allah doesn’t always exist. Look sheriff has his fair shot at getting his get-back if he wants it. I’m offering @AhmedSheriffdin a formal debate. Same topics I proposed to Mohamed Qasim the coward who agreed to debate AGAIN then BACKED out. Let’s see if he mans up and 🎤 up. It can be on a neutral panel, timed and everything. I’ll make sure he deletes his account since he didn’t feel enough shame saying his God doesn’t always exist.

Chinese Historian Liu Zhī (d. 188 AH) in his account of the Muslim’s who entered China he writes: “They Worship a Deity in Heaven” — The Old Book of Tang (舊唐書) Volume. 198 - Page. 71

The Qurʿān is the Qawl of the Messenger, but it is the Kalām of Allāh ﷻ. It is attributed to Jibril and Muhammad ﷺ only because they conveyed the speech. It is not their speech.

When the British became worried about the growing strength of King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and the Ikhwān, they attempted to form an alliance between Ibn Rashīd and Sharīf Ḥusayn against King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz in order to curb his power. However, King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz was able to stop the British from doing this by writing to the French, forcing the British to remain neutral. ~ Sh Faiṣal al-Jāsim

@UjggD13604 @_mohamedd24 Rise

@UjggD13604 @_mohamedd24 Rise

@_mohamedd24 bro lets people speak we didn’t came here for khutba

@_mohamedd24 @ProjectGuiding

@abuatiyyah_ Is it in arabic? Where is it published or posted?

@atharikitty Al-ʾĪḍāḥ fī Maʿrifaħ al-Masāʾil al-Ṣiḥāḥ

The Sahabah naturally understood tanzih and tawhid and had no need to draw out their weapons (kalam) as there weren't any mujassimah or mushabbihah claiming to be Muslims back then, but when bida' started beginning to appear (such as qadarism), the Sahabah drew out-

@abuismailathari السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

@_mohamedd24 Assalāmu ʿAlaykum

@abuatiyyah_ What pdf

@atharikitty Read my pdf

@abuatiyyah_ Ok then tell me the symmetry breaker between the Ashʿarī belief that creation have no ability to do anything and that Allāh is the only true-doer, and the belief in Jabr.

@atharikitty No

Question for the Habashīs do ʿAlawīs go to Jannah? @abuatiyyah_ @ARAH_Ashari

@abuatiyyah_ The Ashʿariyyah are literally Jabariyyah.

their weapons and refuted them with intellectual arguments. Indeed, Sayyiduna 'Ali رضي الله عنه refuted the Qadariyyah and affirmed a middle path between jabr and qadarism, and after them, the Tabi'in (Abu Hanifah, et al.) drew out their weapons against the mujassimah

Hmmmm..... Wonder how they'll cope with this one 🥱

Today, ʾInʾshāʾAllāh, around 5 PM EST, I will be holding a Space here on X for all these keyboard warriors who are giving the most bizarre and ridiculous answers to the only three tweets I’ve posted. Bring these same responses, the same energy, and any proof you have against my position on this issue, starting with the Salaf and THEN the K͟halaf. I’d love to have a respectful and fruitful in-depth conversation with all these people who disagree with me on the issue of al-Ḥākimiyyah.

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.

Is the at͟har of Ibn ʿAbbās (رضي الله عنهما) on [5:44] not problematic to the K͟hawārij nor contradictory to their creed regarding the issue of Ḥākimiyyah, as they claim? Let us have one of their scholars speak on their behalf (excerpt from my book Faṣlul Qaḍiyah fil-Ḥākimiyyah): Imām Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī narrated in his Tafsīr from Ibn ʿAbbās regarding His statement: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed}, that he said: “Whoever denies the ruling revealed by Allāh has disbelieved, and whoever affirms it but does not rule by it, then he is a thālim and a fāsiq. He said: Whoever denies any of the limits set by Allāh has committed kufr.” Abū ʿAlī al-Anbārī said in his book al-Barāʿah fī Tabyān S͟hirk al-Ṭāʿah: “So if that has been established for you, then know that the statement of Ibn ʿAbbās (رضي الله عنه) and the statement of Imām al-Ṭabarī oppose the apparent meaning of the statement of Allāh, Blessed and Exalted. We can only say as ʿAbd al-Qādir ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz said — and I ask Allāh to guide him — in his book al-Jāmiʿ: ‘This statement — meaning the interpretation of the verse as referring to rejection — contradicts the explicit text of the Qurʾān and Sunnah. For Allāh attached disbelief to abandoning judgment by what Allāh revealed: {And whoever does not judge…}, while Ibn ʿAbbās attached it to rejecting what Allāh revealed. Thus, he established a criterion for the ruling — meaning a cause for the ruling — other than the criterion mentioned in the verse.” For anyone wanting to access the book, the link for it is: ko-fi.com/s/e6cf166ec6

@yusufalashari When you see Allah is what you see created or uncreated?