Відео

--- The issue with doing **تفويض** [tafweed] (delegating the meaning to Allah) in totality is that you are no longer affirming what Allah said with the meaning that Allah intended, but rather you are denying the meaning of what Allah or His Messenger **ﷺ** [ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam] said. If you deny the meaning, this ultimately leads to two problematic issues. First, you are essentially claiming that the Prophet Muhammad **ﷺ** [ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam], when conveying information about Allah, provided information that he himself did not understand. This implies that the **صحابة** [Ṣaḥābah] (companions), when passing on this information, also conveyed something they did not understand at all. I do not mean that they understood some of it but did not fully comprehend it-this is understood, and it aligns with the **مذهب السلف** [madhhab of the Salaf]. We understand the basic meaning, and we know that in Arabic, these terms have a general meaning. However, we understand that when it comes to Allah, this meaning is not the same as it would be when applied to the creation. To do tafweed in totality is essentially to claim that the Prophet **ﷺ** [ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam] was speaking about something of which he had no knowledge, or that he was hiding the knowledge. The first is **تجهيل** [tajheel] (accusing someone of ignorance), and it is very, very dangerous. The same applies to the Ṣaḥābah. But the fact that they conveyed these attributes of Allah without ever making any issue about these traits, while simultaneously using terms that are synonymous indicates that they were not merely adhering to the strict wording, but were actually considering the meaning when they used these words. How can one take a synonym and claim that they were not affirming the meaning of it? Indeed, they were affirming the Arabic meaning because they used synonyms for these words. Thus, this leads to one of two major issues. The first is claiming that the Prophet **ﷺ** [ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam] was speaking about something he did not understand. Or The second is saying that he did understand the truth, but did not make it clear. If he conveyed something to us that could be misunderstood, it was upon him to clarify the message-and he certainly conveyed the message without a doubt. Did he ﷺ tell us to do tafweed of these attributes, where do we find this instruction? I would like to see anyone provide a reference for this. If we don't see that he instructed us to do this, and he did not clarify the real meaning of the **صفات** [ṣifāt] (attributes), then either he knew the meaning and concealed it, or he was ignorant of it. Both of these implications are very problematic. And just because something is similar to what the Jews and Christians believe does not mean that it is inherently wrong. We know that they were originally upon the truth. For example, if they originally believed that Allah is above His throne, this is not a valid reason to reject the idea that Allah is above His throne simply because the Jews and Christians said it. Similarly, if they say that Allah created the heavens and the earth in six days, we cannot dismiss this claim, as we know that Allah created the heavens and the earth in six days. This is a belief that we all share. When it comes to what the Jews and Christians say, we should approach it with discernment and compare it with the **Qur'an** and **Sunnah**. If it aligns with what the Qur'an and Sunnah affirm, we say they agree with us, and it is correct because it aligns with the Qur'an and Sunnah. If it contradicts the Qur'an and Sunnah, we reject it as incorrect. However, we do not reject the apparent meaning in the Qur'an and Sunnah simply because the Jews and Christians hold the same or similar view.

@@DaudBurke you are talking like pseudo salafi here, Ahlul Hadith or Athari are also upon haq that doesn't mean ashaira maturidia has no basis otherwise majority of the Ummah would have never adopted this, according to hadith ummah can't unite upon misguidance... Shah Waliullah Dehlvi ra, Mujaddid ul al fasani Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi ra and many other ulema such as Imam Ghazali, Imam Ibn Jawzi were all maturidi and ashari... Tafwidh ma tanzih is the safest position so is traditional ijmali Athari position, not wahabi position, talking about body parts of Allah can make person to think about Allah in body Nauzubillah.. Ibn taymiyyah made mistake and Imam Ahmad bin hanbal was kind of different than modern day claimant of Athari, traditional Athari are different than Wahabis

@@DaudBurke hands and so on is mentioned in Qur'an, we believe in it but how is it? We don't know, this is called tanzih ma tafwidh

@@QamruddinKhan-hf4dn best thing you did here was translate the word يد to hand, tafweedh says you can’t translate what you don’t know. Of course feet aren’t in the Quran directly… that’s from the sunnah. And the ummah never united on the asharis creed or maturedi, so a perceived “majority” is not a valid evidence only an actual ijmaa could be used as evidence. And the ummah didn’t ever agree that all the three views are valid, actually they are all agreed that not all of them are correct. (Especially given that the khilaf is tadhaad, not lafdhi) but the ummah was agreed at one point on the salafi creed before all this bidah came about with ilm alkalam Also the majority of the ummah don’t understand the kalami views much less claim them as their own, so them claiming it’s the majority view is even further out. Most average Muslims believe Allah is above the throne and they don’t worry about details.

@@DaudBurke ummah at one point agreed on Athari creed, not salafi creed... I am talking about Ulema, not laymen, ilmul kalaam came into existence to defend Islam from the heretic otherwise who would defend it? Many people were becoming heretic, imam Ahmad bin hanbal had to loose his hand because of heretic mutazili caliph... ibn jawzi was warning against anthropomorphism that was coming into hanbalis and criticising his fellow hanabila, he was asharis and telling to go back to the creed of Imam Ahmad bin hanbal and Ahlul Hadith (Muhadithin not Ghair Muqallidin) Ibn Qudamah also used to do tafwidh, you should check out ahlus sunnah board and respond to that... Maturidis are upon haq, taweel can be avoided i personally adopted that but I don't declare taweeli as deviants otherwise imam Ghazali, imam Ibn Hajar, imam Nawawi, al qurtubi, al tabari and many scholars of Arab world, Africa, Central Asia, Indian subcontinent were not upon haq

May Allah preserve him and guide him and make him a voice of truth for the English speaking ummah

Check my info in the description

Have you had any experience with it? I’ve heard about it.

مرحبا. لست الاستاذ إنما أنا احد طلابه لكن انظر ثلاث زائد واحد يساوي اربعا نعم الفعل الثلاثي المزيد واحدا هو الان رباعي لكن ليس رباعيا مجردا يصح إطلاق اسم رباعي عليه بهذا الاعتبار

Yes towards the end of the series

Ameen

One point to clarify is the definition of Murji’ah. The common understanding is that they believe actions do not affect a person’s status as a believer. This means that, according to them, even if someone commits an act of Kufr, it does not impact their Iman unless it is accompanied by a belief in Kufr. This is the essence of the Murji’ah’s stance on this issue. I hope this clarifies the definition, as the previous one might not have been entirely accurate. Most of Ahl al-Kalam fall into the category of Murji’ah, though there are varying degrees among them. Those who say that a Munafiq (hypocrite) is still a believer are considered Ghulat al-Murji’ah (extremists among the Murji’ah). These are the ones who warrant Takfir, like the Karramiyya sect. This brings me to the second point: before declaring Takfir on an individual or a group, we must ensure that all conditions are properly met. Without this, Takfir cannot be justly applied. Generally, the Murji’ah are considered part of Islam, much like the Khawarij, who share a similar trait with them. The Khawarij believe that Iman is all or nothing, and the Murji’ah hold a similar view, though from the opposite perspective. Both are extreme in their interpretations, though on different sides of the spectrum. Applying Takfir broadly to all Murji’ah is an extreme position. Doing so would lead to declaring large numbers of Muslims as disbelievers, which would diminish much of what has been contributed to Islam by them. For instance, this would involve declaring all Ash’aris, Maturidis, and even some Hanafis, like the Murji’ah al-Fuqaha’, as disbelievers. This is not the approach of Ahl al-‘Ilm (the people of knowledge). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah stated that only the extreme Murji’ah, such as the Karramiyya, or the extreme Jahmiyyah, warrant Takfir. Regarding those who do not declare Takfir on these extreme sects, Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in his Majmu’ al-Fatawa (Volume 10) that there is a difference of opinion. The strongest view, according to the Madhhab and Imam Ahmad’s narration, is that those who refrain from declaring Takfir on the extremists are not disbelievers themselves. I have discussed this in a separate video on Ibn Taymiyyah’s methodology concerning ’Uthar bil-jahl, as this issue requires a nuanced, proper understanding. Takfir has conditions, and while the scholars have ruled that those who govern by other than what Allah has prescribed are disbelievers, each case must be assessed individually. Just because an action is Kufr does not automatically mean that everyone who commits it is a disbeliever regardless of their condition, especially if certain conditions prevent them from being held accountable. It’s important to understand that there is a distinction between the ruling attached to an action and the ruling attached to the individual who performs that action. Ibn Taymiyyah is very clear on this matter. He cites the example of Imam Ahmad, who stated that “whoever says the Qur’an is created has disbelieved.” However, despite this, many around him, including the Khalifa, were saying it in his presence, and Imam Ahmad did not declare Takfir on them. In fact, he was even making Istighfar (seeking forgiveness) for them. This shows that certain statements must be understood within the broader context of the actions and circumstances surrounding them, particularly phrases like man fa’ala kadha fahuwa kafir (whoever does such-and-such is a disbeliever).

Many of the Sufis differ from the Salafis in aleaqida, such as the attributes of the Creator and the difference between monotheism and polytheism. There is no such thing as Wahhabism. Ashari Jahmi Saeed Fodeh Admits the Quran is Created! ua-cam.com/video/yORjwdKWb5o/v-deo.html Why Did The Scholars Rule Upon Habib Ali Jifri That He Is A Mushrik? ua-cam.com/video/5IbqSgjYNFg/v-deo.html Imam Hanafi is one of the Muslim scholars and the same eaqidah as the Salafis. But the Sufis believe in the jurisprudence of Imam al-Hanafi, but they disagree with him regarding the eaqidah

wa Aliekom Salam waRahmatullahi waBarakatuh I’ll leave that to a specialist in that madhhab

Did I mention any scholars by name here? Critiquing ideas and criticizing Individuals are two different things. If you say, the ideas are not open to criticism then that’s just ridiculous. and criticizing ideas does not mean that there is any type of attack on the people that held those ideas necessarily. If I started mentioning names and how terrible these people are because they held these certain ideas that are deviant then that’s a whole different issue. But as far as imam annawawi رحمه اللهgoes: His views on iman are very close to the salaf. Minor differences, but nothing serious. As far as sifat than, yes he agreed with the the asharis for the most part, but occasionally affirmed things in the way of the salaf that they don’t.

@@DaudBurke When you attack a school and say they are wrong , you attack all the members of the school . The Athari, Ashari, and Maturidi schools are all ahl Sunnah. You need to learn more before pontificating about who’s astray.

@@mtom2237 no, not necessarily

@@DaudBurke قلت: ولا يحتمل كتابنا أكثر ممّا ذكرنا من سيرة هَذَا السّيّد رحمة اللّه عليه، وكان مذهبه فِي الصّفات السّمعية السّكوت وإمرارها كما جاءت، وربّما تأوَّل قليلًا فِي شرح مسلم. والنووي رجل أشعري العقيدة معروف بذلك، يبدع من خالفه ويبالغ في التغليظ عليه That’s from Imam Al-Dhabi. You need to slow down and study more. Through petrodollars, the Saudis have flooded the world with so-called Salafi propaganda. Overtime, you will come to realize this, as you seem sincere and smart. But if you continue on a path of critiquing things you clearly don’t know enough about, you will have troubles. Just sincere advice to you. No need to reply, as I won’t be engaging anymore.

Yes. He’s one of my shuyookh حفظه الله

@@DaudBurke MashaAllah, had a feeling lol. He's a gem. حفظك الله