Sheikh Albani RA disagreed. He said that if the ruler publicly goes against the Sharia, you can publicly criticize without calling for general disobedience or rebellion. seems to be a matter of ikhtilaf
An-Nadr Ibn Shumayl (rahimahullāh - d. 204AH) was asked about Irjā’ so he answered, “It is a religion in agreement with the desires of the kings by which the Murji’ah obtain some of the kings’ dunyā and lose some of their own religion.”
My dear brother. Can you please also post this particular lecture, the COMPLETE one please? I want to learn everything that Shaikh is advising here. Or at least please post that even without translation if translation becomes inconvenient. I will in sha Allah try for its summary from others sources. But please do post it my brother. I love you and Fazeelatush Shaikh for the sake of Allah. JazakAllah khair and BarakAllahu feek.😭 We badly need this lecture for our Jahil Ajami masses
Assalamu Alaikum brother.. I too am desperate for these beneficial knowledge and life is too short. Its better to focus on learning arabic now rather than wait week by week to get a random piece of knowledge and miss out on the ocean of knowledge available in arabic on scholar's youtube channels and websites. With hours hours hours of fatwas, lectures, explanation of hadith, tafseer, explanation of books and more. And the biggest benefit is understanding the Quran more.
Hmm. Not seeing the forest for the trees: 1) Advising the people - not the ruler - that Islam is the only source of legislation and that ruling by kufr is haram, is from Islam whether the ruler does that or not. Nobody cares about the rulers, everyone must know the haram and halal and nobody in this dunya has the right to prevent the muslims from speaking the truth based on clear texts, whether ruling, legislation, politics or anything else. 2) Personalizing the issue to the rulers is missing the point. If any one of the rulers of the 57 muslim countries actually got some advice in public or private that he should abandon the rule of kufr, alliances with the disbelievers, and re-instate j1had against the disbelievers, and the ruler was convinced and followed that advice, then fine, doesn't matter what he did before. But if the muslim or the scholar didnt advise him and permitted him to do the haram then he would share in the sin. If advice was not given or not listened to, then it is still obligatory to establish Islam with or without the ruler, because the whole system is invalid. 3) The rule of kufr over the muslims is invalid regardless of the circumstances of the ruler. This is what the quote from ibn Uthameen in the talk meant, and it's correct. If the ruler changed something that was known by necessity from Islam, like aiding the zionists and helping them to kill muslims and occupy and spoil masjid al aqsa, and similar behaviour where the ruler was merciful to the disbelievers and harsh on the believers, then he has no connection with Islam and Islam is required to be established regardless of the rulers feelings about it: never mind advising, he should just be killed, as from the hadith of Ubadah bin As Samit about if the ruler commits open kufr. See Surah Al Nisa v115 4) The clear texts of the quran were revealed to distinguish those counted as among the believers and those not. And the line is crossed either by ruling with clear kufr or alliances with the j3ws and christians. Any of those two acts puts the ruler to the side and he is not the concern of the believers; they have nothing to do with the ruler and the ruler has nothing to do with them. Again, in this situation the muslims are required to establish Islam, and the ruler can go to the j3ws and christians he belongs to along with all those who are with him. See surah al ma'idah v51. 5) Anyone who inclines towards an oppressor (ie helps, supports, favours, praises, defends the reputation of, etc. will taste the hellfire, whether a ruler or anyone else. See Surah Al Hud v 113.
Jazakallahu khairan ❤️
Jazakallah
❤️ From Indian occupied Kashmir
Nothing but the truth.
Need more of these videos جزاكم الله خيرا
Excellent explanation. May Allah preserve our Shaikh.
ما أعظم السنة ،فقط علينا تطبيقها في جميع نواحي حياتنا.
HayakAllah fee ❤️ love from decan Hyd India
الله يحفظه على السنّة
Sheikh Albani RA disagreed. He said that if the ruler publicly goes against the Sharia, you can publicly criticize without calling for general disobedience or rebellion. seems to be a matter of ikhtilaf
Sheikh albani was not a palace scholar..
May Allah grant him....jamnathul firdaus
Can you please share original video without subtitles???
Jazakallahu Khayran akhi! Great explanation!
جزاك الله خيرا
Do please share details on refuting
Khalid Al Rashid
Turaifi
Amj and others
الله يعطيك العافية ❤
An-Nadr Ibn Shumayl (rahimahullāh - d. 204AH) was asked about Irjā’ so he answered,
“It is a religion in agreement with the desires of the kings by which the Murji’ah obtain some of the kings’ dunyā and lose some of their own religion.”
My dear brother. Can you please also post this particular lecture, the COMPLETE one please? I want to learn everything that Shaikh is advising here.
Or at least please post that even without translation if translation becomes inconvenient. I will in sha Allah try for its summary from others sources. But please do post it my brother. I love you and Fazeelatush Shaikh for the sake of Allah.
JazakAllah khair and BarakAllahu feek.😭 We badly need this lecture for our Jahil Ajami masses
Assalamu Alaikum brother.. I too am desperate for these beneficial knowledge and life is too short. Its better to focus on learning arabic now rather than wait week by week to get a random piece of knowledge and miss out on the ocean of knowledge available in arabic on scholar's youtube channels and websites. With hours hours hours of fatwas, lectures, explanation of hadith, tafseer, explanation of books and more.
And the biggest benefit is understanding the Quran more.
You must learn arabic
How can i learn arabic??
Jazaak Allaahu Khayran
what is the name of this sheikh? May Allah bless him.
Sheikh suleiman al ruhayly
Shaykh Sulayman Ar-Ruhayli حفظه الله
Shaykh sulaiyman ar ruhayli
Hmm. Not seeing the forest for the trees:
1) Advising the people - not the ruler - that Islam is the only source of legislation and that ruling by kufr is haram, is from Islam whether the ruler does that or not. Nobody cares about the rulers, everyone must know the haram and halal and nobody in this dunya has the right to prevent the muslims from speaking the truth based on clear texts, whether ruling, legislation, politics or anything else.
2) Personalizing the issue to the rulers is missing the point. If any one of the rulers of the 57 muslim countries actually got some advice in public or private that he should abandon the rule of kufr, alliances with the disbelievers, and re-instate j1had against the disbelievers, and the ruler was convinced and followed that advice, then fine, doesn't matter what he did before. But if the muslim or the scholar didnt advise him and permitted him to do the haram then he would share in the sin. If advice was not given or not listened to, then it is still obligatory to establish Islam with or without the ruler, because the whole system is invalid.
3) The rule of kufr over the muslims is invalid regardless of the circumstances of the ruler. This is what the quote from ibn Uthameen in the talk meant, and it's correct. If the ruler changed something that was known by necessity from Islam, like aiding the zionists and helping them to kill muslims and occupy and spoil masjid al aqsa, and similar behaviour where the ruler was merciful to the disbelievers and harsh on the believers, then he has no connection with Islam and Islam is required to be established regardless of the rulers feelings about it: never mind advising, he should just be killed, as from the hadith of Ubadah bin As Samit about if the ruler commits open kufr. See Surah Al Nisa v115
4) The clear texts of the quran were revealed to distinguish those counted as among the believers and those not. And the line is crossed either by ruling with clear kufr or alliances with the j3ws and christians. Any of those two acts puts the ruler to the side and he is not the concern of the believers; they have nothing to do with the ruler and the ruler has nothing to do with them. Again, in this situation the muslims are required to establish Islam, and the ruler can go to the j3ws and christians he belongs to along with all those who are with him. See surah al ma'idah v51.
5) Anyone who inclines towards an oppressor (ie helps, supports, favours, praises, defends the reputation of, etc. will taste the hellfire, whether a ruler or anyone else. See Surah Al Hud v 113.
👍
In his presence so that he can get killed tortured or put in jail more easliy?
did umar farooq ra killed the old lady no.
are you shia or muqalid paleed hanafee.
jamate islami hanafee
don't be coward
@@abqadeer1834Do you think our rulers are Umar Radiallahu anhuma?
try once, you will be in jail for rest of your life
HayakAllah fee ❤️ love from decan Hyd India