I actually agree with the Shaykh on this point. However, to call this a ‘critical analysis’ is far fetched. The man is driving while discussing this (lol this is a cheeky dig, not serious) A critical analysis would entail bringing the Hanafi precedence in full detail with analysis of the texts. Likewise, to bring the texts of other madhhabs too. And also to bring in usul points that tie into this issue, and even legal principles. Looking at both sides of the argument and also providing a preference based on what was discussed in detail. That would be a critical analysis.
It's so hard to listen to Ismail Ibrahim, he's just so deficient in basic fundamental knowledge and, really, basic logic, or he intentionally chooses to appear so.
@@Wassalaam92I don't have time to go back and listen closely after this time. I just skimmed through quickly to give you some ideas to think about. He makes this logical leap of taking two separate things- (1) whether Khutbah has to be in Arabic (meaning entire khutbah) and (2) what the minimum length of the khutbah is and mashing them together as "English khutbah with the minimum length of Arabic in it is therefore valid" and doesn't even realize (or acknowledge) that he's done any logical manipulation there. He then takes the further step of basically ascribing this same logical leap, with absolutely no proof to Mufti Taqi Usmani, and his whole point with regards to the book is, "oh, he's not talking about these English khutbahs, because he must only be talking about 100% English khutbah with absolutely no Arabic in it." Like, do you not see how mentally retarded that is? Can he not take a step back and see that obviously neither Mufti Taqi Usmani, neither the classical scholars were obviously talking about that given that no one ever has ever suggested or discussed 100% in a different language khutbah. According to his logic, when reading the Qur'aan in the prayer, it should be acceptable to recite just 3 aayahs of the surah in Arabic and then the rest in English, and he won't even acknowledge that it is his logic that is leading to this conclusion, but will talk about it as if that is actually what the classical scholars are saying.
![Shaykh Abdul Aziz Bin Baz [RA]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XJtG7a82R_E/mqdefault.jpg)
I actually agree with the Shaykh on this point. However, to call this a ‘critical analysis’ is far fetched. The man is driving while discussing this (lol this is a cheeky dig, not serious)
A critical analysis would entail bringing the Hanafi precedence in full detail with analysis of the texts. Likewise, to bring the texts of other madhhabs too. And also to bring in usul points that tie into this issue, and even legal principles.
Looking at both sides of the argument and also providing a preference based on what was discussed in detail. That would be a critical analysis.
It’s disliked so avoid it, the sahabah when around the the world and not once it’s proven that it’s been given in non Arabic
It's so hard to listen to Ismail Ibrahim, he's just so deficient in basic fundamental knowledge and, really, basic logic, or he intentionally chooses to appear so.
Can you provide examples from this video?
@@Wassalaam92I don't have time to go back and listen closely after this time. I just skimmed through quickly to give you some ideas to think about. He makes this logical leap of taking two separate things- (1) whether Khutbah has to be in Arabic (meaning entire khutbah) and (2) what the minimum length of the khutbah is and mashing them together as "English khutbah with the minimum length of Arabic in it is therefore valid" and doesn't even realize (or acknowledge) that he's done any logical manipulation there. He then takes the further step of basically ascribing this same logical leap, with absolutely no proof to Mufti Taqi Usmani, and his whole point with regards to the book is, "oh, he's not talking about these English khutbahs, because he must only be talking about 100% English khutbah with absolutely no Arabic in it."
Like, do you not see how mentally retarded that is? Can he not take a step back and see that obviously neither Mufti Taqi Usmani, neither the classical scholars were obviously talking about that given that no one ever has ever suggested or discussed 100% in a different language khutbah.
According to his logic, when reading the Qur'aan in the prayer, it should be acceptable to recite just 3 aayahs of the surah in Arabic and then the rest in English, and he won't even acknowledge that it is his logic that is leading to this conclusion, but will talk about it as if that is actually what the classical scholars are saying.
Please provide counter argument so we understand other side of argument.
I'm no advocate of Ismail Ibrahim, but it poor form to make accusations without evidence.