ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Exposing Bro Hajji & Yasir Qadhi - Did Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab Rebel Against The Ottoman Empire?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 พ.ค. 2021
- Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab didn’t rebel against the Ottoman Empire because he was never under the Ottoman Empire. Najd was ruled by many different Arab tribes and Mohammed Ibn Saud was the governor of his own land. Mohammed Ibn Saud fighting the Ottomans wasn’t khuruj, it was two states going to war with each other. But of course misguided callers like Bro Hajji and Yasir Wadhi will continue to spread their lies.
The irony is that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab was from the scholars who actually affirmed the ijma or hearing and obeying the ruler and if he is oppressive.
Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab didn’t rebel against the Ottoman Empire because he was never under the Ottoman Empire. Najd was ruled by many different Arab tribes and Mohammed Ibn Saud was the governor of his own land. Mohammed Ibn Saud fighting the Ottomans wasn’t khuruj, it was two states going to war with each other. But of course misguided callers like Bro Hajji and Yasir Qadhi will continue to spread their lies.
The irony is that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab was from the scholars who actually affirmed the ijma of hearing and obeying the ruler even if he is oppressive, but that’s something they’ll never tell you.
@@Muslim-87 After the Ottomans found out what was going on in the Arabian peninsula, they sent an army lead by Ibrahim Pasha and massacred the scholars of najd and sold their women in the Egyptian slave markets. Even Bro Hajji and Dilly Hussein admitted this.
The Ottomans were grave worshipping sufis whilst the scholars of najd were fighting for tawheed. Of course they were gonna clash at some point.
@@Muslim-87 Abdurrahman Al Jabarti is an Egyptian historian who lived who during the time that this happened, he talks about the women from najd who were kidnapped and sold in the slave markets of Cairo. He discusses this in his book عجائب الآثار في التراجم والأخبار.
@@Muslim-87 The name of the book is عجائب الآثار في التراجم والأخبار
@@ibmsulaymani thanks for this reply, so why did the Ottomans send a army if Saud and co did not rebel?
@@kasper52173 Because they saw the Dawah of tawheed as a threat
The Mujaddid, Muhammad ibn Abdulwahab was from the scholars who is known by the people of knowledge to transmit and affirm the consensus regarding obeying the oppressive Muslim leadership. Absolutely nothing from his life and mission contradicts that.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez al-‘Abd al-‘Lateef said:
*Some opponents of the salafi da’wah claim that Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebelled against the Ottoman Caliphate, thus splitting the jamaa’ah (main body of the Muslims) and refusing to hear and obey (the ruler).*
We will mention some of the false accusations that were made against the Shaykh, and will refute them.
The Shaykh said in his letter to the people of al-Qaseem: “I believe that it is obligatory to hear and obey the leaders of the Muslims, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they do not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah. Whoever has become Caliph and the people have given him their support and accepted him, even if he has gained the position of caliph by force, is to be obeyed and it is haraam to rebel against him.” Majmoo’at Mu’allafaat al-Shaykh, 5/11
And he also said:
*One of the main principles of unity is to hear and obey whoever is appointed over us even if he is an Abyssinian slave…”* Majmoo’ah Mu’allafaat al-Shaykh, 1/394; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 233-234.
_Obey rulers!_ including those *elected through Liberal Democratic System, govern by Secular Laws?* 🙄
_Obey rulers!_ including those *elected through Liberal Democratic System, govern by Secular Laws?* 🙄
Hold on what is going on here! Was this brother reading something or he swallowed those books
Just mashaallah man. Mashaallah tabarakallah.
That first podcast host loves calling deviant people onto his platform. Wonder why he never calls the other side to show a more balanced view. Even I was told Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab rebelled, but to rebel you have to be under the rule of the Ottomans and upon VERY little research I did, it was clear the Saudi Najd wasn't even under the control of Ottomans.
He invited salafi brothers on to this podcast he said none of them responded
@@squidguard1Sis Hajji, A.H al Somali, Y.Qadhi all sufi and all madkhali and shia ashari/maturidis are all kuffar without exception. Abdulwahab may Allah have mercy kn him is free from these tawageet and grave/human worshippers enemies of Allah. They all will be gathered in hellfire eternally.
heck the maps, everyone. Sauds unified the fragmented arabia., that was not part of ottomaans.
May Allah guide bro hajji to the sunnah
Ameen
capitalize A in Allah my younger brother.
May Allah guide him or disable him and his dawa. Amin!
@@falsesectslikeshiaarejudeo6543 ameen
@@scoobydo4528 if I feel like it.
Subhan’Allah
Correct me if I’m wrong
Did our prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him not say a time will come when scholars are no more, people will take knowledge from people who sit on sofas who will lie or have no clue
You're mixing up two 3 hadith into one.
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Years of treachery will come over people in which liars are believed and the truthful are denied, the deceitful are trusted and the trustworthy are considered traitors, and the disgraceful will deliver speeches.” It was said, “Who are the disgraceful?” The Prophet said, “Petty men with authority over the common people.”
Source: Sunan Ibn Mājah 4036
Abdullah ibn Amr reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Verily, Allah does not withhold knowledge by snatching it away from his servants, but rather he withholds knowledge by taking the souls of scholars, until no scholar remains and people follow ignorant leaders. They are asked and they issue judgments without knowledge. Thus, they are astray and lead others astray.”
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 100, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2673
The last hadith is reference of the Quranists and those that reject the sunnah
Al-Miqdam ibn Ma’di reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “I have surely been given the Quran and something like it along with it. Soon the time is come when a man will recline on his couch, saying: Only follow the Quran, make lawful what you find in it as lawful and outlaw what you find in it as unlawful.”
Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 4604
@@IbrahimKhalil-bt9yh Jazakh’Allah khayr
@@sajidmahmood4238 wa iyyak ya akhi
@@IbrahimKhalil-bt9yh plz explian the last one i do not under stand it, what does he mean something like that long with it.
@@mohammedkhan2303 the sunnah
The noble shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab رحمه الله propagated his dawah towards Sham, Iraq, Egypt and other lands where the Ottoman Empire had its territory, and those who followed him fought against the Ottomans in Karbala and elsewhere, and it was justified from beginning to end. It is not a secret that the Ottoman state was a state of kufr and shirk, of Sultans who violated Tawhid Hakimiyyah and comitted shirk by making du'a to the awliya' and to the Prophet ﷺ, and comitted the bid'ahs of shrines and building atop the graves, the shaykh was entirely justified in fighting these dreadful Ottoman murtadeen.
These countries you mentioned live worst than the Slaves of the ancient Egypt
@@Noxcho-li8pn Living under tyrants like Bashar al-Assad, no wonder
Was this grave worship and praying to dead people a state-sponsored practice?
@@idrea43 Yes, and many among their sultans took part in such practices too
@@fedpostah Dang
Where were the scholars
This is wrong. In 4:26 he says Ibn Abdul Wahab and al Saud we’re not under the Ottoman State, but they were. You have to be just and get the facts correct. Ustadh Abd Rahman was wrong here. The ottomans ruled from Istanbul all the way up to Egypt, the levant, the Hijaz, the balkans, Anatolia, Shaam, and even up to Libya. Ibn Abdul wahhab was a resident in Medina, were the ottomans ruled, not to mention that whole region was under the Ottoman rule were Ottoman governer ruled.
Ibn Abdul Wahhab was in najd, he never even conquered medina in his lifetime. The Ottomans didn’t control najd, during the lifetime of Ibn Abdul Wahhab.
Wrong ottomans only had control superficially. Yes the najd areas fell under their banner but they had no control there. Historically najd area was ruled by local rulers.
@@no_doubt the sahabahs killed people, the ottomans killed people, people kill people what are you saying?
@@no_doubt Instead of going to these deviant websites how about you go open the book and read it
@@roneddy
No not even under their banner, Nejd was independent
Funny how here people try to say, hey he couldn't have done it because he was in a city not ruled by the Ottomans. Almost feels like a bad joke. It's like saying some Arab countries did not support US illegal wars in the Middle East. They couldn't have because their country was not ruled by the US or the victim country was also not a part of it. Everyone knows these days how dirty war is and that it comes from greed. There are always a loud handful of Arabs, even religious ones that are not happy that the Caliph was not an Arab. This racism still exists as I have spoken to some religious Arab brothers who try to claim somehow being an Arab is special 🤔. This and other differences exists from history to today. Just as historic, religious and cultural differences exist between different people of any area. Add this together dirty politics, we will have the term, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". This term exists today and it was there with Wahhab. Countries always use one Muslim against another to weaken the more powerful one and they never initially work openly with them. And we know how the process spreads and the damage it does. Its politics ABC for kids.
Many of the wars fought are never as clear as black and white. So to try and bring view points or references from supporters of Salaf movement to support their own scholar is kinda not the best way to go about it. Even if you check IslamQA, instead of proving the innocence of Abdul Wahhab, they try to claim it can't be because this or that scholar said "from he knows".. Reasons followed.
But that is more of something politicians would say to just claim something from the knowledge they have at the moment, not from other facts that they have not read. You can see the US govt spokesperson talk similarly every week to news reporters on their weekly briefing.
I guess the fact we are seeing more Salafs try to defend themselves is a good thing as more and more Muslims around the world realise that they are following an ideology of people who worked against the Turkish Ottoman Caliphate and openly fought with the British against the Ottomans. As the discussions and debates continue, more people will start doing their research out of Salaf circle, making it hard for them to control the historic narrative to try and protect their historical crimes against the Ottoman Empire.
Stop the cap, go study islam and learn what khurooj is. The Ottomans brutally murdered Najdis for years. The Ottomans attacked the Najd state first. And you coming up with scenarios that don't make any sense and even bring racism in it. Its always the ignorant fool who speak like children. The Saudi rulers never were interested in wealth, they were interested in Islaam and spreading Islaam and warning against Shirk. And the Ottoman state didn't like that and labeled the Saudi state as Khawarij while they were the bloodshedders
Jazak Allahu Khayr for refuting this ignorance, I remember you refuted similar ignorance from bro kariji and yasir fadi.
this is not him i think
the brother in the video has his own channel
Brother can you give me the full video?
Perhaps it's hot seat podcast episode about "obeying the rulers" , it's about 11 hours long plus another 2-3 hour additional vde o
أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ
like man before i even knew Ibn Abdul Wahhab i knew ottomans never ever ruled najd of today
only after Ibn Abdul Wahhab like 100 year thy ruled there for a very short time
But is it not true that the students and followers of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab had done khuruj against Ottoman Empire later after his death ?.And what you will says about attacking mecca when it was ruled by Sharif.Is it was right according to your principles ?
Kindly explain me.
It was not khuruj, please watch the video. If you’ve already watched it, watch it again.
Brother they didn't say anything regarding the next generations and followers of Muhammad bin Abdul wahab who attacked other part of Arabs which were in the control of Ottoman.
"With the aid of the Ikhwan, Ibn Saud captured al-Hasa from the Ottomans in 1913."
Source :Mohamed Zayyan Aljazairi (1968). "Diplomatic history of Saudi Arabia, 1903-1960's" (PDF). University of Arizona. p. 26. Retrieved 29 November 2020.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Arabia#/media/File:Arabia_1914.png ..
@@Believer99999 Yes they captured Ottoman territory, that’s not khuruj, that’s war.
@@beinghuman185 Generally because they are stateless criminals, 2 they slander against leaders.
@@warrior7730 to know an Islamic gov, learn what's Islam or a Muslim.
A man with exceeding white clothes and black hair came to the Prophet peace and blessings on him and said what is Islam? And the 5 pillars were mentioned - Shahadatain, 5 salat, Fasting in Ramadan, Zakat and Hajj! - This guides the Community! Then was asked what is Iman/faith? - 6 pillars were mentioned, Beleif in Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Prophet/Messengers, The Last Day and the Qadr or Divine Decree. - This guides the individual. Then was asked what is Ihsan? - It is to worship Allah knowing He sees you as though you see him. Then is goes into the signs of the last day, though not mentioned in this hadith its the kawarij being with dajjal - and the kawarij will be refuted here - In sha Allah.
~~~
An Islamic state is run by a Muslim, Who upholds 5 pillars of Islam and 6 pillars of Iman which is in a way linked to the first pillar of Islam.
proof: Ibn Umar said to Qadriya your deeds won't be accepted.
Taf. Ibn Kathir says Ibn Abbas on Qur'an 5 :44 - if you affirm the law and then error even on desire, it is fisq or minor disbelief.
2 sign of Second pillar is calling of the Athan, - If the Athan was heard the Sahabas Radiyallahu anhum would not invade. This matches the hadith don't fight your rulers as long as they pray.
Narrated Humaid:
Anas bin Malik said, "Whenever the Prophet (ﷺ peace and blessings on him) went out with us to fight (in Allah's cause) against any nation, he never allowed us to attack till morning and he would wait and see: if he heard Adhan he would postpone the attack and if he did not hear Adhan he would attack them. "Anas added, "We reached Khaibar at night and in the morning when he did not hear the Adhan... he said, "Allahu-Akbar! Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned."
Sahih al-Bukhari 610, Call to Prayers (Adhaan)
...
So in this sense this is the Minimum outwardly. The rest is Ihsan and corrected by Dawa!
3 Zakat was collected, Yes Abu Bakr fought the people who withheld Zakat however among some of them was Musailimah al Dajjal and was Zakat given personally during Uthman Radiyallahu anhu's time?
4 Fasting is a special act of worship with Allah that one does personally.
5 Hajj is only done in Saudiyah.
We Advice the rulers and aid them differently then the common folk in hadith :
The Prophet (ﷺ peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The deen (religion) is naseehah (advice, sincerity). “To Allah, His Book, His Messenger, and to the leaders of the Muslims and their common folk.”
- 40 Hadith Nawawi [Muslim]
There are the 5 protected pillars in Shariah - Din, Life, Mind, Family and Wealth.
~~~
For a judge, if ijtihad is correct its 2 rewards, if he is wrong he gets one reward. - so after affirming the law, if they error they still get a reward, so its not an Aqida issue...
Allah rewards those who strive.
2 common doubts they use.
A1) Deals with non Muslims rulers
B1) Using customs of people.
Answers
A2) Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings on him did make deals with non Muslims like Hudaibiyah or in Medina, Qur'an 8 :72 etc.
B2) Customs if they don't oppose other aspects of shari'a are ok and even apart of basic fiqh. Example in divorce customs is used for some of the payments... - so are the kawarij going to say marriage is not apart of Islamic law - when marriage is half our din?
This shows how colosally ignorant the kawarij are!
~~~
Sum : Islam gov. is by a Muslim holding to 6 pillars of Iman, affirms sharia in whole as Iman in Qur'an, incl. deals of rulers (hudaibiya) & customs (nika), ruling errors don't negate Iman (Ibn Abbas Q 5 :44), & call to salat via Athan is minimum via salaf! Rest is "Ihsan" in a sense or prefection corrected by dawa and not kawarij bida sin fighting.
There is ijma (Muhajir & Ansar / Qur'an 9 :100) not to rebel against a Muslim ruler, even if they take over.
Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said: You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he was a Ethiopian (slave)....... and Hadith continues. - Bukhari 7142 and it’s a ijma (consensus) to not rebel against Muslim ruler.
I don't believe he rebelled against ottoman faith and caliphate. Tho his successors took baghdad and also laid seige on medina.
What's with the pillow, have some dignity brother, sit properly bro
Bro Hajji used a lot of hizbut tahrir arguments, he might be grooming muslims towards hizbut tahrir slyly
@@Muslim-87 go listen to hizbut tahrir's dawah and arguments they make, they use the same kalam. And his boy dilly is connected with people from hizbut tahrir. I don't have a link for you on stand by right now though
@@Muslim-87 go ask hajji about his stance on HT
@@Muslim-87 oh you follow him you say, maybe a week ago your boy dilly had a sufi, ikhwani and HT member on his podcast. I don't even follow these guys but I'm more aware of their circle of deviants than you are. May Allah wake you up
@UChch72lz6aAuiD0oherbG-Q by the way akhi your playlists with women's ASMR seem haram... Allahul musta'an
@UChch72lz6aAuiD0oherbG-Q by the way akhi your playlists with women's ASMR seem haram... Allahul musta'an
Not forgetting to mention that the Ottoman Empire was an illegitimate so-called “caliphate”.
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ يُونُسَ، حَدَّثَنَا عَاصِمُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، سَمِعْتُ أَبِي يَقُولُ، قَالَ ابْنُ عُمَرَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم: «لاَ يَزَالُ هَذَا الأَمْرُ فِي قُرَيْشٍ مَا بَقِيَ مِنَ النَّاسِ اثْنَانِ»
Aḥmad bin Yūsuf narrated to us, ʿAaṣim bin Muḥammad narrated to us [saying]: I heard my father saying: Ibn ʿUmar said that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said:
This matter [of the Caliphate] will remain amongst the Quraysh even if only two people are left.
• Collected by al-Bukhārī in his Ṣaḥīḥ (7140); by Muslim in his Ṣaḥīḥ (1820); by aṭ-Ṭabarānī in his al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr (19/338); by al-Bayhaqī in his Sunan al-Kubrā (5296)
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ أَبِي الْأَسَدِ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي بُكَيْرُ بْنُ وَهْبٍ الْجَزَرِيُّ قَالَ: قَالَ لِي أَنَسُ بْنُ مَالِكٍ: أُحَدِّثُكَ حَدِيثًا مَا أُحَدِّثُهُ كُلَّ أَحَدٍ، إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَامَ عَلَى بَابِ الْبَيْتِ وَنَحْنُ فِيهِ، فَقَالَ: «الْأَئِمَّةُ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ»
Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar narrated to us, Shuʿbah narrated to us, from ʿAlī Abī ’l-Asad that he said: Bukayr bin Wahb al-Jazarī narrated to me that he said: Anas bin Mālik said to me: I will tell you a narration which I tell everyone, that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ rose above the door of the house and we were in it, so he said:
The imāms are [to be] from Quraysh.
• Collected by Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal in his Musnad (12307) and it was classed as ṣaḥīḥ by Shuʿayb al-Arnā‘ūṭ in his footnotes of Musnad Aḥmad (19/318); Also collected by aṭ-Ṭayālisī in his Musnad (2133); by Ibn ʿAsākir in his Tārīkh Dimashq (61/12-13); by al-Bayhaqī in his Sunan al-Kubrā (16318). It was classed as ṣaḥīḥ by Muḥammad Nāṣir ud-Dīn al-Albānī in his Irwā‘ al-Ghalīl (2/298).
Ibn Ḥazm aẓ-Ẓāhirī said in his al-Fiṣl fī il-Milal wa’l-Ahwā' an-Nihal (4/74)
وَهَذِه رِوَايَة جَاءَت مَجِيء التَّوَاتُر وَرَوَاهَا أنس بن مَالك وَعبد الله ابْن عمر بن الْخطاب ومعوية وَرُوِيَ جَابر بن عبد الله وَجَابِر بن سَمُرَة وَعبادَة بن الصَّامِت...
And this narration has been massively-transmitted (tawātur). It was was narrated by Anas bin Mālik, ʿAbdullāh bin ʿUmar bin al-Khaṭṭāb, Jābir bin Samurah, and ʿUbādah bin aṣ-Ṣāmit.
-End quote
Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī said in his Fatḥ al-Bārī (7/32):
وَقَدْ جَمَعْتُ طُرُقَهُ عَنْ نَحْوِ أَرْبَعِينَ صَحَابِيًّا...
And I have gathered its routes from forty companions.
-End quote
Abū Zakariyyā an-Nawawī said in his Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (12/200):
هَذِهِ الْأَحَادِيثُ وَأَشْبَاهُهَا دَلِيلٌ ظَاهِرٌ أَنَّ الْخِلَافَةَ مُخْتَصَّةٌ بِقُرَيْشٍ لَا يَجُوزُ عَقْدُهَا لِأَحَدٍ مِنْ غَيْرِهِمْ وَعَلَى هَذَا انْعَقَدَ الْإِجْمَاعُ فِي زَمَنِ الصَّحَابَةِ فَكَذَلِكَ بَعْدَهُمْ وَمَنْ خَالَفَ فِيهِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ أَوْ عَرَّضَ بِخِلَافٍ مِنْ غَيْرِهِمْ فَهُوَ مَحْجُوجٌ بِإِجْمَاعِ الصَّحَابَةِ وَالتَّابِعِينَ فَمَنْ بَعْدَهُمْ بِالْأَحَادِيثِ الصَّحِيحَةِ .
These narrations and their likes are apparent evidences that the Caliphate is specifically for Quraysh. It is not permissible for it be held by anyone other than them. And a consensus was held upon this in the time of the Companions and after them; whoever disagrees is from the people of innovation. Or displays disagreement from other than them - then he is refuted by the consensus of the Companions and the Tābiʾeen and whoever followed them in the authentic narrations.
-End quote
@----
The Saudi Kingdom never declared themselves as a Caliphate.
So if all the caliphates are illegitimate than that would mean Salahuddin shouldn’t have liberated Jerusalem or the Islamic expansion into Spain and constantople shouldn’t have happen if the qurasyh weren’t spear heading. Is that a valid opinion?
dont the shia say this that the ruler has to be from the fam of the messenger
Stop misleading the ummah brother.
ibn abdulwahhab was not in the land of which the ottomans ruled but he did join the rebellion in the lands of which the ottomans ruled.. you are confusing people by stating that MIAW was from
NaJD.. that has nothing to do with it.. if I was to go to Syria and join the rebbelion by my tongue or my finances I am still doing khuruj.. just because I reside in a place where this specific ruler isn’t ruling doesn’t mean I can’t rebel in the areas he rules.
By Allah you are lying and you will be questioned on this.
You are the same people that say khuruj can be done just by speaking bad against a ruler. Did ibn abdulwahab not do this ???? He went as far as making takfir on them and now you are using the argument of him being from
NaJD as if he couldn’t travel to make khuruj
Ibn Abdul Wahhab never fought the Ottomans, the wars between the najdi dawah and the Ottoman Empire took place after his death. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab didn’t rebel against the Ottoman Empire because he was never under the Ottoman Empire. Najd was ruled by many different Arab tribes and Mohammed Ibn Saud was the governor of his own land. Mohammed Ibn Saud fighting the Ottomans wasn’t khuruj, it was two states going to war with each other. But of course misguided callers like Bro Hajji and Yasir Qadhi will continue to spread their lies.
@@ibmsulaymani so now you are saying you are allowed to speak out against the Muslim rulers as long as you don’t live in there control lands.did ibn abdulwahhab speak out against a Muslim ruler(the ottomans) and encouraged a rebellion in the lands of which they ruled ? Regardless inside or outside of nagd. Also denying this would mean if a group came out from Yemen to overthrow the Saudi rulers due to there transgression it is permissible. Answer these questions with honesty. When it comes to speaking out against Muslim rulers you guys do the most. IBN abdulwahhab went as far as making takfir on them whilst they was still ruling now that also means u cannot fault a man for speaking out against the Saudi regime or Qatari or anywhere else as long as u don’t live there
@@Gufaaco Show us where he encouraged rebellion, the rulers he spoke against were rulers that he didn’t consider to be muslim anyway.
@@ibmsulaymani so now your saying if I consider a Muslim
Ruler as kafir it’s no more khuruj?
Bro, when it’s proven that the ruler is MUSLIM then it is khuruuj regardless of his opinion.The majority of scholars agreed they was Muslim. What are you talking about bro ? You can’t argue on this matter you will sound stupid
@@Gufaaco It wasn’t khuruj since he wasn’t under them, his baya was to Mohammed Ibn Saud and no one else. Even a 5 year old can understand this akhi, stop arguing for such a ridiculous point.
Less Arabic please, there's no needbas audience is mainly English
I use to think the same too until i realize thats how our knowledge is preserved
calling someone The All Giver is shirk right ?
or saying the The All Giver movement
or does it mean does who fellow the All Giver
as far as i know wahab means the all give
Abdul Wahab
Means the slave of Wahab
Similar to Abdullah,
His name is not Wahab,
_Obey rulers!_ including those *elected through Liberal Democratic System, govern by Secular Laws?* 🙄