วีดีโอ

Have you watched the video akhi?

The explanation of this is present in the Tafseer of ibn Katheer with exegesis by Ibn Abbaas R.A. himself. With all due respect, it does not agree with what the Shaykh, R.A., is saying here...

@@hmf33 JazakAllahu khair akhi. Just a question: Do you think the shaykh hasn’t come across this? The in depth explanations for these are found in the books of Aqeedah and Tafsir. There a difference between تعطيل and تبديل. تعطيل - is not Kufr تبديل - Kufr

@@Easyislamictranslations Wa iyaakum. I would imagine he did, rahimahullah. I presented it for myself and for the others, as if we want to follow the correct religion, we should follow that which the Prophet ﷺ and the Salaf were following. And having seen Ibn Abbas's explanation on the ayaat themselves, it would be very difficult for a person to then say that "I agree with the shaykh (and disagree with Ibn Abbas and Ata ibn Abi Rabah)." Because there's no doubt in my mind or should be in the minds of any Muslim that Ibn Abbas was more knowledgeable than the shaykh, rahimahullah, and Ata ibn Rabah was a tabi'ee who transmitted directly from Ibn Abbas, Abu Hurayrah, and Jabir ibn Abdillah, and he was the Grand Mufti of Makkat-ul-Mukarramah in his lifetime. This is not in disrespect to the shaykh, but just in regards to the ayah itself, because if we have exegesis by the Prophet ﷺ or the Salaf, and in this case even a number of them, then we should clearly and respectfully take that over the comments of *anyone who came after them* , be it the scholars of our manhaj or any particular manhaj. Wa barak Allahu feekum.

@@hmf33 Akhi al Kareem. This is a detailed matter that is explained thoroughly in the books about Takfir and Aqeedah and even Tafsir in which I implore you to read and study. First of all akhi, have you studied the asaneed(chain of narrations) of these statements of Ibn Abbas and co, to see if they are authentic? Have you found any conflicting statements from the salaf, or even Ibn Abbas himself? Have you studied the context in which the salaf were speaking about, even if what was attributed to them is authentic? I will give you a quick summary: - Ignoring the Rule of Allah (while the Rule of Allah is the law of the land) due to your whims and desire is NOT kufr (this is the context of the statement of Ibn Abbas R.A if it’s authentic) - Changing or replacing the Rule of Allah is Kufr that takes one out of the religion of Allah, and this is is a matter that no one disagrees with. Just as saying the Maghreb prayer is 4 Rakaat rather than 3. That is kufr Akbar that takes one out of Islam. And likewise with any change to the legislation of Allah, such as saying Zina is halal. This is kufr that takes one out of Islam. Therefore when a Ruler legislates other than what Allah has ruled(this is what the shaykh was speaking about), then this is Kufr Akbar. As he is replacing and changing the law of Allah. Don’t get this confused with not judging by the book of Allah on a few cases due to your whims and desires, or due to a bribe, While the law of Allah is present in the Land and is the official Law of the land. Ibn al Uthaymeen has written about this in detail actually in one of his books, you should look for it.

​@@Easyislamictranslations I understand the examples you have given in the salah and making the haraam halaal etc., but is this what the Shaykh is referring to here? If someone does those things you mentioned of course we would say it's an act of kufr. He is saying one who rules with law other than Allah's rule, or with rule that opposes the shari'ah. Maybe I'm missing something here, is he referring to if a ruler leaves off the shari'ah completely in favor of created laws or only in certain aspects? Wouldn't this disagree with the statements of some of the Salaf? The statements above mention if one rules with other than the rule of Allah while he accepts it as being true. Thus making him a dhaalim and a faasiq but clearly differentiating between that and kufr itself. Of course neither of the former are any good, but the latter is exiting the fold of Islaam which we know is the worst possible outcome, and the worst claim that can be made. So if someone chooses to rule with other than Islam while he holds it as being true, and being a Muslim, he would fall under the categories of a dhaalim and even a faasiq? And this is the same circumstance the Shaykh is talking about here, if I'm not mistaken.

Take all the videos you want. I will upload all my videos to telegram inshAllah. There are like 40 videos or so in my telegram.

Wa Alaykum Al salaam: Mahmood Hasanat

Look at the content of words. Video quality can be researched later

May Allah guide you to have the simple ability to search on TH-cam and google for the original clips of these videos. And May Allah guide you away from Hizbiyyah you’ve fallen into. And May Allah guide you away from the bad assumptions you have of me. And May Allah guide you to actually learn Arabic, Aqeedah and Fiqh. And May Allah guide you away from speaking without knowledge. الله المستعان

@@Easyislamictranslations What Hizbiyyah are you speaking of and where have I even referred to you in the question at all?

@@potassium3550 please refer to your scholars who say in public inkar of the public Munkar: Al Albani th-cam.com/video/WNiwFDAPrkA/w-d-xo.htmlsi=W1zsIKyYVYu-Teig AbdulMushin Al Abbad th-cam.com/video/CC_GdUs9keg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=YGRpUMEdvhdcqDdK Muqbil Ibn Hadi Al Wadii th-cam.com/video/pLSr8_FWL4Q/w-d-xo.htmlsi=-oAcp3LJ-OfBi5n8

Not really they will lie and say he retracted or was taken out of context and carry being munafiqeen. Bar new reverts or the ignorant sincere ones amongst them

They have a new answer these days : it's AI (artificial intelligence). ​@@serk1933

​@@serk1933 You got their manhaj in a nutshell.

@@lucidniprogramer589 I have been observing them for many years

Some child

Where in this video did anyone say he was a scholar?

@@Easyislamictranslations well someone in the comments said the same and that we can't take knowledge from him, but you nearly filled out an article on him in the replies.

@@bjq6148 I think you lack some comprehension skills, he added that: “knowledge can’t be taken from him” therefore the reply was different. You didn’t.

@@Easyislamictranslations thank you for letting me know that, don't mind me asking... how old are you ? because based on your comunication and adaab by texting you seem quite young, if you know what I mean. and yes when that guy in the comments said that we cannot take knowledge from sayd qutb he is right, because he had so many mistakes as he was respectfully refuted by the scholars of his time, one of the points was that he indirectly and directly said that the quran is creation of Allah(ﷻ), but that is a false and dangerous statement to say as Quran is the "SPEECH" of Allah(ﷻ) Not his creation....

@@bjq6148 My adab with your likes is of a harsh nature, yes. And it will remain harsh, as you are harsh with the Muslims, and your religious views are based on Saudi foreign policy. When Saudi had no problem with Syed Qutb, his books were being read in the radio and the Major Salafi scholars had a different view to the treatment of his books. How about you actually to listen too all of Salih al Fawzan, and Albani’s clips about Syed Qutb in the Arabic lanaguge. There are many where they say different to what you say. Let me link a video to Sh. Walid Al Saadani, who is a scholar who opposed the Ikhwan, and anyone that calls for criticising Saudi publicly. He says in the below video, most people when they criticise Syed Qutbs writing expose themselves for their weak Arabic linguistic skills and lack of knowledge in adab(strength in Arabic literature) th-cam.com/video/_1Dre1wQ3R0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=-mFXlCmMxiRi2EXc So please, put your tail between your legs, and actually search for ALL the videos where your scholars speak about Syed Qutb. Not the opinions after Saudi changed their opinion on him and the Ikhwan.

You got to refute Sh Bin Baz, Al Albani, Bakr Abu Zayd who benefitted from his works on this issue then. Even Salih al Fawzan benefitted from his works as he references him in his older works. Furthermore, most of the Sahaba were not scholars. Only 14 of the Sahaba would give fatwa, so by this logic, we shouldn’t take knowledge from the Sahaba there were not scholars. And this is how you unpack and untie your faulty saying. The truth is taken from anyone that comes with it, and falsehood is not taken from anyone even if he’s a scholar.