วีดีโอ

Maslaha. Yeah, like warning the ummah from someone! Whether they are currently listening to them is irrelevant. If the speaker is spreading baatil and there is a reason to mention it then what is the problem? Nobody is saying to stay up all night eating biryani and talking about Hamza Yusuf, are they???

wa alaiykum salaam wa rahmatullah. leave the place where idols are present and pray somewhere where there are no images and idols. go outside the warehouse. what is the purpose of being in this warehouse in the first place?

He is basically saying you can’t warn against certain individuals because you haven’t listened to them. So let’s say a student of knowledge or a scholar comes along who is known to be upon the Quran and Sunnah says don’t listen to a particular speaker and you haven’t listened to that individual this is considered backbiting. The issue with this is I would then have to go and listen to the speaker which could lead to a person being led astray if they themselves don’t have enough knowledge.

The second issue is at no point did he quote a verse from the Quran or anything from the sunnah to back up this principle in the 2 minute clip.

This video is so stupid. The principle is not to bring shubuhat when it is not even an issue. When I already don't listen to someone, bring their name would just cause curiosity or waste time. The people on this channel are simply blind following everything their sheikh tells them and have formed a cult. I advise you to stay away brother.

Assalaamu alaiykum wa rahmatullah. Read and reflect. www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=6292

There is no double standards. You assumed that there was due to listening to people of tamyee' and their evil doubts. If you look into these issues in more detail you will realize your lack of attention to detail. I would advise listening to Abu Iyaad's talk, titled 'the Ideological Attack Against Salafiyyah". Also, refer to the articles on www.manhaj.com. I used to use these same arguments in the past as well until I realized how mistaken I was. BaarakAllahu feek.

@@SalafiDawahNZ Wa alaikum asalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh, I have read the article and I have decided that it is insufficient in defending him on the following two grounds. If you are to reply to me, I request that you answer the following two points yourself and not just give me more article or video links, as it would be unfair to me if I spend my time reading and researching and writing a concise reply but you cannot do the same. 1)They claim that the Sheikh has been misinformed by others and thus states his uncertainity, this is not true, while some of his past statements that were quoted have this, we can find clear evidence where the Sheikh says he KNOWS him well and even if he was surrounded on by all sides, he would say the same, not to mention the fact that the Sheikh has actually spoken to these people and therefore has given them a chance to clarify themselves which they failed to do, thus the claim that the Shiekh is just misinformed is not one of merit. 2) The issue of fatwa: Abu khadeejah firstly says that he did not ENTER in the issue of khula in the mentioned case at all but then admits that they had a paper application form where the woman writes her issues and then SPUBS ask the shuyookh whether she is entitled to khula or not, this is insanity. Sheikh Wasiullah mentions that they should not act a link between the scholars and the people. Thus becoming fatwa givers in a way. b)Furthermore even If the scholars say khula can be given, do these people have the authority to implement this? They do not, yet we find a letter saying "We have dissolved your marriage with your permission(which is necessary anyways but more questions arise on if this permission was validly obtained)" and they admit that they have done this 4 or 5 times in 5 years. c)As for the evidence presented by SPUBS of the letter of the wife, and the claim that it was the husband himself agreeing, we would need to assess the evidence of the other side as well and look to their reply and what they can present, before accepting the claims that are made in the article, blindly accepting the claims is not the right approach. The claim of the other side that I was able to find is summarized as follows: Abu Khadeejah told him that Sheikh Abu Anas gave and ordered the khula, and said: So are you gonna give the khula or not? being under pressure and stressed he said yes, later when he called sheikh Abu Anas and asked him if he had done so, he denied it. Now is the claim of the other side true? I dont know as I dont have all the evidence but the article does not reply to this claim. I mention this only to demonstrate that the article is not freeing Abu Khadeejah of all blame. I will agree that the article does refute some false rumours about them but the article tries to use refuting these clear false rumours as a way to claim everything against them is false, which is not true. Finally, my sincere advise to you is that, you are the one missing the details by only looking at the side of Abu Khadeejah without looking at the other side, be fair and just. It truly saddens me to see brothers who have the right aqeedah and a lot of good, fall into extremes and double standards in criticism. As I have already mentioned, if you are to reply, please clearly and concisely answer the 2 points that I have raised, if you do not do so, then I am not willing to spend more of my time replying. May Allah guide all of us towards his straight path. Wa barakallahu feek.

@@user-tt8qi7tu7l what is the proof the scholar used when refuting abu khadeeja?

Yes. May Allah have mercy on him. Following a madhab is fine. The issue is fanatical taqleed.

@@SalafiDawahNZ the question is for mubtadia who call us madkhali

So has Imam e Kaaba condemned the secularization of Saudi Arabia by Muhammad bin Salman yet?

@@junoon1856 What secularisation? Muhammad Bin Salman himself said Saudi Arabia will ALWAYS be an Islamic state.

U khariji?

And your point is exactly?

Please refer to this video. This specific issue is clarified here. BaarakAllahu feek. th-cam.com/video/LqOEpIZNz7I/w-d-xo.html

Who said it was equal in destructive means????

Criticize the actions without mentioning leaders names. What is our motive? Our motive is to address the action not the personality. What is the importance of mentioning leaders?

Yes, by advising them to their face. This is the way of the Salaf.

WIAM and early Saudi family who revolted against Ottomans khwarij than?

what if he is killing thousands of Muslims? what if he is imprisoning Imams for calling to Islam?

@@yaseencygra2127 Yes, and we are entering the hole made by the Saudis and British where when Muslims yearn for the Khilafah, they are labeled as Khawarij by their own brothers.. even here in Indonesia, the same groups say we are heretic just because we protested to the president because one of the governor who was non-Muslim had insulted the Qur'an..

@@yaseencygra2127 They didn't rebel against the Ottoman empire. That claim is nonsense. The Ottomans did not have authority over the lands of Najd. Each city had its own ruler, generation after generation. When the Saudi state became powerful in the Arabian peninsula then the Ottoman's fought them out of fear. The Ottomans also had superstitions, shrines and Sufi Bidah hence they feared the Saudi state for that which they were upon. Stop parroting silly Takfeeri talking points.

@@caesart9264 Nobody is labelled Khawaaij for yearning for the Khilaafah. Stop lying. They are labelled Khawaarij for making takfeer on the rulers and calling for rebellion against them.

Sadly majority of Muslims know NOTHING about Islam and follow Culture or Most Popular TH-camr. I try advise a sister one time to not take knowledge from Nouman Ali Khan and I gave her evidence she rejected my advice and went on a SHOUTING & SCREAMING rampage. Social media has given EVERY IGNORAMUS a voice they can sit in there Living room in USA / UK and cause a FITNAH thousands of miles away. The TH-camr who in most cases cannot even list the PILLARS of Salah is WORSHIPPED like a God While the ullema that have dedicated 30, 40, 50 years of there lives to seeking knowledge and spreading knowledge are MOCKED and called Wahhabi, Madkhai, Jami, Super Salafi And all kinds of other FOOLISH NAMES

What’s more sad is that 13 people had the urge to like this nonsensical comment!

@@wacayssuleyman2380 whats more is that now it's 16!

Blind followers to the rescue above my comment

@@Randomhandlename whats more is that it's 25!

Ameen

Allah guide you

Shut up dirty extremist madkhali. You even used Muhammed Hijab's words this shows your problem is jealousy

Ameen

@@SalafiDawahNZ Donkey of Birmingham Abu PDF Khadeejah.

Big Shaima had one job to do, which was to make Little Shaima behave!

Yes there liar's

The Abu Lut guy also has connections to daeish. No wonder why he wants to see the Saudi destroyed!

No, we apply verses about mushrikeen on mushrikeen. The Khawaarij make takfeer based on sins not based upon shirk. If the khawaarij had made takfeer based on shirk they would never have been condemned.

@@SalafiDawahNZ well guess what, most of the muslim ummah does tawassul and istighatha, are they mushrikeen or sinners ?

@@SalafiDawahNZ and the khawarij applied verses on mushrikeen to the muslims, this is not words these are the words of ibn omar radiallahu anhu

@@mamadoufarissou7312 Calling on the dead is not tawassul, it is istighaatha and shirk. Those who call on the dead for help are mushriks. Allah says, "Surely, the religion (i.e. the worship and the obedience) is for Allah only. And those who take Auliya' (protectors and helpers) besides Him (say): "We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allah." Verily, Allah will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Truly, Allah guides not him who is a liar, and a disbeliever." [39.3].

@@mamadoufarissou7312 You have taken the narration out of context. Fear Allah. The Khawaarij were condemned because they made takfeer on the basis of sins like drinking alcohol, stealing and zina not shirk.

ARH brought a PRINCIPLE which is "you can not refute someone unless the person is already listening to them". This principle requires evidence because the Messenger salAllahu alaiyhi wasallam said "every principle that is not in the book of Allah is baatil. Did ARH mention this principle? Yes or no?

​@SalafiDawahNZ I hope Allah has cured you of your ignorance and zealousy in the two years it's been since you posted this. The brother us not making up a principle, the scholars they say, من جهل شيء عاداه و أهله, it is from wisdom to not waste time with useless matters. It is from hikmah to not bring shubuhat unnecessarily. It is from hikmah to not feed peoples curiosity by mentioning people they don't even know. I hope Allah has taught you hikmah and to stay away from people of knowledge as their flesh is poisonous.

Even in Madeena university Yasir Qadhi was opposing the way of the Salaf. YQ used to teach his own classes in Madeena when the 'ulamah were giving duroos. A lot of Muslims are just waking up now. A lot of the Salafi tulaabul 'ilm were aware of his mistakes 20 years ago.

Aameen

If you want lectures on seerah akhi then check out these talks by Abu Hakeem Bilal Davis inshaaAllah. One benefit from this lecture series is that the ustadh mentions what the scholars of hadeeth say about the authenticity of certain narrations so you get benefits from the science of hadeeth as well. Highly recommended. soundcloud.com/user-457978149/sets/seerah-of-the-prophet-by-abu

@@SalafiDawahNZ Salam Aleykum, I personally enjoy his aqeedah clssses from 20 something years ago on Peace Tv, do you think he said anything wrong there? Edit: Its called Fundamentals of Faith. JZK.