Cabdurrahman Hassan has different Aqeedah and manhaj then xassan daahir aweys. Xassan daahir aweys his own brother Axmed dahir aweys refuted him. So I don't understand what you're implying.
I am a Hanbali (mufawwid and not a salafi) and this is the exact same argument used by my teachers to prove tafweed is from the salaf. The irony is that salafis need to use ta'weel on the statements of the salaf to prove their beliefs.
@@discordalt1724 Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal did Ta'wil of the verse: و جاء ربك والملك صفا صفا Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal figuratively interpreted (Tawil) the word of Allah Most High,: "And your Lord shall come..." (Qur'an 89:22), As meaning "His recompense (thawab) shall come." Al-Bayhaqi said, "This chain of narrators has absolutely nothing wrong in it" (al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya,10.342).
@@TraditionalistSunniDefense jazakAllahu khayran my brother. To borrow from the metaphor, this quote of Imam Ahmad r.t separates the salaf from the 'Salafis' like a hair from cream.
There is no genuine excuse to be proactively against Ashari aqeedah. If you didn’t have Ashari aqeedah, it would be like removing the teeth from a tiger. It would be impossible to argue against modern atheism, among many other things
Black and white fallacy. Asharis do not have a monopoly on arguments against Atheism and the arguments that are put forth by the kalam-folks like the KCA is unsound. Embarrassing point you are making.
@@khitir1500 it is not about monopol, they refute The Asharis for being involved in Kalam and then they use The same argument against non muslims, If Its bidah then it is bidah for them also.
May Allah reward you for your honesty because 99% of the people watching this are on the same boat yet act as if they’re even close to students of knowledge
In his book al-Minhaj al-Qawim, p.224, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said: “Know that al-Qarafi and others have narrated from ash-Shaafi’i, Malik, Ahmad and Abu Hanifah, may Allah reward them, that those who say [about Allah] that He is in a direction or that He has a body, have committed blasphemy (al-qaa’ileen bi j-jihat wa t-tajsim), and they [i.e. these scholars] were right in saying so.”
Shaikh asrar just a quick message ive watched a few videos now and the volume when you speak isnt as clear as it should be maybe an upgraded microphone would be helpful jazaa k allah
Without asharis maturidis a huge chunk of scholarship wouldn't exist the modern salafi movement is hopeless without consulting the works of the asharis and maturidis.
Abdurahman Hassan clearly lied about imam Nawawi and ibn hajar. Below references Imam an-Nawawi said, in his chapter on apostasy (ar-Riddah), in volume 7 page 303: The one who says ‘There is no god but the one who lives in the sky’ does not become a Muslim, as is the case if he says ‘There is no god but Allah, who lives in the sky, because ‘inhabiting’ is impossible, [does not apply] to Allah. Here he explains that attributing to Allah that He inhabits the sky is not Islam and that the one who says that Allah inhabits the sky is not a Muslim. He clearly says that this is impossible. If Allah were in the sky, as some people believe, then imam an-Nawawi would not have quoted this belief as an example of blasphemy! Imam ibn Hajar In his book Fath al-Bari, Amir al-Mu’minin fi l-hadith (literally the Commander of the believers as far as hadith is concerned), al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar said, in volume 13 page 358, while explaining a version of the hadith which means that there is a book above the Throne with an inscription: “As for his saying ” ‘indahu“, Ibn Battal said that the term “ ‘inda” in the language applies to places, when Allah is free from being incarnated in a place, because being incarnated implies having an end and having been created, and having been created is not suitable for Allah. Therefore, it has been said that the meaning [of this hadith] is that His knowledge has preceded the confirmation of who will [in the end] act in obedience to Allah, and of who will be punished for having committed sins, and this [interpretation] is reinforced by the hadith which comes next, and which says “ana ‘inda dhann ‘indi“, and it is not at all related to a place.
I guarantee you he has avoided this debate because since the first debate he has been researching. Been a few years now and they’re coming back. Shaykh asrar I think you might have to do a part 2 debate soon
Did you really think asrar rashid did well? It was a absolute embarrassment on asrar part. He is the only person who has challenged so many people and has not even gone through. 1. Challenging shia and than withdrawing because he does not know who he is ( why bother challenging a layman and even considering it) 2. Challenged abu layth and then just goes away cause he doesnt take him serious ( well why even go when you can tell the guy is a complete joker) 3.challenges the deobandis about his own scholars( starts talking about debating conditions and how he will only stick to a certain debating way) I honestly cannot take asrar rashid serious anymore with these bamboozled attempts.
@@arthurmorgan4942 1. Fake news 2. Fake news 3. Fake news. Im not going to get drawn in on your fabrications, so stop hiding behind Arthur Morgan, dawah man lol
@@MM-bu9ir what are you talking about fake news?. Watch the videos it's all on youtube. You must be a closed minded person who doesnt want to see how bad he ran away from discussions. I am not dawah man lool
Allahuakbar. How simple. -both parties agree the verses have a meaning that comes to mind when read (default meaning of the words). -salaf say reading it is its tafsir. -ashaaira say that the apparent meaning that comes to mind is not what is intended. And this is where ashaaira oppose the salaf. They refuse to accept the apparent meaning of the quran where the salaf affirmed it.
i think you misunderstood the quote of sufyaan ibn uyaynah. He says "reading it, is it's tafsiir." so basically, he holds the position of tafwiid. but the salafis start interpreting this statement of sufyaan ibn uyaynah to their wims and desires.
@@emindemiri2906 This cannot be the case since tafwid means to deny the apparent meaning... How you have come to the conclusion that his statement "reading it is its tafsir" means "deny the apparent meaning" is beyond me. Sufyaan ibn Uyaynah continues by saying "without a how and without similitude". You would only consider "how" and "similitude" if you were affirming the meaning, otherwise it would not make sense to mention these if his intention was to deny the apparent meaning.
@@user-tt6nc6mo7k that's what "Ustadth" Hassan says, my friend. This one not niiiceee my frieeend 😁 . if a person says, by READING the verse only, you gave the tafsir, it basically means, that you have only to read it as it is and stop interpreting limbs into it. whats so difficult in understanding this simple statement???
@@user-tt6nc6mo7k 'reading it, is it's tafsir' means 'yaad' mean 'yaad' in arabic since Al Quran is in arabic language. you dont translate 'yaad' to 'hand' or limb.
@@AbdullahodSandzak yea it’s true brother... but he is a shaykh with a god following and many students Masha Allah, they should support him and atleast get him good quality cameras and mics.
@@Cricketers.United Nonetheless, You're right my brother. I hope they do so, like you said, it will make things better. Barrak Allahu feekum my brother
Assalamualaikum Sheikh, As a Ashari who follows Shafi'i school. Alhamdulillah I got so many benefits from your channel. I hope you make video about Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimahullah ? how the majority Sunni view him in his lifetime. I watched the video about Him from other Sheikh who followed him and really respected their opinion and Alhamdulillah also got many benefits. But, I never found video about Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah from the perspective of Ashari and Maturidi school except some just spread not a good things about him, I hope you make video about Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimahullah, and InshaAllah can benefits other Muslim who more interesting with the common ground of our perspective not the difference. Jazakallah Khayran Sheikh.
@@zccau2316 Yes I know brother, they claimed that but unfortunately they rejected some of his views which not suitable for them. I don't have enough knowledge about it, that's why I hope Sheikh can make video about it, to share some light for us who have different views with the group who follow Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimahullah in some of his fatwas.
You can search a channel named "Reasons for faith" which is run by Shaykh Abu Jafar al Hanbali. In his playlist on history of Islam, he has a video dedicated to Taqiuddin ibn Taymiyya.
Abdur Rahman Hasan made no sense. The recitation is its tafsir just means leave it. Without kaffiyah and tashbih. Just means there is no likeness or how. Abdur Rahman Hasan was really trying to change the meaning.
He neither change the meaning nor likened it to anything !! Recitation itself its tafsir means Just accept the word as it is Yad means yad, don’t go to power and some other interpretation ! That’s what he said
Masood brother when a word can have many meanings you just leave it you said yad means yad this is coming up with a meaning not leaving it without coming up with a one. Which is contradiction to the statement which was said.
@@islamicmercy4181 recitation is tafsir means you don’t do Ta’weel which means Taking the apparent as it is !!! And you are doing Ta’weel for this statement too, strange ... That’s what they do to statements of Imam Malik too about Isthawa & Just for clarifaction So do you agree from this statement that doing ta’weel like Ash’aris is Wrong ??
Masood Brother first of all Ta'weel as well as giving it the Apparent meaning are not proven from the saying this is my point what is proven is tafweed. For instance If I say to you say (recite) the sentence as it is but don't explain (tafsir) it ذهبت الي المسجد What this means is recite it without trying to indulge in the meaning as soon as you say ذهبت means I went you have done the opposite of what I said because you tried explaining (tafsir) it. My whole point is that the saying proved Tafweed. With regard to Ta'weel with the conditions it is allowed. 1. Only Allah knows the true meaning 2. That I could be wrong and other possible meanings can be applicable here With regard to giving it the apparent meaning you as in the Salafis hold the opinion that you can't be wrong in taken the apparent.
Salam alaikum, I apologize if people are rude, with respect, if the Prophet PBUH, the companions and the early scholars all unanimously interpreted certain aspects of Islam in a certain way, what makes people like you and me or the later generations believe we can interpret it better?
Ali al-Qari was a great Hanafi scholar born in Afghanistan. He studied and died in Makkah. He was also called ‘Mulla al-Qari’. He said in his explanation of the book ‘al-Fiqh al-Akbar’ by Abu Hanifah, pages 333 et 334: To answer this [i.e. some false accusations against Abu Hanifah], we can quote the Shaykh, the Imam Ibn ‘Abd as-Salaam who, in his book Hal ar-Ramuz, said that Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy upon him: The one who says :’I do not know if Allah is in the sky or on Earth, has committed blasphemy, because he has attributed a place to Allah (al-Haqq), and the one who imagines that Allah is in a place is an anthropomorphist (mushabbih).’ There is no doubt that Ibn ‘Abd as-Salam is among the most reliable and trustworthy scholars, therefore, it is required to believe in what he narrates.’
In response to ARH: Then what do you make of Ibn Kathir? وأما قوله تعالى : ( ثم استوى على العرش ) [...] وإنما يسلك في هذا المقام مذهب السلف الصالح [...] وهو إمرارها كما جاءت من غير تكييف ولا تشبيه ولا تعطيل . والظاهر المتبادر إلى أذهان المشبهين منفي عن الله فإن الله لا يشبهه شيء من خلقه "As for Allah's saying: ثم استوى على العرش [...] The only path tread here is that of the pious predecessors. [...] Which is relaying them as they've been transmitted, without takyeef*, likening [Allah to creation] or negating [His Attributes]. The APPARENT MEANING which comes to mind to the anthropomorphists (mushabbiha) IS NEGATED from Allah. For no thing from creation resembles Allah." * Left untranslated because the translation can be disputed.
Al-Haafidh Ibn Abdul-Barr al-Anduloosee al-Maalikee (368-463H): “Ahlus-Sunnah are in agreement upon acknowledging and affirming that all of the Attributes mentioned in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and belief in them: that they are carried upon their apparent meaning and not metaphorically. And ahlus-Sunnah do not state how they are at all. As for ahlul-bid’ah: the Jahmiyyah, the Mu`tazilah, the Khawaarij, then all of them reject this, and they do not carry any of these Attributes of Allaah upon their apparent meanings. They claim that the one who affirms them has likened Allaah with His creation. And according to those who affirm the Attributes, these ahlul-bid’ah have negated the One who is worshipped [due to their negation of His Attributes]. And the truth is as they have said, with speech that is in accordance with the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (salallaahu ‘alaihi wassallam) - and they are the Imaams of the Jamaa`ah, and all praise is due to Allaah.” (At-Tamheed 7/145)
@@kucingcat8687 Waalaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh Did I say something wrong? All I did was quote a great Maliki scholar about the belief of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamma'ah.
@@Fatima_33 I'm aware that Imam As Safarini said this, but my point was what that the Salaf were not upon this. Imam at-Tirmidhi (209-279H) (may Allah have mercy on him) said, after narrating the hadith, “Allah accepts charity and takes it in His right hand,” in his Sunan (no. 662): “It has been stated by more than one person from the People of Knowledge about such ahaadeeth, that there is no tashbeeh (resemblance) to the Attributes of Allaah, and our Lord, the Blessed and Most High, descends to the lowest heaven every night. So they say, ‘Affirm these narrations, have eernaan (faith) in them, do not deny them, nor ask how.’ The likes of this has been related from Maalik ibn Anas, Sufyaan ath-Thawree, Ibn ‘Uyainah and ‘Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak, who all said about such ahaadeeth, ‘Leave them as they are, without asking how.’ Such is the saying of the People of Knowledge from the Ahlus-Sunnah walJamaa’ah. However, the Jahmiyyah oppose these narrations and say, ‘This is tashbeeh!’ However, Allaah the Most High, has mentioned in various places in His Book, the Attribute of al-Yad (Hand), as-Sam’ (Hearing), and al-Basr (Seeing), but the Jahmiyyah make ta’weel of these aayaat, explaining them in a way other than how they are explained by the People of Knowledge. They (the Jahmiyyah) say, ‘Indeed, Allaah did not create Aadam with His own Hand,’ they say that Hand means the Power of Allaah.” It's clear that the Salaf refuted the Jahmiyya for holding the same beliefs that the Asha'ris of today believe.
@@Fatima_33 I'm sorry, the Salaf were not upon this methodology. A hand entails a limb for the creation, but creator never described his hand (yad) as a limb. This idea of not taking the apparent meaning of Allah's attributes comes from the Jahmiyya and is not the Manhaj As Salaf.
@@uzzy_787 Asrar Rashid lost the first debate and if they were to debate again he'd definitely just lose again because Asharis have no legs to stand on
Does Allah have existence? If yes How when we have existence? The answer.. Allahs existence isn’t like ours Can we not use the same answer for YAD etc etc ???
Simple matter like read it as it is pass it on as it is and leave it at its apparent... and then we make long complex debated issue. Islam is simple keep it simple, dont over complicate a simple matter
This is all he can do now. Alhamdulillah, he is poorly doing the best he can like a drowning man catching at straws. Shaykh Abdurrahman Hassan quoted literally like piles upon piles of quotes from Salaf that clearly show the falsehood of tafwid, yet this barelwi 'sChOLaR' comes up with this. 🤣🤣😂
@@tpsnanimation6005 Imam an-Nawawi said, in his chapter on apostasy (ar-Riddah), in volume 7 page 303: The one who says ‘There is no god but the one who lives in the sky’ does not become a Muslim, as is the case if he says ‘There is no god but Allah, who lives in the sky, because ‘inhabiting’ is impossible, [does not apply] to Allah. Here he explains that attributing to Allah that He inhabits the sky is not Islam and that the one who says that Allah inhabits the sky is not a Muslim. He clearly says that this is impossible. If Allah were in the sky, as some people believe, then imam an-Nawawi would not have quoted this belief as an example of blasphemy!
@@tpsnanimation6005 In his book Fath al-Bari, Amir al-Mu’minin fi l-hadith (literally the Commander of the believers as far as hadith is concerned), al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar said, in volume 13 page 358, while explaining a version of the hadith which means that there is a book above the Throne with an inscription: “As for his saying ” ‘indahu“, Ibn Battal said that the term “ ‘inda” in the language applies to places, when Allah is free from being incarnated in a place, because being incarnated implies having an end and having been created, and having been created is not suitable for Allah. Therefore, it has been said that the meaning [of this hadith] is that His knowledge has preceded the confirmation of who will [in the end] act in obedience to Allah, and of who will be punished for having committed sins, and this [interpretation] is reinforced by the hadith which comes next, and which says “ana ‘inda dhann ‘indi“, and it is not at all related to a place.
@@abusufyanahmed1995 Is this how you speak of your muslim brother? The same brother that prays to the same creator as you? The same person that follows the rashidun as the rightly successors? Maybe you need to learn some manners my brother, did the prophet pbuh talk like this?
Sheikh Sahib it is time to revisit the debate you had Abdur Rahman Najdi, ad explain the technical terms, so that the layman muslims can understand, and appreciate your victory over him, and to expose him, and others of his like.
salafis do tafweedh on kayfiyah, but they don't say there is no kayfiyah. On the contrary they say there is kayfiyah, but on Allah knows, hence tafweedh. Also, they say we stop where Allah and His messenger stopped. i.e. we stop at hand (yad), don't take what could be understood from it like a limb or the like, since this is unknown. Also, Imam Malik's statement, kayfiyah is majhool or gheir ma'qool, is regarding when it comes to our minds, not when it comes to Allah, because He knows His own kayfiyah. The other thing, regarding the statement "amirruu haa 'alaa thaahirihaa" (pass them by upon their apparent), you said apparent wording. How do you know it's not meant by apparent meaning?
AlTamimi related that Imam Ahmed said: [Istiwa]: it means height/exaltation (Uluw) and elevation (irtifa). Allah is ever exalted (al'aliy) and elevated (alrafi'y) without a beginning, before he created the throne. He is bove everything (huwa fawqa kulli shay) and he is exalted over everything. He only specified the throne because of its particular significance which makes it different from everything else, as the throne is the best of all things and the most elevated of them. Allah therefore praised Himself by saying that he 'established Himself over the throne', that is, He exalted Himself over it ('alayi' ala). It is impermissible to say that He established Himself with a contact or a meeting with it. Exalted is Allah above that! Allah is not subject to change, substitution, nor limits, weather before or after his creation of the throne. (Tabaqat vol 2 page 296)
Don't call them salafi movement please,they never were on their manhaj but always against just like rawafidheen claim to be on manhaj of Ahlul Bayt when they're totally against it
@@Fatima_33 Yh including the 4 Sunni schools of fiqh (maliki, Shafai Hanbali and Hanafi) plus people of Tazkiyah What’s interesting is now more people are starting to go back to traditional learning What I find interesting the schools of creed differ yet accept each other Same as the school of Fiqh Not only that each individual school of fiqh also has differences of opinion Amazing SubhanAllah
@@abusufyanahmed1995 lol sorry what? The topic of debate was 'is isthigatha permissible'. By nature of this topic, ARH decisively lost, to the point where Shaykh Asrar even stated, mid-debate, that he had effectively won the debate right there. The topic of debate wasn't 'is isthigatha permissible after the death of the Prophet?'. It was just 'is isthigatha permissible?'. This was clearly proven. It was so bad that Shaykh Asrar even tried to give ARH some leeway on the topic, and ARH in his arrogance, wouldn't even accept the leeway lol. I've watched the debate 4 times now
@@abusufyanahmed1995 You must have been sleeping during the debate. Asrar even made the psudo salafi agree that while the person is alive you can make istighata, but in the start Hasan said no. Prophets are Alive in Their grave, as are shuhada. Haven't you read the ayat? You a dum dum
Wallahi i don't understand how ARHassan could be so thick on this topic. Indoctrination is real. His denial is similar to the atheist rejection of Allah even after explanation.
You mean the same ustad that made up 3 conditions and said if you ask someone that is dead (meaning our nabi) to make dua for you it’s as if you associated him with Allah. Astagfurllah when die and when does Allah make dua. You associate partners with Allah when you give any individual alive or dead the attributes of Allah and been dead and making dua for people isn’t the attributes of Allah.
@@jamesjoe2399 so wait there let me get this right if i go to a grave of a pious person and i do dua to him to ask for money etc etc this is NOT shirk to your understanding??
@@lishaplayss that’s shirk. you changed your point form “ asking them to make dua for you” . To “ make dua to him” why? Anyway we don’t make dua to anyone alive or dead that’s shirk Akbar. Why did you change from “ dua for you” to “dua to him”. you clearly understood my argument from your first reply
You believe that "pass them on as they are" is the scholars saying "hey guys do not do tahrif"? What is your evidence for that, and why would there be a need to say "do not do tahrif" indirectly, if it is known that tahrif is wrong lol?
@@AB-xx7hy sufi funded by israel 😂. At least make believable lies. U salafis are the ones making ties with israel not us. When Saudi government goes into the laps of israel we will see who is laughing
@@uzair851no salafis are working with Israel. Bin bayyah and Hamza Yusuf on the other hand.... btw salafis and Saudi are separate things. You’ll find salafis all around the world
@@uzair851 and folks heres another clown who equals 'salafi' = 'saudi'. I thought that listening to childish arguments of barelwi quburis like 'bUt sEe whaT aAL e SaUd Is DoINg' was a so 2005s thing but nice to see that world has not yet become short of intellectuals like you. Nice, keep going. 🤣🤣😂
@@tpsnanimation6005 salafis exist because of Saudi Arabia. And Saudi government is salafi. Even if we assume Saudi gov isn't salafi why don't you ever see any salafi scholar ever criticising Saudi gov for all it's heinous actions? They removed the mandatory hijab for women, legalised riba, shake hands with those who insult the Prophet PBUH. Why aren't ur scholars screaming?
Allah is free from limbs, body parts and organs. Allah says in the Qur'an than there is nothing like Him! We negate meanings which will make Allah look like His creation.
@@sufyanalthawri1257 We negate meanings which will make Allah look like His creation. Limb is a physical part of the body and Allah is free from body parts organs and limbs. Read Aqeedah Tahawiya.
What these philosphers dont understand is that affirmation and negation about Allah is what He Himself did or His Prophet did and then the Sahabah followed it. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم was the most knowledgeable about Allah and he never did negate such characteristics from Allah i.e limbs. This shows us that its negation isnt what Allah wants from us. Had it been important, Prophet would have done it and then his Companions رضي الله عنهم would've done it as well. But what can one say to such juhaal who think that they are more careful and passionate in respecting Allah, than His own Last Messenger?
Lol are you having a laugh al Islam productions MI shahid has put them two to bed, their so bad that hanafi fiqh channel as well as sh yasir has deserted them to add to the embarrassment that qadiani lad is mopping the floor with them. I suggest you stick with Fazail Amal.
look at there faces wallah these faces are not belongs to haq i m not taking about colors.. ignore the color scheme just watch these to salfes for 2 mint...
If u want 2 look @ the absurdity of asharis, see below... 🤣 "Actions of human beings are created (makhluq) by God, the creatures are not capable of creating any action.”
I'm not apart of this debate, but even I know that everything is dependent on Allah st. Everything is dead except Allah st. The very breath we take is from Allah st, to think otherwise would mean we are not dependent on Allah st?
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
I am from Somalia I’m not salafi or Sufi But I love sheikh asrar rashid May Allah bless him As Muslims were one
he is the best. Do u know hassan dahir aweys? that's Abdirahman Hassan uncle
Cabdurrahman Hassan has different Aqeedah and manhaj then xassan daahir aweys. Xassan daahir aweys his own brother Axmed dahir aweys refuted him. So I don't understand what you're implying.
Sufi is no a group
Sufi's are all gumrah badaqeedah bidati and mushrik and salafi's are real ahlehadees ahle sunnah tauheedi
@@muhammadzeeshansiddique8968 Murtad
I am a Hanbali (mufawwid and not a salafi) and this is the exact same argument used by my teachers to prove tafweed is from the salaf. The irony is that salafis need to use ta'weel on the statements of the salaf to prove their beliefs.
Brother which country are you from
not at all ur the one making ta2weel. we take statements from salaf directly
Sheikh abdur rehman is right I m salafi from bareilly india
@@discordalt1724
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal did Ta'wil of the verse:
و جاء ربك والملك صفا صفا
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal figuratively interpreted (Tawil) the word of Allah Most High,:
"And your Lord shall come..." (Qur'an 89:22),
As meaning "His recompense (thawab) shall come."
Al-Bayhaqi said, "This chain of narrators has absolutely nothing wrong in it" (al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya,10.342).
@@TraditionalistSunniDefense jazakAllahu khayran my brother. To borrow from the metaphor, this quote of Imam Ahmad r.t separates the salaf from the 'Salafis' like a hair from cream.
May Allah preserve the scholars of Ahlus sunnah and give them strength to teach the upcoming ummah and their scholars.
Ameen
There is no genuine excuse to be proactively against Ashari aqeedah. If you didn’t have Ashari aqeedah, it would be like removing the teeth from a tiger. It would be impossible to argue against modern atheism, among many other things
That's why neo-salafis in dawah will use ashari arguments against atheists and then do anthropomorphism within Islam.
Only shiya creed is safe not even asharia. Asharia believe Allah can be seen which creates Same problem
Black and white fallacy. Asharis do not have a monopoly on arguments against Atheism and the arguments that are put forth by the kalam-folks like the KCA is unsound. Embarrassing point you are making.
@@khitir1500 it is not about monopol, they refute The Asharis for being involved in Kalam and then they use The same argument against non muslims, If Its bidah then it is bidah for them also.
@@khitir1500 you were just put in your place by a first generation Muslim...
I'm Going to be 💯 I haven't got the foggiest what is going on ... So salaams and blessings on all.
me to bro lol
@@londonitv902 😂😂😂
May Allah reward you for your honesty because 99% of the people watching this are on the same boat yet act as if they’re even close to students of knowledge
In his book al-Minhaj al-Qawim, p.224, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said:
“Know that al-Qarafi and others have narrated from ash-Shaafi’i, Malik, Ahmad and Abu Hanifah, may Allah reward them, that those who say [about Allah] that He is in a direction or that He has a body, have committed blasphemy (al-qaa’ileen bi j-jihat wa t-tajsim), and they [i.e. these scholars] were right in saying so.”
Absolutely correct.
Shaikh asrar just a quick message ive watched a few videos now and the volume when you speak isnt as clear as it should be maybe an upgraded microphone would be helpful jazaa k allah
Donate
How can we donate. I’m more than happy to pay for it full
@@Raheem.rasool send me across your email address and I will send you the account details.
people who went extremes are doomed, indeed!
They murtadeen
@@freethemuslimworldfreepale3112 😂😂😂😂
here comes our blessed shaykh!
Without asharis maturidis a huge chunk of scholarship wouldn't exist the modern salafi movement is hopeless without consulting the works of the asharis and maturidis.
Look at the salafis who criticise kalam and then use kalam arguments against atheists
Asrar Rashid has Oceanic knowledge.
May Allah Bless You Brother Asrar
🌷🌹👌🥀💚💚💚💚💚💚🥀
DWI has made 1 million Hafiz plus ulema
Abdurahman Hassan clearly lied about imam Nawawi and ibn hajar. Below references
Imam an-Nawawi said, in his chapter on apostasy (ar-Riddah), in volume 7 page 303:
The one who says ‘There is no god but the one who lives in the sky’ does not become a Muslim, as is the case if he says ‘There is no god but Allah, who lives in the sky, because ‘inhabiting’ is impossible, [does not apply] to Allah.
Here he explains that attributing to Allah that He inhabits the sky is not Islam and that the one who says that Allah inhabits the sky is not a Muslim. He clearly says that this is impossible. If Allah were in the sky, as some people believe, then imam an-Nawawi would not have quoted this belief as an example of blasphemy!
Imam ibn Hajar
In his book Fath al-Bari, Amir al-Mu’minin fi l-hadith (literally the Commander of the believers as far as hadith is concerned), al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar said, in volume 13 page 358, while explaining a version of the hadith which means that there is a book above the Throne with an inscription:
“As for his saying ” ‘indahu“, Ibn Battal said that the term “ ‘inda” in the language applies to places, when Allah is free from being incarnated in a place, because being incarnated implies having an end and having been created, and having been created is not suitable for Allah. Therefore, it has been said that the meaning [of this hadith] is that His knowledge has preceded the confirmation of who will [in the end] act in obedience to Allah, and of who will be punished for having committed sins, and this [interpretation] is reinforced by the hadith which comes next, and which says “ana ‘inda dhann ‘indi“, and it is not at all related to a place.
The audio is terrible.
I guarantee you he has avoided this debate because since the first debate he has been researching. Been a few years now and they’re coming back. Shaykh asrar I think you might have to do a part 2 debate soon
Did you really think asrar rashid did well? It was a absolute embarrassment on asrar part. He is the only person who has challenged so many people and has not even gone through.
1. Challenging shia and than withdrawing because he does not know who he is ( why bother challenging a layman and even considering it)
2. Challenged abu layth and then just goes away cause he doesnt take him serious ( well why even go when you can tell the guy is a complete joker)
3.challenges the deobandis about his own scholars( starts talking about debating conditions and how he will only stick to a certain debating way)
I honestly cannot take asrar rashid serious anymore with these bamboozled attempts.
@@arthurmorgan4942 1. Fake news 2. Fake news 3. Fake news. Im not going to get drawn in on your fabrications, so stop hiding behind Arthur Morgan, dawah man lol
@@MM-bu9ir what are you talking about fake news?. Watch the videos it's all on youtube.
You must be a closed minded person who doesnt want to see how bad he ran away from discussions.
I am not dawah man lool
@@arthurmorgan4942 okay fool
@@arthurmorgan4942he literally foocked the shit out of abdurrehman last time.....😅
the brother on the right side indeed does a good job by confronting Abdurrahmaan Hassan with his false accusations! He does a really good job!
Yeah that brother was pressing him
Allahuakbar. How simple.
-both parties agree the verses have a meaning that comes to mind when read (default meaning of the words).
-salaf say reading it is its tafsir.
-ashaaira say that the apparent meaning that comes to mind is not what is intended.
And this is where ashaaira oppose the salaf. They refuse to accept the apparent meaning of the quran where the salaf affirmed it.
i think you misunderstood the quote of sufyaan ibn uyaynah. He says "reading it, is it's tafsiir." so basically, he holds the position of tafwiid. but the salafis start interpreting this statement of sufyaan ibn uyaynah to their wims and desires.
@@emindemiri2906 This cannot be the case since tafwid means to deny the apparent meaning...
How you have come to the conclusion that his statement "reading it is its tafsir" means "deny the apparent meaning" is beyond me.
Sufyaan ibn Uyaynah continues by saying "without a how and without similitude". You would only consider "how" and "similitude" if you were affirming the meaning, otherwise it would not make sense to mention these if his intention was to deny the apparent meaning.
@@user-tt6nc6mo7k that's what "Ustadth" Hassan says, my friend. This one not niiiceee my frieeend 😁 . if a person says, by READING the verse only, you gave the tafsir, it basically means, that you have only to read it as it is and stop interpreting limbs into it. whats so difficult in understanding this simple statement???
@@user-tt6nc6mo7k tafwid doesnt mean 'to deny the apparent meaning'. tafwid mean 'leave the meaning to Allah' or 'only Allah know'.
@@user-tt6nc6mo7k 'reading it, is it's tafsir' means 'yaad' mean 'yaad' in arabic since Al Quran is in arabic language. you dont translate 'yaad' to 'hand' or limb.
Cmon shaykh look at the difference in quality from their sound and your sound.
You need to take it up a few levels.
They got that oil money brother. Psudo salafi have money, ahlus sunnah are poor and most of the people of jannah will be poor 😊
@@AbdullahodSandzak yea it’s true brother... but he is a shaykh with a god following and many students Masha Allah, they should support him and atleast get him good quality cameras and mics.
@@Cricketers.United
Nonetheless, You're right my brother. I hope they do so, like you said, it will make things better.
Barrak Allahu feekum my brother
@@AbdullahodSandzak I just don’t think he cares. If you can hear him then it’s good enough. Sometimes you
Assalamualaikum Sheikh, As a Ashari who follows Shafi'i school. Alhamdulillah I got so many benefits from your channel. I hope you make video about Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimahullah ? how the majority Sunni view him in his lifetime. I watched the video about Him from other Sheikh who followed him and really respected their opinion and Alhamdulillah also got many benefits. But, I never found video about Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah from the perspective of Ashari and Maturidi school except some just spread not a good things about him, I hope you make video about Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimahullah, and InshaAllah can benefits other Muslim who more interesting with the common ground of our perspective not the difference. Jazakallah Khayran Sheikh.
Bro even the salafis don’t even follow sheikh Ibn Taymiyya properly
@@zccau2316 Yes I know brother, they claimed that but unfortunately they rejected some of his views which not suitable for them. I don't have enough knowledge about it, that's why I hope Sheikh can make video about it, to share some light for us who have different views with the group who follow Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimahullah in some of his fatwas.
@@ersand2870 Yeah like women praying infront of men, his vies that Sufism is obligatory on everyone & that hell is not eternal
He did many times omg!!!!
You can search a channel named "Reasons for faith" which is run by Shaykh Abu Jafar al Hanbali.
In his playlist on history of Islam, he has a video dedicated to Taqiuddin ibn Taymiyya.
Abdur Rahman Hasan made no sense. The recitation is its tafsir just means leave it. Without kaffiyah and tashbih. Just means there is no likeness or how. Abdur Rahman Hasan was really trying to change the meaning.
He neither change the meaning nor likened it to anything !! Recitation itself its tafsir means
Just accept the word as it is
Yad means yad, don’t go to power and some other interpretation ! That’s what he said
Masood brother when a word can have many meanings you just leave it you said yad means yad this is coming up with a meaning not leaving it without coming up with a one.
Which is contradiction to the statement which was said.
@@islamicmercy4181 recitation is tafsir means you don’t do Ta’weel which means Taking the apparent as it is !!!
And you are doing Ta’weel for this statement too, strange ...
That’s what they do to statements of Imam Malik too about Isthawa
& Just for clarifaction
So do you agree from this statement that doing ta’weel like Ash’aris is Wrong ??
Masood Brother first of all Ta'weel as well as giving it the Apparent meaning are not proven from the saying this is my point what is proven is tafweed.
For instance If I say to you say (recite) the sentence as it is but don't explain (tafsir) it
ذهبت الي المسجد
What this means is recite it without trying to indulge in the meaning as soon as you say ذهبت means I went you have done the opposite of what I said because you tried explaining (tafsir) it.
My whole point is that the saying proved Tafweed.
With regard to Ta'weel with the conditions it is allowed.
1. Only Allah knows the true meaning
2. That I could be wrong and other possible meanings can be applicable here
With regard to giving it the apparent meaning you as in the Salafis hold the opinion that you can't be wrong in taken the apparent.
@@islamicmercy4181 Translation is not Tafsir ..
Please use an external mic because it's very difficult to here the points.
Everyone’s complaining about your mic.. how can I donate one 2 you???
Salam alaikum, I apologize if people are rude, with respect, if the Prophet PBUH, the companions and the early scholars all unanimously interpreted certain aspects of Islam in a certain way, what makes people like you and me or the later generations believe we can interpret it better?
I definitely side with Abdulrahman Hassan.
What you and him personally seen Allah’s yad whilst he was creating Adam since you know “ the apparent meaning” of something that’s unseen
who cares, whom you are siting with? hahahahah 😂
Thank you shykh you have done such grate things for ummah.
Tru
Wahabi Pagans trying to justify their heresy with complex words
haha well said my beautiful sunnie brother 😄
@@mohammedisrar8658 I am the reflection of my brother. May Allah bless you
Idislike Wahhabism
@@KhaledAhmed-if3xb Same
Ali al-Qari was a great Hanafi scholar born in Afghanistan. He studied and died in Makkah. He was also called ‘Mulla al-Qari’. He said in his explanation of the book ‘al-Fiqh al-Akbar’ by Abu Hanifah, pages 333 et 334:
To answer this [i.e. some false accusations against Abu Hanifah], we can quote the Shaykh, the Imam Ibn ‘Abd as-Salaam who, in his book Hal ar-Ramuz, said that Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy upon him:
The one who says :’I do not know if Allah is in the sky or on Earth, has committed blasphemy, because he has attributed a place to Allah (al-Haqq), and the one who imagines that Allah is in a place is an anthropomorphist (mushabbih).’
There is no doubt that Ibn ‘Abd as-Salam is among the most reliable and trustworthy scholars, therefore, it is required to believe in what he narrates.’
Please improve the quality of voice in video.
Why is the clock broken in the introductory clip?
In response to ARH:
Then what do you make of Ibn Kathir?
وأما قوله تعالى : ( ثم استوى على العرش ) [...] وإنما يسلك في هذا المقام مذهب السلف الصالح [...] وهو إمرارها كما جاءت من غير تكييف ولا تشبيه ولا تعطيل . والظاهر المتبادر إلى أذهان المشبهين منفي عن الله فإن الله لا يشبهه شيء من خلقه
"As for Allah's saying: ثم استوى على العرش [...] The only path tread here is that of the pious predecessors. [...] Which is relaying them as they've been transmitted, without takyeef*, likening [Allah to creation] or negating [His Attributes]. The APPARENT MEANING which comes to mind to the anthropomorphists (mushabbiha) IS NEGATED from Allah. For no thing from creation resembles Allah."
* Left untranslated because the translation can be disputed.
So you are saying that the dhahir mutabadir ila l-dhan is negated? But Abdurahman in that clip says it cant be?
@@hermitally419 yes
Salafis also negate the apparent meaning that comes to the anthropomorphists.
The Salaf say there's no kaif; pseudo salafis say there's a kaif but we don't know how it is
Al-Haafidh Ibn Abdul-Barr al-Anduloosee al-Maalikee (368-463H):
“Ahlus-Sunnah are in agreement upon acknowledging and affirming that all of the Attributes mentioned in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and belief in them: that they are carried upon their apparent meaning and not metaphorically. And ahlus-Sunnah do not state how they are at all. As for ahlul-bid’ah: the Jahmiyyah, the Mu`tazilah, the Khawaarij, then all of them reject this, and they do not carry any of these Attributes of Allaah upon their apparent meanings. They claim that the one who affirms them has likened Allaah with His creation. And according to those who affirm the Attributes, these ahlul-bid’ah have negated the One who is worshipped [due to their negation of His Attributes]. And the truth is as they have said, with speech that is in accordance with the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (salallaahu ‘alaihi wassallam) - and they are the Imaams of the Jamaa`ah, and all praise is due to Allaah.” (At-Tamheed 7/145)
Assalamualaikum. It's clear that you don't understand anything he's Talking about
@@kucingcat8687 Waalaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh
Did I say something wrong? All I did was quote a great Maliki scholar about the belief of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamma'ah.
@@Fatima_33 I'm aware that Imam As Safarini said this, but my point was what that the Salaf were not upon this.
Imam at-Tirmidhi (209-279H) (may Allah have mercy on him) said, after narrating the hadith, “Allah accepts charity and takes it in His right hand,” in his Sunan (no. 662):
“It has been stated by more than one person from the People of Knowledge about such ahaadeeth, that there is no tashbeeh (resemblance) to the Attributes of Allaah, and our Lord, the Blessed and Most High, descends to the lowest heaven every night. So they say, ‘Affirm these narrations, have eernaan (faith) in them, do not deny them, nor ask how.’
The likes of this has been related from Maalik ibn Anas, Sufyaan ath-Thawree, Ibn ‘Uyainah and ‘Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak, who all said about such ahaadeeth, ‘Leave them as they are, without asking how.’ Such is the saying of the People of Knowledge from the Ahlus-Sunnah walJamaa’ah.
However, the Jahmiyyah oppose these narrations and say, ‘This is tashbeeh!’ However, Allaah the Most High, has mentioned in various places in His Book, the Attribute of al-Yad (Hand), as-Sam’ (Hearing), and al-Basr (Seeing), but the Jahmiyyah make ta’weel of these aayaat, explaining them in a way other than how they are explained by the People of Knowledge. They (the Jahmiyyah) say, ‘Indeed, Allaah did not create Aadam with His own Hand,’ they say that Hand means the Power of Allaah.”
It's clear that the Salaf refuted the Jahmiyya for holding the same beliefs that the Asha'ris of today believe.
@@Fatima_33 I'm sorry, the Salaf were not upon this methodology. A hand entails a limb for the creation, but creator never described his hand (yad) as a limb. This idea of not taking the apparent meaning of Allah's attributes comes from the Jahmiyya and is not the Manhaj As Salaf.
@@ringleader2792 it's clear that you don't understand any of the things Shaykh Asrar Rashid is saying in this video
Salafis act as if they personally seen Allah creating Adam with his own hands.
Sh Khalil Harras got corrected by Sh ibn Uthaimeen in a booklet. So that can't be used Shaikh.
Salam Sheikh Asrar you should define all the concepts when you had a debate with Abdul Hasan?
Why they are not debating this issue so that it whill be all clear for the public
Because Abdul Rahan Hassan knows it will expose the salafis
@@uzzy_787 Asrar Rashid lost the first debate and if they were to debate again he'd definitely just lose again because Asharis have no legs to stand on
0:18 both are like cartoons
Throwing childish personal attacks, hmm nice daleel as always.. xD 🤣🤣
Don't mock if you don't understand shahbaz khan this is knowledge please respect it.
Subhanallah we truly are nearing the Day of Judgment when us Muslims are mocking people of knowledge 🤦🏾♂️
Does Allah have existence?
If yes
How when we have existence?
The answer.. Allahs existence isn’t like ours
Can we not use the same answer for YAD etc etc ???
Simple matter like read it as it is pass it on as it is and leave it at its apparent... and then we make long complex debated issue. Islam is simple keep it simple, dont over complicate a simple matter
Ustaad Abdul Rahman Hassan did a full refutation on Asharis and there creed and you come back with this?
This is all he can do now. Alhamdulillah, he is poorly doing the best he can like a drowning man catching at straws. Shaykh Abdurrahman Hassan quoted literally like piles upon piles of quotes from Salaf that clearly show the falsehood of tafwid, yet this barelwi 'sChOLaR' comes up with this. 🤣🤣😂
@@tpsnanimation6005 May Allah bless you and protect you for defending the people of Sunnah. Allah is our witness.
@@MM-mr2gw aameen wa iyyaakum ya akhi.
@@tpsnanimation6005 Imam an-Nawawi said, in his chapter on apostasy (ar-Riddah), in volume 7 page 303:
The one who says ‘There is no god but the one who lives in the sky’ does not become a Muslim, as is the case if he says ‘There is no god but Allah, who lives in the sky, because ‘inhabiting’ is impossible, [does not apply] to Allah.
Here he explains that attributing to Allah that He inhabits the sky is not Islam and that the one who says that Allah inhabits the sky is not a Muslim. He clearly says that this is impossible. If Allah were in the sky, as some people believe, then imam an-Nawawi would not have quoted this belief as an example of blasphemy!
@@tpsnanimation6005 In his book Fath al-Bari, Amir al-Mu’minin fi l-hadith (literally the Commander of the believers as far as hadith is concerned), al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar said, in volume 13 page 358, while explaining a version of the hadith which means that there is a book above the Throne with an inscription:
“As for his saying ” ‘indahu“, Ibn Battal said that the term “ ‘inda” in the language applies to places, when Allah is free from being incarnated in a place, because being incarnated implies having an end and having been created, and having been created is not suitable for Allah. Therefore, it has been said that the meaning [of this hadith] is that His knowledge has preceded the confirmation of who will [in the end] act in obedience to Allah, and of who will be punished for having committed sins, and this [interpretation] is reinforced by the hadith which comes next, and which says “ana ‘inda dhann ‘indi“, and it is not at all related to a place.
الله يبارك فيك يا شيخ
It means you don't ask how? Don't question the reading
He's made many blunders, currently speaking to a wahabi, i respond to him by showing ustaad abdur Rahmans clips. Lol
Who has?
Ur a general
Lol you dirty sufi. ARH destroyed AR in the debate. I'm surprised he shows his face to everyone.
@@abusufyanahmed1995 Is this how you speak of your muslim brother? The same brother that prays to the same creator as you? The same person that follows the rashidun as the rightly successors? Maybe you need to learn some manners my brother, did the prophet pbuh talk like this?
@@zccau2316 it's ok brother, not all so called salafis are like that, this on is abit sideways. That's what they do when they can't respond
I would like to see a debate between sheikh Asrar Rashid vs Abdurahman hassan
I think they have debated already.
@@tayeebhussain5014 they did on the topic Istighata, but not this topic of Aqeedah because abdurahman didn’t want to...
@@RijHetWijst 👍👍👍
@@TT-hx9nj yes , that why I said ‘this’ aqeedah topic
@@RijHetWijst Yeah AbdurRahman declined to debate about aqeedah.
salafis/wahabis are in constant contradiction subhnallah
Hasan has a bad habit of putting words in Ashari mouth, subehaanallah Allah knows best, he doesn't say read and understand the thaahir
Sheikh Sahib it is time to revisit the debate you had Abdur Rahman Najdi, ad explain the technical terms, so that the layman muslims can understand, and appreciate your victory over him, and to expose him, and others of his like.
salafis do tafweedh on kayfiyah, but they don't say there is no kayfiyah. On the contrary they say there is kayfiyah, but on Allah knows, hence tafweedh.
Also, they say we stop where Allah and His messenger stopped. i.e. we stop at hand (yad), don't take what could be understood from it like a limb or the like, since this is unknown.
Also, Imam Malik's statement, kayfiyah is majhool or gheir ma'qool, is regarding when it comes to our minds, not when it comes to Allah, because He knows His own kayfiyah.
The other thing, regarding the statement "amirruu haa 'alaa thaahirihaa" (pass them by upon their apparent), you said apparent wording. How do you know it's not meant by apparent meaning?
Aww what a confusing video keep things simple for people to understand clearly .
Subhanallah
AlTamimi related that Imam Ahmed said: [Istiwa]: it means height/exaltation (Uluw) and elevation (irtifa). Allah is ever exalted (al'aliy) and elevated (alrafi'y) without a beginning, before he created the throne. He is bove everything (huwa fawqa kulli shay) and he is exalted over everything. He only specified the throne because of its particular significance which makes it different from everything else, as the throne is the best of all things and the most elevated of them. Allah therefore praised Himself by saying that he 'established Himself over the throne', that is, He exalted Himself over it ('alayi' ala). It is impermissible to say that He established Himself with a contact or a meeting with it. Exalted is Allah above that! Allah is not subject to change, substitution, nor limits, weather before or after his creation of the throne.
(Tabaqat vol 2 page 296)
Don't call them salafi movement please,they never were on their manhaj but always against just like rawafidheen claim to be on manhaj of Ahlul Bayt when they're totally against it
ما شاء الله
Only Wahabi Salafis deviant with the others. Asyaari,Athari and Maturidi are having same aqidah with each other.
Are hanbalis athari and what is the basic difference between athari ashari and mutaridi? JazakAllah kairun
@@Fatima_33 Yh including the 4 Sunni schools of fiqh (maliki, Shafai Hanbali and Hanafi) plus people of Tazkiyah
What’s interesting is now more people are starting to go back to traditional learning
What I find interesting the schools of creed differ yet accept each other
Same as the school of Fiqh
Not only that each individual school of fiqh also has differences of opinion
Amazing SubhanAllah
Just use wikipedia
I expect no less from Abdul Rahman Hassan. So disappointing
Don't forget ARH is the same guy who embarrassed the fool Arar in a debate.
@@abusufyanahmed1995 lol sorry what? The topic of debate was 'is isthigatha permissible'. By nature of this topic, ARH decisively lost, to the point where Shaykh Asrar even stated, mid-debate, that he had effectively won the debate right there.
The topic of debate wasn't 'is isthigatha permissible after the death of the Prophet?'. It was just 'is isthigatha permissible?'. This was clearly proven. It was so bad that Shaykh Asrar even tried to give ARH some leeway on the topic, and ARH in his arrogance, wouldn't even accept the leeway lol. I've watched the debate 4 times now
@@abusufyanahmed1995 I think you’re confused ....
@@abusufyanahmed1995
You must have been sleeping during the debate. Asrar even made the psudo salafi agree that while the person is alive you can make istighata, but in the start Hasan said no.
Prophets are Alive in Their grave, as are shuhada. Haven't you read the ayat?
You a dum dum
Abdul rahman adding stuff on his own to everything is just clown stuff.
Wallahi i don't understand how ARHassan could be so thick on this topic. Indoctrination is real. His denial is similar to the atheist rejection of Allah even after explanation.
The salafis talk as if they personally seen Allah creating Adam with his own 2 hands
assalamo alaikum
Asrar had his chance and he got schooled by ustadh abdul rahman hasan. Dont go for round 2 lol
You mean the same ustad that made up 3 conditions and said if you ask someone that is dead (meaning our nabi) to make dua for you it’s as if you associated him with Allah. Astagfurllah when die and when does Allah make dua. You associate partners with Allah when you give any individual alive or dead the attributes of Allah and been dead and making dua for people isn’t the attributes of Allah.
@@jamesjoe2399 so your saying we can ask The pious people in the grave to make dua for us??
@@lishaplayss no. I’m saying It’s not shirk not if you are aloud to do it or not.
@@jamesjoe2399 so wait there let me get this right if i go to a grave of a pious person and i do dua to him to ask for money etc etc this is NOT shirk to your understanding??
@@lishaplayss that’s shirk. you changed your point form “ asking them to make dua for you” . To “ make dua to him” why?
Anyway we don’t make dua to anyone alive or dead that’s shirk Akbar.
Why did you change from “ dua for you” to “dua to him”. you clearly understood my argument from your first reply
When going to complete quduri????????????????????????????
You believe that "pass them on as they are" is the scholars saying "hey guys do not do tahrif"? What is your evidence for that, and why would there be a need to say "do not do tahrif" indirectly, if it is known that tahrif is wrong lol?
hanbali scholars say the same thing as him. Not salafis, but real hanbalis.
allah save us from todays yazeed abdur rahman.
got to give it to the wahabi, the oil money produces good video quality
And the goofy sufi, those israeli dollars are really helping their cause.
@@AB-xx7hy sufi funded by israel 😂. At least make believable lies. U salafis are the ones making ties with israel not us. When Saudi government goes into the laps of israel we will see who is laughing
@@uzair851no salafis are working with Israel. Bin bayyah and Hamza Yusuf on the other hand.... btw salafis and Saudi are separate things. You’ll find salafis all around the world
@@uzair851 and folks heres another clown who equals 'salafi' = 'saudi'. I thought that listening to childish arguments of barelwi quburis like 'bUt sEe whaT aAL e SaUd Is DoINg' was a so 2005s thing but nice to see that world has not yet become short of intellectuals like you. Nice, keep going. 🤣🤣😂
@@tpsnanimation6005 salafis exist because of Saudi Arabia. And Saudi government is salafi. Even if we assume Saudi gov isn't salafi why don't you ever see any salafi scholar ever criticising Saudi gov for all it's heinous actions? They removed the mandatory hijab for women, legalised riba, shake hands with those who insult the Prophet PBUH. Why aren't ur scholars screaming?
Who said we negate the limbs(جوارح؟) we don't affirm it or negate it.
Allah is free from limbs, body parts and organs. Allah says in the Qur'an than there is nothing like Him! We negate meanings which will make Allah look like His creation.
@@at9161 that doesn't negate limbs
@@sufyanalthawri1257 We negate meanings which will make Allah look like His creation. Limb is a physical part of the body and Allah is free from body parts organs and limbs. Read Aqeedah Tahawiya.
@@sufyanalthawri1257 what is the definition of limbs?
What these philosphers dont understand is that affirmation and negation about Allah is what He Himself did or His Prophet did and then the Sahabah followed it. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم was the most knowledgeable about Allah and he never did negate such characteristics from Allah i.e limbs. This shows us that its negation isnt what Allah wants from us. Had it been important, Prophet would have done it and then his Companions رضي الله عنهم would've done it as well. But what can one say to such juhaal who think that they are more careful and passionate in respecting Allah, than His own Last Messenger?
Just rambling
You and your creed got exposed, hanging on its last thread. Credit to AllIslamproductions to show what you biddy's are really about
Lol are you having a laugh al Islam productions MI shahid has put them two to bed, their so bad that hanafi fiqh channel as well as sh yasir has deserted them to add to the embarrassment that qadiani lad is mopping the floor with them. I suggest you stick with Fazail Amal.
look at there faces wallah these faces are not belongs to haq i m not taking about colors.. ignore the color scheme just watch these to salfes for 2 mint...
what are you on about
Bangladesh, i love you Allah
overthink
Blah blah mullahs over complicating and causing confusion as usual.
If u want 2 look @ the absurdity of asharis, see below... 🤣
"Actions of human beings are created (makhluq) by God, the creatures are not capable of creating any action.”
Allah is the creator of everything...do you deny?
I'm not apart of this debate, but even I know that everything is dependent on Allah st. Everything is dead except Allah st.
The very breath we take is from Allah st, to think otherwise would mean we are not dependent on Allah st?
@@5heeshi well said
@@5heeshi but NOT OUR ACTIONS!!
I hope that clears ur misconception.
@@mohamedshah5418 No....but NOT OUR ACTIONS!! 😏😏
I hope that clears ur misconception.
People follow wahabi shikh we follow Aslaaf maturidi and ashari
Abdur Rahman is a farmer
Dajjal wahbi
Yea