Let us see the accomplishments of the person we cannot tkfr, because we do not have evidence or it is not clear: 1. Adherence to UN Laws 2. Removing/replacing Sharia 3. Making halal what is haram (hall0ween, riba, bik1ni, concerts, alc0hol, z1na etc.) 4. Nationalism 5. Normalization with Isr43l, which he as about to do before 07.10.2023 6. What he is doing to scholars in KSA who say a word of haqq, or a word against him 7. Removed Sharia courts 8. Alliances with disbelievers, USA, UK etc. 9. Making haram what is halal (cannot speak truth, cannot forbid haram, cannot change haram with the hand/tongue, cannot call for Sharia to be implemented etc.) 10. Alliances with India and China, even after what they are doing in India, Kashmir, Xinjiang etc. To see other 20 points, sort comments by 'newest first'.
11. Brought in the Russians to help Bashar against the Sunnis, who were about to win 12. Gen0cide and total starv4tion of Yemen 13. Wants to turn the land of Tawheed into Miami 14. Praises Dubai ruler for what he has done with Dubai (which has 0 islam there, and has temples and churches) 15. Is one of the biggest opponents of Caliph4te 16. Removes all hudud 17. Brings back idols (Uzza) in Saudi museums, with people seen doing weird things around them 18. Removes adherence to ahad hadith 19. Changing school curriculums etc. to please the disbelievers by removing the truth 20. Restrictions on masjid, volumes of athan and prayer, ramadan gatherings, removing channels that show Quran recitation etc.
21. Free mixing everywhere, whether its concerts, universities now as well, no hijab requirement, and allowing LGBTQ+ into KSA (they were not allowed before) 22. He wants to return Saudi Arabia to a ‘m0derate Islam’ that is more open and tolerant of other faiths 23. Has his picture, his father's picture, everywhere in government buildings, malls, skyscrapers etc. 24. UAE confirmed that them and Saudi are aligned against their biggest enemies: political Islam 25. Wherever an 'islamic' group is winning elections, and they promise to implement Sharia, KSA/UAE will go and make khuruj 26. Have done khuruj in multiple countries, not for islamic reasons, but political reasons 27. J1had for islamic reasons is banned, J1had for political reasons is okay 28. Banned support for oppressed muslims around the world, and banned the condemnation of disbelievers doing the oppression 29. MBS clearly said KSA runs on bad laws, and he is trying to change them. As they claim to run on Sharia, he is calling them bad laws and openly admitting he wants to change Sharia. If he (KSA) is not running by Sharia, he is then clearly admitting he runs by man-made laws. 30. He has changed the muslim land in KSA from being dar-al-islam, to dar-al-kfr. The scholars unanimously said the characteristics of dar-al-islam is muslims in authority, and Sharia as the law. If it's dar-al-kfr, that means Hijra out of there is wajib 31. “Prince Mohammed spoke a lot of his affection for the Copts,” Egypt's Pope said And on and on So I mean, what else does he have to do? What else will convince the people he is straight up Munafiq, and one of the biggest enemies of Islam today?
@@Student.of.Knowledge Yes, that is the ruling according to the scholars, and Hadiths on Hijra. It should be nothing to be surprised about, I mean we have nation-states that were created by the disbelievers, totally against what Allah SWT tells us to do, and we are living in them comfortably. So even if Mecca becomes dar-al-kfr, and it is wajib to make Hijra, who do you think will do it when they are already content in living in nation states. The other issue here is, where will those people go even if they wanted to go? There is no dar-al-islam at the moment anywhere, because we have allowed our communities/governments to adopt the kfr of nationalism and secularism, where anyone who wants to make halal what is haram, or replace or remove Sharia, or where allegiance is to the state and leader and flag and not Allah SWT, we do not really bother with it that much. We have no Khalifa to give baiy'ah to, so already we are basically in times of jahiliyyah. You can still do hajj and umrah, as the Prophet PBUH did that when it was still dar-al-kfr.
It’s sad. But takfeer has a process to go through and if this process was gone through for many of these dictators they probably wouldn’t come out with the name Muslim, but until this process is done takfeer is not permissible based on masalih and mafasid. But in the video I explained regardless of takfeer or establishing any hujjah the moment he changes something from the deen the wiliyah and obedience drops. This is smack dead in-between the view of Ahmed hazimi and others who rush to takfeer regardless of reaching and understanding the hujjah and the madaakhilah who say, stop doing takfeer of the ruler as long as he’s Muslim he gets loyalty and obedience even if he is fasiq and changes legislation from what Allah ordained.
I think using the word Madkhali is a dangerous door. Not only does it cause, yet again, more division and sectarianism in the ummah - but it blurs the lines between reality and usage of the term. In reality, sheikh Rabee’ al Madkhali has gheerah for the religion and he is Salafi. Only because he perhaps has made mistakes in his criticisms it doesn’t mean now that people should use the “Madkhali” term. Why? Because now ignorant people use it without knowing what it means and they are associating it with issues of Zionism and Kufr - which is a huge lie on the sheikh
Shaykh Rabee' doesnt have mistakes in critisism. These are things that should be looked at in detail. Anyone who denies that there is ijmaa' regarding khurooj, against the tyrant leader after the proof has been establashed is an innovator according to the Salaf
@@AbuInayaAl-Athari-po3yj your statement is Ghuloo’. Sheikh Rabee’ just like any Sheikh has errors and points of criticism. This doesn’t detract from their status. I ask you to follow the Quran, Sunnah and the Salaf - and to not go overboard in any individual
@@AbuInayaAl-Athari-po3yj Even after this brother provided evidence that there is truly no ijma on the matter and that this isn't a merely black or white issue you still insist on tabdee of the one who differs with you. You just hear what you want to hear.
@@iymuslim The burden of the proof is upon you not the other way around. Saying that a scholar has no mistakes in aqeedah or manhaj is not ghuloow. These Khawarij are spreading doubts regarding rebelling against the Muslim ruler and you are saying things like this while every single scholar today literally agree with shaykh Rabee's stance. The Salaf declared anyone as a misguided innovator who disagreed on rebelling against the TYRANT Muslim ruler being haram to be a misguided innovator who should be boycotted, his books burned, and warn against anyone who sits with him after his affair has been exposed. Shaykh Rabee' is known for calling to study the books of the Salaf. See and study them, and you will be shocked
What seems to get mistaken a lot is that people think the word "Sharia" (الشريعة) is different from making laws in the land. This is one and the same. The word "Tashriya" (التشريع) is the same as lawmaking, and lawmaking involves creating rules that people must abide by in the land. Yes, there are laws that apply to individuals, and yes, there are laws that apply to communities. And Allah has brought both of these. So, anyone who makes a law that is different from what Allah has prescribed for us, and that goes against what He has decreed, is altering the Sharia (الشريعة), whether in small or large amounts. This action destroys their *Wilaya* (الولاية), invalidates it, and it is no longer valid if it was valid before. The reality is, these people aren't trying to follow the Sharia (الشريعة). If you ask them, they will tell you "no, we're not." They will point to their "progress." What they mean by progress is getting rid of the Sharia (الشريعة). You will find this even with the ambassadors of Saudi Arabia and other countries as well. They specifically talk about their so-called accomplishments, such as removing aspects of the Sharia (الشريعة), banning the *niqab* (النقاب), and other similar actions. This shows the direction they are heading.
And one last thing that should be understood is that in certain situations, applying all of the *hudud* (الحدود) and all of the *sharia* (الشريعة) at once could result in losing it all at a single time. In such cases, a person would have to weigh the pros and cons. If someone is actually coerced by external forces, or if applying certain aspects of the *sharia* (الشريعة) would result in serious harm, then this can be temporarily delayed. This temporary delay is something that comes from the *sharia* (الشريعة) itself and is not a change to it, but rather an application of it in its rightful time and place without sacrificing something more important. For example, if someone is going to apply certain *hudud* (الحدود), and doing so would result in them being thrown out of power, losing the ability to move towards acceptance of the *sharia* (الشريعة), and allowing a worse power to come into play that is totally against these principles, then maintaining a middle ground is understandable, as long as one is always moving towards the goal. There is a clear difference between this situation and those countries that make *haram* (حرام) things *halal* (حلال), such as the Emirates recently making alcohol permissible to sell to Muslims. There is no need for this-no one is forcing them to do it. On the other hand, a country like Turkey, while not implementing the *sharia* (الشريعة) completely, has made leaps and strides towards accepting Islam and is moving in the right direction. If they were to move too quickly, and Allah knows best, it could result in an immediate revolt, and even worse people could take over. So these issues are not as clear-cut as some people might think. However, there is a clear distinction between countries that are openly making *haram* (حرام) things like alcohol legal for Muslims, and those who are delaying the application of *hudud* (الحدود) to avoid severe political repercussions. The former is done without any coercion, often just to please their non-Muslim allies, while the latter is done to prevent harm and maintain progress towards the implementation of *sharia* (الشريعة). There's a big difference between the two. I merely mentioning these countries as examples not because I actually love any of these leaders.
@@DaudBurke I can see your reasoning. However I see a problem. Imagine a muslim leading a country, established mosques, dawah, protects many islamic principles and rules by them as well as even taking sincere advice from scholars. He however implements certain rules not in line with ideal sharia, (while admiting that or justifying it as temporary). In addition in the 21st century, the world looks different that also results in that the application and manefestation of the ideal sharia state and or caliphate would also look different. So in these cases, your reasoning seems to open the room for khurooj here while I have a hard time accept that it’s justified. They may say but we have a more stronger and better leader to fix this *minor issues* therefore we can do khurooj - seems just theoretical and unlikely. The reality is that khurooj almost always leads to negative concequences and in reality it would be so. So wheighing the positives or negatives would almost always lead to negatives. Therefore my point is again that I have trouble with justifying khurroj just based on some implementations of the Islamic sharia being flawed
@@jona7200 First off, we need to assess whether this is truly a change in the **Shariah** (الشريعة). If it’s merely a matter of implementation and the reason for not implementing it is actual **Ikraah** (إكراه), we should examine whether it truly qualifies as **Ikraah** or not. Some people might cite so-called political pressure as a reason for allowing certain things, but this is not a valid excuse unless that pressure rises to a level where it involves significant physical harm that cannot be defended against. In many cases, what people claim as political pressure does not reach this level, such as the example I mentioned of making alcohol permissible to sell to Muslims. There is no political pressure forcing someone to do this. This is undoubtedly a change in the **Shariah** (الشريعة) without any valid excuse, and it removes the **Wilayah** (ولاية) of the person. Now, how do we address this issue? Are we simply going to say, "let’s do **Khuruj** (خروج) right now" with whoever we have, even though we lack power or other necessary factors? No, we must consider the best course of action according to our ability in this situation. If **Khuruj** (خروج) is feasible with minimal casualties, then great. If not, we need to take another course of action that protects the blood of Muslims. But even if we do devise another plan, this needs to take into consideration the fact that we will never put the **Ummah** (الأمة) into worse harm than what we're trying to fix. And while I say that there is a lack of **Wilayah** (ولاية) for that person, it must be understood that this is a separate issue than actually going and making **Khuruj** (خروج) against them. Because even if we can't make **Khuruj** (خروج) against them, we're not going to say that the **Wilayah** (ولاية) actually exists. The **Wilayah** (ولاية) doesn't exist. And if we were able to topple them, we would. If we're not able to topple them, then Allah doesn't burden the soul with more than what it can bear. And we need to work and do whatever we can to bring back the Muslim **Ummah** (الأمة) until we have a **Khilafah** (خلافة) and bring all of the Muslim nations under one **Khilafah** (خلافة). Even if there are rulers under that, we do need to have the **Shariah** (الشريعة) as the number one thing. Maybe some of the implementation of some of the actual **Ahkam** (أحكام) needs to be in a gradual process, this is understandable. And this is not falling outside of the **Shariah** (الشريعة). Actually, this is inside of the **Shariah** (الشريعة), so it's not an actual thing that would invalidate the **Wilayah** (ولاية), if that makes sense.
Narrated 'Aisha: The Quraish people became very worried about the Makhzumiya lady who had committed theft. They said, "Nobody can speak (in favor of the lady) to Allah's Apostle and nobody dares do that except Usama who is the favorite of Allah's Apostle. " When Usama spoke to Allah's Apostle about that matter, Allah's Apostle said, "Do you intercede (with me) to violate one of the legal punishment of Allah?" Then he got up and addressed the people, saying, "O people! The nations before you went astray because if a noble person committed theft, they used to leave him, but if a weak person among them committed theft, they used to inflict the legal punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad committed theft, Muhammad will cut off her hand.!"
But what about all the hadith that speak about MUSLIM leaderships evolving frrom rightous caliphates into kingdoms and more etc. the prophet pbuh spoke about muslim leaderships and called them that even though they were different. And its a prophecy come true. In that case if Rasulullah accepts them as muslim leaderships why can’t you? The fact that they are different means that they rule through new systems, yet, sharia remains to some degree and that’s the whole point? A muslim leader who upholds lands where dawah is spread, you justify khurooj there?
A couple of important points must be understood when it comes to analyzing prophecies. When we hear that the Prophet ﷺ mentioned something about the future, we cannot assume that just because he mentioned it, this implies iqrār (approval or endorsement) of it. There are many examples of things that are prophesied to occur in the future, yet this does not make them permissible. For example, the Prophet ﷺ mentioned the following prophecies: Prophecy of Security in the Arabian Desert: The Prophet ﷺ said: «لَتُؤَدَّنَّ الْأَمَانَةُ إِلَى أَهْلِهَا، وَلَيَقُومَنَّ الرَّجُلُ وَالظَّعِينَةُ مِنَ الْحِيرَةِ حَتَّى يَطُوفَا بِالْكَعْبَةِ لَا يَخَافُ إِلَّا اللَّهَ» (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 3400) Translation: “The trust (Amanah) will be restored to its people, and a man will travel with a ẓa’īnah (a woman traveling alone) from Hira to perform Tawaf around the Ka’bah without fearing anything except Allah.” While this prophecy speaks of a time of security and peace in the Arabian Peninsula, where a woman could travel without fear, this does not automatically imply permissibility for a woman to travel alone without a mahram. In fact, the ruling on a woman traveling alone is clarified in other Hadiths: Hadith on a Woman Traveling with a Mahram: The Prophet ﷺ said: «لَا تُسَافِرِ الْمَرْأَةُ إِلَّا مَعَ ذِي مَحْرَمٍ، وَلَا يَدْخُلُ عَلَيْهَا رَجُلٌ إِلَّا وَمَعَهَا مَحْرَمٌ» (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 1862) Translation: “A woman must not travel except with a mahram, and no man may enter upon her unless she is with a mahram.” Similarly, another prophecy that highlights future occurrences without implying their permissibility is the Hadith regarding the abundance of slave girls: Hadith on Slave Girls: The Prophet ﷺ said: «إِذَا وُلِدَتِ الأَمَةُ رَبَّتَهَا…» (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 8) Translation: “When the slave girl gives birth to her mistress…” This is understood to refer to a time when slave girls will become so common that their children, born into slavery, will eventually be sold or bought, possibly resulting in a person unknowingly purchasing their own mother as a slave. Again, this prophecy does not imply that such an event is permissible or endorsed; rather, it serves as a sign of the changes that will occur as the Day of Judgment approaches. This is categorically impermissible, and this Hadith cannot be used as evidence for its permissibility. Therefore, we must understand that just because an event is foretold does not mean it is endorsed or permissible. The mention of a future occurrence often serves as a mere indication of what will transpire, without giving it any aspect of approval (iqrār). In the case of prophecies like these, they describe what will happen, but they do not imply that such acts are permissible according to Islamic law. --- As far as justifying *Khurūj*, the issue of this is always looking at what are the harms and the benefits, and is it even feasible or is it not feasible. So if we're going to look at that it's not even physically feasible for this to happen without ridiculous consequences, then of course we cannot call the masses of the *Ummah* to run to their deaths and slaughter, and they are not even capable to do this. And this is why in the majority of these cases right now there's no point of this. This is something that should not be done, and it's stupid, and I would never call someone to do this. But when it comes to us understanding what is required from us in general, aside from the fact that we're unable to do it right now, this is the point where I point to. And I say that this unwavering loyalty that you give to your so-called *وُلاة الأمور*, this is not their right in the first place. They've dropped this right when they dropped the *شريعة*. So when it comes to how we deal with them afterwards, this is according to the least harm. So if the least harm means us not speaking about them in public, then we deal with them in this way. And if the least harm means that we don't do *خروج*, then we deal with them in this way. But of course, we understand that they are ultimately in a spot that they have no right for, and that if we ever do get the chance, which we should be trying, to put someone rightfully in that place, and re-establish the *خلا فة*, then this is what is obligatory for us. And what we will find, a lot of people are satisfied with the state of being right now. They're satisfied with the *Ummah* being spread apart with a bunch of different nations, none of which are helping each other, and which all have infighting between each other, and leave our brothers and sisters in Palestine to the dogs.
Using an-Nawawi... a known Jahmi is not the way to go. Let alone calling him an 'Imam'. Use an actual Imam from the Salaf or upon the way of the Salaf in the matters of the Deen.
I would delete the comment as this guy is throwing away his deeds to this imam and spewing nonsense, but he’s a perfect example of the kind of adab that one can expect with these guys. If he has an issue with his aqeedah, that doesn’t fall into him now being fasiq and his rewaayah no longer accepted, actually the ummah has down ijmaa on his status as a trustworthy alim, (see what dhahbi and others have said) and this guy here is calling him jahmi… he is with ahlu sunnah in almost every way and closer then an average ashari to ahlu Hadith.
@@DaudBurke its nonsense honestly. Majority of people dont even try to study a single piece of an ashari book and just go with the consensus of what their “sheiks” tell them online you know. Just a bunch of ignorance these days. Less knowledgeable people and more speakers rather than the opposite. Yes there are controversial positions within the school but labelling them as a whole not aswj is unnecessary. Labelling asharis as not ahlul sunnah and calling someone as pious and famous and trust worthy as an nawawi as a jahmi? Its ridiculous. Barakallah feek for your reply and sharing the reason you wont delete his comment. May allah continue to bless your studies.
You're acting like I'm the one who's in the wrong for me calling out your severe bootlicking and taking the Jahmiyyah as your scholars. Bad manner? How about taking the deen from Jahmi heretics such as an-Nawawi? A jahmi cannot take my good deeds, but I can't blame you since all you seem to know of the religion is what your Jahmi scholars feed you.
May Allah grant us wisdom and beneficial knowledge and guide us to His pleasure
May Allah elevate you akhi, and may Allah increase you in knowledge. InSha Allah one day I get to meet you in person.
Very informative. Subscribed!
Subhan ALLAH.
ماشاء الله ❤
Nice discussion
Baraka allahoe fiek daud for this video.
I had a question. Could you give me some examples of what you mentioned by تغيير السريعة . I appreciate it
Making alcohol permissible to sell to Muslims.
Making clear sin by consensus legal. Ex allowing pop music concerts to come in and prevent anyone from doing inkar with their hand.
Making the inheritance equal between brothers and sisters
Baraka allahoe fiek may Allah reward you
@@DaudBurke
You are mixing between believing that is hallowed (hallal ) and do a action that is forbidden there is a difference in it
Let us see the accomplishments of the person we cannot tkfr, because we do not have evidence or it is not clear:
1. Adherence to UN Laws
2. Removing/replacing Sharia
3. Making halal what is haram (hall0ween, riba, bik1ni, concerts, alc0hol, z1na etc.)
4. Nationalism
5. Normalization with Isr43l, which he as about to do before 07.10.2023
6. What he is doing to scholars in KSA who say a word of haqq, or a word against him
7. Removed Sharia courts
8. Alliances with disbelievers, USA, UK etc.
9. Making haram what is halal (cannot speak truth, cannot forbid haram, cannot change haram with the hand/tongue, cannot call for Sharia to be implemented etc.)
10. Alliances with India and China, even after what they are doing in India, Kashmir, Xinjiang etc.
To see other 20 points, sort comments by 'newest first'.
11. Brought in the Russians to help Bashar against the Sunnis, who were about to win
12. Gen0cide and total starv4tion of Yemen
13. Wants to turn the land of Tawheed into Miami
14. Praises Dubai ruler for what he has done with Dubai (which has 0 islam there, and has temples and churches)
15. Is one of the biggest opponents of Caliph4te
16. Removes all hudud
17. Brings back idols (Uzza) in Saudi museums, with people seen doing weird things around them
18. Removes adherence to ahad hadith
19. Changing school curriculums etc. to please the disbelievers by removing the truth
20. Restrictions on masjid, volumes of athan and prayer, ramadan gatherings, removing channels that show Quran recitation etc.
21. Free mixing everywhere, whether its concerts, universities now as well, no hijab requirement, and allowing LGBTQ+ into KSA (they were not allowed before)
22. He wants to return Saudi Arabia to a ‘m0derate Islam’ that is more open and tolerant of other faiths
23. Has his picture, his father's picture, everywhere in government buildings, malls, skyscrapers etc.
24. UAE confirmed that them and Saudi are aligned against their biggest enemies: political Islam
25. Wherever an 'islamic' group is winning elections, and they promise to implement Sharia, KSA/UAE will go and make khuruj
26. Have done khuruj in multiple countries, not for islamic reasons, but political reasons
27. J1had for islamic reasons is banned, J1had for political reasons is okay
28. Banned support for oppressed muslims around the world, and banned the condemnation of disbelievers doing the oppression
29. MBS clearly said KSA runs on bad laws, and he is trying to change them. As they claim to run on Sharia, he is calling them bad laws and openly admitting he wants to change Sharia. If he (KSA) is not running by Sharia, he is then clearly admitting he runs by man-made laws.
30. He has changed the muslim land in KSA from being dar-al-islam, to dar-al-kfr. The scholars unanimously said the characteristics of dar-al-islam is muslims in authority, and Sharia as the law. If it's dar-al-kfr, that means Hijra out of there is wajib
31. “Prince Mohammed spoke a lot of his affection for the Copts,” Egypt's Pope said
And on and on
So I mean, what else does he have to do? What else will convince the people he is straight up Munafiq, and one of the biggest enemies of Islam today?
@@-------....___ Regarding point 30. Are you suggesting Makkah and Medina are dar al kufr and muslims should leave those cities?
@@Student.of.Knowledge Yes, that is the ruling according to the scholars, and Hadiths on Hijra. It should be nothing to be surprised about, I mean we have nation-states that were created by the disbelievers, totally against what Allah SWT tells us to do, and we are living in them comfortably. So even if Mecca becomes dar-al-kfr, and it is wajib to make Hijra, who do you think will do it when they are already content in living in nation states.
The other issue here is, where will those people go even if they wanted to go? There is no dar-al-islam at the moment anywhere, because we have allowed our communities/governments to adopt the kfr of nationalism and secularism, where anyone who wants to make halal what is haram, or replace or remove Sharia, or where allegiance is to the state and leader and flag and not Allah SWT, we do not really bother with it that much. We have no Khalifa to give baiy'ah to, so already we are basically in times of jahiliyyah.
You can still do hajj and umrah, as the Prophet PBUH did that when it was still dar-al-kfr.
It’s sad. But takfeer has a process to go through and if this process was gone through for many of these dictators they probably wouldn’t come out with the name Muslim, but until this process is done takfeer is not permissible based on masalih and mafasid.
But in the video I explained regardless of takfeer or establishing any hujjah the moment he changes something from the deen the wiliyah and obedience drops. This is smack dead in-between the view of Ahmed hazimi and others who rush to takfeer regardless of reaching and understanding the hujjah and the madaakhilah who say, stop doing takfeer of the ruler as long as he’s Muslim he gets loyalty and obedience even if he is fasiq and changes legislation from what Allah ordained.
I think using the word Madkhali is a dangerous door. Not only does it cause, yet again, more division and sectarianism in the ummah - but it blurs the lines between reality and usage of the term. In reality, sheikh Rabee’ al Madkhali has gheerah for the religion and he is Salafi. Only because he perhaps has made mistakes in his criticisms it doesn’t mean now that people should use the “Madkhali” term. Why? Because now ignorant people use it without knowing what it means and they are associating it with issues of Zionism and Kufr - which is a huge lie on the sheikh
Shaykh Rabee' doesnt have mistakes in critisism. These are things that should be looked at in detail. Anyone who denies that there is ijmaa' regarding khurooj, against the tyrant leader after the proof has been establashed is an innovator according to the Salaf
@@AbuInayaAl-Athari-po3yj your statement is Ghuloo’. Sheikh Rabee’ just like any Sheikh has errors and points of criticism. This doesn’t detract from their status. I ask you to follow the Quran, Sunnah and the Salaf - and to not go overboard in any individual
@@AbuInayaAl-Athari-po3yj Even after this brother provided evidence that there is truly no ijma on the matter and that this isn't a merely black or white issue you still insist on tabdee of the one who differs with you. You just hear what you want to hear.
Maybe the better term is غلاة التبديع but the points to only one of the major issues of this paradigm.
@@iymuslim The burden of the proof is upon you not the other way around. Saying that a scholar has no mistakes in aqeedah or manhaj is not ghuloow. These Khawarij are spreading doubts regarding rebelling against the Muslim ruler and you are saying things like this while every single scholar today literally agree with shaykh Rabee's stance. The Salaf declared anyone as a misguided innovator who disagreed on rebelling against the TYRANT Muslim ruler being haram to be a misguided innovator who should be boycotted, his books burned, and warn against anyone who sits with him after his affair has been exposed. Shaykh Rabee' is known for calling to study the books of the Salaf. See and study them, and you will be shocked
What if he doesnt change the sharia, he just doesnt IMPLEMENT the shariah correctly (yet)?
What seems to get mistaken a lot is that people think the word "Sharia" (الشريعة) is different from making laws in the land. This is one and the same. The word "Tashriya" (التشريع) is the same as lawmaking, and lawmaking involves creating rules that people must abide by in the land. Yes, there are laws that apply to individuals, and yes, there are laws that apply to communities. And Allah has brought both of these. So, anyone who makes a law that is different from what Allah has prescribed for us, and that goes against what He has decreed, is altering the Sharia (الشريعة), whether in small or large amounts. This action destroys their *Wilaya* (الولاية), invalidates it, and it is no longer valid if it was valid before. The reality is, these people aren't trying to follow the Sharia (الشريعة). If you ask them, they will tell you "no, we're not." They will point to their "progress." What they mean by progress is getting rid of the Sharia (الشريعة). You will find this even with the ambassadors of Saudi Arabia and other countries as well. They specifically talk about their so-called accomplishments, such as removing aspects of the Sharia (الشريعة), banning the *niqab* (النقاب), and other similar actions. This shows the direction they are heading.
And one last thing that should be understood is that in certain situations, applying all of the *hudud* (الحدود) and all of the *sharia* (الشريعة) at once could result in losing it all at a single time. In such cases, a person would have to weigh the pros and cons. If someone is actually coerced by external forces, or if applying certain aspects of the *sharia* (الشريعة) would result in serious harm, then this can be temporarily delayed. This temporary delay is something that comes from the *sharia* (الشريعة) itself and is not a change to it, but rather an application of it in its rightful time and place without sacrificing something more important.
For example, if someone is going to apply certain *hudud* (الحدود), and doing so would result in them being thrown out of power, losing the ability to move towards acceptance of the *sharia* (الشريعة), and allowing a worse power to come into play that is totally against these principles, then maintaining a middle ground is understandable, as long as one is always moving towards the goal. There is a clear difference between this situation and those countries that make *haram* (حرام) things *halal* (حلال), such as the Emirates recently making alcohol permissible to sell to Muslims. There is no need for this-no one is forcing them to do it.
On the other hand, a country like Turkey, while not implementing the *sharia* (الشريعة) completely, has made leaps and strides towards accepting Islam and is moving in the right direction. If they were to move too quickly, and Allah knows best, it could result in an immediate revolt, and even worse people could take over. So these issues are not as clear-cut as some people might think.
However, there is a clear distinction between countries that are openly making *haram* (حرام) things like alcohol legal for Muslims, and those who are delaying the application of *hudud* (الحدود) to avoid severe political repercussions. The former is done without any coercion, often just to please their non-Muslim allies, while the latter is done to prevent harm and maintain progress towards the implementation of *sharia* (الشريعة). There's a big difference between the two.
I merely mentioning these countries as examples not because I actually love any of these leaders.
@@DaudBurke I can see your reasoning. However I see a problem. Imagine a muslim leading a country, established mosques, dawah, protects many islamic principles and rules by them as well as even taking sincere advice from scholars. He however implements certain rules not in line with ideal sharia, (while admiting that or justifying it as temporary). In addition in the 21st century, the world looks different that also results in that the application and manefestation of the ideal sharia state and or caliphate would also look different.
So in these cases, your reasoning seems to open the room for khurooj here while I have a hard time accept that it’s justified.
They may say but we have a more stronger and better leader to fix this *minor issues* therefore we can do khurooj - seems just theoretical and unlikely. The reality is that khurooj almost always leads to negative concequences and in reality it would be so.
So wheighing the positives or negatives would almost always lead to negatives.
Therefore my point is again that I have trouble with justifying khurroj just based on some implementations of the Islamic sharia being flawed
@@jona7200
First off, we need to assess whether this is truly a change in the **Shariah** (الشريعة). If it’s merely a matter of implementation and the reason for not implementing it is actual **Ikraah** (إكراه), we should examine whether it truly qualifies as **Ikraah** or not. Some people might cite so-called political pressure as a reason for allowing certain things, but this is not a valid excuse unless that pressure rises to a level where it involves significant physical harm that cannot be defended against. In many cases, what people claim as political pressure does not reach this level, such as the example I mentioned of making alcohol permissible to sell to Muslims. There is no political pressure forcing someone to do this. This is undoubtedly a change in the **Shariah** (الشريعة) without any valid excuse, and it removes the **Wilayah** (ولاية) of the person.
Now, how do we address this issue? Are we simply going to say, "let’s do **Khuruj** (خروج) right now" with whoever we have, even though we lack power or other necessary factors? No, we must consider the best course of action according to our ability in this situation. If **Khuruj** (خروج) is feasible with minimal casualties, then great. If not, we need to take another course of action that protects the blood of Muslims.
But even if we do devise another plan, this needs to take into consideration the fact that we will never put the **Ummah** (الأمة) into worse harm than what we're trying to fix. And while I say that there is a lack of **Wilayah** (ولاية) for that person, it must be understood that this is a separate issue than actually going and making **Khuruj** (خروج) against them. Because even if we can't make **Khuruj** (خروج) against them, we're not going to say that the **Wilayah** (ولاية) actually exists. The **Wilayah** (ولاية) doesn't exist. And if we were able to topple them, we would. If we're not able to topple them, then Allah doesn't burden the soul with more than what it can bear. And we need to work and do whatever we can to bring back the Muslim **Ummah** (الأمة) until we have a **Khilafah** (خلافة) and bring all of the Muslim nations under one **Khilafah** (خلافة). Even if there are rulers under that, we do need to have the **Shariah** (الشريعة) as the number one thing.
Maybe some of the implementation of some of the actual **Ahkam** (أحكام) needs to be in a gradual process, this is understandable. And this is not falling outside of the **Shariah** (الشريعة). Actually, this is inside of the **Shariah** (الشريعة), so it's not an actual thing that would invalidate the **Wilayah** (ولاية), if that makes sense.
Narrated 'Aisha:
The Quraish people became very worried about the Makhzumiya lady who had committed theft. They said, "Nobody can speak (in favor of the lady) to Allah's Apostle and nobody dares do that except Usama who is the favorite of Allah's Apostle. " When Usama spoke to Allah's Apostle about that matter, Allah's Apostle said, "Do you intercede (with me) to violate one of the legal punishment of Allah?" Then he got up and addressed the people, saying, "O people! The nations before you went astray because if a noble person committed theft, they used to leave him, but if a weak person among them committed theft, they used to inflict the legal punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad committed theft, Muhammad will cut off her hand.!"
But what about all the hadith that speak about MUSLIM leaderships evolving frrom rightous caliphates into kingdoms and more etc. the prophet pbuh spoke about muslim leaderships and called them that even though they were different. And its a prophecy come true.
In that case if Rasulullah accepts them as muslim leaderships why can’t you?
The fact that they are different means that they rule through new systems, yet, sharia remains to some degree and that’s the whole point?
A muslim leader who upholds lands where dawah is spread, you justify khurooj there?
A couple of important points must be understood when it comes to analyzing prophecies. When we hear that the Prophet ﷺ mentioned something about the future, we cannot assume that just because he mentioned it, this implies iqrār (approval or endorsement) of it. There are many examples of things that are prophesied to occur in the future, yet this does not make them permissible.
For example, the Prophet ﷺ mentioned the following prophecies:
Prophecy of Security in the Arabian Desert:
The Prophet ﷺ said:
«لَتُؤَدَّنَّ الْأَمَانَةُ إِلَى أَهْلِهَا، وَلَيَقُومَنَّ الرَّجُلُ وَالظَّعِينَةُ مِنَ الْحِيرَةِ حَتَّى يَطُوفَا بِالْكَعْبَةِ لَا يَخَافُ إِلَّا اللَّهَ»
(Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 3400)
Translation: “The trust (Amanah) will be restored to its people, and a man will travel with a ẓa’īnah (a woman traveling alone) from Hira to perform Tawaf around the Ka’bah without fearing anything except Allah.”
While this prophecy speaks of a time of security and peace in the Arabian Peninsula, where a woman could travel without fear, this does not automatically imply permissibility for a woman to travel alone without a mahram. In fact, the ruling on a woman traveling alone is clarified in other Hadiths:
Hadith on a Woman Traveling with a Mahram:
The Prophet ﷺ said:
«لَا تُسَافِرِ الْمَرْأَةُ إِلَّا مَعَ ذِي مَحْرَمٍ، وَلَا يَدْخُلُ عَلَيْهَا رَجُلٌ إِلَّا وَمَعَهَا مَحْرَمٌ»
(Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 1862)
Translation: “A woman must not travel except with a mahram, and no man may enter upon her unless she is with a mahram.”
Similarly, another prophecy that highlights future occurrences without implying their permissibility is the Hadith regarding the abundance of slave girls:
Hadith on Slave Girls:
The Prophet ﷺ said:
«إِذَا وُلِدَتِ الأَمَةُ رَبَّتَهَا…»
(Sahih Muslim, Hadith 8)
Translation: “When the slave girl gives birth to her mistress…”
This is understood to refer to a time when slave girls will become so common that their children, born into slavery, will eventually be sold or bought, possibly resulting in a person unknowingly purchasing their own mother as a slave. Again, this prophecy does not imply that such an event is permissible or endorsed; rather, it serves as a sign of the changes that will occur as the Day of Judgment approaches. This is categorically impermissible, and this Hadith cannot be used as evidence for its permissibility.
Therefore, we must understand that just because an event is foretold does not mean it is endorsed or permissible. The mention of a future occurrence often serves as a mere indication of what will transpire, without giving it any aspect of approval (iqrār). In the case of prophecies like these, they describe what will happen, but they do not imply that such acts are permissible according to Islamic law.
---
As far as justifying *Khurūj*, the issue of this is always looking at what are the harms and the benefits, and is it even feasible or is it not feasible. So if we're going to look at that it's not even physically feasible for this to happen without ridiculous consequences, then of course we cannot call the masses of the *Ummah* to run to their deaths and slaughter, and they are not even capable to do this. And this is why in the majority of these cases right now there's no point of this. This is something that should not be done, and it's stupid, and I would never call someone to do this.
But when it comes to us understanding what is required from us in general, aside from the fact that we're unable to do it right now, this is the point where I point to. And I say that this unwavering loyalty that you give to your so-called *وُلاة الأمور*, this is not their right in the first place. They've dropped this right when they dropped the *شريعة*. So when it comes to how we deal with them afterwards, this is according to the least harm. So if the least harm means us not speaking about them in public, then we deal with them in this way. And if the least harm means that we don't do *خروج*, then we deal with them in this way.
But of course, we understand that they are ultimately in a spot that they have no right for, and that if we ever do get the chance, which we should be trying, to put someone rightfully in that place, and re-establish the *خلا فة*, then this is what is obligatory for us.
And what we will find, a lot of people are satisfied with the state of being right now. They're satisfied with the *Ummah* being spread apart with a bunch of different nations, none of which are helping each other, and which all have infighting between each other, and leave our brothers and sisters in Palestine to the dogs.
Using an-Nawawi... a known Jahmi is not the way to go. Let alone calling him an 'Imam'. Use an actual Imam from the Salaf or upon the way of the Salaf in the matters of the Deen.
🤦♂️
I would delete the comment as this guy is throwing away his deeds to this imam and spewing nonsense, but he’s a perfect example of the kind of adab that one can expect with these guys.
If he has an issue with his aqeedah, that doesn’t fall into him now being fasiq and his rewaayah no longer accepted, actually the ummah has down ijmaa on his status as a trustworthy alim, (see what dhahbi and others have said) and this guy here is calling him jahmi… he is with ahlu sunnah in almost every way and closer then an average ashari to ahlu Hadith.
@@DaudBurke its nonsense honestly.
Majority of people dont even try to study a single piece of an ashari book and just go with the consensus of what their “sheiks” tell them online you know. Just a bunch of ignorance these days. Less knowledgeable people and more speakers rather than the opposite. Yes there are controversial positions within the school but labelling them as a whole not aswj is unnecessary. Labelling asharis as not ahlul sunnah and calling someone as pious and famous and trust worthy as an nawawi as a jahmi? Its ridiculous.
Barakallah feek for your reply and sharing the reason you wont delete his comment. May allah continue to bless your studies.
You're acting like I'm the one who's in the wrong for me calling out your severe bootlicking and taking the Jahmiyyah as your scholars. Bad manner? How about taking the deen from Jahmi heretics such as an-Nawawi? A jahmi cannot take my good deeds, but I can't blame you since all you seem to know of the religion is what your Jahmi scholars feed you.
@@puntman7630 Brother you have a anime cartoon character with an earring as your profile picture, grow up and go and read some books before commenting